Court Rules That Google Can Legally Manipulate Searches to Influence Political Results

[livingston]

Court Rules That Google Can Legally Manipulate Searches to Influence Political Results
A court has ruled that Google has the right to legally manipulate searches in order to cause electoral interference and influence political results, rebuking a legal challenge from Democrat Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard sued the tech giant after Google bottled up her campaign as it was rising following a strong performance in a presidential debate. She alleged that they denied her a crucial advertisement buy that damaged her campaign’s chances, and she also pointed out in her lawsuit that Google has manipulated their search results to help dictate political outcomes in the past.

Court Rules That Google Can Legally Manipulate Searches to Influence Political Results - Big League Politics

Big Brother can reign as long as it is nominally private, a court rules.

bigleaguepolitics.com

“Since at least June 2019, Google has used its control over online political speech to silence Tulsi Gabbard, a candidate millions of Americans want to hear from. With this lawsuit, Tulsi seeks to stop Google from further intermeddling in the 2020 United States Presidential Election,” her lawsuit stated.

 

[FrankenCub]

So Goolag can legally sway the election towards the creeper or the communist....got it.
But , Russia is the problem?

 

[Darth]

Their company, their rules

Man this is an easy concept.

 

[spat]

Their company, their rules

Man this is an easy concept.

That works in a free market.

But when there is a monopoly (or near monopoly) anti-trust laws are a thing.

If you have 90% market share, you are subject to rules that wouldn't be justifiable otherwise.

 

[Darth]

That works in a free market.

But when there is a monopoly (or near monopoly) anti-trust laws are a thing.

If you have 90% market share, you are subject to rules that wouldn't be justifiable otherwise.

Nowhere near a monopoly.

And, why are you subject to more rules because of the number of people that choose to use you?

 

[Mr. terzmo]

Putin has a majority shhare of Google ??

 

[@thewheels]

Their company, their rules

Man this is an easy concept.

Stop their massive government subsidies and then they call it "their" company.

 

[Darth]

Stop their massive government subsidies and then they call it "their" company.

Stop their massive government subsidies.

Always.

 

[spat]

Nowhere near a monopoly.

And, why are you subject to more rules because of the number of people that choose to use you?

What % of the market do you think a company needs to have to be effectively a monopoly ?

You are subject to more rules because if one company has a 90% market share it's not a free market anymore.

Laissez faire capitalism is based on trust in the free market as the most efficient resource distribution algorithm. Once the free market is gone, all the assumptions that justify capitalism go with it.

 

[Darth]

What % of the market do you think a company needs to have to be effectively a monopoly ?

You are subject to more rules because if one company has a 90% market share it's not a free market anymore.

Laissez faire capitalism is based on trust in the free market as the most efficient resource distribution algorithm. Once the free market is gone, all the assumptions that justify capitalism go with it.

What prevents another company from going against them again?

 

[spat]

What prevents another company from going against them again?

Their share of the search market is such that no competitors no matter how competent and well financed can compete.

 

[Darth]

Their share of the search market is such that no competitors no matter how competent and well financed can compete.

So the other search engines don't exist?

 

[spat]

So the other search engines don't exist?

Not as an effective competitor to Google, no.

Nobody optimizes their web site based on "bing".

Bing is forced to design their engine around reverse engineered google algorithms.

 

[Robin]

They got their start up money from the CIA and who knows what else they are still getting and giving. I don't consider that a privately owned company.
Robin

 

[Jmac00]

OOH I think Google is a monopoly

when you business becomes a verb or a noun, you are a monopoly.

No one says "Just Bing it" or "Just yahoo it" nope, what does everyone say ~~~***JUST GOOGLE IT*** or "Here let me google that for you"

 

[Darth]

Not as an effective competitor to Google, no.

Nobody optimizes their web site based on "bing".

Bing is forced to design their engine around reverse engineered google algorithms.

Then clearly the market has no issue with it.

 

[Toecutter]

It’s obvious by the state of the net that only the weak minded will be influenced by what they read on the internet.

 

[spat]

Then clearly the market has no issue with it.

The market had no problem with Ma Bell, Carnagie Steel, or Standard Oil either.

The market likes a monopoly, it's the consumers that get shafted.

 

[GOPerfect]

Me, I am not sure what to think about this ruling.

I want to be angry at this ruling, but, I also support a free market.

Google is not the only way to search, just the easiest.

 

[FrankenCub]

I don't give a shit what they do with their company whether they're a monopoly or not, I dont use their search engine. What I do have a problem with is Google being allowed to influence our elections the way they do. And they are getting better at it and controlling more of what people search for regarding elections.
Would you still be fine with this if, with the help of Google, no candidate outside the Democrate party ever hold office again? In any other situation this would be considered election tampering.

 

[SomeSoldier]

See corporations are people and since google is a person. He/she has the right to influence the election through means they own like large amounts of money or search engines.

 

[Darth]

The market had no problem with Ma Bell, Carnagie Steel, or Standard Oil either.

The market likes a monopoly, it's the consumers that get shafted.

They have a choice.

Use the service or do not.

Convenience does not government nessissity make.

 

[spat]

They have a choice.

Use the service or do not.

Convenience does not government nessissity make.

When corporations get that large they become indistinguishable from government except for the complete lack of accountability.

I have to ask, what principle guides your libertarian outlook ?

Mine is individual liberty. I believe the only appropriate role of government is to safeguard that liberty.

That generally keeps government out of private transactions, but when one party becomes a monopoly then it's no longer a voluntary exchange.

See the abuses of the old "company towns" for examples.

 

[Darth]

When corporations get that large they become indistinguishable from government except for the complete lack of accountability.

I have to ask, what principle guides your libertarian outlook ?

Mine is individual liberty. I believe the only appropriate role of government is to safeguard that liberty.

That generally keeps government out of private transactions, but when one party becomes a monopoly then it's no longer a voluntary exchange.

See the abuses of the old "company towns" for examples.

It is immoral to coerce business decisions with the threat of violence.

 

[Bananabandit]

Would dildos come up more as a democratic or a Republican search?

 

[spat]

It is immoral to coerce business decisions with the threat of violence.

Would that include using government threat of violence to shut down a mob protection racket ?

What about using it to outlaw other unethical business practices ? Blackmail ? Extortion ?

 

[Darth]

Would that include using government threat of violence to shut down a mob protection racket ?

What about using it to outlaw other unethical business practices ? Blackmail ? Extortion ?

Victim.

Victim.

Victim.

"But I don't like this search engine." Victimless.

 

[spat]

Victim.

Victim.

Victim.

"But I don't like this search engine." Victimless.

Every other company trying to make a search engine that is unethically bullied out of the market = victim.

 

[Darth]

Every other company trying to make a search engine that is unethically bullied out of the market = victim.

Only if hurt feelings are a crime.

 

[spat]

Only if hurt feelings are a crime.

So, you don't believe in anti trust laws ?