Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
It is very much arbitrary since Google, which is a private entity, gets to decide what content they censor and why without any transparency or accountability to the public. If you can't understand why this is problematic, then what else is there to say. And this is literally what censorship is, whether you think it's done for good or bad reasons is an entirely different discussion.
They might lose ad revenue if they keep hosting nazi shit and lies about vaccines, that's not fucking censorship and your take is ridiculous.
Please provide examples of nazi shit and lies about vaccines hosted on Naked Capitalism. I'll wait.
Freedom of speech means that the government shouldn't arbitrarily keep you from expressing yourself in the way you see fit.
Censorship happens when the government supresses certain forms of expression.
Neither of these situations apply to this case. Google - as a non-governmental entity - can freely decide where to advertise and where not to advertise. And nakedcapitalism can freely decide if they wish to continue publishing certain content without Google or stay with Google Ads under their terms and conditions. No one is forcing either side to do anything.
Would you have the government intervene and force Google to advertise on a site they disagree with? Now that would be arbitrary
That's supremely childish understanding of the relationship between the government and private entities. The part that you're failing to grasp in your "analysis" is that the government represents the interests of the class that holds power in society. Under capitalism, the government represents large capitalists, i.e. the very same people who own the media and platforms such as Google that do the censorship. Private interests that also happen to run your government are simply bypassing the middle man when doing the censorship.
It's incredible that grown ass adult would have trouble understanding such basic things.
Why are you so angry? And why don't you understand that the only rights you can claim protection from, are the ones related to government actions? Whether or not you agree with the idea of government as a way to come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other. That is, Johnny's mom won't force Johnny to play with you if Johnny doesn't want to.
In this analogy, Johnny's mom represents capitalist opression bypassing in counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor
I'm not angry at all, I'm just baffled that somebody could have such a poor understanding of the relationship between the government, the ruling class, and censorship. Again, government is not an independent entity that exists on its own. It's part of society and it represents the interests of people who hold power in society. In a capitalist society, the government represents the capitalists, and there's no difference between censorship being done by the government or by capitalists themselves.
Let's suppose for sake of argument, that you would like to appeal to a benevolent, anarcho-socialist government about Google's actions. You would not be covered by freedom of speech in that instance either. Or be a victim of censorship
I don't know what an anarcho-socilaist government is, but under a regular socialist government, Google would be owned by the workers and run as a cooperative. However, more importantly the government would represent the working majority as opposed to a small capital owning class. There is no inherent problem with censorship, every society censors ideas that it finds harmful. The question is who decides on what is censored and whether there's accountability in the process.
Arguing about what type of government best represents what groups of people does not resolve the basic conflict.
Google has a certain philosophy. You may - or may not - agree with that philosophy, but they have a right to have it.
Google also has the right to refuse to do business with other companies that it deems incompatible with its philosophy. You may - or may not - agree that a certain company's philosophy is incompatible with Google's, but each of those companies is free to decide if they do or do not wish to do business with the other.
Nakedcapitalism is also free to decide if they would like meet Google somewhere in the middle or tell them to pound sand.
The idea that you can force two companies to play nicely together when they clearly don't want to, is not a socialist concept. It is an authoritarian concept
It literally does resolve the basic conflict which is, once again, which class holds power in society. Google has a certain philosophy because it's a product of a social-economic system that birthed it. A company like google would not exist in a socialist society because the system works differently.
If you don't understand the problem with the fact that private company that acts as a gatekeeper of the internet gets to decide what content people are able to see, then there's really no point having further conversation. The fact that you worked in AuThoRiTariAn into this is really just the cherry on top. 😂
In a world where Google is a cooperative representing a certian group of proletarians, and nakedcapitalism is a cooperative representing another group of proletarians, would you force them to do business together if one of them were opposed to the idea?
If Google was a cooperative that acted as a gatekeeper for the internet, and it was censoring people's access to information based on its profit incentive. Then yes, I would absolutely want Google to be forced to provide unfiltered access to search. It's pretty incredible that anybody would want it to work otherwise frankly.
Google is not restricting anyone's access to the internet, nor is it stopping nakedcapitalism from publishing its articles. It is simply deciding not to advertise on their website, which is a normal business decision that could have been made by a socialist cooperative or any other entity.
It sounds like your issue is with SOciEtY and oUr FoRm of gOvERnmEnT, with a little bit of BUt pEoPLe cAn'T UsE thE INteRNet WiTHoUt gOOgLe sprinkled in, rather than the actions of one company or another. Maybe you should be angry with nakedcapitalism too. They aren't a socialist cooperative either
Your logic might even make sense if Google wasn't a giant monopoly that has oversized influence over the internet. Not only is Google able to directly influence what sites get ad revenue, but it also uses an opaque algorithm that serves their profit interest to decide what people see.
It sounds like I've explained to you precisely what my issue is in ten different ways here, and it's like talking to a wall. So, I'm going to stop here.
Of course, it's possible that Google has paired its withdrawal of advertisements with a lower rating in search results. Do you have any evidence of that happening, or is it pure supposition, like your hypothetical socialist cooperatives?
What I actually said was that these are two different ways Google suppresses content based on its own interests. Meanwhile, quite hilarious of you to think that socialist cooperatives are hypothetical. Go read up on Mondragon and Huawei as a couple of examples. It's gonna blow your mind.
So do you have any evidence that Google is employing the second way in this case?
And Mondragon and Huawei control Google and nakedcapitalism? That is news!
And you already promised in two previous comments to end our exchange, so I hope you take it seriously this time. No wonder Johnny doesn't want to play with you. Don't even bother asking his mom about it