Don't be evil!

In the latest fight against Google's social engineering practices Prager U is suing Google.  For some time Google has been effectively 'censoring' videos posted by Prager U by giving them a 'restricted' classification. To any unbiased observer the restricted videos do not in themselves justify such a restriction. ( see Prager University (PragerU) Takes Legal Action Against Google and YouTube for Discrimination.)

They include titles such as; -

Why America Must Lead
Why Did America Fight the Korean War?
The World's Most Persecuted Minority: Christians
Why America's Military Must Be Strong
Are the Police Racist?
Gender Identity: Why All the Confusion 
Did Bush Lie About Iraq?
What's Wrong with E-Cigarettes?
Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?
The Least Diverse Place in America
Ami Horowitz - What's Wrong with Socialism?

YouTube's (Google's) classifies videos as Age Restricted if they contain; -

• Vulgar language
• Violence and disturbing imagery
• Nudity and sexually sggestive content
• Portrayal of harmful or dangerous activities

Go ahead, follow the links and spend the few minutes watching some. Do you think they are vulgar? Do they contain violence or disturbing imagery? As there any sexual and suggestive content? Or do they portray harmful or dangerous activities? No, no , no and no!

So why is this happening? Google seems to be trying to limit Prager U's influence as it provides a different world view. A recent Prager video by ex Google employee James Damore provides an insight into Google's monochromatic mind-set.

Prager U needs our support!

Right minded individuals, not matter their views on the many topics covered, should be troubled by this contemptible abuse of power by one of the world's largest and most influential companies.

Google today serves as the single most significant global conduit to information. With such power comes great responsibility.  With the motto "Don't be evil" , Google started life with relatively low aspirations and has failed to meet them.

The litigation has a long way to go and given Google's deep pockets it is stacked against Prager U. So we must all support Prager in its fight.

The simplest way is to provide widespread exposure. To use social media to call Google out for such an abuse of power and remind Google of its own motto; - "Google, don't be evil!"

Google turning to dark side!

Has Google turned to the "dark side"? Has it forsaken its much vaunted motto "Don't be Evil"?

Given recent evidence of its enforced "group think" and its filtering of search results to sustain a political agenda, it is hard to conclude otherwise.

In his article "When Google silences dissent it bodes badly for the rest of us", Haiwatha Bray highlights the collective mindset that ensures conformity of opinion. They recently fired James Damore for an internal memo that argued , contrary to accepted dogma within Gooogle, that the over-representation of males within Google may indeed be because of genetic differences between the sexes. It seems you cannot even voice an opinion contrary to company 'groupthink". So he was let go.

What does this mean for the society that relies on Google to serve up search results without fear or favour.

"After the firing of Damore, how can we trust them to be honest brokers of information when they won’t tolerate dissent in their own ranks?"

We can't. Moreover there is ample evidence that Google is already tampering with search results to improve the profile of organisations they favour and to reduce the profile of those they do not.

Several studies have proven this to be the case. (see "Does Google content degrade Google search results? and "Does Google tamper search results for its own benefit?" )

The ethos of an organisation that sacks a worker for having the wrong opinion, or one that manipulates the results of its search engines in its favor is corrupt. Given the economic and social power that Google wields through it extensive tentacles into the e-world we have a serious problem.

The old saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind. With regard to its search engine Google operates virtually as a monopoly. It is now exploiting this position enhance its power. What should a free enterprise economy do with a monopoly? Break it up into competing pieces. It has been done before and perhaps it is time to do it again.

Orwellian doublethink

Those who have visited these pages from time to time would have come across references to the Prager University, a right of centre think tank reaching out to its audience by an extensive range of short videos. Their videos cover all the hot topics of the day, presented by experts in their field.While they advance the Republican, Liberal, world view, even if you do not agree with their conclusions you will learn from these well researched short presentations.

So why am I selling this today? For some reason my phone under the instructions of Google Now selects articles for me to read. Yes this is the type of 'invasive but helpful' technology that is taking control of our lives, but that's another story
One of today's selections  "Youtube bans another Prager video" piqued my interest. The banned video is titled "I was taught to hate the Jews". I accept that the title is provocative as it clearly refers to a racism. But after watching the video I am bewildered. The content is clearly an argument against racism.  Yes, it may contradict the accepted beliefs of some people.  Yes, it may be an 'inconvenient truth' for many. Yes, it may upset many of Youtube's audience. But is it racist?
What is racist about a person pointing out that he was indoctrinated with a racist view? How can we ever redress racism if we censor those who speak up against it?

How can we ever redress racism if we censor those who speak up against it?

I note that following protests from many Youtube has now re-instated the video, but why was that necessary?
In the same vein why is it necessary to censor some 17 other Prager University videos as 'unacceptable' when they clearly do not present material that breaks moral standards, they do not incite violence or vilification of any group gender, race or religion. All the videos present a point of view supported by reasonable arguments and facts. Indeed more often than not there are references to source material that support the facts. The only basis I can see for the banning is that the Google, Youtube or indeed the specific employees making these decisions happen to find the opinions expressed contrary to their own world view. This however is not how we expect those charged with dissemination of information to behave. Indeed by doing so they are betraying their users. No doubt there will be a consequence for so doing.

We live in a strange world where the very organisations that encourage open free communication believe it is appropriate to censor what information is presented.

The very idea of banning a video for racism when it is clearly about fighting racism is nothing short of Orwellian 'double-think'.