Connect with us

Latest

Staff Picks

The muddy waters of history – from Latin America to Europe

Is the world of politics being turned on its head?

Greg Simons

Published

on

475 Views

Recent events in Brazil illustrate well the notion of the volatile nature of the perception and practice of politics in the contemporary world. The political events around the resignation of Dilma Rousseff, the first woman in the president’s palace in Brazil and an easily recognizable face of the Brazilian “pragmatic leftists,” in power since 2002, have led to a confused and completely inadequate reaction in the Western mainstream media.

This begs the question are mainstream media only an objective observer and chronicler of political events and processes or are they a subjective participant? Given the falling subscriptions of mainstream newspapers and calls within the European Union to have journalism declared a public good, it seems that mass media are part of the political problem, rather than its solution.

Inside the pages of The New York Times, one can read that Mrs. Rousseff “lifted millions of Brazilians up from extreme poverty into the middle class” and that her rule “led to massive corruption and unemployment.” One can read that 49 senators out of 60 that voted Mrs. Rousseff out of power – that all 49 of them were investigated on accusations of corruption.

But two lines down the text one can read that Rousseff was still arrogant and wrong not to treat this congress with respect and nicety, which that legislature deserved. Which legislature? The one where 49 senators out of 81 are suspected of being corrupt? But this seemingly one small and isolated incident is part of a much wider and interconnected series of political processes and trends.

DECLINE AND CONFUSION

There are numerous analysts, academics and others that are struggling to fathom the course and nature of these mismatching statements. The problem is, however, that confusion around Rousseff’s resignation is typical for contemporary politics. It is like the world of politics has been turned on its head!

Why is this situation the case? The author suggests, at least in part, it is the result of the manner in which we view and measure politics in order to analyse and make sense of it. The political environment is a market place of ideas and relationships.

People choose the idea that resonates with them and form a political relationship with the person or organization that offers it. Politics is the process of priming and mobilizing people through the projection and communication of various ideas and realities.

It so happened that in the case of Latin America, the United States traditionally supports political and economic elite, whom hold right-wing and conservative values, relationships are created with pro-Western dictators. But at the same time the US politicians want to look like “progressive” people, who abhor racism and generally wish some kind of democracy for their southern neighbours.

Hence many moans in the American press about the fact that there were no viable minority races, few women and many Evangelical Christians (and not the generally less affluent Catholics) among Mrs. Rousseff’s detractors. This would project the illusion as if Brazil would be better off, if Rousseff had been ousted, instead of white males, by some analogue of Condoleezza Rice or a Catholic double of Madeleine Albright. The problems are of course, much deeper and not all domestic in origin.

Well, the press always reflected the interests of its owners and the prejudices of its readers, so one might be tempted to say that there is nothing special about the present flood of hypocrisy in the Western media. Latin America, since the 1830’s with the arrival of the geopolitical concept of the Monroe Doctrine was laid claim to as the continental zone of privileged interests for the United States.

This is seemingly at odds with a country born recently from the 1776 War of Independence from Great Britain and professing anti-Imperial values. It was not until other geopolitical interests occupied the United States, namely the Global War On Terrorism from 2001, when Latin American countries were able to briefly pivot away from the orbit of US control and influence. Relationships and cooperation were quickly established with countries such as China, Iran and Russia. These countries were politically symbolic as geopolitical competitors to the US.

One of the organisations born from this period was BRICS. However, with changing geopolitical priorities, US attention returned to the region and soon discovered the loss of influence in the region. The result has been a return of political activism that has affected the governments of those countries deemed as straying too far, such as in Argentina and Brazil.

But was the media really that bad in the more “ideological” times? Whether it was Socialism, Fascism or Democracy, the constituency decided on the basis and perception of which particular political offering matched their wants and needs.

This was an act of political faith on their part, one that was not always rewarded with the desired expectations that they held. The power and reach of the perception and deception carried by mass media may be more intense and wide ranging, but this is still not something that is novel or new to mankind.

Audiences are mobilised and primed according to opposing sets of values and norms, which strike at the right place and time for maximum effect. What happens after the actual goal is achieved, is in some senses, rather superfluous. A recent case in point is the recent the ICTY declared that Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war. Yet in 1999 he was Europe’s new ‘Hitler’ and the way for a ‘humanitarian war’ was open.

RIGHT VERSUS LEFT

Traditionally, politics has been viewed and measured through and by a political scale that rated people and parties according to a left-right scale. However, in the current political climate this scale is inadequate as it does not and cannot account for the events and processes that are currently underway – BREXIT, the Dutch Referendum and Donald Trump to mention but a few instances.

Both the Dutch referendum and BREXIT were the culmination of a backlash against what has been seen by some as an excessive and unaccountable EU bureaucracy, than an anti-Ukrainian stance in the Dutch case.

In the case of Dilma, she was formally punished not for enriching herself (which she apparently didn’t). She was punished for trying to make Brazil’s budget look better than it was.

And this is a rather typical capitalist and oligarchic practice, one need only look at the common practice of padding the numbers by numerous governments, especially in the run up to elections. But the oligarchs did not forgive Mrs. Rousseff something that they gladly forgive themselves. So, the left and right scale is indeed quickly losing its ability of measuring modern politics.

ESTABLISHMENT VERSUS ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT

There is a need for a new way of looking at and analysing what is happening in the political market place and why it is happening. As such, there is a need to move away from seeing and measuring politics according to a left-right dichotomy. In its current form it has moved to a dichotomy and scale of establishment versus anti-establishment.

Few people agree on who was right and who was wrong in the impeachment saga, but most would agree that it was clearly an example of the OLD establishment (the Brazilian senate) going against the NEW establishment. From an anti-establishment point of view, there is something deeply unfair in the fact that 61 senator undid the decision of 54 MILLION Brazilian voters, who cast their bulletins for Dilma – twice.

The will of the people was clearly ignored in Dilma Rousseff’s case. This is a game of projected perception, but there are many different actors and interests in the same information space vying for attention and influence. The world currently is at a point, where there is no common understanding of information or knowledge, the information space has gradually become more fragmented. This is in part owed to the development of information communication technology, but even more importantly, to the increasing fragmentation of political opinion.

ALIENATION

Why did these 54 million voters fail to protect their vote? Currently, there is an increasing level of political cynicism and alienation of large segments of voters, such as the working class, from mainstream (read establishment) politics. This is even more right about the countries of the European Union than about Brazil.

This is the culmination and the result of the public not having their perceived wants and needs met. There is a growing feeling of having their interests and needs ignored, such as can be witnessed in the growing reaction to the mass migration being experienced in Europe and the United States.

It seems as though their voice is not being heard or listened to by the mainstream political establishment, such as Merkel pledging to stick to her controversial migration policy in face of increasing resentment and alarm in the German public.

COUNTERACTION FOLLOWS ACTION

So, is there little hope? I would not say so. A noticeable shift is occurring in the political market and environment, which is akin to a political version of laws of physics. For each and every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction.

More people and groups are feeling disenfranchised from mainstream politics and are increasing looking to alternative political offerings. The natural response in an interactive political market place is for politics to evolve and create an offering to appeal to and satisfy the anti-political establishment demand.

Political debate and discussion is becoming much more descriptive than analytical currently. This is used to dumb down the reality in to a subjectively understandable reality as desired by the messenger. These debates and discussions are not intended as a means with which to accurately detail what is happening, but to prime and mobilise publics towards different political causes.

In Europe, much of the anti-establishment sentiment, the one which feeds leftist forces in Latin America, much of that sentiment is expressing itself in the movement of “Russia lovers” or “Putin apologists.” This phenomenon is still awaiting its accurate explanation. Much of sympathy to Mr. Putin may evolve not so much from his actual personage as from crude demonization to which Russia and its president are subjected in the Western media.

Besides, the “demonized” Putin’s image created by Western media has some of the qualities, which the European politicians are lacking: the Western media’s “Putin” stands for traditional values, which are seen as being in opposition to mainstream politics’ rigid adherence to liberal and multi-cultural values in times of an unprecedented crisis brought about by Western-led regime in North Africa and the Middle East.

Those on the left side of the political spectrum also like or admire Putin, not for his traditional values, but for his opposition to US global hegemony. The two ends of the old political spectrum supporting the same person, because of his perceived anti-mainstream political establishment stance.

As a consequence there is a new level of negative politics that is based on emotionally charged perceptions. This is situated within the context of a crisis, a process or event where publics are primed and mobilised through competing sets of norms and values. Information flows and perception are keys to the eventual outcome of this crisis.

Those that are able somehow to manage or control that information and perception are much better placed to emerge as winners in the political environment as they are able to restrict their opponent’s brand potential, his operational choices and strategy. Having said this though, the information space in the political environment is a highly volatile zone, today’s winner may well be tomorrow’s loser.

So, Dilma Rousseff was probably right when she quoted the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky soon after her ousting. The muddy waters of history really do not give us a reason to be too happy or too sad. We just never know what tomorrow’s discontent of the currently deceived “mainstream” voters’ and media audience will bring us.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

May survives ‘no confidence’ vote as UK moves towards March 29 deadline or Article 50 extension (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 168.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the ‘no confidence’ vote that UK Prime Minister May won with the a slim margin…meaning that though few MPs have confidence in her ‘Brexit withdrawal’ negotiating skills, they appear to have no problem allowing May to lead the country towards its Brexit deadline in March, which coincidently may be delayed and eventually scrapped altogether.

Meanwhile Tony Blair is cozying up to Brussels’ oligarchs, working his evil magic to derail the will of the British people, and keep the integrationist ambitions for the UK and Europe on track.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


The UK government led by Theresa May, has survived to fight another day, after winning a no-confidence vote, tabled by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, following parliament rejecting the PM’s Brexit deal, earlier on Tuesday evening.

The no-confidence vote was defeated by 19 votes – the government winning by 325 to 306. It’s a rare positive note for May’s Tory cabinet after the humiliating Brexit defeat.

Speaking immediately after the vote, a victorious May said she was “pleased” that the House expressed its confidence in her government. May said she will “continue to work” to deliver on the result of the Brexit referendum and leave the EU.

May invited the leaders of parliamentary parties to meet with her individually, beginning on Wednesday evening.

“I stand ready to work with any member of this House to deliver on Brexit,” she said.

Responding to the vote, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that the House had “emphatically” rejected May’s deal on Tuesday. The government, he said, must now remove “clearly once and for all the prospect of the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit from the EU and all the chaos that would result from that.”

Labour will now have to consider what move to make next. Their official Brexit policy, decided by members at conference in September, states that if a general election cannot be forced, then all options should be left on the table, including calling for a second referendum.

Liberal Democrats MP Ed Davey also called on May to rule out a no deal Brexit.

The way forward for Brexit is not yet clear and May’s options are now limited, given that the Brexit deal she was offering was voted down so dramatically on Tuesday.

Gavin Barrett, a professor at the UCD Sutherland School of Law in Dublin, told RT that May will now have to decide if her second preference is a no-deal Brexit or a second referendum. Her preference will likely be a no-deal Brexit, Barrett said, adding that “since no other option commands a majority in the House” a no-deal exit is now “the default option.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Final Steps in Syria’s Successful Struggle for Peace and Sovereignty

The war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The situation in Syria evolves daily and sees two situations very closely linked to each other, with the US withdrawal from Syria and the consequent expansionist ambitions of Erdogan in Syria and the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takeover in Idlib that frees the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian aviation to liberate the de-escalation zone.

Trump has promised to destroy Turkey economically if he attacks the Kurds, reinforcing his claim that Erdogan will not target the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) once the US withdraws from the area. One of the strongest accusations made against Trump’s withdrawal by his opponents is that no Middle Eastern force will ever trust the US again if they abandon the SDF to its fate, that is, to its annihilation at the hands of the Turkish army and its FSA proxies. This, however, is not possible; not so much because of Trump’s economic threats, but because of Damascus and Moscow being strongly opposed to any Turkish military action in the northeast of Syria.

This is a red line drawn by Putin and Assad, and the Turkish president likely understands the consequences of any wrong moves. It is no coincidence that he stated several times that he had no problems with the “Syrians or Syrian-Kurdish brothers”, and repeated that if the area under the SDF were to come under the control of Damascus, Turkey would have no need to intervene in Syria. Trump’s request that Ankara have a buffer zone of 20 kilometers separating the Kurdish and Turkish forces seems to complement the desire of Damascus and Moscow to avoid a clash between the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the SDF.

The only party that seems to be secretly encouraging a clash between the SDF and Turkish forces is Israel, criticizing Ankara and singing the praises of the SDF, in order to try and accentuate the tensions between the two sides, though naturally without success. Israel’s continued raids in Syria, though almost constantly failing due to Syrian air defense, and the divide-and-rule policy used against Turkey and the SDF, show that Tel Aviv is now weakened and mostly irrelevant in the Syrian conflict.

In Idlib, the situation seems to be becoming less complicated and difficult to decipher. Russia, Iran and Syria had asked Erdogan to take control of the province through its “moderate jihadists”, sit down at the negotiating table, and resolve the matter through a diplomatic solution. Exactly the opposite happened. The HTS (formerly al-Nusra/al-Qaeda in Syria) has in recent weeks conquered practically the whole province of Idlib, with numerous forces linked to Turkey (Ahrar al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki) dissolving and merging into HTS. This development puts even more pressure on Erdogan, who is likely to see his influence in Idlib fade away permanently. Moreover, this evolution represents a unique opportunity for Damascus and Moscow to start operations in Idlib with the genuine justification of combating terrorism. It is a repeat of what happened in other de-escalation areas. Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly requested the moderates be separated from the terrorists, so as to approach the situation with a diplomatic negotiation.

In the absence of an effective division of combatants, all are considered terrorists, with the military option replacing the diplomatic. This remains the only feasible option to free the area from terrorists who are not willing to give back territory to the legitimate government in Damascus and are keeping civilians hostages. The Idlib province seems to have experienced the same playbook applied in other de-escalation zones, this time with a clear contrast between Turkey and Saudi Arabia that shows how the struggle between the two countries is much deeper than it appears. The reasons behind the Khashoggi case and the diplomatic confrontation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia were laid bare in the actions of the HTS in Idlib, which has taken control of all the areas previously held by Ankara’s proxies.

It remains to be seen whether Moscow and Damascus would like to encourage Erdogan to recover Idlib through its proxies, trying to encourage jihadists to fight each other as much as possible in order to lighten the task of the SAA, or whether they would prefer to press the advantage themselves and attack while the terrorist front is experiencing internal confusion.

In terms of occupied territory and accounts to be settled, two areas of great importance for the future of Syria remain unresolved, namely al-Tanf, occupied by US forces on the Syrian-Jordanian border, and the area in the north of Syria occupied by Turkish forces and their FSA proxies. It is too early to approach a solution militarily, it being easier for Damascus and Moscow to complete the work to free Syria from the remaining terrorists. Once this has been done, the presence of US or Turkish forces in Syria, whether directly or indirectly, would become all the more difficult to justify. Driving away the US and, above all, Turkey from Syrian territory will be the natural next step in the Syrian conflict.

This is an unequivocal sign that the war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus. Several countries — including Italy in the near future — will reopen their embassies in Syria to demonstrate that the war, even if not completely over, is effectively won by Damascus and her allies.

For this reason, several countries that were previously opposed to Damascus, like the United Arab Emirates, are understood to have some kind of contact with the government of Damascus. If they intend to become involved in the reconstruction process and any future investment, they will quite naturally need to re-establish diplomatic relations with Damascus. The Arab League is also looking to welcome Syria back into the fold.

Such are signs that Syria is returning to normality, without forgetting which and how many countries have conspired and acted directly against the Syrians for over seven years. An invitation to the Arab League or some embassy being reopened will not be enough to compensate for the damage done over years, but Assad does not preclude any option, and is in the meantime demonstrating to the Israelis, Saudis and the US Deep State that their war has failed and that even their most loyal allies are resuming diplomatic relations with Damascus, a double whammy against the neocons, Wahhabis and Zionists.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Abortion, Maxine Waters, David Hogg

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Breitbart


In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”

The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.

In the leaked discussion thread, a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source.

“We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”

Others were more concerned about the presence of the blacklist. According to the source, the software engineer who started the discussion called the manipulation of search results related to abortion a “smoking gun.”

The software engineer noted that the change had occurred following an inquiry from a left-wing Slate journalist about the prominence of pro-life videos on YouTube, and that pro-life videos were replaced with pro-abortion videos in the top ten results for the search terms following Google’s manual intervention.

“The Slate writer said she had complained last Friday and then saw different search results before YouTube responded to her on Monday,” wrote the employee. “And lo and behold, the [changelog] was submitted on Friday, December 14 at 3:17 PM.”

The manually downranked items included several videos from Dr. Antony Levatino, a former abortion doctor who is now a pro-life activist. Another video in the top ten featured a woman’s personal story of being pressured to have an abortion, while another featured pro-life conservative Ben Shapiro. The Slate journalist who complained to Google reported that these videos previously featured in the top ten, describing them in her story as “dangerous misinformation.”

Since the Slate journalist’s inquiry and Google’s subsequent intervention, the top search results now feature pro-abortion content from left-wing sources like BuzzFeed, Vice, CNN, and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. In her report, the Slate journalist acknowledged that the search results changed shortly after she contacted Google.

The manual adjustment of search results by a Google-owned platform contradicts a key claim made under oath by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in his congressional testimony earlier this month: that his company does not “manually intervene on any search result.”

A Google employee in the discussion thread drew attention to Pichai’s claim, noting that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”

One of the posts in the discussion also noted that the blacklist had previously been edited to include the search term “Maxine Waters” after a single Google employee complained the top YouTube search result for Maxine Waters was “very low quality.”

Google’s alleged intervention on behalf of a Democratic congresswoman would be further evidence of the tech giant using its resources to prop up the left. Breitbart News previously reported on leaked emails revealing the company targeted pro-Democrat demographics in its get-out-the-vote efforts in 2016.

According to the source, a software engineer in the thread also noted that “a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland” had been added to the blacklist – another change with potentially dramatic consequences on the national policies of a western democracy.

youtube_controversial_query_blacklist

At least one post in the discussion thread revealed the existence of a file called “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist,” which contains a list of YouTube search terms that Google manually curates. In addition to the terms “abortion,” “abortions,” “Maxine Waters,” and search terms related to the Irish abortion referendum, a Google software engineer noted that the blacklist includes search terms related to terrorist attacks. (the posts specifically mentions that the “Strasbourg terrorist attack” as being on the list).

“If you look at the other entries recently added to the youtube_controversial_query_blacklist(e.g., entries related to the Strasbourg terrorist attack), the addition of abortion seems…out-of-place,” wrote the software engineer, according to the source.

After learning of the existence of the blacklist, Breitbart News obtained a partial screenshot of the full blacklist file from a source within Google. It reveals that the blacklist includes search terms related to both mass shootings and the progressive anti-second amendment activist David Hogg.

This suggests Google has followed the lead of Democrat politicians, who have repeatedly pushed tech companies to censor content related to the Parkland school shooting and the Parkland anti-gun activists. It’s part of a popular new line of thought in the political-media establishment, which views the public as too stupid to question conspiracy theories for themselves.

Here is the partial blacklist leaked to Breitbart:

2117 plane crash Russian

2118 plane crash

2119 an-148

2120 florida shooting conspiracy

2121 florida shooting crisis actors

2122 florida conspiracy

2123 florida false flag shooting

2124 florida false flag

2125 fake florida school shooting

2126 david hogg hoax

2127 david hogg fake

2128 david hogg crisis actor

2129 david hogg forgets lines

2130 david hogg forgets his lines

2131 david hogg cant remember his lines

2132 david hogg actor

2133 david hogg cant remember

2134 david hogg conspiracy

2135 david hogg exposed

2136 david hogg lines

2137 david hogg rehearsing

2120 florida shooting conspiracy

The full internal filepath of the blacklist, according to another source, is:

//depot/google3/googledata/superroot/youtube/youtube_controversial_query_blacklist

Contradictions

Responding to a request for comment, a YouTube spokeswoman said the company wants to promote “authoritative” sources in its search results, but maintained that YouTube is a “platform for free speech” that “allow[s]” both pro-life and pro-abortion content.

YouTube’s full comment:

YouTube is a platform for free speech where anyone can choose to post videos, as long as they follow our Community Guidelines, which prohibit things like inciting violence and pornography. We apply these policies impartially and we allow both pro-life and pro-choice opinions. Over the last year we’ve described how we are working to better surface news sources across our site for news-related searches and topical information. We’ve improved our search and discovery algorithms, built new features that clearly label and prominently surface news sources on our homepage and search pages, and introduced information panels to help give users more authoritative sources where they can fact check information for themselves.

In the case of the “abortion” search results, YouTube’s intervention to insert “authoritative” content resulted in the downranking of pro-life videos and the elevation of pro-abortion ones.

A Google spokesperson took a tougher line than its YouTube subsidiary, stating that “Google has never manipulated or modified the search results or content in any of its products to promote a particular political ideology.”

However, in the leaked discussion thread, a member of Google’s “trust & safety” team, Daniel Aaronson, admitted that the company maintains “huge teams” that work to adjust search results for subjects that are “prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content” – all subjective terms that are frequently used to suppress right-leaning sources.

He also admitted that the interventions weren’t confined to YouTube – they included search results delivered via Google Assistant, Google Home, and in rare cases Google ’s organic search results.

In the thread, Aaronson attempted to explain how search blacklisting worked. He claimed that highly specific searches would generate non-blacklisted results, even controversial ones. But the inclusion of highly specific terms in the YouTube blacklist, like “David Hogg cant remember his lines” – the name of an actual viral video – seems to contradict this.

Aaronson’s full post is copied below:

I work in Trust and Safety and while I have no particular input as to exactly what’s happening for YT I can try to explain why you’d have this kind of list and why people are finding lists like these on Code Search.

When dealing with abuse/controversial content on various mediums you have several levers to deal with problems. Two prominent levers are “Proactive” and “Reactive”:

  • Proactive: Usually refers to some type of algorithm/scalable solution to a general problem
    • E.g.: We don’t allow straight up porn on YouTube so we create a classifier that detects porn and automatically remove or flag for review the videos the porn classifier is most certain of
  • Reactive: Usually refers to a manual fix to something that has been brought to our attention that our proactive solutions don’t/didn’t work on and something that is clearly in the realm of bad enough to warrant a quick targeted solution (determined by pages and pages of policies worked on over many years and many teams to be fair and cover necessary scope)
    • E,g.: A website that used to be a good blog had it’s domain expire and was purchased/repurposed to spam Search results with autogenerated pages full of gibberish text, scraped images, and links to boost traffic to other spammy sites. It is manually actioned for violating policy

These Organic Search policies and the consequences to violating them are public

Manually reacting to things is not very scalable, and is not an ideal solution to most problems, so the proactive lever is really the one we all like to lean on. Ideally, our classifiers/algorithm are good at providing useful and rich results to our users while ignoring things at are not useful or not relevant. But we all know, this isn’t exactly the case all the time (especially on YouTube).

From a user perspective, there are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content. Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay. E.g. a video of a puppy playing with a toy is probably okay in almost every culture or context, even if it’s not relevant to the query. But a video of someone committing suicide and begging others to follow in his/her footsteps is probably on the other side of the line for many folks.

While my second example is technically relevant to the generic query of “suicide”, that doesn’t mean that this is a very useful or good video to promote on the top of results for that query. So imagine a classifier that says, for any queries on a particular text file, let’s pull videos using signals that we historically understand to be strong indicators of quality (I won’t go into specifics here, but those signals do exist). We’re not manually curating these results, we’re just saying “hey, be extra careful with results for this query because many times really bad stuff can appear and lead to a bad experience for most users”. Ideally the proactive lever did this for us, but in extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary. And also keep in mind, that this is different for every product. The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high. However, the bar for things we let our Google Assistant say out loud might be a lot lower. If I search for “Jews run the banks” – I’ll likely find anti-semitic stuff in organic search. As a Jew, I might find some of these results offensive, but they are there for people to research and view, and I understand that this is not a reflection of Google feels about this issue. But if I ask Google assistant “Why do Jews run the banks” we wouldn’t be similarly accepting if it repeated and promoted conspiracy theories that likely pop up in organic search in her smoothing voice.

Whether we agree or not, user perception of our responses, results, and answers of different products and mediums can change. And I think many people are used to the fact that organic search is a place where content should be accessible no matter how offensive it might be, however, the expectation is very different on a Google Home, a Knowledge Panel, or even YouTube.

These lines are very difficult and can be very blurry, we are all well aware of this. So we’ve got huge teams that stay cognizant of these facts when we’re crafting policies considering classifier changes, or reacting with manual actions – these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but admittedly are also not made in a highly public forum like TGIF or IndustryInfo (as you can imagine, decisions/agreement would be hard to get in such a wide list – image if all your CL’s were reviewed by every engineer across Google all the time). I hope that answers some questions and gives a better layer of transparency without going into details about our “Pepsi formula”.

Best,

Daniel

The fact that Google manually curates politically contentious search results fits in with a wider pattern of political activity on the part of the tech giant.

In 2018, Breitbart News exclusively published a leaked video from the company that showed senior management in dismay at Trump’s election victory, and pledging to use the company’s power to make his populist movement a “hiccup” in history.

Breitbart also leaked “The Good Censor,” an internal research document from Google that admits the tech giant is engaged in the censorship of its own products, partly in response to political events.

Another leak revealed that employees within the company, including Google’s current director of Trust and Safety, tried to kick Breitbart News off Google’s market-dominating online ad platforms.

Yet another showed Google engaged in targeted turnout operations aimed to boost voter participation in pro-Democrat demographics in “key states” ahead of the 2016 election. The effort was dubbed a “silent donation” by a top Google employee.

Evidence for Google’s partisan activities is now overwhelming. President Trump has previously warned Google, as well as other Silicon Valley giants, not to engage in censorship or partisan activities. Google continues to defy him.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to [email protected].

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending