Russia Threatens To Go To War With Google Over Stupid Comments By Eric Schmidt
from the what-a-mess dept
What a world we live in, where a giant country and a giant company may be about to go to war. At a security conference, Alphabet "executive chairman" Eric Schmidt made some fairly dumb comments saying that the company was looking at downranking sites like RT and Sputnik:
“We’re working on detecting this kind of scenario ... and de-ranking those kinds of sites,” Schmidt said, in response to a question at an event in Halifax, Canada. “It’s basically RT and Sputnik. We’re well aware and we’re trying to engineer the systems to prevent it.”
To be clear: I have no doubt that RT and Sputnik have engaged in attempts to push anti-US propaganda in the US. That seems fairly obvious at this point. My concern is twofold: first of all, saying that "it's basically RT and Sputnik" suggests Schmidt thinks that the issue is just those two sites and merely downranking them will solve problems related to propaganda. That's both wrong and naive. Second, having the executive chair of Google's parent company directly announce that Google is working on ways to downrank two specific sites is bad. Part of Google's longstanding position has always been that they don't interfere to go after specific sites, in part because that creates a massive slippery slope. Of course, Google gave up on part of that position five years ago when it caved in to Hollywood and agreed to start downranking sites based on accusations (not actual convictions) of copyright infringement.
Directly coming out and saying that Google is targeting these two sites -- no matter how bad those sites are -- only reinforces the idea that Google will ideologically rank sites, rather than focus on what was its core mission of helping people find the information they were looking for.
And, of course, there are the wider implications of this -- whereby you now have the head of Russia's media regulator Roskomnadzor, threatening to retaliate should Google actually downrank those sites:
Alexander Zharov, head of media regulator Roskomnadzor, said his agency sent a letter to Google on Tuesday requesting clarification on comments Saturday by Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt about how the Russian websites would be treated in search, according to Interfax.
“We will receive an answer and understand what to do next,” Interfax quoted Zharov as saying. “We hope our opinion will be heard, and we won’t have to resort to more serious” retaliatory measures.
Now that's quite an interesting SEO strategy, to have a nuclear power threaten retaliation for dropping in the rankings. Never mind that this is the same Roskomnadzor currently involved in a corruption scandal, and which has been pushing forward on widespread internet censorship without due process.
The whole thing seems like quite a mess -- one that easily could have been avoided if Schmidt hadn't specifically called out those two sites, which, at best, are only a small corner of a larger issue. It would have been fine to suggest that Google was looking to algorithmically do a better job of minimizing false reports or outright propaganda (though, even that might raise serious questions). But to single out two specific sites backed by the Russian government just seems dumb. On the flip side, having Roskomnadzor hit back so strongly also seems fairly short-sighted, as it appears to be the Russian government more or less admitting that it relied on US companies to spread propaganda, and it won't tolerate efforts to diminish the power of its propaganda.
Of course, it does seem worth noting that three years ago, Google shut down its Russian office just as Russia picked up its efforts to censor the internet in that country. So it's not as if Google and the Russian government haven't been at odds before -- but this certainly feels like an escalation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: downranking, eric schmidt, fake news, propagranda, roskomnadzor, rozkomnadzor, russia
Companies: alphabet, google, rt, sputnik
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
MM just can't give up the Russian "toxic disinformation" notion!
You (and most of your ilk) are getting your thinks and double-thinks tangled up in reality.
According to you, the TINY bit of propaganda / advertising / truth-telling that Russia does (pretty openly) outweighs ALL of the 850,000 spooks in "Top Secret America", and such CIA programs as directly funding Washington Post with $600 million dollars, and now funding Bezos with a new "secret cloud" on Amazon. -- You never even mention that!
In contrast, here's an excellent view of how Russia regards American propaganda:
"Re-visiting Russian counter-propaganda methods - The Saker"
https://thesaker.is/re-visiting-russian-counter-propaganda-methods/
Basically says that the Rooskis FEATURE US propaganda, hire "experts" to be on their TV, and laugh like hell.
And I certainly find Techdirt amusing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MM just can't give up the Russian "toxic disinformation" notion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MM just can't give up the Russian "toxic disinformation" notion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MM just can't give up the Russian "toxic disinformation" notion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MM just can't give up the Russian "toxic disinformation" notion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MM just can't give up the Russian "toxic disinformation" notion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Russians should be careful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Russians should be careful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Russians should be careful...
Russian is fundamentally a weak nation: it's economy isn't doing that well (particularly after being extensively looted by oligarchs), it no longer poses a credible naval threat to any but the smallest nations, it is overly sensitive to the petroleum market, and corruption is rampant.
Think of it as Mexico with nuclear weapons.
Not that Google's a match for it, of course, but when the time comes that we in the US have cleaned our own house by removing their puppets, we'll turn our attention to them.
Which they know. And fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Russians should be careful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Russians should be careful...
Meanwhile, "North Korea is capable of raining armageddon down on us". People have some really funny ideas these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Russians should be careful...
I'm guessing Russia isn't willing to go that far just over some search rankings. More likely they would step up their hacking and propaganda campaigns which potentially puts them each on even footing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Russians should be careful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anti-US propaganda
I've been looking abroad for news for over a decade. Not just RT but all of the foreign channels. You get a better view of what is actually going on in the U.S. by looking at their news, than you do by looking at our news.
And to be "anti-US" is by definition being against the principles of the U.S. Constitution. And I've seen ALL of the trinity of cabal news take stances very much against constitutional principles when it suited the corporate hands that flutter beneath their skirts.
So how about de-ranking ALL content that is intentionally deceptive? Oh right. That would mean de-ranking advertising. My bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: anti-US propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: anti-US propaganda
Ask Trump to take a peek out of Putin's ass and report back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of like what the Internet is about to become. Gate-keeper bloat gone wild.
I wish to erase the face of the corporate Internet. So very much.
Fuck Google. I hope Russia wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether labeled "propaganda" or not, non-US media companies provide a valuable service by reporting on news and issues that American mainstream media companies refuse to cover.
For instance, the USS Liberty's annual Washington, D.C. memorial service could be one such example. No U.S. mainstream media has EVER attended, but RT is there year after year, ignoring the media blackout as well as the accusations of anti-Semitism against those who dare to show up, or heaven forbid, ask the 'wrong' questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The OP describes the situation well, as it is stupid to point specific sites out. But the Rozkomnadzor response is lowering the parade by defending the sites. If they defend these sites with more serious actions, they are also admitting that the sites are of importance to Rozkomnadzor or indirectly that Rozkomnadzor is anything but unbiased.
Even though Rozkomnadzor may be corrupt (what isn't today?), the implication of them acting like a gatekeeper for information from the internet is not likely to be popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better the Devil that doesn't pretend.
At least back in the day's of party rags, people were honest about the manure they were peddling. There was no pretense and sanctimony about it.
Outlets that pretend not to have an agenda are far more dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Kind of like Fox News?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What, you mean like the CBC, BBC or NPR?
But it's so scary when Russia does it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even so, for Google to lose, Russia would have to detonate an EMP at every datacenter Google owns. Assuming the datacenters aren't already shielded against EMPs. That would require essentially mounting a full scale assault on multiple foreign countries, essentially declaring war on the world and kicking off WW3.
I seriously doubt Russia is willing to go that far over how high it ranks in Googles search results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kibiny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did Google expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He says the issue is "basically RT and sputnik", which may be an over simplification but at no point does he say the solution is going to be to just downrank those two sites.. in fact what he does say
("We’re working on detecting this kind of scenario ... and de-ranking those kinds of sites, " we’re trying to engineer the systems to prevent it.")
At no point does he say they are working on ways to downrank those specific sites
he basically says the exact opposite, that they are working on a generally applicable solution despite the fact that they think the issue is mostly coming from RT and sputnik.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There goes Fox News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the (formerly) Red Menace is able to convince our people via the power of their words, then that means they won the battle of ideas. This whole Russia scare is one giant temper tantrum by the Democratic party that they got caught behaving badly, and possibly illegally.
There are no propaganda exceptions to the first amendment, just like there are no hate speech exceptions. There are also no exceptions for deliberate falsehoods, because a lie can still serve as a parable.
Here's the full text "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At that point, I started to change my mind. I've not yet made it up but the evidence is pulling me towards the "Russians interfered" side.
The Russians offered us a chance to make friends with them but we batted them off for the sake of the military-industrial complex. We reap what we sow. Now the days of American hegemony are over and the world is moving on without you. I'm not sure that's a good thing but from this side of the Pond it's like watching a giant dumpster burn in slow motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the only major TV network
The trinity of cabal news only gives air time to paying customers, and the Constitution doesn't make adbuys.
So yes, they do propagandize. But so do the others. And if you'd ever lived outside the United States, you'd have a better view of how utterly batshit the trinity really is.
Yes they agree with you sometimes. That is part of the con.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or just have every single link from google to rt.com or sputnik go via a page detailing (in Russian AND English) exactly the corruption of Alexander Zharov.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, does anyone seriously think bumping down articles from RT or Sputnik, refusing to sell ad space to Russians, and whatever other nonsense that has been proposed for tech companies to prevent foreign influence is going to actually going to work? The Russians will never figure out that they could pay for ad-space with Bitcoin? Or create a whole different news platform, that may present itself as from an allied nation, and actually targets a different audience? Come on!
And is there anyone out there who feels as though they were duped by Russian trolls, memes and/or articles from RT, to such a degree that they actually decided or changed their mind on whom to vote for? Know why nobody is claiming that they were personally influenced, because the propaganda was simply confirmation bias for a narrative they already believed. Russians didn't create themes to sow discord among us, they selected from issues that were already points of contention.
Personally, I would rather have more personal flexibility in adjusting the settings of my search results, or news feeds, than for Google or Facebook to decide what to protect me from. I have the sense and ability to make sure my sources are credible, and come from a variety of viewpoints. If there is a market of people who have trouble vetting their news sources, than the tech industry should serve them on demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really bad...
"No, not any time - only when it's funny."
- Roger Rabbit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...Google's longstanding position has always been that they don't interfere to go after specific sites..."
Google generally says "we try to fix things in the algo". They have done that for years, and when Matt Cutts was in charge of webspam and whatnot, he would issue the standard individual site denials on a regular basis.
Yet, Google in their webmaster tools has a section to show you when you site has be subject to a manual penalty. So wait, they don't deal with individual sites but they have a way to explain manual penalties? Oh, the contradictions!
You also have to consider the whole EU anti-trust thing. One of the things Google has always been good at is manipulating their own results to favor their own projects and properties. Back in the early days, if you put adsense on a site, it was reported that you might be more highly ranked in the results.
Manually adjusting results, or putting a virtual thumb on a given site, isn't anything new. Google hates to talk about it, they would never want to admit it, but they have the ability and have used the ability to manipulate results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that hasn't stopped Mike from sucking their monetary cock in perpetuity. Mike, one day you're going to get what's coming to you and the rest of the world is going to laugh your ass to scorn - and rightly so - you deserve every bit of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S. Propaganda for $500 alex.
What is a CIA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]