Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'

from the fairness-doctrine-gone-mad dept

The latest in this ridiculous political fight over the claimed, but not proven, "political bias" found in search results and social media is that Louisiana's Attorney General says we should break up the big internet companies because of it. He's not even hiding his unconstitutional anti-First Amendment reasons for doing so:

Landry says the internet giants are suppressing conservative agendas, stifling competition, and infringing on antitrust laws.

“This can’t be fixed legislatively,” Landry told The Advocate Tuesday. “We need to go to court with an antitrust suit.”

Again, it's not at all proven that the internet giants are "suppressing conservative agendas." If they were, that would be quite remarkable, given that apparent "conservatives" control the White House, both houses of Congress, the judiciary and the vast majority of state houses. It would certainly then suggest that these internet companies aren't very good at suppressing such an agenda if they really were attempting to do so (and, spoiler alert: they're not).

But, of course, the larger point still stands: this is clearly a government official, looking to use not just executive power, but law enforcement powers, to intimidate companies regarding speech on their platforms. That is 100% unconstitutional. I already detailed a variety of cases that make this point, but it appears that law enforcement officials are going to ignore that, so long as they can politically grandstand on this issue.

But, just to flip this around: would Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry agree that Fox News or Breitbart should be hit with legal action for "suppressing liberal agendas?" Of course not.

Some will say that this is just politicians being politicians, and they'd have a point. But what's absolutely astounding is that some on the other end of the political spectrum are jumping on this just because they so hate Google. Matt Stoller, from the Open Market Institute, has spent the past few years misrepresenting all sorts of arguments concerning the internet companies, and pushing for them to be broken up. He sits very far away from Landry politically, but apparently as long as a politician wants to break up the internet companies (even in violation of the First Amendment) that seems to be cool with him:

After people pointed out to him that Landry was just playing partisan politics, Stoller responded by suggesting that maybe it's for the wrong reasons, but at least someone is trying to break up these companies (despite there being no evidence to support such a move):

Lots of people have key issues that they think are important. For some that may be breaking up the big internet companies. But a general rule of thumb: if you have to spit on the First Amendment to get your wish, you're doing it wrong.

Filed Under: antitrust, bias, jeff landry, monopoly, political bias
Companies: google

White House Admits Exec Order To Regulate Social Media Is 'Real,' But No Idea Who Wrote It, And Won't Use It

from the well,-there's-that dept

On September 14th, we wrote about a draft executive order basically tasking the executive branch with "investigating" the major internet companies for evidence of "bias" that might lead to antitrust activity. As we wrote at the time, the draft executive order was poorly drafted, didn't make much sense, and was almost certainly unconstitutional. It took a week, but the rest of the tech policy world finally discovered the same draft executive order this past Friday (amusingly with some insisting that they had the "scoop" a week after we wrote about it).

Now, the White House has admitted that the document is "real", though they're not entirely sure who crafted it, it hasn't gone through any of the normal processes, and there's no intention of moving forward with it. In other words, it sounds like a pet project of someone in the White House to have in a drawer in case it was needed at some future date. From the Washington Post:

But three White House aides soon insisted they didn’t write the draft order, didn’t know where it came from and generally found it to be unworkable policy. One senior White House official confirmed the document had been floating around the White House but had not gone through the formal process, which is controlled by the staff secretary.

Asked about the document, Lindsay Walters, the deputy White House press secretary, said of the digital-age ‘whodunit’ on Saturday: “Although the White House is concerned about the conduct of online platforms and their impact on society, this document is not the result of an official White House policymaking process.”

There is some speculation in the article that the document actually originated from Yelp, which has spent the past decade or so trying to get any government anywhere to bring the antitrust hammer down on Google. If that turns out to be true, it speaks very poorly of Yelp, as a company trying to leverage an obviously bullshit claim of "search bias" to try to achieve its unrelated goals. It would also almost certainly backfire on Yelp in a big way, as the biggest tool that the government has to try to "punish" Google would be to modify Section 230 of the CDA -- which, arguably, Yelp relies on much more than Google does.

It's good that this document is clearly going nowhere, though it still is worth noting that at least someone in the White House thought it was worth passing around for discussion as they try to determine "what to do" about the made up problem of "bias" in search.

Filed Under: administration, executive order, political bias, social media, white house
Companies: google, yelp

Actual Research On Political Bias In Search Results Would Be Useful, But So Far It Doesn't Show Anything

from the not-how-it-works dept

A few weeks back, we explained why claims of political bias in moderation by tech companies was not accurate at all. I recognize this has upset people who seem to have staked their personal identity on the idea that big internet companies are clearly out to get them, but we like to deal in facts around here. Of course, soon after that post went up, PJ Media editor Paula Bolyard put out an article -- using what she admits isn't anything close to a scientific study -- to make dubious claims of bias in Google searches for Trump news.

There were all sorts of problems with her methodology (including using Google search, rather than Google News, and using an extraordinarily sketchy ranking of how liberal or conservative certain publications were). But the bigger issue, as we noted in another post this week was that it showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how search engines work. It was not -- as some commenters who clearly did not read the article claimed -- that algorithms are perfect and show no bias (because they obviously do). But that the search algorithm boosts sites that are more popular, and if you looked at the sites that Bolyard's test showed as appearing in her search results were... larger sites. And those included typically "conservative" news sites such as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. In other words, Google wasn't biasing based on political viewpoint, but on popularity of the news site itself. Which... is how Google has worked since basically the beginning.

Unfortunately, our President did what our President does, and took Bolyard's confusing mess (as amplified by Lou Dobbs on Fox News) and claimed that it was now proven that Google biases its search results against conservatives. He's since posted a video claiming that Google didn't link to a live stream of his state of the union address -- a claim that has already been proven to be 100% false.

Of course, that is leading people to (as they should!) start to do research on whether or not there really is some political bias in search results -- which is a good thing. We should investigate that, but it should be done rigorously. Digital Third Coast is pushing some research claiming to show no bias based on Google search autocomplete, but that methodology strikes me as equally dubious to Bolyard's study.

A much more interesting, and scientifically rigorous study, however can be found at ScienceDirect, in a study by Efrat Nechustai and Seth Lewis entitled What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Lewis recently discussed the results on Twitter. The results don't fully get at whether or not the algorithm is biased, but it does throw a lot of cold water on the idea that the Google News (separate from Google search) algorithm creates filter bubbles that drive people deeper and deeper into their own echo chambers.

But what the study does seem to suggest, is that Google tends to recommend big traditional news organizations most of the time. That... shouldn't be a surprise. I am confident that Trump's loudest supporters will argue that this is a sign of political bias on its own, because they believe whatever nonsense he spews about the NY Times and CNN being "fake news," but that's silly. Those publications may not be great, and I have serious concerns about the way they cover news, but the issue is not one of political bias. And the evidence again just seems to suggest that these news organizations are large and extremely popular, which is why Google recommends them.

Some others are attempting to research this topic as well, and they all seem to be coming up empty when it comes to any evidence of actual political bias on Google. The site Indivigital tried to look more closely at the sites that were analyzed in the study that Trump tweeted about and found... that the sites that were dubbed "left wing" tended to get a lot more inbound links. And, as you hopefully know, much of Google's ranking algorithm is based on inbound links. So if there's "bias" it's the "bias" of basically everyone else on the internet to more frequently link to those sites. It also found that the supposedly "left wing" sites published a lot more -- again, leading to more links and more attention.

In response, Google’s parent company Alphabet stated: “Search is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology”.

To address these claims, we analyzed each of the top 25 right-wing and left-wing websites listed in PJ Media’s study. We looked at the quantity of unique links pointing into each news website as well as the total content output by each news website over a 24 hour period.

The results are listed in the tables below. Overall, from the websites analyzed we discovered:

1. Left-wing news websites attract more links than right-wing news websites; and
2. Left-wing news websites create more content than right-wing news websites.

So there may be "bias" in there, but it's not "political bias due to crazy liberal Google engineers."

Then there's another study by sociologist Francesca Tripodi, who looked at whether or not political bias was showing up in Google's rankings and also found little to support the claims. Instead, she found that the wording of the search query mattered tremendously in what kinds of responses you got (which makes a lot of sense). So, some search queries might return you more "conservative" leaning stories, while others might return you more "liberal" ones.

My research demonstrates that Google can actually drive the public toward a silo of conservative thought. For example, users curious for more information on the connection between Nellie Ohr and the Department of Justice—a topic widely discussed both on the QAnon message board and Fox News—would have received predominantly conservative perspectives if they queried her name on August 6, 2018. The top result was a piece by conservative think tank the American Spectator, the second and third links are from Fox News, followed by two more links from conservative news sites.

Again, obviously there is "bias" involved in story selection on search. That's the entire point. You want a search engine to "bias" towards what will be most relevant. The question of whether or not there is "political bias" (especially as influenced by the political leanings of the employees at a company) is a different one -- and one that can and should be researched. But to just default to insisting there must be such bias, without any actual evidence showing that political bias is happening in search results, it really looks silly to keep claiming it's a fact.

And, as multiple people have pointed out, if this really is somehow unfairly tilting things to one side of the political spectrum, there is nothing stopping anyone in this free market system from setting up their own news search that skews towards whatever it is Trump fans think is fair and balanced. Of course, it's still worth doing more research on this topic, but so far there is little to suggest any actual political bias in search results beyond the bias of "big, popular media sites get more links."

Filed Under: content moderation, political bias, research, social media
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube

And Here Come The Completely Ridiculous Lawsuits Over Internet Company 'Bias'

from the these-won't-go-far dept

It was only a matter of time. Given the incorrect and misleading claims of "political bias" in social media moderation/search recently, you knew someone was going to file a lawsuit, and not surprisingly, the first to take the plunge is serial litigant Larry Klayman and his "Freedom Watch" organization. Of course, we've had a few similar lawsuits test the waters, all of which have failed miserably -- from Dennis Prager falsely claiming that YouTube was demonetizing his videos due to his political views (which was not even close to true) to Jared Taylor suing, claiming political bias in Twitter kicking him off its platform.

Klayman's complaint, however, adds layers of nuttiness upon those previous attempts. First off, he's hoping to turn it into a class action lawsuit for "all politically conservative organizations, entities and/or individuals who... have experienced illegal suppression and/or censorship." Second, he's filing it against four companies at once: Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple. Once again, I thought that conservatives believed in free markets and were against the fairness doctrine which (1) is not currently law and (2) even when it was, only applied to broadcasts over the airwaves. Yet, Klayman pretends that there's some sort of quasi fairness doctrine, and also takes every possible rumor or claim of political bias in tech, no matter how incorrect, and assumes it's true for the purpose of the case.

Literally the case dredges up a ton of disproven articles claiming bias where none has been shown to actually exist. It takes things out of context. For example, it puts tremendous weight on the long-ago debunked story of Facebook's "trending stories" being moderated to block conservatives, and mixes that with Facebook's totally unrelated attempt to increase quality of news, to argue it's proof that Facebook censors conservatives. That's ridiculous. First of all, the Gawker article, claiming Facebook bias in trending news, was later shown to be misleading and just the incorrect claims of a disgruntled ex-employee (and trending stories was a feature that few people even used anyway). The attempts to increase quality is not a sign of political bias, it's a recognition of the fact that choosing what is "quality" involves ranking stuff. That's how ranking works. But to say that's evidence of political bias is complete bullshit. The lawsuit also uses PragerU as an example, even though YouTube showed pretty damn clearly that many fewer of PragerU's videos were demonetized than well-known "liberal-leaning" accounts. But that doesn't stop Klayman.

As for the "harm" to Klayman? Apparently, he believes it's against the law for his fanbase to have stopped growing. Really. It must be a conspiracy against him.

Since Defendants, each and every one of them, have begun their conspiracy to intentionally and willfully, and/or acting in concerted parallel fashion, to suppress conservative content and refuse to deal with Freedom Watch, Freedom Watch’s growth on these platforms has come to a complete halt, and its audience base and revenue generated has either plateaued or diminished.

For instance, the number of subscribers to Freedom Watch’s YouTube channel has remained static especially over the last six months, after years of steady grown, which simply cannot be a coincidence given the facts set forth in the previous section.

Wow. Watch out world. Apparently, any time someone's traffic decreases, you can just sue the sites that used to give you traffic according to Freedom Watch.

Also, it wouldn't be a Larry Klayman lawsuit if there weren't a few good conspiracy theories tossed in for fun. First he claims all these companies are colluding against him, and then reveals it's all part of the evil "leftist agenda" to overthrow the President.

Defendants’ agreement has a plainly anti-competitive effect and has no rational economic justification, as they are willing to lose revenue from conservative organizations and individuals like Freedom Watch and those similarly situated to further their leftist agenda and designs to effectively overthrow President Trump and his administration and have installed leftist government in this district and the 50 states.

Citation needed.

There's more silliness in the lawsuit. It quotes Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before the Senate, claiming that Zuckerberg "struggled to name a single competitor," which the very transcript he included shows is not true. The testimony involved Zuckerberg pointing out accurately that the company had many competitors, but that those were for different pieces of Facebook's business, rather than one competitor who did everything like Facebook -- and specifically named a bunch of companies that compete in different ways with Facebook.

It also claims that all of these companies are "quasi-public spaces." It's kind of incredible to think that some conservatives are now apparently against companies having First Amendment rights and believe in nationalizing their platforms. I'm curious if they now support tossing out the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, because part of that ruling is that political bias is protected by the First Amendment.

This lawsuit has no chance and has a high likelihood of being laughed out of court, but in case you were wondering the actual claims, he argues that the companies are violating antitrust laws "in restraint of trade" (namely, his businesses using their platforms), anticompetitive behavior (he claims that FreedomWorks is a competitor to all of the platforms), discrimination, and (most incredibly) a violation of the First Amendment. Apparently, he does not see the irony in claiming that these platforms -- which have strong First Amendment rights to determine what content they show on their own platforms -- are actually violating his First Amendment rights in not giving him enough YouTube subscribers. How? Because they should be nationalized or something:

Defendants act as quasi-state actors because they regulate their public platforms, thereby regulating free speech within their public forums, Google/YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, Apple, Instagram as well as the other social media companies or entities.

Defendants, each and every one of them acting in concert, have deprived Freedom Watch and those similarly situated of its constitutional rights by censoring its content for purely political reasons. Defendants’ censorship is arbitrary and capricious, and is purely viewpoint based.

The use of "arbitrary and capricious" is bizarre, seeing as that's the standard used in administrative law, concerning government body rulemaking is unfair. But, once again, none of these companies are government bodies.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, he's asking for... $1 billion. Because, why not?

Filed Under: antitrust, first amendment, free speech, larry klayman, political bias
Companies: apple, facebook, freedom watch, google, twitter, youtube