State attorney general alleges without providing evidence that Google is manipulating search results, as tech firm says claim ‘totally false’
Missouri’s Republican attorney general has said he is launching an investigation into Google over allegations it was censoring conservative speech, as the tech corporation dismissed the claims as “totally false”.
“I am launching an investigation into Google for censoring conservative speech during the most consequential election in our nation’s history,” Andrew Bailey said in a post on X, without citing any example or evidence for his censorship claim.
…
Republicans have long claimed an anti-conservative bias on social media platforms with tech companies denying this.
Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, said last month he would seek the prosecution of Google if he won the election. Trump and his supporters have alleged without evidence that Google searches display only “bad stories” about the former US president.
- Is “conservative” a protected class of speech? (AFAIK, no?)
- Is there a huge overlap with so-called “conservative” speech and conspiracy theories, lies, hate speech, and worse? (yes)
- When he says “conservative” speech, is he referring to policies and positions or, you know, the lies and racism? (Rhetorical question)
- Is Google allowed to not platform content that breaks its ToS? (yes)
- Is he providing any evidence for his claim, or is it more of #2? (Article flat out says ‘no’)
Andrew Bailey can get fucked.
Big tech has been bending over backwards to not ban reactionaries breaking their Terms of Service since, at the very least, GamerGate. If they had just laid down the banhammer the way their own policies told them to, Roger Stone would be a bad memory from the Brooks Brothers Riot and Steve Bannon would be viewed as the crank he is.
Right? They’re already getting the kid glove treatment and still removed and moaning that a fraction of the worst of their shit is potentially getting moderated**. Crybabies the whole lot of them.
** Bailey has provided no evidence to support this claim, so I’m sticking with “potentially”.
I’m guessing he’s “investigating” it the same way Mike Lindell “investigated” election fraud.
Edit: Also, what’s going on here, Republicans? I thought corporations were people and could do whatever they wanted.
He’s “investigating” in the same way bigots do when they say they “did their own research”.
No, he’s “investigating” in the “It’s an election year and I need a fearmongering tactic to scare the GOP voters into giving us more power over imagined issues” way.
Meanwhile leftists and Muslims are getting censored on Facebook, Instagram, and X. Where are the media and the Democrats on that?
Maybe Democrats realize that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to privately-owned corporations. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t use privately-owned corporations’ idea of a communications medium at all.
Not saying it is a First Amendment violation, but censoring one group of people in social media the size of Instagram should be investigated.
Investigated for what? That’s not illegal whoever they censor.
Investigated for having a monopoly? Probably.
Don’t even know why they complain when fucking YouTube put so many down the conservative/fascist rabbit hole with their algorithm. Guess they always have to be victims.
Give us more attention and undue praise. -removed-ass fascists
Can someone tell this guy that enshittification doesn’t care if you’re a conservative or liberal and that Google sucks for everyone now?
Well yes: At this juncture in history conservative speech is hate speech, misinformation (and disinformation), and things like AI-generated images of politicians in situations that never happened.
Actual conservative speech like removed about the national debt or setting themselves up to get flamed with references to A Modest Proposal aren’t getting censored at all.
