Sen. Cruz Grills Google Executive on Alleged Censorship Bias

Because big tech companies have become the arbiters of speech online, and they are disproportionately favoring one party in their actions. This was woefully apparent in Google's congressional hearings [1][2], where Google's only defense was that seemingly partisan actions weren't company policy, but actions of a few individuals. That line of defense fails to hold muster when said actions repeat like clockwork. [1]: this video [2]: link

Google will be totally neutral fellas despite: 1. Some 95% of employees being registered Democrats 2. 100% of senior leadership being Democrat. Heck, they even wept publicly after the 2016 elections. 3. They've never refuted contents of leaked tapes exposing bias - just keep denying that the said bias is company policy. [1][2][3][4] [1]: this video [2]: link [3]: link [4]: link

Ignoring the ad hominem suggestions of illiteracy and stupidity only because you are willing to listen. 1. Google is majority Democratic, at least by a spread of 40% (D:R) if you simply assume the employee pool to mirror Democrat:Republican ratios of the counties Google HQ and branches are located in the bay area. [1]. Further, this is only the lower bound, as Google's employee pool tends to be college educated with postgraduate degrees (M.S, PhD, ...), which leans 63% democratic [2]. Further, Google is legendary for it's recruitment of the activist left, and minorities, with an even greater proclivity towards the Democratic party. So yes - you are bike-shedding when you make a mountain of the 95% claim, because the spread between Democrats and Republicans is large, nay mammoth enough for it to be irrelevant. And I bet you knew all of this, but wanted to engage in trivialities anyways. 2. Google search suggestions show falsehoods on certain terms like "men can " precisely because of manually inserted political bias into training models that the AI is based on. Google has a whole ethics committee whose entire job is precisely this - play "judge" on what AI models are "ethical and fair", manually intervene with oodles of their own corrections & interpretations - never mind the facts behind the issue. Here is the AI ethics committee explaining manual interventions [3], and here [4] is the explanation on why Google search suggestions show what they do, with the AI engineer confir

There's no whataboutism here - it's 3 American (foreign) companies petitioning a democratically elected local government for a free pass. Sorry, no quarter. Especially for technocratic elitist valley companies fully aware of their ability to control & shape the zeitgeist, with a history of having to defend their blatantly partisan practices in congressional hearings [1][2][3][4]. These companies are falling over themselves in an effort to cut off political advertising on their platforms, just in time for the 2020 elections, sensing an opposition faction victory[5][6], while simultaneously singing praises of the Obama campaign's 2008/2012 actions of the exact same kind [7]. Your circular references to transparency reports from the very same companies petitioning for a pass isn't convincing. CNN literally settled in court, not 8 hours ago for defamation against kids [8], whose politics they despise, despite no wrongdoing on part of the kids. These companies aren't neutral third parties, nor are they benign. They have their agendas - shaped by the powerful at their helm, who quite literally cried because an opposition party came to power [9] As for Indian TV's criticism of the ruling party, I'm told that there is a healthy and powerful political opposition party, replete with a sympathetic media faction that openly takes their side (as are channels aligned with the ruling party), and Twitter seems to be teeming with criticisms of the establishment. India's press is generally con