Home

Is Google-Youtube a politically "neutral" gateway to Internet content and videos?

Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-01-26 15:49

An article about Google's top lobbyist in the The Politico.com, a new media outlet that is dedicated to Politics, got me thinking about connecting-the-dots for Washington folks about the lack of Google-YouTube political "neutrality."   

  • There is an increasing body of evidence that Google may be less concerned about promoting a free, open and "democratic" Internet, and more concerned with promoting a regulated Internet for the benefit of "Democrats."

The Politico article noted: 

    • "And with 98% of of the company's campaign donations going to Democrats in that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Google surely will be looking for returns soon." 
    • Google "company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are also widely believed to have the ear of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., whose district is not far from Google's headquarters in Silicon Valley."    

The article also noted how Google's search is increasingly being manipulated politically:

  • "Political operatives of all sorts try to manipulate Google technology to influence political outcomes through the use of viral videos and "Google bombs" which are attempts to manipulate the site's search functions to highlight negative information about a candidate."
  • "In a speech at the Republican Governors Association meeting in November, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said the company would take steps to stop the practice of Google bombing, although he did not give details."
    • The reason Google's CEO is saying that to Republican Governors is that the most notorious abuses of Google searches have been to the detriment of Republicans:
      • Currently MyDD, a liberal blogging site and big proponent of net neutrality along with Moveon.org, are unabashedly using Google bombs to put Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain in a negative light. See this link for more details.
      • Google bought YouTube on October 9th 2006, the video sharing website that made famous the "macaca" comment by then Virginia Senator George Allen, that is widely credited for dooming his candidacy and tipping control of the Senate to Democratic control.
      • Republicans also were livid when Google bombs by liberal bloggers manipulated searches on George Bush so that they could only find results that said "miserable failure" 

 

Most interestingly, before the fall elections, Google CEO Schmidt gave a speech that warned politicians that elections will change forever.

 

    •  Reports of Schmidt's October 2006 political speech said:
      • "The outcome of general elections will be changed "within five years" by what Eric Schmidt calls "truth predictor" software. A politician may be making claims live during a debate and a voter will be searching the internet to validate those claims, in real time. Schmidt said, “One of my messages to them is to think about having every one of your voters online all the time, then inputting ‘is this true or false?’ We [at Google] are not in charge of truth but we might be able to give a probability.â€?
    • Right before an election, and to a political audience, the CEO of the leading Internet company of the world -- is talking about how Google may have plans to be the electoral arbiter of "political truth?"
      • Does Google's hubris and designs to affect elections, have no bounds?

Also interesting is that former Democratic Presidential candidate, and former Vice President Al Gore is called "an unofficial senior advisor to Google senior management" according to the Gore bio on Wikipedia. The buzz, which I have not been able to confirm, is that Mr. Gore has done very very well with his Google options.

    • The relevance of the Gore-Google connection is that Google's whole net neutrality position that has manifested itself in the democratic-authored bills on net neutrality is eerily similar to the hyper-regulatory approach the Gore-Hundt FCC applied in implementing the 1996 Telecom Act that ultimately proved disastrous and was overturned by the courts.    

So why is Google's overt lack of "political neutrality" important and significant?

  • Google has 47% market share of the search business and is the dominant gatekeeper for finding all content on the net: news from newspapers, TV, radio, magazines, blogs, online news, and all other sources, etc. That share has been rapidly rising.
  • With the acquisition of Youtube, Google-Youtube has 57.7% of the video sharing market segment per Hitwise, as reported by Investors Business Daily today.
  • Moreover, Google just announced that it was adding videos from its YouTube company to its search results as reported by USA Today.  
    • This will further reinforce Google's dominant gatekeeper control of all information "political' whether it be text, audio or video.

Dots Connected:

Never before has one company concentrated more real control over any mass medium as much as Google has cornered in being the increasingly dominant gatekeeper to all Internet content.

  • Traditionally media concentration and control over what content people see has been a "hot button" political issue for both parties. No politician wants to be beholden to any one source for too much of their access to voters.
    • Google's secret discrimination algorithm in its search engine, essentially sells its results to the highest bidder.
    • Because Google's search parameters are secret, and because search results beyond the first or second page of search results "don't exist" for all practical purposes -- how would one ever know if Google didn't have a search bias built in that supports their Democrat allies on selected issues -- or on net neutrality where Google is clearly not "neutral."
      • In Schmidt's response to the Republican Governors on Google bombs, he said he would take steps to stop this political manipulation it. 
      • Will it be Google employees, who gave 98% to Democrats in the last cycle, that will be Schmidt's "neutral" overseers that intervene in selected search results to correct political manipulation?  
      • How do we know this has been done and if the intervention in fact is neutral? 
      • How do we know whether the secret algorithm is really fixed or if it was just made less obvious to detect.
      • Without any third party review of Google's search discrimination biases, how can anyone know or trust that the searches are legitimate and not driven by a hidden business or political biases?   

It seems to me one of the biggest untold story in politics and technology, is how much concentrated power Google has over new nedia and the Internet, and that noone seems to be connecting the dots in the blogsphere or in the mainstream media.

  • My question to Democrats is, do you oppose media concentration on principle?
  • Or do you only oppose media concentration when it might favor Republicans?  
  • It must be awfully intoxicating to Democrats to think that the dominant gateway to the Internet may be a not-so-neutral Internet gatekeeper interested in tilting the playing field to Democrats?  
»

Politics is never neutral...

Submitted by Sam Rosen on Sun, 2007-01-28 11:33.

Scott,

That Google is highly aligned with the Democratic party's policy stance on broadband regulation should come as no surprise: Democrats by and large support net neutrality. If the situation were reversed, the opposite would be true.

I am sure that many Democrats favor net neutrality on principle and have taken little time to explore the issue more deeply. I am also sure that many Republicans who oppose it have done the same. It's important to qualify your argument by mentioning that the moment any issue becomes politically heated, its neutrality--that is, its potential to transcend a dualistic partisan line and be seen in a "neutral," or politically unbiased, light--is almost always compromised.

Furthermore, "neutrality" must be placed in context. If politics in this country were neutral, we would live in an anarchical, libertarian, majority-rule system (i.e., the Internet). But because federalists like Madison knew that, to paraphrase, "men are not angels," we live in a republican (small 'r') polity. This works, for the most part, on a political level. The Internet, however, is not a republic. It was intentionally designed according to democratic principles, which manifests as Internet Protocol and the World Wide Web. This 'institutional design' reflects a belief in the 'end-to-end' principle: innovation functions best when 'smart' people can innovate across 'stupid' networks.

When it comes to large-scale decision-making, republican systems, generally speaking, work better than direct democratic ones. When it comes to large-scale communication, collaboration, and innovation, however, democratic systems outperform their republican alternatives. (That is the basis, in my humble opinion, for claiming that the Internet is, and should remain, "neutral.") In other words, the Internet already is neutral, and politics is always non-neutral. As the net neutrality debate has entered politics, either side (including yours) that seeks political influence will therefore manifest as non-neutral. So I would caution against any of us taking words, especially if charged politically, out of context for rhetorical gain.

You write:

"Google's secret discrimination algorithm in its search engine, essentially sells its results to the highest bidder."

If this is indeed the case--can you provide substantive evidence? (I know that the algorithm is secret, but that doesn't give any of us permission to make broad assumptions)--then I condemn Google for rigging the system in its favor, and believe that 'the people' have right to file suit for anticompetitive practices.

But we cannot prove that Google is anticompetitive in its practice--at least not yet (and, again, if they are, there is plenty of legal precedent to support a case against them). We can, however, prove that large telecoms plan to charge differential pricing schemes to content providers based on core business interests--that they will seek to support innovation that contributes most fruitfully to their market share. We've both heard the quote by Mr. Whitacre, CEO of SBC Telecommunications--and besides, your colleague from the Cato Institute, Mr. Thierer, has publicly made the argument that BSPs should have the opportunity to favor content providers that engage in advertising partnerships and business development.

Yet those who can offer the telecoms sufficient top- and bottom-line growth have already achieved economies of scale for which smaller, independent content providers will never have the capability. So it is the smaller players, and not Google, who stand to lose the most. Yet I digress; the focus of this response, after all, is politics, and not net neutrality itself (it has been a long digression, I admit).

Let's replace "Google," then, with an "independent blogger" who simply wants to see net neutrality legislation passed. If that blogger cares about the issue, s/he will align with the party that has demonstrated the clearest commitment to taking aligned legislative action. Now, say that 98% of the Google team shares the same values as that independent blogger. Clearly, 98% of Google employees' political donations will go to the party who shares their values.

Separating the issue from the party is critical here. The Democrats may be at fault for supporting net neutrality blindly, perhaps even disingenuously so. (And, of course, the Republicans may also be guilty of the opposite.) But to demonize Google simply for aligning with the party that supports its core values seems misplaced.

I can tell you from personal conversations that the grassroots net neutrality folks wish the issue hadn't become polarized politically. They see it as a trans-partisan issue--something that should be discussed on its own merits, beyond party lines, by a broad group of citizens. And while I cannot speak for Google, I can tell you that, in my experience, this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, but rather pro- vs. anti-net neutrality.

Lastly, on the issue of YouTube: gossipy items like the "macaca" video simply reflect the human tendency to want to share controversial media with friends; that such a clip can spread so quickly to so many people reflects not a "secret bias of the liberal media"--even if Google is liberal--but rather the inherently participatory and user-driven nature of the Internet (which is based on the democratic principles I enumerated above). I am sure that if one could scour the user demographic statistics for who passed on that video to whom, one would find a diversity of political beliefs.

Although there are anti-Googlers out there (Google-Watch.org is one), people don't hate Google like they do large media companies because, other than with search, people control the Internet (and search, even if the algorithm is 'tweaked,' is still an aggregation of all user content--not a few large media companies). And besides, if Google search starts showing biased results, they can go to Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, A9, Ask, etc. I don't have the same freedom in the telecom market. If a video is really, really good, then it is up to users to generate interest via YouTube (it's only after "macaca" becomes popular that people search for it using Google's algorithm). Not so with cable television. That's the revolution of Digg, Del.icio.us, YouTube, Drupal (the open-source software you use on this blog), and other user-driven platforms: the innovation and distribution occurs at the ends of a neutral network. And the politicization of that network--or any hotly contested issue issue--will never be neutral.

I think I've written enough for one comment! I welcome your response.

Cheers,

Sam Rosen

Founder and Principal
Verticality Group, LLC
http://www.verticalitygroup.com/ogevolves

»

Thank you for your thoughtful comment

Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-01-29 11:42.

Sam,

I am pleased that my post got you thinking and engaged in exploring Google's lack of political neutrality. 

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could truly believe how net neutrality would not devolve into a philosophical and politically partisan issue.

  • Factually net neutrality is not the law of the land, it has not been imposed on the 210 million wireless users since 1993, and never imposed on the roughly 30 million cable modem users, net neutrality was a vestige of the dial-up era, that is being made obsolete through increasingly vibrant broadband competition.  
  • Moreover, net neutrality is a new law that calls for government to preemptively take away the freedoms of Americans and over 2000 broadband companies, for potential offenses they might do in the future -- essentially legislating they are "guilty until proven innocent."
    • That is about as political an issue as one can create.
    • And given that the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when the dual political values which underpin our Amercian constitutional system and success, freedom and equality collide and conflict, Republicans favor freedom over equality and Democrats favor equality over freedom.
      • It is that simple why this issue is genuinely philosphically political.
      • Declaring people or companies guilty by isolated Business Week quote, without any proof or due process is a highly political charge.
    • The only reason to push for net neutrality is not facts or an existing problem, but because of a political agenda to change our society and force some people to behave in a way that they do not want to and that others want them to in order to promote their vision of social change.
      • Republicans are much more wary of using government power to infringe on the liberties of Americans than Democrats.
    • Moveon.org, one of the most liberal Democrat groups in the couuntry made this its signature issue after media ownership, highly politicizing it.
    • Senate Democrats in positioning to take back the Senate, orchestrated a party line on net neutrality.
    • Democratic Presidential candidates and Senators Clinton and Obama introduced a net neutrality bill at the beginning of the session with no attempt to reach out to gain Republican support beyond the original co sponsorship of Snowe.
        • Sam -- so which party has been most politicizing this? Democrats clearly.

I also have to respond to the implication that I am anti-Google. I am not against Google because they are a Democrat company. I am opposed to their exceptional hypocrisy.

  • I am opposed to Google's huge hypocrisy in seeking to legally preclude their competitors from conducting business in the way that Google does at the foundation of Google's business model.
  • I am opposed to Google's inherent double standard and lack of true principles.
    • They are the epitome of a company that is all about "do as I say not as I do."
  • I am also opposed to Google's disrespect for property rights, as evidenced by their being sued by a wide range of intellectual property rights holders for theft. See this post on the great NYT article outlining Google's "what's yours is ours culture."

Lastly, I will digress on one of my pet points about Google.

  • I don't believe a company that employs a double negative for a motto: "Don't be evil" -- inspires trust.
  • Why is the word evil in their three-word motto?
    • If they truly believed in the principle behind the motto, why not chose "be good"?
  • A double negative for the simplest of human concepts as "be good" connotes a serious lack of committment to and understanding of the concept of goodness.
    • Why define yourself using one of the worst words and concepts in the english language that epitomizes everything that is bad in the world?
    • Their use of a double negative, smacks of disingenuousness or any serious thought about the true implications of their motto.

Sam, you can expect me to continue to hammer on Google's legion hypocrisy as long as they persist on being such a hypocritical company. Their actions simply do not live up to their words.

I welcome your feedback in the future.

Scott  

»

A brief response

Submitted by Sam Rosen on Mon, 2007-01-29 13:29.

Scott,

Thank you for responding so quickly and thoroughly. I have a strong libertarian background myself (having been a member of the Jewish Libertarians :), so I am certainly pro-liberty and pro-free market at a fundamental level.

The free market concerns proprietary business models, even if monetized from open-source software. What we call 'the net', however, is a non-proprietary series of protocols that allow computers to connect on an ad-hoc basis--and not a proprietary value-add technology (like Google's search algorithm) or service (like Google AdWords).

  • To excerpt from my blog: "Business is, of course, inherently non-neutral–just like politics. This is a good thing; otherwise, our economy would be one of mandated quotas and absolute equality of distribution. But the question at hand is the nature of the Internet itself, and whether allowing a traditional business framework for a utility like broadband Internet hinders or contributes to innovation, competition, and democracy."
    • When legislation prevents the concentrated power of the few in favor of the innovative and competitive capacity of the many, then it is justified in my book. Even Adam Smith warned us about the dangers of concetrated corporate power.
  • "Moreover, net neutrality is a new law that calls for government to preemptively take away the freedoms of Americans and over 2000 broadband companies, for potential offenses they might do in the future -- essentially legislating they are 'guilty until proven innocent.'"
    • I see it differently. I believe that net neutrality concerns the interests of the few, and not the many end-users (those 2000 broadband companies--when you get down to the regional level, how many options do users actually have? two, at most).
      • The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a measure of market concentration, is always at least three times the anticompetitive maximum for broadband Internet.
  • "Moveon.org, one of the most liberal Democrat groups in the couuntry made this its signature issue after media ownership, highly politicizing it."
    • Other supporters include the Christian Coalitiona and Gun Owners of America, hardly left-wing groups.
      • Again, my point is not who is politicizing it, but that it was inevitable that it would become politicized anyway. It doesn't matter to me if it's Democrats or Republicans. If you care about an issue--as the three organizations above clearly do--then on that particular issue you will endorse the party who supports it.
  • "The only reason to push for net neutrality is not facts or an existing problem, but because of a political agenda to change our society and force some people to behave in a way that they do not want to and that others want them to in order to promote their vision of social change."
    • This is patently untrue. There is strong historical and anecdotal (Mr. Whitacre's quote, for example, about the ridiculousness of anyone thinking that they can use his pipes for free) precedent--Telus in Canada, Verizon's attempt to quash competition legally after Philadelphia unveiled plans to create municipal wireless...the list goes on.

Anyway, we are both quite busy, so I'll wrap this up.

  • Accusations of hyprocisy about 'neutrality' carry little substantive, and much rhetorical, value when you apply the word 'neutrality' to different contexts.
    • Yes, if Google called for 'neutral business' practices among all online content providers and then charged for sponsored advertising on its own website, it would be hyprocritical.
      • But the 'neutrality' to which Google--and the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee--refers concerns the Internet itself as a homogenous communications commodity, a 'stupid' network, a series of non-proprietary protocols that allow any computers to connect on an ad-hoc basis.
    • I hope you can see the contextual distinctions here: fighting for 'neutrality' only makes sense in the context of the already neutral Internet, whose very success has depended on that neutrality, and not the already non-neutral spheres of politics and business.

Scott, I appreciate your voice in this debate, as I think it's important that all sides of the matter be heard. I hope I've conveyed some important and rational points here in favor of net neutrality. Thanks for an interesting conversation.

[update: okay, not such a brief response!]

Sam Rosen
Founder and Principal
Verticality Group, LLC
http://www.verticalitygroup.com/ogevolves

»

the Internet has never been "neutral" that is a myth

Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-01-29 14:58.

If I am understanding you Sam, you seem to be suggesting that the net is neutral. That is one of the many myths I have debunked in one-pagers which can be found on my website. See: http://www.netcompetition.org/docs/pronetcomp/debunking-myths.shtml

I am also surprised that as a self-described libertarian you do not see the exceptional value for increasing liberty from removing the goverment from controlling communications through monopoly utility regulation to the increasingly competitive free market of communications that has emerged from the 1996 telecom Act bipartisan decision to promote competition and leave the "free market...Internet...unfettered by Federal or State regulation.

Sam, most libertarians I know understand that the threat to liberty is greatest from the government not competitive corporations. See the second and third pages in the link above to see why we are so successful in the move from monopoly to competition. show me evidence that this market is trending toward monopoly again -- all the evidence I have see shows the exact opposite.

Scott Cleland

»
Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths