"How do we reach out and understand.... i know, lets censor them so they can't speak. That will help!"

@Atkins I guess it's normal for a social media company, or one that is so large that the politics of its employees may cause problems within it.

Google is both

What scares me is "how can we do better?"

I won't be surprised if Twitter has daily 2 minute hate breaks where everyone screams at trump

Meaning, that they think 'not doing good enough' was what led to their preferred candidate failing.

I wonder if the parties have connections or have invested in Google

This is probably why they asked that

well, guess thats how we get to censorship

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/emails-show-google-executive-discussing-effort-to-encourage-latino-vote-surprised-so-many-voted-for-trump

Google could have been Invested in by Clinton or the party to make her win. The fact that they failed to do so, means that they have to understand why

This is just a conspiracy theory so far though, I don't have proof

is there not some kind of law they are breaking doing this stuff?

Doubt it

Google is a private company

They can do what they want

And that's the downside of a free market, kids!

sorry, a private company should not be allowed to tamper with elections

Well, depends on the tamper

If you mean literally fucking with the ballot machines, no

there is limits to what can be donated to political campaigns and such and this feels dangerous close to directly messing with voting

But if you mean changing algorithms and promoting propoganda, I don't think that's immoral tbh

However, Google and Twitter do have way too large of a presence to be treated that way

They have quite literally become the new public speaking corner

no, i mean like this: "Google’s Multicultural Marketing development head Eliana Murillo sent out an email the day after the 2016 election detailing that Google had “supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states,” which she characterized as a “silent donation.”"

<:beanie:463084349642899468>

this has nothing to do with their products

So they shipped voters to the polls?

How would you regulate that sort of thing?

idk, but should the monetary effort expanded count as a donation?

Not really. It's one private company making a deal with another

Nothing *directly* related

“Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote in the email. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. "

ironic

And making law to regulate *indirect* donations may just lead USA to tyranny

yeah? and what if it was found out a private company was paying trump voters to stay home?

i mean, its just a private company and a private citizen

I'm not saying I like it, or support it

that sounds like corruption to me

But I don't see a way of making legislation that a tyrant couldn't use to gain further power and silence opposition

“It was aimed only at one group, a group that Google cynically assumed would vote exclusively for the Democratic Party,” Carlson said. “Furthermore, this mobilization effort targeted not only the entire country but swing states vital to the Hillary campaign. This was not an exercise in civics, this was political consulting. It was in effect an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

There are a couple of tactics to prevent Google from exercising undue political influence. Minority shareholder lawsuits, threats of anti-trust investigation, and maybe assigning a dollar figure to services donated to political parties and counting that against their contribution limits.