Trump vs. Google. Can anyone possibly defend this?

Now Trump thinks Google hates him and wants to regulate it. I can’t even get my head around the multiple layers of stupidity here, but maybe I’m missing something.

Can anyone defend this idea with a straight face?

Google is illegally blocking pro-Trump and pro-conservative pages in search results. They need to stop doing this. We need a law to force Google to stop doing this.

I know all this because the President said it, and he is never wrong.

I would need more detail than the OP is offering to either defend or object to this. I’m sure there are existing regulations that Google has to comply with, so Trump (the executive branch) already “regulates it”.

I thought that Google search learned from search requests you make and eventually tailors itself to give you what they think you want to see? If so, then he must be looking up sites that tell him things he doesn’t want to hear, right?

Best I can do:

“President Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, announced Tuesday that the administration is ‘taking a look’ at regulating Google’s conduct, given Trump’s complaints earlier in the day that the company’s search results suppress conservative views.”

Very recent Trump tweets:

This, from the party of small government and deregulation :smack:

Thing is, if Google *wanted *to play favorites, and had no scruples, they could bury Trump – make it impossible to find any favorable content about him or conservative causes at all. Think anyone in his circle is smart enough to point this out?

Thanks. That’s an opinion piece, not straight news, but let’s go with that. As your cite notes:

So, yeah. First amendment. Of course, we’d have to see the details to know for sure. But lacking any actual plan or executive order, I suspect there will be a very high 1st amendment bar that they will have to pass in order to do anything.

There were a number of posters here who have advocated in the past for the government to censor fake news, so perhaps they might want to defend this type of action. That was back in the Obama years. Those folks were warned, in earlier debates, that giving the government that kind of power might not work out so well with someone other than Obama in office. But maybe that isn’t an issue for them.

Investigate based on what? Did you not read the Trumptweets I posted that this nonsense is based on?

…I don’t recall anything like this happening at all. Fake news? During the Obama years? Would you care to cite dome of these posters?

IIRC Facebook were outed for similar behaviour, so it is not without precedent.

But is the First Amendment really relevant when dealing with a supra-national entity like Google? What if the anti-Trump filter were applied by a server farm outside the US?

Aren’t they pro-market-forces?
Shouldn’t they make their own search engine that only shows the positive side of Trump?
Won’t that show Google?

I can absolutely entertain the theoretical idea that Google might choose to stack search results just to make Trump look bad. This could definitely be a thing that is happening. I don’t believe it’s happening, but it could be.

The part which I’m having difficulty with is the part where Google doing that is breaking any laws. But hey, Dear Leader can make new laws just by tweeting them, right? So no problem there after all!

The term “fake news” is new, and that probably wasn’t used at the time. But the concern was whether or not the government should take action against FoxNews, and such, for reporting false information. There is apparently such a law in Canada, and some posters here have recommended we do the same in the US.

This is one thread I was thinking of. It was mostly Whack-a-Mole advocating for censorship, with a few others cheering him on. It wasn’t the only thread we had, but it’s the only one I can find right now. That thread, btw, was originally about The Fairness Doctrine, but the OP soon shifted the debate to discussions of government sanctions against FoxNews for not reporting truthfully.

Here’s a relevant post exchanges for those who don’t want to read the whole thread:

So if I’m reading your tone here right, you’re of the opinion that the kind of interference with Google that Trump is advocating is a bad idea. Is that right?

If he’s talking about clamping down on them as a news source, which is what it looks like he wants to do, I think it’s an absolutely terrible idea.

I might not worry too much about Obama abusing this authority, although I still wouldn’t want to give that power to him. Power corrupts, as you may have heard. :slight_smile: With Tump, he’s already corrupt, so no way I want him doing this.

Oh, for fuck’s sake. I assume you’re not really incapable of distinguishing between people who think that news should be TRUE, and that we might want legislation supporting that idea from people who use “fake news” to mean “true news” and want to legislate so that only the false news can be shown. So what are you really trying to say?

To be clear: I am actually OK with legislation that says that things calling themselves news are legally obligated to tell the truth to the extent it can be determined. If they don’t want that limitation, fine, just don’t call themselves “news.”

But that has ZERO to do with what’s happening here. Nothing.

As I suspected, what you are talking about is something different.

That argument is about factual accuracy. It’s no different than when we require medications to say what they do, or truth in advertising laws. It’s no different than the rules against slander and libel. We have a judicial system that is designed to be able to find facts, and they could find that facts are false and thus fine you for trying to mislead people. It’s the reason why courts have a function as finders of act.

What Trump is talking about would be forcing regulations on Google because he doesn’t like that negative talk about him comes up in his replies. That’s a completely different issue. Even if we pretend that Google is actually doing what Trump claims, and choosing to reduce pro-Trump opinions and facts in its results, they still are not being factually inaccurate.

So there is nothing inconsistent about these views. There’s a reason why most democracies have a rule about accurate reporting, and why we had one up until the Reagan years. There’s a public interest in ensuring accuracy, and, because of how our court system works, the burden of proof is on the person claiming inaccuracy.

No one was arguing that the President or Congress should be able to censor whatever they like.

…“fake news” is specific to Trump. Don’t muddy the waters invoking the phrase and attributing it to arguments of days past. The reality is that “fake news” is propaganda. Trumps latest rants about google are propaganda. And people believe it. This is a problem. Its a pretty big fucking problem and what happens next in America really depends on how you guys decide to handle it. I don’t advocate censorship. But what I do advocate is that we take this a fuck-load more seriously than a mere “shrug of the shoulders.” This is a direct threat to your democracy. You need to figure out how to deal with it.