Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html

by dvt • 7 years ago

192 232 7 years ago

nytimes.com

DiseasedBadger• 7 years ago

The microphone cutting has been going on since long before the debate, kiddo.

Welcome to the private-government deplatforming dystopia.

mistermann3• 7 years ago

Can anyone think of any likely and plausible explanations for what went wrong on Google's end?

djrogers• 7 years ago

Yes - it's even outlined in the articles. A sudden increase in spending triggered a fraud detection algorithm, and the account was re-established before the next morning when a human verified there was no fraud.

ziddoap2• 7 years ago

I'm not a proponent of censorship by any means, but I'm starting to get serious fatigue of these types of stories.

Especially in the case of politicians, I have no sympathy when Google or Facebook or Twitter decides to terminate or otherwise take action on an account. Rally behind them until it becomes inconvenient, then launch a suit! What hypocrisy.

We got here because of our weird fervor for capitalism, holding it up as some pinnacle of society. Yet when a company successfully exploits all that capitalism has to offer, it's screams and outrage!

I admit, I am not fully up to speed on this story. But here's the kicker - after reading this article, I still have no idea what the story is. This is just boilerplate "rally against the big tech companies!" without any rhyme or reason - at least no reason mentioned in the article.

Please join Tulsi in her fight for our core American values of free speech and fair elections.

Free speech flows two ways, which is often forgotten. Corporate entities are entitled to free speech as well, for the better or for worse. They are also entitled to remove anyone from their platform or limit the services they offer someone. This is baked into the concept of capitalism. The whole legal system is built on the premise that corporations are awarded autonomy / person-hood.

The whole rallying against the corporations which capitalism enabled, in the name of capitalism and free speech.. I just don't understand it.

We wanted capitalism. We got it.

Stop begging for governments to intervene in private companies, while praising capitalism like some god. Pick a path. And then, apparently, ask for some donations.

not_a_cop754• 7 years ago

Let companies rule the world! Let them put whatever they want in our meats! Remember the term "mystery meat"? That was from poor quality controls in corporate with zero government oversight.

ziddoap2• 7 years ago

I'm not saying that this is the way it should be.

I'm just pointing out that we fought for capitalism in it's truest form, and then got angry when companies exploited it. (And still praise it when it suits us)

maximente2• 7 years ago

stoked to see this on multiple fronts:

- someone with a vested interest + some modicum of power can hold .google's feet to the fire on this issue and will likely hammer the point home even post-settlement or whatever (remember when they out of the blue suspended my ad account?...)

- Tulsi maybe gets more exposure as a candidate, leading people to her anti-war ideals, which may influence other candidates

admittedly haven't heard google's side but there's precedent here for them committing unwarranted screw ups. of course, if the campaign did do something naughty that'd be a pretty big self inflicted wound.

creaghpatr• 7 years ago

Better that they hash the issue out in the primaries than in the general.

derp_dee_derp• 7 years ago

Both sides, Democrat and Republican, are now anti big tech.

Love it or Hate it, when you piss off the most powerful governing body on the planet you're in for a bad time.

My question is more timeframe: Google obviously won't be broken up tomorrow, but probably earlier than a decade from now.

I guess the timeframe depends on who wins the next presidential election?

not_a_cop754• 7 years ago

I'm pretty sure that google can just be friends with one of 300 other governments and survive.

maximente2• 7 years ago

reads like a great parable to be written afterwards:

the algorithms, successful 99.8% of the time, misfired on a US presidential candidate, who went on to lead the eventually successful efforts to break up Google, neutering its algorithms' effects upon the world.

the algorithms giveth; the algorithms taketh away

tenpies• 7 years ago

The worst part is I think both sides have at least some merit for their suspicion. Obviously the Republicans seem to be more openly punished and the balance tipped against them, but the Democrats also suffer occasionally, especially if they are not the right Democrat.

Google might be treading dangerously close to becoming persona non-grata for 50% of the population, regardless of who wins. There is also a cautionary tale there that perhaps the whole idea of "don't talk politics at work" was not some tool from The Man to keep workers subdued, but rather a hard-earned lesson to keep companies from imploding when employers think they've been hired to be activists.

Surprise, turns out not everything has to be political and your personal identity doesn't have to bleed over to your professional life.

slg4• 7 years ago

It might be more appropriate to link to a indepdent article about this rather than Gabbard's site. Here is one from The Verge [1].

It sounds like Google's fraud/spam algorithms automatically triggered the suspension (maybe due to a large increase in spend meant to build on Gabbard's post debate momentum). The account was unlocked after human intervention. Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe. But either way, it highlights a long standing problem with Google giving algorithms so much power. It is also potentially more damaging for the all of us who aren't presidential candidates and can't get our accounts quickly restored if we mistakenly anger some unknown Google algorithm.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabb...

dvt2• 7 years ago

I was considering linking the NYT article[1] but consciously decided against it. I don't even particularly support Tulsi Gabbard, but I'd rather go to the horse's mouth, so to speak, and let people make up their own minds. Also, her blog has no intrusive ads or paywalls.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...

slg4• 7 years ago

That is a fair viewpoint. I am just a little cautious of only hearing one side of a lawsuit, especially when that side is a political campaign and therefore is very concerned with spin. Gabbard's account has a lot of political grandstanding in it that you wouldn't find in a independent article.

cwkoss4• 7 years ago

Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated

The subtext I'm reading is that the "major" political accounts probably have specific flags set by Google internally to prevent automated shut-offs like this. If Google is not applying these whitelist flags to all candidates in a fair and systematic fashion, it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others.

belltaco2• 7 years ago

it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others

Which is still not illegal.

Fox News does it all the time.

the_reformation• 7 years ago

It's totally reasonable for Google to draw the line somewhere in an exceptionally crowded presidential race. Imagine if anybody could get around Google's fraud controls by just declaring yourself a presidential candidate.

jinushaun• 7 years ago

It's like keeping track of pirated content. You're assuming Google is on top of everything happening in the world. They're not and simply can't be.

I would not be surprised if this was a manually curated whitelist that a human has to add to a table.

Natsu• 7 years ago

They've been caught on camera several times now talking about wanting to influence the elections. I keep that in mind when considering their excuses.

Sort of like how Bernie got locked out of DNC databases during the last campaign, etc., it gets hard to believe all the coincidences sometimes.

favorited2• 7 years ago

Sort of like how Bernie got locked out of DNC databases

You mean after his staff got caught snooping around Hillary's campaign data?

https://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data...

codezero• 7 years ago

By they, do you mean Google? Was there someone other than Jen Gennai? I think there are a lot of ways to interpret what she said, and it sounded to me, when I read it, that she was referring to the online foreign influence campaigns, but since the discussion was informal and edited, it's hard to know the exact context, or even what her hand in following through on that would look like.

taytus• 7 years ago

Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe.

I'm not saying that she is right but it's not hard to believe at all.

metalchianti• 7 years ago

Google has been shown to interfere with results that don't align with the company's political values. It's harder to believe that this suspension WASN'T politically motivated.

slg4• 7 years ago

For this to be malicious, it would be an incredibly risky decision by Google from a simple risk/reward standpoint. Gabbard is a huge long shot to win the Democratic nomination let alone the presidency. Putting their finger on the scale at this point in the election cycle to slightly disadvantage a candidate that in all likelihood won't matter is a huge gamble.

fooey3• 7 years ago

It's beyond hard to believe. It's laughable.

It's crazytown tin foil hat conspiracy theory level garbage to think a megacorp like google is out to get you personally

jhayward• 7 years ago

It's called 'gaming the refs'.

It is a prominent tactic among certain american political circles that wish to claim that everyone else is abusing them while never actually believing in the system of rights, checks, and balances that they claim are being abused in the first place.

dang5• 7 years ago

OK, we've changed to that from https://www.tulsi2020.com/tulsi-vs-google. If anyone suggests a better link, we'll be happy to change it again.

The site guidelines call for original sources, but in the case of press releases, especially corporate ones, we tend to switch to the best available third-party article.

dvt2• 7 years ago

Mind using the NYT link? It's in my post above yours. I think it's higher quality than the Verge. (Although I still think in my heart of hearts we should link to Tulsi's blog post but I understand the opposing viewpoint.)

bufferoverflow8• 7 years ago

insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe

How is that hard to believe? We know for a fact Google does political censorship.

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis...

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-googl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8

(note these are fresh links just from the last 2 days)

mtgx• 7 years ago

Some people still cling to the 10-year old image of "good guy Google."

I used to be one of those people.

DavidAdams• 7 years ago

James O'Keefe claiming something doesn't make it a fact. On the contrary, I'd be inclined to doubt the claim in that case.

slg4• 7 years ago

Project Veritas is in no way a reliable source on political issues. Both it and its founder have a long record of being exposed committing fraud.

fooey3• 7 years ago

Veritas is tabloid propaganda. They have less than zero credibility.

sj3k• 7 years ago

The media analysis skills of folks on HN continue to astound. What makes you think project veritas is a credible source? Im serious.

moultano12• 7 years ago

I work at Google on ranking algorithms for Search. I'm aware of everything that controls how web pages are ranked. If I ever encountered a system that was designed to alter the results for political reasons, I would resign.

dralley3• 7 years ago

Project Veritas has utterly shattered their credibility so many time, that they should not be used as a source even if what they say is true.

They edit videos, not even deceptively, but in a way that makes the people featured in the video make them look like they're saying something completely different. Not just clipping but also reordering the clips

myko2• 7 years ago

Project Veritas was created by a known liar and manipulator. Anyone falling for their schtick needs to learn how to be less gullible.

fooey3• 7 years ago

Killing suspicious spending makes sense to both sides of the spend. If you're going to radically change your spending, the responsible move it always make sure everyone knows it's coming.

Same thing will happen to any Joe Plumber who's credit cards suddenly started spending uncharacteristically

Tulsi's campaign throwing a tantrum like this just shows how poorly run a campaign she has. Hire people who know what they're doing and you don't have things like this happen.

xster• 7 years ago

Why would you think The Verge/Comcast is an independent source when MSNBC/Comcast spent years firing their anchormen for questioning foreign invasions and WMDs. If you boiled Gabbard down to a single issue, it would be anti-war.

aaronbrethorst2• 7 years ago

Weird, I'd say "pro-dictator." That kinda jives with anti-war, depending on which war you're talking about, though, I suppose.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbar...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-...

not_a_cop754• 7 years ago

I don't know how they could mistake a major political candidate spending as spam. Seems like reckless neglect, really.

LorenPechtel• 7 years ago

There are two separate issues here:

1) The spending. That tripped some sort of fraud detector that caused a shutdown until a human intervened. No big surprise, I'm sure we've all triggered fraud detectors at one time or another, even ones that should have had a bit more brains. (Hey, it's Black Friday. You know I make a decent number of electronics purchases, is it any wonder I made several that day?!)

2) The spam filtering. Just because it's a presidential candidate doesn't mean it isn't something people regard as spam.

crb002• 7 years ago

Either there is a human in the loop, or they disrespect their largest ad clients by not having a human in the loop to prevent outages. Neither seems good for Google.

einpoklum7• 7 years ago

"Automatically triggered"? Yes, well...

   flag_the_adword = some_conditions() || (esimate_political_reliability() < THRESHOLD);

hkai• 7 years ago

In the leaked emails in 2016, Tulsi Gabbard was threatened by Democratic party officials that she would be cut off from the Dem's fundraising and shut out in other ways, and given Google's support for the Democratic party, it doesn't seem highly improbable (although still unlikely).

gringoDan• 7 years ago

NYT article that has more information: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...

The account was inactive from 9:30pm on June 27th - 3:30am on June 28th. This doesn't seem like an act of malice from Google, but rather a verification check.

Some excerpts:

Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters.
After the first Democratic debate, Ms. Gabbard was briefly the most searched-for candidate on Google. Her campaign wanted to capitalize on the attention she was receiving by buying ads that would have placed its website at the top of search results for her name.
The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.

dang5• 7 years ago

Changed to that now. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797.

danielvinson• 7 years ago

In general, I think people would appreciate the link not being to a paywall.

rory096• 7 years ago

Since OP has no actual information, some excerpts from the NYT story:

Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters.
The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.
Google has automated systems that flag unusual activity on advertiser accounts — including large spending changes — to prevent fraud, said Jose Castaneda, a spokesman for the company.
“In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” he said. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.”
Gabbard campaign workers sent an email to a Google representative on June 27 at 9:30 p.m. once they realized the account had been suspended. In emails reviewed by The New York Times, the campaign sent Google a screenshot of a notice of suspension for “problems with billing information or violations of our advertising policies.”
The account was reactivated at 3:30 a.m. on June 28. In the email announcing that it had reinstated the account, Google wrote that the company temporarily suspended the campaign’s account to verify billing information and policy compliance, but offered no other explanation for what had happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...

Gibbon1• 7 years ago

but offered no other explanation for what had happened.

And yeah she should be suing to force discovery.

delfinom• 7 years ago

The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.

Or you know, more people spam foldered your junk mail and triggered the algorithim to learn and mark you more globally as spam. Shit, I spam folder anything that is unsolicited, any politicial party.

haste410• 7 years ago

It doesn't even have to be from people, she could just have a terrible email full of red flags and/or didn't send from a decent ESP with a good server reputation.

sct202• 7 years ago

I saw that Googles response was that "large spending changes" caused an automatic suspension.

With all of Google's tech, they should just have that weird Google Assistant call the phone listed on the account to have the account owner verbally confirm the changes instead of flat out freezing it.

anm895• 7 years ago

This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms.

When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform".

Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access"

It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information utility at this point controlling huge flows of content should not be made judge jury and executioner on what is acceptable speech.

It's bizarre to me that people who on one hand seem to hate these companies also want to give them immense power and responsibility to restrict access to information. It's because they associate the idea of censorship with getting the specific thing they want censored and not with a broader world in which these companies hold this power.

Not a huge fan of Joe Rogan but Naval Ravikant expresses this very lucidly on the podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be...

natalyarostova• 7 years ago

This is why the corner solution of free speech as a cultural meme was started, which was a precursor to its formalization.

The corner solution essentially 'solves' this issue by realizing partial censorship is a non-stable equilibrium.

dv_dt2• 7 years ago

I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.

anm895• 7 years ago

Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now, regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.

lukifer2• 7 years ago

There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have no concept of eminent domain [0] when it comes to technology, data, or intellectual property.

If it's in the public interest to build a bridge, lay train tracks, etc., your private property can be purchased against your wishes at a fair market price. When it comes to things like open APIs, protocols, interoperability, data portability, even patents, I wonder if it might every make sense to leverage this legal framework to build true network commons out of privatized silos (while compensating shareholders), as opposed to the old "break up AT&T into multiple companies" model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

anm895• 7 years ago

As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.

einpoklum7• 7 years ago

It's not about "people". Google censors because of pressures from the US state (and other states they operate in) and commercial interests, particularly advertisers I would assume.

writepub7• 7 years ago

Of all the trending searches after the debate, Google's systems singling out Tulsi's account for flagging seems suspicious, and Google's robo-responses to press inquiries specious. I'm sure other candidates upped their spending, so let's have the ACTUAL numbers Google!

Also, it's a little surprising to see parroted defenses of Google here - they operate behind an opaque cloak, designed from the ground up for plausible deniability on every single one of their actions. Their P.R. statements cannot be believed. Tulsi's criticisms do not seem unsubstantiated, and the fact she's suing a corp. with unlimited funding indicates her campaign believes they have some evidence of malice. Between the two, I'd give Tulsi the benefit of doubt, and wait for the discovery stage in this case

nameismypw• 7 years ago

The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the First Amendment, among other offenses, and Gabbard is seeking $50 million plus assurances that Google will refrain from “censoring or restricting” the account.

Isn't it common rhetoric that Google _can't_ violate the First Amendment, being a private company? They have the ability to arbitrarily close or censor any account they choose. Politicians don't get special treatment, especially while saying it's fair for Google to close accounts belonging to people whom they personally find objectionable.

vernie2• 7 years ago

Tangentially related question: How much money will be spent by all these losing campaigns?

icebraining• 7 years ago

A few hundred million dollars: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

shadowmore• 7 years ago

On a first principles level, this highlights the core issue of bans/blocks/suspensions being handed out immediately rather than after a series of strike-based warning messages or something to that effect.

YouTube creators come to mind as some of the most blatantly affected by this, i.e. when YouTube automatically demonetizes videos, losing the creator revenue from 75%+ of the video's viewers, and then remonetizes it after an appeal.

At no point should any algorithm have the ability to block any account or perform any other such drastic measure (demonetization, etc.). It's just absurd.

neonate• 7 years ago

http://archive.is/AM6iY

abstract7• 7 years ago

Tulsi is the most prominent Democrat presidential candidate that the media often says has conservative views. She is also broadly considered anti-establishment. Are there any establishment Democrat candidates (e.g. Harvard and Yale Law faculty member and senior senator Warren) to date that have had their Google ad accounts suspended by an 'unbiased' algorithm?

mistermann3• 7 years ago

This is the kind of evidence I'd want to see before going along with the "we know there's nothing to see here" crowd - if this outage is completely legitimate, I'd think Google should be able to produce a list of similar outages involving non-run-of-the-mill accounts - or, do they genuinely have no attribute that would provide their algorithm with a hint as to the "class" an account falls in?

rdtsc• 7 years ago

On one hand this might seem like Google is trying to hurt her. On the other hand, if there was anyone at Google who was actually rooting for her, and had any input or ability to suspend accounts, this could end up actually helping her, as it pits her against the "big tech" and would in the long term help her chances of winning the election.

But, as they say, sometimes, the algorithms is just an algorithm, and it could be just a routine suspension and Gabbard's campaign saw an opportunity to profit (PR-wise) from it.

amriksohata• 7 years ago

Tulsi is one of the few candidates on either side that believes in servant leadership

suyash• 7 years ago

I hope so wins the lawsuit!

vernie2• 7 years ago

Yea it almost certainly tanked her campaign.

m463• 7 years ago

On the contrary, I believe the publicity will call lots of attention to her.

AzzieElbab• 7 years ago

whoever coined the term "artificial stupidity" is/was a prophet

prpp0ndj• 7 years ago

Perhaps it’s a simple case of “Gmail users label her messages as spam more than other Dem candidates.” and Google is using that to train their filter.

Social norms have never been decided in an entirely open and objective way. We’re free to speak. Not be heard. Tulsi isn’t owed an audience of Gmail users.

Look at all these “but the free market!” type pols who got us to give everything up to corps getting bit. Suddenly investigations and regulations be coming!

Not a peep when, you know, they started bulk collecting the general public’s phone calls and emails.

Syama2• 7 years ago

Algorithm defense is a new Twinkie defense.

On the first debate where so many candidates are buying google ads, for Google to have not planned for a spike in advertising and blaming it on the algorithm is just inexcusable.

Either Google is very incompetent and the person in charge needs to be fired, or there is something else going on. Either incompetence or intentional their action did impact Tulsi Gabbard's post-debate moment and her fundraising ability and google is liable in election interference.

orcasauce• 7 years ago

How is this a violation of her "Freedom of speech"? Google is not the government. The Bill of Rights protects us from the government, not private enterprise. I feel I'm surely missing some key detail.

gundmc• 7 years ago

Google should just disallow political ads entirely. This is a no-win proposition. Being too lax leads to election meddling, trying to flag suspicious activity is censorship. You're just an easy punching bag.

They've already stopped serving political ads in Canada, so there's precedent.

jayjay1010• 7 years ago

Would he resign if Google took a position in a non political debate but a scientific debate?

http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-controversial-...

Excel_Wizard2• 7 years ago

In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that:

1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account.

2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.

A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS.

“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”

Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.

dimator• 7 years ago

Not to mention, as a private company, Google could do whatever it wanted anyway, there is no first amendment protection.

This lawsuit is probably going to get dismissed, so I have to treat it as a stunt to get some cheap headlines.

ggm• 7 years ago

I am not an american and know none of the players. However I do use google ads. What I see, is that in two independent google accounts, running campaigns on the same search terms and keyword triggers, there are times I can show my two accounts "compete" for the same mindshare.

In any normal endeavour this is just how it works, but in politics, the consequences of a differential treatment of two candidates in the same space is not good for democracy.

I don't know who I support, but a framework which accepts money for placement and then determines an asymmetric bias in placement irrespective of bid price, and then perturbs visibility of political ads, is going to be mis-understood and mis-represented as systemic bias by somebody. Its human nature to assume its human centric behaviour, not a heuristic breakdown. Hanlon's razor isn't always well applied.

writepub7• 7 years ago

The allegation here is of intentionally suppressing her campaign. Google acts behind a veil of secrecy, and without access to internals, the best you have to work with is their word. And I DO NOT trust the robo-responses from giant corporations

She has won numerous elections over a decade, and her campaign is likely adept at managing Google ad accounts. If they suspect malice, they cannot be discounted for lack of experience or understanding of what they are dealing with. It's best to wait till this case enters the discovery phase before concluding anything.

FreedomToCreate• 7 years ago

To plays devils advocate, google may be a private company, but it has a sheer dominance in a how information is disseminated, giving it a influential role in how people formulate there beliefs and opinions. And even though currently, as a private company, Google can argue that they don't have to allow anyone on there system, because of how much influence they have on the flow of information, not having proper or fair access to there platform is equivalent to a community not being giving access to vital utilities or education. There is no equivalent or remotely second best option to google.

The event regardless is an issue in both Googles system and for Gabbards campaign.

Excel_Wizard2• 7 years ago

In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that: 1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account.

2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.

Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.

einpoklum7• 7 years ago

"We didn't really do anything to you, it was this automatic machine that we programmed. We have no way of controlling what it does, and thus are not responsible for the outcomes of its activities at all."

Google defense brief. Also, probably, a classic Dilbert comic.

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

Related Stories