Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Recommended Posts

Representative Gabbard scares the Democratic majority establishment......she is to her party what Trump was 4 years ago to his.....

 

But a polar opposite to Trump.

 

After the last debate she was #1 on the search hit list.....but oddly.....Google took all of her fund raising pages off their site....

 

The MSM.....Dem Party.....and those in control.... hate her.....(the exception being the head of twitter)

 

I like her ideas.....her experience...her non vindictive attitude and seemingly her willingness to work with all sides.....

 

Perhaps to early for it to be her time......but hey.....who gave Trump a chance.......

 

I like it she is taking on Google.....I hope she wins......and this NYTimes article kind of sums up how the media tries to get in their little digs.....if they can......enjoy the read.....CL

 

========

 

 

Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million

 
merlin_157064451_f834bd54-466e-442e-8939
ImageIn her lawsuit, Tulsi Gabbard asserts that Google muffled her free speech rights when it briefly suspended her ad account after the Democratic debate in June.
In her lawsuit, Tulsi Gabbard asserts that Google muffled her free speech rights when it briefly suspended her ad account after the Democratic debate in June.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
  • July 25, 2019
    •  
    •  

Representative Tulsi Gabbard, the long-shot presidential candidate from Hawaii, said in a federal lawsuit that Google infringed on her free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign’s advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a federal court in Los Angeles, is believed to be the first time a presidential candidate has sued a major technology firm.

In a twist that reflects Ms. Gabbard’s unorthodox political views, the claim that her speech was stifled by Google is similar to complaints made over the last year in Republican circles. Few Democrats have raised similar concerns.

Big tech companies like Google are getting increasing scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators around the world for a wide variety of issues, including their influence on political debate, their handling of consumer data, and the aggressive way they compete with smaller companies.

ADVERTISEMENT

A day before the Gabbard lawsuit was filed, Facebook said the Federal Trade Commission had opened a formal antitrust investigationinto its business practices. Earlier in the day, the F.T.C. announced that Facebook was fined a record $5 billion for deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal data.

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.

 
  • Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
 
 

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

Read the Complaint »

Ms. Gabbard, the long-shot presidential candidate from Hawaii, is arguing that Google infringed on her free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign’s advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June.

thumbnail.png 36 pages, 0.45 MB

“Google’s arbitrary and capricious treatment of Gabbard’s campaign should raise concerns for policymakers everywhere about the company’s ability to use its dominance to impact political discourse, in a way that interferes with the upcoming 2020 presidential election,” the lawsuit said.

Ms. Gabbard and her campaign are seeking an injunction against Google from further meddling in the election and damages of at least $50 million.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

“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.”

No other campaigns have publicly claimed that Google has suspended their advertising accounts.

Interest in Ms. Gabbard, who has served four terms in the House and is an Army National Guard veteran, spiked after the debate. She entered the presidential race as a relative unknown and is still polling at less than 1 percent, according to New York Times polling averages.

But her appeal has crossed traditional party lines. She has drawn support from both the right and the left because of a staunch antiwar message. She has also received favorable coverage from influential conservative news media like Drudge Report, Fox News and Breitbart.

Ms. Gabbard’s campaign is historic even in a race with many potential firsts. She was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives when she was 21, becoming the youngest woman to join a United States state legislature. When she was elected as representative for Hawaii in 2012, she was the first Samoan-American and first Hindu member of Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

Her political views are unusual among Democratic candidates. She has a history of making anti-*** statements and worked for an anti-*** advocacy group run by her father. (She has since apologized and said her past views were wrong.)

And she has tapped into increasingly bipartisan passion: wariness of big tech. The lawsuit filed Thursday said Ms. Gabbard had joined Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is also vying to be the Democratic Party nominee, in calling for large tech companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon to be broken up.

“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,” Ms. 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.”

 
merlin_156218259_ea671c6a-f796-4f33-9e6c
ImageSupporters of Ms. Gabbard put up banners outside the Iowa Democrats Hall of Fame Celebration in Cedar Rapids in June.
Supporters of Ms. Gabbard put up banners outside the Iowa Democrats Hall of Fame Celebration in Cedar Rapids in June.CreditJordan Gale for The New York Times

ADVERTISEMENT

While assertions of tech firms tipping the scales against political opponents are largely unproven, the lawsuit taps into concern that tech companies aren’t transparent about how decisions are made and they aren’t held accountable when things go wrong.

Last week, senators homed in on Google in a subcommittee hearing about censorship in search. The hearing aired many largely unproven claims that Google tilts search results against conservative viewpoints.

“Google’s control over what people hear, read, watch and see is unprecedented,” said Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas who led the subcommittee. “With that market power, Google can and often does control our discourse.”

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.”

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

The campaign said it had opened the Google advertising account in February and had bought ads on Google search before the suspension. It said there was no problem with its billing information and that it had not violated Google’s terms of service.

“To this day, Google has not provided a straight answer — let alone a credible one — as to why Tulsi’s political speech was silenced when millions of people wanted to hear from her,” the lawsuit said.

Without the ads, the Tulsi 2020 website, which has links for donations and information about the goals of her candidacy, appears in the first page of search results for “Tulsi Gabbard.” But it is below stories and videos about her — selected by a Google algorithm — and after her Wikipedia page, her Twitter profile and her congressional website.

ADVERTISEMENT

Roughly half of the candidates who participated in the first Democratic debates have bought ads to appear at the top of search results for their names.

With the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, who is one of the leaders in fund-raising among the Democrats, the candidates buying Google search ads are polling in the low single digits, suggesting that the ads are more important to candidates with less name recognition.

 

Follow Daisuke Wakabayashi on Twitter: @daiwaka

Nellie Bowles contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on July 26, 2019, Section B, Page 3 of the New York edition with the headline: Gabbard Sues Google, Saying It Stifled Her Speech. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
  •  
  •  
  •  

Interested in All Things Tech?

The Bits newsletter will keep you updated on the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology industry.

I want to receive updates and promotions from The New York Times. I can opt out any time.
SIGN UP

ADVERTISEMENT

 
Review our cookie policy
 
 

What do we use cookies for?We use cookies and similar technologies to recognize your repeat visits and preferences, as well as tomeasure the effectiveness of campaigns and analyze traffic. To learn more about cookies, including how to disable them, view ourCookie Policy.By clicking "I Accept" or "X" on this banner, or using our site, you consent to the use of cookies unless you have disabled them.

I ACCEPT

Site Index

NEWS
OPINION
ARTS
LIVING
LISTINGS & MORE

Site Information Navigation

&subject=module-interactions&moduleData=

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TechSpective
 
 
 

Tulsi Gabbard May Have Just Killed Social Media

 0

One piece of interesting news this week was that Tulsi Gabbard, one of the massive number of Democrats trying to unseat President Trump, sued Google for election interference. The amount of the suit is $50 million, which isn’t close to material—but, should she win (and she has a decent case), it would set a precedent that could have worldwide implications for all social media companies because they are tied so tightly.

It got me thinking about what is likely the number of times a social network form must have impacted an election process adversely from foreign government interference to simply screwing up and denying a politician voice as was the case here.

If we broaden this; social networks are impacting investment decisions, they are impacting medical decisions (the spread of false anti-vaccination messages), they are impacting how we feel about the brands we buy and the people we know, and they are impacting our own reputations. They have, largely—up until now—been given a pass for all the damage that their tools have done, but that may be ending. If Tulsi is successful with her lawsuit not only do I expect more and more expensive suits to result against Google, but I expect far more action against properties like Facebook as well.

It is interesting to note that similar efforts against gun manufacturers have largely failed (though that too may be changing) due to the NRA (the NRA is clearly having issues) but there is no NRA protecting social media and there is even the chance that success here could provide a precedent that could have even broader implications than just social media.

Let’s talk about how this could change the face of social media, and potentially more, this week.

Social Media’s Pass Is Ending

This last week Facebook was hit with a $5 billion fine and their CEO Mark Zuckerberg was allegedly made personally responsible for complianceas a result of their massive data theft. While this fine certainly seemed large, it too was a drop in the bucket against Facebook’s resources. But, should they have another breach, it opens the door for the US government to go directly after Zuckerberg and it is incredibly rare that a CEO is put at such high personal risk. Facebook likely agreed to this because the prior consent decree had a calculated penalty that significantly exceeded Facebook’s resources.

“Violations of the FTC consent decree also carry the possibility of fines that could top $40,000 per “violation.” With more than 200 million Americans using Facebook, the fines could — at least in theory — reach into the trillions of dollars if the FTC found violations. (Facebook last year earned profit of $15.9 billion on $40.7 billion in revenue.)” Personally, I think the US should have used this to just nationalize Facebook but that’s me.

In addition, both Facebook and Google are under anti-trust review and both are so dominant and have had particularly poor anti-trust controls that it is very likely one or both of them will be massively fined or broken up when the investigation concludes. Both firms have relied on a government policy of indemnification that has largely evaporated thanks mostly to evidence that the Russians used themto significantly impact the last US election.

This means that the protections they were initially granted have all but evaporated and Google doesn’t have the connections and protections from the President’s office they once had. In fact, their prior connection to President Obama might be working against them now because they appeared in hindsight to mostly just use the guy and not really help him much.

Governments typically don’t like the existence of companies that challenge them for power and control and the social networks have been solidly connected to uprisings, revolts, mass demonstrations (often resulting in violence and death), and fake news stories also connected to violence and death. The easiest way to correct the related problems, from various government perspectives, is likely to shut them down and there is a growing desire to make that happen much of which is focused on Facebook but bleeds over to Google and Twitter.

Wrapping Up: Change Is in the Wind

I think Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit is just tip of this iceberg and a potential showcase for how vulnerable these social networks have become. Zuckerberg is now personally responsible, and the next breach could strip him of much of his wealth and even his freedom. Google is now being held accountable as well for the damage done using their tools, and in this case, for incredibly foolish mistakes which might force them to focus on the problem (but I doubt it given they traditionally have the attention span of a 4 year old on sugar).

Unless something dramatically changes about how seriously these companies take their potential to do harm, I think we are seeing their sunset. Another major breach, another use of their tools to alter a major election anyplace in the world, or should the tools be used to execute a major attack on the US would all likely result in their end.

And you know, they’ll only have themselves to blame. The problems killing them were evident early on, they just didn’t prioritize fixing them. That’s likely going to hurt—it’s going to hurt a lot.itter Facebook Google+ PinterestLinkedIn Tumblr Email

 

ABOUT AUTHOR

d068c8437b37f443921f4aee79003304?s=100&d
ROB ENDERLE

As President and Principal Analyst of the Enderle Group, Rob provides regional and global companies with guidance in how to create credible dialogue with the market, target customer needs, create new business opportunities, anticipate technology changes, select vendors and products, and practice zero dollar marketing. For over 20 years Rob has worked for and with companies like Microsoft, HP, IBM, Dell, Toshiba, Gateway, Sony, USAA, Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, Credit Suisse First Boston, ROLM, and Siemens.

ABOUT

TechSpective covers technology trends and breaking news in a meaningful way that brings value to the story, and provides you with information that is relevant to you. We offer in-depth reporting and long-form feature stories, as well as breaking news coverage, product reviews, and community content in plain English terms.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN.....and the DNC hate Congresswoman Gabbard because in 2016 as the vice chair of the DNC.....she called them out for rigging the Primary process for HRC... and quit.....

 

In this last debate they gave her 9 minutes......take a look.....if you want to see her shake things up in the September debate......go to her Tulsi2020.com site and donate $1 buck.........    CL

 

 

And yes.....I am still a Trump supporter......it's just refreshing to see someone from the left with some common sense!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

I like her....she's calm and yet has a commanding stature about her.  Plus she's a vet who cares deeply about our brothers and sisters in arms, past and present.  And it would be so fitting to see karma deal Trump a loss to a young professional woman.  

 

GO RV, then BV

The problem is the Establishment Left somehow can't see her potential......so they try to bury her......just like that clip from the View stating she's working with the Russians.....she served 2 tours in the Middle East......

 

Between the crazy young socialists....and the old dinosaurs... things look bleak for the Democrats in 2020.....at least in my opinion.... 

Hope you have a great weekend....

  CL

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

The problem is the Establishment Left somehow can't see her potential......so they try to bury her......just like that clip from the View stating she's working with the Russians.....she served 2 tours in the Middle East......

 

Between the crazy young socialists....and the old dinosaurs... things look bleak for the Democrats in 2020.....at least in my opinion.... 

Hope you have a great weekend....

  CL

 

Thanks, you as well.....the U.S. 127 garage sale is this weekend, extends from Michigan to Alabama....wife and I might check it out.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/2/2019 at 6:48 AM, Shabibilicious said:

I like her....she's calm and yet has a commanding stature about her.  Plus she's a vet who cares deeply about our brothers and sisters in arms, past and present.  And it would be so fitting to see karma deal Trump a loss to a young professional woman.  

 

GO RV, then BV

ya know what Shabbs,  I like her too..  She is straight forward, speaks truth and not radical left.  She actually shows some common sense and sounds as if she is wanting to look after the country instead of gaining that all egotistic power.  No, I won't  be voting for her but she is actually the best candidate that the Dems have if they really wanted to serve the country.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get to the 3rd debate each candidate needs 130,000 unique donors.....and a 2% approval rating in 4 of the 16 approved DNC Polls......these polls have not been very transparent with their results....Congress Woman Gabbard had qualified in FOX polling.....and today in CNN polling....2....of 4 needed....170,000+ donors

 

The CNN poll was one taken with 1000 respondents.....if you like numbers as I do....you will enjoy the video.....and learn a little how ridiculous the process is when you sample such small numbers of people.....    CL

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1
  • Pow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SpectatorMenu

The DNC would rather lose than nominate Tulsi Gabbard

The four-term Hawaii congresswoman is too unorthodox for the Democratic party. What a shame

30 August 2019 2:22 PM
tulsi gabbard

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard is arguably the most interesting woman in American politics today. A combat veteran from the Iraq war, the Hawaii Democrat’s beliefs were forged not only in the desert wastelands of Iraq but also by the wastefulness of America’s permanent bipartisan fusion party.

Having served in the US Army National Guard in a medical unit during the darkest days of pre-surge Iraq, Gabbard was forced to question all of her pre-war assumptions. From that point, she entered politics and quickly rose to prominence as one of the few voices of restraint and reason among Democrats now infected by the warmongering ruling class.

Since then, the four-term congresswoman has been lampooned by the leaders of her own party for her troubles.

TOP STORIES

If she were any other Democrat — say, John Kerry — she would have been lauded by the Democratic National Committee both for her war service and for her outspoken opposition to it — at least as long as Republicans were in charge. Trouble is, Gabbard is not a white, Ivy League-educated male with a patrician disposition like Kerry’s and that of so many powerful Democrats today. Gabbard actually has skin-in-the-game. She fought for — and earned — everything she’s achieved.

Gabbard became a senior DNC official during the 2016 presidential election. But she refused to sell out to the corrupt Clinton-Obama machine and spoke out against the blatant corruption that unfolded during the Democratic party’s presidential primary. Because of her stoic refusal to tolerate the Clinton chicanery in 2016, Gabbard was placed on the outside of the party’s mainstream (which isn’t a bad place to be these days).

Now that Hillarious Clinton has been totally discredited, and former President Obama’s legacy increasingly looks to be irrelevant — both because of the enduring success of President Donald Trump and because of the disastrous showing of Joe Biden’s current presidential candidacy — Gabbard now stands as the only one of the countless Democratic party presidential candidates in 2020 who actually could give President Trump a real challenge.

So, it is perplexing to see the corrupt Democratic party barGabbard from the upcoming Democratic party presidential debate. The reason for this move, they say, is because of ‘irregular’ Democratic National Committee rules insisting that, in order to qualify for the third presidential debate, candidates must have 130,000 unique donors and register a minimum of two percent in four DNC-approved polls. Gabbard easily acquired her donors. In fact, many are average Americans just trying to get by, who, like us Trump voters, were sick to death of the terrible status quo in Washington. As for the two percent in these Democratic party polls, Gabbard has ‘exceeded two percent support in 26 polls, but only two of them are on the DNC’s certified list,’ according to officials in the Gabbard campaign.

For the record, Gabbard has polled well in official polls conducted by RealClearPolitics. She has also crossed the DNC’s arbitrary two percent threshold in polls conducted by establishment organizations, ranging from the Boston Globe to The Economist. In a sane world, these polls would be more than enough to qualify Gabbard to have an audience at the third Democratic party debate. But this is the DNC in 2019.

Compared to other Democratic candidates for president, Gabbard is not especially radical. She supports key GOP positions in the war on terrorism. 

Unlike more establishment candidates, Gabbard actually appears poised to do everything she has promised to do. In this way, Gabbard is a lot like the brash real estate developer from Manhattan that we voted for in 2016.

And therein lies the ultimate problem for the DNC.

While the DNC’s leadership is just as fanatically left-wing as Vermont democratic-socialist senator Bernie Sanders, most of them cannot afford to be good, democratic socialists. They’ve all been bought out by the neoliberal interests on Wall Street.

Since the rise of Bill Clinton and his apparatchiks in the 1990s, Democrats have embraced Wall Street; they advocated ‘free’ trade and greater levels of illegal immigration, in order to satisfy their big-money donors — all the while betraying the working-class people who had long supported Democrats because they thought their ideas favored the ‘little guy.’

Most Democratic party powerbrokers would be crushed under the revolutionary zeal of their fellow leftists, if Democrats removed the neoliberal corruption at the heart of their party. So, at the same time, the Democratic party’s base moves farther leftward, their leadership does everything it can to hold them in place.

I am not declaring my support for Gabbard as president, of course. But I respect her. Even when I disagree with her — as I do when it comes to her stance on Israel and on abortion — I still admire her honesty. And, despite the absurd charges that she’s a Russian agent provocateur, I find her a refreshing voice of reason on the left. That’s something sorely needed and maybe even good for the country.

Clearly, the same anti-democratic forces that ravaged the DNC from within during the 2016 primary are working overtime to stymie the honest campaign of Tulsi Gabbard. This should concern everyone because we are witnessing the deep state in action yet again.

Gabbard won’t win the primary because her own party is sabotaging her and making it impossible for her to get a fair hearing. That’s probably for the best from the Republican perspective, because Gabbard is likely the only Democratic candidate at this point who could give President Trump real problems in 2020. She is talking about serious policy issues that affect everyone while all of the other politicians are busily sniping at each other; ranting about Russia; and hoping for a recession.

It’s too bad that she and Trump don’t get along, as she’d make a great VP choice for Trump. The combination of Trump and Gabbard would blow up the permanent bipartisan fusion party while protecting the interests of ordinary Americans, like us.

Brandon J. Weichert is a geopolitical analyst who manages The Weichert Report. This article was originally published in American Greatness.

 

The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

 

  • Twitter
  •  
  • Facebook
  •  
  • Linkedin
  •  
  • Email
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hope you can open this and watch......but the best part are the comments that follow from the "normal thinkers".....(perhaps you and I)..... and their view of the DNC.....

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2441731402607880&id=174866249236469

 

Perhaps the DNC should fear Congresswoman Gabbard...

CL

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.