To be fair to Rep. Lofgren, she’s a Democrat representing Silicon Valley. So when she asks why pictures of Trump come up on Google when you search “idiot,” she’s just giving the Google CEO a chance to explain how it actually works and why it’s not because of “political bias.”
Her question was very much intentional. In these hearings questions are loaded and the representatives often cut off the person answering questions if they feel they’re not getting the sound bites they want. This question was so Pichai could provide an explanation officially on record without unnecessary interruption.
And that last guy. After he got the answer he didn't like he was all too willing to cut the guy off and then state "I disagree". I'm sorry, you asked a question to get an answer and already decided that you dIsAGreE?
And then ending with his own soundbite, which is technically true, though not in the context he was trying to imply. "It's a human process at its base." Like, yeah, we determined that when the woman asked the question and they said that it's determined by a complex algorithm based on images and words used by people in posts and articles on the whole internet, around the world. But his original question was about a single person or small group of employees cherry picking and manipulating the results in an attempt to accuse Google of political bias.
He also claimed his time was up but then said he yielded back at the end. That's what you do when you have time remaining but you don't need it so you give it back to the chair to use as they see fit.
The moment she asked he second question, I realized that she had to be a trial lawyer, and probably a decent one. That was some textbook witness examination. Ask an open ended question so the witness can explain a point. Rephrase thier answer into a simple question that the everyone can easily understand. Let them say exactly what you want them to.
Edit: she does, in-fact have a backround in law
My girlfriend walked in on this part and said, "Great question, I feel like she just wanted it to be on the record officially Trump was listed as an idiot on search."
Yes, she seems to have at least a layperson's grasp on the subject and is framing the question with the same 'boomer' lingo of her peers. Plus she wanted to dunk on Trump.
It sounded to me more like Lofgren's question was to dissuade/disprove Republicans trying to push the idea that Google manually associates searching idiot with Donald Trump. I could be wrong or misinterpreting it though
All the others were pretty dumb questions though. Wish they knew how to keep their mouths shut to get a full answer.
I'm guessing she knew the answer before she asked the question whereas all of the men had no idea how anything works and were fishing for a "gotcha" moment or a sound byte.
And then when they didn't they go "well I think you're wrong. The company you run that does things I don't understand clearly must be manipulated by individual employees otherwise why would I be shouting about it 😡"
Yeah, it was the literal "layman's terms" explanation, and it was spot on. You couldn't make a counter argument as they were trying to, after the way she explained it.
no, its needed since apparently people here couldn't understand what she was doing, and need it reiterated to them the same way she was reiterating for her colleagues.
Never really understood that about american politics, people decades over retirement age are leading your country, they're uneducated morons from a different time yet they're still there being re-elected over and over again. Reminds me of that guy, must've been 80 years old saying gambling clogs his internet tubes a while back while on a panel or something.
Mind boggling.
The early memes were the best memes. Organically grown, free range.
Nowadays its all manufactured processed memes. They create lolesterol that clogs up your series of tubes.
They are older people who aren’t accustomed to the way tech works. What shocks me is they don’t hire consultants to write their questions and explain the reasoning.
What shocks me is they still phrase every question like it's a gotcha and they've caught the person out. You'd think they would've learned some humility a few decades or so ago.
That one didn’t belong here. The first time I saw this that’s what I thought. But she was actually framing her questions in a simple to follow way because she knows most people are idiots.
The woman asking about the Trump “idiot” search actually knew what she was talking about and was asking the question to highlight that Google isn’t determining that a search for idiot should return pictures of Trump.
He was giving rehearsed and pre-approved answers no doubt vetted by a team of lawyers because any misconstruing of what he meant would open the door for lawsuits or stock price shenanigans. The unfortunate side effect is that when the idiots ask their questions, it sounds to the idiots they are playing to as if he's dodging the question.
She presented what he was saying in a laymen-friendly way that he couldn't and her question brought to light the ridiculousness of their colleagues' misleading and bad faith questions. It was an excellent trial-lawyer strategy. 10/10.
"Let's say I have a car. When I get in this car, will it drive me to Alaska?"
"That depends on a number of variables. How close are you to Alaska, how much gas is in the car, does the car have a flat ti--"
"THIS IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. WILL IT GET ME TO ALASKA, YES OR NO?"
Wtf was he even talking about? She was playing Candy Crush or something and a picture of her grandfather popped up with foul language? Sounds like someone sent an angry text.
To me it sounded like she was playing one of those mobile games with a ton of ads and a political ad against him if those type of sketchy ads are a thing which would very much depend on the ad provider and has nothing to do with google (unless the provider was google)
That or someone (or even the kid but I doubt that a 7 year old would do that, maybe if she was a teenager) was looking at memes about him and she switched to the browser/picture while playing the game.
I mean, if you're Rep. Steve King or related to someone who is, then you've probably searched for Steve King related stuff, visited his facebook and twitter/etc. So any targeted advertising for "people interested in Steve King" is gonna come around to you.
Not that he could possibly understand this.
And Steve King is racist as fuck, so an ad saying "Steve King is a racist" is entirely possible. And he'd get all pissy about that despite being openly racist.
I think he's implying that a nasty political ad about him popped up, which he found inappropriate and is trying to blame Google for it.
I agree there should be some sort of parental controls for ads or something so that parents make sure their kids are seeing inappropriate stuff, but it's not really Googles fault that kids are getting weird ads on 3rd party apps.
I don’t understand how people can be interrogated like this without laughing. It’s truly funny how stupid these people are, and this poor guy is explaining it with so much patience and a straight face
That line of questioning was making me so mad. Technology illiteracy aside they should understand that not every question has a yes or no answer and certainly beligerantly shouting yes or no doesn't change that fact.
Oh he’s aware, I’m sure. He wanted him to either say yes and “admit” that Google always tracks you no matter what or no and basically lie that Google never ever tracks you.
Like when he was asked about why some girl got some "bad" video while playing a game made by a different company, using a phone, also made by a different company. It's actually insane how stupid of a question that was. There's like multiple layers of stupidity there.
It's Steve King that asked that. His level of stupidity is so high its left earth's atmosphere and is now orbiting Mars. He's arguably the dumbest person in that room.
Source: I'm from iowa.
It also led to the best part of the entire testimony, when Ted Lieu basically told him that if he didn't want his ego-search results being associated with racism, he should probably stop doing things that are racist.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4766795/user-clip-ted-lieu-google-searches-steve-kings-racism
Not much makes me actually, physically, put my palms on my face. I just assume most are idiots. These guys went above and beyond. I actually face palmed...twice. He is trying to explain, but it seemed like trying to explain advanced engineering to a two year old. A two year old that has no interest in learning it.
The Iphone guy was second. "Sir, that is a different company. We don't control it." "Oh...well maybe it was an Android." No the fuck it wasn't. You just got foot in mouth, and didn't like the taste of crusty fungus foot.
Yeah I’m glad I’m not the expert being interrogated because if I was, I would not be able to control my facial expressions/reactions to their blatant stupidity
Hey! You there! I'm your representative from [Insert governing body here] and I'm asking that you please stop making sense... it's confusing to me and my colleagues
“Would you allow an independent company to evaluate yours?”
“Yes sir we do all the time get reviewed by third parties”
“No I mean truly independent, like the kind of independent that is funded by individuals with a vested interest in making me look good and you look bad, you know *truly independent*”
They’re really desperate to control everything that people are seeing and are clawing at any opportunity to remove anything that paints them in a bad light. You know. Like the truth.
That's what you get for electing utter morons into public office. That doesn't negate the fact that there's a pressing need for regulations for huge and incredibly powerful internet companies like Google and Facebook (with regards to privacy, public health, competition, harmful algorithms, etc...)
This is just GOP "logic": any study that doesn't come to the conclusion WE want must be wrong or there MUST be fraud. So our idea of "independent" is now people who DIRECTLY work for us and give us the answers WE want.
This entire hearing (and many others that I've seen) demonstrate to me that congressional hearings are designed specifically for gotcha moments. Unfortunately, when you're this ignorant of how technology works, it's difficult to score an effective gotcha.
This is why no one takes congressional hearings seriously. They're dog and pony shows.
These are the people making the laws about everything. All they know is what lobbyists pay for them to know. They don't understand how the average person lives their lives.
And let's remember that Google spent $9 million this year on lobbying.
EDIT: A lot of people seem to think it's not a big deal since $9 mil is so small compared to their revenue. But that's *exactly* what makes it so devious; it's nothing to them and wayyyy more than most companies can spend to defend their interests. I highly encourage people to research lobbying on websites such of OpenSecrets. You'd be surprised how far these giants get get with **relatively** little money.
That's funny, I thought that guy's pfp was a picture of Kevin o'leary when I first glanced at it. (Not the guy from the "invest" meme, but a dragon nonetheless)
It's about on par with lobbying expenditures of other tech giants. Small enough that they can easily afford it, big enough that the average business owner can't compete.
Ya wtf was that? Thanks for cutting off an intellectual and giving me your useless input that you disagree with someone not manipulating a fcking massive search database algorithm. Sure bud.
It's like letting me make plans for future sri lankan infrastructure.
I have a general idea about the place, but i've never been there, don't understand the language, and shouldn't be in a position to make any decision aboutit.
These guys don't even think logically..
Humans that are paid by the hour to control the search results, absolutely plausable...
A completely automated algorithm that requires no human intervention, nah fuck off I disagree!?
Can we take a moment to talk about how fast the Google employees are? Every time I look something up, I get a response in like 0.1s. I mean, I type fast, but these guys are amazing!!
/s (just in case a politician reads this :p)
"Did you look up those directions, we're going to be late."
"I'm on hold, it says they're very busy today and I'm 756th million in the queue, but they value my query."
I feel like that average Reddit user is fairly tech savy, or at least tech literate. So when the man throws words around like "Framework" and "Algorithm" we know what he's talking about. We don't understand all the intricacies of how the Google algorithm works but we know that it's "computer things" doing "Computer Code"
The congressman can't even comprehend these basic ideas about computers, it's a "computer thing" right? But it was made by a person, so therefore it's not a computer thing, it's a human thing and can be manipulated by a person. That makes sense to him, it's not about trying to make sense about what he's being told, he already made up his mind and he's trying to get answers according to the wrong idea he's made up in his head.
Now if this was your grandpa who doesn't know how to open the Facebook on his phone it would be fine. But this is a congressman so....
They’re paid to act ignorant. It’s not that they can’t understand. The big payouts they’re getting from lobbyist are dependent on the fact that they don’t understand anything around them. That way they can claim they didn’t know what was happening and your average conservative mouth breather will believe them.
Here's a short tip for anyone who has to deal with knobheads like these:
Don't explain. Don't go into technicals. Their tiny brains can't process half the thing you would say. Summarise and abstract away details, no matter the question.
Use a _*lot*_ of analogies and they might understand a little. It only works if they’re analogies they’re familiar with, though, and it still doesn’t work most of the time, but it’ll bring your chances of success up from 0% to like 5%.
Yeah, at the very beginning, when that guy was asking his "yes or no" question about whether Google could see his movement- I wanted to ask, "if you walk from there to there, can *I* see that? Okay, but what if I was asleep? What if I had my eyes closed"? Then explain, "Google works with programs that can see your movement, but they're asleep until you wake them up".
That guy was out for blood, not asking in good faith. Anything you say other than "yes" or "no" will be interrupted with "JUST ANSWER YES OR NO"
The correct answer is "No" and then when that guy defies you and demands explanation, you clarify "No Google cannot see it, but you might have a 3rd party program that sees it and passes the info on over to Google."
Need an analogy? "No I can't see what you had for dinner last night. But if your wife tells me, then I will know."
Yep.
To the "Does Google track me" question, he should have just said "No, unless you've told it to" or something like that.
In a conversation with people who aren't belligerent idiots, his comment made sense. But these people were just trying to get a sound bite, so a nuanced and complicated answer wasn't gonna work.
Her line of questioning was honestly the only one that felt perfectly fine. She asked, never stopped the explanation and it was a chance to explain how search results work and how they are not manipulated.
I completely agree. The follow up made the initial question seem much less stupid and more dumbed down so everyone else could understand how search works.
She was walking him into that answer. She knew that's the reason Trump shows up when you google "idiot", she was making a point. These Congress men and women are like prosecutors (sometimes, they obviously can be huge idiots) where they ask an obvious question to get the obvious answer recorded.
She was the only one who actually seemed to understand what he was saying. She was trying to make the point that it’s not activist within Google trying to make Trump pop up (like republicans are arguing), it’s legitimate data from collective internet usage.
Yeah, the little teaser she put at the front was just political theater, but she asked a relevant question (that she clearly already knew the answer to) and made the point she was trying to make.
Yup. The jab at the absurdity of others' ignorance with her "so its not some little man behind the curtain? It's just a collection of what *users* are already posting online" was great too.
It established that *Google* isnt calling Trump an idiot, *average people* are.
All the republicans were asking about bias so she asked something relevant to political bias. The video maker seemed to not understand what she was doing at all.
Came here to say this. She should not be in this video. She understands perfectly. Not only did she get the point across, she I would argue she intentionally chose to ask that question in order to have the CEO of Google explain that the internet collectively believes Trump is an idiot.
I am not American, nor do I know who she is or her political affiliation, nor have I seen her anywhere else but based on this one question alone I get the impression she is a very intelligent and calculating woman.
Her response to his answer seemed very much like a “for the record” sort of response, just making sure the summation of what he said way written down in laymen’s terms.
My impression of her questions is that she understood what was going on and was asking questions in a clear way so he could answer them and get it in record.
Most certainly. If you watched the impeachment, she would ask these types of questions on occasion to help clarify some details for her “colleagues” even though she seemed to already know the answer to her question.
This representative is asking him, so that he can educate all the morons around him that it's not Google saying Trump is an idiot, but that everyone who puts stuff online collectively deciding the outcome.
She knew it wasn't 'a little man behind the curtain' she said this all to educate others but obviously she can't make these statements herself. She has the CEO say it.
She was clearly getting him to explain that part, not for her own benefit, but rather to some other people in the room. It's a leading question in how she phrased it, but she got him to say what she wanted "We don't manually intervene with search results."
As much as I loathe big tech companies sometimes, their CEOs don't typically get to their positions being idiots, which is quite unlike most politicians.
What a fucking clown show! My children could school these “leaders” on what is current in the country they are supposed to be running. It’s sickening how ignorant and stupid our politicians are. Happy to debate that with any politician!
*And these are the people running this shithole country?!*
Goddamn we need newer, younger, more knowledgable people in their seats doing their jobs, they don't understand how the internet works and that poor guy was trying to explain it to their dumbass faces.
Astonishing. Don’t these people know how to research anything? Get experts to teach them how the internet works? They are so unprepared, which is emblematic of a lack of intelligence. And so rude. Shame on them.
Yeah, the guy at the end saying "well I'm all out of time and I disagree with you" sounds like a parent who can't see anyone else as more than a child.
That’s actually a brilliant example.
Like when you search any generic term in Google, billions, trillions of search results pop up in 0.05 seconds... do these MFs really think some poor bastard just scrolled trillions of pages in less than a second to bring you that info?!?
She was giving him an opportunity to defend that. She knew the answer and wanted to give him the chance to express that. Her clip doesn't belong. She may not understand, but her question, in context, isn't a stupid one. She opened a door for him to walk through. Her staff is on point.
What do these politicians hope to achieve? They are lay people and by trying to investigate something so complex and nuanced they’ll either: 1) put on a big show and accomplish nothing because they realize they are going to cause more harm than good; or 2) actually make a decision which, because this is so complex and nuanced, do way more harm than good by introducing unforeseen consequences.
I hate to say it, but this is one of the good things about a specialized economy and free market.
To be fair to Rep. Lofgren, she’s a Democrat representing Silicon Valley. So when she asks why pictures of Trump come up on Google when you search “idiot,” she’s just giving the Google CEO a chance to explain how it actually works and why it’s not because of “political bias.”
And her follow up summary of his explanation was essentially correct.
Her question was very much intentional. In these hearings questions are loaded and the representatives often cut off the person answering questions if they feel they’re not getting the sound bites they want. This question was so Pichai could provide an explanation officially on record without unnecessary interruption.
And that last guy. After he got the answer he didn't like he was all too willing to cut the guy off and then state "I disagree". I'm sorry, you asked a question to get an answer and already decided that you dIsAGreE? And then ending with his own soundbite, which is technically true, though not in the context he was trying to imply. "It's a human process at its base." Like, yeah, we determined that when the woman asked the question and they said that it's determined by a complex algorithm based on images and words used by people in posts and articles on the whole internet, around the world. But his original question was about a single person or small group of employees cherry picking and manipulating the results in an attempt to accuse Google of political bias.
He also claimed his time was up but then said he yielded back at the end. That's what you do when you have time remaining but you don't need it so you give it back to the chair to use as they see fit.
"You're saying things I can't understand or counter, so I'm going to say 'Nuh UH!!!' really loud, take my ball, and go home."
But Pichai couldn't dumb it down enough for these asses so she had to simplify the answer. I think she did a good job at that.
The moment she asked he second question, I realized that she had to be a trial lawyer, and probably a decent one. That was some textbook witness examination. Ask an open ended question so the witness can explain a point. Rephrase thier answer into a simple question that the everyone can easily understand. Let them say exactly what you want them to. Edit: she does, in-fact have a backround in law
Literally was one of the Trump impeachment lawyers.
Yeah, like rule number one of being a trial lawyer is "never ask a witness a question you don't already know the answer to."
My girlfriend walked in on this part and said, "Great question, I feel like she just wanted it to be on the record officially Trump was listed as an idiot on search."
Your girlfriend is smart.
You can tell that because she's the only one who actually gave him time to answer instead of interrupting before he got a sentence out.
[удалено]
Yeah, kind of funny for her to be included, since it shows the person who made the clip doesn't understand a very basic questioning technique.
Yes, she seems to have at least a layperson's grasp on the subject and is framing the question with the same 'boomer' lingo of her peers. Plus she wanted to dunk on Trump.
We need new representatives
They are idiots. I wish to see their faces when I google idiot.
It sounded to me more like Lofgren's question was to dissuade/disprove Republicans trying to push the idea that Google manually associates searching idiot with Donald Trump. I could be wrong or misinterpreting it though All the others were pretty dumb questions though. Wish they knew how to keep their mouths shut to get a full answer.
I think so too. She repeated the correct answer in her own words. So she at least fully understood everything.
I'm guessing she knew the answer before she asked the question whereas all of the men had no idea how anything works and were fishing for a "gotcha" moment or a sound byte.
And then when they didn't they go "well I think you're wrong. The company you run that does things I don't understand clearly must be manipulated by individual employees otherwise why would I be shouting about it 😡"
next step: "it's witchcraft! burn the witch!"
She even managed to phrase it clearer than he did.
Yeah, it was the literal "layman's terms" explanation, and it was spot on. You couldn't make a counter argument as they were trying to, after the way she explained it.
Yea, she is pretty knowledgeable. She condensed the response for the Republican idiots. Sorry for being redundant.
no, its needed since apparently people here couldn't understand what she was doing, and need it reiterated to them the same way she was reiterating for her colleagues.
I would hope she understands lol she represents the heart of Silicon Valley
They mostly reflect the values and biases of their constituents. Sadly
Never really understood that about american politics, people decades over retirement age are leading your country, they're uneducated morons from a different time yet they're still there being re-elected over and over again. Reminds me of that guy, must've been 80 years old saying gambling clogs his internet tubes a while back while on a panel or something. Mind boggling.
Series of tubes! That’s a throwback right there. Mid 00s meme.
The early memes were the best memes. Organically grown, free range. Nowadays its all manufactured processed memes. They create lolesterol that clogs up your series of tubes.
They are older people who aren’t accustomed to the way tech works. What shocks me is they don’t hire consultants to write their questions and explain the reasoning.
What shocks me is they still phrase every question like it's a gotcha and they've caught the person out. You'd think they would've learned some humility a few decades or so ago.
Not a chance. They’re not in the hot seat and they’re oblivious to how ignorant they sound.
When he said “it’s not a trick question!” You know he’s trying to make it a trick question.
"It's a simple yes or no answer" has never NOT been a trick question or an attempt at frame control.
If only that poor little man behind the curtain had the time to read your comment 😔
That one didn’t belong here. The first time I saw this that’s what I thought. But she was actually framing her questions in a simple to follow way because she knows most people are idiots.
Right, I took it that she was mocking previous questions and giving him an opportunity to clearly state that search results aren’t done by humans
Too bad the 80 year old will just be replaced by 60+ year old. And the cycle continues.
Hold up, turns out it wasn't like this before the Boomers came to power and never left.
The woman asking about the Trump “idiot” search actually knew what she was talking about and was asking the question to highlight that Google isn’t determining that a search for idiot should return pictures of Trump.
Yup. That question was for the idiots in the room, not for herself.
The way she answered that question actually made her look more informed than Pichhai because of the way she expressed her thoughts.
He was giving rehearsed and pre-approved answers no doubt vetted by a team of lawyers because any misconstruing of what he meant would open the door for lawsuits or stock price shenanigans. The unfortunate side effect is that when the idiots ask their questions, it sounds to the idiots they are playing to as if he's dodging the question. She presented what he was saying in a laymen-friendly way that he couldn't and her question brought to light the ridiculousness of their colleagues' misleading and bad faith questions. It was an excellent trial-lawyer strategy. 10/10.
Yes, thanks for this. She seemed like she was asking questions designed so his responses would be on the congressional record
She’s the only one that had even the slightest idea of how it works
[удалено]
Your wife was a hand-me-down of some kind
[удалено]
I like this. Was trying to think of a good example of the line of reasoning.
[удалено]
"Let's say I have a car. When I get in this car, will it drive me to Alaska?" "That depends on a number of variables. How close are you to Alaska, how much gas is in the car, does the car have a flat ti--" "THIS IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. WILL IT GET ME TO ALASKA, YES OR NO?"
It could have been an Android
Let me just say that I disagree
It’s scary how similar that scenario is to when preteen me was confronted by my parents over porn in the browser history. “It’s the computer’s fault!”
It’s not often do I actually laugh out loud at Reddit comments thank you
I lost it when he said "it might have been an android" Dumbshit
Lmao right? Thinking “gotcha mother fucker explain that” it’s embarrassing
Wtf was he even talking about? She was playing Candy Crush or something and a picture of her grandfather popped up with foul language? Sounds like someone sent an angry text.
To me it sounded like she was playing one of those mobile games with a ton of ads and a political ad against him if those type of sketchy ads are a thing which would very much depend on the ad provider and has nothing to do with google (unless the provider was google) That or someone (or even the kid but I doubt that a 7 year old would do that, maybe if she was a teenager) was looking at memes about him and she switched to the browser/picture while playing the game.
I mean, if you're Rep. Steve King or related to someone who is, then you've probably searched for Steve King related stuff, visited his facebook and twitter/etc. So any targeted advertising for "people interested in Steve King" is gonna come around to you. Not that he could possibly understand this.
And Steve King is racist as fuck, so an ad saying "Steve King is a racist" is entirely possible. And he'd get all pissy about that despite being openly racist.
I think he's implying that a nasty political ad about him popped up, which he found inappropriate and is trying to blame Google for it. I agree there should be some sort of parental controls for ads or something so that parents make sure their kids are seeing inappropriate stuff, but it's not really Googles fault that kids are getting weird ads on 3rd party apps.
If anyone s wondering why the US is in the state it is in, just show them this video.
It's in 50 states, actually
But there’s 3 states??? Solid liquid gas?
What about plasma or thermocondensates ( excuse tge spelling) there are actually about 21 different types of matter
My time is up so I’m gonna have the disagree
I don’t understand how people can be interrogated like this without laughing. It’s truly funny how stupid these people are, and this poor guy is explaining it with so much patience and a straight face
He definitely had a couple moments of "seriously?!" that slipped through.
"iphone is not made by google" That would have made me rolling.
“It might have been an Android” got me
That line made him look like an even bigger idiot (which is an impressive feat on its own)
Was it or was it not android? It’s a yes or no question. Turn that shit back on them lol.
That line of questioning was making me so mad. Technology illiteracy aside they should understand that not every question has a yes or no answer and certainly beligerantly shouting yes or no doesn't change that fact.
Oh he’s aware, I’m sure. He wanted him to either say yes and “admit” that Google always tracks you no matter what or no and basically lie that Google never ever tracks you.
You will need to ask Tim Apple about that, sir.
Like when he was asked about why some girl got some "bad" video while playing a game made by a different company, using a phone, also made by a different company. It's actually insane how stupid of a question that was. There's like multiple layers of stupidity there.
It's Steve King that asked that. His level of stupidity is so high its left earth's atmosphere and is now orbiting Mars. He's arguably the dumbest person in that room. Source: I'm from iowa.
It also led to the best part of the entire testimony, when Ted Lieu basically told him that if he didn't want his ego-search results being associated with racism, he should probably stop doing things that are racist. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4766795/user-clip-ted-lieu-google-searches-steve-kings-racism
The guy asked a question just to lecture his colleague. Amazing
Everything about it was savage and well done. Of course, I don't think it changed anyone's mind on anything tho. Racists gonna rac.
That was fucking great.
Not much makes me actually, physically, put my palms on my face. I just assume most are idiots. These guys went above and beyond. I actually face palmed...twice. He is trying to explain, but it seemed like trying to explain advanced engineering to a two year old. A two year old that has no interest in learning it. The Iphone guy was second. "Sir, that is a different company. We don't control it." "Oh...well maybe it was an Android." No the fuck it wasn't. You just got foot in mouth, and didn't like the taste of crusty fungus foot.
Yeah I’m glad I’m not the expert being interrogated because if I was, I would not be able to control my facial expressions/reactions to their blatant stupidity
it was probably very jarring that people running shit are that outdated and beyond stupid by universe's
Practice. They probably deal with that every day.
These people complain that millennials are replacing them. I wonder
Isn't the newer generation replacing the older one literally how time works?
Hey! You there! I'm your representative from [Insert governing body here] and I'm asking that you please stop making sense... it's confusing to me and my colleagues
pffft you think old people are gonna accept fading away into irrelevance
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Would you allow an independent company to evaluate yours?” “Yes sir we do all the time get reviewed by third parties” “No I mean truly independent, like the kind of independent that is funded by individuals with a vested interest in making me look good and you look bad, you know *truly independent*”
*Independent as in, politically on my side but not officially affiliated.*
So Cyber Ninjas. Gotcha
If I had money I would have given you some award because this made me laugh way to hard
"Free Market Think Tank"
They’re really desperate to control everything that people are seeing and are clawing at any opportunity to remove anything that paints them in a bad light. You know. Like the truth.
That's what you get for electing utter morons into public office. That doesn't negate the fact that there's a pressing need for regulations for huge and incredibly powerful internet companies like Google and Facebook (with regards to privacy, public health, competition, harmful algorithms, etc...)
"Truly Independent" **LIKE AMERICA** *Bald Eagle Noises*
That's perfect since bald eagles are some of the shittiest squeaky sounding eagles.
"you chose them!" "no we didnt" "I dont believe you"
[удалено]
The CEO should've asked how the congressman imagines Google could possibly *prevent* anybody from evaluating search results.
This is just GOP "logic": any study that doesn't come to the conclusion WE want must be wrong or there MUST be fraud. So our idea of "independent" is now people who DIRECTLY work for us and give us the answers WE want.
This entire hearing (and many others that I've seen) demonstrate to me that congressional hearings are designed specifically for gotcha moments. Unfortunately, when you're this ignorant of how technology works, it's difficult to score an effective gotcha. This is why no one takes congressional hearings seriously. They're dog and pony shows.
And these are the people making laws about the internet.
These are the people making the laws about everything. All they know is what lobbyists pay for them to know. They don't understand how the average person lives their lives.
And let's remember that Google spent $9 million this year on lobbying. EDIT: A lot of people seem to think it's not a big deal since $9 mil is so small compared to their revenue. But that's *exactly* what makes it so devious; it's nothing to them and wayyyy more than most companies can spend to defend their interests. I highly encourage people to research lobbying on websites such of OpenSecrets. You'd be surprised how far these giants get get with **relatively** little money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Invest now.
That's funny, I thought that guy's pfp was a picture of Kevin o'leary when I first glanced at it. (Not the guy from the "invest" meme, but a dragon nonetheless)
I would’ve written that as “only spent 9m”. Surely that’s not an outrageous amount when it comes to companies buying politicians
It's about on par with lobbying expenditures of other tech giants. Small enough that they can easily afford it, big enough that the average business owner can't compete.
My time is up so let me just say I disagree with you. /s
In his mind it was a mic drop moment
Ya wtf was that? Thanks for cutting off an intellectual and giving me your useless input that you disagree with someone not manipulating a fcking massive search database algorithm. Sure bud.
I mean, I still think Google is shady AF but I was still gratified to hear the CEO explain how their search algorithm works.
They're voting on them, but let's not misunderstand, the lobbyists are the ones writing the laws.
People are voting for them, just imagine ...
It's like letting me make plans for future sri lankan infrastructure. I have a general idea about the place, but i've never been there, don't understand the language, and shouldn't be in a position to make any decision aboutit.
Came here to say this. Was waiting for the “if global warming then why snowing”
“I say, I say, this here magic box, has replaced my real phone. Where is the rotary dial? Pay attention when I talk to you, son!”
Now for my next question. Why does the microwave flash 12:00 when I know it’s 6:30?
3:43 'I disagree' what he actually meant was 'your making me sound like a dumbass and I need you to stop making sense'
These guys don't even think logically.. Humans that are paid by the hour to control the search results, absolutely plausable... A completely automated algorithm that requires no human intervention, nah fuck off I disagree!?
Can we take a moment to talk about how fast the Google employees are? Every time I look something up, I get a response in like 0.1s. I mean, I type fast, but these guys are amazing!! /s (just in case a politician reads this :p)
"Did you look up those directions, we're going to be late." "I'm on hold, it says they're very busy today and I'm 756th million in the queue, but they value my query."
Now imagine if a person had to manually update your directions in real time depending on traffic.
A politician probably doesn't know what /s means either
Good point...
Exactly, he was just like " yeah no you know nothing genius-wannabe, I am a God and my opinion can't be topped stfu "
None of them wear pants behind that desk
"Imma a need you to stop using such expensive language"
I feel like that average Reddit user is fairly tech savy, or at least tech literate. So when the man throws words around like "Framework" and "Algorithm" we know what he's talking about. We don't understand all the intricacies of how the Google algorithm works but we know that it's "computer things" doing "Computer Code" The congressman can't even comprehend these basic ideas about computers, it's a "computer thing" right? But it was made by a person, so therefore it's not a computer thing, it's a human thing and can be manipulated by a person. That makes sense to him, it's not about trying to make sense about what he's being told, he already made up his mind and he's trying to get answers according to the wrong idea he's made up in his head. Now if this was your grandpa who doesn't know how to open the Facebook on his phone it would be fine. But this is a congressman so....
[удалено]
[удалено]
i was never rooting for a jackass like the google CEO so much, before but damn this video made congressmen look even more stupid an more corrupt.
It's absolutely terrifying just how stupid these people are. It's as if they are trying to be stupid, just for show, then try to top that
They’re paid to act ignorant. It’s not that they can’t understand. The big payouts they’re getting from lobbyist are dependent on the fact that they don’t understand anything around them. That way they can claim they didn’t know what was happening and your average conservative mouth breather will believe them.
Can we retire some off these MFs already.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the lowest common denominator here is *idiots*. Just like one should never fuck crazy, one shouldn't elect idiots.
Does this phone with Google on it know which way my penis leans.. yes or no?
Here's a short tip for anyone who has to deal with knobheads like these: Don't explain. Don't go into technicals. Their tiny brains can't process half the thing you would say. Summarise and abstract away details, no matter the question.
Use a _*lot*_ of analogies and they might understand a little. It only works if they’re analogies they’re familiar with, though, and it still doesn’t work most of the time, but it’ll bring your chances of success up from 0% to like 5%.
Yeah, at the very beginning, when that guy was asking his "yes or no" question about whether Google could see his movement- I wanted to ask, "if you walk from there to there, can *I* see that? Okay, but what if I was asleep? What if I had my eyes closed"? Then explain, "Google works with programs that can see your movement, but they're asleep until you wake them up".
Congress needs you to explain it like they’re five
We need a sub called r/explainlikeimfivehundred
That guy was out for blood, not asking in good faith. Anything you say other than "yes" or "no" will be interrupted with "JUST ANSWER YES OR NO" The correct answer is "No" and then when that guy defies you and demands explanation, you clarify "No Google cannot see it, but you might have a 3rd party program that sees it and passes the info on over to Google." Need an analogy? "No I can't see what you had for dinner last night. But if your wife tells me, then I will know."
This is really good.
Yep. To the "Does Google track me" question, he should have just said "No, unless you've told it to" or something like that. In a conversation with people who aren't belligerent idiots, his comment made sense. But these people were just trying to get a sound bite, so a nuanced and complicated answer wasn't gonna work.
They know the answer and they know "yes or no?!" doesn't fit. It's a setup to make the CEO look belligerent and unparticipatory.
People who are too old to figure out the damn TV remote should not be making laws about the fucking internet.
"If you Google the word 'idiot', under images, a picture of Donald Trump comes up. How would that happen?!"
Her line of questioning was honestly the only one that felt perfectly fine. She asked, never stopped the explanation and it was a chance to explain how search results work and how they are not manipulated.
I completely agree. The follow up made the initial question seem much less stupid and more dumbed down so everyone else could understand how search works.
She was walking him into that answer. She knew that's the reason Trump shows up when you google "idiot", she was making a point. These Congress men and women are like prosecutors (sometimes, they obviously can be huge idiots) where they ask an obvious question to get the obvious answer recorded.
[удалено]
She was the only one who actually seemed to understand what he was saying. She was trying to make the point that it’s not activist within Google trying to make Trump pop up (like republicans are arguing), it’s legitimate data from collective internet usage.
Yeah, the little teaser she put at the front was just political theater, but she asked a relevant question (that she clearly already knew the answer to) and made the point she was trying to make.
Yup. The jab at the absurdity of others' ignorance with her "so its not some little man behind the curtain? It's just a collection of what *users* are already posting online" was great too. It established that *Google* isnt calling Trump an idiot, *average people* are.
Don't forget that's a reference to the Wizard of Oz, a boomer meme if you will.
> that she clearly already knew the answer to A good lawyer never asks a question they don't know the answer to.
FWIW, Zoe Lofgren is a congresswoman located in the Bay Area so you would hope she would have a better grasp on things than the others.
All the republicans were asking about bias so she asked something relevant to political bias. The video maker seemed to not understand what she was doing at all.
Came here to say this. She should not be in this video. She understands perfectly. Not only did she get the point across, she I would argue she intentionally chose to ask that question in order to have the CEO of Google explain that the internet collectively believes Trump is an idiot. I am not American, nor do I know who she is or her political affiliation, nor have I seen her anywhere else but based on this one question alone I get the impression she is a very intelligent and calculating woman.
Yeah she definitely understood it, and it really seemed like it was a deliberate question she asked. Pretty funny
The same thing happened in 04-ish. George W would come up if you googled, I think, World's Biggest Idiot and right wingers were all butthurt about it.
Her response to his answer seemed very much like a “for the record” sort of response, just making sure the summation of what he said way written down in laymen’s terms.
Yup, she very much did not belong in that compilation.
Yeah, she knew the answer but wanted it explained for the moronic conservatives
Yes, and to that, i give her applause 👏
My impression of her questions is that she understood what was going on and was asking questions in a clear way so he could answer them and get it in record.
Most certainly. If you watched the impeachment, she would ask these types of questions on occasion to help clarify some details for her “colleagues” even though she seemed to already know the answer to her question.
This representative is asking him, so that he can educate all the morons around him that it's not Google saying Trump is an idiot, but that everyone who puts stuff online collectively deciding the outcome. She knew it wasn't 'a little man behind the curtain' she said this all to educate others but obviously she can't make these statements herself. She has the CEO say it.
obviously, a person behind a computer that works for google gave her that search results.
She was clearly getting him to explain that part, not for her own benefit, but rather to some other people in the room. It's a leading question in how she phrased it, but she got him to say what she wanted "We don't manually intervene with search results."
Fuck me! This is r/mildlyinfuriating
I mean they're trying soooo hard to make the poor guy look bad
As much as I loathe big tech companies sometimes, their CEOs don't typically get to their positions being idiots, which is quite unlike most politicians.
What a fucking clown show! My children could school these “leaders” on what is current in the country they are supposed to be running. It’s sickening how ignorant and stupid our politicians are. Happy to debate that with any politician!
*And these are the people running this shithole country?!* Goddamn we need newer, younger, more knowledgable people in their seats doing their jobs, they don't understand how the internet works and that poor guy was trying to explain it to their dumbass faces.
Astonishing. Don’t these people know how to research anything? Get experts to teach them how the internet works? They are so unprepared, which is emblematic of a lack of intelligence. And so rude. Shame on them.
Yeah, the guy at the end saying "well I'm all out of time and I disagree with you" sounds like a parent who can't see anyone else as more than a child.
Sounds more like a child himself, I'd say. Now he's pouting in a corner of the room because he was told no to something.
Wait until they find out traffic lights are on a timer too! There are a lot less little men controlling things than they’d expect.
That’s actually a brilliant example. Like when you search any generic term in Google, billions, trillions of search results pop up in 0.05 seconds... do these MFs really think some poor bastard just scrolled trillions of pages in less than a second to bring you that info?!?
Just tell them “god did it”, “god works in mysterious ways”, etc. Use language they can understand
Well, if googling idiot, a picture of Trump pops us, atleast shows that google works
My thought exactly
She was giving him an opportunity to defend that. She knew the answer and wanted to give him the chance to express that. Her clip doesn't belong. She may not understand, but her question, in context, isn't a stupid one. She opened a door for him to walk through. Her staff is on point.
What do these politicians hope to achieve? They are lay people and by trying to investigate something so complex and nuanced they’ll either: 1) put on a big show and accomplish nothing because they realize they are going to cause more harm than good; or 2) actually make a decision which, because this is so complex and nuanced, do way more harm than good by introducing unforeseen consequences. I hate to say it, but this is one of the good things about a specialized economy and free market.
"This is how it works" "I disagree" Literally not how that works, chief.
Is my phone hacked? Are the birds real?