Home » Google, Non-US » Is Google Attempting to Hack the EU Parliament with Robo Calls, Emails and Fake News?

Is Google Attempting to Hack the EU Parliament with Robo Calls, Emails and Fake News?

1 August 2018

From The Trichordist:

Think it’s a coincidence that Google’s search algorithm returns exclusively negative or outright fake news on EU proposed copyright revisions? 

Google is the first imperialist power of the 21st century.  It has no qualms about subverting democratic processes whenever those processes threaten it’s profits.  Most of the time we see these power grabs in the US.  For instance Google used stolen emails to derail a Mississippi State investigation into it’s advertising practices. Most recently Google used it’s pet Senator (Ron Wyden) to try to derail an anti child sex trafficking bill. Wyden was one of only two Senators to oppose the overwhelmingly popular bill.  WTF right?  Makes you wonder what they have on him.

There are so many cases of Google strong arming government officials it would take fifty pages to list them all.  Suffice it to say that in almost all these cases Google upends the democratic processes when government actions in some small way threaten googles internet advertising and web hosting businesses.  From Google’s perspective it makes sense as Google is willing to monetizes any and all web traffic with no oversight, and with no regard to how abhorrent that traffic may be. Google does not give a shit that it may be enabling child prostitution rings, the opioid crisis, or radicalizing lone wolf terrorists.  Any regulation that requires even minimal oversight and might cut into Google’s $110 billion yearly profit(profit not revenue) is attacked by Googles vast network of lobbyists, astroturf groups, google-funded think tanks, paid bloggers, and academics.

The last few years we have seen Google turn their efforts towards subverting democratic processes outside the US.  In some ways they have been more effective in places like EU where they are unaccustomed to the kind of subversive political/academic/NGO practices honed by Big Tobacco.  In the U.S. we have been partially inoculated. Europeans fall hook line and sinker for this shit.

Case in point.

The EU parliament legal affairs committee (recently) voted to approve a new copyright directive  giving authors, performers and songwriters much more control over how their work appears online. The directive would require online platforms to pro-actively manage their platforms so that creators could decide when and if their content appears on digital platforms and under what financial terms.

This does not make Google/YouTube very happy because currently they enjoy an massive subsidy from creators because they essentially use whatever they want  whenever they want. As usual they claim that it is their “users” who are doing the infringing. Not Google. Never mind that Google is making billions slinging ads against all this unlicensed content.

. . . .

In the U.S. Google has consistently used  groups like Fight For The Future.   Fight For The Future purports to be a grassroots organization but it is actually run by a Google lobbyist. Despite claiming to have millions of followers, when they tried to stage a protest in San Francisco before a copyright roundtable they couldn’t get a single real individual to show up. Astroturf.  Fake.

. . . .

During the last round of Copyright Office hearings on safe harbors we observed that the vast majority of tweets against copyright reform were coming from anonymous accounts that were only active when copyright issues were being considered. Fake.

. . . .

Fight for the Future the astroturf group run by Google lobbyist has repeatedly bombarded congress, and federal agencies with identical automated emails and comments. We demonstrated that the “tool” they provided from their website, didn’t verify identity; allowed users from outside US to vote; and allowed repeated voting by simply reloading page.

Link to the rest at The Trichordist

Google, Non-US

8 Comments to “Is Google Attempting to Hack the EU Parliament with Robo Calls, Emails and Fake News?”

  1. Title be a question, so most likely ‘no’.

    Considering the way things are worded, any site will have trouble handling these new rules.

    As for Google not linking to those new rules – that’s what’s going to happen to the rest of the EU when those rules come into play – a lot less linking.

    “Case in point.

    The EU parliament legal affairs committee (recently) voted to approve a new copyright directive giving authors, performers and songwriters much more control over how their work appears online. The directive would require online platforms to pro-actively manage their platforms so that creators could decide when and if their content appears on digital platforms and under what financial terms.”

    So, prove you know who owns it – and then prove that you’ve paid/have their permission to post it. ‘It’ being every single third party bit on your site (oh, and prove the rest of it is actually yours and not copied/stolen from elsewhere.)

    • Allen, (I know it’s you. How’s the weather in San Antonio?)

      This legal quagmire highlights the difference between European ‘copyright’ and American copyright. That difference is the reason I believe the US should withdraw from the Berne Convention.

      Taking German law for an example, the Germans don’t have copyright. They have author’s rights, and some of those rights are inalienable. The author has the right to have the work attributed to him forever and ever, world without end, amen. For me, this means that when I provide pictures to The Great War YouTube channel — which is produced in Germany — someone has to dig up the name of the photographer EVEN IF THE PICTURES ARE OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Given that many records were bombed out of existence in WW2, this is often an insurmountable hurdle.

      Oh, yeah. The Germans give exclusive use to titles, too. Your book cannot have the same title as another book.

      Some may argue that French law is different, but, no, it isn’t. The history of the French law traces back to Victor Hugo, a man distinguished far more for his greed than for his legal acumen, and his driving desire to guarantee his family an income after his death. That desire is enshrined in French law.

      I am quite content to let the Germans and the French and their fellow-travelers go to Hell in their own way. I am not content to follow them.

      Neither author’s rights nor the legal protection of the stream of income to Victor Hugo’s descendants is consonant with American copyright as enumerated in the Constitution. IMO Congressional acceptance of the Berne Convention is and always will be dereliction of duty and unconstitutional.

      • Guilty as charged. 😉 (And a bit warm out – I’m hiding indoors as much as possible.)

        And I agree, it can be quite bad to go too far – as some have done and others are trying to do – claiming all the while they’re doing it for the artist/author. The same way we hear ‘think of the children’ when they’re trying to push something that isn’t meant to help/protect children at all.

        I have in my hot little hand (yes, I never learned to touch type but can hit keys using either hand – comes in handy when there’s no place to set the netbook!) a book by Spider Robinson titled ‘By any other name’. The very first story after the foreword is ‘Melancholy Elephants’, a very good warning of what perpetual copyright really does – and it doesn’t promote the arts but kills them off.

        https://www.baen.com/Chapters/0671319744/0671319744.htm

        “Senator, if I try to hoard the fruits of my husband’s genius, I may cripple my race. Don’t you see what perpetual copyright implies? It is perpetual racial memory! That bill will give the human race an elephant’s memory. Have you ever seen a cheerful elephant?”

        😉

  2. It is mildly amusing that the OP believes that the EU is a “democracy.” Oligarchy, trending to fascism, is the reality there.

  3. Google does not give a shit that it may be enabling child prostitution rings, the opioid crisis, or radicalizing lone wolf terrorists.

    In the US, our democracy protects our right to advocate for child prostitution, speak in favor of unrestricted access to opioids, and praise lone wolf terrorists, .

    • Advocating for something that is illegal, and profiting directly off of the same illegal activity are two separate things. The question is where do Google’s search results fall on that scale. Probably not all the way to directly profiting, but close enough that not having the discussion is absurd.

  4. I stopped reading after the second misused “it’s.” I can handle one. Two of them make me cranky.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.