ShareThis Page
John Stossel: Google crossing creepy line |
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Google crossing creepy line


This morning, Google told me that it would not allow my YouTube video “Socialism Leads to Violence” to be viewed by young people. It violates “community guidelines,” said the company in a computer-generated email.

Anti-capitalist bias? Or just an algorithm shielding children from disturbing violence in Venezuela? I don’t know.

But a new documentary, “The Creepy Line,” argues that companies like Google and Facebook lean left and have power they shouldn’t have.

The title “Creepy Line” refers to a comment by former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who said when it comes to issues like privacy, Google policy “is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it.”

But, the documentary argues that Google crosses that creepy line every day.

Google’s power comes from its dominant search engine.

“It is a company that has an agenda,” the writer of “The Creepy Line,” Peter Schweizer, says in my latest video.

“Their ability to manipulate the algorithm is something that they’ve demonstrated,” says Schweizer, and last election Google put positive stories about Hillary Clinton higher in Google searches.

But that doesn’t prove Google bias. It could be because the media lean left, and “unbiased” algorithms rely on links to popular media.

“But, they’re not using unbiased algorithms to do things like search for unacceptable content,” says psychologist Jordan Peterson in the documentary. “They’re built specifically to filter out whatever’s bad.”

True. Mark Zuckerberg testified that Facebook actively filters out “hate speech, terrorist content, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe.”

Human “content monitors” do some of that censoring, and some of them despise conservatives. A former Facebook employee reported that the human censors sometimes ignored stories trending among Facebook users if they came from a conservative website.

Google’s censors briefly shut down Jordan Peterson’s Gmail and blocked his YouTube channel (Google owns YouTube).

“That’s a real problem,” says Peterson in “The Creepy Line.” “You come to rely on these things, and when the plug is pulled suddenly, that puts a big hole into your life.”

It does. My TV channel, “Stossel TV,” will survive if YouTube won’t let young people watch some of my videos, but it’s a big setback. My purpose in making the videos is to reach kids, to educate them about the benefits of free markets. It’s why I started, a nonprofit that provides videos, plus teachers’ guides, free to teachers.

We asked Google and Facebook to reply to accusations of censorship made by “The Creepy Line” and to explain why YouTube restricted my anti-socialism video. So far, they haven’t replied to questions about bias, but did email us saying they will remove the age restriction on my video. Good.

If social media companies do censor, what can be done about it?

“Put them under the same shackles as other media companies,” Schweizer told me.


But, that’s not good. Regulation means innovators must ask bureaucrats for permission to try new things.

It’s no accident that wonderful services like Google and Facebook (I do love them — despite what they may do to me) were developed in the parts of America farthest from Washington, D.C. It was all “permissionless” innovation.

I assume government, as usual, should do nothing. Market competition may address the problem.

But, “The Creepy Line” makes a compelling case that a small number of people at a few Silicon Valley companies have tremendous power to do creepy things.

John Stossel is author of “No
They Can’t! Why Government Fails
— But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.