Democratic dark horse Tulsi Gabbard files censorship lawsuit against Google

[Cal Jeffrey]

In context: Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard filed a lawsuit against Google on Thursday for pulling her campaign’s advertising. The lawsuit claims that the search giant suspended her ads for six hours after the first Democratic debate.

The New York Times notes that for a brief time following the debate, Gabbard was the most-searched candidate on Google. Her campaign, Tulsi Now Inc claims that had the ads not been pulled, her website might have wound up on the top of the search results. The lawsuit also alleges that campaign emails were being filtered into people’s spam folders more than other candidates.

Google confirmed that it had pulled Gabbard’s advertising for a short time. It explained that algorithms had automatically flagged an increase in spending. This spike constitutes "unusual activity," and the ads were temporarily suspended to prevent fraud.

TULSI2020: In the hours following the 1st debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to our democracy that big tech companies can’t affect the outcome of elections https://t.co/n7Y7y2dQZ9

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) July 25, 2019

3/3 - Google’s discrimination against our campaign reveals the danger of their dominance & how the dominance of big tech over public discourse threatens core American values. They threaten our democracy & #Tulsi will fight back on behalf of all Americans. https://t.co/n7Y7y2dQZ9

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) July 25, 2019

“In this case, our system triggered a suspension, and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” a spokesperson told the NYT. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.”

Gabbard is a dark-horse candidate, which is likely what triggered the sudden interest in her after the debate. One issue she has been campaigning on is the crackdown on Big Tech. Gabbard agrees with Senator Elizabeth Warren that tech companies like Google and Facebook need to be broken up and regulated. Their monopolistic structure and recent complaints of censorship are cited reasons for the call.

However, the grounds for the lawsuit seem a bit shaky. For instance, the filing claims that Gabbard’s emails were getting filtered as spam more than other candidates but provides no explanation or proof on how it came to this conclusion. Additionally, buying a ton of ads because Gabbard was trending, thus triggering fraud algorithms seems like a misstep from the campaign rather than on Google’s part.

Image credit: Sheila Fitzgerald via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/81150-democratic-dark-horse-tulsi-gabbard-files-censorship-lawsuit.html

 

[riversnout]

"Additionally, buying a ton of ads because Gabbard was trending, thus triggering fraud algorithms seems like a misstep from the campaign rather than on Google’s part."

What was the campaign to do? Just do nothing? She made people notice during the debate, and then decided to buy ads to take advantage of it. What better time to buy "a ton of ads"?

 

[brucek]

Assuming Google is telling the truth about the spike in spending and the fraud prevention system being routine, their position sounds completely reasonable to me and Gabbard sounds like an ***** for trying to make a "free speech" case about it.

Providing advertising services on credit is not remotely the same as free speech.

As to what her campaign could have done about it, off the top of my head some ideas include pre-arranging the amount of credit desired, providing a positive cash balance, or calling their account rep to let them know that a large spike was possible based on debate results. As it is, Google reacting within six hours sounds fast to me and probably a lot faster than the average customer in similar circumstances could expect.

I'd also note she and other lawmakers seem to be just as quick as complaining about lack of sufficient fraud prevent and other customer protections too.

 

[netman]

I hope she wins....

 

[psycros]

Going after an industry is a great way to insure that the major players in said industry do all they can to make sure you have no power over them.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

"Additionally, buying a ton of ads because Gabbard was trending, thus triggering fraud algorithms seems like a misstep from the campaign rather than on Google’s part."

Not at all sure of that. Imagine a business with a new dynamite idea having its ENTIRE campaign pulled (not merely stopping more ads, ALL of them) by an algorithm which takes more than a couple of hours to correct. When a robot does this, there must be a keeper who can 'fix' it and do so triple quick. In this matter, the maker of the robot should get pilloried and possibly penalized. And, yes, I think it might be 1st Amendment issues, but I would rather pursue it on the basis of an express or implied contract as determined by Google's offer to place ads.

Google sales should have advised buyer of this possibility - as I cannot believe they are too stupid to recognize this could occur. (something like... Just sign here for a conditional order contract for $250k of advertising if you need it. Um, did I forget to tell you that we won't honor it if you ask for it late in the day? Oh, gee.)

Edit: I am not a Gabbard supporter. I just hate big, thoughtless businesses.

 

[Nobina]

If you haven't noticed yet, every time Google ****s up it's always their algorithms, it's never them, Google would never do something like this, totes.

 

[Bubbajim]

Perhaps she should have used Bing ads *snigger*

 

[Uncle Al]

"Google confirmed that it had pulled Gabbard’s advertising for a short time. It explained that algorithms had automatically flagged an increase in spending. This spike constitutes "unusual activity," and the ads were temporarily suspended to prevent fraud."
Sorry, but that's a bunch of horse hocky. You're going to expect me to believe a multi-billion dollar company can't do any better than this? And those algorithms are used every day to show favoritism to those that pay more to get their information at the top of the list. THAT alone should be the subject of an FCC inquiry and a hefty fine, especially when Google touted their dependability for honesty and "do no harm" approach for decades ...... regardless of your individual point of view, ALL political candidates deserve equal time, coverage, and consideration. THAT is what open, honest elections are all about.
We can only hope the FCC gets that one right as they have with the Robo-Callers, but I'm not holding my breath!

 

[mbrowne5061]

"Additionally, buying a ton of ads because Gabbard was trending, thus triggering fraud algorithms seems like a misstep from the campaign rather than on Google’s part."

What was the campaign to do? Just do nothing? She made people notice during the debate, and then decided to buy ads to take advantage of it. What better time to buy "a ton of ads"?

Yeah, exactly that. Ads are for when people aren't thinking about you - not when they are. She should have rode the wave, then steadily increased her ad-buys as the natural traffic died down to help keep the total numbers higher.

Given that she rails against big tech, I would image this also means her campaign has no idea how google Adwords works either.

 

[riversnout]

Yeah, exactly that. Ads are for when people aren't thinking about you - not when they are. She should have rode the wave, then steadily increased her ad-buys as the natural traffic died down to help keep the total numbers higher.

Given that she rails against big tech, I would image this also means her campaign has no idea how google Adwords works either.

Guess you need some edumacation too.
1 - Watch Tulsi kick some *** in the debate
2 - Type her name in the search box
3 - Get a ton of misleading smear from the DNC
4 - Oh, wait, there's an ad for her very own website.
5 - click
6 - get her message

or

get stuck on step 3.

 

[Impudicus]

Google should remove their fraud prevention systems so nothing like this happens again.

 

[brucek]

Maybe it will be more clear once we hear the exact nature of the spike, but assuming it's like I think it was, there's no business anywhere that wouldn't take reasonable precautions to make sure both the order was real and especially that the customer can pay. Not sure why any of you think it could be any different or that any business anywhere is or should be.

Similarly, six hours to process a big order seems fast to me, not slow. I want to shop where you guys are shopping if you think it should be faster. When I went to buy a house -- an order that was probably smaller than this ad spend in question -- the process took weeks.

It's been a while since I've been directly involved in this industry but last I had firsthand knowledge, major ad campaigns were planned over weeks and months, not hours (sure, with minor course corrections made in near real time, but not major structural ones like vast changes in scale.)

 

[hk2000]

I disagree with most of what Democrats stand for- especially socially, but I certainly see injustice here, besides, candidates like her will need all the financial help they can get, what better way to raise funds?

 

[captaincranky]

If you haven't noticed yet, every time Google ****s up it's always their algorithms, it's never them, Google would never do something like this, totes.

If you'll take notice it's always the same spiel with Zuckerhump's blunders and Facebook's data theft!