How Google's newest Orwellian censorship tool will destroy democracy

Google really cares about your safety, or that’s the narrative we are being sold.

Its latest initiative, Altitude, marks a significant step in the fight against online “extremism.” Developed by its subsidiary Jigsaw, in partnership with Tech Against Terrorism and the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, Altitude is promoted as a cutting-edge solution for monitoring and removing violent extremist content from the internet. While Altitude is presented as a neutral and comprehensive tool for addressing online threats, the reality of this initiative raises significant concerns.

As Google’s influence continues to grow, so does the potential for misuse of its technologies. The company's track record of privacy invasions, data exploitation, and narrative suppression highlights a troubling trend: the control of information is becoming increasingly centralized and biased.

After all, this is Google we are talking about, a company that is as problematic as it is powerful. In fact, it could be argued that Google is the most powerful force on the planet. Its pervasive presence shapes not only how we access information but also how we perceive and understand it. A U.S. judge recently ruled that Google breached antitrust laws by investing billions of dollars to establish an illegal monopoly. Ultimately, it has become the world's default search engine. This is rather alarming, especially if you happen to lean right on the political spectrum.

Speaking of dangerous extremism, Google's AI chatbot Gemini even avoids answering questions about the shooting of former President Donald Trump, citing its policy on election-related issues. When asked to give details on the assassination attempt, Gemini responded, "I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now." One wonders what it might have said if the target had been President Biden. One needn’t wonder very hard, of course.

These issues are emblematic of a broader trend within Google. The company's approach to content moderation and news dissemination has repeatedly come under scrutiny for its lack of transparency and potential for manipulation. For instance, in 2020, at the height of the pandemic-related pandemonium, Google was reported to have removed several conservative news outlets from its search results and YouTube recommendations. This was not merely a technical oversight but a deliberate act of censorship that distorted the flow of information. Similarly, Google has faced criticism for altering its search algorithms in a way that promotes certain left-leaning viewpoints while suppressing others. These actions underscore an ongoing pattern of selective information management that reflects a broader ideological bias.

Which brings us back to the aforementioned Altitude, which centralizes the power to flag and remove content deemed too extreme. While the tool is being sold as a means of enhancing online safety, it also opens the door to potential abuse. The criteria for what constitutes extremist content are not transparent, perhaps by design, thus creating opportunities for political and ideological enforcement. Given Google's demonstrated biases, there is a very real risk that Altitude could reinforce existing prejudices rather than address extremism impartially. This centralization of power could easily be repurposed to suppress dissenting voices and control public discourse, exacerbating the very issues it aims to address.

Google’s history of collusion with governments further amplifies these concerns. The company has faced criticism for cooperating with state censorship requests, particularly in authoritarian regimes. Moreover, Google’s removal of the “Don’t Be Evil” clause from its code of conduct — swapping in the motto “Organizing the World’s Information” — only adds to the skepticism surrounding its commitment to ethical practices.

By centralizing content moderation under the Altitude umbrella, Google is amplifying its role as a gatekeeper of information, suppressing viewpoints that challenge prevailing narratives. This centralization could transform tools designed to combat extremism into instruments for enforcing political and ideological conformity. Also, it’s important to remember that the word “extremist” no longer applies to crazed Islamic terrorists. It now applies to respectable individuals who dare question the overarching, pre-approved narrative. Extremism has never looked so bland.

The broader implications of these developments are profound. As Google’s influence continues to grow, so does the potential for misuse of its technologies. The company's track record of privacy invasions, data exploitation, and narrative suppression highlights a troubling trend: The control of information is becoming increasingly centralized and biased. The stakes for privacy and free expression are high, and the need for transparency and accountability is critical.

Maintaining democratic values and safeguarding individual freedoms requires vigilance and a commitment to transparency. As powerful technologies continue to shape public discourse and influence societal beliefs, advocating for a more balanced and accountable approach to information control is paramount. But advocacy can only go so far. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to take real action. Specifically, lawmakers with a conscience.

If Kamala Harris, a darling of Silicon Valley, were to become president, the consolidation of power within tech giants like Google would only deepen. Don’t forget that its parent company, Alphabet, is an avid supporter of Democrats and regularly pumps tens of millions of dollars into the political party. As November draws closer, Americans on both sides of the political divide would do well to remember that Google is not your friend. Its desire to paint itself as an unbiased teller of truth is little more than a pernicious lie. Altitude will harm us, not help us.