When it comes to Big Tech giants, they don’t get much bigger than Google. A colossal force, the company wields an extraordinary amount of power and influence. Its revenue is so immense that it rivals the GDP of small nations. This dominant position allows Google to control what billions of people see, read, and believe, shaping perceptions of truth and fiction on a global scale. As the primary gateway to the online world, Google acts as a filter for the world's knowledge, granting it unparalleled authority over public discourse.
A significant but often overlooked aspect of Google’s vast influence is its subsidiary, Jigsaw, which was designed to combat online extremism, disinformation, and cyber threats. Jigsaw's tools and technologies are presented as essential safeguards for a safer internet. However, their development and deployment pose serious risks to privacy and freedom of expression, particularly in the United States, where political biases and corporate motives intersect in troubling ways.
Jigsaw's new tool, Altitude, exemplifies these concerns. Designed in collaboration with Tech Against Terrorism and the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), Altitude is a free, open-source, self-hosted tool meant to help online platforms identify and manage terrorist and violent extremist content (TVEC). The practical implications of such a tool are incredibly dangerous.
At first glance (if you happen to be blind), Altitude seems like a benign solution to an actual problem. It allows moderators on various platforms to flag and remove content deemed extremist with a few clicks. This streamlined approach could help smaller platforms struggling to manage harmful content. However, the risk lies in how these tools are used and who decides what constitutes extremist content. This is where things start to become sinister.
Picture a scenario where Jigsaw’s algorithms, which are designed to detect extremist content, are repurposed to suppress political speech that challenges the prevailing narratives. In the hands of governments with a specific agenda—like the current administration, for example—these tools could be weaponized to censor dissent. If a vocal critic of government policies or a journalist exposing corruption were to have their content flagged and removed under the guise of combating extremism, their ability to speak out would be severely compromised. In this scenario, Altitude doesn't just remove extremist content; it becomes a mechanism for stifling legitimate criticism and political opposition.
The potential misuse of Jigsaw’s tools is exacerbated by Google’s well-documented political biases. Unless you happen to live under a rock on a distant planet, it will come as little surprise to learn that Google exhibits a pronounced left-leaning bias. In the 2020 election cycle alone, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, donated millions to Democratic candidates and committees. This financial support creates a conflict of interest, which would influence the impartiality of a tool like Altitude.
This political bias could manifest in how Jigsaw's tools are applied. Content that aligns with left-leaning views might be less likely to be flagged or removed, while content critical of these views could be targeted more aggressively. This selective application of content moderation could distort public discourse, limiting the range of opinions and perspectives available to users.
Google’s past is littered with instances of misconduct and deceit, which cast doubt on its role as an arbiter of truth. The company's track record includes privacy breaches, deceptive practices, and legal battles over data misuse. For instance, Google has faced multiple lawsuits over its data collection practices, including allegations of tracking users' location without consent. These issues highlight a troubling pattern of prioritizing corporate interests over user privacy and ethical considerations.
In light of this history, the idea of Google using its technologies to control information becomes even more concerning. The removal of the "Don't be evil" clause from its code of conduct a few years ago marked a significant shift in the company's priorities, indicating a move towards profit and control at the expense of ethical considerations. This shift raises questions about why Google, with its history of questionable practices, should be trusted to decide what information is valid and what is not.
Jigsaw’s development of tools like Project Shield, which aims to protect websites from cyberattacks, also brings privacy concerns to the forefront. While designed to prevent online threats, Project Shield involves extensive monitoring and data collection. This capability can be exploited by state actors to conduct widespread surveillance on citizens under the pretense of security. Data collected through such tools could be used to build detailed profiles of individuals, track their online activities, and target those who oppose government policies. As Edward Snowden showed us, when it comes to surveillance, even seemingly benign information can become a weapon of control, turning every keystroke into a potential threat and every click into a target for those who wield the power to watch, judge, and execute.
Moreover, rather ironically, Jigsaw's Outline, meant to help users bypass censorship, provides a blueprint for how authoritarian regimes could tighten their control over digital communications. By understanding and circumventing these tools, repressive governments could enhance their censorship tactics, making it even harder for citizens to access free and independent information.
It’s important to note that Kamala Harris, currently a frontrunner for the presidency, has substantial backing from Silicon Valley. If the cackler-in-chief becomes president, Altitude would likely become a mechanism that potentially suffocates free speech, cutting off the oxygen that allows democratic discourse to thrive.
