Connect with us

Tech

TRANSCRIPT: Jim Jordan OBLITERATES Google CEO Over Anti-Conservative Bias

Published

on

Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai fielded questions from the House Judiciary Committee regarding privacy concerns and alleged bias against conservatives. In an epic takedown, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) put Pichai on the hotseat, making him squirm.

Transcript:

Jordan: “Mr. Pichai, in your opening statement you said ‘I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products operate that way.’ Eliana Murillo is Google’s head of multicultural marketing. Does Ms. Murillo do good work?”

Trending: Homosexual Cop Gets $10 Million Taxpayer Payout Because He Did Not Receive a Promotion

Pichai: “I’m not very familiar with her work but she’s an employee of Google and, you know, we are proud of our employees.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Jordan: “Well you praised her work the day after the 2016 election. In a four page email she wrote about her work with the Latino vote she said ‘even Sundar gave our effort a shoutout.’ Is she referring to you, there?”

Pichai: “She was referring to my communication around translation for a different related effort.”

Jordan: “Okay, well I’m gonna look at two other sentences she had in that long email, again recapping her work in the 2o16 election with the Latino vote. She said this: ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with our features.’ A few lines down in her email she qualified that sentence and she said ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with out features in key states,’ and she specifically cites the states Florida and Nevada. Near the end of her email in a similar sentence she says ‘We supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.’ You with me? I wanna kind of analyze those two sentences. Is it fair to say the ‘We’ in those sentences, Mr. Pichai, refers to Google?”

Pichai: “Um, Congressman, we, we, we are very concerned over allegations like that. We, we are – ”

Jordan: “I’m not asking you that question. I’m asking you, is it fair to say the ‘We’ in both sentences refers to the company Google?”

Pichai: “As Google we don’t participate in any partisan efforts around any civic process, so I don’t think so.”

Jordan: “Okay, so this – ‘We pushed and we supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to polls in key states and we pushed to get out the Latino vote during the 2016 election’ – and how were they getting that done? They were getting that done by, according to Ms. Murillo, your head of multicultural marketing, by altering your features or configuring your features in such a way and for paying for rides to get people to the polls. Is that accurate? That’s all I’m asking – is it fair to say that that’s what those sentences are talking about?

Pichai: “I’m not aware of all of the specifics but we did look into it – we found no evidence that there were any activities like that from Google, uh, as an organization.”

Jordan: “So she’s not telling the truth?”

Pichai: “For sure, we didn’t find any supporting evidence of any such activity.”

Jordan: “She said she paid for rides to the polls, and they configured their features in such a way as to get out the Latino vote. And look – I actually think that’s all okay. I think that that’s just a good corporate citizen encouraging voter participation, encouraging people to participate in our election process. I think so far those sentence are just fine. But then there’s three words at the end of each sentence that do cause me real concern. And those three words are ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with out features in key states.’ Now suddenly it gets political. ‘We supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.‘ Now that makes everything different. So I’ve got really just one question for you: Why? Why did Google configure its features and pay for rides to the polls to get out the Latino vote only in key states?”

Pichai: “Congressman, sincerely we found no evidence to substantiate those claims. The only effort we do around elections – ”

Jordan: “So your head of multicultural marketing, who you praised her work in this email, gave her a shoutout, was lying when she said you were trying to get out the Latino vote in key states?”

Pichai: “We, today, in the U.S., around elections – we make it – and this is what users look to us for – where to register to vote, where to find you nearest polling place, what are the hours they are open, and we do those things -”

Jordan: “That’s not what I’m asking. I appreciate that Mr. Pichai and I already said that’s just being a good corporate citizen. What I’m asking is why did you only do it in key states?”

Pichai: “We didn’t do any such activity as Google on any of these key states. I mean, there are employees, I think they are parts -”

Jordan: “Did you push to get out the Latino vote in all states?

Pichai: “As Google, we don’t have goals around pushing to get out any particular segment. We don’t participate in partisan activities. We engage with both campaigns. We support and sponsor debates across both sides of the aisle, and we provide users with information to get their election.”

Jordan: “Your head of multicultural marketing said you were pushing to get out the Latino vote, paying for rides to the polls for the Latino vote only in key states, and you’re saying that’s not accurate?”

Pichai: “Yes that’s right.  We haven’t found any evidence to substantiate – ”

Jordan: “So she just made it up out of thin air the day after the election and wrote this email to your top executives, and it’s not true?”

Pichai: “Congressman, happy to follow up, but the employees today do their own activities.”

Jordan: “I don’t want the follow up. I wan’t the real answers right here in this committee.”

Pichai: “As I’ve said earlier we’ve looked into it. We didn’t find -”

Jordan: “Did you push to get out the key vote in – I would say the two most populous states for Latinos would be California and Texas – did you push to get out the Latino vote and pay for people to go to the polls in California and Texas?”

Pichai: “We as a company did not undertake any effort to push out votes for any particular demographic that would be against our principles. We participate in the civic process in a, in a nonpartisan way. We think it’s really important we do it that way.”

Jordan: “Well I just think it’s interesting – Mr. Chairman I know I’m over time – I just think it’s interesting that their head of multicultural marketing writes an email the day after the election where she talks about 71 percent of Latino votes voted for Hillary, but that wasn’t enough, and she talks about paying for rides to the polls in key states for Latino votes, to get out the Latino votes in key states and the head of the company says that’s not accurate.”

Pichai sat dumbfounded in silence before the Chairman directed that the Committee move on to the next member. Watch the live hearings here.

 

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

Tech

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Begs for Government Mandates on ‘What Discourse Should Be Allowed’

Zuckerberg doesn’t have the courage to really stand for free speech.

Published

on

While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg regularly pays lip service to free speech, he demands for more government control over the public discourse at the same time.

Zuckerberg showed what a snake he is during an appearance at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

“There should be more guidance and regulation from the states on basically — take political advertising as an example — what discourse should be allowed?” Zuckerberg said to a group of Western leaders Saturday at the prestigious event. “Or, on the balance of free expression and some things that people call harmful expression, where do you draw the line?”

“There are a lot of decisions in these areas that are really just balances between different social values,” Zuckerberg added. “It’s about coming up with an answer that society feels is legitimate and that they can get behind and understand that you drew the line here on the balance of free expression and safety. It’s not just that there’s one right answer. People need to feel like, ‘OK, enough people weighed in, and that’s why the answer should be this, and we can get behind that.’”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Zuckerberg will be meeting with European Union officials throughout the week. He is expected to give them the blessing they want to regulate freedom of speech out of existence.

“We need to make sure that the internet can continue to be a place where everyone can share their views openly and where the legal framework around this is one that encodes democratic values,” Zuckerberg said.

“I do think that as part of that, we’ve got to move forward on regulation. Hopefully, we move forward quickly before a more authoritarian model gets adopted in a lot of places first,” he added.

Earlier this month, Zuckerberg was attempting to dupe suckers by claiming that he and his monopoly social media platform were dedicated to preserving freedom of speech:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced during the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Utah on Friday that his tech corporation is going to support freedom of speech from this point forward.

“This is the new approach, and I think it’s going to piss off a lot of people. But frankly, the old approach was pissing off a lot of people too, so let’s try something different,” Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg is paying lip service to free speech and encryption while he is under fire from every angle. Conservatives are criticizing Facebook for deplatforming right-wing voices while liberals beg for more Draconian Big Brother censorship against their enemies. Zuckerberg has become a convenient punching bag as political polarization rises.

“Increasingly we’re getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable,” Zuckerberg said.

“We’re going to take down the content that’s really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point,” he added.

Zuckerberg has the audacity to paint himself as a hero standing up for digital freedom during a tumultuous time.

“If you’re not out there standing for things that people care about then it’s not possible for people to feel that strongly about what you’re doing,” he said.

Zuckerberg talks about Facebook’s new focus in favor of freedom of speech while his platform cracks down on alternative media like never before.

Facebook has outsourced their censorship operation to supposedly “independent” fact checkers that flag stories that go against the globalist narrative. Pages that share the flagged stories are given strikes on the platform, and eventually censored from the news feed.

Fork-tongued hypocrites like Zuckerberg can never be counted upon to defend sacred rights. That is why Facebook and other Big Tech giants must lose their special government-enforced privileges under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if they do not protect freedom of speech, as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has suggested.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending