post
Please follow and like us:
onpost_follow

In Defense of the Pro Se.

How Censorship Hurts the Poor

Today I will talk about Google’s brand of diversity and how it can harm you. In a previous post, I discussed how politicization of colleges can affect your rights. In this post, I will discuss how politicization of your access to information can affect your rights in as neutral of a way as I can.

It is important to consider what will happen when this hostility seeps into search results.

 

A man was fired to end a discussion.

In case you are unaware, Google recently fired an engineer for writing a paper. The paper questioned whether more freedom to speak freely and exchange ideas could help Google achieve diversity goals. The theme of the paper does not seem to be controversial and it was quite well researched. The engineer claims he offered it to begin a discussion. You can read the paper for yourself and come to your own conclusions about it.

I picked this particular scenario because I have seen the correct advice deleted from a social media website after people complained.

 

Google showed much hostility toward information on topics that some people find uncomfortable. It is important to consider what will happen when this hostility seeps into search results. We already know Google has initiatives on YouTube to flag what it deems objectionable content. Many users are having their content blocked or demonetized for what the users claim are political reasons.

Even people who only watch cat videos need to know their rights-especially custody rights.

The decision to get a paternity test is often controversial to people who do not know the law or who have a political agenda.

 

If I only watch videos of cats, how does this affect my rights? Let’s start with the example of a Suit to Adjudicate Paternity which is a fairly common type of lawsuit in Texas. Generally, the best way to answer this type of suit is with a General Denial (maybe not in your case, but generally). You should get a paternity test even if you are sure the child is yours. Before that you have no guarantees unless you had a camera on the egg to witness the conception. You don’t want to pay twenty percent of your income for someone elses child for eighteen years. Moreover, the child’s real father could return to the child’s life leaving you left out of everything except the child support obligation. These things happen. A general denial is your ticket to a paternity test.

However, the decision to get a paternity test is often controversial to people who do not know the law or who have a political agenda. Some may even find it “triggering”. The type of advice above gets flagged as inappropriate. In fact, I picked this particular scenario because I have seen the correct advice deleted from a social media website after people complained.

Private meets public censorship.

Internet safety filters in schools and libraries block information flagged as inappropriate. What happens when someone who cannot afford an attorney goes to a public library to do research? Or how about when a child or teacher tries to help a parent from a school library with even stricter filters? The filter hides critical information for the party’s own “safety.” That doesn’t sound safe at all.

Rights you do not know about are often rights waived.

 

If you think this gives you an advantage because you are a woman, you are sadly mistaken. That flagged content – not only did it tell the man how to fight a paternity claim, it also included limitations that would torpedo his case. Paternity generally cannot be questioned after four years for example. Sorry, that important nugget is in the same content hidden behind the filter.

It’s even worse than that though. What happens when a valuable authority makes one controversial post and gets banned or blacklisted? Suddenly, access to a treasure-trove of useful knowledge is lost to everyone who might benefit from it. Rights you do not know about are often rights waived. As a result, whichever party can afford an attorney has an even greater advantage over a pro se (unrepresented party) who relies on a censored internet.

The people making these decisions can afford to hire their own attorneys.

Consorship is the great and terrible equalizer.

Censorship hurts almost everybody equally. Men, women, black, white, citizens, and immigrants all need access to all the information to defend their rights. The divide is between the rich and poor. The poor have to rely on access to information on the internet while the rich hire attorneys. The people making these decisions can afford to hire their own attorneys.

I’m not saying that search engines have gone this far yet, but they appear to be on their way. I find it terrifying and so should you.

Please follow and like us: