I caution against latching onto the title and making assumptions. The bulk of the content is analyzing where the current censorship position came from and the conclusion is for Google to be more open with their stance and also be more equal with applying it.
As for the why:
Why the shift toward censorship?
- User Demands
- before, In the absence of rules, bad behaviour thrived
- now, Appease users, maintain platform loyalty
- Government Demands
- before, Governments were unhappy to cede power to corporations
- now, Respond to regulatory demands, maintain global expansion
- Commercial Demands
- before, It’s impossible to neutrally promote content and info
- now, Monetize content through its organisation, increase revenues
- before, Advertisers were wary of unintended placement and endorsement
- now, Protect advertisers from controversial content, increase revenues
As for the conclusions:
Don’t take sides
Police tone instead of content
Enforce standards and policies clearly
Justify global positions
Explain the technology
Improve communications
Take problems seriously
Positive guidelines
Better signposts
Most of the document is non-controversial. There are places where it can be seen as obviously left leaning, but there are also places where it acknowledges that sometimes the right has been treated worse:
“[Richard] Spencer doesn't get to be a verified speaker; Milo gets kicked off, but I know
plenty of pretty abusive feminist users or left wing users,
expressing themselves in exactly the same way
that the right is being penalised for,
who are permitted
to perform certain kinds of speech. That’s going to get Twitter into
As for the why:
As for the conclusions: Most of the document is non-controversial. There are places where it can be seen as obviously left leaning, but there are also places where it acknowledges that sometimes the right has been treated worse: