Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from Ohio newspapers:

___

Gabbard’s lawsuit puts Google on the spot

Toledo Blade

Sept. 3

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has renewed the debate surrounding the outsized influence of tech companies in American politics with her lawsuit against Google.

Ms. Gabbard, a U.S. representative from Hawaii, has alleged that Google’s decision to temporarily suspend her advertising account after the June Democratic primary debates was tantamount to suppressing her candidacy. Her lawsuit accuses Google of violating her First Amendment rights, for which she is seeking $50 million and assurances that Google will not censor or restrict her account further.

Google has countered that Ms. Gabbard’s account was flagged for “unusual activity” and suspended “to prevent fraud and protect our customers.” The company claims Ms. Gabbard’s account was quickly reinstated and that it is “proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters … without any bias toward any party or political ideology.”

This litigation is pending and, as a result, few facts are publicly known. But the case is a stark reminder that Google, whether it does so purposefully or not, has the power to adjust the volume on people’s voices, promoting or limiting certain ideas largely at the whim of certain algorithms.

Google has received criticism for many years about perceived instances of censorship. People from across the political spectrum have raised concerns that Google’s search engine algorithms ensure certain ideas bubble to the top of searches, while others sink to the bottom.

While some assume that Google is doing this with malicious intent, the truth seems to be far more dull: the company’s algorithms are doing much of the censorship, lifting up or dragging down certain websites based on a computer program’s assessment of a set of unknown variables.

It is true that most computer algorithms reflect the biases of their creators. But considering that voices from both the left and the right have been quasi-censored by Google’s algorithms, it seems safe to say that more is going on than just political preference.

But because Google is a private company, it is not obligated to share specifics about how its operations work. This prevents researchers, or even just ordinary people, from seeing exactly how its algorithms decide what to promote and what to bury.

The same goes for how Google’s algorithms police other activity, like how advertising accounts are spending money. The fear of Russian influence on U.S. elections led companies like Google and Facebook to heavily alter their algorithmic policing of advertising and content, but the public has little information about how exactly those changes impact what information they are able to consume.

And when one recognizes Google’s power to transmit information - approximately 5.6 billion searches are made each day through the company’s search engine - the opacity of its practices become that much more concerning.

Ms. Gabbard’s assertion that Google intentionally damaged her campaign may be hard to prove. But her lawsuit has once again dragged Silicon Valley into view, reminding the public of the stranglehold tech companies have on how we process and consume information.

Algorithms that fundamentally impact how information is controlled and prioritized should be made available for public review. People have a right to decide if they are comfortable with how Google, Facebook or any other company is deciding what we can and cannot read or view. If these companies are confident in their business practices, they’ll have nothing to fear.

Online: https://bit.ly/2lCaREE

___

Stop Calling

Sandusky Register

Aug. 29

Should companies be allowed to solicit business using an endless, deceptive practice called robocalls, making literally billions of telephone contacts with consumers uninvited, seemingly in a constant stream of interruptions? No.

Is it a legitimate business practice and can you trust the messages that come with these calls and deceptive business practices? No.

Should consumers be forced to tolerate this invasion of their space by greedy operators that don’t have a legitimate business, or employee legitimate business practices to sell their products, and instead turn to high-pressure and constant push that isn’t welcome and is not appreciated? No.

No. No. No, we say.

The only reason we can figure why it’s been allowed to go on for so long is that there were no rules or regulations outlawing robocalls. Well, that was then, and this is now. We’re encouraged that all 50 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have agreed on a set of standards to put the robo-callers out of business. They’ve promised to promote the technologies that phone companies can use to stop this annoying practice and we’re glad they have.

The group, which includes Ohio Attorney General David Yost, is pushing the initiative with 12 phone service providers to adopt anti-robocall practices. Providers like AT&T;, Verizon and Sprint will develop policies on how to identify and block illegal robocalls and make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute criminals. The agreement brings phone service providers on board as critical allies, Yost said. “By adopting these commonsense business practices, service providers will reinforce our ongoing efforts to crack down on this growing nuisance.”

The plan calls for call blocking technology, at no cost to customers; provide customers with free, easy-to-use call blocking tools; technology to verify if calls are coming from a valid source; and monitor phone company networks for robocall traffic. The providers also will trace origins of illegal robocalls and will attempt to develop technology as scam tactics evolve.

It’s a great start, we believe, and now is the time to crack down on scammers. We hope it works and is the beginning of a united and consistent effort to combat what has been, simply, a degenerate method of doing business.

Online: https://bit.ly/2lCqmMT

___

Trump, Tongass and Seiberling

Akron Beacon Journal

Sept. 2

John F. Seiberling offered this region and the country a lesson in the value of conservation. He did so as a member of the U.S. House representing Akron and surroundings in the 1970s and 1980s. His legacy is evident in the 33,000 acres of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, plus the millions of acres in public lands protected as wilderness across the country.

Seiberling changed the model for federal land management, reflecting more than the obligation of one generation to the next to preserve our natural heritage. He advanced sound environmental stewardship. He understood, for example, how biodiversity, or complex and thriving habitats, serve the planet.

One leading aspect of the Seiberling legacy is the protection of Alaskan wilderness, including part of the Tongass National Forest, along the coastal, southeastern portion of the state. In early 2001, Bill Clinton built on the achievement. He prohibited the construction of roads in 58.5 million acres of undeveloped national forest. This “roadless rule” covered more than half of the 16.7 million acres of the Tongass. The result has been almost complete protection for one of the largest remaining temperate rain forests in the world.

That is, until now, though George W. Bush challenged the rule and lost in court. The Washington Post reported last week that President Trump has instructed the agriculture secretary to exempt the Tongass from the rule, opening 9.5 million acres to road development, and thus logging, drilling and mining.

The president’s proposal has pleased many Alaskan politicians, not to mention the timber, oil and gas industries. Yet this initiative, as John Seiberling would advise, deserves assessment from a broader perspective.

Seiberling and colleagues acted in response to decades of logging and other activity scarring the Alaskan landscape. It is easy to forget how much damage was done, roughly one-half of the Tongass old-growth forest subject to clear-cutting.

The commercial salmon fishing industry accounts for 8 percent of the regional economy. Open the forest to logging, especially, and the fishing sector suffers. Logging disrupts the top cover, sending portions into nearby streams, muddying and warming the water. The result is fewer salmon travel up streams to reproduce, diminishing their already reduced numbers.

More, spawning salmon bring nutrients that aid forest growth.

Tourism makes up nearly one-fifth of the regional economy. The many who visit marvel at the magnificence of the sea life, the forests and the fjords. Fewer may be inclined to come if the experience includes extended patches of fallen forest, rare wilderness glaringly interrupted.

It matters, too, that disturbing old-growth forest risks accelerating climate change or makes more difficult the task of curbing carbon emissions. Trees around for hundreds of years have absorbed much carbon. One scientist recently explained to the Juneau Empire that the Tongass alone holds 8 percent of the carbon in the lower 48 states.

Cut down those trees, and carbon returns to the atmosphere. Consider also that loggers often find defective as much as 70 percent of the old-growth trees they fell, making the practice economically inefficient and environmentally shortsighted.

Before the president’s directive, the federal Forest Service had been working on a plan for modest adjustments to the roadless rule. In 2016, it identified nearly 600,000 acres for logging in the Tongass. Actually, the agency has authority to grant exemptions to the rule, and it has approved more than 50 projects.

That highlights the care required in managing such precious lands, including respect for the way of life of native Alaskans. What isn’t needed is a sweeping rejection of the rule. That isn’t the lesson John Seiberling taught about conservation.

Online: https://bit.ly/2jVqTco

___

OSU’s wage increase is an exception

Marietta Times

Aug. 31

Ohio State University has announced that, beginning next year, it will be raising its own minimum wage to $15 per hour - apparently jumping on the trendy number embraced by precisely zero state governments right now (though Washington, D.C. comes closest at a $14 per hour minimum wage in 2019). Washington, D.C. is joined by only seven states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York) that plan to have minimum wages of $15 per hour by 2025.

For the rest of the Buckeye State, the minimum wage is $8.55 per hour, though there is a proposal in the state senate to raise that to $12 next year and implement $1 yearly increases until it reaches $15 in 2023.

State lawmakers should not view Ohio State’s experiment as validation for that plan.

Ohio State is not like other employers, nor will it be affected in the same way by raising its wage floor.

Ohio State receives funding from both the state and federal governments (i.e., taxpayers). It is allowed to go out and seek millions upon millions from donors. It can negotiate broadcast contracts for its sporting events and receive grant funding for its programs.

All those revenue sources mean Ohio State has the same kind of fat to trim as most other institutions of higher learning. In this case, it says the “ongoing administrative efficiencies program” across the university will easily fund the expected $19 million it will cost to raise its minimum wage to $15.

That kind of thing doesn’t happen in the real world.

Of course, no one begrudges Ohio State employees a raise if their employer is so painlessly able to afford it.

But for ordinary Buckeye State employers there would be plenty of pain. A $6.45 per hour increase in minimum wage over the next four years would be devastating. Remember it is not just a raise for minimum wage employees, but likely also for those currently earning somewhere just above minimum wage, if employers hope to maintain their wage scales. Even Ohio State understands it will also have to increase the wages of employees who now earn $15 per hour to $16 per hour.

Doing right by Ohio workers is important - lawmakers know that. Using Ohio State’s plan as a model for doing so won’t get us there.

Online: https://bit.ly/2k2qHZ4

Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.