Why the reluctance?

I dislike the gotcha tone but it is an interesting dynamic to observe. From Google CEO Squirms as Jim Jordan Asks if Google Will 'Tailor Its Features' to Help Joe Biden by Tyler O'Neil.

During a Big Tech hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked Google CEO Sundar Pichai to promise the American people that Google would not “tailor its features” to help presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Pichai hemmed and hawed, but he ultimately offered a vague commitment to be impartial in the election.

And while I dislike the characterization, when I watch the video, it is hard not to concede that Pichai was working hard not to accede to a simple request.

Jordan sought an assurance that Google would not use its power (via search results) to deliberately sway the election; that Google would treat all candidates equally. The fact that Pichai sought repeatedly to affirm something different from that is possibly telling.

Under repeated questioning Pichai offered:

“Congressman, we approach our work, we support both campaigns today. We think political ads is [sic] an important part of free speech in democratic societies, and we engage with campaigns you know according to law and we approach our work in a nonpartisan way”

“We support work that campaigns do”

It was only on the third go that Jordan got some commitment to what he was seeking.

“We won’t do any work to politically tilt anything one way or the other, it’s against our core values”

Representatives only have five minutes to question. There is a serious opportunity for those being questioned to attempt to run out the clock by deflection. For example, by answering different questions than were asked. That is what Pichai seems to be attempting to do.

And even the concession seems oddly specific. There is some evidence that search results are already tilted. Is this just a technical commitment to not do any work to change that?

If it is a core value to remain strictly neutral, then Jordan's original question should have been easy to answer. It could have been:

Q: Mr. Pichai, is Google going to tailor its features to help Joe Biden in the 2020 election?

A: No, Google will not tailor its features to help Joe Biden or any other candidate in the 2020 election!

Asked and answered. So if it is a core value, why did he not respond with that affirmation?

One obvious answer is that Pichai is CEO of a sprawling leviathan. They have extraordinary power and 120,000 employees. Virtually no CEO can put hand on heart and confirm that their company and their employees will adhere to an articulated value such as treating all candidates equally.

Were Pichai to have answered as suggested, then he would be opening the company up to lawsuits. Among the 120,000, there are always going to be bad apples.

However, you only have to watch one of the post-2016 election results videos to see that the entirety of Google's leadership were behaving as if all employees were shattered by their loss and that the company fully empathized with them. In the attached video, (which, as far as I can tell, is not available on Google owned Youtube), one can witness a parade of Google C-suite executives lamenting the 2016 results with employees.

Pichai, at that event, offered a strong endorsement of democracy but he also observed, repeatedly, that the outcome of the election was incompatible with Google's values.

Jim Jordan was more focused on the fact that one of Google's senior executives was caught on tape discussing how they attempted to sway the Latino vote towards Clinton. All subsequently explained away by Google.

Then there was Google's brutal treatment of their employee James Dalmore for simply questioning, based on empirical data, Google's Critical Theory Social Justice orthodoxy. From the tape, from the executive's own words, and by Google's response to one of their own when challenged on their dominant Critical Theory Social Justice orthodoxy, there are good reasons to be concerned about Google, or Google employees and their capacity for neutrality.

The reality is that a CEO has much more constrained control of his or her organization than most people expect and that all CEOs tend to be reluctant to make absolute commitments. So I marginally understand why Pichai would not want to have made the simple commitment "Google will not tailor its features to help Joe Biden or any other candidate in the 2020 election!" He, as do we, know that there will be among the 120,000 in a Critical Theory Social Justice orthodox culture, some bad actors who will attempt to use their positions to influence the election.

So perhaps all we have here is a CEO being reluctant to make an obvious and easy categorical commitment to what should be a common value - treat everyone equally, because he knows that that will be difficult to deliver.

But it sure does come off as shifty, lawyer vetted, and unresponsive.

We need to trust Google (and other corporations). They should both commit to being trustworthy, fess up when there are tactical failures (as there always will be) and be seen to being delivering on their commitments. We are a long way from that right now. Particularly with all the tech company de-platforming and cancelling so rampant at this time.

Jordan's five minutes closed out with more evasion.

“I can assure you we complied with laws in 2016, as a company”

Only at the end did Jordan get something like what he was looking for.

“You have my commitment, it’s always been true, and we will continue to conduct ourselves in a neutral way.”

Skepticism might have still been high, but Trust took a big hit given how long it took to get to that simple and obvious commitment.