Criticism of Google#Privacy

{{See also|Attention economy|Filter bubble}}

The algorithms that generate search results and recommend videos on YouTube have both been criticized as motivated to drive user engagement by reinforcing users pre-existing beliefs while also suggesting more extreme and less reliable content. In addition to social media, these algorithms have received substantial criticism as a driver of political polarization, internet addiction disorder, and the promotion of misinformation, disinformation, violence and other externalities.{{Cite web |last=Kelly |first=Makena |date=2021-04-27 |title=Congress is way behind on algorithmic misinformation |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406054/facebook-twitter-google-youtube-algorithm-transparency-regulation-misinformation-disinformation |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=The Verge |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Chirag |date=2021-03-10 |title=It's not just a social media problem – how search engines spread misinformation |url=http://theconversation.com/its-not-just-a-social-media-problem-how-search-engines-spread-misinformation-152155 |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |last1=Solon |first1=Olivia |last2=Levin |first2=Sam |date=2016-12-16 |title=How Google's search algorithm spreads false information with a rightwing bias |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/google-autocomplete-rightwing-bias-algorithm-political-propaganda |access-date=2024-07-15 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Mathew |title=Google says it's fighting misinformation, but how hard? |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/google-misinformation-youtube.php |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Tameez |first=Hanaa' |title=YouTube's algorithm is pushing climate misinformation videos, and their creators are profiting from it |url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/youtubes-algorithm-is-pushing-climate-misinformation-videos-and-their-creators-are-profiting-from-it/ |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=Nieman Lab}} Aviv Ovadya argues that these algorithms incentivize the creation of divisive content in addition to promoting existing divisive content.{{Cite web |last=Ovadya |first=Aviv |date=May 17, 2022 |title=Bridging-Based Ranking |url=https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/bridging-based-ranking |access-date=2024-07-17 |website=Belfer Center at Harvard University |pages=3 |language=en}}

Sally Hubbard argues that as a monopoly, sites like YouTube and Google search result in more fake news than if there were more competition in the market that could make it harder to promote harmful content by just gaming one algorithm.{{Cite web |last=Illing |first=Sean |date=2017-09-22 |title=The EU just fined google, but tech companies became too big long ago |url=https://www.vox.com/technology/2017/9/22/16330008/eu-fines-google-amazon-monopoly-antitrust-regulation |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}

From the 2000s onward, Google and parent company Alphabet Inc. have faced antitrust scrutiny over alleged anti-competitive conduct in violation of competition law in a particular jurisdiction.{{Cite news |last1=Kanter |first1=James |last2=Pfanner |first2=Eric |date=2010-11-30 |title=Europe Opens Antitrust Inquiry Into Google |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/technology/01google.html |access-date=2023-04-02 |issn=0362-4331}} Antitrust scrutiny of Google has primarily centered on the company's dominance in the search engine and digital advertising markets.{{Cite news |last=Lohr |first=Steve |date=2020-10-20 |title=What Is Happening With the Antitrust Suit Against Google? |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/antitrust-google.html |access-date=2023-04-02 |issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite news |last1=McCabe |first1=David |last2=Grant |first2=Nico |date=2023-01-24 |title=U.S. Accuses Google of Abusing Monopoly in Ad Technology |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html |access-date=2023-04-02 |issn=0362-4331}} The company has also been accused of leveraging control of the Android operating system to illegally curb competition.{{Cite web |last=Lomas |first=Natasha |date=2022-09-14 |title=Google fails to overturn EU's €4BN+ Android antitrust decision |url=https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/14/google-eu-android-antirust-appeal-ruling/ |access-date=2023-04-02 |website=TechCrunch |language=en-US}}

Google has also received antitrust scrutiny over its control of the Google Play store and alleged "self-preferencing" at the expense of third-party developers.{{Cite news |last1=McCabe |first1=David |last2=Wakabayashi |first2=Daisuke |date=2021-07-07 |title=Dozens of States Sue Google Over App Store Fees |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/technology/google-play-store-antitrust-suit.html |access-date=2023-04-02 |issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite web |last=Vincent |first=James |date=2022-07-01 |title=Google offers small app developers $90 million to settle antitrust allegations |url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/1/23191008/google-app-developers-fund-90-million-play-store-antitrust |access-date=2023-04-02 |website=The Verge |language=en-US}} Additionally, Google's alleged discrimination against rivals' advertisements on YouTube has been subject to antitrust litigation.{{Cite web |title=Google offers to let ad rivals place YouTube ads in EU antitrust probe |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/13/google-offers-to-let-ad-rivals-place-youtube-ads-in-eu-antitrust-probe.html |access-date=2023-04-02 |website=CNBC |date=June 13, 2022 |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |date=2022-08-02 |title=Rumble's antitrust lawsuit against Google can proceed, says judge |url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/2/23288732/rumble-antitrust-lawsuit-google-search-results-app-court-decision |access-date=2023-04-02 |website=The Verge |language=en-US}} More recently, Google Maps and the Google Automotive Services (GAS) package have become the target of antitrust scrutiny.{{Cite web |last=Sisco |first=Josh |date=2023-02-22 |title=DOJ pushes ahead with Google Maps antitrust probe |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/22/doj-google-maps-antitrust-probe-00084058 |access-date=2023-04-02 |website=POLITICO |language=en}}

The European Commission has pursued several competition law cases against Google, namely:{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40406542|title=Google hit with record $2.7bn EU fine|first=Leo|last=Kelion|date=June 27, 2017|newspaper=BBC News}}

• Complaint that Google abused its position as a dominant search engine to favor its own services over those of competitors. In particular, Google operated a free comparison shopping website Froogle, which it abandoned in favor of a paid-placement-only site called Google Shopping. Other comparison sites complained of a precipitous drop in web traffic due to changes in the Google search algorithm, and some were driven out of business.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/08/04/541643346/episode-787-google-is-big-is-that-bad|title=Episode 787: Google Is Big. Is That Bad?|newspaper=NPR.org}} The investigation began in 2010 and concluded in July 2017 with a €2.42 billion fine against the parent company Alphabet, and an order to change its practices within 90 days.
• Complaint opened in 2015 that the dominance of the Android operating system was abused to make it difficult for competing third-party apps and search engines to be pre-installed on mobile phones. (See European Union vs. Google.){{cite web | title=PRESS RELEASES – Press release – Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on comparison shopping service; opens separate formal investigation on Android | website=European Commission | url=http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm | access-date=April 7, 2018}}
• Complaint opened in 2016 that Google abused its market dominance to prevent competing advertising companies to sell ads to websites already using Google AdSense{{cite web | title=PRESS RELEASES – Press release – Antitrust: Commission takes further steps in investigations alleging Google's comparison shopping and advertising-related practices breach EU rules* | website=European Commission | date=July 14, 2016 | url=http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2532_en.htm | access-date=April 7, 2018}}
• In June 2023, the EU accused Google of abusing its control of the EU market for buying and selling online advertising to undercut rivals.{{Cite news |last=Satariano |first=Adam |date=2023-06-14 |title=Google's Online Advertising Practices Violate Antitrust Laws, E.U. Says |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/technology/google-antitrust-european-union.html |access-date=2023-06-14 |issn=0362-4331}}

{{main|United States v. Google LLC (2020)}}

In testimony before a U.S. Senate antitrust panel in September 2011, Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, said that "the Internet is the ultimate level playing field" where users were "one click away" from competitors. Nonetheless, Senator Kohl asked Schmidt if Google's market share constituted a monopoly{{snd}}a special power dominant{{snd}} for his company. Schmidt acknowledged that Google's market share was akin to a monopoly, but noted the complexity of the law.{{Cite web |date=2011-09-22 |title=Eric Schmidt at Google Hearings: Close to Monopoly, but we've not Cooked Anything |url=https://www.stateofdigital.com/eric-schmidt-at-google-hearings-close-to-monopoly-but-weve-not-cooked-anything/ |access-date=2022-03-15 |website=State of Digital |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |last=Davies |first=Chris |date=2011-09-22 |title=Schmidt: Google Is In Monopoly "Area" But No Microsoft |url=https://www.slashgear.com/schmidt-google-is-in-monopoly-area-but-no-microsoft-22181821/ |access-date=2022-03-15 |website=SlashGear.com |language=en-US}}

During the hearing, Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, accused Google of cooking its search results to favor its own services. Schmidt replied, "Senator, I can assure we haven't cooked anything." In testimony before the same Senate panel, Jeffrey Katz and Jeremy Stoppelman, the chief executives from Google's competitors Nextag and Yelp, said that Google tilts search results in its own favor, limiting choice and stifling competition.

In October 2012, it was reported that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission staff were preparing a recommendation that the government sue Google on antitrust grounds. The areas of concern include accusations of manipulating the search results to favor Google services such as Google Shopping for buying goods and Google Places for advertising local restaurants and businesses; whether Google's automated advertising marketplace, AdWords, discriminates against advertisers from competing online commerce services like comparison shopping sites and consumer review Web sites; whether Google's contracts with smartphone makers and carriers prevent them from removing or modifying Google products, such as its Android operating system or Google Search; and Google's use of its smartphone patents. A likely outcome of the antitrust investigations is a negotiated settlement where Google would agree not to discriminate in favor of its products over smaller competitors.[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/technology/ftc-staff-prepares-antitrust-case-against-google-over-search.html?_r=0 "Drafting Antitrust Case, F.T.C. Raises Pressure on Google"], Steve Lohr, The New York Times, October 12, 2012. Retrieved October 3, 2013. Federal Trade Commission ended its investigation during a period which the co-founder of Google, Larry Page, had met with individuals at the White House and the Federal Trade Commission, leading to voluntary changes by Google; since January 2009 to March 2015 employees of Google have met with officials in the White House about 230 times according to The Wall Street Journal.{{cite news |last=Mullins |first=Brody |date=24 March 2015 |title=Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=24 March 2015 }}

In June 2015, Google reached an advertising agreement with Yahoo!, which would have allowed Yahoo! to feature Google advertisements on its web pages. The alliance between the two companies was never completely realized because of antitrust concerns by the U.S. Department of Justice. As a result, Google pulled out of the deal in November 2018.{{cite web|url=http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/31/yahoo-and-google-may-dump-their-deal/print/|title=Yahoo and Google may dump their deal|last=Mclntyre|first=Douglas|date=October 31, 2008|publisher=Bloggingstocks.com|access-date=October 26, 2010|archive-date=October 29, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029194613/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/31/yahoo-and-google-may-dump-their-deal/print/|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/ending-our-agreement-with-yahoo.html|title=Ending our agreement with Yahoo!|last=Drummond|first=David|date=November 5, 2008|publisher=Google, Inc|access-date=October 26, 2010}}{{cite web|last=Fabio|first=Michelle|title=Is Google a Monopoly?|url=https://www.legalzoom.com/legal-headlines/corporate-lawsuits/is-google-monopoly|publisher=LegalZoom|date=September 13, 2011|access-date=September 14, 2011|archive-date=September 11, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110911213212/http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-headlines/corporate-lawsuits/is-google-monopoly|url-status=dead}}

In September 2023 Google's antitrust trial United States v. Google LLC (2020) began at federal court in Washington, D.C.{{Cite news |last=Harshawn Ratanpal |date=2023-10-05 |title=Google ramped up federal lobbying ahead of DOJ antitrust showdown |language=en |work=Open Secrets |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/10/google-ramped-up-federal-lobbying-ahead-of-doj-antitrust-showdown/ |access-date=2023-10-07}} in which the DOJ accuses Google of illegally creating a monopoly by paying billions of dollars to smartphone vendors and mobile carriers to make Google's search engine the default service. The federal court ruled in August 2024 that Google did abuse its position in search engines and violated the Sherman Act.{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/05/business/google-loses-antitrust-lawsuit-doj/index.html|title=Google has an illegal monopoly on search, judge rules. Here's what's next | CNN Business|first=Brian Fung, Clare|last=Duffy|date=August 5, 2024|website=CNN}}

In January 2023, the DOJ filed a similar lawsuit accusing Google of monopolizing the digital advertising industry. The complaint alleged that the company had engaged in "anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct" over the previous 15 years.{{Cite web |date=2023-01-24 |title=Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=U.S. Department of Justice |language=en}} The trial began on September 9, 2024.{{Cite web |last=Elias |first=Jennifer |date=2024-09-06 |title=Google's second antitrust trial could help shape the future of online ads |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/google-second-antitrust-trial-advertising-model.html |access-date=2024-09-18 |website=CNBC |language=en}}

On April 20, 2016, the European Union filed a formal antitrust complaint against Google's leverage over Android vendors, alleging that the mandatory bundling of the entire suite of proprietary Google software, hindered the ability for competing search providers to be integrated into Android and that barring vendors from producing devices running forks of Android both constituted anti-competitive practices.{{Cite news|title=Google faces EU charge over Android 'abuse of dominance'|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36092441|newspaper=BBC News|access-date=April 20, 2016|date=2016-04-20|last1=Rawlinson|first1=Kevin}} In June 2018, the European Commission determined a $5 billion fine for Google regarding the April 2016 complaints.{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/2018/digital/global/google-european-commission-android-5-billion-fine-1202876575/|title=Google Fined a Record $5 Billion by European Antitrust Officials|date=2018-07-18|work=Variety|access-date=2018-07-21|language=en-US}}

In August 2016, Google was fined US$6.75 million by the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) under similar allegations by Yandex.{{cite web|title=Russia fines Google $6.75 million for preinstalling apps on Android|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/12/12450192/russia-google-antitrust-fine-android|website=The Verge|publisher=Vox Media|access-date=23 March 2017|date=2016-08-12}}

On April 16, 2018, Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors. resulted in the Competition Commission of India ordering a wider probe investigation order against Google Android illegal business practices. The investigations arm of the CCI should complete the wider probe in the case within 150 days, the order said, though such cases at the watchdog typically drag on for years. The CCI also said the role of any Google executive in the alleged abuse of the Android platform should also be examined.{{cite news |title=CCI orders probe into 'Android abuse' by Google |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cci-orders-probe-into-android-abuse-by-google/article27097335.ece |work=@businessline |language=en}} Google was fined $275 million in 2023 by the Indian government for issues related to Android and for pushing developers to use its in-app payment system.{{Cite news |date=May 19, 2023 |title=Exclusive: India plans action against Google after antitrust breaches |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/indias-govt-plans-action-against-google-after-antitrust-breaches-2023-05-19/ |work=Reuters}}

According to the group of 15 state attorneys general suing Google for antitrust issues,{{cite web |last1=Paxton |first1=Ken |title=IN RE: GOOGLE DIGITAL ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.152.0.pdf |publisher=United States District Court, Southern District of New York |access-date=10 December 2021 |date=22 October 2021}} Google and Facebook entered into a price-fixing agreement termed Jedi Blue to monopolize the online advertising market and prevent the entry of the fairer header bidding method of advertisement sales on any major advertising platform. The agreement consisted of Facebook using the Google-managed system for bidding on and managing online ads in exchange for preferential rates and priority on prime ad placement. This allowed Google to retain its profitable monopoly over online ad exchanges, while saving Facebook billions of dollars on attempts to build competing systems.{{cite news |last1=Silverman |first1=Jacob |title=Inside Jedi Blue, Facebook's Shady Deal With Google |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/inside-jedi-blue-facebooks-secret-deal-with-google.html |access-date=10 December 2021 |work=New York Magazine Intelligencer |date=28 October 2021 |language=en-us}}{{cite news |last1=Wakabayashi |first1=Daisuke |last2=Hsu |first2=Tiffany |title=Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/technology/google-facebook-ad-deal-antitrust.html |access-date=10 December 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=17 January 2021}} Over 200 newspapers have sued Google and Facebook to recover losses incurred by the collusion.{{cite news |last1=Fischer |first1=Sara |last2=Dixon |first2=Kristal |title=Scoop: Over 200 papers quietly sue Big Tech |url=https://www.axios.com/1-local-newspapers-lawsuits-facebook-google-3c3dee3a-cce3-49ef-b0a2-7a98c2e15c91.html |access-date=10 December 2021 |work=Axios |date=7 December 2021}}

Google admitted that the deal contained, "a provision governing cooperation between Google and Facebook in the event of certain government investigations."{{cite news |last1=Acton |first1=Michael |last2=Swift |first2=Mike |title=Google acknowledges it foresaw possibility of probe of 'Jedi Blue' advertising deal with Facebook |url=https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news-hub/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/antitrust/google-acknowledges-it-foresaw-possibility-of-probe-of-jedi-blue-advertising-deal-with-facebook |access-date=10 December 2021 |work=mlexmarketinsight.com |date=7 April 2021 |language=en}} Google has an internal team called gTrade dedicated to maximizing Google's advertising profits, reportedly using insider information, price fixing, and leveraging Google's relative monopoly positions.{{cite news |last1=Joseph |first1=Seb |title=Ad execs dismayed, but not surprised, by tactics Google allegedly used |url=https://digiday.com/marketing/ad-execs-dismayed-but-not-surprised-by-new-alleged-actions-against-google-to-curtail-digital-ad-revenue/ |access-date=10 December 2021 |work=Digiday |date=27 October 2021}}

In 2006/2007, a group of Austrian researchers observed a tendency to misuse the Google engine as a "reality interface". Ordinary users as well as journalists tend to rely on the first pages of Google Search, assuming that everything not listed there is either not important or simply does not exist. The researchers say that "Google has become the main interface for our whole reality. To be precise: with the Google interface, the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools".[http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/iicm_papers/dangers_google.pdf Report on dangers and opportunities posed by large search engines, particularly Google] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091229105054/http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/iicm_papers/dangers_google.pdf |date=December 29, 2009 }}, H. Maurer (Ed), Graz University of Technology, Austria, September 30, 2007, 187 pp. Retrieved October 3, 2013.

File:Eric Schmidt at the 37th G8 Summit in Deauville 037.jpg, former executive chairman of Google]]

Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, said in a 2007 interview with the Financial Times: "The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?{{'"}}.[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html Google's goal: to organize your daily life] Financial Times Schmidt reaffirmed this during a 2010 interview with The Wall Street Journal: "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions; they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212 Google and the Search for the Future] Wall Street Journal

Numerous companies and individuals, for example, MyTriggers.com{{cite news|title=Google wins antitrust victory in Ohio case|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/google-antitrust-ruling-idUKN1E78014F20110901|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306120142/http://uk.reuters.com/article/google-antitrust-ruling-idUKN1E78014F20110901|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 6, 2016|last=Levine |first=Dan |work=Reuters UK|date=September 1, 2011 |access-date=September 14, 2011}} and transport tycoon Sir Brian Souter,{{cite news|title=Disappearing tycoon Souter blames Google|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14884717|work=BBC News |date=September 12, 2011}} have voiced concerns regarding the fairness of Google's PageRank and search results after their web sites disappeared from Google's first-page results. In the case of MyTriggers.com, the Ohio-based shopping comparison search site accused Google of favoring its own services in search results (although the judge eventually ruled that the site failed to show harm to other similar businesses).

{{See also|Search engine manipulation effect|Search neutrality}}

PageRank, Google's page ranking algorithm, can and has been manipulated for political and humorous reasons. To illustrate the view that Google's search engine could be subjected to manipulation, Google Watch implemented a Google bomb by linking the phrase "out-of-touch executives" to Google's own page on its corporate management. The attempt was mistakenly attributed to disgruntled Google employees by The New York Times, which later printed a correction.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/business/22google.html|title=Google Edits Its Prospectus to Highlight Risk of Loss|first1=Saul|last1=Hansell|first2=John|last2=Markoff|work=The New York Times|date=June 22, 2004}}{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/nyregion/c-corrections-097942.html|title=Corrections|work=The New York Times|date=June 25, 2004|access-date=April 30, 2010}}

Daniel Brandt started the Google Watch website and has criticized Google's PageRank algorithms, saying that they discriminate against new websites and favor established sites.{{Cite journal|url= http://www.alternet.org/rights/14001/|title= Conspiracy Researcher Says Google's No Good|journal= AlterNet|last= Manjoo|first= Farhad|date= August 30, 2002|access-date= December 12, 2009|archive-date= June 8, 2012|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120608001322/http://www.alternet.org/rights/14001/|url-status= dead}} Chris Beasley, who started Google Watch-Watch, disagrees, saying that Mr. Brandt overstates the amount of discrimination that new websites face and that new websites will naturally rank lower when the ranking is based on a site's "reputation". In Google's world, a site's reputation is in part determined by how many and which other sites link to it (links from sites with a "better" reputation of their own carry more weight). Since new sites will seldom be as heavily linked as older more established sites, they aren't as well known, won't have as much of a reputation, and will receive a lower page ranking.[http://www.google-watch-watch.org/pagerank.php "Why Daniel Brandt doesn't like Google PageRank"], Chris Beasley, Google Watch Watch, accessed October 18, 2011

In testimony before a U.S. Senate antitrust panel in September 2011, Jeffrey Katz, the chief executive of NexTag, said that Google's business interests conflict with its engineering commitment to an open-for-all Internet and that: "Google doesn't play fair. Google rigs its results, biasing in favor of Google Shopping and against competitors like us." Jeremy Stoppelman, the chief of Yelp, said sites like his have to cooperate with Google because it is the gateway to so many users and "Google then gives its own product preferential treatment." In earlier testimony at the same hearing, Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, said that Google does not "cook the books" to favor its own products and services.[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/technology/google-takes-the-hot-seat-in-washington.html "Google's Competitors Square Off Against Its Leader"], Steve Lohr, The New York Times, September 21, 2011

Google apologized in 2009 when a picture of Michelle Obama digitally altered to appear as a gorilla was among the first images when searching on Google Image.{{Cite web |title=Google apologizes for results of 'Michelle Obama' image search - CNN.com |url=https://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/25/google.michelle.obama.controversy-2/ |access-date=2024-06-24 |website=www.cnn.com |language=en}}

In 2013, Emily McManus, managing editor for TED.com, searched for "english major who taught herself calculus" which prompted Google to ask, "Did you mean: english major who taught himself calculus?"{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/emilymcmc/status/497389626349608960|title=No Google, no I didn't. pic.twitter.com/9BtO4IjBTE|last=McManus|first=Emily|date=2014-08-07|website=@emilymcmc|language=en|access-date=2019-11-11}} Her tweet of the incident gained traction online. One response included a screengrab of a search for "how much is a wnba ticket?" to which the auto-correct feature suggested, "how much is an nba ticket?" Google responded directly to McManus and explained that the phrase "taught himself calculus" appeared about 282,000 times, whereas the phrase "taught herself calculus" appeared about 4,000 times. The company also made note of its efforts to bring more women into STEM fields.{{Cite web|url=https://ideas.ted.com/why-did-this-simple-google-search-get-retweeted-3500-times/|title=Why did this simple Google Search get retweeted 3,500 times?|date=2014-08-15|website=ideas.ted.com|language=en|access-date=2019-11-11}}

In 2015, a man tweeted a screengrab showing that Google Photos had tagged two African American people as gorillas.{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/jackyalcine/status/615329515909156865|title=Google Photos, y'all fucked up. My friend's not a gorilla. pic.twitter.com/SMkMCsNVX4|last=jackyjackyjackyjacky|date=2015-06-28|website=@jackyalcine|language=en|access-date=2019-11-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200314041843/https://twitter.com/jackyalcine/status/615329515909156865|archive-date=March 14, 2020|url-status=live}} Google apologized, saying they were "appalled and genuinely sorry" and was "working on longer-term fixes."{{Cite web|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/01/google-mistakenly-tags-black-people-as-gorillas-showing-limits-of-algorithms/|title=Google Mistakenly Tags Black People as 'Gorillas,' Showing Limits of Algorithms|last=Barr|first=Alistair|date=2015-07-01|website=WSJ|language=en-US|access-date=2019-11-11}} An investigation by WIRED two years later showed that the company's solution has been to censor searches for "gorilla," "chimp," "chimpanzee," and "monkey."{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/story/when-it-comes-to-gorillas-google-photos-remains-blind/|title=When It Comes to Gorillas, Google Photos Remains Blind|magazine=Wired|access-date=2019-11-11|language=en|issn=1059-1028}} As of 2023, Google Photos software still will not search for gorillas on local photos.{{Cite news |last1=Grant |first1=Nico |last2=Hill |first2=Kashmir |date=2023-05-22 |title=Google's Photo App Still Can't Find Gorillas. And Neither Can Apple's. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/technology/ai-photo-labels-google-apple.html |access-date=2024-06-24 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}

{{Main|Google Shopping}}In late May 2012, Google announced that they will no longer be maintaining a strict separation between search results and advertising. Google Shopping (formerly known as Froogle) would be replaced with a nearly identical interface, according to the announcement, but only paid advertisers would be listed instead of the neutral aggregate listings shown previously. Furthermore, rankings would be determined primarily by which advertisers place the highest "bid", though the announcement does not elaborate on this process. The transition was completed in the fall of 2012.{{cite web|url=http://googlecommerce.blogspot.com/2012/05/building-better-shopping-experience.html |title=Google Commerce: Building a better shopping experience |publisher=Googlecommerce.blogspot.com |access-date=October 30, 2012}}

As a result of this change to Google Shopping, Microsoft, who operates the competing search engine Bing, launched a public information campaign titled Scroogled,{{cite web |url=http://scroogled.com/ |title=Have you been Scroogled Try Bing—we don't limit your shopping choices |publisher=scroogled.com}} hiring political campaign strategist Mark Penn to run it.{{Cite magazine |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/112421/microsofts-scroogle-ads-and-mark-penn# |title=Microsoft's Mark Penn Mistake – The tech giant is treating Google like a political rival|magazine=The New Republic|date=2013-02-15|last1=Depillis|first1=Lydia}}{{Additional citation needed|date=July 2024|reason=Notability}}

It is unclear how consumers have reacted to this move. Critics charge that Google has effectively abandoned its "Don't be evil" motto and that small businesses will be unable to compete against their larger counterparts. There is also concern that consumers who did not see this announcement will be unaware that they are now looking at paid advertisements and that the top results are no longer determined solely based on relevance but instead will be manipulated according to which company paid the most.{{cite web |url=http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/google-shopping-no-longer-free/31052012/ |title=Google Shopping Listings Will No Longer be Free to Advertisers | RKG Blog |publisher=Rimmkaufman.com |access-date=October 30, 2012}}{{cite web |last=Holbrook |first=Ben |url=http://www.stateofsearch.com/paid-google-shopping-another-step-towards-googles-master-plan/ |title=Paid Google Shopping – Another Step Towards Google's Master Plan |publisher=State of Search |access-date=October 30, 2012|date=2012-06-20 }}

European Union regulators found in 2017 that Google Shopping links also appear much higher in Google search results.{{Cite web |last1=Ayanso |first1=Anteneh |last2=Armstrong |first2=Michael J. |date=2017-07-12 |title=Online shopping: Retailers seek visibility in face of Google control |url=http://theconversation.com/online-shopping-retailers-seek-visibility-in-face-of-google-control-80129 |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}} In 2024, some owners of small sites have also criticized Google for burying their websites far behind Google Shopping and other results that lack the expertise found in the content of some of the smaller sites.{{Cite web |last=Sato |first=Mia |date=2024-05-02 |title=Google is getting even worse for independent sites |url=https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147152/google-search-seo-publishing-housefresh-product-reviews |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=The Verge |language=en}}

{{Main|Google Books |Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.}}

Google's ambitious plans to scan millions of books and make them readable through its search engine have been criticized for copyright infringement.[http://benton.org/node/27683 "France to oppose Google book scheme"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727143052/http://benton.org/node/27683 |date=July 27, 2011 }}, Stanley Pignal, Financial Times, September 8, 2009 The Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers and the Association of American University Presses both issued statements strongly opposing Google Print, stating that "Google, an enormously successful company, claims a sweeping right to appropriate the property of others for its own commercial use unless it is told, case by case and instance by instance, not to."[http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/45817.html?wlc=1284533661 "Google Print Faces More Opposition"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121185908/http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/45817.html?wlc=1284533661 |date=January 21, 2012 }}, Keith Regan, E-Commerce Times, August 30, 2005

In a separate dispute in November 2009, the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS), which protects Chinese writers' copyrights, accused Google of scanning 18,000 books by 570 Chinese writers without authorization, for its Google Books library.[https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/21/chinese-writer-google-markets-copyrights.html "A Copyright Complaint From China"], Forbes, October 21, 2009. Retrieved November 17, 2013. Toward the end of 2009 representatives of the CWWCS said talks with Google about copyright issues are progressing well, that first they "want Google to admit their mistake and apologize", then talk about compensation, while at the same time they "don't want Google to give up China in its digital library project". On November 20, 2009, Google agreed to provide a list of Chinese books it had scanned, but did not admit having "infringed" copyright laws. In a January 9, 2010 statement the head of Google Books in the Asia-Pacific said "communications with Chinese writers have not been good enough" and apologized to the writers.[https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hDz0P2L_hYnB9tqfD3jTkWlQwEIg?hl=en "Google apologises to Chinese writers over book flap"]{{dead link|date=June 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 10, 2010. Retrieved November 17, 2013.

Kazaa and the Church of Scientology have used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to demand that Google remove references to allegedly copyrighted material on their sites.[http://www.technewsworld.com/story/31481.html "Google Pulls P2P Links Over Kazaa Copyright Claims"], Jay Lyman, TechNewsWorld, September 2, 2003{{cite news| url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E5D7103FF931A15757C0A9649C8B63 | work=The New York Times | title=New Economy; A copyright dispute with the Church of Scientology is forcing Google to do some creative linking | first=David F. | last=Gallagher | date=April 22, 2002 | access-date=April 30, 2010}}

Search engines such as Google's that link to sites in "good faith" fall under the safe harbor provisions of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which is part of DMCA. If they remove links to infringing content after receiving a take down notice, they are not liable. Google removes links to infringing content when requested, provided that supporting evidence is supplied. However, it is sometimes difficult to judge whether or not certain sites are infringing and Google (and other search engines) will sometimes refuse to remove web pages from its index. To complicate matters there have been conflicting rulings from U.S. courts on whether simply linking to infringing content constitutes "contributory infringement" or not.{{cite news|url=http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/|title = Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US|last=Tew|first=Chris|publisher = WebTVWire|date = September 12, 2006|access-date =October 12, 2006}}See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc. (2007) for a ruling that links do not constitute infringement. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes (2001), Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (1999), and [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decision-161-comcast-illinoi-hightech-elec.pdf Comcast of Illinois X, LLC. v. Hightech Electronics, Inc.] (2004) for three rulings that links are infringing.

The New York Times has complained that the caching of their content during a web crawl, a feature utilized by search engines including Google Web Search, violates copyright.[http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html "Google cache raises copyright concerns"] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120911011209/http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html |date=September 11, 2012 }}, Stefanie Olsen, CNET News, July 9, 2003 Google observes Internet standard mechanisms for requesting that caching be disabled via the robots.txt file, which is another mechanism that allows operators of a website to request that part or all of their site not be included in search engine results, or via META tags, which allow a content editor to specify whether a document can be crawled or archived, or whether the links on the document can be followed. The U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled that Google's caches do not constitute copyright infringement under American law in Field v. Google and Parker v. Google.[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/fieldgoogle.pdf "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Blake A. Field vs. Google, Inc., No. CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL"], Judge Robert C. Jones, United States District Court (District of Nevada), January 12, 2006[http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0306P.pdf Memorandum & Order, Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc., No. 04-CV-3918] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141208135923/http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0306P.pdf |date=December 8, 2014 }}, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania), March 10, 2006

On February 20, 2017, Google agreed to a voluntary United Kingdom code of practice obligating it to demote links to copyright-infringing content in its search results.{{Cite news|title=Google and Bing to demote pirate sites in UK web searches|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39023950|newspaper=BBC News|access-date=20 February 2017|date=2017-02-20}}{{Cite news|title=Google and Bing to deprecate piracy websites|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/20/google-and-bing-to-demote-piracy-websites|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=20 February 2017|date=2017-02-20|agency=Press Association}}

Google Map Maker allows user-contributed data to be put into the Google Maps service,{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/mapmaker|title=Google Map Maker|access-date=February 12, 2015}} similar to OpenStreetMap it includes concepts such as organising mapping parties and mapping for humanitarian efforts.[http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635 "We Need to Stop Google's Exploitation of Open Communities"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120115103706/http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635 |date=January 15, 2012 }}, Mikel Maron, April 11, 2011. It has been criticized for taking work done for free by the general public and claiming commercial ownership of it without returning any contributions back to the commons{{cite web|url=https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_Map_Maker|title=Google Map Maker|access-date=February 12, 2015}} as their restrictive license makes it incompatible with most open projects by preventing commercial use or use by competitive services.[http://brainoff.com/weblog/2010/03/16/1541 "Why Google MapMaker is not Open"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419212254/http://brainoff.com/weblog/2010/03/16/1541 |date=April 19, 2012 }}, Mikel Maron, March 16, 2010.

Google allegedly used code from Chinese company Sohu's Sogou Pinyin for its own input method editor, Google Pinyin.{{cite news|first=Sumner|last=Lemon|title=Rival Asks Google to Yank 'Copycat' Application|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130497-c,google/article.html|work=PC World|publisher=IDG|date=April 8, 2007|access-date=April 11, 2007|archive-date=July 24, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724001143/http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130497-c,google/article.html|url-status=dead}}

On February 16, 2016, internet reviewer Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) posted a video about his concerns related to YouTube's current copyright-claiming system, which was apparently being tipped in favor of claimants rather than creators despite many of those videos being reported as covered under Fair Use laws. The video featured stories of other YouTubers' experiences with the copyright system, including fellow Channel Awesome producer Brad Jones, who received a strike on his channel for uploading a film review that took place in a parked car and contained no footage from the film itself. In the video, Walker encouraged others to spread the message using the hashtag #WTFU (Where's the Fair Use?) on social media.{{Cite news|url=http://www.craveonline.com/design/954997-prominent-youtubers-ask-wheres-fair-use-backlash-site|title=Prominent YouTubers Ask "Where's the Fair Use?" in Backlash Against Site|last=Tamburro|first=Paul|date=February 17, 2016|work=Crave Online|access-date=February 17, 2016}} The hashtag spread among multiple YouTubers, who gave their support to Walker and Channel Awesome and relaying their own stories of issues with YouTube's copyright system, including Dan Murrell of Screen Junkies,{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/MurrellDan/status/699757480155295744?lang=en|title=Dan Murrell on Twitter|last=Murrell|first=Dan|date=February 16, 2016|work=Twitter|access-date=February 19, 2016}} GradeAUnderA, and Let's Play producers Mark Fishbach (Markiplier) and Seán William McLoughlin (Jacksepticeye).

Ten days later, on February 26, 2016, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki tweeted a link to a post from the YouTube Help Forum and thanked the community for bringing the issue to their attention. The post, written by a member of the YouTube Policy Team named Spencer (no last name was given), stated that they will be working to strengthen communication between creators and YouTube Support and "improvements to increase transparency into the status of monetization claims."{{Cite web |title=Note from YouTube's Policy Team – YouTube Community |url=https://support.google.com/youtube/forum/AAAAiuErobUx3aGmn_MsqI/?hl=en&gpf=#!topic/youtube/x3aGmn_MsqI |access-date=2022-07-11 |website=Google News}}

{{Main|Privacy concerns regarding Google}}

File:PRISM Collection Details.jpg: a clandestine surveillance program under which the NSA collects user data from companies like Google.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 |title=Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme |work=BBC News |date=January 17, 2014}} (Slide sourced from The Washington Post that briefed intelligence analysts at the National Security Agency about the PRISM program touting its capabilities and featuring the logos of the companies involved)]]

Google's March 1, 2012 privacy change enables the company to share data across a wide variety of services.{{cite news|url=https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/|title=Google Privacy Policy |date=March 1, 2012}} This includes embedded services in millions of third-party websites using AdSense and Analytics. The policy was widely criticized as creating an environment that discourages Internet innovation by making Internet users more fearful online.{{cite magazine|url=https://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/will-we-ever-get-strong-internet-privacy-rules/?xid=gonewsedit|title=Will We Ever Get Strong Internet Privacy Rules?|date=March 5, 2012|magazine=Time}}

In December 2009, after privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, declared: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/|title=Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy |last=Cade|first=Metz |date=December 7, 2009 |work=The Register}}

Privacy International has raised concerns regarding the dangers and privacy implications of having a centrally located, widely popular data warehouse of millions of Internet users' searches, and how under controversial existing U.S. law, Google can be forced to hand over all such information to the U.S. government.{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6740075.stm |work=BBC News | title=Google ranked 'worst' on privacy | date=June 11, 2007}} In its 2007 Consultation Report, Privacy International ranked Google as "Hostile to Privacy", its lowest rating on their report, making Google the only company in the list to receive that ranking.[http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf "Consultation Report: Race to the Bottom? 2007"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070612031502/http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf |date=June 12, 2007 }}, Privacy International, June 9, 2007Delichatsios, Stefanie Alki; Sonuyi, Temitope, [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/google.pdf "Get to Know Google...Because They Know You"], MIT, Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier, 6.805, December 14, 2005

At the Techonomy conference in 2010, Eric Schmidt predicted that "true transparency and no anonymity" is the way forward for the internet: "In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it." He also said that "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"{{cite news|url=http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/5/no-anonymity-future-web-says-google-ceo/ |title=No anonymity on future web says Google CEO |publisher=THINQ.co.uk |access-date=August 7, 2010 |date=August 5, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815042507/http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/5/no-anonymity-future-web-says-google-ceo/ |archive-date=August 15, 2010 |df=mdy }}

In 2013, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the northern district of California, accusing Google of "storing and intentionally, systematically and repeatedly divulging" users' search queries and histories to third-party websites.{{Cite web |title=Gaos v. Google |url=https://www.refererheadersettlement.com/home/3609/DocumentHandler?docPath=/Documents/Exhibit_A_Complaint.pdf |access-date=2024-10-19 |website=}} In 2023, Google agreed to pay a $23 million dollar settlement, amounting to $8 per person.{{Cite web |title=Google Might Owe You Money. Here's How to Get It. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/technology/google-class-action-settlement-claim.html |access-date=2024-10-19 |website=New York Times|date=June 14, 2023 |last1=Mayorquin |first1=Orlando }}

In the summer of 2016, Google quietly dropped its ban on personally identifiable info in its DoubleClick ad service. Google's privacy policy was changed to state it "may" combine web-browsing records obtained through DoubleClick with what the company learns from the use of other Google services. While new users were automatically opted-in, existing users were asked if they wanted to opt-in, and it remains possible to opt-out by going to the Activity controls in the My Account page of a Google account. ProPublica states that "The practical result of the change is that the DoubleClick ads that follow people around on the web may now be customized to them based on your name and other information Google knows about you. It also means that Google could now, if it wished to, build a complete portrait of a user by name, based on everything they write in email, every website they visit and the searches they conduct." Google contacted ProPublica to correct the fact that it doesn't "currently" use Gmail keywords to target web ads.{{cite web|first=Julia|last=Angwin|author-link=Julia Angwin|title=Google Has Quietly Dropped Ban on Personally Identifiable Web Tracking|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/google-has-quietly-dropped-ban-on-personally-identifiable-web-tracking|publisher=ProPublica|date=October 21, 2016|access-date=October 23, 2016}}

Google has a US$1.2 billion artificial intelligence and surveillance contract with the Israeli military known as Project Nimbus. According to Google employees, the Israeli military could use this technology to expand its surveillance of Palestinians living in occupied territories.{{Cite magazine |last=Harrington |first=Caitlin |date=Sep 9, 2022 |title=Google and Amazon Want More Defense Contracts, Despite Worker Protests |magazine=Wired |url=https://www.wired.com/story/google-and-amazon-want-more-defense-contracts-despite-worker-protests/ |access-date=2022-09-11 |quote=Opponents of the deal worry the Israeli military could use the technology to expand surveillance of Palestinians living in occupied territories and violate human rights.}} In what has been described as "retaliation for publicly criticizing the contract,"{{Cite news |last=Nieva |first=Richard |date=Sep 9, 2022 |title=Google And Amazon Workers Protest Their Companies' $1.2 Billion AI Contract With Israel |work=Forbes |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardnieva/2022/09/09/google-and-amazon-protest-project-nimbus-ai-contract-israel/ |access-date=2022-09-11}} Google relocated an outspoken employee overseas. Other Palestinian employees have described an "institutionalised bias" within the company.{{Cite news |date=1 Sep 2022 |title=Google employee resigns saying company 'silences Palestinians' |work=Al Jazeera |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/1/google-employee-resigns-in-protest-over-israel-contract |access-date=2022-09-11}}

On 12 September 2024, Ireland's Data Protection Commission opened an investigation into Google's AI system for potential GDPR violations related to data collection. The probe is part of Europe's broader efforts to regulate AI amid privacy concerns, with Google's PaLM 2 model under review.{{cite news|title=Google hit with European privacy probe over its AI system|date=12 September 2024|url=https://www.politico.eu/article/google-hit-with-european-privacy-probe-over-its-artificial-intelligence-system/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240912120615/https://www.politico.eu/article/google-hit-with-european-privacy-probe-over-its-artificial-intelligence-system/|archive-date=September 12, 2024|access-date=12 September 2024|url-status=live}}

Google shared environment activist Disha Ravi's document on Google Docs with the Delhi police which led to her arrest.{{cite news |title=Disha Ravi arrest puts privacy of all Google India users in doubt |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-arrest-puts-privacy-of-all-google-india-users-in-doubt-1769772-2021-02-16 |access-date=2022-08-23 |work=India Today |date=2021-02-16}}

{{Main|Censorship by Google}}

Google has been criticized for various instances of censoring its search results, many times in compliance with the laws of various countries, most notably while it operated in China from January 2006 to March 2010.

{{See also|Censorship by Google#Google Search}}

As of December 12, 2012, Google's SafeSearch feature applies to image searches in the United States. Prior to the change, three SafeSearch settings—"on", "moderate", and "off"—were available to users. Following the change, two "Filter explicit results" settings—"on" and "off"—were newly established. The former and new "on" settings are similar and exclude explicit images from search results. The new "off" setting still permits explicit images to appear in search results, but users need to enter more specific search requests, and no direct equivalent of the old "off" setting exists following the change. The change brings image search results into line with Google's existing settings for web and video search.

Some users have stated that the lack of a completely unfiltered option amounts to "censorship" by Google. A Google spokesperson disagreed, saying that Google is "not censoring any adult content", and "[wants] to show users exactly what they are looking for—but we aim not to show sexually explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them."{{cite news |last=Whittaker |first=Zack |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-com-now-censors-explicit-content-from-image-searches/ |title=Google.com now 'censors' explicit content from image searches |work=ZDNet |date=December 12, 2012 |access-date=June 14, 2013}}

The search term "bisexual" was blacklisted for Instant Search until 2012, when it was removed at the request of the BiNet USA advocacy organization.[http://www.advocate.com/society/technology/2012/09/11/google-removes-bisexual-its-list-dirty-words "Google Removes 'Bisexual' From Its List of Dirty Words"], Michelle Garcia, Advocate.com, September 11, 2012. Retrieved March 14, 2014.

{{See also|Google China}}

Google has been involved in the censorship of certain sites in specific countries and regions. Until March 2010, Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm |title=Google censors itself for China |publisher=BBC |access-date=January 31, 2008 |date=January 25, 2006}} enforced by filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results were filtered to remove some information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Google claimed that some censorship is necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002.[http://www.groveatlantic.com/#page=isbn9780802142979 The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC–AD 2000] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150314220758/http://www.groveatlantic.com/ |date=March 14, 2015 }}, Julia Lovell, Grove/Atlantic, March 2007, {{ISBN|978-0-8021-4297-9}} The company claims it did not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm Google move 'black day' for China]." BBC News. January 25, 2006. As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results are blocked or hidden. As of December 2012, Google no longer informs the user of possible censorship for certain queries during search."[https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/04/google-china-search-message-gone Google quietly removed search warning message in China in early December 2012]." Engadget. January 4, 2013

Some Chinese Internet users were critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights.[https://archive.today/20130210002141/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/admirersofhhthedalailama/message/4117 "Google: Stop participating in China's Propaganda"], Students for a Free Tibet, Yahoo! Groups, February 1, 2006 Furthermore, Google had been denounced and called hypocritical by Free Media Movement for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information.{{cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/01/25/afx2474703.html |title=Google bows to Chinese censorship with new search site |author=AFX News |work=Forbes |date=January 25, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081121012157/http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/01/25/afx2474703.html|archive-date=November 21, 2008}} Google China had also been condemned by Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch[https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/5.htm#_Toc142395827 "3. Google, Inc."] in Race to the Bottom': Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, Part IV. How Multinational Internet Companies assist Government Censorship in China, Human Rights Watch, Vol. 18 No. 8(C), August 2006 and Amnesty International.[https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/015/2006/en/ "Google does not censor: take action to defend freedom of information"], Amnesty International, May 10, 2006

In 2009, China Central Television, Xinhua News Agency, and People's Daily all reported on Google's "dissemination of obscene information", and People's Daily claimed that "Google's 'don't be evil' motto becomes a fig leaf".{{cite web |url=http://it.people.com.cn/GB/42891/42895/9507795.html |title=Google's "don't be evil" motto becomes a fig leaf (谷歌"不作恶"口号沦为遮羞布) (in Chinese) |work=People's Daily |date=June 19, 2009 |access-date=June 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921205047/http://it.people.com.cn/GB/42891/42895/9507795.html |archive-date=September 21, 2013 |url-status=dead }} ([https://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://it.people.com.cn/GB/42891/42895/9507795.html English translation]){{cite web |url=http://zb.people.com.cn/GB/14717/98407/120220/9547340.html |title=Investigating on Google China's obscene information, the public says "good"! (查处谷歌中国淫秽信息, 公众都叫"好"!) |work=People's Daily |date=June 26, 2009 |access-date=June 27, 2009 |archive-date=July 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730100822/http://zb.people.com.cn/GB/14717/98407/120220/9547340.html |url-status=dead }} ([https://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://zb.people.com.cn/GB/14717/98407/120220/9547340.html English translation]) The Chinese government imposed administrative penalties to Google China, and demanded a reinforcement of censorship.{{cite news|url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-06/19/content_11568367.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090622090746/http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-06/19/content_11568367.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=June 22, 2009|title=Relevant departments punished "Google China"'s dissemination of obscene information by law (有关部门对"谷歌中国"传播淫秽色情信息行为依法处罚)|publisher=xinhuanet|author=卫敏丽|date=June 19, 2009|access-date=June 26, 2009}} ([https://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-06/19/content_11568367.htm English translation])

In 2010, according to a leaked diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, there were reports that the Chinese Politburo directed the intrusion of Google's computer systems in a worldwide coordinated campaign of computer sabotage and the attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents, carried out by "government operatives, public security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government."{{cite news

|author=Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren

|title= Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy

|work=The New York Times

|date= November 28, 2010

|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1

|access-date=December 26, 2010

}} The report suggested that it was part of an ongoing campaign in which attackers have "broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002."

In response to the attack, Google announced that they were "no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all."[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html "A new approach to China"], David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, January 12, 2010{{cite web|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html|title=A new approach to China|date=January 12, 2010|publisher=Google Inc.|access-date=January 17, 2010}} On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirected its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. From the business perspective, many recognize that the move was likely to affect Google's profits: "Google is going to pay a heavy price for its move, which is why it deserves praise for refusing to censor its service in China."{{cite news|title=Google's strategy in China deserves praise|url=http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/28/1842611/googles-strategy-in-china-deserves.html|newspaper=Kansas City Star|access-date=September 29, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100401043301/http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/28/1842611/googles-strategy-in-china-deserves.html|archive-date=April 1, 2010|date=March 28, 2010}} However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" continues to censor search results from the Hong Kong portal, www.google.com.hk (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for controversial terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4 incident" (1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre).[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html A new approach to China: an update"], David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, March 22, 2010{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/google-pulls-out-of-china-2010-3 |title=BREAKING: Google Pulls Search Engine Out Of China |date=March 22, 2010|last=Carlson |first=Nicholas |work=Business Insider}}{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.8ttSrfS4DE&pos=1|title=Google Ends Self-Censorship, Defies China Government (Update4)|last=Womack |first=Brian |date=March 23, 2010|publisher=Bloomberg News}}

In 2018, Lhadon Tethong, director of the Tibet Action Institute, said there was a, "crisis of repression unfolding across China and territories it controls." and that, "it is shocking to know that Google is planning to return to China and has been building a tool that will help the Chinese authorities engage in censorship and surveillance." She further noted that "Google should be using its incredible wealth, talent, and resources to work with us to find solutions to lift people up and help ease their suffering — not assisting the Chinese government to keep people in chains."{{cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2018/12/10/rights-groups-pressure-google-on-china-censorship-ahead-of-congressional-hearing/|title=RIGHTS GROUPS TURN UP PRESSURE ON GOOGLE OVER CHINA CENSORSHIP AHEAD OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARING|date=11 December 2018|access-date=6 May 2020|website=The Intercept|first=Ryan|last=Gallagher}}

In 2024, a Google accelerator program was reported to have provided support to a Chinese company that provides surveillance equipment to police in China.{{Cite news |last=Chiu |first=Joanna |date=2024-11-19 |title=Chinese startups supported by Microsoft and Google incubator programs worked with police |url=https://restofworld.org/2024/microsoft-google-chinese-startup-incubator-police-surveillance/ |access-date=2024-11-21 |website=Rest of World |language=en-US}}

{{expand section|date=May 2020}}

Google has been involved in censorship of Google Maps satellite imagery countrywide affecting Android and iOS apps using .com, .tr, and .tld automatically. Desktop users can easily evade this censorship by just removing .tr, and .tld from the URL but the same technique is impossible with smartphone apps. {{Cite web |title=Widespread Blurring of Satellite Images Reveals Secret Facilities |url=https://fas.org/publication/widespread-blurring-of-satellite-images-reveals-secret-facilities/ |access-date=2025-04-14 |website=Federation of American Scientists |language=en-US}}

Google removed the Smart Voting app from the Play Store before the 2021 Russian legislative election. The application, which had been created by the associates of the imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny, offered voting advice for all voting districts in Russia. It was removed after a meeting with Russian Federation Council officials on 16 September 2021. The Wired reported that several Google employees were threatened with criminal prosecution. Google's actions were condemned as political censorship by Russian opposition figures.{{cite news |last1=Hay Newman |first1=Lily |title=Apple and Google Go Further Than Ever to Appease Russia |url=https://www.wired.com/story/russia-apple-google-voting-app-navalny/ |access-date=18 September 2021 |publisher=Wired |date=17 September 2021}}

In March 2022, Google removed an app, designed to help Russians register protest votes against Putin, from its Play Store.{{cite news|title=Putin's prewar moves against U.S. tech giants laid groundwork for crackdown on free expression|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/12/russia-putin-google-apple-navalny/|newspaper=The Washington Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220315073252/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/12/russia-putin-google-apple-navalny/ |archive-date=March 15, 2022 }}

{{Main|Google AdSense |Google AdWords}}

In February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."{{cite web|url=http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/05/17/google-somewhat-lifts-oceana-ad-ban |title=Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban |date=May 17, 2004 |publisher=WebProNews |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090130095413/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/05/17/google-somewhat-lifts-oceana-ad-ban |archive-date=January 30, 2009 |df=mdy }} The policy was later changed.{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answer=48182|title=Google AdSense Program Policies |date=May 27, 2011 }}

In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'" The UK Christian group sued Google for discrimination, and as a result, in September 2008 Google changed its policy and anti-abortion ads were allowed.{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5827418 |title=Google OKs Religious Groups' Abortion Ads – ABC News |publisher=Abcnews.go.com |date=September 18, 2008 |access-date=October 30, 2012}}

In August 2008, Google closed the AdSense account of a site that carried a negative view of Scientology, the second closing of such a site within 3 months.[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/google_kills_another_anonymous_adsense_account/ "Google murders second Anonymous AdSense account"], Cade Metz, The Register, August 15, 2008 It is not certain if the account revocations actually were on the grounds of anti-religious content, however, the cases have raised questions about Google's terms in regards to AdSense/AdWords. The AdSense policy states that "Sites displaying Google ads may not include [...] advocacy against any individual, group, or organization",[https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182 "Google AdSense Program Policies"], AdSense Help, Google Inc. which allows Google to revoke the above-mentioned AdSense accounts.

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex workers' rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" (TOBL),[http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ Turn Off the Blue Light] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602043606/http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ |date=June 2, 2013 }}, website claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". However, TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services.{{cite news|last=Paterson |first=Jody |title=Google tramples sex workers' rights |url=http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Google+tramples+workers+rights/4999164/story.html |newspaper=Victoria Times-Colonist |date=June 24, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020194155/http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Google%2Btramples%2Bworkers%2Brights/4999164/story.html |archive-date=October 20, 2011 |df=mdy }} In July, after TOBL members held a protest outside Google's European headquarters in Dublin and wrote to complain, Google relented, reviewed the group's website, found its content to be advocating a political position, and restored the AdWord advertisement.{{cite news |url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/google-uturn-on-sex-worker-groups-advert-2841940.html |title=Google u-turn on sex worker group's advert |first=Jim |last=Cusack |publisher=Sunday Independent |date=August 7, 2011}}

In June 2012, Google rejected the Australian Sex Party's ads for AdWords and sponsored search results for the July 12 by-election for the state seat of Melbourne, saying the Party breached its rules which prevent solicitation of donations by a website that did not display tax-exempt status. Although the Sex Party amended its website to display tax deductibility information, Google continued to ban the ads. The ads were reinstated on election eve after it was reported in the media that the Sex Party was considering suing Google. On September 13, 2012, the Party lodged formal complaints against Google with the US Department of Justice and the Australian competition watchdog, accusing Google of "unlawful interference in the conduct of a state election in Victoria with corrupt intent" in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.[https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-sex-party-please-were-google-20120913-25tn8.html No Sex Party please, we're Google] Sydney Morning Herald September 13, 2012

YouTube is a video sharing website acquired by Google in 2006. YouTube's Terms of Service prohibits the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech.{{cite web |url= https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines|title= YouTube Community Guidelines|access-date=May 9, 2007 |publisher= YouTube}} User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message stating: "This video is no longer available because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service".

YouTube has been criticized by national governments for failing to police content. For example, videos{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_q6mnyaK8 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107205951/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_q6mnyaK8 |archive-date=2012-01-07 |url-status=dead|title=YouTube|website=www.youtube.com}} have been critically accused for being "left up", among other videos featuring unwarranted violence or strong ill-intention against people who probably didn't want this to be published. In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai IP addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that YouTube remove them before it would unblock any YouTube content.{{cite news |first= Jeffrey|last= Rosen|title=Google's Gatekeepers |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all |work=The New York Times | date=November 30, 2008}} In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which is a crime under Turkish law. On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt inadvertently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct.{{cite web|url=https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/pakistan-causes-worldwide-youtube-blackout-20536/|title= Pakistan causes worldwide YouTube blackout|first= John|last= Ribeiro|date= February 25, 2008|work= Macworld UK|access-date= December 23, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151012231823/http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/pakistan-causes-worldwide-youtube-blackout-20536/|archive-date=12 October 2015|url-status=dead}} Four days later, PTA lifted the ban after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch Member of Parliament[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pakistan-drops-youtube-ban/ "Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban"], CBS News/AP, February 11, 2009 concerning Islam.[http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9879513-7.html "Pakistan welcomes back YouTube"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081015213222/http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9879513-7.html |date=October 15, 2008 }}, Greg Sandoval, CNET News Blogs, February 26, 2008

YouTube has also been criticized by its users for attempting to censor content. In November 2007, the account of Wael Abbas, a well known Egyptian activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations, was blocked for three days.{{cite news

|url= http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-29/world/youtube.activist_1_youtube-videos-police-brutality?_s=PM:WORLD

|title= YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist's account

|date= November 29, 2007

|publisher= CNN.com

|access-date= December 23, 2010

|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110519115437/http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-29/world/youtube.activist_1_youtube-videos-police-brutality?_s=PM:WORLD

|archive-date= May 19, 2011

|url-status= dead

}}{{cite news

|url= http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/30/friday/index.html?section=cnn_latest

|title=YouTube reinstates account of Egyptian human rights activist

|work= The CNN Wire: Friday, Nov. 30

|date= November 30, 2007

|publisher= CNN.com

}}[https://www.reuters.com/article/egypt-youtube-idUSL2759043020071127 "YouTube stops account of Egypt anti-torture activist"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150205194056/http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/27/egypt-youtube-idUSL2759043020071127 |date=February 5, 2015 }}, Cynthia Johnston, Reuters, November 27, 2007

In February 2008, a video produced by the American Life League that accused a Planned Parenthood television commercial of promoting recreational sex was removed, then reinstated two days later.{{cite web

|url= https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/11758/american-life-league-video-yanked-by-youtube

|title= American Life League video yanked by YouTube

|date= February 12, 2008

|publisher= Catholic News Agency

}} In October, a video by political speaker Pat Condell criticizing the British government for officially sanctioning sharia law courts in Britain was removed, then reinstated two days later.{{cite news

|url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3130883/YouTube-censors-comedians-anti-Sharia-video-called-Welcome-to-Saudi-Britain.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3130883/YouTube-censors-comedians-anti-Sharia-video-called-Welcome-to-Saudi-Britain.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live

|title= YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'

|first= Martin

|last= Beckford

|date= October 3, 2008

|work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London

}}{{cbignore}} YouTube also pulled a video of columnist Michelle Malkin showing violence by Muslim extremists.{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?pagewanted=4&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1314114291-njLdaO6lH7qU1/QFhd2LQg | work=The New York Times | first=Jeffrey | last=Rosen | title=Google's Gatekeepers | date=November 30, 2008}} Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia, commented that while, in his opinion, Michelle Malkin disseminates bigotry in her blog, "that does not mean that this particular video is bigoted; it's not. But because it's by Malkin, it's a target."[http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520258822 The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry)], Siva Vaidhyanatan, University of California Press, 2011, page 39, {{ISBN|978-0-520-25882-2}}

In 2019, YouTube settled for $170 million the FTC and the New York Attorney General for alleged violations of the US Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which prohibits internet companies from collecting data from kids under 13. YouTube's enactment of the settlement started in January 2020; this required creators to indicate whether their videos were intended for children, with fines of up to $42,530 per violation of COPPA.{{cite news |last=Spangler |first=Todd |title=YouTube Creators Worried and Confused Over New Kid-Video COPPA Rules, Potential Fines |url=https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/youtube-coppa-rules-children-videos-fines-1203413642/ |work=Variety |date=22 November 2019}} Some features that depend on user data are disabled on videos designated for children, including comments and channel branding watermarks; the 'donate' button; cards and end screens; live chat and live chat donations; notifications; and 'save to playlist' or 'watch later' features. Such channels will also become "ungooglable".

In October 2021, YouTube, together with Snapchat and TikTok, participated in a Senate hearing on protecting children online.{{Cite web|url=https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/10/protecting-kids-online-snapchat-tiktok-and-youtube|title=Protecting Kids Online: Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube|date=October 26, 2021}} The session was prompted by Facebook whistle blower Frances Haugen's hearing prior. In the hearing, the social media companies tried to distance themselves from Facebook, to which Senate Commerce consumer protection Chair Richard Blumenthal responded saying "Being different from Facebook is not a defense", "That bar is in the gutter."{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/26/facebook-social-media-protecting-kids-517282|title = Rivals struggle to distance themselves from Facebook|website = Politico| date=October 26, 2021 }}

{{Main|Google (verb)}}

In 2013, Google successfully prevented the Swedish Language Council from including the Swedish version of the word "ungoogleable" ("{{ill|ogooglebar|sv|Ogooglebar|vertical-align=sup}}") in its list of new words.{{cite news| url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21944834 | title=Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list | first=Sean | last=Fanning | publisher=BBC |work=BBC News | date=March 26, 2013 | access-date=April 5, 2013 }} Google objected to its definition (which referred to web searches in general without mentioning Google specifically) and the council was forced to remove it to avoid legal confrontation with Google.{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ungoogleable-removed-from-list-of-swedish-words-after-row-over-definition-with-google-8550096.html| title='Ungoogleable' removed from list of Swedish words after row over definition with Google: California based search engine giant asked Swedish to amend definition | first=Rob | last=Williams |newspaper=The Independent | date=March 26, 2013 | access-date=April 5, 2013 }} They also accused Google of "trying to control the Swedish language".{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9954990/Sweden-rows-with-Google-over-term-ungoogleable.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9954990/Sweden-rows-with-Google-over-term-ungoogleable.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live| title=Sweden rows with Google over term 'ungoogleable' | first=Chris | last=Irvine |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph | date=March 25, 2013 | access-date=April 5, 2013 }}{{cbignore}}

In August 2022, Google closed a person's account on sharing pictures of his son's genitals with the doctor, as it was flagged as child abuse by Google's automated systems.{{cite news |last1=Hill |first1=Kashmir |title=A Dad Took Photos of His Naked Toddler for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html |access-date=2022-08-23 |work=The New York Times |date=August 21, 2022 |issue=2022–08–23}}

Several former Google employees have spoken out about working conditions, practices, and ethics at the company. As the company became more concerned about leaks to the press in 2019, it scaled employee all-hands meetings from weekly to monthly, limiting question topics to business and product strategy.{{cite news |last1=Sumagaysay |first1=Levi |title=Life after Google: Ex-employees keep speaking out as they move on |url=https://www.protocol.com/employees-life-after-google-activism |access-date=26 February 2020 |work=Protocol |date=7 February 2020 |language=en |archive-date=February 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200226214245/https://www.protocol.com/employees-life-after-google-activism |url-status=dead }} Google CEO Sundar Pichai told employees in late 2019 that the company is "genuinely struggling with some issues" including transparency and employee trust.{{cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Greg |title=Google CEO, in leaked video, says company is 'genuinely struggling' with employee trust |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/25/google-ceo-leaked-video-says-company-is-genuinely-struggling-with-employee-trust/ |access-date=26 February 2020 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 25, 2019 |language=en}}

On 2 December 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against Google for 'terminations and intimidation in order to quell workplace activism'. The complaint was filed after a year-long investigation by a terminated employee. He filed a petition in 2019, after that many Google employees carried out internal protests against Google's work with US Customs and Border Protection.{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/02/google-labor-laws-nlrb-surveillance-worker-firing |title=Google broke US law by firing workers behind protests, complaint says|access-date=4 December 2020|website=The Guardian|date=December 2, 2020}}

{{Main|Google memo}}

A widely circulated internal memo, written by senior engineer James Damore, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, sharply criticized Google's political biases and employee policies.{{cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google/|title=Here Are the Citations for the Anti-Diversity Manifesto Circulating at Google|last1=Matsakis|first1=Louise|last2=Koebler|first2=Jason|date=August 7, 2017|website=Vice|access-date=April 17, 2019|last3=Emerson|first3=Sarah}} Google said the memo was "advancing harmful gender stereotypes" and fired Damore.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html|title=Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech|last=Wakabayashi|first=Daisuke|date=August 7, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|via=NYTimes.com}} David Brooks demanded the resignation of its CEO Sundar Pichai for mishandling the case.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html|title=Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google's C.E.O.|last=Brooks|first=David|date=August 11, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170811124216/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html|archive-date=August 11, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all|url-access=limited}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/david-brooks-sundar-pichai-resignation-james-damore-2017-8|title=New York Times columnist David Brooks wants Google's CEO to resign|website=Business Insider|language=en|archive-url=https://archive.today/20170812131604/http://www.businessinsider.com/david-brooks-sundar-pichai-resignation-james-damore-2017-8|archive-date=August 12, 2017|url-status=live|access-date=August 12, 2017}}

Ads criticizing Pichai and Google for the firing were put up shortly after at various Google locations.{{Cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/anti-google-ads-pop-up-outside-office-criticizing-ceo-sundar-pichai-2017-8|title=Someone is plastering anti-Google ads outside Google's office criticizing CEO Sundar Pichai|website=Business Insider|access-date=August 11, 2017}} Some have called to boycott Google and its services, with a hashtag #boycottGoogle coming up on Twitter.{{cite web|url=https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/alt-right-activists-call-for-google-boycott-after-employee-is-fired-for-anti-diversity-paper/|title=Alt-Right Activists Call For Google Boycott After Employee Is Fired For Anti-Diversity Paper|work=Gizmodo Australia |date=August 9, 2017 |last1=Novak |first1=Matt }} A rally against Google alleged partisanship was planned as "March on Google", but later cancelled due to threats and the recent Charlottesville mayhem.{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/16/google-march-protests-241719|title=Organizer puts March on Google on hold after threats|last=Siu|first=Diamond Naga|date=August 16, 2017|website=Politico|publisher=Capitol News Company|access-date=April 17, 2019}}{{cite web|url=http://www.marchongoogle.com/|title=#MarchOnGoogle – Google is an anti-free speech monopoly|website=Google News}}

Arne Wilberg, an ex-YouTube recruiter, claimed that he was fired in November 2017 when he complained about Google's new practices in not hiring white and Asian men to YouTube in favor of women and minority applicants. According to the lawsuit, an internal policy document stated that for three months in 2017, YouTube recruiters should only hire diverse candidates.{{Cite news|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sued-discriminating-white-asian-men-2018-3|title=An ex-YouTube recruiter claims Google discriminated against white and Asian men -- then deleted the evidence|last=Ghosh|first=Shona|date=2018-03-02|work=Business Insider Australia|access-date=2018-03-02|language=en}}

In June 2021, Google removed its global lead for diversity strategy and research after being made aware of an antisemitic comment he made in 2007.{{Cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/kamau-bobb-google-diversity-head-antisemitic-blog-post-2021-6|title=Google removes its head of diversity after a 2007 blog post surfaced in which he claimed Jews have an 'insatiable appetite for war'|first=Julie|last=Gerstein|website=Business Insider|date=June 3, 2021}}

File:Google Silicon Valley Employees Join a Worldwide Protest.webm{{Cite news|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/google-workers-worldwide-protest-company-s-handling-of-sex-harassment-cases-/4639134.html|title=Google Workers Walk Out|last=Quinn|first=Michelle|work=VOA|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en}} ]]

{{Further|2018 Google walkouts}}

In February 2016, Amit Singhal, vice president of Google Search for 15 years, left the company following sexual harassment allegations. Google has awarded Singhal $15 million in severance.{{Cite web|title=Google paid $35 million to former executive accused of sexual harassment|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-paid-35million-former-executive-amit-singhal-accused-sexual-harassment/|website=CBS News|date=March 12, 2019 }}{{Cite web|date=March 11, 2019|title=Google confirms it agreed to pay $135 million to two execs accused of sexual harassment|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/11/18260712/google-amit-singhal-andy-rubin-payout-lawsuit-accused-sexual-harassment}}

On November 1, 2018, approximately 20,000 employees of Google engaged in a worldwide{{Cite news|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/google-workers-set-to-launch-worldwide-protests/4638213.html|title=Google Workers Launch Worldwide Protests|work=VOA|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en}} walkout to protest the way in which the company has handled sexual harassment, and other grievances.{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/03/google-employee-protests-as-part-of-new-tech-resistance.html|title=Google walkouts showed what the new tech resistance looks like, with cues from union organizing|last=D'Onfro|first=Jillian|date=2018-11-03|work=CNBC|access-date=2018-11-05}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/technology/google-walkout-sexual-harassment.html|title=Google Walkout: Employees Stage Protest Over Handling of Sexual Harassment|work=The New York Times |date=November 2018 |access-date=2018-11-05|language=en|last1=Wakabayashi |first1=Daisuke |last2=Griffith |first2=Erin |last3=Tsang |first3=Amie |last4=Conger |first4=Kate }}{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/11/google-employees-walkout-over-sexual-harassment-doesnt-go-far-enough/574705/|title=The Google Walkout Doesn't Go Far Enough|last=Lorenz|first=Taylor|date=2018-11-01|work=The Atlantic|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en-US}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/11/01/662851489/google-employees-plan-global-walkout-to-protest-companys-treatment-of-women|title=Google Employees Walk Out To Protest Company's Treatment Of Women|work=NPR.org|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-walkout-employees-protest-over-sexual-harassment-scandals/|title=Google walkout: Employees protest over sexual harassment scandals|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en}}

In July 2019, Google settled a long-running age discrimination lawsuit brought by 227 over-40 employees and job seekers. Although Google denied it had age discrimination, it agreed to a settlement of $11 million for the plaintiffs, to train its employees not to have age-based bias, and to have its recruiting department focus on age diversity among its engineering employees.{{cite news|last1=Burnson|first1=Robert|title=Google Settles Job Seekers' Age-Bias Claims for $11 Million|work=www.bloomberg.com|agency=Bloomberg News|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/google-settles-age-bias-claims-by-job-seekers-for-11-million|access-date=26 February 2020}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/google-settles-age-discrimination-class-action-lawsuit-with-more-than-200-workers-for-11-million/|title=Google settles 'age-discrimination' class-action lawsuit with more than 200 workers for $11 million|date=July 23, 2019|website=The Seattle Times}}

In January 2020, the San Francisco Pride organization voted to ban Google and YouTube from their annual Pride parade due to hate speech on their platforms and retaliation against LBGTQ activists.{{cite news |last1=Ghaffary |first1=Shirin |title=San Francisco Pride members voted to ban Google and YouTube from their parade |url=https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/21/21076325/san-francisco-pride-ban-google-pride-parade |access-date=26 February 2020 |work=Vox |date=21 January 2020 |language=en}}

In 2020, HR executive Eileen Naughton joined long-time Chief Legal Counsel David Drummond in stepping down from their positions over a lawsuit naming them and the company founders in accusations of mishandling years of sexual harassment complaints.{{cite news |last1=Elias |first1=Jennifer |title=Google's HR head to step down amid tension among employees |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/googles-hr-head-to-step-down-amid-tension-among-employees.html |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=CNBC |date=11 February 2020 |language=en}}

In February 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) opened an investigation into former Google employee Chelsey Glasson's allegations of pregnancy discrimination.{{cite news |last1=Elias |first1=Jennifer |title=Google faces a new investigation into whether it discriminated against a pregnant employee |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/google-pregnancy-discrimination-case-under-investigation-by-eeoc.html |access-date=26 February 2020 |work=CNBC |date=19 February 2020 |language=en}} Glasson filed a state civil lawsuit while the EEOC investigated, with a trial date set for January 2022.{{Cite web|last=Mohan|first=Pavithra|date=6 August 2021|title=For workers alleging discrimination, a convoluted bureaucracy awaits|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/90660766/for-workers-alleging-discrimination-a-convoluted-bureaucracy-awaits|access-date=2022-01-27|website=Fast Company|language=en-US}}{{Cite web|last=Mohan|first=Pavithra|date=23 July 2020|title=Exclusive: Ex-Google employee Chelsey Glasson sues over alleged pregnancy discrimination|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/90530431/exclusive-ex-google-employee-chelsey-glasson-sues-over-alleged-pregnancy-discrimination|access-date=2022-01-27|website=Fast Company|language=en-US}}{{cite news |last1=Dina |first1=Bass |title=Google Whistle-Blower Says Speaking Out Is Harder Than It Seems |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/google-whistle-blower-says-speaking-out-is-harder-than-facebook-makes-it-seem |access-date=1 December 2021 |publisher=Bloomberg}} She settled with the company in February 2022.{{Cite web |last1=Savov |first1=Vlad |last2=Bass |first2=Dina |date=20 February 2022 |title=Google Reaches Undisclosed Settlement in Discrimination Suit |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-21/google-reaches-undisclosed-settlement-in-discrimination-suit |access-date=2022-02-24 |website=Bloomberg News}} She revealed that Google's legal team obtained therapy notes from her sessions through the company's Employee assistance program counseling provider, and that the provider dropped her as a client when she filed the lawsuit, which sparked Senator Karen Keiser to introduce a bill in Washington in January 2022 to prohibit private sector providers from disclosing private information typically covered under Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act laws.{{Cite news|last1=Gupta|first1=Alisha Haridasani|last2=Tulshyan|first2=Ruchika|date=2021-07-28|title='You're the Problem': When They Spoke Up About Misconduct, They Were Offered Mental Health Services|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/us/google-workplace-complaints-counseling.html|access-date=2022-01-27|issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite web|last=Bhuiyan|first=Johana|date=9 October 2021|title='Welcome to the party': five past tech whistleblowers on the pitfalls of speaking out|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/08/tech-whistleblowers-facebook-frances-haugen-amazon-google-pinterest|access-date=2022-01-27|website=The Guardian|language=en}}{{Cite web|title=Senate Labor, Commerce & Tribal Affairs Committee – TVW|url=https://tvw.org/video/senate-labor-commerce-tribal-affairs-committee-2022011288/?eventID=2022011288|access-date=2022-01-27|website=tvw.org| date=January 17, 2022 |language=en-US}} Also in January 2022, she criticized the company's use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in testimony to the Washington House of Representatives for whistleblower protection legislature, which she said intimidated her from speaking out about the discrimination she allegedly witnessed and experienced. In response, Google told Protocol that their confidentiality agreements do not prevent current and former workers from disclosing facts pertaining to harassment or discrimination.{{Cite web|last=Lapowsky|first=Issie|date=2022-01-18|title=Ex-Google and Apple workers testify in support of Washington's anti-NDA bill|url=https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/washington-nda-bill|access-date=2022-01-25|website=Protocol|language=en|archive-date=January 18, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118223559/https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/washington-nda-bill|url-status=dead}} Both laws were passed into legislature in March 2022.{{Cite web |last=Lapowsky |first=Issie |date=2022-03-04 |title=Washington became the second state to pass the Silenced No More Act |url=https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/washington-silenced-no-more |access-date=2022-03-04 |website=Protocol |language=en |archive-date=March 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220304190758/https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/washington-silenced-no-more |url-status=dead }}{{Cite web |date=2022-03-07 |title=Monthly $35 insulin cap for Washingtonians among bills signed into law Friday |url=https://mynorthwest.com/3381868/insulin-cap-among-bills-signed-into-law-friday/ |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=MyNorthwest.com}}

The official settlement agreement that Google signed with the NLRB in 2019 includes this notice to be sent to employees:{{cite web |title=google nlrb settlement notice - sept 2019.pdf |url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VTuaaHd5WipEI6ytZKZuPgu2JGRTdXn0/view |website=Google Docs |access-date=29 February 2020}}

{{Blockquote|"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions with other employees, the press/media, and other third parties, and WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with your exercise of those rights."}}

Google has been criticized for hiring IRI Consultants, a firm that advertises its accomplishments in helping organizations prevent successful union organizing.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-consultant.html |newspaper=The New York Times |title=Google Hires Firm Known for Anti-Union Efforts |first1=Noam |last1=Scheiber |first2=Daisuke |last2=Wakabayashi |date=20 Nov 2019}} Google Zurich attempted to cancel employee-organized meetings about labor rights in June and October 2019.{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/21/20924697/google-unionization-switzerland-zurich-syndicom-zooglers|title=Google's attempt to shut down a unionization meeting just riled up its employees|first=Shirin|last=Ghaffary|date=October 21, 2019|website=Vox}} Some Google employees and contractors are already unionized, including security guards, some service workers, and analysts and trainers for Google Shopping in Pittsburgh employed by contractor HCL.{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/9/24/20880727/google-workers-unionized-contractors-hcl-tech-activism|title=Tech workers have been reluctant to unionize, but Google contractors just changed that|first=Shirin|last=Ghaffary|date=September 24, 2019|website=Vox}} In 2021 court documents revealed that between 2018 and 2020 Google ran an anti-union campaign called Project Vivian to "convince [employees] that unions suck".{{Cite web|title=Google Had Secret Project to 'Convince' Employees 'That Unions Suck'|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/google-had-secret-project-to-convince-employees-that-unions-suck/|access-date=January 10, 2022|website=Vice.com|date=January 10, 2022 |language=en}}

As of December 2019, the National Labor Relations Board is investigating whether several firings were in retaliation for labor organizing-related activities.{{cite news |last1=Elias |first1=Jennifer |title=Google under investigation for 'Thanksgiving Four' firings, allegedly discouraging unions |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/google-under-investigation-from-nlrb.html |access-date=26 February 2020 |work=CNBC |date=9 December 2019 |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Breland |first1=Ali |title=Another Google employee says they were fired for backing a union |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/google-union-kathryn-spiers/ |access-date=26 February 2020 |work=Mother Jones |date=December 17, 2019}} One of the fired employees was tasked with informing her colleagues about Google policy changes, and created a message informing them that they, "have the right to participate in protected concerted activities," when they visited the IRI Consultants site.{{cite news |last1=Gurley |first1=Lauren Kaori |title=Google Fired an Engineer Who Wrote Code Telling Googlers They Had a Right to Organize |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/google-fired-an-engineer-who-wrote-code-telling-googlers-they-had-a-right-to-organize/ |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=Vice |date=17 December 2019 |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=O'Connor |first1=Emma |title=Google Fires Another Transgender Employee-Activist |url=https://www.workingsolutionsnyc.com/google-fires-another-transgender-employee-activist/ |access-date=26 February 2020 |work=Working Solutions NYC |date=28 December 2019}}

In 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute accused at least 82 major brands, including Google, of being connected to forced Uyghur labor in Xinjiang.{{cite web |url=https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |title=Uyghurs for sale |publisher=Australian Strategic Policy Institute |last1=Xu |first1=Vicky Xiuzhong |last2=Cave |first2=Danielle |last3=Leibold |first3=James |last4=Munro |first4=Kelsey |last5=Ruser |first5=Nathan |date=1 March 2020 |access-date=March 14, 2022 |archive-date=August 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200824215335/https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |url-status=dead }}

Google cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the period of 2007 to 2009 using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda. Afterwards, the company started to send £8 billion in profits a year to Bermuda.{{Cite SSRN |title=How to Reduce the Tax Bill of a Multinational Technology Company? |last=V Siskos |first=Dimitrios |ssrn=3254816}} Google's income shifting—involving strategies known to lawyers as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich"—helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.{{cite news |last=Drucker |first=Jesse |date=October 21, 2010 |title=Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html |publisher=Bloomberg |quote=Google is 'flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they're perpetrating evil under our noses,' said Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College in New York who has examined Google's tax disclosures. 'Who is it that paid for the underlying concept on which they built these billions of dollars of revenues?' Briloff said. 'It was paid for by the United States citizenry.'}}{{cite web |last=Metz |first=Cade |date=October 22, 2010 |title=Google slips $3.1bn through 'Double Irish' tax loophole |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/22/google_double_irish_tax_loophole/ |website=The Register |quote=Basically, Google licenses foreign rights to its intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary known as Google Ireland Holdings, and this outfit owns a separate subsidiary known as Google Ireland Limited. It's Google Ireland Limited – the second subsidiary – that actually sells advertising across the globe. Last year, it accounted for 88 percent of Google's $12.5 billion in non-U.S. sales.}}

According to economist and member of the PvdA delegation inside the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D) Paul Tang, the EU lost, from 2013 to 2015, a loss estimated to be 3.955 billion euros from Google.{{Cite web |last=Tang |first=Paul |date=September 2017 |title=EU Tax Revenue Loss from Google and Facebook |url=https://static.financieel-management.nl/documents/16690/EU-Tax-Revenue-Loss-from-Google-and-Facebook.pdf}} When compared to other countries outside the EU, the EU is only taxing Google with a rate of 0.36 – 0.82% of their revenue (approx. 25-35% of their EBT) whereas this rate is near 8% in countries outside the EU. Even if a rate of 2 to 5% – as suggested by ECOFIN council – would have been applied during this period (2013–2015), a fraud of this rate from Facebook would have meant a loss from 1.262 to 3.155 billion euros in the EU.

Google has been accused by a number of countries of avoiding paying tens of billions of dollars of tax through a convoluted scheme of inter-company licensing agreements and transfers to tax havens.{{cite web |last=Chew |first=Jonathan |date=March 11, 2016 |title=7 Corporate Giants Accused of Evading Billions in Taxes |url=http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/ |access-date=June 20, 2017 |website=Fortune}}{{Cite news |last1=Barford |first1=Vanessa |last2=Holt |first2=Gerry |date=May 21, 2013 |title=Google, Amazon, Starbucks: The rise of 'tax shaming' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20560359 |access-date=June 20, 2017 |newspaper=BBC News |publisher=BBC}} For example, Google has used highly contrived and artificial distinctions to avoid paying billions of pounds in corporate tax owed by its UK operations.{{Cite news |last1=Bowers |first1=Simon |last2=Syal |first2=Rajeev |date=May 16, 2013 |title=MP on Google tax avoidance scheme: 'I think that you do evil' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/16/google-told-by-mp-you-do-do-evil |access-date=June 20, 2017 |newspaper=The Guardian}}

On May 15, 2013, Margaret Hodge, the chair of the United Kingdom Public Accounts Committee, accused Google of being "calculated and [...] unethical" over its use of the scheme. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has claimed that this scheme of Google is "capitalism",{{Cite news |last=Staff |first=Telegraph |date=December 12, 2012 |title=Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-is-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-is-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |access-date=June 20, 2017 |website=The Daily Telegraph}}{{cbignore}} and that he was "very proud" of it.{{cite web |last1=Kumar |first1=Nikhil |last2=Wright |first2=Oliver |date=December 13, 2012 |title=Google boss: I'm very proud of our tax avoidance scheme |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/google-boss-im-very-proud-of-our-tax-avoidance-scheme-8411974.html |access-date=June 20, 2017 |website=The Independent}}

In November 2012, the UK government announced plans to investigate Google, along with Starbucks and Amazon.com, for possible tax avoidance.{{cite news |date=November 12, 2012 |title=Starbucks, Google and Amazon grilled over tax avoidance |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20288077 |work=BBC News}} In 2015, the UK Government introduced a new law intended to penalize Google's and other large multinational corporations' artificial tax avoidance.{{Cite news |date=March 18, 2015 |title=Budget 2015: 'Google Tax' introduction confirmed |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-31942639 |access-date=June 20, 2017 |newspaper=BBC News |publisher=BBC}}

On 20 January 2016, Google announced that it would pay £130 million in back taxes to settle the investigation.{{cite news |date=January 20, 2016 |title=Google agrees to pay British authorities £130m in back taxes |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/22/google-agrees-to-pay-hmrc-130m-in-back-taxes |work=The Guardian}} However, only eight days later, it was announced that Google could end up paying more, and UK tax officials were under investigation for what has been termed a "sweetheart deal" for Google.{{cite news |date=January 20, 2016 |title=EU could force Google to pay more UK tax |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/28/eu-could-force-google-to-pay-more-uk-tax |work=The Guardian}}

{{see also|Artificial intelligence arms race#Disassociation}}

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work in 2018 criticized Google and its employees have stepped into a moral hazard by not continuing Pentagon's artificial intelligence project, Project Maven,{{Cite news|date=2018-06-02|title=Google 'to end' Pentagon Artificial Intelligence project|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44341490|access-date=2021-03-26}} while helping China's AI technology that "could be used against the United States in a conflict." He described Google as hypocritical, given it has opened an AI center in China and "Anything that's going on in the AI center in China is going to the Chinese government and then will ultimately end up in the hands of the Chinese military." Work said "I didn't see any Google employee saying, 'Hmm, maybe we shouldn't do that.'" Google's dealings with China is decrying as unpatriotic.{{Cite web|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/former-us-defense-official-faults-google-for-ending-ai-partnership/4455238.html|title=Former US Defense Official Says Google Has Stepped Into a 'Moral Hazard'|website=Voice of America|date=2018-06-26}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-09-13/larry-page-is-a-no-show-with-google-under-a-harsh-spotlight|title=Where in the World Is Larry Page?|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|date=2018-09-13}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-pentagon-must-modernize-before-its-too-late/2018/09/17/8a9ab1e8-b1fe-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html|title=The Pentagon must modernize before it's too late|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=2018-09-17}}

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford also criticizes Google as "it's inexplicable" that it continue investing in China, "who uses censorship technology to restrain freedoms and crackdown on people there and has long history of intellectual property and patent theft which hurts U.S. companies," while simultaneously not renewing further research and development collaborations with the Pentagon. He said, "I'm not sure that people at Google will enjoy a world order that is informed by the norms and standards of Russia or China." He urges Google to work directly with the U.S. government instead of making controversial inroads into China.{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-alphabet/top-u-s-general-urges-google-to-work-with-military-idUSKBN1O52N1|title=Top U.S. general urges Google to work with military|work=Reuters|date=2018-12-06}} Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) criticized Dragonfly evidences China's success at "recruit[ing] U.S. companies to their information control efforts" while China exports cyber and censorship infrastructure to countries like Venezuela, Ethiopia, and Pakistan.{{cite web |title=US general has a question for Google: Why will you work with China but not us? |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-general-google-why-china-040744501.html |website=Yahoo Finance |date=8 December 2018}}

{{See also|Google Energy|Environmental impact of Big Tech}}

Google has been criticized for the high amount of energy used to maintain its servers,{{Cite magazine|url=http://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html|title=Keyword: Evil|last=Strand|first=Ginger|date=March 2008|magazine=Harper's|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120627035844/http://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html|archive-date=June 27, 2012|url-status=dead|access-date=April 25, 2019}} but was praised by Greenpeace for the use of renewable sources of energy to run them.[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/business/energy-environment/cloud-services-rely-on-coal-or-nuclear-power-greenpeace-says.html Online Cloud Services Rely on Coal or Nuclear Power, Report Says], New York Times Google has pledged to spend millions of dollars to investigate cheap, clean, renewable energy, and has installed solar panels on the roofs at its Mountain View facilities.[http://www.news.com/Google-to-enter-clean-energy-business/2100-13844_3-6220341.html Google to enter clean-energy business] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080515162119/http://www.news.com/Google-to-enter-clean-energy-business/2100-13844_3-6220341.html |date=May 15, 2008 }} CNET News, November 2007[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/technology/28google.html Google's Next Frontier: Renewable Energy] New York Times, November 2007 In 2010, Google also invested $39 million in wind power.{{cite news| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7679402/Google-blows-39m-into-wind-power.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7679402/Google-blows-39m-into-wind-power.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live | title= Google blows $39m into wind power | date=May 5, 2010 | access-date=May 25, 2010 |location=London | first=Rupert | last=Neate |work=The Daily Telegraph}}{{cbignore}} In 2023 Google along with Microsoft each consumed 24 TWh of electricity, more than countries such as Iceland, Ghana, the Dominican Republic, or Tunisia.{{cite news |last1=Hale |first1=Craig |title=Google and Microsoft now each consume more power than some fairly big countries |url=https://www.techradar.com/pro/google-and-microsoft-now-each-consume-more-power-than-some-fairly-big-countries |work=TechRadar |date=15 July 2024 |language=en}}

However, when it comes to its water usage, it mentioned in its annual report on sustainability, that it has used roughly 22 million m³ of water in 2023, which was approximately 20% more than the year prior. Most of this was used to cool its data centers. It has pledged to replenish 120% of freshwater consumed for cooling its data centers by 2030, but in 2022 only 6% were replenished. The data center water consumption issue is not exclusive to Google.{{Cite web |last=Langley |first=Hugh |title=Google's water use is soaring. AI is only going to make it worse. |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/google-water-use-soaring-ai-make-it-worse-data-centers-2023-7 |access-date=2024-06-01 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US}}

{{Main|San Francisco tech bus protests}}

In late 2013, activists in the San Francisco Bay Area began protesting the use of shuttle buses by Google and other tech companies, viewing them as symbols of gentrification and displacement in a city where the rapid growth of the tech sector has driven up housing prices.{{Cite web|url=https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/activists-accuse-tech-community-of-throwing-san-francisco-under-the-bus/|title=Activists Accuse Tech Community of Throwing San Francisco Under the Bus|last=Streitfeld|first=David|date=January 21, 2014|website=The New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180709094545/https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/activists-accuse-tech-community-of-throwing-san-francisco-under-the-bus/|archive-date=July 9, 2018|url-status=dead|access-date=April 17, 2019}}{{cite news|last=Gumbel|first=Andrew|title=San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/25/google-bus-protest-swells-to-revolt-san-francisco|access-date=August 31, 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|date=January 25, 2014}}

{{Main|Google Video}}

On August 15, 2007, Google discontinued its Download-to-own/Download-to-rent (DTO/DTR) program.[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/08/google_drm_question/ "Is Google DRM crippling culture as great as it seems?"], Ashlee Vance, The Register, January 8, 2006 Some videos previously purchased for ownership under that program were no longer viewable when the embedded digital rights management (DRM) licenses were revoked. Google gave refunds for the full amount spent on videos using "gift certificates" (or "bonuses") to their customers' "Google Checkout Account".{{Cite web|url=https://boingboing.net/2007/08/10/google-video-robs-cu.html|title=Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"|date=August 10, 2007|website=Boing Boing|access-date=April 17, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/213348/google-pulls-plug-everyone-misses-point|title=Google Pulls Plug, Everyone Misses Point|last=Dvorak|first=John C.|date=August 14, 2007|website=PC Magazine|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402233549/https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/213348/google-pulls-plug-everyone-misses-point|archive-date=April 2, 2019|access-date=April 17, 2019}} After a public uproar, Google issued full refunds to the credit cards of the Google Video users without revoking the gift certificates.

{{Main|Google Search}}

For some search results, Google provides a secondary search box that can be used to search within a website identified from the first search. It sparked controversy among some online publishers and retailers. When performing a second search within a specific website, advertisements from competing and rival companies often showed up together with the results from the website being searched. This has the potential to draw users away from the website they were originally searching.{{cite news|url=http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/03/24/why-companies-are-upset-about-googles-search-within-search/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080329040109/http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/03/24/why-companies-are-upset-about-googles-search-within-search/|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 29, 2008|title=Why Companies Are Upset With Google's Search-Within-Search|last=Stamoulis|first=Nick|work=SEO Blog|publisher=Search Engine Optimization Journal|date=March 24, 2008}} "While the service could help increase traffic, some users could be siphoned away as Google uses the prominence of the brands to sell ads, typically to competing companies."{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24ecom.html|title=A New Tool From Google Alarms Sites|author=Tedeschi, Bob|work=The New York Times|date=March 24, 2008}} In order to combat this controversy, Google has offered to turn off this feature for companies who request to have it removed.

According to software engineer Ben Lee and Product Manager Jack Menzel, the idea for search within search originated from the way users were searching. It appeared that users were often not finding exactly what they needed while trying to explore within a company site. "Teleporting" on the web, where users need only type part of the name of a website into Google (no need to remember the entire URL) in order to find the correct site, is what helps Google users complete their search. Google took this concept a step further and instead of just "teleporting", users could type in keywords to search within the website of their choice.{{cite news|url=http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/62270.html?welcome=1206452899|title=Google's Search-Within-Search Draws Scutiny|author=Regan, Keith|publisher=E-Commerce Times|date=March 24, 2008|access-date=April 2, 2008|archive-date=September 21, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090921175835/http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/62270.html?welcome=1206452899|url-status=dead}}

{{Main|Go (programming language) |Go! (programming language)}}

Google is criticized for naming their programming language "Go" while there is already an existing programming language called "Go!".{{cite web |url= https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 |title= Issue 9 – go -I have already used the name for *MY* programming language |author= Francis McCabe (fmccabe) | date= November 10, 2009 }}{{cite news |url= http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/web_services/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221601351 |title= Google 'Go' Name Brings Accusations Of 'Evil' |work= InformationWeek |last= Claburn |first= Thomas |date= November 11, 2009 |access-date= November 16, 2009 |archive-date= July 22, 2010 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100722010320/http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/web_services/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221601351 |url-status= dead }}{{cite web |title= Google didn't google "Go" before naming their programming language |last= Brownlee |first= John |publisher= geek.com |date= November 13, 2009 |url= http://www.geek.com/articles/news/google-didnt-google-go-before-naming-their-programming-language-20091113/ |access-date= November 16, 2009 |archive-date= May 6, 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120506104459/http://www.geek.com/articles/news/google-didnt-google-go-before-naming-their-programming-language-20091113 |url-status= dead }}

Google's Street View has been criticized for providing information that could potentially be useful to terrorists. In the United Kingdom during March 2010, Liberal Democrats MP Paul Keetch and unnamed military officers criticized Google for including pictures of the entrance to the British Army Special Air Service (SAS) base, stating that terrorists might use the information to plan attacks. Google responded that it "only takes images from public roads and this is no different to what anyone could see traveling down the road themselves, therefore there is no appreciable security risk." Military sources stated that "It is highly irresponsible for military bases, especially special forces, to be pictured on the internet. [...] The question is, why risk a very serious security breach for the sake of having a picture on a website?"{{Cite news |first=Andrew |last=Hough |title=Google Street View criticised for 'showing images of secret SAS headquarters' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7479690/Google-Street-View-criticised-for-showing-images-of-secret-SAS-headquarters.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7479690/Google-Street-View-criticised-for-showing-images-of-secret-SAS-headquarters.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |website=The Daily Telegraph |date=March 19, 2010 |access-date=June 24, 2017}}{{cbignore}}{{Cite news |title=Google images of Herefordshire SAS HQ 'irresponsible' |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8577848.stm |website=BBC News |publisher=BBC |date=March 20, 2010 |access-date=June 24, 2017}} Google was subsequently forced to remove images of the SAS base and other military, security and intelligence installations, admitting that its trained drivers had failed to not take photographs in areas banned under the Official Secrets Act.{{Cite news |first=Andrew |last=Hough |title=Google Street View 'forced to remove images of secret British security bases' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7493217/Google-Street-View-forced-to-remove-images-of-secret-British-security-bases.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7493217/Google-Street-View-forced-to-remove-images-of-secret-British-security-bases.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |website=The Daily Telegraph |date=March 21, 2010 |access-date=June 24, 2017}}{{cbignore}}

In 2008, Google complied with requests from The Pentagon to remove Street View images of the entrances to military bases.{{Cite news |first1=Kristin |last1=Roberts |first2=Eric |last2=Auchard |title=Google pulls some map images at Pentagon's request |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-google-idUSN0625659220080306 |newspaper=Reuters |publisher=Thomson Reuters |date=March 6, 2008 |access-date=June 24, 2017}}{{Cite magazine |first=Sharon |last=Weinberger |title=Pentagon to Google: No Street Views |url=https://www.wired.com/2008/03/pentagon-to-goo/ |magazine=Wired |date=March 7, 2008 |access-date=June 24, 2017}}

Despite being one of the world's largest and most influential companies, unlike many other technology companies, Google does not disclose its political spending. In August 2010, New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio launched a national campaign urging the corporation to disclose all of its political spending.{{cite web |url=http://advocate.nyc.gov/google/video |title=Make Google Disclose |author=Bill de Blasio |publisher=Office of the New York City Public Advocate |date=August 5, 2010 |access-date=October 3, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110123060253/http://advocate.nyc.gov/google/video |archive-date=January 23, 2011 |df=mdy-all }} In the 2010s, Google spent about $150 million on lobbying, largely related to privacy protections and regulation of monopolies.{{Cite web |last=Jardin |first=Xeni |date=2020-01-23 |title=Google spent ~$150 million on US lobbying over last decade, followed by Facebook at ~$81M, Amazon almost $80M: Federal filings |url=https://boingboing.net/2020/01/22/google-spent-150-million-on.html |access-date=2022-04-30 |website=Boing Boing |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |title=Tech giants led by Amazon, Facebook and Google spent nearly half a billion on lobbying over the past decade, new data shows |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/22/amazon-facebook-google-lobbying-2019/ |access-date=2022-04-30 |issn=0190-8286}}

Google sponsors several non-profit lobbying groups, such as the Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec) in the UK.Orlowski, Andrew. [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/23/google_lobby_why/ "Why DOES Google lobby so much?"] The Register, July 23, 2012. Google has sponsored meetings of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute who have had speakers including libertarian Republican and Tea Party member, and Senator for Kentucky, Rand Paul.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/20/anatomy-of-a-washington-dinner-who-funds-the-competitive-enterprise-institute/ "Anatomy of a Washington dinner: Who funds the Competitive Enterprise Institute?"], Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, June 20, 2013. Retrieved March 22, 2014.

Peter Thiel stated that Google had too much influence on the Obama administration, claiming that the company "had more power under Obama than Exxon had under Bush 43".{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/fashion/peter-thiel-confirm-or-deny.html |title=Confirm or Deny: Peter Thiel |last=Dowd |first=Maureen |date=2017-01-11 |newspaper=The New York Times |author-link=Maureen Dowd}} There are many revolving door examples between Google and the U.S. government. This includes: 53 revolving door moves between Google and the White House; 22 former White House officials who left the administration to work for Google and 31 Google executives who joined the White House;{{Cite web|url=http://mashable.com/2016/04/25/google-relationship-obama-white-house/|title=Google's unusually close relationship with the White House raises lots of questions|last=Dayen|first=David|website=Mashable|date=April 25, 2016|access-date=2016-05-03}} 45 Obama for America campaign staffers leaving for Google or Google controlled companies; 38 revolving door moves between Google and government positions involving national security, intelligence or the Department of Defense;{{Cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/|title=Google's Remarkably Close Relationship With the Obama White House, in Two Charts|website=The Intercept|access-date=2016-05-10|date=2016-04-22}} 23 revolving door moves between Google and the State Department; and 18 Pentagon officials moving to Google.

As of 2018, studies found that employees of Alphabet donated largely to support the election of candidates from the Democratic Party.{{cite news |last=D'Onfro |first=Jillian |title=Google employees are spending heavily to elect Democrats in California and to flip the House |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/google-employees-are-funding-california-democrats-in-midterms.html |work=CNBC |date=26 May 2018 |access-date=6 September 2018 }}
{{cite news |url=https://govpredict.com/blog/alphabets-political-contributions/ |title= Alphabet's Political Contributions|last=Pitkin |first=Emil |date=6 September 2018 |newspaper=Capitol Canary |access-date=6 September 2018 }}
{{cite news |last=Stangel |first=Luke |date=25 May 2018 |title=New data: Googlers really want to flip the House blue in the 2018 midterms |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/05/25/google-campaign-donations-2018-midterms-democrats.html |work=Silicon Valley Business Journal |access-date=6 September 2018 }}

In 2023, Alphabet lobbied on antitrust issues and three particular antitrust bills, spending $7.43 million in the first quarter of 2023, lobbying the federal government and more money in the second quarter of 2023, than in any quarter since 2018.

In 2013, Google joined the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).{{cite web |url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/10/1246045/-Google-Doing-Evil-with-ALEC |title=Google: Doing Evil with ALEC |last1=Solomon |first1=Norman |date=October 10, 2013 |website=Daily Kos |access-date=November 8, 2013}}{{cite web |url=http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11147 |title=Google Moves Right By Funding ALEC & Heritage Action |last1=Surgey |first1=Nick |date=December 6, 2013 |website=The Real News Network |access-date=December 6, 2013 |archive-date=December 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131208053223/http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11147 |url-status=dead }} In September 2014, Google chairman Eric Schmidt announced the company would leave ALEC for lying about climate change and "hurting our children".{{cite news|url=http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2014/09/23/google-drops-american-legislative-exchange-council-over-climate-denial-theyre-literally-lying|title=Google Drops American Legislative Exchange Council Over Climate Denial: 'They're Literally Lying'|date=September 23, 2014|last=Johnson|first=Brad|publisher=Hill Heat}}

In 2018, Google started an oil, gas, and energy division, hiring Darryl Willis, a 25-year BP executive who The Wall Street Journal said was intended "to court the oil and gas industry."{{cite news |last1=Matthews |first1=Christopher M. |title=Silicon Valley to Big Oil: We Can Manage Your Data Better Than You |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-courts-a-wary-oil-patch-1532424600 |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=24 July 2018}} Google Cloud signed an agreement with the French oil company Total S.A., "to jointly develop artificial intelligence solutions for subsurface data analysis in oil and gas exploration and production."{{cite news |title=Total, Google Cloud Team Up to Develop Oil, Gas AI Solutions |url=https://www.rigzone.com/news/total_google_cloud_team_up_to_develop_oil_gas_ai_solutions-25-apr-2018-154392-article/ |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=www.rigzone.com |publisher=Rigzone |date=April 25, 2018 |language=en}} A partnership with Houston oil investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. was described by the Houston Chronicle as giving Google "a more visible presence in Houston as one of its oldest industries works to cut costs in the wake of the oil bust and remain competitive as electric vehicles and renewable power sources gain market share."{{cite news |last1=Blunt |first1=Katherine |title=Google partnership adds momentum to Houston's tech dreams |url=https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Google-partnership-adds-momentum-to-Houston-s-13225336.php |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=HoustonChronicle.com |date=13 September 2018}} Other agreements were made with oilfield services companies Baker Hughes and Schlumberger, and Anadarko Petroleum, to use "artificial intelligence to analyse large volumes of seismic and operational data to find oil, maximise output and increase efficiency,"{{cite news |last1=Crooks |first1=Ed |title=Oil producers drill down on data with Google venture |url=https://www.ft.com/content/b45eccee-025d-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3 |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=Financial Times |date=December 18, 2018}} and negotiations were started with petroleum giant Saudi Aramco.{{cite news |last1=Kovach |first1=Steve |title=Google's Parent Company Wants to Help Aramco Build a Tech Hub in Saudi Arabia, According to Reports |url=https://www.inc.com/business-insider/alphabet-google-parent-company-exploring-deal-aramco-tech-hub-saudi-arabia.html |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=Inc.com |date=1 February 2018}}

In 2019, Google was criticised for sponsoring a conference that included a session promoting climate change denial. LibertyCon speaker Caleb Rossiter belongs to the {{CO2}} Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.{{cite news |last1=Funes |first1=Yessenia |title=AOC Slams Google, Facebook, and Microsoft for Sponsoring Conference Promoting Climate Denial |url=https://earther.gizmodo.com/aoc-slams-google-facebook-and-microsoft-for-sponsorin-1832131766 |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=Earther |publisher=Gizmodo |date=January 28, 2019 |language=en-us}} In November 2019, over 1,000 Google employees demanded that the company commit to zero emissions by 2030 and cancel contracts with fossil fuel companies.{{cite news |last1=Ghaffary |first1=Shirin |title=More than 1,000 Google employees signed a letter demanding the company reduce its carbon emissions |url=https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/4/20948200/google-employees-letter-demand-climate-change-fossil-fuels-carbon-emissions |access-date=24 February 2020 |work=Vox |date=4 November 2019 |language=en}}

In February 2022, the NewClimate Institute, a German environmental policy think tank, published a survey evaluating the transparency and progress of the climate strategies and carbon neutrality pledges announced by 25 major companies in the United States that found that Alphabet's carbon neutrality pledge and climate strategy was unsubstantiated and misleading.{{cite news|last=Bussewitz|first=Cathy|date=February 7, 2022|title=Report: Climate pledges from Amazon, others weaker than they seem|work=The Seattle Times|publisher=The Seattle Times Company|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/report-corporate-climate-pledges-are-weaker-than-they-seem/|access-date=July 14, 2022}}{{cite report|title=Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022: Assessing the Transparency and Integrity of Companies' Emission Reduction and Net-Zero Targets|year=2022|pages=76–78|publisher=NewClimate Institute|url=https://newclimate.org/sites/default/files/2022/02/CorporateClimateResponsibilityMonitor2022.pdf|access-date=July 14, 2022}}

In April 2022, Alphabet, Meta Platforms, Shopify, McKinsey & Company, and Stripe, Inc. announced a $925 million advance market commitment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from companies that are developing CDR technology over the next 9 years.{{cite news|last=Clifford|first=Catherine|date=April 12, 2022|title=Stripe teams up with major tech companies to commit $925 million toward carbon capture|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/stripe-alphabet-meta-shopify-mckinsey-spur-carbon-capture-market.html|access-date=July 6, 2022}}{{cite news|last=Brigham|first=Katie|date=June 28, 2022|title=Why Big Tech is pouring money into carbon removal|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/why-companies-like-stripe-meta-and-alphabet-are-behind-carbon-removal.html|access-date=July 6, 2022}} In January 2023, the American Clean Power Association released an annual industry report that found that 326 corporations had contracted 77.4 gigawatts of wind or solar energy by the end of 2022 and that the three corporate purchasers of the largest volumes of wind and solar energy were Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta Platforms.{{cite news|last=Clifford|first=Catherine|date=January 18, 2023|title=Amazon, Meta and Google buy more clean energy than any other companies|publisher=CNBC|url= https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/amazon-meta-and-google-buy-more-clean-energy-than-any-other-companies.html|access-date=January 18, 2023}}

In April 2020, Extinction Rebellion launched "agreenergoogle.com", a spoof website containing a fake announcement by Google CEO Sundar Pichai claiming that "they would stop funding of organizations that deny or work to block action on climate change, effective immediately".{{cite web |last1=Pichai |first1=Sundar |title=Today Google stops funding climate change deniers |url=https://agreenergoogle.com/ |website=A Greener Google |publisher=Google LLC/Alphabet |access-date=12 April 2020 |language=en |date=1 April 2020 |archive-date=April 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200405044051/https://agreenergoogle.com/ |url-status=dead }}{{Cite news|url=https://grist.org/climate/dont-be-april-fooled-google-did-not-just-swear-off-funding-climate-deniers/|title=Don't be April fooled, Google did not just swear off funding climate deniers|date=2020-04-01|website=Grist|language=en|access-date=2020-04-20}}

{{Main|YouTube#Comment system}}

Most YouTube videos allow users to leave comments, and these have attracted attention for the negative aspects of both their form and content. In 2006, Time praised Web 2.0 for enabling "community and collaboration on a scale never seen before", and added that YouTube "harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred".[https://web.archive.org/web/20061218204932/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html "Time's Person of the Year: You"], Time, December 13, 2006 The Guardian in 2009 described users' comments on YouTube as:

{{blockquote|Juvenile, aggressive, misspelled, sexist, homophobic, swinging from raging at the contents of a video to providing a pointlessly detailed description followed by a LOL, YouTube comments are a hotbed of infantile debate and unashamed ignorance{{snd}} with the occasional burst of wit shining through.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/nov/03/youtube-funniest-comments|title=Our top 10 funniest YouTube comments – what are yours?|last=Owen|first=Paul|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=February 12, 2015|date=2009-11-03}}}}

In September 2008, The Daily Telegraph commented that YouTube was "notorious" for "some of the most confrontational and ill-formed comment exchanges on the internet", and reported on YouTube Comment Snob, "a new piece of software that blocks rude and illiterate posts".[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2668997/YouTubes-worst-comments-blocked-by-filter.html "YouTube's worst comments blocked by filter"], The Daily Telegraph, September 2, 2008 The Huffington Post noted in April 2012 that finding comments on YouTube that appear "offensive, stupid and crass" to the "vast majority" of the people is hardly difficult.{{cite news|last=Rundle|first=Michael|title=Policing Racism Online: Liam Stacey, YouTube And The Law Of Big Numbers|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/06/policing-racism-online-liam-stacey-fabrice-muamba-abuse-twitter-youtube-facebook_n_1407795.html|access-date=June 1, 2012|newspaper=The Huffington Post|date=April 7, 2012}}

On November 6, 2013, Google implemented a new comment system that requires all YouTube users to use a Google+ account to comment on videos, thereby making the comment system Google+-orientated.{{cite news|title=YouTube aims to tame the trolls with changes to its comments section|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/07/youtube-comments-trolls-moderation-google|access-date=November 16, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=November 7, 2013|first=Stuart|last=Dredge}} The corporation stated that the change is necessary to personalize comment sections for viewers, eliciting an overwhelmingly negative public response—YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim also expressed disdain by writing on his channel: "why the fuck do I need a Google+ account to comment on a video?"{{cite news|title=YouTube co-founder hurls abuse at Google over new YouTube comments|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/08/youtube-cofounder-why-the-fuck-do-i-need-a-google-account-to-comment|access-date=November 16, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=November 8, 2013|first=Alex|last=Hern}} The official YouTube announcement received over 62,000 "thumbs down" votes and only just over 4,000 "thumbs up" votes, while an online petition demanding Google+'s removal gained more than 230,000 signatures in just over two months.{{cite web|title=Meet the new YouTube comments|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGp8Z8Yb28|url-status=dead|archive-date=30 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030010209/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGp8Z8Yb28|work=YouTube|publisher=Google Inc|access-date=November 16, 2013|author=YouTube Help|format=Video upload|date=November 6, 2013}}[http://www.ibtimes.com/youtube-founder-blasts-new-youtube-comments-jawed-karim-outraged-google-plus-requirement-1462814 "YouTube Founder Blasts New YouTube Comments: Jawed Karim Outraged At Google Plus Requirement"], Ryan W. Neal, International Business Times, November 8, 2013. Retrieved November 9, 2013. Writing in the Newsday blog Silicon Island, Chase Melvin noted: "Google+ is nowhere near as popular a social media network as Facebook, but it's essentially being forced upon millions of YouTube users who don't want to lose their ability to comment on videos."{{cite news|last=Chase |first=Melvin |title=YouTube comments require Google+ account, Google faces uproar |newspaper=Newsday |date=November 20, 2013 |url=http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/silicon-island-1.1521604/youtube-comments-require-google-account-google-faces-uproar-1.6429420 }} {{subscription required}} [http://www.amny.com/silicon-island-1.1521604/youtube-comments-require-google-account-google-faces-uproar-1.6429420 Alternate link] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203000813/http://www.amny.com/silicon-island-1.1521604/youtube-comments-require-google-account-google-faces-uproar-1.6429420 |date=December 3, 2013 }}. In the same article Melvin adds:

{{blockquote|Perhaps user complaints are justified, but the idea of revamping the old system isn't so bad. Think of the crude, misogynistic and racially-charged mudslinging that has transpired over the last eight years on YouTube without any discernible moderation. Isn't any attempt to curb unidentified libelers worth a shot? The system is far from perfect, but Google should be lauded for trying to alleviate some of the damage caused by irate YouTubers hiding behind animosity and anonymity.}}

On July 27, 2015, Google announced that Google+ would no longer be required for using various services, including YouTube.{{cite web |first=Frederic |last=Lardinois |title=Google Weans Itself Off Of Google+ |url=https://techcrunch.com/2015/07/27/google-weans-itself-off-of-google/ |website=TechCrunch |publisher=AOL |date=July 27, 2015 |access-date=June 6, 2017}}{{cite web |first=Ron |last=Amadeo |title=Google officially ends forced Google+ integration—First up: YouTube |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/google-officially-ends-forced-google-integration-first-up-youtube/ |website=Ars Technica |publisher=Condé Nast |date=July 27, 2015 |access-date=June 6, 2017}}

Google has supported net neutrality in the US, while opposing it in India by supporting zero-rating.{{cite web | title = Google joins Facebook in trying to prevent IAMAI from taking strong anti-Zero Rating stand | publisher = MediaNama| date = August 20, 2015 | url = http://www.medianama.com/2015/08/223-google-iamai-net-neutrality-india/}}

On April 1, 2016, the Mic Drop April Fools' joke in Gmail caused damage for users who accidentally clicked the button Google installed on that occasion.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/01/google-disables-april-fools-joke-gmail-mic-drop|title=Google disables April fool joke amid user fury after prank backfires|first=Alex|last=Hern|date=April 1, 2016|newspaper=The Guardian}}

The New York Times reported that Google has pressured the New America think tank which is supported by it, to remove a statement supporting the EU antitrust fine against Google. After Eric Schmidt voiced his displeasure from the statement, the whole research group involved were sidelined in the New America think tank, which gets funding from Google.{{Cite news | last=Vogel | first=Kenneth P. | title=Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant | newspaper=The New York Times | date=August 30, 2017 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html | access-date=April 7, 2018}}{{cite web|url=https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/|title=Citizens Against Monopoly|website=citizensagainstmonopoly.org}} Consequently, the Open Markets research group went to open their own think tank, which will not get any funding from Google.

Wide attention in Polish media has resulted from Google's attempt to patent video compression application of ANS coding, which is now widely used in products of e.g. Apple, Facebook and Google. Its author has helped Google in this adaptation for three years through public forum, but was not included in the patent application. He was supported in fighting this patent by his employer: Jagiellonian University.{{cite web |url= http://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,1037604,polands-oldest-university-denies-googles-right-to-patent-polish-coding-concept.html |title= Poland's oldest university denies Google's right to patent Polish coding concept |work= Polish Press Agency |date= August 6, 2017 |access-date= September 3, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170820200746/http://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,1037604,polands-oldest-university-denies-googles-right-to-patent-polish-coding-concept.html |archive-date= August 20, 2017 |url-status= dead }}{{Cite web|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6h08z5/google_is_currently_trying_to_patent_video/|title=r/programming – Google is currently trying to patent video compression application of Asymmetric Numeral Systems – which is replacing Huffman and arithmetic coding due to up to 30x speedup|website=reddit|date=June 13, 2017}}{{cite web|url= https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/ |title=Google Accused of Trying to Patent Public Domain Technology |work=Bleeping Computer |date=September 11, 2017}}{{cite web|url= https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/ |title=Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain |work=Arstechnica |date=June 10, 2018}}{{cite web|url= https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/after-patent-office-rejection-it-time-google-abandon-its-attempt-patent-use-public |title=After Patent Office Rejection, It is Time For Google To Abandon Its Attempt to Patent Use of Public Domain Algorithm |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=August 30, 2018}}

Google's huge share of spatial information services, including Google Maps and the Google Places API, has been criticised by activists and academics in terms of the cartographic power it affords Google to map and represent the world's cities.{{Cite journal | last1 = Shaw | first1 = Joe | last2 = Graham | first2 = Mark | title = An Informational Right to the City? Code, Content, Control, and the Urbanization of Information | journal = Antipode | volume = 49 | issue = 4 | pages = 907–927 | doi = 10.1111/anti.12312 | date = February 2017 | bibcode = 2017Antip..49..907S | doi-access = free }} In addition, given Google and Alphabet Inc.'s increasing involvement with urban planning, particularly through subsidiaries like Sidewalk Labs,{{Cite news |title=Google wants to run cities without being elected. Don't let it |first=Jathan |last=Sadowski |newspaper=The Guardian |date=24 October 2017 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/24/google-alphabet-sidewalk-labs-toronto |access-date=1 October 2017}} this has resulted in criticism that Google is exerting an increasing power over urban areas that may not be beneficial to democracy in the long term.{{cite web | last = Joe Shaw and Mark Graham | title = Our Digital Rights to the City | url = http://meatspacepress.org/ | website = meatspacepress.org | publisher = Meatspace Press | date = 15 February 2017 }}{{Cite news |title=Google's plan to revolutionise cities is a takeover in all but name |first=Evgeny |last=Morozov |newspaper=The Guardian |date=22 October 2017 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/08/digital-map-what-geoweb-gets-wrong-about-real-streets |access-date=2 May 2018}} This criticism is also related to wider concerns around democracy and Smart Cities that has been directed to a number of other large corporations.{{Cite news |title=The truth about smart cities: 'In the end, they will destroy democracy' |first=Steven |last=Poole |newspaper=The Guardian |date=December 2014 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/dec/17/truth-smart-city-destroy-democracy-urban-thinkers-buzzphrase |access-date=9 May 2018}}{{Cite news |title=Whose smart city? |first=Alberto |last=Vanolo |publisher=openDemocracy |work=openSecurity |date=April 2014 |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/alberto-vanolo/whose-smart-city |access-date=December 21, 2019}}

On 10 December 2018, a New Zealand court ordered that the name of a man accused of murdering British traveller Grace Millane be withheld from the public (a gag order). The next morning, Google named the man in an email it sent people who had subscribed to "what's trending in New Zealand".{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/13/new-zealand-courts-banned-naming-grace-millanes-accused-killer-google-just-emailed-it-out|title=New Zealand courts banned naming Grace Millane's accused killer. Google just emailed it out | author-link = Toby Manhire |first=Toby|last=Manhire|date=December 13, 2018|newspaper=The Guardian}} Lawyers warned that this could compromise the trial, and Justice Minister Andrew Little said that Google was in contempt of court.{{Cite news|url=https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/justice-minister-says-google-has-called-account-breaching-suppression-in-grace-millane-case|title=Justice Minister says Google has to be called to account for breaching suppression in Grace Millane case|newspaper=TVNZ}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/lawyers-ongoing-suppression-breaches-in-grace-millane-case-endanger-trial/|title=Lawyers: Ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane case endanger trial|newspaper=N. Z. Herald|via=Newstalk ZB }} Google said that it had been unaware of the court order, and that the email had been created by algorithms.

In 2016, Google filed a patent application for interactive pop-up books with electronics.{{cite patent |country=US |number=2016063876 |status=application |title=Storytelling Device |pubdate= |gdate= |fdate= |pridate= |inventor= |invent1= |invent2= |assign1= |assign2= |class= |url=}} Jie Qi noticed that the patent resembled work she had shared when she visited Google ATAP in 2014 as a PhD student at the MIT Media Lab; two of the Google employees listed on the application as inventors had also interviewed her during the same visit. After Qi submitted prior art to the USPTO, the application was abandoned.{{Cite web|url=https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea|title=Company Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview|website=Patent Pandas|date=May 14, 2018 }}{{Cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/30/google_stole_my_patent/|title=The dingo... er, Google stole my patent! Biz boss tells how Choc Factory staff tried to rip off idea from interview|work=The Register|date=2018-11-30}}

Project Nightingale is a health care data sharing project financed by Google and Ascension, a Catholic health care system, the second largest in the United States. Ascension owns comprehensive health care information on millions of former and current patients who are part of its system. Google and Ascension have been processing this data, in secret, since sometime in 2018, without the knowledge and consent of patients and doctors. The work they are doing appears to comply with federal health care law which includes "robust protections for patient data."{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-s-secret-project-nightingale-gathers-personal-health-data-on-millions-of-americans-11573496790|title=WSJ News Exclusive | Google's 'Project Nightingale' Gathers Personal Health Data on Millions of Americans|first=Rob|last=Copeland|website=WSJ}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/news/google-gathering-health-care-data-on-millions-of-americans-with-secret-project-nightingale/|title=Google Gathering Health Care Data on Millions of Americans with Secret 'Project Nightingale' |magazine =National Review |first=Zachary |last=Evans |date=November 11, 2019 |access-date=December 21, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/11/20959771/google-health-records-project-nightingale-privacy-ascension|title=Google may be secretly gathering millions of personal health records with alleged 'Project Nightingale'|first=Mary Beth|last=Griggs|date=November 11, 2019|website=The Verge}} However, concerns have been voiced whether the transfer really is HIPAA compliant.[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/12/google-medical-data-project-nightingale-secret-transfer-us-health-information Google's secret cache of medical data includes names and full details of millions – whistleblower], The Guardian, 2019 The project is Google's attempt to gain a large scale foot hold into the healthcare industry.

In 2020, Google-owned YouTube changed its policy so that it could include ads on all videos, regardless of whether the content-creator wanted them or not. Those who were not part of Google's Partner Program would receive no revenue for this. To join the program, creators must have more than 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours of viewed content in the last 12 months.{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/11/18/youtube-will-now-show-ads-on-all-videos-even-if-creators-dont-want-them/|title=YouTube Will Now Show Ads On All Videos Even If Creators Don't Want Them|first=John|last=Koetsier|website=Forbes}}{{Cite web|url=https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719?hl=en&msgid=83733719|title = Updates to YouTube's Terms of Service (November '20) – YouTube Community}}

In November 2023, YouTube users using various ad blockers in conjunction with the Firefox web browser have started reporting a delay of approximately 5 seconds before a video would start actually playing, which was further confirmed by the analysis of the source obfuscript for YouTube and then Google itself.{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Wes |date=2023-11-21 |title=YouTube says it's not slowing down Firefox — just ad blockers |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23970721/google-youtube-ad-blocker-five-second-delay-firefox-chrome |access-date=2024-06-01 |website=The Verge |language=en}} Reportedly, changing the user agent string to Chromium/Google Chrome resolved the issue.{{Cite web |author1=Mark Tyson |date=2023-11-21 |title=Google allegedly crippling Firefox's YouTube performance — company's response to five-second video delay for non-Chrome users misses the point |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/news/youtube-responds-to-delayed-loading-in-rival-browser-complaints |access-date=2024-06-04 |website=Tom's Hardware |language=en}} This was at a time when Google had also announced that starting June 2024, Chrome would no longer run browser extensions that use Manifest Version 2 standard in favor of a new version which would severely limit the capabilities of ad blockers other than e.g. DNS blocklists using their hitherto standard solutions.{{Cite web |last=Koebler · |first=Jason |date=2023-11-20 |title=YouTube Says New 5-Second Video Load Delay Is Supposed to Punish Ad Blockers, Not Firefox Users |url=https://www.404media.co/youtube-says-new-5-second-video-load-delay-is-supposed-to-punish-ad-blockers-not-firefox-users/ |access-date=2024-06-01 |website=404 Media |language=en}}

In November 2021, YouTube rolled out an update to the website which prevented users from seeing how many dislikes a video had, with only the creator of the video being able to see. The decision was made to counteract "dislike-bombing", in which users make a coordinated effort to dislike a video en masse. This led to significant controversy, as the move was seen by many as undemocratic.{{Cite news |date=2021-11-12 |title=YouTube removing dislike 'discourages trolls' but 'unhelpful for users' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-59264070 |access-date=2024-06-21 |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |last=Perez |first=Sarah |date=2021-11-10 |title=YouTube is removing the dislike count on all videos across its platform |url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/10/youtube-is-removing-the-dislike-count-on-all-videos-across-its-platform/ |access-date=2024-06-21 |website=TechCrunch |language=en-US}}

In March 2022, the Department of Justice and 14 state attorneys general accused Google of misusing attorney–client privilege to hide emails from subpoenas using an employee policy called 'Communicate with Care,' which instructs employees to carbon copy (CC) Google's attorneys on emails and flag them as exempt from disclosure. Employees are directed to add a general request for the attorney's advice even when no legal advice is needed or sought. Often Google's lawyers will not respond to such requests, which the Justice Department claimed shows they understand and are participating in the evasion.{{cite news |last1=Brodkin |first1=Jon |title=Google routinely hides emails from litigation by CCing attorneys, DOJ alleges |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely-hides-emails-from-litigation-by-ccing-attorneys-doj-alleges/ |work=Ars Technica |date=22 March 2022 |language=en-us}}

In 2024, the Kremlin fined Google 2.5 decillion rubles for removal of news sources. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted he "cannot even pronounce this number" but urged "Google management to pay attention.{{cite web | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo | title=Russia fines Google more than entire world's GDP | date=October 31, 2024 }}

In May 2023, Google announced that deletion of inactive user accounts would occur starting in December 2023, citing security reasons, noting that old and unused accounts are more likely to be compromised. Google claimed that "Forgotten or unattended accounts often rely on old or re-used passwords that may have been compromised, haven't had two factor authentication set up, and receive fewer security checks by the user," while saying that Google "has no plans to delete YouTube videos".{{cite web |last1=Lawler |first1=Richard |title=Google might delete your Gmail account if you haven't logged in for two years |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/16/23725438/google-gmail-deleting-inactive-accounts |website=The Verge |access-date=21 December 2023 |language=en |date=16 May 2023}}{{cite web |last1=Porter |first1=Jon |title=Reminder: Google is about to start purging inactive accounts |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/28/23979178/google-inactive-accounts-deletion-december-2023-psa-reminder |website=The Verge |access-date=21 December 2023 |language=en |date=28 November 2023}}{{cite web |last1=Amadeo |first1=Ron |title=Google's new "inactive account" policy won't delete years of YouTube videos |url=https://arstechnica.com/google/2023/05/googles-new-inactive-account-policy-wont-delete-years-of-youtube-videos/ |website=Ars Technica |access-date=21 December 2023 |language=en-us |date=17 May 2023}}

The decision to delete inactive accounts has sparked some criticism and backlash. The cited security rationale behind such decision was ridiculed and was compared to a hypothetical scenario where a bank should be burned down if it is not secure against robbers.{{cite web |last1=Novet |first1=Jordan |title=Google's plan to purge inactive accounts isn't sitting well with some users |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/19/google-faces-criticism-of-plan-to-purge-inactive-accounts.html |website=CNBC |access-date=21 December 2023 |language=en |date=19 August 2023}} Moreover, the Anonymous hacktivist collective has protested against the decision to delete inactive accounts multiple times, describing them as "harsh" and saying that the decision will "destroy history".{{cite web |date=18 July 2023 |title=Anonymous puts Taiwan flag, national anthem on 2 UN websites {{!}} Taiwan News {{!}} 2023-07-18 09:56:00 |url=https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4946597 |access-date=21 December 2023 |website=Taiwan News}}{{cite web |date=18 October 2023 |title='Anonymous' hacks Chinese government site to protest Israel–Hamas war {{!}} Taiwan News {{!}} 2023-10-18 19:03:00 |url=https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/5022840 |access-date=21 December 2023 |website=Taiwan News}}{{cite web |date=8 December 2023 |title=Anonymous posts Taiwan flag on UN site {{!}} Taiwan News {{!}} 2023-12-08 17:26:00 |url=https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/5055454 |access-date=21 December 2023 |website=Taiwan News}}

{{Portal|Internet}}

• Criticisms of software and websites
• Criticism of Amazon
• DeGoogle
• Don't be evil
• Filter bubble
• Google litigation
• Google Search
• Googlization
• High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
• History of Google
• Ireland as a tax haven
• No Tech for Apartheid
• Stochastic parrot
• Surveillance capitalism
• The Creepy Line
• Who Owns the Future?

{{Reflist |30em}}

• Yeo, ShinJoung. (2023) Behind the Search Box: Google and the Global Internet Industry (U of Illinois Press, 2023) {{ISBN|0-252-08712-7}} {{jstor|4116455}}

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20120125102110/http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Gmail.htm "Google's Email Service 'Gmail' Sacrifices Privacy for Extra Storage Space"], Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, April 2, 2004
• [https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2145273,00.asp "Privacy Group Flunks Google"], Lisa Vaas, eWeek.com, June 12, 2007
• [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9725272 "Who's afraid of Google?"], The Economist, August 30, 2007
• [https://archive.today/20110728175204/http://www.google-watch.org/ Google Watch] (Archived 2011)

{{Censorship}}

{{Google LLC}}

{{Censorship and websites}}

Google

Google

Category:Articles containing video clips