These days, pro-Palestinian content collides with the long hand of the “Facebook” algorithms that delete posts and prohibit accounts for criticizing Israel. Thousands of Arabs were forced to try to circumvent these logarithms by dropping a letter or inserting symbols in the middle of certain words to avoid suspending their posts and suspending their accounts. But what Facebook is doing is not alone in the internet space, as controlling electronic content in general is a growing concern of major technology companies, led by Google, which has established a private company to comb the Internet.
In the famous “Chelsea Market” building in Manhattan, against the background of the noise of people coming to search for their favorite restaurant in one of the historic strongholds of the New York City food market, two years ago, employees of a new company called “Jigsaw” arrived, numbering no more than 100; To set up a trade office above a fancy Italian ice cream shop. It was not unusual in a region where bureaucratic, media and rising tech companies had crowded out the longest-running food stores here. The food innovation wheel continues its usual motion as evidenced by the chefs in the corridors of the Chelsea Market, but more complex and far-reaching innovations are cooked in the upper floors with the quieter voices of programmers and engineers clicking on their computers both in the offices of Building 8510 and in the market itself. Google in 2018 in a deal that exceeded two billion dollars. 
Once the young Jigsaw team moved to their headquarters, they turned it upside down from a drab office to a creative arena that would almost seem to the eye to look like an art workshop were it not for the computers and desks lined up in the main foyer. But another look at the walls of the headquarters may confuse visitors to “jigsaw”, and lead them to think that they are in the office of political advertising for a party or system. On one of the walls there are overlapping posters of the twentieth century propaganda of the communist regimes in Cuba and North Korea, and drawings taken from the propaganda of the Islamic regime in Iran, as if the wall is the cover of a book about totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century, or rather those that Jigsaw believes are “totalitarian” Donna about Other.By wandering around the company’s headquarters, the visitor finds places to sleep, as is the case in Google’s headquarters, but in Jigsaw they bear imaginary names for totalitarian countries (such as Comar), and the visitor also finds meeting rooms in the name of real totalitarian regimes this time (such as Cuba), and in the end he finds a wall covering it From the ceiling to the floor, photos of female protesters dressed in green in Iran in 2009. 
Jigsaw is only one branch of the larger internet giant, but it is relatively newer and more controversial than others. The company was founded in 2010 as “Google Ideas” under the leadership of “Jared Cohen”, a former employee of the US State Department, describing itself as a research center to look at “the intersection of technology and geopolitics” , and to uncover the risks facing “open societies”, and of course Those risks are represented first in the totalitarian regimes that set aside the walls of their headquarters for their comic advertisements, in an attempt to stigmatize the caricature or perhaps a reminder to their employees of what the world could be like without their interference.
The small Jigsaw team is working hard to create what they call a “safe world” free of extremism, false information and toxic ideas in the expanding and complex Internet space , even if that seems inspiring and beautiful at first glance; A long look at the projects that Jigsaw has implemented since its launch of “combing” the Internet is sufficient to reveal many problems in the concepts and practices on which the company is based, concepts it applies without any dialogue with the concerned parties, which is the largest in the Internet world.
Christopher Hasson, a lieutenant in the US Coast Guard, sits at his private computer looking through Google for answers to thorny questions swirling in his head, thinking that he owns his own internet space away from the usual censorship at his institution. Hasson opens the famous search engine and writes – although he had not previously spoken it so clearly – “How can the white people rise up in the face of the Jews?”
The application used at the Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, DC, quickly alerted officials to Hasson’s direction, and he was arrested, and the authorities found in his possession a list of assassinations of journalists, democratic politicians, and Supreme Court judges, in addition to a variety of weapons, in the end, he obtained a 13-year prison sentence on charges Planning to launch “white nationalist” terrorist attacks . We do not know exactly whether Hasson planned this from the beginning, or whether the content he searched diligently contributed to his radicalization and direction towards planning assassinations, but his potential victims were fortunate enough by his work at Google, which constantly monitors and checks the computers of its employees, unlike the thousands who wander around in The corners of the dark web and they enter the same questions into Google’s engine without being censored, with the exception of Google, of course.
لا يُجيب غوغل عن تلك الأسئلة المعقَّدة والمليئة بالتحيُّزات والتطرف كما يجيب مثلا عن أسئلتك العادية بوصفك مستخدما، كنقطة غليان الماء أو أفضل محلات البيتزا في نابولي أو عدد أنواع الطيور في غابات الأمازون، لكنه يفتح طُرقا عديدة أمام أي أحد ليكتشف آلافا آخرين ممن سألوا السؤال نفسه في مدينته وبلده بل وعالمه كلِّه، ما يُشعِر سائلي تلك الأسئلة العادية بالانتماء لدائرة أوسع لم يعرفوها قبلا. وعند هذا النمط من الأسئلة السياسية، فإن غوغل يتيح، بقصد أو دونه، تعبئة هؤلاء الباحثين عن الموضوع ذاته، باعتبارهم جماعة سياسية، وذلك لمَن أراد هذا الشيء ابتداء.
وفق هذا المُعطى، يصبح غوغل أشبه بالميدان الأضخم في العالم الافتراضي الذي يتوافد إليه الملايين حين يضل اتجاههم، لكنه أحيانا ما يكون نُقطة يتجمَّع عندها أصحاب الاتجاهات السياسية المتشابهة، عشوائيا في البداية، ثم بانتظام. وبالتوازي مع صعود اليمين الأبيض استنادا إلى تلك الشبكات، كما تُنبِّئنا شركة جيغسو في العدد الثاني من مجلتها “ذَه كارَنْت” (The Current)، المخصصة لتغطية تنظيمات اليمين المتطرِّف المُشكَّلة عبر الإنترنت، بالتوازي مع ذلك دأب فصيل آخر على اصطياد الباحثين عن المحتوى الديني المتطرِّف ليجذبهم إلى مداره على بُعد مئات الأميال في ساحات القتال الفعلية بالشرق الأوسط، فصيل يُدعى “تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية” أو (داعش).
يتحدَّث الباحثان “ريان غرير” و”فيذيا رامالينغام” في مقال لهما عن أهمية محرِّكات البحث التي تتربَّع غوغل على عرشها منذ فترة؛ كمحرِّك غوغل الرئيسي أو المحركات الفرعية على مواقع شديدة الضخامة كيوتيوب وغيرها، فعلى نقيض مساحات مثل فيسبوك وتويتر، يعي المشاركون فيها أنهم يخاطبون جمهورا، ويكتبون منشوراتهم بعناية للحفاظ على ذلك الجمهور، تكشف عمليات البحث التي يقوم بها شخص ما عن أفكاره بشكل أعمق، وتُتيح الكشف عن “مسارات” المحتوى المتطرِّف على الإنترنت، الأبيض أو الإسلامي أو غيرهما، وأي أهداف سياسية يعكف عليها صُنَّاعه إن وُجِدَت. غير أن غوغل لم تتوقَّف هُنا، بل استلهمت من تجربة “داعش” والعائدين منها تطبيقا صمَّمته قبل ستة أعوام عبر شركة جيغسو الوليدة آنذاك ليصبح واحدا من أول مشاريع الشركة، تطبيق يُدعى “منهجية إعادة التوجيه” (The Redirect Method).
طوَّرت جيغسو برنامجا مفتوح المصدر باسم “منهجية إعادة التوجيه” يقوم بالتقاط المحتوى الذي يبحث عنه في العادة “المتطرفون” على الإنترنت، ويضع عن عمد على الصفحات المتصلة به وبنتائجه على محرِّكات البحث محتوى مضادا له. وفي إحدى تجاربها كما يصف موقعها الرسمي، وضعت جيغسو محتوى ضد التطرُّف بالعربية والإنجليزية طوَّرته شركتان لبنانية وبريطانية على الترتيب، وهو مُكوَّن من 116 فيديو موزَّعة على صفحات قادت إليها عمليات بحث اعتاد “تنظيم الدولة” اجتذاب مقاتلين عبرها، ونجحت حزمة الفيديوهات تلك بالفعل خلال ثمانية أسابيع أن تلفت انتباه أكثر من ثلاثمئة ألف شخص إلى محتواها، بإجمالي وقت مشاهدة بلغ نصف مليون دقيقة.
لتوضيح الفكرة أكثر، نستعرض هذا المثال: إذا ما جلس أحدهم على محرِّك غوغل باحثا عن “فتوى الجهاد في سوريا” أو أسماء رجال دين أيّدوا “تنظيم الدولة” علنا ودعوا الناس للانضمام إليه، فستظهر إلى جانب نتائج بحثه إعلانات مصنوعة خصيصا تقوده لتسجيلات فيديو تناقش شرعية التنظيم وجدوى الانضمام إليه، تسجيلات مرئية سجَّلها بالطبع مسلمون مناهضون للتنظيم. وبينما أثبتت “منهجية إعادة التوجيه” كفاءتها، على الأقل في جذب انتباه المستخدمين، حسبما تقول “ياسمين جرين” مديرة البحث والتطوير في جيغسو، فقد بات هدفُها الحالي بعد أفول “تنظيم الدولة” في السنوات الأخيرة هو التطرُّف الأبيض داخل الولايات المتحدة نفسها.
ليس التطرُّف الأبيض بتحدٍّ يُهدِّد الولايات المتحدة من خارجها فحسب بصلاته الروسية المعروفة الآن، بل يُشكِّل التحدي الاجتماعي الأبرز في عُقر دارها خلال هذا العقد وما يليه كما يبدو، لا سيما أن هذا التيار أوصَلَ رجلا مثل دونالد ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض. أما وقد أصبحت المسألة البيضاء في الداخل هي الشغل الشاغل للنُّخبة الأميركية، عوضا عن مطاردة معاقل “الإرهاب” في الشرق الأوسط التي شغلتها في العقد المنصرم، في خضم ذلك تظهر جيغسو بوصفها عنصرا رئيسا في حرب المؤسسة الأميركية وارتباطاتها بوادي السيليكون على “سموم” القومية البيضاء.
فقد دشَّنت جيغسو قبل بضعة أعوام “پِرسپِكتيڤ” (Perspective)، وهو واجهة برمجية (API) “مُضادة للإساءة” تُتيح كشفا تلقائيا لأي تعليقات تحوي سبا أو إهانة أو مضمونا عنصريا، ومن ثمَّ تقوم بحصرها سريعا وآليا، ثم يُترك قرار حذفها من عدمه للجهة التي تستخدم تلك الواجهة. وبالمقارنة، يعكف موظفون كُثُر في كبرى مؤسسات الإعلام والتواصل الاجتماعي على ترشيح التعليقات بأنفسهم “يدويا” حتى اليوم، وفي خضم السيل الجارف من التعليقات المنشورة يوميا على تلك المواقع والمنصات دون رقابة، يصبح إتمام المهمَّة كاملة شبه مستحيل.
Jigsaw developed that interface by training its automated model by introducing “toxic” comments to it, until it crystallized its ability to differentiate fairly well between normal comment and “toxic” comment, and even classify the toxicity of comments by a percentage. As indicated by the “Wired” site, if that API receives the sentence “You are not nice”, the result will be that that sentence “is 8% toxic”, but if the interface receives the phrase “You are a dirty woman”, for example, the toxicity rate will jump to 92% . With the increasing use of the Jigsaw interface by many parties such as Wikipedia and the New York Times (its first users and co-developers) , the interface will allow modifications to be made to its classifications according to the evaluation it gets. Not only that, but Jigsaw was given access to the massive archive of New York Times commentary in its entirety for use as well as facade training.
Of course we cannot consider banning offensive comments as an ugly target, and this is self-evident, but it brings with it complex technical and ethical questions, the first of which is who determines the “toxicity of comments” in the first place, as well as about the nature of the machine’s interaction with our use of language, and whether the automatic blocking and the possibility The total elimination of abuse and extremism contribute to actually solving the problem, or in exacerbating it by reinforcing the feeling of those abusers that they are being targeted by centers of political and technological power.
With regard to artificial intelligence, Jigsaw will face the dilemma of using offensive terminology in sarcastic and humorous contexts among young people, for example, and the ability to classify and delete them automatically, unlike manual filtering of comments during which someone perceives the complex use of language. On the other hand, and as a research paper published on the “Archive” website shows, it is easily possible to deceive the API with simple modifications, and to pass highly offensive and racist comments, and the simplest of these tricks is to write certain words incorrectly by adding a letter or punctuation mark, but they remain legible and understandable Of the human eye and mind, of course. 
Jigsaw projects do not stop at “Perspectiv” or the redirect method only, they include “Assembler”, which helps to detect false images with “deepfake” technology , and “Project Shield” to protect opposition websites from denial of service attacks known in short as DDoS , and “U” which allows journalists and activists in any country to bypass internet blocking and bypass governments ’ability to monitor their computers. Yasmine Green explicitly referred to Iran as a model targeted by U-Proxy to strengthen contact between opponents of the regime there  .
Like the walls of their headquarters in New York, Cohen or Green does not hesitate to clarify their directions, which are, as they say, “the bias of those deprived of freedom of expression,” and “keeping the Internet a safe place away from the grip of authoritarian governments and the abuses of extremists together,” but they are biases that ignore the complexities of the real world. Which emanates from all these phenomena, which are biases that hide hidden trends that make the right to comb the Internet that Google granted to itself an exclusive monopoly that needs reconsideration and dialogue with other partners in the world of the Internet, and in the real world in which Google considers itself a giant of its giants driven by profit and interest in the end It is not something that prompts us to believe in a conspiracy, but rather that Google and Jigsaw should be subjected to a very careful critical look.
In a well-known “Quartz” article, Lucy Wark wrote about Jigsaw and the surrounding issues, and instead of falling in love with her projects or loathing them altogether, Lucy turned away to put Jigsaw in the context of a more general outbreak in Silicon Valley, California, a case she calls Lucy With the “California effect.” Referring to professors at the University of Westminster in Britain, “Andy Cameron” and “Richard Barbrook”, who wrote in the mid-nineties about “California ideology”, and the “hip” culture in the West Coast intertwined with the heavy technology industry there, a culture and ideology “creates a deep faith in the ability Information technology liberates people, “a belief that solves technical puzzles but does not solve the problems of the physical world.
In that coastal valley, the executives are indulging, not only in preaching that technological liberalism; Indeed, in the belief that the Internet space is a new world of their own making, and then their belief is accompanied by a sense of entitlement that justifies them to act as the emperors of this space, or what some critics believe is a form of colonialism, as Lucy points out . And in Google specifically, without others, an embodiment of that influence given the centrality it has acquired in the internet world over the past two decades, as all its services have become the main “digital homes” that we move to and from.
Therefore, the Internet expands as if it were a civilization in its first phase, or a continent that was just discovered, so we find kings and subjects without a meaningful contract that organizes the relationship between the two parties, and with actual and exclusive rights for the first discoverers at the expense of ordinary users, and from here comes the criticism of Google and Jigsaw practices as “electronic colonialism”, and in that The colonial world gives Google executives the right to impose barriers and barricades that restrict the freedoms of the first search engine users if they find that a danger to others, according to a classic liberal vision as Lucy points out, which makes them a “neutral logarithmic mediator between users and the collective mind of the Internet” as described by the thinker Evgeny Morozov, or neutral gods of the internet space, and as such, they are by no means equal to the majority of its users.
This belief lies in their neutrality, that they see themselves far from direct policy, and that they are elevated to the throne of a company that has dedicated itself to presenting its best to the world away from governments that are constrained by their responsibilities and their biases at the same time, and it is a view that blinds to the political self-evident inherent in what these companies own from A power and interest that puts it at the heart of politics, and does not make it, as the benevolent Internet god claims, who only wants a “free internet for all”, despite the unprecedented connectivity they grant that has enabled millions of people to have unlimited knowledge and an intellectual and political mobilization capacity that history has never seen before. .
However, one stands at a loss about the political outcomes of that communication, and whether Google is willing to use its electronic power to influence some of those moves if it does not like it, based on its ownership of that space as a product in the end. Jigsaw has not until now only obstructed extremist agendas, but in the end it constantly develops mechanisms that allow it to be used on a larger scale with the push of a button on its part or by its partners, and the line between the right-wing and the conservative on the one hand and the extremist on the one hand remains gray and controversial given the known biases of the two executives. Google and Silicon Valley – which is one of the reasons for the Republicans ’reservations in the United States about the behavior of Google and its sisters in general – and celebrating the leaps of technology and its ability to pose obstacles on the road to violence, then reserving the powers of the owners of that technology at the same time and demanding that it be controlled legally are not two contradictory positions, as he asserts. Morozov, as ”History is full of examples of humane and benign ideals that have led to malicious results when they are based on unrestrained authority and a messianic discourse. ”
In November of 2010, Google Director of Ideas “Jared Cohen” and CEO of Google “Eric Schmidt” wrote an article in the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine entitled “Digital Disruption: Connectivity and Power Rising.” The two Google poles open their article by talking about the Internet era, the surprises it brings to governments around the world, and the small uprisings that a number of citizens can do using only their mobile phones. The two authors refer to the Iranian protests that took place a year before the article was published, in which Twitter played a pivotal role, and the uprising in Moldova against election fraud in 2009, as well as the uprising of Uyghur activists in China in the same year.The article also reviews the history of technological breakthroughs, starting with the print press and its role in shaping political movements at the beginning of the twentieth century, through cassette tapes and their role in the Iranian revolution, to the paper and fax technology that played a role in bringing down totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe three decades ago.
The article was selective on several levels, the first being the list of the positive effects of technology in breaking the restrictions of totalitarian regimes over the course of the twentieth century, which selected only points in the march of technology. The height of the era of television, in which the majority of people could not participate in its manufacture, and it was dominated by states and then by major companies.
The article was also selective in its dramatic review of what the Internet has brought about in terms of changing the equation for the benefit of the people, without sufficient consideration of the new tools of repression that it has provided to the regimes that keep pace with its empowerment of individuals everywhere and hover over it. A few years later, he followed it with an article in the Wall Street Journal on the “dark side of the digital revolution,” reviewing the possibilities offered by technology to totalitarian regimes in censorship and control .
Technology will also enhance the ability of companies to do the same thing, headed by Google, but questions about companies and their growing strength are never posed with the same critical view. But the company’s critics are raising it, and wondering what the Internet world represents for the concept of law, and the mechanisms by which the Internet giants can be subjected in a legal framework to tame their powers; Proposals that were not drawn up by a Marxist thinker, but rather written by Francis Fukuyama himself in the magazine “Foreign Affairs” as well, as Fukuyama sees a threat to democracy from the unlimited power of technology, in contrast to the romance of its makers. 
Also striking is the selection of Schmidt and Cohen’s article in his discussion of the role of technology in protesting countries that are hostile to the United States and the “free and developed” world, according to the authors of the article, and Silicon Valley in general, countries such as China, Cuba, Iran, and communist regimes. Ironically, when the article also mentioned non-democratic countries that are allies of the United States, its rhetoric was mainly about the social (non-political) changes brought about by the Internet. In Egypt, internet use breaks “traditional barriers of age, gender and social class,” and in Pakistan there is praise for the increasing number of mobile phone users to a hundred million, and in Kenya there are distinct applications for mobile money transfer, and also in Afghanistan, where the internet is not wrong – in my opinion. Cohen and Schmidt in their article – only the ability of Taliban members to use it to carry out their “crimes”, as they put it .
A few weeks after the publication of their historical article, accompanying the establishment of the company “Google Ideas” (later Jigsaw), the Tunisian revolution erupted, sparking a spark that was caught by Egypt in January 2011, then Libya in February of the same year, and Syria, Yemen and Bahrain from After them. The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions were not only a surprise to their governments, but also to decision-makers in the West, and the masters of technological breakthroughs in Google itself, who did not see either country as a “dictatorship”, so the engagement with civil society organizations in them was limited to concern for human rights and press freedom files, unlike. Outright dictatorships (in their view) whose radical opposition have been endowed with ad hoc tools. When the Syrian revolution erupted in the face of a regime that is hostile to the United States (and a dictatorship, of course), “Google Ideas” embarked on creating an application that helps to map the defectors from the regime to facilitate the continuation of militants there. 
When the Egyptian revolution broke out, no similar political interests appeared to bring down the regime or not. Most of all, one of the founders of Google asked angrily about the reason for calling it the “Facebook” revolution, and whether it would be a “Google revolution” if Google worked on producing the right product at the right time. Just that is all there is to it. Google – contrary to what it sees itself – is purely a normal company formed in exceptional circumstances (the end of the Cold War and the rise of neoliberalism) and has created an exceptional market for information and increasing communication, says the historian and professor of media studies at the University of Virginia, “Siwa Wadyanatan”, and it is a company that seeks to remain at the heart of the world That information and communication, which you consider “products”.In the first place, before you look at their social or political fortunes, and a company that now has competitors as well, it may make unethical choices to keep them away from its competitors (they are many after the emergence of Facebook and Twitter, and they sometimes get higher salaries, as Morozov points out sarcastically). Finally, it is an American company in which former American diplomats participate, and their political biases remain with them, and on the walls of their offices as well.