There is evidence that CNN's use texture features more than shape features, i.e. have a texture bias. It's hard to tell in this case without access to the data/model, but it's very possible colour is being overvalued by the classifier and causes the errors.
Legally, I see no difference. It's a matter of equality under the law. Everyone, including corporations, has the same property rights as everyone else, all theft is illegal. This is beneficial for decreasing instability and corruption in a society.
I would guess your underlying contention is the wealth disparity, but that is a different issue with better solutions than weakening property rights for rich people or corporations.
And prefacing your comment with 'with respect' does not excuse accusing those who disagree with you of having inadequate 'critical thinking skills'.
Though where is the line drawn about what is a valid gender/pronoun? For instance, are all the pronouns listed on https://askanonbinary.tumblr.com/pronouns acceptable or not?
Imagine if humans weren't born with biological mouths, instead synthetic mouths were invented and sold by a company, allowing people to speak. We wouldn't accept the company installing a blacklist of words or phrases to stop people from saying them.
The internet is making online discourse more and more important, perhaps online discourse is already more important than oral discourse.
My metaphor obviously differs in some regards to the article, but I think it elucidates my main point, that Google has become sufficiently large and important that we can't really excuse this type of censorship on the basis that they are a private company.
For example the list clearly shows that Google is pro-choice, with phrases such as "abortion is wrong" appearing on the blacklist. This is not up to Google to decide for others. If Google, or its employees, want to voice their perspective, that is fine. It is not fine to try to manipulate people through their software while pretending to be a neutral party.
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”
“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”
I think it's clear what she meant, but Google doesn't want to deal with the legal or social ramifications of being politically non-neutral.
Google has removed the original video from youtube over a "privacy claim" and have disabled responses on this medium post.
It makes it hard to give Google the benefit of the doubt when their stance seems to be "stop talking about it", instead of addressing the content of the video.
Following that example, what if the Nazis used the letter 'x' as their symbol? Some non-Nazis might be associated with them by using the letter, but surely that effect can be diluted if everyone continues to use the letter as normal.
And is the letter 'x' really ruined? The swastika wasn't ruined for many Eastern cultures as its original meaning was widely known.
So if extremists start using a symbol, everyone else has to stop using it and let them have it? Wouldn't it be preferable to ignore the extremists so they don't get the symbol, and the symbol isn't ruined?
Given that he isn't racist and doesn't consider Kek to be racist, what would be the problem with flying the flag? Look at https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kekistan, it looks like a joke that is being taken way too seriously.