Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously
from the this-is-not-the-bias-you-are-looking-for dept
In an article picked up by Drudge Report and then tweeted by President Donald Trump himself, PJ Media editor Paula Bolyard makes the shocking claim that Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President.
In supporting this allegation, she goes to Google and looks through the first hundred listings on the search engine results page. Therein, she finds that 96 percent of results for “Trump” are from liberal media outlets. Bolyard remarks:
I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today
She adds that other than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, traditional right-leaning outlets didn’t make the cut:
PJ Media did not appear in the first 100 results, nor did National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State, or any other conservative-leaning sites except the two listed above.
Aha! A big tech company caught red handed pushing its progressive agenda. Well…not so fast. Rather than uncovering compelling evidence of bias, this article’s author and its promoters merely reveal their ignorance of how search engines work.
First, the author seems to conflate Google Search and Google News, two products which use different algorithms and serve different functions. Google News is a searchable news aggregator and app (with some overt editorial functions), whereas Google Search tries to give users the most useful and relevant information in response to a query.
In order to determine what constitutes a relevant and useful result, search engines use complex algorithms to rank the quality of different pages based on a variety of signals such as keywords, authoritativeness, freshness or site architecture. A big part of this quality determination is based on outside links to a site – an idea going back to Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s work at Stanford in the late 1990s that culminated in the creation of the PageRank algorithm.
Page and Brin realized that incoming links to a site served as a proxy for quality markers like authoritativeness, trustworthiness and popularity. Today, Google Search is much more complex, utilizing complex machine-learning functions like RankBrain and an evolving set of algorithms with names like Hummingbird, Panda, Penguin and Pigeon. However, incoming links are still a key factor. Additionally, while Google uses manual quality raters to test new algorithm changes, they do not use them on live search results.
Google News’ approach to ranking results is also driven by algorithms that use a number of the same signals (you can get an idea from their patent), with a couple exceptions where manual input is used for editorial features, major events, and cross-over results from Google Search for particular topics.
With this in mind, it should be no great surprise that outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post trounce outlets like PJ Media, National Review, and the Weekly Standard in organic search. The sites in the latter group don’t have metrics that support them rising to the top of the search algorithm. Of course, PJ Media found Fox and WSJ weren’t affected by this “bias” because their numbers are actually comparable to the former group of “left-wing” outlets (see below).
(Data from Alexa.com)
This approach to ranking quality isn’t just a Google thing. If you look at competitors like DuckDuckGo or Bing (which PJ Media didn’t seem to bother doing), you’re going to see pretty similar results. Maybe this says something about the media landscape. But it’s not a good reason to storm Mountain View with pitchforks.
PJ Media’s conspiracy-mongering is based on an avoidable misunderstanding that could throw gasoline on the techlash and lead to policies that chill American innovation (although at least for now, conservatives still think a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet is a dumb idea).
It’s worth saying that libertarians and conservatives aren’t totally unreasonable in wanting to investigate whether they’re getting fair treatment by tech companies. After all, Silicon Valley is a very liberal place that doesn’t always reflect their norms or values (I also say this as someone with generally right-leaning views who has worked for organizations like the Cato Institute and R Street). That being said, if you’re going to make an allegation that there’s a big conspiracy, you should do your due diligence. This means taking time to understand the underlying technology before jumping to conclusions.
On Google’s part, given all of the tensions around bias lately, they would probably be wise to be more transparent about how their news algorithm works and do more proactive outreach to avoid future misunderstandings.
Zach Graves is Head of Policy for Lincoln Network
Filed Under: algorithms, bias, content moderation, donald trump, free speech, google news, journalism, news, search
Companies: google
Comments on “Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously”
These people are ignorant about everything. Did we honestly expect the exception to the rule was going to be complicated site-ranking algorithms?
Re: Re:
I’m not sure accuracy matters to him. Did you see his comments last hour? He’s now saying Google hurts people and he gets a lot of complaints about them.
Shocking
OMG. This is shocking. I can’t believe that the internet only thinks that Trump is bad.
Use SEO to manage that reputation
It sure sounds like National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State could use the help of an SEO or a reputation managment team. I have heard of a couple of good ones, here on Techdirt, who go out of their way to falsify information to benefit their clients. It didn’t help.
So what tea leaves should conservative websites be reading? That there are a lot fewer people reading the conservative point of view than they would like.
Re: Use SEO to manage that reputation
That’s because “conservative” tends to mean “bug-eyed right-wing nutter” rather than “believes in and promotes traditional values.”
I read the National Review and have caught them outright lying about the NHS (we have private healthcare provision in the UK, ergo no monopoly) and trolling women, saying they ought to be hanged if they have an abortion. Given the number of women in the US who have had the procedure, imagine an Appian Way style line of bodies hanging from poles all the way down Route 66.
I haven’t even started on the sheer harsh judgementalism in the tone of the posts — and the comments. That this is putting readers off shouldn’t surprise them.
I still read National Review on the grounds that even a stopped clock is right twice a day but I’m glad they got rid of Kevin D. Williamson. That jerk is responsible for the two examples listed above.
Re: Use SEO to manage that reputation
“here on Techdirt, who go out of their way to falsify information to benefit their clients”
LOL – good one
This is a placeholder for the obligatory comment mistaking the author for Mike and then calling him a Google shill for writing an article that points out a problem with someone saying Google has done something wrong.
Serious News
So because Breitbart get’s low ranking, it can’t be due to it just being less reputable and useful than CNN?
I thought Breitbart was just a Nazi-propaganda site doing comedy pieces about the jew conspiracy – not exactly a serious news source. (via News or SEO.)
Re: Serious News
Not to mention they’ve been responsible for pushing a bunch of complete BS lie stories that have caused real harm (fake videos on ACORN and the ‘racist’ Obama staffer being 2 such prominent examples).
That looks like a pretty good reason to me for any legitimate search engine to not rank their content too highly as ‘news’.
They’re really just a right wing blog.
Re: Serious News
Gary opined — "I thought Breitbart was just a Nazi-propaganda site doing comedy pieces about the jew conspiracy"
Um Gary, dude, sorry to break it to you but Breitbart was literally founded by two Jews, is named after a Jew, and still has a Jewish CEO. And being pro-Israel is literally part of it’s founding ethos.
And you have the ignorance to call it "Nazi-propaganda site doing comedy pieces about the jew conspiracy" ?
You’re literally a poster child for the narcissistic bias and self-absorbed stupidity that Silicon Valley is famous for.
Well done.
Re: Re: Breitbart's Jewish connections
Considering Breitbart’s willingness to back authoritarian officials and a corporate oligarchy, it sounds like its administration didn’t learn enough from the last holocaust to seek to prevent another one.
Breitbart is an embarrassment to the never again oath, unless they’re only seeking to keep themselves off the purge list…no even then they’re being short sighted.
Re: Re: Serious News
“Breitbart was literally founded by two Jews, is named after a Jew, and still has a Jewish CEO. And being pro-Israel is literally part of it’s founding ethos.”
So what ….. are they not allowed to do nazi propaganda pieces about the Jewish Conspiracy? Why is this?
Would that be over the top for you or would that give you a narcissistic bias and self-absorbed stupidity that breitbart is known for?
Hmm… this brings a whole new (and rather sinister) perspective to Tony Hoare’s famous quote that
Re: I suspect data science is something like physical science
The more accurate you try to be, the more outrageously complicated it gets, to the point that few (if any) can understand it all.
String theory, for instance, is entirely disregarded by half the physics sector, and is scarcely understood outside the sector.
But things that are so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies are often so simple that they’re not very useful.
Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
yeah, ZGraves overall premise here is that there is NO tech bias… because sterile, objective, complex Metrics & Algorithms make all the selection/filtering decisions — not humans at he Tech companies. So since humans are not involved — human bias is impossible, or at least very slight.
Apparently all these Metrics & Algorithms arose spontaneously without human input, assumptions, or control ?
(ZGraves is of course unbiased himself — luv how he reflexively lumps libertarians and conservatives into he same political species, but that’s a common failing among progressive-leftists)
Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
Actually, no. The premise is that the evidence presented might reflect the known biases of the algorithms, ie incoming links, not some some programmer putting “Conservative news = downrank” in the code. The author notes that Wall street journal and Fox news weren’t affected by this bias, and then provides rankings for incoming links, and notes that those 2 conservative outlets rank highly, which is why they were unaffected – the bias isn’t against conservative news, its a bias against low metrics like incoming links.
That’s why the title exists. The author isn’t claiming there is not a Bais against conservative media. But that if you cry wolf with your evidence, people won’t believe you when it can be proven.
Re: Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
—“might reflect the known biases of the algorithms, ie incoming links, not some some programmer “
… and just how does the algorithm decide which incoming-links are selected and prioritized ??
At some prior point, a human programmer constructed that algorithim with his subjective human criteria/assumptions about how outside links should be selected/prioritized. Hence the fundamental human bias in the system. These algorithms are human constructs.
Re: Re: Re:2 Blame metrics & algorithms
At some prior point, a human programmer constructed that algorithim with his subjective human criteria/assumptions about how outside links should be selected/prioritized. Hence the fundamental human bias in the system. These algorithms are human constructs.
Indeed. But since the algorithm heavily weights internal links, are you suggesting that the number of inbound links a site has is inherently biased one way or another on the political spectrum?
Re: Re: Re:3 Blame metrics & algorithms
… no
Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
yeah, ZGraves overall premise here is that there is NO tech bias…
That is explicitly NOT his premise. He actually states the opposite of that.
because sterile, objective, complex Metrics & Algorithms make all the selection/filtering decisions — not humans at he Tech companies.
Also not what he says.
So since humans are not involved — human bias is impossible, or at least very slight.
Again, not what he says.
ZGraves is of course unbiased himself — luv how he reflexively lumps libertarians and conservatives into he same political species, but that’s a common failing among progressive-leftists
The idea that Zach is a "progressive leftist" is laughable (as again he himself notes in the article).
I get the feeling you decided this article was bad, skimmed a sentence or two and then wrote something completely disconnected from reality.
Re: Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
— “That is explicitly NOT his premise. He actually states the opposite of that.”
OK, please quote his actual statement ‘opposite of that’
Our ‘interpretations’ of Mr Graves words seem to differ
Never heard of Mr Graves before and was guessing at his politics. He indeed claims to be “generally right-leaning” (whatever that means). Turns out he is a think-tank operative for the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers were originally ‘libertarian-leaning’ but have now morphed into big-government Republicans.
Re: Re: Re:2 Blame metrics & algorithms
OK, please quote his actual statement ‘opposite of that’
He says: "It’s worth saying that libertarians and conservatives aren’t totally unreasonable in wanting to investigate whether they’re getting fair treatment by tech companies. After all, Silicon Valley is a very liberal place that doesn’t always reflect their norms or values…"
He explicitly notes that there may be a liberal bias at those companies. It’s just that this study does not show that.
Never heard of Mr Graves before and was guessing at his politics.
He states his politics IN THE ARTICLE, showing that you clearly did not read it, but rather jumped to conclusions and made a bunch of bad assumptions.
He indeed claims to be "generally right-leaning" (whatever that means). Turns out he is a think-tank operative for the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers were originally ‘libertarian-leaning’ but have now morphed into big-government Republicans.
I will note that you ignore the fact that you previously insisted that Zach was a "progressive leftist," and now focus on going after those who funded institutions he’s worked for, rather than addressing anything in the actual argument.
An apology would be nice, since you clearly chose not to read the article and made a bunch of really bad assumptions about it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Blame metrics & algorithms
well, Mr Graves obtusely hinting that there maybe perhaps might be some political bias somewhere in tech companies … does not even mildly negate my statement nor change his lengthy discussion emphasis upon metrics/algorithms as primarily controlling search results/prioritization, as opposed to software programming choices made by tech company humans.
I did not ‘insist’ nor directly assert that Mr Graves was a progressive leftist, though I further said that was my initial guess/opinion. Is the general progressive-leftist label so instantly loathsome here that it demands apology?
Are apologies for personal opinions routinely requested by the TD management?
Consider your headline here: “Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously”
Are all “Conservatives” guilty of these supposedly false bias accusations ??
Would be nice perhaps for you to apologize for so broadly mis-characterizing all conservatives.
Re: Re: Re:4 Blame metrics & algorithms
well, Mr Graves obtusely hinting that there maybe perhaps might be some political bias somewhere in tech companies
He did not hint obtusely at it.
does not even mildly negate my statement
It kinda does, though.
his lengthy discussion emphasis upon metrics/algorithms as primarily controlling search results/prioritization, as opposed to software programming choices made by tech company humans.
Next time maybe try reading the full fucking article rather than skimming it. You don’t seem to have read it yet, which is rather incredible.
I did not ‘insist’ nor directly assert that Mr Graves was a progressive leftist, though I further said that was my initial guess/opinion.
Which literally proved you didn’t read the article, as he explained his political stance in the article itself. That was my point. You opined on something without reading it, and I called you on it. Now you’re moving the goalposts because you got caught.
Is the general progressive-leftist label so instantly loathsome here that it demands apology?
I’m not asking for an apology for you labeling someone a progressive leftist. I’m asking for an apology for making a bunch of really bad assumptions and attacking a piece you still clearly have not read.
Are apologies for personal opinions routinely requested by the TD management?
It was not your opinion over which I am asking for an apology. It was your kneejerk need to respond idiotically to an article you clearly had not read, making statements that showed that you only wanted to slam this story and jump straight to identity politics. That was a shitty thing to do, and you should apologize or just admit that you’re a shitty kind of person.
Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
You’re lumping progressives and leftists together.
Re: Re:
To be fair, Google’s algorithm was simple initially, so simple that large numbers of people were able to manipulate it for their own ends.
Sometimes complexity is a feature, not a bug.
As someone who despises both the Republican and Democratic parties, I find these articles annoying.
Trying to claim that there is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry is pretty sad for a site called techdirt.
This falls into the same category for me as denying climate change or thinking that banning plastic straws in the US is going to help with it.
Re: Re:
Show me where TD claimed it was not biased.
Everyone is sad you are annoyed, please take a breath , relax and try to comprehend the world around you – it is amazing.
How is this similar to climate change denial, the two are not the same.
Re: Re: Re:
Both are denials of reality.
1) There is no climate change. (Or it’s not man made)
2) Banning plastic straws in the US will help in any way.
3) There is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry.
All three of these statements share the attribute of being false.
Don’t worry about my enjoyment of the world. I don’t know about the whole thing being amazing, but I have access to some pretty spectacular pieces of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well then stop with the bullshit – ok?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While “There is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry” is demonstrably false, “There is no significant anti-conservative bias in the tech industry” is probably correct.
The reason for this is that most people in the tech industry aren’t trying to undermine a conservative point of view; they’re just ignoring it.
Liberal bias is not the same thing as Anti-conservative bias. Technology has ALWAYS had a liberal bias, whether it be surrounding modern technology, steam engines, weaving looms, printing presses, Roman roads, aqueducts, or any other piece of technology. That’s kind of the point: conservatism takes the stance of “let’s preserve what we’ve got” where as liberalism takes the stance of “let’s improve on what we’ve got.” Neither is wrong, but any time you’ve got an industry favoring improvement over preservation, you’ve got immediate liberal bias.
I prefer my libraries to have conservative bias and my search engines to have liberal bias. Conservative bias on search engines will result in manipulation by the established players; liberal bias keeps an even playing field as the algorithms continually change.
Re: Re: Re:2 Semantics
What you’re describing as liberalism, isn’t. It’s progressivism.
Liberalism is entirely not related to both of them.
Actually, I can hold liberal views that are extremely conservative like “homosexuality is ok” — because, actually, it’s the position of the Greeks in 500 B.C., and thus even more conservative than any of the homophobic positions in the last 2000 years. Same goes for abortion.
The opposite of Liberalism (and actually, Libertarianism) is Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is telling other people what they can do or not, like who they can fuck, which drugs they may take or what they can do to their own bodies.
Need I also to explain that left and right ALSO have nothing to do with either of the four words above? In a nutshell: Left is towards socialism, right is towards capitalism.
Re: Re: Re:3 Semantics
That’s interesting. Liberal views are good, I agree with that. I think it is wrong to tell anyone else who they can fuck (as long as it’s not the same person I’m fucking) or what they can do with their own bodies (with the same exception).
I also don’t want to tell other people what they can or cannot say. Let people say what they want.
Censoring people is authoritarianism, right? Like Techdirt. Authoritarianism in the extreme. Not liberal at all.
Re: Re: Re:4 Semantics
Time to break out the link again I see.
Re: Re: Re:5 Semantics
I showed your stupid cartoon to my friend Donald J. Trump (POTUS), and he tweeted the following to me (that is, he spoke in a high nasal tonality (doesn’t he sound a little like Donald Duck on a helium balloon sometimes?)):
“Simple: we’ll just declare the Internet a public utility, and regulate its usage, designating it a “public square” by executive order. There. That’s done. Now everyone can speak freely”.
I love that guy, really I do. Expect the executive order shortly.
And go shove that cartoon up your snooty little ass.
Re: Re: Re:6 Semantics
Like the investigation into the Clintons? Or the wall around Mexico, can we expect that too, asshole?
Re: Re: Re:6 Semantics
Poor triggered closet case Hamilton. It’s not sad that you lie. It’s sad how bad you are at it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Semantics
Posting an XKCD link without considering its inherent arguments is basically an argument from authority. Newsflash: XKCD’s author, while pretty dang smart, is not a god or any other source of divine enlightenment.
It’s pretty damned clear that social media is the modern public square, and speech in such should be unregulated by anyone, government OR CORPORATION.
Re: Re: Re:6 Semantics
Posting an XKCD link without considering its inherent arguments is basically an argument from authority. Newsflash: XKCD’s author, while pretty dang smart, is not a god or any other source of divine enlightenment.
Nah, that’s me weighing who I was responding to and deciding that they weren’t worth more effort than a single link, as the issue of community flagging of comments and what causes them has been explained time and time again to no effect, instead ignored by people claiming (among other things) some plot by the TD staff and/or objecting to the idea that acting like a child, troll and/or dishonestly has consequences.
It’s pretty damned clear that social media is the modern public square, and speech in such should be unregulated by anyone, government OR CORPORATION.
So companies should have no say in who uses their platforms, simply because members of the public use them too? Yeah, no. Just because they’re publicly available does not mean they’re publicly owned, unless perhaps you want the government to buy them out, in which case then you can argue that ownership by the government means they can’t moderate or choose who they want to use the platform.
Until and unless that happens companies are perfectly within their rights to control access to their property, whether on their own, by providing tools to the community to moderate, or both.
Re: Re: Re:7 Semantics
Na, keep your fucking property, just disconnect it from the Internet.
Re: Re: Re:7 Semantics
If the FCC can regular the AIR(waves), surely they can regulate what happens within the physical infrastructure of the United States in the form of the Internet. It’s simple, really. Just make it a crime to censor speech that is reasonable. The definition of reasonable is not difficult. Relate it to the topic, and not be overly rude. Make it a $1,000 fine to censor a reasonable commentator. $500 goes to the commentator, and $500 goes to the government for making the judgement. Then assholes like you would be less likely to censor opinions you just don’t agree with, or if you did, you could just pay for the inconvenience. Problem solved.
Re: Re: Re:8 Semantics
Hey what a fabulous idea – and the infrastructure is already set up:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint
Re: Re: Re:9 Semantics
I like this one more, I’ve already filed a complaint against Techdirt. This form is just used internally at the FCC and helps them formulate new policies and procedures. They want to fix the kind of problem that the asshole above (That One Guy) speaks so confidently about (what a smug prick)
Everyone that thinks Techdirt is wrong to censor reasonable comments can make their voice heard here:
https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=123006
Re: Re: Re:10 Amusingly,
I have flagged this post for being typical inane bellyaching unrelated to the article under discussion.
As always, you are welcome to blame me for “censorong” you, but only if you admit that by doing so, you are absolving Techdirt by recognizing that flagging is an act of the userbase rather than the site.
Re: Re: Re:11 Amusingly,
This comment could not be more on point. The article speaks to why Conservatives should stop “crying wolf” about Fake News and Censorship. Techdirt is the epitome of Fake News and Censorship. It promotes ridiculous, offensive, false and defamatory articles with fake commentary, giving the appearance of an entire community of support, when in fact the only support is from a handful of fanatical or financially compensated phonies.
Trump is now on a tear about fake news and the Internet, and believe me, your voice will be heard at the FCC. Even the pompous commentator above (ThatOneGuy) with tens of thousands of comments suddenly got silent when faced with the prospect of the FCC actually paying attention to what is going on here. Masnick makes a business out of fake news, and he utilizes the Internet to do so. That will soon be put to an end by the US government, with Donald Trump again demonstrating his peerless American leadership on behalf of the American people.
Trust me, I know first hand that Techdirt and their ilk are now under the microscope. The idea that the “community” censors speech here has always been and is still horseshit, it is done by Masnick and his fanatical staff personally. It is simply too coordinated for any other explanation, and this has been documented by several readers and commentators, and with time stamped records that disprove the assertion it is a “community” effort.
Like almost everything on Techdirt, community censorship is a lie. Most of the commentators use fake names. Even the commentators with real names then pose as others to try to bolster the opinion of a community that is corrupt and phony to the core.
Send your comment about your experience at Techdirt to the FCC here, they will listen: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov. Put the word Techdirt in the title of the Email, and it will get the attention it deserves.
Together, we can put an end to FAKE NEWS and FAKE COMMENTARY as practiced at Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re:12 Once again, oh so Poe
This has to be satire. It so perfectly mimics the pro-Trump, anti-td party line.
To be fair, Pai has bigger adversaries on his plate, what with all the states passing their own net-neutrality laws.
And TechDirt doesn’t mention Russian Collusion enough to get on Trump’s top ten most wanted.
Re: Re: Re:13 Once again, oh so Poe
You’re the self-admitted psychiatric patient, right? Wacko Dacko comments on this thread and others. Good look on your treatment. We all wish you the best and hope you have a speedy recovery.
Re: Re: Re:14 "Wacko Dacko"
And that’s the convenience of being a self-admitted psychiatric patient. it reveals the desperation of those who feel they have to resort to taking cheap shots. Come back when you want to actually discuss a topic rather than swinging at low-hanging piñatas.
Regarding which, PaulT this is the problem with blanket deciding to strip large groups (say, crazies) of rights, including the right to bear arms. Our nation is full of imbiciles like Anonymous Coward here who think we shouldn’t be regarded in common social discourse, let alone be afforded human rights. Once you take away rights you don’t like, the rest become easier by established precedent.
And once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, it becomes easier to argue that (say) blacks and Muslims are also too dangerous. And expect those in power to get full exceptions.
Remember 63 million voters put Trump in office, and so far it appears that most of them want to purge the untermenschen, in contrast to, say, getting totally behind supply-side economics. Most of that bloc want to kill everyone who doesn’t fit into their imaginary model.
And they’ll come for mental patients and disabled people sooner on the list. But they won’t stop there.
Re: Re: Re:15 "Wacko Dacko"
Just to be clear, you think I should be condemned because I support the position that crazy people should not have guns. I am an imbecile because I don’t support crazy people bearing arms.
Should all crazy people bear arms? Should they protect their craziness with deadly force?
I have to admit, this is a new minority position that I was heretofore unfamiliar with. Let me mull this for some period and I’ll get back to you. I’m assuming that you will not be released anytime soon.
Techdirt is a really unique place, I’ll concede that point readily. Unique in all the world.
Re: Re: Re:16 "Just to be clear"
Anonymous Coward your reading comprehension stuns me. I think what you did is typically regarded as the first half of a strawman argument, misstating the argument so that it is one you can effectively attack.
I didn’t actually know how you felt about allowing crazy people access to their second amendment rights, but now I do, and your position doesn’t surprise me. It does raise the question what other demographics of the population would you deny rights to? And what rights?
But, I get it, I have been diagnosed and as such, you suspect that I am weak and should be easy prey. It’s a common strategem. One favored by our peerless leader, evidence has shown.
Re: Re: Re:17 "Just to be clear"
All I said was that I would mull the matter over and get back to you later. In response to your jumping to a conclusion that paints you in a negative light, unworthy to bear arms, I would say that you are paranoid, but that would be somewhat redundant, woudn’t It?
Re: Re: Re:18 No, let's be clear.
It sounds like your writing comprehension leaves something to be desired as well. You’re making contradictory statements, and denying that for which there is obvious evidence. You really do seem like an acolyte of Donald J. Trump, as if you want to emulate him in every way.
I don’t want to infer, since I can’t tell what you’re trying to say, other than your disapproval of my comments in general, and a
distaste people with mental disorders. (Should we add cruel streak? It does seem you were trying to mock me earlier for receiving psychiatric treatment.)
I’m not sure if you’re the same as the first hand guy. That’s one of the problems of Anonymous Cowards It’s not always clear which comments are from the same guy. In that regard you have me at a disadvantage.
Am I paranoid? I’ve been told such a lot. But with folks like you around who are evidently antagonistic, I think my distrust is warranted.
I could ask what you think, but I then realized I don’t believe you are engaging me — or anyone on this forum — in good faith.
Re: Re: Re:19 No, let's be clear.
My father, who was a psychiatrist, warned me that crazy people can make surprisingly compelling arguments. I’m starting to like you a little, uh oh.
Re: Re: Re:15 Sigh.
“And once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, it becomes easier to argue that (say) blacks and Muslims are also too dangerous. And expect those in power to get full exceptions.”
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Re: Re: Re:16 Slippery Slope
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. — James Madison
Deterioration of rights over time in small increments is a rather common phenomenon here in the states, to the point we have false notions about boiling frogs we keep using as a metaphor.
Knowing common logical falacies does not an expert in logic make. And making a falacious argument doesn’t necessarily make the proposed conclusion wrong.
Re: Re: Re:17 Slippery Slope
"Deterioration of rights over time in small increments is a rather common phenomenon here in the states, to the point we have false notions about boiling frogs we keep using as a metaphor."
Which still doesn’t make your particular slippery slope sensible in any way.
"And making a falacious argument doesn’t necessarily make the proposed conclusion wrong."
No, but you haven’t provided any reason to believe your proposed conclusion is right, either, so it’s much easier to point out the logical fallacy you’ve made, and ask you to provide an actual non-fallacious argument if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined.
Re: Re: Re:18 "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
Will B. If you can’t make sense of the statement [of mine that you quoted] then I see no reason to believe you’d seriously examine it under any circumstances. It appears to me you’re just being contrary.
Re: Re: Re:19 "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
I can make sense of it; that doesn’t make it sensible.
Re: Re: Re:20 "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
I’d think a slippery slope argument would sound more like Once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, you will decide, one at a time, that all groups are too dangerous.
I made a statement indicating trend in a direction. I didn’t assert that it would reach the far end. The latter would indicate a slippery-slope fallacy.
So what I said wasn’t really a slippery slope, though you might assert it looked like it could become one or lead to one.
The courts and legislature of the US are well known to encroach rights based on precedent. That you find when I suggest it not sensible, it tells me me you are either unfamiliar with US history, or are just refusing to acknowledge it.
Now again, Will B. why should I think your challenge is from stupidity, rather than malice?
Re: Re: Re:21 "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
"I’d think a slippery slope argument would sound more like Once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, you will decide, one at a time, that all groups are too dangerous."
"Regarding which, PaulT this is the problem with blanket deciding to strip large groups (say, crazies) of rights, including the right to bear arms. Our nation is full of imbiciles like Anonymous Coward here who think we shouldn’t be regarded in common social discourse, let alone be afforded human rights. Once you take away rights you don’t like, the rest become easier by established precedent.
And once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, it becomes easier to argue that (say) blacks and Muslims are also too dangerous."
Saying ‘could’ instead of ‘will’ does not excuse you from fearmongering. This is absolutely a slippery-slope argument, and it is one you continue not to support.
"Now again, Will B. why should I think your challenge is from stupidity, rather than malice?"
Bonus false dichotomy fallacy. Cheers; I won’t be replying to this again unless you manage a real whopper I just can’t ignore. (Or you provide some actual substance.)
Re: Re: Re:22 I won't be replying to this again
If this thread is what you regard as fair critique then I’d be glad for a promise never to reply to my posts ever again on any forum under any circumstances.
You accuse me of fearmongering while history is rife with examples of this kind of function / definition creep. That’s why I find your interest in the truth suspect.
I welcome your silence.
Re: Re: Re:12 Amusingly,
"It promotes ridiculous, offensive, false and defamatory articles with fake commentary, giving the appearance of an entire community of support, when in fact the only support is from a handful of fanatical or financially compensated phonies."
Evidence, plox. If I could be getting paid for this, I definitely wanna know; my current job sucks.
Re: Re: Re:10 Semantics
smdh; i guess there’s always one pearl clutcher in the bunch.
Re: Re: Re:10 Semantics
Lets add reasonable to the dictionary sized book of words you don’t understand the meaning of.
Re: Re: Re:10 Semantics
Hey blue, you’re not fooling anyone by switching IP addresses before replying to yourself.
Re: Re: Re:8 Just can't make that up
‘Rudeness should be punished by thousand dollar fines… you asshole.’
I’m happy to say that no matter how much you complain it’s still quite legal for people to mock you and/or flag your comments, and if you don’t like it you are more than welcome to bugger off and create your own platform where you actually would be able to set your own rules for what is allowed, unlike on here.
Until then, enjoy the fact that people can flag your comments, you don’t get to set the rules of what people are and are not allowed to do and say, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about either other than entertain people with your complaints, lies and hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re:9 Just can't make that up
Censorship should be fined, not rudeness.
Re: Re: Re:10 'For every action a reaction', not just for physics!
And when you make your own platform where you actually do have the ability to set out rules, you can make that one of them. Until then, you will just have to deal with the fact that platforms like this one allow the community to moderate comments, which can include hiding them behind a single mouse click if enough people feel that they fall into the ‘abusive/trolling/spam’ category for whatever reasons.
‘Actions have consequences’ applies in many ways, ‘comments get hidden, occasionally in response to who’s saying them, but more often how they are said’ is one that applies here, and if certain people don’t like their comments being flagged then it has been explained many times by many people how they can avoid that, with the very short version being simply, ‘Don’t be an ass.’
Re: Re: Re:11 'For every action a reaction', not just for physics!
and then after having made the new and totally awesome website it will be visited by trolls who continuously bitch about how their first amendment rights are being violated – LOL
Re: Re: Re:8 Semantics
Dude the case law has been well established there back with cable. The airwaves are public commons, private networks can’t be restricted. See
– Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC
and
– United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc
The court held couldn’t even force cable networks to use full scrambling to prevent bleedover or restriction to night hours.
Re: Re: Re:4 Semantics
So is telling someone not to fuck someone that doesn’t want to be fucked liberal or authoritarianism?
The problem with pure liberalism is that for one person to have absolute freedom that means that they can take away freedoms of others, so the strongest gets freedom and everyone else is free to do what the strongest tells them. So it leads to authoritarianism. Until the weak ban together to overpower the strongest, at which point you have mob rule.
Re: Re: Re:5 Semantics
You’ve forgotten about a little thing called the rule of law, so give the straw back to the farmer, he needs it for his animals.
Liberalism is best defined by the old saw, “Your rights end where mine begin.”
Where the rule of law (which protects our rights) applies, there’s no mob rule because the law trumps all.
Re: Re: Re:5 Semantics
Your summary of liberalism is wholly inadequate, is full of misconceptions and really does little good – but it makes you feel good huh.
Many people do not agree upon what the word “freedom” means and certainly disagree about the word “liberty”. For some these are about what a person can do while for others it means what they can not do.
Oh yeah … why is a revolution considered to be mob rule?
Re: Re: Re:3 Semantics
“Excuse me, are you the Judean People’s Front?”
“Fuck off! We’re the People’s Front of Judea.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not to mention conservative politicians often stick a big middle finger at the tech industry on social issues.
I’m referring specifically to LGBTQ and Immigration issues.
The tech industry has long been very friendly to the LGBTQ community even when support for same sex marriage/etc. was much lower in the general public. Tech communities and LGBTQ communities tend to overlap very heavily geographically for a reason.
On immigration as well Silicon Valley is very in favor of it. Many tech employees are immigrants or children of immigrants themselves (especially Asian Americans who are heavily over-represented in the tech industry compared to other races).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have a fourth one for you:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Plastic straws, while being about the environment, aren’t about global warming; they’re about habitat pollution. People can be upset about plastic straw pollution without ever having heard about global warming.
Re: Re: Re:3 Plastic
For those interested Kurzgesagt did a good video explaining the environmental effects of plastic.
The TL:DR version is essentially it’s gray goo, broken down into microplastics by the sun and worming its way up the food chain until it gets stuck in our own bodies as indestructible tumors. Fun stuff!
The video doesn’t address straws, but it addresses shopping bags. One-use plastic shopping bags are still cheaper (energy-wise) than reusable bagging solutions, so there’s still debate to be had whether or not to stop using them. What we really need to do is recycle plastic way, way better than we do.
Of course, we humans are awful when it comes to any non-point source pollution. Every commons is doomed to tragedy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Different snowflake, same person you replied to.
I definitely agree. I’m just pointing out that within the last month, the straw thing has become a talking point to point out that liberal leaning locations are being ridiculous or something, because they’re ‘just plastic straws!’ This despite the idea floating around for at least a year prior. So at this point I doubt the authenticity of anyone who acts like the straw thing is some minor triviality that’s evidence of environmentalism run amok.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody made that claim. The claim being disputed is that "Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President." The article doesn’t even say it’s wrong, just that the claimants "should do [their] due diligence" because the "evidence" presented so far is unconvincing. A good statistician would correct for confounding variables like site popularity before concluding a left/right bias is the cause.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are changing the subject. Whether or not there is a bias against conservatives in the tech industry is a separate question as to whether or not the Google’s algorithms are biased.
Additionally, this false dichotomy that a source is either conservative or it is not is a stupid stupid way to divide the world, especially the news media.
Re: Re:
Good thing the article doesn’t try to claim that, then.
You might consider reading the second paragraph from the end?
Yep, those two things are definitely equivalent all right.
Re: Whoh whoh whoh
Did…did you just make a literal strawman arguement?
Re: Re:
Trying to claim that there is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry is pretty sad for a site called techdirt.
Can you point out where we have claimed that? Because we have not. The article is specifically about whether or not Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President. That is not, at all, the same thing as questioning whether the employees of the company tend to lean one direction or another in that made up nonsensical left/right spectrum.
Re: Re: Re:
I agree it’s mostly nonsense, but a story title starting with "Conservatives:" works against this idea.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do conservatives now not want to be associated with conservatism?
Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
From the Presidential administration who killed Net Neutrality rules comes a brand new way to make sure the Internet works best for those at the top: State-sponsored mandatory Internet “fairness”. Rather than allowing people to express their ideas and political beliefs online and get equal treatment regardless of opinion, it now must be positive of the President or else it will be demoted to the back of search engine results. Now, instead of getting a lot of fake news like CNN and MSNBC, get the likes of Fox News, Breitbart, and everyone’s favorite conspiracy exposer Info Wars much more easily. Act now to get it for the low, low price of the end of our democracy as we know it!!
Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
Der GrabbinFurher is on his way out
Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
Yep, as you point out, “net neutrality” would actually make it easier for the government to regulate this, which would be similar to the old “Fairness Doctrine.” Indeed, Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh’s dissent in opposition to net neutrality specifically pointed out that regulating Google in this way would be unConstitutional, and yet an obvious extension of some of the pro-net neutrality arguments (such as the claim that market power need not be demonstrated.)
If you’re in favor of the FCC enforcing net neutrality, then you’re the one paving the way for a brand new Fairness Doctrine. The FCC’s entire history is full of censorship and mandating fairness. It’s exactly the lack of FCC regulation that makes the nonsense that Trump is talking about impossible.
I shudder to think what would happen under a Trump Presidency with an active Fairness Doctrine (glad that was repealed) or with an FCC more used to wielding its powers in the name of “neutrality.”
Re: Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
Sentences 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.3 are the complete opposite of truth.
Re: Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
“”net neutrality” would actually make it easier for the government to regulate this”
– Your assertion lacks any substantiation
“which would be similar to the old “Fairness Doctrine.””
– The two things are not similar, not sure why you think this as you provided nothing in support of same.
Again … NN != Fairness Doctrine. The two are not even close to being similar.
“The FCC’s entire history is full of censorship and mandating fairness.”
– Perhaps you need to read some history
” It’s exactly the lack of FCC regulation that makes the nonsense that Trump is talking about impossible.”
– LOL, this gold Jerry – Gold!!!!
Your list of talking points needs an update
People who claim truth isn’t truth should not be judging the results of a search engine.
This is clearly shows that the present administration is out of their league so to speak, in over their heads, a few fries short of a happy meal, a few cans short of a six pack …
these people are nuts
Re: Re:
People who deliberately mischaracterize the obvious meaning of a statement (that the truth can still lead to a perjury charge) are a much greater threat to the nation.
It was very clear to anyone with an IQ over 80 what Guiliani meant when he said this.
Re: Re: Re:
The meaning was obvious —– RG is a nut job, is a threat to himself and others.
Re: Re: He Meant
Giuliani meant that Trump is always lying, so obviously nothing he says can have any value.
Re: Re: Re:
It was very clear to anyone with an IQ over 80 what Guiliani meant when he said this.
Yeah, I agree – Trump is a compulsively lying piece of orange colored shit.
Re: Re: Re:
“It was very clear to anyone with an IQ over 80 what Guiliani meant when he said this.”
And it’s equally clear that anyone with an IQ over 80 could have managed to make his point clearly without bumblefucking his way to being a laughing stock….
Bullshit. Ive seen it first hand. There is a concerted effort to suppress Conservative viewpoints across the Industry. Trump is correct to call it out.
Re: Re:
Yes, there are many people out there who do not agree with the draconian, inhumane and outright repulsive activities that the so called conservative christians engage in with delight while they watch their sworn enemies struggle.
Is it any wonder that the ideas of these conservatives might be viewed as detrimental to society or even illegal. How dare these impoverished down trodden say anything about their struggles, they have no right!!!!!!!
Re: Re:
and by conservative viewpoints, you mean batshit crazy conspiracy theories? Ya I don’t want to read how illegal lizard aliens from Mars are here to rape our jobs and kill our dogs. I am sick of Conservatives crying about Hillary’s buttery males, Trump won, almost 2 years ago, let it go.
No there is a difference between FACTS and Crazy batshit ideas with no evidence to back it up. Or as you call it, Conservative viewpoints.
On a related note, Conservatism is dead, it has been replaced with Extremism. Own up to it.
Re: Re: Re:
Weird how the extremists do not see themselves as being such.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conservative: cautious, pragmatic, promote and maintain traditional values. Respect the rule of law. Revere the Constitution. Believe in democracy and good governance.
Right-wing nutters: authoritarian, reactionary, racist, sexist, bigoted and controlling. Fear “Mob rule” because they believe they are above the law or that it doesn’t apply to them. Refer to the Constitution as the “Con”-stitution and absolutely hate democracy, characterising it as “Mob rule.” Desire to “shrink government to the point where they can drown it in a bathtub.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Right wing nutter looks in a mirror and sees a conservative.
Re: Re:
Which viewpoints are those—the ones about gay people, the ones about trans people, the ones about people of color, the ones about women, or the ones about poor people, all of which can be boiled down to “fuck you, got mine”?
Re: Re:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn’t just contradiction.
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn’t!
Re: Re:
lol
Re: Re:
Funny thing about news, it is always biased towards bad news, and news about those in power. Therefore it always appears biased against those in power.
Re: Re:
Bullshit. Ive seen it first hand. There is a concerted effort to suppress Conservative viewpoints across the Industry. Trump is correct to call it out.
"I’ve seen it firsthand" is not evidence. Can you respond to the actual points in the article? Or is that somehow not possible?
Re: Re:
There is a concerted effort to suppress Conservative viewpoints across the Industry
Well, you’re free to do what LGBTQ people are supposed to do when faced with suppression – fuck off and go somewhere else. Amirite?
Re: Re: Re:
Why .. do the nazis go somewhere else?
Do the devil worshiping GOP go elsewhere?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well that’s what they argue when saying businesses have a religious right to discriminate against LGBT people or not cover birth control.
Re: Re:
sigh I’d make individual replies, but it’d take too long.
Why can’t Alex Jones be a talking point with this? There was no coordinated effort to take his stuff down? Since WHEN did every internet platform work together, ALL at the same time, and their rules aren’t even the same and all applied differently? (Criminal orgs aside, so did Alex Jones break the law somehow…?)
In the Bush W era Alex Jones was just the same: a guy who made loads of theories and was lampooned by lots of early-adopting video-makers. He was a source of ridicule and many people on the left eagerly awaited when he’d next put his foot in his mouth. People on the opposite side relished his words because they were thought of as idiotic and hilarious.
What the fuck happened there?
Looking at the way Alex Jones and other YouTubers are getting blocked or banned, there does appear to be suppression of certain viewpoints going on and it seems biased towards “crazy” conservatives or people who aren’t in line with YouTube staff’s political bent.
Can’t we listen and let people’s own words hang them anymore, or is that too dangerous to consider? If we’re saying “shut them up because they’re crazy”, that’s one step away from saying the First Amendment doesn’t matter for the people I dislike.
The pendulum always swings in the states if you’ve lived long enough to see it, so don’t be so eager to shut up people you don’t like. We, as the public, can’t put up with dissent at all anymore, it seems… when did we all get so fragile?
If we’re shutting people up, no matter the viewpoint (I hear some left-leaning pages were removed from Facebook, too), we’re only martyring those people in the long run. This will create more tribalistic left/right conflict. Even if the ones being taken down favours your personal viewpoint, it isn’t making either side talk to one another and just dehumanizing each side to one another as “crazy censors” VS. “crazy extremists”.
Don’t be fooled by this attempt to stifle any rational discourse.
Re: Re: Re:
People started harassing dead children’s parents and shooting up pizza parlors.
Yes, we can.
For example, in this case, somebody’s words resulted in the consequence that he was removed from the private platforms that had previously hosted him.
Bullshit.
It’s not an infringement of First Amendment rights, it’s an exercise of them. Facebook and YouTube users have the right to threaten to take their business elsewhere if Facebook and YouTube continue to host Alex Jones. Facebook and YouTube have the right to block Alex Jones.
Alex Jones does not have a First Amendment right to use Facebook and YouTube. That is not a thing. Check the Constitution; it’s not in there.
Nobody is suppressing anybody’s First Amendment rights. Platforms and their customers are exercising their First Amendment rights.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only counter-argument is that “the platforms” have become outsized and dominant, and therefore must be some kind of public accommodation. See various anti-discrimination laws applied to hotels, etc.
Trouble is, almost any gubmn’t regulation scheme you can think of will have unacceptable unintended consequences.
About the only reasonable one I was able to come up with was some form of removing copyright…so if “Hamilton” decides he hates the way Techdirt moderates, he can make “Hamilton’s Techdirt”, which moderates the way Hamilton likes it, and Techdirt has no legal recourse.
Re: Re: Re:
At this point I’m about to save this to a Word file or something so I can just copy/paste it:
For like the billionth time: The 1st Amendment only protects you from the governement and NOT another citizen/corporation. Analogy time! There is NO requirement I let you use my bullhorn even if I’m letting everyone else use it. There IS a prohibition on the government taking my bullhorn away.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is going right in the quotes folder, nails it perfectly.
A vast (not my party) conspiracy
Funny how similar this is to the cries of a ‘vast rightwing conspiracy’ of the 1990s. Partisan double-standards, much? The news ‘issue’ reminds me of gerrymandering in my state. For decades, when Democrats had gerrymandered the districts, they saw the practice as fine while Republicans complained. Now, with Republicans rigging the district lines, Democrats are complaining and Republicans are doing anything possible to avoid correcting the crookedness.
Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
Politicians are assholes – who knew?
Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
…I don’t recall Obama claiming that there was a conspiracy for Google to favor conservative outlets over liberal ones.
Re: Re:
Give me an hour, an audio editor, and an anonymous email to Alex Jones.
Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
Look back a bit farther. In the mid-early 1990s, HRC was blaming the Clintons’ bad press on a ‘vast rightwing conspiracy.’
Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
To be fair the last 30 years has demonstrated that she was more or less correct about that statement.
Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
First: I believe you mean mid-to-late. The first known use of the phrase was by Chris Lehane in 1995, but Clinton’s use of it was in 1998.
Second: She wasn’t referring to bad press; she was referring to the series of scandals plaguing the Clinton Administration (specifically, she was describing Ken Starr as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, not the news media).
And, while the phrase is a poor choice of words (again, Lehane’s words, not Clinton’s) and sounds paranoid and hysterical, if you don’t think there was a coordinated effort by Republicans to make exaggerated claims of scandal against the Clintons then I don’t know what to tell you. (Say, did you hear Lindsey Graham is calling for a new investigation into Clinton’s e-mail server?)
So no, it’s really not like Trump ranting about Google search rankings at all. It’s a politician complaining about something unfavorable happening as a result of partisan bias; that’s really the only thing the two situations have in common.
Re: Re: Re:2 A vast (not my party) conspiracy
If anyone could complain about a (rightwing) conspiracy against himself, it’s of course Bill Clinton. He was impeached because, ultimately, of lying about a blowjob. The question is who would start an investigation about a blowjob in the first place? Yep, puritan pukes.
Re: Re: Re:3 A vast (not my party) conspiracy
Strictly speaking, they started an investigation about real estate dealings.
And then impeached him for the only crime they managed to find over the course of that investigation, which was, indeed, lying about a blowjob.
Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
Trickle down economics was never a real thing was it ..
Supply side economics was not actually implemented – right?
The draft did not excuse white rich people did it?
The alt.right and MRA movements were spawned by this bias, which dates back to the 1990s. Nature will create a much stronger pushback than any legislature can. As I’ve said before, AOL had peak internet censorship from 1994-1998, and we know how that turned out. The internet is too diverse, too balkanized, and indeed is designed to survive a nuclear war. True censorship is not possible on a global scale.
Censorship IS possible among specific companies which appear to dominate the landscape, but the censorship itself will erode that dominance, as rival companies exploit the niche created by the exiled point of view. The few places that are neutral will become homes to those ostracized, who will be united by the force of censorship itself.
Shadowbanning and left-leaning search results definitely happen, but we can point out that it happens and the internet will adjust. It always does.
Re: Re:
“which dates back to the 1990s”
propaganda, yellow journalism and all around general bullshit has been in play like – forever!
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It all began that day in the cave when Big Al started drawing.
Okay I need to weigh in here before "OMG GOOGLE APPOLOGISTS!"
NEWS sites predominate Google when you search for Donald Trump NEWS. This would be CNN, NYT, AP, BBC, and WaPo.
PROPAGANDA sites don’t make the cut: This would be Redstate, Townhall, Breitbart, Infowars, Washington Examiner (Barely, but still propaganda imo), Truthdig, etc.
Re: Okay I need to weigh in here before "OMG GOOGLE APPOLOGISTS!"
Trump specifically mentioned “fake CNN” as an example of bias. And he is still calling Muellers investigation a witchhunt (Cannot be objectively determined before it is over, now can it? The impressive amount of plea deals Mueller has racked up is not exactly screaming conspiracy! Furthermore, it speaks volumes that these are some of the most “loyal” people from his past. Loyalty above all works well when you are winning, but when you are losing. That is why so many dictators in history has felt compelled to clean out their ranks for enemies within…).
To be fair, FOX News could make the cut more often, they are unapologetically manipulating the headlines to comply with a specific partys line and are anything but conservative, but when you stay clear of their talking heads and headlines, they are indeed mostly factual in the articles. Probably also speaks to the trend in time how far bias is percieved from the bread and butter journalism – the article. Such a shallow perception!
Re: Re: Veracity of Fox News
I won’t trust a FOX article, whether or not it is based on one of FOX’ host personalities. If I do read it, it will be alongside coverage of the same events by other news agencies, and it will be to see what FOX’ take (and Murdoch’s take) is on the event.
Re: Re: Okay I need to weigh in here before "OMG GOOGLE APPOLOGISTS!"
I don’t understand .. why does Trump pick on Conservative News Network (CNN) all the time?
“The impressive amount of plea deals Mueller has racked up is not exactly screaming conspiracy! “
LOL – yeah but the plea deals others are forced into are not a conspiracy at all.
Zero
The number of people who were pro-Trump before discovering anything negative about him that changed their view of him.
Re: Zero
Hypocrites, all of them
"If somebody doesn’t take Pajamas Media as seriously as The New York Times, obviously there’s only one explanation: liberal bias!"
Re: Re:
No, it’s credentialism, or what lawyers and other white-collar professionals use to justify their monopoly.
The internet has shown credentialism for what it is. Individuals have broken stories and been ignored only to have the public “shocked” up to a quarter-century later when it finally hits the mainstream.
Same reason the “evil media companies” dominate: we want them to. This leads to them stealing ideas from indies who don’t realize the game is rigged and literally feed the beast.
Even things like registered copyrights which predate the mainstream media’s “scoops” doesn’t convince a public that stays within its walled-off gardens, then complain about those who walled them off.
Bottom line is most people are stupid and can’t think for themselves, their narcissism fed by internet companies who profit from their traffic. Kind of like Hollywood making movies about doing the right thing and laughing behind the backs of the public it claims to value.
What are most successful films and TV shows about? Losers who make the everyman feel good about himself. At the end of each episode, we get a feel-good lecture about what’s really important in life from people who put money and power above it and laugh their tails off at how stupid “we” are.
Then some celebrity gives seven figures to some “spiritual guru” who has the nerve to call them on their hypocrisy.
There’s no saving most of this species. A small number of them have “breakaway DNA” and are separating from the masses as a prelude to exterminating them. H5N1 was a dry run to ensure that the killer virus that is released won’t blow back to destroy those who release it.
There is tons of evidence of this already. Wolves still exist except for those who turned into dogs, apes still exist except for those who evolved into humans (the wolf/dog analogy doesn’t have racist connotations so it passes the “hate speech” filter.
There’s no point in trying to convince obsolete DNA of something that might help it evolve. The answer is to simply evolve around it the way we did the apes, who still exist on the same planet as us, but in a totally different world. how do you think that happened? A few humans dud not sit down with the apes and reason with them. They built superior weapons, walls, hunted and cleared out the jungles, and built a society literally superimposed on the jungle the apes think they rule as its “alpha males.”
Take a pet wolf into your home and it will attempt to take over the home because its DNA tells it to. Take a pet DOG into your home and it will train you to walk it, provide for it, and care for you. I used to have a dog who would bark loudly and run out to my terrace whenever anyone was outside. I laughed at this, not realizing the very smart pooch considered it its job to alert its masters to potential intrusions.
no one wants to confront evolution when it’s occurring right in front of their eyes. The reality is too painful for those who will be left behind. The sociopaths in Hollywood thought they were the breakaway species until they turned on each other, because sociopathy is parasittc and unsustainable. They hate socialists the way wolves hate dogs. A wolf would tear a dog apart in a fight, yet this country has maybe a few hundred wolves who need protection, and about 300 million dogs. Why?
Re: Re:
Yes, because we should not be ignoring [checks notes] Alex Jones and his reporting on the homosexual tendencies of frogs.
Re: Re: Re:
Credentialism, otherwise known as reputation, otherwise known as a major factor in how search engines rank results.
Re: Re: Re:
We get it, you hate lawyers.
Re: Re: Re:
I was actually going to debate you on some of your points until I read this and what followed. Please come back to reality, it misses you.
Algorithms
No bias because we use algorithms! They’re complicated!
Probably the stupidest argument I’ve seen in some time.
That the left falls for it says more about their collective ability to rationalize their bias than it does about the fairness of search results.
Re: Algorithms
Yes, we know you would prefer the algorithm that places Breitbart anywhere near legitimate news organizations.
Re: Re: Algorithms
Why yes .. because in that case there would be no bias at all.
Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
And as far back as the George W. Bush administration, people were complaining about how facts seemed to better support leftier suppositions than rightier ones. Bush would just demand new facts.
Maybe that’s not because facts have a bias, but because the positions in DC have just shifted to the right since the 1970s. Nixon was more left than Clinton or Obama.
Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
If liberal “facts” are so superior, how do liberal movements like #metoo wind up such trainwrecks?
#metoo is a great example of censorship against conservatives who are banned for “misogyny” if they question any part of the movement, even if the movement is clearly logically flawed.
Why did twenty-two states in the Miss America pageant protest the elimination of the bikini contest? Because it’s one thing to say “you go girl!” on Twitter, and quite another to lose the only chance to parade around in skimpy clothing for an audience of rich men and Hollywood executives. They call rich, powerful men predfators when they aren’t busy trying to marry them. Point this out on Twitter and see how long it is before you get no retweets, no likes, and no replies except from those to whom you reply.
The problem with liberals is they want “open, honest debate” until they are losing, and they want to control the flow of information and discussion in what is supposed to be a two-way media that they want to turn into an echo chamber.
Liberals are so full of themselves that they believe bullying conservatives, or anyone with a dissenting point of view, is justified. They lay down a set of rules to which conservatives adapt and wind up snared when the rules are applied ot them (Franken, Gunn, et al.).
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, and…this is an issue, how? Al Franken was accused of some heinous acts and held accountable for it; James Gunn, despite having apologized years ago for the tweets that ultimately got him fired, was held accountable for saying some heinous things and defending them as “jokes”. If we are to hold people accountable for their bullshit, ideally, political ideology should never give someone a free pass from responsibility.
(And before you ask: No, I do not feel bad for Franken; yes, I feel bad for Gunn, but he fucked up and was held responsible for doing that.)
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Your talking points are so transparent.
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Facts have a well known liberal bias. Study it out.
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Old man yells at thing he imagines young people are into, film at 11.
Re: Re: Re: Miss America Pagents and #MeToo
Wow, John Smith, your understanding of nuance is amazing!
I could get into the particulars of the issues you cherrypicked, but John Oliver did some pretty great deep dives on both of them.
Not that I expect you to check out what a stuffy Brit might say on such matters, but I wouldn’t expect you to read (or consider) a direct explanation either.
Enjoy!
PS: Maybe in the future, try not presuming what any given class of individuals always does. If all of us did that, we might start presuming that every conservative follows Trump’s high standards of loyalty, honesty and integrity.
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
#metoo a trainwreck?
This is how we know you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about…
Re: Re: Re:2 The facts have a left-leaning bias.
So there’s nothing at all happening with Asia Argento, of #MeToo?
Yeah, there’s no story there.
Re: Re: Re:3 The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Yeah, there’s no story. Italy is so entrenched in its patriarchal society #metoo was never a story in her home country to begin with. Sounds like someone’s a closet Weinstein fan…
Re: Re: Re:4 The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Not really, I just don’t like hypocrites if the claims against her seducing an underaged young man are just as valid.
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Re: Re: Re:2 The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Because sexual abuse is ok?
Re: Algorithms
Ah, failure to read….
It is not “no bais because we use algorithms”…The algorithms can, and technically are biased.
Its not bias against conservative news sites, its bias against sites that have low rankings in those areas google believes to be proxies for quality and trust, such as incoming links, because in a world of a million news sites, google is not allowing people to determine the value of the content.
Bias against conservative voices only works if google’s algorithm is down-ranking that content based on the perception of the political viewpoint of the content. But google news and google search do not factor that.
That is why the Wall Street Journal and Fox news, both eminently conservative outlets, ranked high.
Re: Re: Algorithms
Lies. Google employs gazillions of slave gnomes that prepare and send search results on the fly when you hit enter. All gnomes are left-wingers of course, bred with water from Stalin’s last bath and conservative baby blood.
Re: Re: Re: Algorithms
You missed an opportunity:
Re: Re: Re:2 Googolplex
A googolplex cannot be written longhand, because we don’t have enough particles in the universe on which to ink a zero.
I’d argue the organization and task-management of such a workforce would be impossible.
Re: Algorithms
Reality has liberal bias – go check your privilege.
Many two year olds get frustrated when they are told – No!
It takes a strong personality to overcome your own prejudices.
Trump Tweets are not news.
It should be a regular reminder: President Trump has demonstrated time and time and time again that he has no grasp on reality, and if he weren’t President of the United States, he’d be Just Another Crackpot on Twitter.
So his Tweets aren’t news. What might be news is how others might react to his Tweets as if they have merit, much the way Scott Roeder acted on Bill O’Reilly’s consistent ranting. Some people can’t help but get their information from dubious sources.
Clinton Emails...again.
I found an article on a right-leaning site about “strong” evidence that a Chinese front company had penetrated Clinton’s private server and sent copies of all emails on Clinton’s private server to itself.
When I searched in Google, I ONLY had right-leaning websites in the search results. I need some consensus because I’m not going to take The Daily Caller at face-value.
Then again, Google is no angel. Remember the time all searches containing the word “gun” returned zero results?
How many times has Google been caught bumping their own services to the top of the search results?
There even exist several “deep web” search engines that will search sites that companies, such as Yahoo and Google, will filter out of results.
Finally, it is publicly known that Google’s founders were funded by grants from the CIA and NSA while at Stanford, so, think what you want of that.
All this said, I agree that the study mentioned in the article is bogus.
Re: Clinton Emails...again.
“When I searched in Google, I ONLY had right-leaning websites in the search results”
Obviously this is censorship – your rights have been violated! There is no other explanation.
My conservative perspective
Twenty years ago, my complaints about left-leaning media bias were pretty similar to today’s vocal Right. However 20 years is a lot of think-time and my position has moderated.
There’s lots of reasons why. Seeing compulsive Bush hatred adopted by conservatives and reworked into compulsive Obama hatred is one. RW media is another. From my perspective, that was just an arms-race response to LW bias. It expanded & amplified what was wrong with media in the first place. I struggle to find value in it.
I still think there’s widespread bias and I still think it trends left. However, I see where media outlets are a lot more self aware about bias than they used to be. There’s also been a lot of attempts to by MSM to counter bias in it’s ranks. Sometimes been really good (NPR coverage of 2008 elections), sometimes it’s poorly thought-out and just reorders existing crappiness.
In the end, I’m no longer clear that bias is a problem in and of itself. At a minimum, it’s not a top priority. What I am clear about is that attacking bias ignores the media’s overpowering problem – which is systemic incompetence and skewed priorities.
I fully believe bad behavior within the Trump administration should be fully investigated & reported. Revealing it is the whole point of why extra-constitutional protections are afforded to the press.
However, I also strongly believe the same vigor that is being used to seek out and expose wrong doing in this administration was largely abdicated during the last administration.
That doesn’t mean Obama was as morally bankrupt as Trump. The point is it doesn’t matter how morally bankrupt Obama was. The press had a clear duty to it’s constitutional protections to be an adversary to government and aggressively seek out & report bad government behavior. Too often, damning stories are handed to news outlets and they still have to be bullied into being interested (ie: Snowden revelations).
Fast forward to today. Have I seen clear indicators that Google news is trending left-leaning stories & downplaying right? Sure. I think that aligns with the number and tone of stories that are published. For the record, I’ve seen right-leaning stories also trend on Google news, admittedly not as often.
But the problem there isn’t a bias problem, it’s a lazy journalism problem. It’s a problem that the vast majority of US news outlets all lead with the same 7 stories, often just copying and pasting each other content. It’s a problem when news orgs only bring a tiny fraction of new stories to the table that they could be. It’s a problems that fluff stories about sports and celebrities is believed to be of equal valuable to the public as is exposing malfeasance by the powerful.
It’s a problem that the press doesn’t weigh each story against it’s duty to honor it’s extra constitutional protections.
You want less bias? I do and I believe when press is doing their actual damn job (w/o taking 8 year hiatuses) they’d be a lot less likely to let natural human biases continually tilt their content.
Re:
I would not call that the ultimate issue, but it is a huge one. The issue gets worse when you look at the 24-hour news networks: same four or five stories every hour, different talking heads staring into a camera while they wait for their turn to talk, none of them really saying much of anything that offers any new insight.
When John Oliver and his writers do a better job of journalism in a half-hour or so every week than MSNBC does in a full week of 24/7 news coverage, that says a lot about the state of American journalism. None of what that says is good.
Re: Re: Re:
I said this in another thread earlier; it’s relevant here too:
Re: My conservative perspective
The other part of that is that they’re often uncritically reporting claims made by the subjects of the story. Side A says this, side B says that, and the reporters may not mention that court precedence has declared one side wrong, or there’s a scientific consensus or strong evidence, or someone’s a compulsive liar.
Re: Re: My conservative perspective
Such journalism has a random 25% chance to fall into the “two wrongs doesn’t make a right”, 50% chance to be “bearing consiracy against science” and a 25% chance of bringing an informed debate that will lose viewers because of the abstraction level and respectful conversation since the scientific constraints are keeping them from making outrageous claims if they intend to stay a scientist!
It takes a lot of research to set up a fair pair. But often that is not what goes into it. The 24h news-stations have a stock of people they can call in and they go down those lists to get someone in the studio within a number of hours to cover a specific “breaking news”! That is a big mistake: Any science is about reflecting and you can’t just rattle off reflected stuff within hours of an incident!
Thus, to a degree, the focus on being first is making for a less reflected input on a conversation. #METOO and Trumps tweets are both low-reflection stuff with an “instant gratification”-need and has evolved into a public lynching far before a judge or an AG has viewed, much less reviewed it.
Now to make jokes around an issue, you usually need some reflecting and as opposed to 24h news, time is something the comedy shows are afforded! Huge cudos to John Olivers team and their digging. You can see how deep they go at times like the Murray episode. That is the kind of deep digging true journalism is evolving into.
Most news companies are using deep digging journalism like that, but it takes time and money they can’t afford if the digged stories aren’t a goldmine. The content you find in their publicantions are mostly comprised of agency news (the big media are buying access to the stories, so it is too expensive to not bring most of them. Besides, there is a certain quality guarantee in it!).
A bad development is the furtherance of hearsay news and outright echoing conspiracies, particularly among right wing media to fill the air for cheap with “different” news and perspectives. That is where you go down to the core of where “fake news” as a concept is problematic. If sloppy journalistic standards are fake news I would venture the claim that most journalistic entities in this day and age has stories that would meet the criteria, but there is a case for “some do it more than others”.
Re: My conservative perspective
I generally agree with you but you lost me in the 8 years hiatus. There was plenty of noise. It’s just that this administration is so ethically bankrupt that it seems like the media is bashing it more constantly. It’s not, it’s the constant, very fetid flow of sewage that comes from this govt that generates so many news. I’ve been in this world since the 80’s and from my short experience it seems to be the norm for Republican governments (though not as viciously as it is with Trump).
Re: Re: My conservative perspective
I think you’re assertion is reasonable. But my question is this.
Once we’ve got the basic sewage report, 20 additional reports about different things seen floating in the sewer, 100 commentaries about hue & color of the sludge trails – what exactly are the remaining 5000+ media people bringing to us – except nothing new at all?
Re: Re: My conservative perspective
Biggest problem is that no one ever bothers to look anything up, when are we going to realize the sound bites are coming from the limousine liberals? Do you condone it because what they’re saying sounds good or progressive? I don’t anymore, you’re either too lazy or want to buy into the hate rhetoric
Monkey see, monkey throw poo...
monkey lie about it.
It’s not bias. You just get more accurate and actual news from those 96%. Truth hurts, huh. (well, hurts sociopaths)
Trump has taken petulance and childishness to a almost quantum level.
Re: Re:
…"a quantum level" means small, guy.
Re: Re: Re:
But enough about the presidents genitals, let’s talk about the news… oh dear.
Re: Re: Re:
“Quantum leap” is a small abrupt change; the two levels involved could be very large (with incredibly low probability), so “quantum level” doesn’t mean anything.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh boy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, when I hear the “quantum level”, I’d think we were referencing quantum scale, that is the scale of particles and effects that only ever occur on small scales. The big issue with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is that the mechanics of one break down at the other’s scale after all. So I posit that in everyday coversation, the quantum level being really tiny is a fair assessment.
Re: Re: Re:
Go and read up on Quantum Mechanics and you will find that it encompasses a lot more than “small”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ll bite.
What, specifically, did you mean when you said “a quantum level”?
Re: Re:
But the higher energy state achieved is not stable and typically falls back to its original condition.
“That being said, if you’re going to make an allegation that there’s a big conspiracy, you should do your due diligence. This means taking time to understand the underlying technology before jumping to conclusions.”
Whoa, there! Slow right the fuck down! That would mean most conspiracy theories would never have taken off the way they did, and the mere fact that they did PROVES they’re sopt on!
So something can’t be right with this tortured logic of yours. You’re just mad you have to swallow all the cognitive dissonance because of your resounding loss at that whole “E-Mail, Shme-mail” debacle of yours.
The People have a consitutionally guaranteed right to.. well, EVERYTHING they want to! EXCEPT FOR YOU CAUSE YOU HATE MURRICA!!! So shut up!
OMG again
Why is nobody concerned about trump seeing bad news.
Please stop using that word!
They are NOT “conservatives”! There is NOTHING conservative about adding 2 TRILLION dollars to the deficit! There is NOTHING conservative about rejecting climate science to protect fossil fuel billionaires! There is NOTHING conservative about promoting racism and prejudice! And there is NOTHING conservative about demonizing anyone who dares criticize the corrupt and criminal “president”!
Re: Please stop using that word!
As it turns out, the term conservative applies in to different fashions. Social Conservatives, and fiscal Conservatives. Republicans have been burying the fiscal conservative approach for a while, ever since they embraced social conservatism (read: religious hand wringing) and big business to grab the south.
Re: Conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Feminists, LGBT+...
The problem with any of these labels is there is no effective consistency among them, except that they identify themselves as that thing.
I’d suggest disassociating with any identity label, and stand by the notions and ideas you believe have merit, and if they happen to align with some ideology somewhere, let it stay coincidence.
Though there’s also the phenomenon — as seen on this forum — that some people lump groups of people into an alleged like kind before making a generalization about them.
My grandson thinks that anything he wants to blast / stab / destroy / stomp on is a Decepticon. Typically he targets the local vert, tree-droppings, insects and enemy toys. Whatever his target, he labels it as such before blasting / stabbing / destroying / stomping on it.
Freudian reveal #1: "proxy" instead of "indicative"
Doesn’t even fit current expansion of the word for a duplicitous network node.
Of course you "pirates – drug addicts – leftist – liberals – globalists – corporatists" here are not going to find that significant. It’s a "conservative" trait to regard individual words as having fixed firm meansing; liberals just go with the "gestalt" and see the piece as anti-conservative, anti-Trump, anti-American, therefore GOOD.
Take a look at Drudge right now (or almost any time!) for counter. Oh, and note that Lanny Davis "made a mistake" last week in promising Cohen would undermine Trump. — Try looking at reality, you PDALLGCs!
Re: Freudian reveal #1: "proxy" instead of "indicative"
You seem stable.
Freudian reveal #2: the mere existence of this piece!
It’s simply paid for counter-propaganda. Isn’t credible that so many masnicks ALL just happen to go out of their way to defend Google ALL the time.
Re: Freudian reveal #2: the mere existence of this piece!
Re: Freudian reveal #2: the mere existence of this piece!
Except all the dozens of exceptions when he dedicated entire articles of heavy criticism against Google I guess.
No shit.
Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
But liars cannot state their piece and abide in confidence: they keep pushing and pushing. It’s a compulsion: they keep going over the lies in their head, and get worried haven’t done enough.
SO, heh, heh, I stop here. Not an interesting piece, anyway; late is good enough. — And someone already made the obvious accusations! That fore-countering TOO is Freudian reveal because WORRY the lies may be exposed!
Re: Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
“But liars cannot state their piece and abide in confidence: they keep pushing and pushing.”
This is in your 3rd comment spammed within a minute.
Re: Re: Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
On the other hand, it’s also notable for being one of the few times out_of_the_blue has been accurate.
Just not in the way he intended.
Re: Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
“But liars cannot state their piece and abide in confidence: they keep pushing and pushing. It’s a compulsion: they keep going over the lies in their head, and get worried haven’t done enough.”
Says the boy who replied to himself twice within a minute. I applaud you blue. The cognitive dissonance in that statement alone would kill a better man.
Libertarians
It certainly is unreasonable for Libertarians to want to investigate whether they are getting fair treatment by tech companies. Libertarian doctrine says that tech companies can do what they like and if that includes suppressing Libertarian viewpoints, that’s in accordance with their approach to laws.
So, yes, Libertarians are a bunch of hypocrites, who don’t even believe in their own doctrine.
Re: Libertarians
That means that Libertarians don’t think that the government should intervene if a company suppresses a certain kind of viewpoint. It doesn’t mean that Libertarians don’t want to know whether a company is doing that.
In this instance, the Libertarian viewpoint is "Companies have a right to do that; I have a right not to give them my business." And this falls under the approximately 50% of things I agree with Libertarians on.
That may be, but not in this specific instance.
(Though really, I’d argue that there’s a pretty strong Libertarian streak in Silicon Valley. Pro-individual rights, pro-free market, overwhelmingly white and male.)
Re: Re: Libertarians
Yeah I read the article on RSS and popped in here to say, saying in regards to conservatives and libertarians that
seems quite a lot more applicable to one than the other. While there are some ways in which Silicon Valley has (at least performatively) a progressive set of norms and values, in many respects (particularly economically and about broad structural questions) the mindset seems profoundly, often myopically, libertarian.
So let me get this straight ...
… Every second comment from this mental deficient contains the words “fake”, “news” and “cnn”.
And yet, somehow, he’s surprised that a search for “Trump news” seems to overly focus on CNN?
All I can say is, thank whatever gods you believe in for term-limited presidencies 🙂
The end is near
Trump is on the trail of the beast, and there is already a blood trail. Mark my words, all ye leftist Trump bashers – The End (of unchallenged fake news and unchecked censorship) Is Near.
Soon, the public square will reappear in the form of regulation, and we will all be the better for it. Conservative voices will again be allowed to broadcast their opinions and be heard. In the same way that electricity is delivered without regard to politics, broadcasting public opinion will be heard without regard to politics.
No one would disagree that Trump is focused, effective and wields an enormous amount of power, especially with the American public. Now, there are big stakes in play – an upcoming election. Just watch.
You can run, Google, Facebook, YouTube (and Techdirt) but you won’t be able to hide long, and you will never survive the sustained attention of the American public that elected Trump, or Trump himself. Your days of left-leaning socialist propaganda are numbered, soon you will be consumed by the ravenous appetite real Americans for justice and equality, not diversity, anarchy and the rule of the angry mob.
“There’s an absolute surety to the hands-on conservation lifestyle of hunting, fishing and trapping where you know you’re going to consume today.” -Ted Nugent
Re: The end is near
Focused? Effective? Really, Hamilton?
Hillary Clinton? Uninvestigated. The legendary wall Mexico was supposed to pay for? Nowhere in sight.
Give me a fucking break.
Re: Re: The end is near
I believe the Hunter In Chief has already tweeted about that. Clintons are tough, probably tougher than Google and such. But even they will soon succumb to the Law and Justice of the American People.
Re: Re: Re: The end is near
You misspelled Humper
Re: Re: Re: The end is near
But even they will soon succumb to the Law and Justice of the American People.
I’ve been hearing that for the last 25 years. Either republicans are impotent and can’t do shit, or the Clintons haven’t done anything prosecutable.
Feel free to tell me which scenario you believe because all I heard from the simple-minded chimps at trump’s rallies was "lock her up" – are you seriously telling me he can’t even do that with a republican house, senate, executive branch, and justice department that he appointed?
Talk about being a useless idiot…
Re:
Wait, did Fox News go off the air within the past hour?
[citation needed]
That sounds like a threat. Possibly a violent one. Are you dreaming about killing me, Hamilton?
…fucking what
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the days of “so called” diversity of ethnicity and sexual orientation simultaneously requiring a UNIFORMITY of political opinion are numbered. It’s over. Diversity of opinion will reign free again, here in the Great United States of America. We would be much more UNITED when we accept opinion diversity without the horrible left-leaning censorship being applied on the Internet, which requires CONFORMITY or silence, here and in other venues.
Re: Re: Re:
If someone thinks I should not have a place in society because I am openly queer—an opinion they might willingly back up with violence—why should I accept, much less respect, that “diverse” opinion?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Because this is America. We accept all opinions here. Then we vote to resolve differences, under the constitution.
Re: Re: Re:3
Why should I ever accept/respect an opinion that says I am worthless subhuman filth that deserves no place in society because I am queer? (“Because America” is not a valid answer.)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Just turn the other cheek. If they actually do anything other than speak, maybe you would have legitimate redress. Allowing them their opinions protects your rights to have yours.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I said “accept”, not allow. I accept that someone has a right to hold an opinion, no matter how bigoted and ignorant. But I do not have to accept the opinion itself. And if I own a platform for speech, nobody, including you, can force me into allowing someone who wants me out of society to use my platform.
“Diversity of opinion” is reserved for opinions that deserve a spot in the marketplace of ideas. We can discuss our favorite songs, argue about our favorite movies, and debate any number of political topics all the live long day. If you bring forth an opinion that is somewhere along the lines of “fags should stay in the closet”, you should expect those who do not share such opinions to reject them outright. And if a platform owner/operator thinks the platform should not be associated with such speech, they should (and already do) have the right to reject such speech.
Call that “bias” if it makes you feel better. I doubt it will, but I suppose anything is worth a shot.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Firstly, Stephen, I can’t help but notice that you advertise your sexual preferences without anyone asking about them. I don’t know why anyone else would care about your personal and private choices. But maybe it makes you happy to do so, so, whatever. Seems a little unusual, but maybe I’m just an insensitive bigoted homophobe, that could be it.
I would argue that “diversity of opinion” is not reserved for only some and not other opinions. When you use the word “deserve”, you are speaking to a subjective standard. Fully Inclusive Diversity of opinion, in the form of Free Speech, is an objective standard, which is what makes it so powerful. It is not subject to individual opinions, it includes all opinions.
That seems to be the fundamental philosophical flaw of the left, and by extension, Techdirt. Americans can “get out of” their own sphere of opinions, that is one of our basic tenants. That is why Freedom of Speech is so important, it is not subjective, it is objective. Philosophically, we accept the proposition that each of us is a flawed individual, and will make mistakes, and should be open to correction by others. Techdirt markets their product by claiming there is no subjective truth, there is only objective truth, their truth. Anyone who steps outside of their truth is either mocked or censored.
That’s just short sighted and un-American. We hold these truths to be self-evident – not evident only to me. People are flawed, and subjective standards should always be suspect. Those principles that bind us together as a country are not individual, they are universal, tried and tested over hundreds of years.
Censoring is just short sighted and self defeating. Sooner or later the flawed individuals who wield the power of censorship will drift into tyranny and oppression. Censoring others will eventually backfire.
The benefit of Diversity of opinion, and by extension, the freedom to express that opinion in public, is a tenant that is self-evident. It is better for the public body as a whole, rather than a particular individual that is predisposed to abuse power. People have given their lives to protect this freedom (albeit among many others), and for good reason.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Actually Hamilton you’re the one that brings up homosexuality more often than a Catholic Closet Case Sunday Serman.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I don’t know why anyone else would care about your personal and private choices.
Sexuality had, of course, absolutely nothing to do with the debate. But you had to accuse another poster you disagree with of being a "lesbian separatist" to justify complete and thorough undermining of her position.
If anyone is to blame for bringing sexuality into the criteria of discussion, Hamilton, it’s you.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Truth: I was just being funny. She thought it was funny, I thought it was funny, but you obviously have no sense of humor. And I said she was President of the Lesbian Separatist Pirate Party. Who could do anything but laugh at something so outrageous? I was a little inspired by the fact that she was ugly, and fat, and talked a lot, but really, come on! You take yourself way too seriously.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
This coming from the guy who wants a website driven into poverty because he takes himself way too seriously.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Shiva Ayyadurai got his case kicked out, the inventor of email is undefinable, and Noam Chomsky will not be on the appeal jury.
Now that’s funny. Ha! Ha ha ha! You don’t think that’s funny? Well, obviously you have no sense of humor.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Oh we can define one thing for sure. Shiva didn’t invent shit.
Re: Re: Re:9
People who are not homophobic bigots that justify their bigotry with the “just joking” excuse. (A joke should never end with “I’m joking”.)
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You made this about sexual identity, at least in part, when you mentioned “the days of ‘so called’ diversity of ethnicity and sexual orientation”. You wanted this discussion; here I am to deliver it. And I mention my sexual identity because I want you to know you are speaking to an out queer person whose life can, and likely will, be affected by such issues.
Anti-LGBT discrimination is still a thing. An employer would never need to know what I do in my bedroom if they want to punish me for being openly queer. And enough religious evangelists of numerous sects have called for the societal shunning (at best) of LGBT people that I know religious-backed bigotry still exists.
You have yet to prove otherwise.
If we go by your objective standard, the second opinion should be just as “deserving” of acceptance and respect as the first. You can hopefully see why a great many people would consider that situation to be unacceptable.
The only objective notion of “freedom of speech” is “the government cannot exercise prior restraint against most of your speech”. (Try publishing classified information after telling the government you plan to do it, see how long you stay out of court.) Everything else is a subjective standard that differs from person to person; in the “two opinions” example above, anyone who holds the second opinion would consider it “free speech”, while people who disagree with that opinion would likely call it “hate speech” and want the people who hold that opinion to fuck off.
The First Amendment guarantees a person the right to speak their mind without government interference. It does not entitle them to an audience, a platform, and unquestioned acceptance/respect for their speech. Call it “bias” or “political correctness” if you wish; I call it “reality”.
[citation needed]
You can disagree with Techdirt “orthodoxy” and the opinions of commenters without being a smug, disingenuously polite asshole who claims they are being censored for their politics and not for being an asshole. (Your “aw shucks, golly gee” nice guy act does you no favors here.) People here flag you because you have proven yourself to be a troll; you will continue to be flagged for that reason until you decide to stop being one.
I guess that means I can hold in suspicion Shiva Ayyadurai’s claim of having invented email, then, given how his standard for that claim is, at best, subjective.
And if I were calling for censoring others, you might have a point. At the dirt worst, though, I am calling for platforms with an ounce of moral and ethical integrity to stop letting racists, homophobes, and other bigots onto those platforms. The bigots can go make their own platform if they want to be heard badly enough; they are not legally, morally, or ethically entitled to use the platforms of others.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Agreed. No one has the right to be egregiously rude about other people or to spread lies about them. That Mike allows it here with the option for readers to flag and hide the crap they don’t want to see speaks volumes of his patience and generosity; I’d ban Hamilton from my blog without a second thought, but TD is Mike’s blog and he can do what he wants with it.
In any case it’s not put me off reading the comments on the posts, which are often as insightful as the posts.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Morally? No. First Amendment protected? Yes. That doesn’t mean they are entitled to use someone else’s platform to do it, but they can do it.
Depends. Do they believe the "lies" they are spreading is the truth? If so, then it’s 1st Amendment protected opinion, especially if they have something in the way of evidence to back it up. But if they know it’s a lie and continue to spread it anyway, then it falls under potentially either libel, slander, or defamation and is wrong, both morally and legally.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Flagged for what? Original thought? Because it’s not sycophantic libspeak? Where’s your tolerance now? How is censoring a view you don’t agree with good for anyone? Wake up
Re: The end is near
Hey Hamilton did you shit yourself to get out of military service like Ted “Pedofile” Nugent?
Re: The Death of Liberty
Anonymous Coward, you put too much confidence in Trump. He’s going to fall, and it’s going to be messy. And you won’t get the last laugh, but your laugh will be later than ours.
Unless we see some miracle of social activism, here’s how it’s going to go down:
The First Amendment is unlikely to fall under President Trump. He’s just too incompetent, and too many people enjoy the illusion of freedom. Also there’s that nasty collusion-with-Russia business that is going to undermine the GOP’s credibility with anyone who isn’t a Total Trump Loyalist.
But don’t worry, Anonymous Coward your Era of White Nationalist America will come soon enough. You’ll need to wait for the Democratic National Party to blow their turn at the wheel. Again. Don’t worry, they’re killing themselves with infighting.
See, The last two Presidents already forged the Ring of Doom for Trump. Our robust intelligence and surveillance sectors are exactly what is necessary to route out the dissidents (all of them) and assure their careers [in anything] fail early on. Those that are too much trouble may just disappear.
The United States got lucky this time. Trump got adversarial with the intelligence community early and has been ever since. So instead of systematically erasing every American who ever thought a liberal thought in their lives, he’s fighting with them on Twitter, and looking like an idiot for doing it.
But the DNC will take its turn, and right now the new no-corporate-money democrats are being squished by the old-guard democrats who get support from big tobacco and big media. And because they’re beholden, nothing is going to change.
That is to say [80% of] everyone will still be one gig-economy paycheck from eviction. That is to say we’ll still be dropping Hellfires on countries that seem too brown and too terroristy. That is to say we’ll still be paying more for shitty healthcare than any other nation in the world (even those that have lower mortality rates than ours).
Life will continue to suck for most Americans, and the same old fascist I can fix everything song will still be popular, as will the Would you like to send our colored cousins home again? message. And you’ll get some far-right ambitious despot like Trump. But maybe this time, he’ll actually have some brain cells to rub together, and just maybe he’ll actually know how to use the NSA and CIA.
Then you can have your fascist dictatorship and you’ll be so happy and you’ll sing all the party songs and march the party march and salute the party salute.
Of course, after they’ve come for the immigrants and brownskins and crazies and disabled and liberals, the purge trains aren’t going to stop. And they’ll look for traitors of the party, and as patriotic as you are, it just won’t be patriotic enough.
Heck, Anonymous Coward, you may have a damn good run playing musical chairs with all the internal groups. But unless you’re a Bush or a DeVos or a Clinton or some other name is, today, on the side of freight cars or cruise liners or skyscrapers, you’re not going to make it to the last round.
And I get the feeling that before saving you from the mill, the Allies are going to wait for the Russians. Again.
Re: Re: The Death of Liberty
I was right that you are a psychiatric patient, yes? I thought you said you were in the UK, but maybe you are in California, and maybe you are not sure where you are.
Even you have to admit that the stock market is doing well. My 401k hit it’s highest level ever yesterday.
And I certainly would protect your right to speak, you deserve that much respect. Your speech above is quite a good representation of your inner world. Not quite so attached to the real world, with actual people making actual money, but hey! Be happy!
Re: Re: The Death of Liberty
… Geez, finished trying to chase us away with all the scary words?
Think you could use some of that passion to speak to those who disagree with you with some civility?
Most people wouldn’t choose to speak civilly with someone who’s already branded them a monster. But you’re either young and inexperienced or old and jaded, it’s easy to take that route instead of trying to peel off the monster’s mask you’ve pasted on your “enemies”.
Do all “conservatives” hate gays? Do all people who think “conservatives” might have some good ideas deserve censure? What about centrists like me who see both sides as being stupid and the idea of “sides” being boiled into a melting pot of mindless hatred by the media and politicians alike?
Do I “get the bullet too”? Do I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this?
Re: Re: Re: The Death of Liberty
The ones who have come here aside from Wendy Cockcroft have done nothing but thump their war drums begging for big daddy Shiva Ayyadurai to tear this site down.
If you do have something worthwhile to contribute, it might help to, you know, actually contribute it.
Re: Re: Re: "Do I 'get the bullet too'?"
It’s curious what you define as speaking with civility.
I’m only reflecting on what happened in history to other nations that have reached this point. History rhymes, and this one may have more stanzas than we thought, but we’re right on schedule.
Personally I’d really (really!) rather avoid a purge. I agree with Mr. He’s mad! Mad, I tell you! Anonymous Coward, above. I think everyone should be able to say what they want and participate in government. If only we could get them to also exercise rationality and critical thought on a consistent basis and comb for demagogues and fools.
But when we put authoritarians in office who decide they need to fix the population by reducing it, what do you think their terms are? Any society no matter how white and conformist is still going to feel like a pluralism full of criminals, freaks and heretics. They’re not going to stop until their top fifty Facebook friends are the only people who are left.
Or until the Allies intervene.
Maybe they’ll come to their senses and kill Robespierre at some point, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Does your personal intellect, wisdom and experience have merit? Of course it does. But we don’t live in a society that cares for yours or mine. And as such we no longer trust the Democrats to serve the people, and demagogues have been able to effectively take over the message of the Republicans.
If you want to imagine a better endgame and construct how we get there, please do. I am already invested in mine not playing out. But I watch our committees sabotaging efforts to do things differently, and they’re only locking the rudder in place.
Conservatism (that is, staying the course and protecting the status quo) will kill us.
Re: Re: Re: The Death of Liberty
No, on the grounds that you’re an idiot who spends more time slagging Mike off, constructing strawmen to beat up, and generally trolling than contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion.
Try actually reading the post and commenting on the content thereof. You don’t have to agree with it but if you do in fact contribute a nugget of wisdom I will personally give you an Insightful vote. Till then, we will continue to flag you. This means at least five of us agree with me.
An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
No one will take Trump seriously? Really? That’s hilarious on it’s face. Maybe no one in your tiny homogenous community of “diverse” (meaning deviant and traitorous) members will take us seriously, that’s fine. The rest of the ENTIRE COUNTRY takes Trump seriously, they ELECTED him!
You guys are a hoot, really. No one will take us seriously. We OWN the United States. Did you see DeSantos in Florida? Does he look serious to you? DId you see Rick Scott for Congress, something like 90% of the vote even in the face of Google’s slanted opinions?
I will miss the incredible humor your silly opinions provide once you are DROWNED OUT by conservative voices free to speak again.
Ok, well, maybe not so much.
Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
You’d have to convince the judge to have this site shut down.
Which predicates on defining who invented email.
That didn’t go over so well now did it?
Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
You seem to not understand much about the legal system. A lower court ruling badly means nothing in “legal time”, it just lets Mike stew about the issue longer. If the case was tried and Mike prevailed, then he would be off the hook. Now he is definitely NOT off the hook, he is in appeals court.
Re: Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
You lost fatty. And as a Trailer Park Trumper once said “fuck your feelings.”
Re: Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
None of which actually substantiates your case, aside from your willingness to pay for forum-shopping on the off chance you get a favorable judgment.
Re: Re: Re:2 An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
I would support Shiva’s right to a speedy trial on the issue. I would say the same about patent and copyright cases, libel cases, lots of stuff. Maybe Shiva is right, maybe Mike is right, they seem to have a substantial dispute.
Did you see that lady who was on the Manafort trial talk about her experience in the jury? It was really interesting, really a testament to the American system of justice. She said she REALLY wanted Manafort to be innocent, and she was a big Trump supporter, had the hat and everything. But he wasn’t. The facts showed he broke the law and should be punished. So she found him guilty, in spite of her personal feelings.
This forum is a terrible place to try to render judgement, the rules here are secretive, skewed, and biased almost beyond belief. I just wish there were a cheaper and more expeditious way to Shiva to get his case in front of a jury and let them decide. We should all have that right when we feel we have been unjustly injured. Taking that right away from Shiva is akin to taking it away from yourself.
Re: Re: Re:3 An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
He did get his day in court and got laughed out of the place.
Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
We thinks thy doth protest too much, brah.
So why is Trump bothered by this? He claims it’s fake news anyway, right?
If I wasn’t seeing bias (at least on YouTube), I wouldn’t claim it exists. (Not a conservative, but eh…)
It's a simple solution
*Cues up video of Liar, Liar where Jim Carrey is giving legal advice to a career criminal*
If Trump and his followers don’t like all the negative news they find about Trump, maybe Trump should, oh I don’t know, STOP DOING NEGATIVE SHIT!
You’ve got the leader of the free world ™:
-Giving cushy jobs to his cronies
-Appointing completely unqualified people to head up institutions they seem hell-bent on destroying
-Insulting leaders of other countries, especially our allies
-Coloring a Crayon-by-Number flag of his nation wrong
-Complaining about people exercising their Constitutional rights
-Making his watchdogs out to be the enemy
-Firing or removing clearances from anyone who disagrees with him
-Promising to ‘drain the swamp’ yet invites a whole cadre of Shreks to surround him and run his campaign
-Gives every appearance of using the Office for personal gain
-Golfing more than any other President in history despite his promise to not do so
-Doing everything possible to help his business buddies instead of the people
-Continuously bringing up his winning the election because he himself apparently still doesn’t believe it
-Calling tyrants and dictators “strong” and “talented”
With a list like this, it’s no wonder that we focus on his negative accomplishments. Virtually everything ‘good’ that I’ve seen in the news that he’s done so far has been shown to have either a) been done by someone else and he’s claiming the credit, b) was already done and in the works and he’s claiming the credit, or c) his Office literally has no effect on something yet claims he did it.
Re: It's a simple solution
Do you own any stock? Have you seen the market? Probably not, I’m guessing. So who cares what you think? You’re obviously a pauper.
Re: Re: It's a simple solution
Tip: you might want to step back a bit here, and realize that the behavior of the stock market these days is driven not by a rising tide, but by economic rentierdom…business these days has become a game of “who can extract the biggest economic rent the fastest” in order to satisfy ever-rising institutional demands placed on perceived growth metrics measured over excessively short timespans, which is an extremely unhealthy way to run an economy in the long run. We’re doing the economic equivalent of drinking wine from lead goblets…
(And yes, I do own a few shares here and there — I don’t follow every up and down though, as in that lies nothing but tears.)
Re: Re: Re: It's a simple solution
I dunno – “the street” is filled with quite a few really smart people, there is a reason they are so rich. Two of my biggest holdings are in medical devices and military companies, both up better than 25% this year. I think deregulation might have been some of the reason for this, and the huge money Trump got for the military might also be contributing to the rise.
About short run and long run, I also dunno – I think we might be in for a good run, as long as Trump is steering the ship. He’s made a lot of money for his investors before, and I think he might be doing it again. That was kind of my rebuttal to all the long list of perceived negatives about him.
Re: Re: Re:2
I dare you to say that to the Trump voters who still live near or below the poverty line and have not seen a rise in their wages since Agent Orange took office.
Re: Re: It's a simple solution
That’s the arguement a nine year old would make.
Google should just call it ALTERNATIVE search results. The conservatives should be fine with that.
Re: Re:
I like it, this is a great idea 🙂
Re: "Alternative" search results
It shouldn’t be difficult to create a powered-by-Google search engine that favors committee-approved sources.
Conservipedia is essentially an effort to create a right-wing Wikipedia…with a qualified outcome.
Also, one should be aware of how the rest of the world views US politics. Most Europeans will categorize the Dems as “fairly conservative”, and the GOP as “well into wingnut territory”. Thus, liberal media like NYT and CNN are much more likely to get incoming links from sites outside the US.
Re: Re:
That. There’s no left in the us. Only the right and the far–bigoted-insane-right.
Re: Re: Re:
Eh, that’s “Right, far-bigoted insane-right, and some mad Proggies pushing an increasingly censorious agenda.”
They do exist, Ninja, and boy, do they annoy me. Imagine rocking up to some random South Asian person and asking for permission to wear a Manchurian dress. Someone actually proposed that. David Frum took him down in a scorching article. The point is, those nutty leftists that the alt-right complains about to in fact exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yea, and they try to paint everyone with that same brush.
WTF?
Who the hell takes them seriously now?
"Change my mind"
For at least 10 years Google has been manipulating their website.
Go to Google.com, type in the word “first” and hit enter. Top hit is hard-coded to usfirst.org. Sergi is buddies with Dean Kamen.
Just sayin’…
Re: "Change my mind"
Uh yeah, they’ve been “manipulating” that website since they put it online you dumbfuck.
Re: "Change my mind"
Uh, that doesn’t come up even on the first page of results for me.
Google does tailor searches to past search history in your browser cookies. Perhaps that says more about you and what you’ve been searching for than Google.
Re: Re: "Change my mind"
That may be too complicated for self proclaimed conservatives to understand and they never will because they do not believe in education. Their ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge .. or something like that.
Mr. Graves doesn’t reveal how he knows which site was used! Google Search or Google News.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The bias is real and well known, to pretend that it is not present is what creates the problem. There is bias on all sides, but as a centrist, the bias is clearly left of center in the mainstream media in television, clearly right of center in radio, and what I believe to be a pretty decent mixture on the internet but a clearly biased slant against any sources that appear to be right of center.
I don’t like either sides because they create the tribal us vs them bullshit that racism causes, but I can say with a clear head…
the left has gone so stupid that it would sign a pact with a literal devil if it would ensure the destruction of the right. I can’t say that the right is not far behind… but they are lagging in that regard.
Re: Re:
So, as a feminist and a democratic socialist, I have to say:
…what?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Ya, so you’re another emasculated, ugly sheeple small-handed guy thinking your progressiveness will get you somewhere with whatever you’re attracted to, you’re a joke even to leftists, vote for bernie!!!!
Ego
This is hardly worth reporting, as we all know it’s all about Trump’s ego and thin skin. The guy can’t stand criticism because he is the bestest president ever. Must be true, as he says so!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Bias? What Bias?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Bias? What Bias?
“Those morons. There’s no bias.” – everyone who supports the ongoing bias.
ugh
it’s just a distraction, he was just looking to see if his latest scandals were still showing up when you search for news. now, they don’t. so great job everyone wasting all your breath to blather on about something A. The president doesn’t care about. and 2. you should know better.
Trump’s hair is fake.
Trump’s small hands are real.
Deal with it.
The fact that I asked for the exact opposite of this article only shows that Google can’t help themselves!!!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
When LIBERALS call out bias in tech, there's a problem.
And I’m talking about EUROPEAN Liberals, not American ones.
I REALLY think that you should rethink your position if you think there isn’t any sort of conservative bias online.
People say "Learn to Code" to a journalist, they get banned.
Blue Checkmarks go "throw the kids in the woodchipper" and they’re still on Twitter.
Maybe, just MAYBE…
You’re blind to the bias because you agree with it.
Re: Re:
Yawn.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Soros
George soros essentailly owns Google ass….
Search Google for "George Soros…" it’s been scrubbed….
Search for Obama, you will find trash on Trump.
Google News sucks George Soros ass for air.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
leftism is unpatriotic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The smugness of these pinheaded liberal arts degree scumbags is off the chart.these homos and dikes infest our universities and social media they are liberals in race traitors who will be treated as such.when we take over you will be banned from even having a job.you will. E sling rags allover again you pieces of shit.believe that. Targeting your cyber infrastructure will.be like taking candy from a baby.so smug it up your days are. Umbered.you pink blue haired freaks.