This is what you get when you Google 'idiot' in images.... - Page 2

Rtrorkt · 12-13-2018, 06:58 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/google-should-have-been-grilled-more-intelligent-lawmakers-house-republicans-ncna947221

biosurfer1 · 12-13-2018, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jims5543

Here is just one example. Googles attack on Breitbart news.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/12/10/exclusive-senior-google-employees-target-breitbart-adsense/

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/

You don't think that saying Google attacks Breitbart and your proof is a bunch of Breitbart links is a bit biased?

Isn't that sort of like saying a border wall will solve all immigration problems then pointing to Trumps twitter as proof?

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jims5543

Maybe watch news other than CNN.

Goggle is in DC right now answering some tough questions as to why they bend algorithms in order for that to happen.

They are being asked some tough questions. So far, really short on answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC911

If you add an "s" on the search....does a PARF "group photo" appear

?

Yes, and you need a haircut, hippie

Everyone is biased. Goggle just has about the biggest megaphone in the world, and are on the same side of the bias river as the people that would do anything about it.

john70t · 12-13-2018, 07:32 AM

And this is how some internet search engine with a monopoly convinces 99% of the people to learn the wrong things.
Just say it and it becomes reality!...up is now down....and down is up!

Who are the idiots?

Here is the real meaning of the word:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Idiotes
"In ancient Athens those who did not participate, those who did not take on public responsibilities were called private persons or idiotes in Greek, "idiot" in English.

john70t · 12-13-2018, 07:35 AM

(Duckduckgo used to just harvest Bing search results but I guess now they are just evil?)

Jims5543 · 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

You don't think that saying Google attacks Breitbart and your proof is a bunch of Breitbart links is a bit biased?

Isn't that sort of like saying a border wall will solve all immigration problems then pointing to Trumps twitter as proof?

Do you think it is OK to sensor a News Agency because it is "biased" so we are OK with CNN being silenced?

Sorry for the delayed response, I really do not have much free time, I run a small business and America is Great Again which taxes me time wise M-F

I will be working this weekend too. Great news, at 2220 hours Friday night I have a few minutes before I head to bed.

I am sure you are excited.

Kachi, I honestly feel like a wet nurse right now spoon feeding you all info that is readily out there if you look. Playing ignorant and calling me a liar really make you look stupid.

Infowars is another example

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-jones-youtube-channel-facebook-content-removed-2018-08-06/

Prager U

https://theblacksphere.net/2018/01/google-sued-censorship-conservatives%E2%80%8B/

Quote:

Leftists often accuse you of the thing they are really guilty of.
So, when the left tries to smear conservatives with labels such as Nazis, Fascists, and intolerant, they are really describing themselves.
Case in point is the story of Prager University, run by radio-talk-show host Dennis Prager whose videos on YouTube have received restricted status making it impossible for people to watch. Thus, Prager fought back suing Google and YouTube for violation of his First Amendment rights.

According to the plaintiff, many of its “educational” videos have been put into “restricted mode.” Prager suspects there is no reasonable basis for this, other than viewpoint bias. The complaint filed in California federal court includes charts of restricted videos compared to unrestricted videos on “similar topics.”

For example, Prager’s video titled “Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?” is on lockdown, while a Real Time With Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground; an interview with former Vice President Joe Biden on how to end the campus rape crisis; and Lady Gaga singing about rape all can be seen by YouTube users.

Oh My Google debated censoring more conservative sites. I am sure that is OK if you are a Liberal. I am sure in your mind it is perfectly fine to shut down anything you do not agree with.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/google-censorship-conservative-media/

Quote:

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

Por_sha911 · Por_sha911's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911_Dude

Its almost as if millions of people associate the name Trump with idiot. Strange.

Eat S_ _t. Billions of flies can't be wrong...

Jims5543 · 12-14-2018, 06:28 PM

More:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-google-adsense-censors-the-news/

Quote:

Is Google trying to censor news it deems “inappropriate” for public consumption?

That’s what the editors of several news websites are asking after recent tussles with Google AdSense, the online advertising behemoth that generates revenue for publishers by placing third-party “pay per click” or “pay per impression” ads on their sites. Publishers need only sit back and collect the checks, which can add up to thousands of dollars a month, depending on traffic.

AdSense brings in about $13 billion a year to Google’s coffers, about 24 percent of its overall revenue. According to its fourth-quarter earnings report in January, Google earned $3.72 billion in the last months of FY2014 from ads appearing on its network partners’ websites. In 2011, the company said it paid 68 percent of ad revenue back to the sites that participate in AdSense. All added up, that’s a lot of cash.

Until, of course, a publisher runs afoul of Google’s Terms and Conditions. Google says it tries to guarantee its advertisers that their ads will only be displayed on “family-friendly” websites. That includes a strict prohibition on “violent content,” a rule the company says is applied across the board—and is apparently blind to context.

“If your site has content which you wouldn’t be comfortable viewing at work or with family members around, then it probably isn’t an appropriate site for Google ads,” according to Google’s guidance for “Adult Content.”

But “family-friendly” is a vague standard that can lead to poor, context-free judgements about content, as some publishers, including The American Conservative, suspect after recent brushes against those Terms and Conditions.

Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, says that in January, Google AdSense asked that its ads be removed from a January 2012 story featuring a commentary by this author that included a photograph of U.S. soldiers urinating on Afghan corpses, as well as a photograph of abuses that had occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War (specifically, the infamous photo of Pfc. Lynndie England dragging an Iraqi by a leash).

“Because ads are displayed on our site according to a general template, the only way we could satisfy Google’s demand was by removing AdSense from all of our article pages,” McCarthy explained, adding that “We still feature AdSense on our homepage and blogs, for now.” How much longer may depend on just how indiscriminately Google enforces its rules.

“There’s a chilling effect here,” McCarthy says, getting to the heart of journalists’ obligation to report the news, including disturbing images that the public needs to see. A corporate gatekeeper that treats news like offensive or “adult” content risks stifling free speech.

“Advertisers have always been free to withdraw support from a news organization when they’re embarrassed by its reporting, but Google is more than just an advertiser: AdSense is the Internet’s largest advertising network, and the only reason it’s the Internet’s largest ad network is because of Google’s market power as a provider of search engine and other services integral to most Americans’ web use,” says McCarthy.

“So when Google imposes restraints upon what news organization can report, it’s not acting like an auto manufacturer that withdraws advertising from ’60 Minutes’ in retaliation for an expose. It’s more akin to CBS itself telling the news program that it can’t report anything that wouldn’t be suitable for children’s television.”

Google as an Internet gatekeeper is no fantasy. Since its founding as a scrappy start-up amid the tech boom of 1998, it has grown to dominate the online ad and search markets. The company has drawn the attention of regulators, who want to rein in what they see as monopolistic behavior. Google in turn has spent millions of dollars a year lobbying Congress. Not all of that spending has been purely self-interested, however: the Internet giant, whose motto has long been “Don’t be evil,” has weighed in against what it calls unnecessary government surveillance on the net, and the company is aware of the censorship risks that overly broad regulations can pose.

“The result could be a very real chilling effect on independent journalism.”

.

Jims5543 · 12-14-2018, 06:29 PM

Oh damn I am going full Kachi, never go full Kachi....

https://redpillpundit.online/2018/10/the-good-censor-new-evidence-google-is-censoring-conservatives/

Quote:

Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.

But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

The briefing labels the ideal of unfettered free speech on the internet a “utopian narrative” that has been “undermined” by recent global events as well as “bad behavior” on the part of users. It can be read in full below.

Key points in the briefing can be found at the following page numbers:

P2 – The briefing states that “users are asking if the openness of the internet should be celebrated after all” and that “free speech has become a social, economic, and political weapon.”
P11 – The briefing identifies Breitbart News as the media publication most interested in the topic of free speech.
P12 – The briefing says the early free-speech ideals of the internet were “utopian.”
P14 – The briefing admits that Google, along with Twitter and Facebook, now “control the majority of online conversations.”
P15 – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is linked to Google’s position as a platform for free expression. Elsewhere in the document (p68), Google and other platforms’ move towards moderation and censorship is associated with the role of “publisher” – which would not be subject to Section 230’s legal protections.
PP19-21 – The briefing identifies several factors that allegedly eroded faith in free speech. The election of Donald Trump and alleged Russian involvement is identified as one such factor. The rise of the populist Alternative fur Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) party in Germany – which the briefing falsely smears as “alt-right” – is another.
PP26-34 – The briefing explains how “users behaving badly” undermines free speech on the internet and allows “crummy politicians to expand their influence.” The briefing bemoans that “racists, misogynists, and oppressors” are allowed a voice alongside “revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners.” It warns that users are “keener to transgress moral norms” behind the protection of anonymity.
P37 – The briefing acknowledges that China – for which Google has developed a censored search engine – has the worst track record on internet freedom.
P45 – After warning about the rise of online hate speech, the briefing approvingly cites Sarah Jeong, infamous for her hate speech against white males (Google is currently facing a lawsuit alleging it discriminates against white males, among other categories).
P45 – The briefing bemoans the fact that the internet has until recently been a level playing field, warning that “rational debate is damaged when authoritative voices and ‘have a go’ commentators receive equal weighting.”
P49 – The document accuses President Trump of spreading the “conspiracy theory” that Google autocomplete suggestions unfairly favored Hillary Clinton in 2016. (Trump’s suspicions were actually correct – independent research has shown that Google did favor Clinton in 2016).
P53 – Free speech platform Gab is identified as a major destination for users who are dissatisfied with censorship on other platforms.
P54 – After warning about “harassment” earlier in the document, the briefing approvingly describes a 27,000-strong left-wing social media campaign as a “digital flash mob” engaged in “friendly counter-commenting.”
P57 – The document juxtaposes a factoid about Russian election interference with a picture of Donald Trump.
P63 – The briefing admits that when Google, GoDaddy and CloudFlare simultaneously withdrew service from website The Daily Stormer, they were “effectively booting it off the internet,” a point also made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the FCC in their subsequent warnings about online censorship.
P66-68 – The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the “unmediated marketplace of ideas” vs. “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility.” The first is described as a product of the “American tradition” which “prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility.” The second is described as a product of the “European tradition,” which “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” The briefing claims that all tech platforms are now moving toward the European tradition.
P70 – The briefing sums up the reasons for big tech’s “shift towards censorship,” including the need to respond to regulatory demands and “expand globally,” to “monetize content through its organization,” and to “protect advertisers from controversial content, [and] increase revenues.”
P74-76 – The briefing warns that concerns about censorship from major tech platforms have spread beyond the right-wing media into the mainstream.
quip Electric Toothbrush

I can go on and on.

There you Kachi, I went full Kachi for you, citations out the ass.

Calling me a liar and a loser? I will take that as a compliment from a person who has no life outside this forum.