Why it is important to doubt the gatekeepers....

[AlexBailey]

Fact checking first of all requires FACTS, not fake bullshit and lies fabricated by an underground bunch of crank fascism worshipers.

But you go all in on thinking that we need an entire army of people to look into whether a lie is even worth looking into and then tell the world about how it was looked into.

Meanwhile I'll just continue on calling the shots like I see them. Which is that liars like you shouldn't get any airtime at all.

Lol. Fact checkers check the source of the information, like I checked the sources of the information you posted about post op trans mental health. The articles and their source material did not support the position you claimed they did.

Review the post if you need reminding:
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/donald-trump-the-racist.1614732/post-99247745

Were you lying about what they said and hoping no one would fact check or were you unable to understand what you posted?

 

[AlexBailey]

i said gay in florida and nobody arrested me.

Good thing you weren’t looking for a government job.

 

[AlexBailey]

Fact checking first of all requires FACTS, not fake bullshit and lies fabricated by an underground bunch of crank fascism worshipers.

Hey Harpy,

Can you fact check something for me?

Is fascism a form of right wing ideology or left wing ideology?

 

[Bn2f]

Fact checking first of all requires FACTS, not fake bullshit and lies fabricated by an underground bunch of crank fascism worshipers.

Meanwhile I'll just continue on calling the shots like I see them. Which is that liars like you shouldn't get any airtime at all.

Did trump build a wall that Mexico paid for? Was Obama born in Hawaii? Was Harris ever designated by the administration as the immigration czar?

 

[InThe312]

I didn't read all the bull shit here. I did read the original post and a few things between.

Is the original question/premise here that I'm supposed to search for republican lunacy and then confirm liberal bias of Google by the absence of confirmatory information or the higher ranking of the results? Meaning, should I expect these searches to return similar results?




It seems to me if you don't understand how search engines work that you're the problem, not the search engine. Google (and I assume all legit search engines to some extent) use the volume, quality, reputation, link trees, what they think you were searching for (this is probably where your implied bias comes in the most) and sponsorship. If there is an overwhelming amount of coverage of a topic from better sources, it's going to push what you think you should be expecting down to page 7. Like it or not, if every major news source reports something, Google is going to give you their results long before they get to social media or fringe, low traffic sites. The reason Truth Social doesn't get more results but you might see X, is not Google's bias, but simply that nobody uses the platform. Less volume, less linking, less everything.

Might also pay to give your searching some context. Meaning, if you run those searches above as a German, should you expect the same results? I personally don't even know if Germany had elections in 2020, but you should probably learn to understand the bias of your questions before you try to explain the bias of the platform.

Adjust your searching by being more specific about what you're looking for and there's a good chance you'll find it if it's out there on the interwebs.

 

[AlexBailey]

I didn't read all the bull shit here. I did read the original post and a few things between.

Is the original question/premise here that I'm supposed to search for republican lunacy and then confirm liberal bias of Google by the absence of confirmatory information or the higher ranking of the results? Meaning, should I expect these searches to return similar results?

View attachment 2371010
View attachment 2371011

It seems to me if you don't understand how search engines work that you're the problem, not the search engine. Google (and I assume all legit search engines to some extent) use the volume, quality, reputation, link trees, what they think you were searching for (this is probably where your implied bias comes in the most) and sponsorship. If there is an overwhelming amount of coverage of a topic from better sources, it's going to push what you think you should be expecting down to page 7. Like it or not, if every major news source reports something, Google is going to give you their results long before they get to social media or fringe, low traffic sites. The reason Truth Social doesn't get more results but you might see X, is not Google's bias, but simply that nobody uses the platform. Less volume, less linking, less everything.

Might also pay to give your searching some context. Meaning, if you run those searches above as a German, should you expect the same results? I personally don't even know if Germany had elections in 2020, but you should probably learn to understand the bias of your questions before you try to explain the bias of the platform.

Adjust your searching by being more specific about what you're looking for and there's a good chance you'll find it if it's out there on the interwebs.

The article the OP based his argument on is bullshit too.

It says:
“The homepage featured no articles from sources AllSides rates as Lean Right over the five-day period. “

What it fails to mention is what news sources AllSides rates as “Lean Right”. Because of this there is no way to evaluate the quality of the “Lean Right” sources to make any judgement about whether they are reliable enough to justify a high listing on the search engine results.

How about it, @JaySecrets ? Can you find the list of what “Lean Right” sources were rated by your source that ‘should have’ made the list? Did I miss it somewhere? The article specifically mentions the “Lean Left” sources.

 

[InThe312]

The article the OP based his argument on is bullshit too.

It says:
“The homepage featured no articles from sources AllSides rates as Lean Right over the five-day period. “

What it fails to mention is what news sources AllSides rates as “Lean Right”. Because of this there is no way to evaluate the quality of the “Lean Right” sources to make any judgement about whether they are reliable enough to justify a high listing on the search engine results.

How about it, @JaySecrets ? Can you find the list of what “Lean Right” sources were rated by your source that ‘should have’ made the list? Did I miss it somewhere? The article specifically mentions the “Lean Left” sources.

Is it possible those sources weren't relevant or were trumped (yes, I said it) by news sources that are considered more legitimate? This whole premise is crazy. I'm going with garbage in, garbage out on this one.

 

[AlexBailey]

Is it possible those sources weren't relevant or were trumped (yes, I said it) by news sources that are considered more legitimate? This whole premise is crazy. I'm going with garbage in, garbage out on this one.

Yeah, I think that’s a fair assessment. If “AllSides” was being transparent they would have made the list of what they rated as “Lean Right” available. The fact they hid that when they were exhaustive in so many other ways shows they probably have something to hide.

 

[AlexBailey]

The push to raise the minimum wage and the union power raising wages not matched to the market CAUSED the inflation.

Really? So the cost of living didn’t go up due to the rising cost of real estate?

What pushed up real estate? Minimum wage?

Or do you think maybe it had more to do with the windfall tax savings Trump gave the wealthiest Americans, of which a lot was invested in buying up homes to rent for what the market will bear?

Home ownership has long been considered the best investment a family can make to establish generational wealth. So much for that.

 

[JaySecrets]

The article the OP based his argument on is bullshit too.

It says:
“The homepage featured no articles from sources AllSides rates as Lean Right over the five-day period. “

What it fails to mention is what news sources AllSides rates as “Lean Right”. Because of this there is no way to evaluate the quality of the “Lean Right” sources to make any judgement about whether they are reliable enough to justify a high listing on the search engine results.

How about it, @JaySecrets ? Can you find the list of what “Lean Right” sources were rated by your source that ‘should have’ made the list? Did I miss it somewhere? The article specifically mentions the “Lean Left” sources.

Again, the point is that there should be NO FILTER AT ALL. NO GATEKEEPER. PERIOD. The search engine does not have the job of filtering and censoring. Its job is to give access to what the person is searching for. And if it's a neutral search, then to give equal weight to all sides:left, right, and center. Anything less isn't providing unbiased information, it is practicing information control and thought control. The media and the tech companies have become Orwellian Ministries of Truth.

 

[JaySecrets]

Is it possible those sources weren't relevant or were trumped (yes, I said it) by news sources that are considered more legitimate? This whole premise is crazy. I'm going with garbage in, garbage out on this one.

That's the problem. It's not Google's or any other search engine's role to decide what is legit. It's their role to dispense the information without bias or judgement at all. Do the searches yourself with the words and keys they used. Type in Conservative Resources then Democrat Resources and see what comes up for each. Do the test you will find out AllSides is very accurate on their reporting here.

 

[ll74]

That's the problem. It's not Google's or any other search engine's role to decide what is legit. It's their role to dispense the information without bias or judgement at all. Do the searches yourself with the words and keys they used. Type in Conservative Resources then Democrat Resources and see what comes up for each. Do the test you will find out AllSides is very accurate on their reporting here.

You are a fucking idiot

 

[JaySecrets]

Really? So the cost of living didn’t go up due to the rising cost of real estate?

What pushed up real estate? Minimum wage?

Or do you think maybe it had more to do with the windfall tax savings Trump gave the wealthiest Americans, of which a lot was invested in buying up homes to rent for what the market will bear?

Home ownership has long been considered the best investment a family can make to establish generational wealth. So much for that.

What has messed ALL these markets up is government interference at all. Leave the government out of the markets, let the free market function freely, get rid of the Federal Reserve, and go back to a Constitutional approach to our markets and money. Prices go down, product goes up, and people go to work. (After a chaotic transition and stabilizing.... That would be inevitable after all the outside tinkering by those who have no business touching it.)

Unions, governments, any organization who is messing with wages outside of the natural flow of the market is the problem.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What has messed ALL these markets up is government interference at all. Leave the government out of the markets, let the free market function freely, get rid of the Federal Reserve, and go back to a Constitutional approach to our markets and money. Prices go down, product goes up, and people go to work. (After a chaotic transition and stabilizing.... That would be inevitable after all the outside tinkering by those who have no business touching it.)

Unions, governments, any organization who is messing with wages outside of the natural flow of the market is the problem.

Oh geeez, another Gold Bug.

 

[InThe312]

That's the problem. It's not Google's or any other search engine's role to decide what is legit. It's their role to dispense the information without bias or judgement at all. Do the searches yourself with the words and keys they used. Type in Conservative Resources then Democrat Resources and see what comes up for each. Do the test you will find out AllSides is very accurate on their reporting here.

How will I know whether the resources that are missing from my searches are conservative or liberal?

Google is a for profit corporation, an American corporation no less. The standard definition of the purpose of a corporation is to make profits for their shareholders (owners). They absolutely have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it's not against any law and just because you want it to be different doesn't mean Google has to listen to you. Their goal is to make money and everything they do leans THAT way.

That being said, Google isn't deciding what is legit, they are using an algorithm, which admittedly at times has been manipulated, to supply you with the most relevant information resulting from your search and they freely admit that they attribute accuracy, legitimacy, etc. to everything that they capture. Otherwise, they'd crawl all the stupid shit you post here and report it back to the sane public as fact.

AllSides very accurately reported that they do not understand how search engines work and that they do not know how to use a search engine. You were correct that they were accurate in their report.

 

[ll74]

What has messed ALL these markets up is government interference at all. Leave the government out of the markets, let the free market function freely, get rid of the Federal Reserve, and go back to a Constitutional approach to our markets and money. Prices go down, product goes up, and people go to work. (After a chaotic transition and stabilizing.... That would be inevitable after all the outside tinkering by those who have no business touching it.)

Unions, governments, any organization who is messing with wages outside of the natural flow of the market is the problem.

Regulation is bad

Says Jay

Go employ 10 yr olds and ignore regulation

Go throw radiation from nuclear plants on Jay's lawn. He likes it

The gubment is bad.
M
Kay?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Regulation is bad

Says Jay

Go employ 10 yr olds and ignore regulation

Go throw radiation from nuclear plants on Jay's lawn. He likes it

The gubment is bad.
M
Kay?

Let companies return to using otherwise-unemployable women with small hands to "hand paint" the luminescent radium dials on wristwatches (remember them? they'd glow in the dark). Sure, they'd lost 6-8 fingers eventually, but my point is the women themselves would decide how many fingers they're willing to sacrifice in return for a high paying job!

Also, a lot of good pharmaceutical companies lost a great deal of money not being able to market Thalidomide in America.

 

[ll74]

Let companies return to using otherwise-unemployable women with small hands to "hand paint" the luminescent radium dials on wristwatches (remember them? they'd glow in the dark). Sure, they'd lost 6-8 fingers eventually, but my point is the women themselves would decide how many fingers they're willing to sacrifice in return for a high paying job!

Also, a lot of good pharmaceutical companies lost a great deal of money not being able to market Thalidomide in America.

I sell hats made by 6 yr old Guatemalan children on eBay.

It's fun

(That's sarcasm kids)

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Again, the point is that there should be NO FILTER AT ALL. NO GATEKEEPER. PERIOD. The search engine does not have the job of filtering and censoring. Its job is to give access to what the person is searching for. And if it's a neutral search, then to give equal weight to all sides:left, right, and center. Anything less isn't providing unbiased information, it is practicing information control and thought control. The media and the tech companies have become Orwellian Ministries of Truth.

If you don’t like the search engines, don’t use them.

 

[YDB95]

Type in Conservative Resources then Democrat Resources and see what comes up for each.

If you type in "Democrat Resources", then right off the bat you're ostensibly looking for sources that support the Democratic Party by googling a slur for that party. Which undoubtedly will get you what you want to see, Jay, but it doesn't prove your point the way you think it does.

Also, I did just google "Conservative resources" and found plenty of conservative organizations. "Democratic resources" mostly found international resources referring to small-d democratic government.

 

[JaySecrets]

How will I know whether the resources that are missing from my searches are conservative or liberal?

You won't. That's the point. An unbiased source will tend to err both directions on most topics and it balances out in the wash. In the case of Google, they err heavily on support of the side of Democrats and liberals. That's not surprising. Elon aside (and he's no real conservative, just a free speech transhumanist.... dude creeps me out), the tech industry is CONTROLLED by open liberals of the most extreme bent, and THEY are becoming the information gatekeepers. Which leads to the next point.

Google is a for profit corporation, an American corporation no less. The standard definition of the purpose of a corporation is to make profits for their shareholders (owners). They absolutely have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it's not against any law and just because you want it to be different doesn't mean Google has to listen to you. Their goal is to make money and everything they do leans THAT way.

You are right. They are a for profit org, and have the right to do what they want so long as it is legal. And that would normally be the end of the discussion. But they are also the biggest holder and have become the biggest and the main dispenser of "facts" and information in the world by a lot. The practically have a monopoly on that market. And therein lies the problem. You don't make the money by doing the hard work of even-handed information. As an earlier poster pointed out, you make money by shortcuts.

An example here that makes the point. In the 70's and 80's in particular, probably before then, but especially by then, the record labels realized the power they held over the public via the radio. So instead of promoting individuality and true artistry, they demanded their artists to sell out their artistry and conform to a set, easily mass produced sound and style if they wanted to sell albums. The artists who conformed got radio play, very few others who wouldn't conform made it through the filter. The public didn't know what they didn't know and thought they were choosing their own favorite songs or bands, when in reality they had been manipulated by the industry. This continues today on about every streaming platform and radio station except for PBS, NPR (yes, I love their arts content) and Spotify.

This is what Google has done with facts. How?

That being said, Google isn't deciding what is legit, they are using an algorithm, which admittedly at times has been manipulated, to supply you with the most relevant information resulting from your search and they freely admit that they attribute accuracy, legitimacy, etc. to everything that they capture. Otherwise, they'd crawl all the stupid shit you post here and report it back to the sane public as fact.

They use, though they won't say how, for good, legit reasons, it works, an algorithm that filters information based on how accurate and authoritative it is. Problem is, hardcore lefties are programming in the parameters that define that. Their left wing bias taints the content that the entire world has to rely on them for access to.

AllSides very accurately reported that they do not understand how search engines work and that they do not know how to use a search engine. You were correct that they were accurate in their report.

What I just gave is how it works. It's also why gatekeepers, with any bias or political or social preferences, are dangerous. Their beliefs color the product.

 

[InThe312]

You won't. That's the point. An unbiased source will tend to err both directions on most topics and it balances out in the wash. In the case of Google, they err heavily on support of the side of Democrats and liberals. That's not surprising. Elon aside (and he's no real conservative, just a free speech transhumanist.... dude creeps me out), the tech industry is CONTROLLED by open liberals of the most extreme bent, and THEY are becoming the information gatekeepers. Which leads to the next point.

You are right. They are a for profit org, and have the right to do what they want so long as it is legal. And that would normally be the end of the discussion. But they are also the biggest holder and have become the biggest and the main dispenser of "facts" and information in the world by a lot. The practically have a monopoly on that market. And therein lies the problem. You don't make the money by doing the hard work of even-handed information. As an earlier poster pointed out, you make money by shortcuts.

An example here that makes the point. In the 70's and 80's in particular, probably before then, but especially by then, the record labels realized the power they held over the public via the radio. So instead of promoting individuality and true artistry, they demanded their artists to sell out their artistry and conform to a set, easily mass produced sound and style if they wanted to sell albums. The artists who conformed got radio play, very few others who wouldn't conform made it through the filter. The public didn't know what they didn't know and thought they were choosing their own favorite songs or bands, when in reality they had been manipulated by the industry. This continues today on about every streaming platform and radio station except for PBS, NPR (yes, I love their arts content) and Spotify.

This is what Google has done with facts. How?

They use, though they won't say how, for good, legit reasons, it works, an algorithm that filters information based on how accurate and authoritative it is. Problem is, hardcore lefties are programming in the parameters that define that. Their left wing bias taints the content that the entire world has to rely on them for access to.

What I just gave is how it works. It's also why gatekeepers, with any bias or political or social preferences, are dangerous. Their beliefs color the product.

An unbiased source absolutely does not err or report both sides of the US political system equally. An unbiased source would report facts with no bias. Good luck finding anyone who doesn't have any bias.

Google isn't creating information. They aren't dispensing information. I mean, probably something, but they just connect you to information from other internet sites. Google isn't a source. They didn't do any research. They don't publish peer-reviewed articles. They don't alter the information, since they literally just provide you a link. They provide an internet search function. They don't have a monopoly. There are many search platforms. People choose Google because they're the BEST search platform and have been for decades. It's just as easy to put Bing in there. Or Yahoo. Or whatever.

If you want your Christian nationalist nonsense to show up on Google, maybe get those content creators to do a better job of legitimizing their sites and their information. You can say stupid shit on the internet. That's something we still are allowed to do and seemingly is is protected as free speech in the US. But just because you say stupid shit on the internet, it doesn't grant you equal access to media to report it or Google to give it credence.

You are continuing to demonstrate that you have zero idea how Google operates or how to operate Google and like every other topic, you want everyone else to conform to your myopic worldview.

 

[JaySecrets]

An unbiased source absolutely does not err or report both sides of the US political system equally. An unbiased source would report facts with no bias. Good luck finding anyone who doesn't have any bias.

Google isn't creating information. They aren't dispensing information. I mean, probably something, but they just connect you to information from other internet sites. Google isn't a source. They didn't do any research. They don't publish peer-reviewed articles. They don't alter the information, since they literally just provide you a link. They provide an internet search function. They don't have a monopoly. There are many search platforms. People choose Google because they're the BEST search platform and have been for decades. It's just as easy to put Bing in there. Or Yahoo. Or whatever.

If you want your republican nonsense to show up on Google, maybe get those content creators to do a better job of legitimizing their sites and their information. You can say stupid shit on the internet. That's something we still are allowed to do and seemingly is is protected as free speech in the US. But just because you say stupid shit on the internet, it doesn't grant you equal access to media to report it or Google to give it credence.

You are continuing to demonstrate that you have zero idea how Google operates or how to operate Google and like every other topic, you want everyone else to conform to your myopic worldview.

One, you openly ignored everything I have said in order to attribute motive that I don't have. I want the MSNBC kooks to have an equal place at the table with the Alex Jones kooks. Heritage Foundation's point of view should be treated as equally valid as BLM's. I don't want Trump OR Harris as gatekeepers, Jake Tapper OR Brannon Howse. I am calling for an end to trusting gatekeepers period.

Two, you claim there is no bias with Google, yet I once again searched "Conservative Resources" and got a list of Conservation Resources, mostly liberal leaning environmental orgs. Not one resource that I asked Google about. "Democrat Resources"? A whole slew of those. And, if you can't tell from my posts, I'm not one to be Googling Conservation Resources or environmentalist sites. That isn't in my history.

Point is, Google has a built-in bias in their algorithm and it is by design.

 

[JaySecrets]

An unbiased source absolutely does not err or report both sides of the US political system equally. An unbiased source would report facts with no bias. Good luck finding anyone who doesn't have any bias.

Google isn't creating information. They aren't dispensing information. I mean, probably something, but they just connect you to information from other internet sites. Google isn't a source. They didn't do any research. They don't publish peer-reviewed articles. They don't alter the information, since they literally just provide you a link. They provide an internet search function. They don't have a monopoly. There are many search platforms. People choose Google because they're the BEST search platform and have been for decades. It's just as easy to put Bing in there. Or Yahoo. Or whatever.

If you want your Christian nationalist nonsense to show up on Google, maybe get those content creators to do a better job of legitimizing their sites and their information. You can say stupid shit on the internet. That's something we still are allowed to do and seemingly is is protected as free speech in the US. But just because you say stupid shit on the internet, it doesn't grant you equal access to media to report it or Google to give it credence.

You are continuing to demonstrate that you have zero idea how Google operates or how to operate Google and like every other topic, you want everyone else to conform to your myopic worldview.

Is Fox a trusted news source?


Fox News is considered a generally unreliable source for its scientific and political coverage and its talk shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Fo...

Fox News - Wikipedia​

MORE RESULTS

Is CNN trustworthy?


Trust in CNN in the U.S. 2023

In a survey held in April 2023, 13 percent of Americans said that they found CNN to be a very trustworthy source of news and information. Opinions regarding the network's trustworthiness varied, with 21 percent of respondents saying that they did not trust CNN at all.Apr 9, 2024

https://www.statista.com › trust-cnn

Is NPR a reliable source?


Trust. A Harris telephone survey conducted in 2005 found that NPR was the most trusted news source in the United States. In 2014, Pew reported that, of adults who had heard of NPR, 55% of those polled trusted it; this was a similar level of listener trust as CNN, NBC, and ABC.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › NPR

Is CBS News trustworthy?


Overview. Ad Fontes Media rates CBS News (website) in the Middle category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability. CBS News (website) is the news division of the Columbia Broadcasting System, owned by Paramount Global and operated by National Amusements.

https://adfontesmedia.com › cbs-bia...

There's your "unbiased" Google algorithm. ​

 

[InThe312]

One, you openly ignored everything I have said in order to attribute motive that I don't have. I want the MSNBC kooks to have an equal place at the table with the Alex Jones kooks. Heritage Foundation's point of view should be treated as equally valid as BLM's. I don't want Trump OR Harris as gatekeepers, Jake Tapper OR Brannon Howse. I am calling for an end to trusting gatekeepers period.

Two, you claim there is no bias with Google, yet I once again searched "Conservative Resources" and got a list of Conservation Resources, mostly liberal leaning environmental orgs. Not one resource that I asked Google about. "Democrat Resources"? A whole slew of those. And, if you can't tell from my posts, I'm not one to be Googling Conservation Resources or environmentalist sites. That isn't in my history.

Point is, Google has a built-in bias in their algorithm and it is by design.

I haven't ignored anything you say. You're trying to craft everyone to your worldview.

Don't use Google. They are no longer a gatekeeper of information (even though they weren't otherwise anyway).

What you fail to comprehend is that they don't block kooks (your words), they just don't give them airtime...because no one else gives them airtime. You continue to not wrap your head around how Google works. Volume, quality of source will always beat some lunatic pissing in the wind. That's just how it works and I guarantee they don't give a flying fuck how you think it should work.

Personally, I have no problem finding any information on Google, whether it be biased towards my bias, or when I want to find lunatic shit you post. Easy peasy.

Oh and this still answers your second rant.