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

[JaySecrets]

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.

Actually answers nothing to an unbiased mind, but at least you stay on topic instead of making ad hominem attacks. Thanks for that.

 

[InThe312]

Actually answers nothing to an unbiased mind

Exists in the museum of the world, right next to unicorns.

 

[AlexBailey]

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.

That’s funny. You want Google to change its business model to accommodate your propaganda.

The company has its own policies about thresholds of veracity and what makes the cut for its search results but you want it to prioritize sources that don’t pass the smell test because you want your “alternative facts” to get as much attention as what they determine to be more relevant, and more accurate.

What do you want? Regulations for private business or a government takeover of the industry?

Are you conflicted?

 

[AlexBailey]

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. ​

Be smarter and be honest.

Ask the same exact question with the same wording for each news source.

Asking if Fox is “a trusted news source” is a different question than asking “is CNN trustworthy” or “is NPR a reliable source”.

The only fair comparison of results you got was how you asked about CNN and CBS the same way.

How do you not understand this?
It’s easy to see how you get unreliable comparisons.


BTW, the answers are going to vary and probably will not reflect what you want to hear, yet this doesn’t mean the answers are inaccurate.

 

[AlexBailey]

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.

Completely unregulated markets has been tried and was proven disastrous for many reasons.

See: Feudalism.

“Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

 

[ll74]

I Googled Jaysecrets and it told me that he's a tool and possibly also bB

I need to try Bing next

 

[InThe312]

I Googled Jaysecrets and it told me that he's a tool and possibly also bB

I need to try Bing next

Try "Jaysecrets poetry".

Appreciation for result #1.

 

[HisArpy]

Completely unregulated markets has been tried and was proven disastrous for many reasons.

See: Feudalism.

“Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Which is why anarchy doesn't work. Same reason is Antifa's ideology won't work either.

 

[JaySecrets]

That’s funny. You want Google to change its business model to accommodate your propaganda.

The company has its own policies about thresholds of veracity and what makes the cut for its search results but you want it to prioritize sources that don’t pass the smell test because you want your “alternative facts” to get as much attention as what they determine to be more relevant, and more accurate.

What do you want? Regulations for private business or a government takeover of the industry?

Are you conflicted?

I have never said there should never be regulations on businesses. I am actually concerned that there isn't, for example, some level of security regulation applied across the board to the private companies that make up the nation's power grid. We are very vulnerable because of a lack of regulation in that one area. Companies shouldn't be allowed to have small children crawl into tight gear spaces. Minors should not be allowed to serve at bars. I'm not anti-regulation. I'm anti OVER-regulation. That's the normal Conservative stance. If these companies are the MAIN source of all information Americans digest, and those companies have monopolistic power to literally sway belief and worldview, determine elections, and decide what people should think is true, yes, there should be regulations to ensure they can't use algorithms to slant the outcomes of information searches. Slanting them the way the do is antithetical to a free press. Instead, they become a conglomerate that resembles the Ministry of Truth. Orwell warned us. We just didn't listen, and now it is here.

 

[JaySecrets]

Completely unregulated markets has been tried and was proven disastrous for many reasons.

See: Feudalism.

“Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Fully free market is not feudalism. It's Capitalism. That you made that example is a bit scary, because you just made the exact argument Karl Marx did.

 

[JaySecrets]

Try "Jaysecrets poetry".

Appreciation for result #1.

Y'all are free to check out my poetry. I don't hide it. And if I have my work being approved and published by Poets Laureate, I really am not overly concerned that YOU don't like it.

 

[InThe312]

Y'all are free to check out my poetry. I don't hide it. And if I have my work being approved and published by Poets Laureate, I really am not overly concerned that YOU don't like it.

Lol, if you bothered, you would know the #1 result on Google has nothing to do with your poetry.

 

[JaySecrets]

Lol, if you bothered, you would know the #1 result on Google has nothing to do with your poetry.

I have the guy you were responding to on mute, so did not know that was the context. Thought you were talking about on here. Ad hominem attack anyway, which automatically shows your position as weak by its very usage.

 

[InThe312]

I have the guy you were responding to on mute, so did not know that was the context. Thought you were talking about on here. Ad hominem attack anyway, which automatically shows your position as weak by its very usage.

Um...OK.

I'm hurt. You're mean.

 

[JaySecrets]

Um...OK.

I'm hurt. You're mean.

That's not even the subtext of what I am saying. If you had any inkling of a classic education, you would know that when you move away from simply addressing the topic at hand and start making personal attacks on the person you are debating, it is a sign of either a weak position or an inability to defend it on the merits of the position alone. You have, at that point, lost the debate because you have proven the other side has either the stronger position, or at least the stronger argument.

 

[Lazaran]

And 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.

They didn’t want to face the ridicule and be taken to task from those who evaluate “All Sides” itself - for the very reason that you and InThe312 mentioned.

"All Sides" didn’t want to lose credibility (imho) , and yet, that is exactly what they accomplished.

 

[AlexBailey]

Fully free market is not feudalism. It's Capitalism. That you made that example is a bit scary, because you just made the exact argument Karl Marx did.

Oh really then? So what do you suppose eventually happens with capitalism with no regulation?

What drives the cost of labor when jobs are few? What will laborers be willing to do and how much will they ‘demand’ for services when robotics are cheaper and more reliable?

There are now warehouse robots that can replace most of Amazon’s warehouse workers - or any other workers. Grocery stores? Seen self check out? Once the shelves can be stocked by machine how many employees will be needed to run a supermarket? The tech exists now. It’s just a matter of investing.

How many jobs are being impacted by AI?

Free market, baby. Who needs people if AI and robots can do it?

Who gets to determine what regulations are necessary? Those who have wealth? You? Religious leaders? Which ones?

Democracy may not give YOU the results YOU want, but it does respond to the will of the people. Which people? All of the people who vote - unless of course you have some shithead who says it’s all Fake News and that the elections were stolen when all evidence says otherwise and is able to appeal to enough people who are mad about having to compromise rather than have the ‘freedom’ to do whatever the fuck they want… oops.

Did you say “some regulation is necessary”?

 

[AlexBailey]

They didn’t want to face the ridicule and be taken to task from those who evaluate “All Sides” itself - for the very reason that you and InThe312 mentioned.

"All Sides" didn’t want to lose credibility (imho) , and yet, that is exactly what they accomplished.

Right? And all I did was check the article and analyze the information critically. - a simple part of a fact checking process.

It’s often easy to check the fact checking sites too. Simply distrusting them out of hand is just as lazy as blindly trusting them, though it can certainly be handy to check them for a quick reference.

 

[AlexBailey]

Which is why anarchy doesn't work. Same reason is Antifa's ideology won't work either.

I agree about anarchy not being viable but I wonder what you believe Antifa’s ideology is.

Do you have the notion that Antifa has some sort of organizational hierarchy and common stated ideology? If so, what is it?

 

[AlexBailey]

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.

.

There you go again.

You still think “conservative” is the antithesis of “democrat”?

Get a clue. I already tried to give you one but I see it went over your head.



Did you conveniently ignore this post?
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...o-doubt-the-gatekeepers.1614986/post-99258516

If you simply can’t grasp the concepts I apologize for returning the insults.

 

[JaySecrets]

Oh really then? So what do you suppose eventually happens with capitalism with no regulation?

In theory, the markets decide, and the markets are made up of people. In reality, people end up giving in to the basest of greed. That's why I never said no regulation is needed. I said limited and proper regulation as fits within the purview of a constitutional limited government by and for the people... A government that freedom comes from God, not government, and that its proper role is do preserve those freedoms and that's it.

What drives the cost of labor when jobs are few? What will laborers be willing to do and how much will they ‘demand’ for services when robotics are cheaper and more reliable?

This is an old and tired argument. People said the same thing about every work technology that came along, from the car engine, to the steam drill, to the internet, But someone has to build the robots, maintain them, program them, fix them, ship them, and cover the things they can't do. Even welding shops that use robots use people to repair the robots' bad welds, finish them when they miss spots, change tips out, ect. And a robot still can't do as clean and pretty a weld as a person. The reality is that there will always be jobs for those not too lazy to work. And if you can't FIND a job, CREATE one or find someone who IS creating them.

There are now warehouse robots that can replace most of Amazon’s warehouse workers - or any other workers. Grocery stores? Seen self check out? Once the shelves can be stocked by machine how many employees will be needed to run a supermarket? The tech exists now. It’s just a matter of investing.

How many jobs are being impacted by AI?

Just because the PLACE the job is shifts, doesn't mean the jobs have gone away, just the nature of the job and the location.

Free market, baby. Who needs people if AI and robots can do it?

Socialism is needed because of AI? Now THAT is a novel and creative argument. Flawed as hell, but amusing.

Who gets to determine what regulations are necessary? Those who have wealth? You? Religious leaders? Which ones?

The Constitution of the United States as originally written, I will even give you the line:

​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Follow the clear principles of the Constitution and the Declaration, as intended by its original writers and signers, as explained in their own writings and in the Federalist Papers, you won't have a problem.

Democracy may not give YOU the results YOU want, but it does respond to the will of the people. Which people? All of the people who vote - unless of course you have some shithead who says it’s all Fake News and that the elections were stolen when all evidence says otherwise and is able to appeal to enough people who are mad about having to compromise rather than have the ‘freedom’ to do whatever the fuck they want… oops.

Oh.. Yeah. I remember that. That was Al Gore... Wait, no... Hillary Clinton... No, Stacey Abrams.... Wait, I'm confused. Who are you talking about again?

Did you say “some regulation is necessary”?

Yes, as expounded on already

 

[JaySecrets]

There you go again.

You still think “conservative” is the antithesis of “democrat”?

Get a clue. I already tried to give you one but I see it went over your head.



Did you conveniently ignore this post?
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...o-doubt-the-gatekeepers.1614986/post-99258516

If you simply can’t grasp the concepts I apologize for returning the insults.

Not ignore, but miss with answering the flood f comments. You are each giving individual responses, remember? I am trying to give full and fair answer to as many of you as possible. You have far less to type and read. If I miss one of the WAY more to respond to than you have, then it isn't because I ignored you.

That said, I anticipated that objection. You are right Republican resources are not the same as Conservative, and Democrat is not the same as Liberal, though in the case of the latter, it's getting hard to tell the difference. And I don't care about Republican resources. Both parties have sold out to various brands of Socialism and Globalism. The opposite of Conservative is indeed Liberal. So I did look up exactly that. After a couple entries about resources in the town of Liberal, KS (I was amused that there is such a town), and an entry or to about the Aussie Liberal Party, It moves to exactly what I was looking for: liberal political resources. Ran the test. Your gatekeepers failed miserably.

 

[Lazaran]

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’m gonna hate myself for even trying, but…

First: JaySecretions should Google “DEMOCRATIC PARTY resources”.

Second: JaySecretions should Google “REPUBLICAN PARTY resources”.

ANNNNNND…SURPRISE!!!

Google ACTUALLY appears to be biased towards REPUBLICANS in the search results. (A more comprehensive list of resources are listed in the first entry FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY compared to the first entry for the Democratic Party.)



Oops



JaySecretions

 

[Lazaran]

Not ignore, but miss with answering the flood f comments. You are each giving individual responses, remember? I am trying to give full and fair answer to as many of you as possible. You have far less to type and read. If I miss one of the WAY more to respond to than you have, then it isn't because I ignored you.

That said, I anticipated that objection. You are right Republican resources are not the same as Conservative, and Democrat is not the same as Liberal, though in the case of the latter, it's getting hard to tell the difference. And I don't care about Republican resources. Both parties have sold out to various brands of Socialism and Globalism. The opposite of Conservative is indeed Liberal. So I did look up exactly that. After a couple entries about resources in the town of Liberal, KS (I was amused that there is such a town), and an entry or to about the Aussie Liberal Party, It moves to exactly what I was looking for: liberal political resources. Ran the test. Your gatekeepers failed miserably.

Maybe JaySecretions should just Google “Liberal” and then Google “Conservative”. and compare results???



Of course, that ^SIMPLE AND LOGICAL exercise wouldn’t yield a result that would confirm / support JaySecretions’ bullshit narrative, so it is being ignored (dismissed) out of hand.



JaySecretions

 

[AlexBailey]

This is an old and tired argument. People said the same thing about every work technology that came along, from the car engine, to the steam drill, to the internet, But someone has to build the robots, maintain them, program them, fix them, ship them, and cover the things they can't do. Even welding shops that use robots use people to repair the robots' bad welds, finish them when they miss spots, change tips out, ect. And a robot still can't do as clean and pretty a weld as a person. The reality is that there will always be jobs for those not too lazy to work. And if you can't FIND a job, CREATE one or find someone who IS creating them.

Technology is an “old and tired argument”?

Really? You don’t recognize how sharply the curve of development has become? Machines design, build, and program machines. Fewer and fewer people are needed to build greater wealth than ever before. We drove horses and steam engines a few generations ago. AI and autonomous robotics have just begun to scratch the surface of what they will become.

What manufacturing, material harvesting and handling, what transportation jobs will still be needed?

Armies are about to become robotic. The war in Ukraine has been pushing drone technology beyond what was commonly in use two years ago.

The internal combustion engine, the steam drill, and the internet had their impact but they have only had an effect for a relatively short amount of time. The newer technologies are so much more advanced, capable and able to go so much further toward replacing humans than the things you mentioned. If you don’t see this you’re a fool. An “old and tired” fool.

Have you paid any attention to modern technology? Do you have no concept of how rapidly the rate of development has been increasing?


Our forefathers were men, not gods or oracles, yet they gave us a constitution and bill of rights with mechanisms to allow it to be changed and amended in order to serve the purpose it was designed for.

What was the purpose of the constitution? It’s written in the preamble. That’s not just empty words, it describes what the framers intended it to do.

Demanding that it not be able to change is counter to its design and defeating of its purpose.