Google is Rigged

[magicalmoments]

CENSORED! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech

By Ashley Rae Goldenberg and Dan Gainor | April 16, 2018 9:06 AM EDT


The Media Research Center has undertaken an extensive study of the problem at major tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube — and the results are far more troubling than most conservatives realize. Here are some of the key findings:

Twitter Leads in Censorship: Project Veritas recently had caught Twitter staffers admitting on hidden camera that they had been censoring conservatives through a technique known as shadow banning, where users think their content is getting seen widely, but it’s not. The staffers had justified it by claiming the accounts had been automated if they had words such as “America” and “God.” In 2016, Twitter had attempted to manipulate election-related tweets using the hashtags “#PodestaEmails” and “#DNCLeak.” The site also restricts pro-life ads from Live Action and even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), but allows Planned Parenthood advertisements.

Facebook’s Trending Feed Has Been Hiding Conservative Topics: A 2016 Gizmodo story had warned of Facebook’s bias. It had detailed claims by former employees that Facebook’s news curators had been instructed to hide conservative content from the “trending” section, which supposedly only features news users find compelling. Topics that had been blacklisted included Mitt Romney, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Rand Paul. On the other hand, the term “Black Lives Matter” had also been placed into the trending section even though it was not actually trending. Facebook had also banned at least one far right European organization but had not released information on any specific statements made by the group that warranted the ban.

Google Search Aids Democrats: Google and YouTube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt had assisted Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats. One study had found 2016 campaign searches were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. Even the liberal website Slate had revealed the search engine’s results had favored both Clinton and Democratic candidates. Google also had fired engineer James Damore for criticizing the company’s “Ideological Echo Chamber.” The company had claimed he had been fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Damore is suing Google, saying it mistreats whites, males and conservatives.

YouTube Is Shutting Down Conservative Videos: Google’s YouTube site had created its own problems with conservative content. YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels “by mistake” to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. YouTube’s special Creators for Change section is devoted to people using their “voices for social change” and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther. The site’s very own YouTube page and Twitter account celebrate progressive attitudes, including uploading videos about “inspiring” gay and trans people and sharing the platform’s support for DACA.

The rest here for those interested:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/c...ed-how-online-media-companies-are-suppressing

Fake news totally riddled with alternative facts.

 

[Luk]

Google

IS

evil.

[/INDENT]


_____________________________

A very long but eye-opening article:
The Case Against Google


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html
by Charles Duhigg

...Google has succeeded where Genghis Khan, communism and Esperanto all failed: It dominates the globe. Though estimates vary by region, the company now accounts for an estimated 87 percent of online searches worldwide. It processes trillions of queries each year, which works out to at least 5.5 billion a day, 63,000 a second. So odds are good that sometime in the last week, or last hour, or last 10 minutes, you’ve used Google to answer a nagging question or to look up a minor fact, and barely paused to consider how near-magical it is that almost any bit of knowledge can be delivered to you faster than you can type the request. If you’re old enough to remember the internet before 1998, when Google was founded, you’ll recall what it was like when searching online involved AltaVista or Lycos and consistently delivered a healthy dose of spam or porn. (Pity the early web enthusiasts who innocently asked Jeeves about “amateurs” or “steel.”)...

In other words, it’s very likely you love Google, or are at least fond of Google, or hardly think about Google, the same way you hardly think about water systems or traffic lights or any of the other things you rely on every day. Therefore you might have been surprised when headlines began appearing last year suggesting that Google and its fellow tech giants were threatening everything from our economy to democracy itself.


(much) more...


​

[/INDENT]

You should move to China. I hear they don't even know how to google.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Some of why this very observable result happens has nothing to do with any grand conspiracy, some of it is very much because of the market that the media complex is. It is a vast echo chamber of a few select talking points which are disseminated and then parroted almost word for word across multiple platforms through multiple sites all agreeing with each other.

Darn skippy, sporto. Just look at Sinclair Broadcasting.

 

[Luk]

Darn skippy, sporto. Just look at Sinclair Broadcasting.

That conglomerate should be chastised and destroyed. Whiny little bitches won't even comment when you throw this in their face while they cry about fake news.

 

[Aglaopheme]

That conglomerate should be chastised and destroyed. Whiny little bitches won't even comment when you throw this in their face while they cry about fake news.

Rarely do they comment about an actual topic. It’s all about the swerve.

 

[HelpImLost]

I just feel like the whole world is starting to ( if not already) go mad and loopy.

 

[Dribble]

It's cute that you think Google's top search results are based on "facts."

If that were even remotely true I would have to join Phrodeau's religion. On a good day Google is excellent for reinforcing confirmation bias and providing citations that agree with you. On a bad day Google is outright proselytizing and actively suppressing information.

You are aware that you can pay to have Google say nice things about you, right?

It is cute you cant disseminate between sites that contain facts and sites that dont. A search engine is only as smart as the searcher.

Facts....truths...have a way of floating to the surface if you throw your net out there. Sorry you struggle so hard w your searches

 

[Que]

It is cute you cant disseminate between sites that contain facts and sites that dont. A search engine is only as smart as the searcher.

Facts....truths...have a way of floating to the surface if you throw your net out there. Sorry you struggle so hard w your searches

*You* are the one that said, "Well there has to be a search engine that links to non-existent FACTS..." clearly implying that Google links to existing facts. As if Google isn't just as likely as the non-existent search engine to lead you to non-existent facts.

I'm the one pointing out the facts has nothing to do with whether Google does or doesn't like a particular item.

You are the one suggesting that it does.

It doesn't.

A "searcher" doesn't have some magic way to get Google to return different results than the Search terms that he puts in. Google doesn't say oh well this is dribble he likes facts so I'm going to give him a bunch of facts..

Google returns when it returns and only after you actually read the items and it suggests do you have any idea whether it's giving you fax or fake news..

So no. The skill of the Searcher has nothing to do with what Google decides to give you based on your search terms

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Poor lil queef getting bitch slapped around again. No wonder his wife left him, hes a pathetic excuse for a man. smh

 

[Comshaw]

CENSORED! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech

By Ashley Rae Goldenberg and Dan Gainor | April 16, 2018 9:06 AM EDT


The Media Research Center has undertaken an extensive study of the problem at major tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube — and the results are far more troubling than most conservatives realize. Here are some of the key findings:

Twitter Leads in Censorship: Project Veritas recently had caught Twitter staffers admitting on hidden camera that they had been censoring conservatives through a technique known as shadow banning, where users think their content is getting seen widely, but it’s not. The staffers had justified it by claiming the accounts had been automated if they had words such as “America” and “God.” In 2016, Twitter had attempted to manipulate election-related tweets using the hashtags “#PodestaEmails” and “#DNCLeak.” The site also restricts pro-life ads from Live Action and even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), but allows Planned Parenthood advertisements.

Facebook’s Trending Feed Has Been Hiding Conservative Topics: A 2016 Gizmodo story had warned of Facebook’s bias. It had detailed claims by former employees that Facebook’s news curators had been instructed to hide conservative content from the “trending” section, which supposedly only features news users find compelling. Topics that had been blacklisted included Mitt Romney, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Rand Paul. On the other hand, the term “Black Lives Matter” had also been placed into the trending section even though it was not actually trending. Facebook had also banned at least one far right European organization but had not released information on any specific statements made by the group that warranted the ban.

Google Search Aids Democrats: Google and YouTube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt had assisted Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats. One study had found 2016 campaign searches were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. Even the liberal website Slate had revealed the search engine’s results had favored both Clinton and Democratic candidates. Google also had fired engineer James Damore for criticizing the company’s “Ideological Echo Chamber.” The company had claimed he had been fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Damore is suing Google, saying it mistreats whites, males and conservatives.

YouTube Is Shutting Down Conservative Videos: Google’s YouTube site had created its own problems with conservative content. YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels “by mistake” to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. YouTube’s special Creators for Change section is devoted to people using their “voices for social change” and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther. The site’s very own YouTube page and Twitter account celebrate progressive attitudes, including uploading videos about “inspiring” gay and trans people and sharing the platform’s support for DACA.

The rest here for those interested:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/c...ed-how-online-media-companies-are-suppressing

Actually if you want to read the report used as a base for the article and that all of that came from, it's here:

https://cdn.mrc.org/static/censored/censored-howonlinemediacompaniesaresuppressingconservativespeech-digitalcopy.pdf?utm_source=dct&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=caoc0818&utm_content=txtlink&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpoaVlqYzBNek14TmpBMSIsInQiOiJBZkFSYzRJZmpzaDZnSG5cL0NQbFQ3ZGRNNzhrOUIwRHFxcHVFTVozOTREUTdoUTliS3lhb0VCZVhlY1o1cXNDSUhYMTdNdGxwT1ZWWFB3MDA2NndpbXFWTTU2dTdkXC9wVVdjMDMrSWwyN3lMbHh1OWE1WFZsWmI4a3BpQ0w2M1hQIn0**D

Read it and what you will find is a few (very few) facts to back all the opinions, suppositions and unsupported charges contained there. Most (95% at a guess) of the report is nothing but opinion and theory.

I'm sure there are those who work for Google, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook that would like to (and some have probably tried) to subvert conservative content. But I do not believe that those businesses named do so as company policy.

That being said I'm also sure that opinions quoted as fact, theory's presented as hard truth have been and should be deleted. Alex Jones is a great example of that.

Everyone has the right to their opinion. Everyone has a right to spotlight facts, AS LONG AS THEY ARE VERIFIABLE AND TRUE. The rub comes in when people like Jones begin to try to change the narrative with lies quoted as fact.

I went to Google and did a search on the single word "Trump". I did it four times since yesterday and guess what? The links that came up were different each time, EXCEPT FOR Trump on Twitter and the Trump for president web site were the top two each time. Hmmmm....figure that.

On another note, Que, I'm still waiting with my apology when you provide proof that your accusations are true. You know the ones I'm talking about, Clinton was guilty of obstruction of justice and arranged a job for Monika to keep her quiet. The problem is the longer you wait, the less credibility you have left. You and the Donald...tick...tock...tick...tock...

'nuff said


Comshaw

 

[toeskr]

Rarely do they comment about an actual topic. It’s all about the swerve.

Where is cuke going to get the lawnmower gas?

 

[Dribble]

*You* are the one that said, "Well there has to be a search engine that links to non-existent FACTS..." clearly implying that Google links to existing facts. As if Google isn't just as likely as the non-existent search engine to lead you to non-existent facts.

I'm the one pointing out the facts has nothing to do with whether Google does or doesn't like a particular item.

You are the one suggesting that it does.

It doesn't.

A "searcher" doesn't have some magic way to get Google to return different results than the Search terms that he puts in. Google doesn't say oh well this is dribble he likes facts so I'm going to give him a bunch of facts..

Google returns when it returns and only after you actually read the items and it suggests do you have any idea whether it's giving you fax or fake news..

So no. The skill of the Searcher has nothing to do with what Google decides to give you based on your search terms

I am sorry our education system left you behind. Let me lower my level of communication so that you may follow. That was my fault...i forgot to whom i was responding.

Your buddy Donald is on record for complaining about google because basic searches are not supporting his agenda. His own words. So my statement was about him desiring a search engine that returns his agenda...and not necessarily facts.

The internet is full of truths and non-truths. How can one disseminate among them? How can one separate opinions from facts? That is done by how you enter your search. See...all a search engine does is scan for keywords...words that are placed there by the website to bring in searches to their sites. So if you want....let us say cancer treatment for non-hodgkin's lymphoma...i will add the word mayo....or maybe nhs....or something similar to get rid of que's backwoods treatment. See how searches work?

Also, see comshaw's post how simple searches gives back different results.

 

[doowdniw]

Also, who doesn’t know how google works?

The same guy who doesn't know how to use a speaker phone for a tele-conference, apparently.

 

[trysail]

...In your social media spaces, call attention to Google’s giving preference to government sources and de-ranking sites and blogs that criticize or call for reforms — basically demoting the voice of the people in favor of the voice of the government.

Do the same pointing out Google’s biasing search results so that the Big Guys that hold Mainstream Views come out on top — and important minority views are buried under the dross. All this instead of letting the Internet decide through popularity-based rankings.

Use any search engine other than Google and encourage your families, friends, neighbor, businesses to switch default search engines to something else — anything else. Chiefio has an excellent essay about how even DuckDuckGo is biased (because it uses Google’s database) and offers an alternative https://www.mojeek.com/

[Don’t think Google biases search? Try this “How do I change the default search engine in my browser?” in a Google search. For me, the whole first screen-full of links tell you how to switch to Google.]

If you have a blog and wish to join a BoycottGoogleSearch movement, where any attempt to refer to your site from a Google domain returns a re-direct to a BoycottGoogleSearch page (which explains why we boycott Google) please contact me directly at my first name (Kip) at the domain i4 decimal net. If there is enough support, I will set up the infra-structure and supply code to put on your pages...

-Kip Hansen
​

​

 

[SpeareChucker]

I used dogpile until my VPN flagged it as unreliable.



This is a quandary.

 

[Rightguide]

I used dogpile until my VPN flagged it as unreliable.



This is a quandary.

Try DuckDuckGo.

 

[Luk]

Try DuckDuckGo.

Pay attention, vettebirther. Tryfail just told you that it uses the same algorithm as Google.

 

[Dr. Groove]

Sounds about right.

Maybe trysail can graph the amount of idiot comments Trump tweets about.

Trump's Twitter Graph:

https://previews.123rf.com/images/karenr/karenr1207/karenr120700056/14605536-blank-3d-pie-chart-isolated-on-a-white-background-and-empty-for-your-text-to-be-added.jpg

Blue: Idiotic drivel derived from and poorly attempting to mask vapid intellect
Red: Racist nonsense
Green: Hateful name calling to distract from blue and red

 

[SpeareChucker]

Try DuckDuckGo.

Not DuckDuckGoose?

Is that a Russian collusion?

 

[Comshaw]

Not DuckDuckGoose?

Is that a Russian collusion?

Nope, but what's good for the goose is good for the goosee. Millions spent on investigating Hillary. I didn't hear any "that's fake news" back then. And why is that? "BECAUSE SHE'S GUILTY" comes the cry, even though it was a thorough investigation with the conservative right in control. But low, nothing chargeable was found. So why all the whining about the Mueller investigation? Why not let it play out IF there is nothing there to find? Why not let it come to a finally and then sneer at the snowflakes when nothing is found? Could it be that way back in the recesses of the ultra conservative brain they know that all kinds of things, nasty, underhanded and illegal things will come to light and they do not want that to happen?

Leave it be, let it go. Let's see what comes of it, or if you're afraid of the conclusions that will be reached, afraid of the slimy things that will come to light, please by all means carry on whining and trying to subvert the process.


Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

Nope, but what's good for the goose is good for the goosee. Millions spent on investigating Hillary. I didn't hear any "that's fake news" back then. And why is that? "BECAUSE SHE'S GUILTY" comes the cry, even though it was a thorough investigation with the conservative right in control. But low, nothing chargeable was found. So why all the whining about the Mueller investigation? Why not let it play out IF there is nothing there to find? Why not let it come to a finally and then sneer at the snowflakes when nothing is found? Could it be that way back in the recesses of the ultra conservative brain they know that all kinds of things, nasty, underhanded and illegal things will come to light and they do not want that to happen?

Leave it be, let it go. Let's see what comes of it, or if you're afraid of the conclusions that will be reached, afraid of the slimy things that will come to light, please by all means carry on whining and trying to subvert the process.


Comshaw

Let's turn the FBI/DOJ /Intel Assets loose on the next Democrat candidate and listen to Comshaw lead the stampede to the wailing wall.

 

[bestone4ever]

Let's turn the FBI/DOJ /Intel Assets loose on the next Democrat candidate and listen to Comshaw lead the stampede to the wailing wall.

The wailing wall has been flooded with republican tears.

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Let's turn the FBI/DOJ /Intel Assets loose on the next Democrat candidate and listen to Comshaw lead the stampede to the wailing wall.

The FBI doesnt investigate innocent people. Didnt trump say something like that once?

 

[spacekowboy]

It is left wing trickery for me to be able to look up who the costume designer was for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid.
It's also a deep state conspiracy for me to be able to research fly tying techniques from the comfort of my living room.
Lastly, it is a communist pinko lefty whackadoo plot that allows me to find smoothie recipies.

 

[schism666]

The FBI doesnt investigate innocent people. Didnt trump say something like that once?

he also said anyone under investigation shouldn't be president. it's a good thing most americans don't consider him to be president or american