re: Google does not like TigerDroppings - blacklists it!

quote:

---

Who?

---

Kibbles. For some reason, a website interviewed her. In the interview she talked about how she has been the victim of cyber bullying by this website.

Found the article: Here's How to Win the Civil Rights Social Justice War
The article has so much

quote:

---

Okay link them

---

I'll go ahead and give you a few, but you must be honest when I ask if you a) have never heard of this stuff until now, and b) ever really tried to look into it.

This guy recently testified before congress

LINK

Google claims they never did any of the things discussed here, so I'll let you decide whether you believe that, and more importantly, whether you think the discussion was totally worthless since they also claim their systems don't allow manipulation.

LINK

Now explain to me the logic of believing an industry staffed overwhelmingly with people of a particular political belief system, with the means to do manipulate information, wouldn't do so to shift the zeitgeist in their preferred direction. You'll have to argue against human nature and the inescapable nature of unconscious or implicit bias.

There are also plenty of anecdotal examples daily of this stuff, if you're into anecdotes. I'll let you look for those if you want.

nm

quote:

---

demonstrably false conspiracy theories such as pizzagate

---

and yet every left leaning website in the world that propagated the Russia fairy tale, which you believed and still believe to this day, is not listed.

a lot of local news and scoops break there though

Yes usually a tweet or Reuters or such. My point is that the lovely posters here aren't the ones breaking that. They're bringing it from that other source.

It's "breaking" here shortly after it's tweeted out and while actual news services are in the process of confirming the story before they run it. None of us have to do that before we post here, which can lead to misinformation or confusion especially in developing stories.

quote:

---

Why didn't I see that when I first clicked on this thread instead of reading all of the replies? Granted, there were some hard truths pointed out in this thread but, still, anything from Project Veritas should be taken with a grain of salt. James O'Keefe, the site's founder, is a grade A piece of shite liar.

---

It's kind of like taking Dinesh D'Souza serious as a "historian".

quote:

---

What's ironic about the entire exercise of humoring Drac's bad faith discussion strategy by providing the links is how hard it was to locate these examples on Google. I had to know the name of the researcher and the specific story about the internal e-mails to get them in a search result.

Simply Googling "examples of Google/Facebook/Twitter bias" only returns articles about how they aren't biased. Imagine that.

---

Well it worked. He's never coming back to the thread. When he says "link?", that's usually his last comment in the thread. It's his white flag. Once you can prove him wrong, poof.

I’ll address these in reverse:

quote:

---

There are also plenty of anecdotal examples daily of this stuff

---

These examples that may or may not stem from anything political. For example a YouTube personality may be demonetized or a Twitter user banned not because of their political beliefs but their behavior. That is NOT targeting conservatives yet is cited as such regularly.

quote:

---

Now explain to me the logic of believing an industry staffed overwhelmingly with people of a particular political belief system, with the means to do manipulate information, wouldn't do so to shift the zeitgeist in their preferred direction.

---

I’m sure on an individual basis this has happened, and I’m not defending that, but the idea that as a company Google or whoever is thinking up ways to attack conservative thought just is not born out in any kind of meaningful way, yet the right portrays them as one of their boogeymen to keep people like you fearful.

Your second link was behind a paywall so I couldn’t read the whole thing, but was published by WSJ, a right wing media source looking to fan the flames of fear as discussed. Notice the (public portion) simply lists “employees”. How many employees? Which employees? What policies does Google have in place to address partisanship in its algorithms? It could have been 2 janitors for all we know and WSJ, again being a right wing media outlet, has an interest in sensationalizing something like this.

The first link you gave was a lot more interesting.

quote:

---

Google claims they never did any of the things discussed here, so I'll let you decide whether you believe that, and more importantly, whether you think the discussion was totally worthless since they also claim their systems don't allow manipulation.

---

I don’t think the discussion is worthless, and this article at least has some actual peer reviewed data behind it. But as the article itself says, progressive groups have also been targeted so it’s really not accurate to say it’s so much anti-conservatives than it is pro-establishment.

Further, much of the article talks about what Google “can” do and less about what it has done. Regardless I agree with Elizabeth Warren that, on a macro level, we should be having more serious conversations about the role big tech plays in all our lives. The issue I have is the right frequently distorting and lying not only about the focus of this issue but the effects. It’s just another victim play.