Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously
from the this-is-not-the-bias-you-are-looking-for dept
In an article picked up by Drudge Report and then tweeted by President Donald Trump himself, PJ Media editor Paula Bolyard makes the shocking claim that Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President.
In supporting this allegation, she goes to Google and looks through the first hundred listings on the search engine results page. Therein, she finds that 96 percent of results for "Trump" are from liberal media outlets. Bolyard remarks:
I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today
She adds that other than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, traditional right-leaning outlets didn't make the cut:
PJ Media did not appear in the first 100 results, nor did National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State, or any other conservative-leaning sites except the two listed above.
Aha! A big tech company caught red handed pushing its progressive agenda. Well...not so fast. Rather than uncovering compelling evidence of bias, this article's author and its promoters merely reveal their ignorance of how search engines work.
First, the author seems to conflate Google Search and Google News, two products which use different algorithms and serve different functions. Google News is a searchable news aggregator and app (with some overt editorial functions), whereas Google Search tries to give users the most useful and relevant information in response to a query.
In order to determine what constitutes a relevant and useful result, search engines use complex algorithms to rank the quality of different pages based on a variety of signals such as keywords, authoritativeness, freshness or site architecture. A big part of this quality determination is based on outside links to a site – an idea going back to Larry Page and Sergey Brin's work at Stanford in the late 1990s that culminated in the creation of the PageRank algorithm.
Page and Brin realized that incoming links to a site served as a proxy for quality markers like authoritativeness, trustworthiness and popularity. Today, Google Search is much more complex, utilizing complex machine-learning functions like RankBrain and an evolving set of algorithms with names like Hummingbird, Panda, Penguin and Pigeon. However, incoming links are still a key factor. Additionally, while Google uses manual quality raters to test new algorithm changes, they do not use them on live search results.
Google News' approach to ranking results is also driven by algorithms that use a number of the same signals (you can get an idea from their patent), with a couple exceptions where manual input is used for editorial features, major events, and cross-over results from Google Search for particular topics.
With this in mind, it should be no great surprise that outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post trounce outlets like PJ Media, National Review, and the Weekly Standard in organic search. The sites in the latter group don't have metrics that support them rising to the top of the search algorithm. Of course, PJ Media found Fox and WSJ weren't affected by this "bias" because their numbers are actually comparable to the former group of "left-wing" outlets (see below).
(Data from Alexa.com)
This approach to ranking quality isn't just a Google thing. If you look at competitors like DuckDuckGo or Bing (which PJ Media didn't seem to bother doing), you're going to see pretty similar results. Maybe this says something about the media landscape. But it's not a good reason to storm Mountain View with pitchforks.
PJ Media's conspiracy-mongering is based on an avoidable misunderstanding that could throw gasoline on the techlash and lead to policies that chill American innovation (although at least for now, conservatives still think a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet is a dumb idea).
It's worth saying that libertarians and conservatives aren't totally unreasonable in wanting to investigate whether they're getting fair treatment by tech companies. After all, Silicon Valley is a very liberal place that doesn't always reflect their norms or values (I also say this as someone with generally right-leaning views who has worked for organizations like the Cato Institute and R Street). That being said, if you're going to make an allegation that there's a big conspiracy, you should do your due diligence. This means taking time to understand the underlying technology before jumping to conclusions.
On Google's part, given all of the tensions around bias lately, they would probably be wise to be more transparent about how their news algorithm works and do more proactive outreach to avoid future misunderstandings.
Zach Graves is Head of Policy for Lincoln Network
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: algorithms, bias, content moderation, donald trump, free speech, google news, journalism, news, search
Companies: google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Hmm... this brings a whole new (and rather sinister) perspective to Tony Hoare's famous quote that
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
These people are ignorant about everything. Did we honestly expect the exception to the rule was going to be complicated site-ranking algorithms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use SEO to manage that reputation
So what tea leaves should conservative websites be reading? That there are a lot fewer people reading the conservative point of view than they would like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use SEO to manage that reputation
I read the National Review and have caught them outright lying about the NHS (we have private healthcare provision in the UK, ergo no monopoly) and trolling women, saying they ought to be hanged if they have an abortion. Given the number of women in the US who have had the procedure, imagine an Appian Way style line of bodies hanging from poles all the way down Route 66.
I haven't even started on the sheer harsh judgementalism in the tone of the posts — and the comments. That this is putting readers off shouldn't surprise them.
I still read National Review on the grounds that even a stopped clock is right twice a day but I'm glad they got rid of Kevin D. Williamson. That jerk is responsible for the two examples listed above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use SEO to manage that reputation
LOL - good one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious News
I thought Breitbart was just a Nazi-propaganda site doing comedy pieces about the jew conspiracy - not exactly a serious news source. (via News or SEO.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious News
That looks like a pretty good reason to me for any legitimate search engine to not rank their content too highly as 'news'.
They're really just a right wing blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious News
Gary opined -- "I thought Breitbart was just a Nazi-propaganda site doing comedy pieces about the jew conspiracy"
Um Gary, dude, sorry to break it to you but Breitbart was literally founded by two Jews, is named after a Jew, and still has a Jewish CEO. And being pro-Israel is literally part of it's founding ethos.
And you have the ignorance to call it "Nazi-propaganda site doing comedy pieces about the jew conspiracy" ?
You're literally a poster child for the narcissistic bias and self-absorbed stupidity that Silicon Valley is famous for.
Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breitbart's Jewish connections
Considering Breitbart's willingness to back authoritarian officials and a corporate oligarchy, it sounds like its administration didn't learn enough from the last holocaust to seek to prevent another one.
Breitbart is an embarrassment to the never again oath, unless they're only seeking to keep themselves off the purge list...no even then they're being short sighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious News
So what ..... are they not allowed to do nazi propaganda pieces about the Jewish Conspiracy? Why is this?
Would that be over the top for you or would that give you a narcissistic bias and self-absorbed stupidity that breitbart is known for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm... this brings a whole new (and rather sinister) perspective to Tony Hoare's famous quote that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect data science is something like physical science
The more accurate you try to be, the more outrageously complicated it gets, to the point that few (if any) can understand it all.
String theory, for instance, is entirely disregarded by half the physics sector, and is scarcely understood outside the sector.
But things that are so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies are often so simple that they're not very useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame metrics & algorithms
Apparently all these Metrics & Algorithms arose spontaneously without human input, assumptions, or control ?
(ZGraves is of course unbiased himself -- luv how he reflexively lumps libertarians and conservatives into he same political species, but that's a common failing among progressive-leftists)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
That's why the title exists. The author isn't claiming there is not a Bais against conservative media. But that if you cry wolf with your evidence, people won't believe you when it can be proven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
... and just how does the algorithm decide which incoming-links are selected and prioritized ??
At some prior point, a human programmer constructed that algorithim with his subjective human criteria/assumptions about how outside links should be selected/prioritized. Hence the fundamental human bias in the system. These algorithms are human constructs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
At some prior point, a human programmer constructed that algorithim with his subjective human criteria/assumptions about how outside links should be selected/prioritized. Hence the fundamental human bias in the system. These algorithms are human constructs.
Indeed. But since the algorithm heavily weights internal links, are you suggesting that the number of inbound links a site has is inherently biased one way or another on the political spectrum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
yeah, ZGraves overall premise here is that there is NO tech bias...
That is explicitly NOT his premise. He actually states the opposite of that.
because sterile, objective, complex Metrics & Algorithms make all the selection/filtering decisions -- not humans at he Tech companies.
Also not what he says.
So since humans are not involved -- human bias is impossible, or at least very slight.
Again, not what he says.
ZGraves is of course unbiased himself -- luv how he reflexively lumps libertarians and conservatives into he same political species, but that's a common failing among progressive-leftists
The idea that Zach is a "progressive leftist" is laughable (as again he himself notes in the article).
I get the feeling you decided this article was bad, skimmed a sentence or two and then wrote something completely disconnected from reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
OK, please quote his actual statement 'opposite of that'
Our 'interpretations' of Mr Graves words seem to differ
Never heard of Mr Graves before and was guessing at his politics. He indeed claims to be "generally right-leaning" (whatever that means). Turns out he is a think-tank operative for the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers were originally 'libertarian-leaning' but have now morphed into big-government Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
OK, please quote his actual statement 'opposite of that'
He says: "It's worth saying that libertarians and conservatives aren't totally unreasonable in wanting to investigate whether they're getting fair treatment by tech companies. After all, Silicon Valley is a very liberal place that doesn't always reflect their norms or values..."
He explicitly notes that there may be a liberal bias at those companies. It's just that this study does not show that.
Never heard of Mr Graves before and was guessing at his politics.
He states his politics IN THE ARTICLE, showing that you clearly did not read it, but rather jumped to conclusions and made a bunch of bad assumptions.
He indeed claims to be "generally right-leaning" (whatever that means). Turns out he is a think-tank operative for the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers were originally 'libertarian-leaning' but have now morphed into big-government Republicans.
I will note that you ignore the fact that you previously insisted that Zach was a "progressive leftist," and now focus on going after those who funded institutions he's worked for, rather than addressing anything in the actual argument.
An apology would be nice, since you clearly chose not to read the article and made a bunch of really bad assumptions about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
I did not 'insist' nor directly assert that Mr Graves was a progressive leftist, though I further said that was my initial guess/opinion. Is the general progressive-leftist label so instantly loathsome here that it demands apology?
Are apologies for personal opinions routinely requested by the TD management?
Consider your headline here: "Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously"
Are all "Conservatives" guilty of these supposedly false bias accusations ??
Would be nice perhaps for you to apologize for so broadly mis-characterizing all conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
well, Mr Graves obtusely hinting that there maybe perhaps might be some political bias somewhere in tech companies
He did not hint obtusely at it.
does not even mildly negate my statement
It kinda does, though.
his lengthy discussion emphasis upon metrics/algorithms as primarily controlling search results/prioritization, as opposed to software programming choices made by tech company humans.
Next time maybe try reading the full fucking article rather than skimming it. You don't seem to have read it yet, which is rather incredible.
I did not 'insist' nor directly assert that Mr Graves was a progressive leftist, though I further said that was my initial guess/opinion.
Which literally proved you didn't read the article, as he explained his political stance in the article itself. That was my point. You opined on something without reading it, and I called you on it. Now you're moving the goalposts because you got caught.
Is the general progressive-leftist label so instantly loathsome here that it demands apology?
I'm not asking for an apology for you labeling someone a progressive leftist. I'm asking for an apology for making a bunch of really bad assumptions and attacking a piece you still clearly have not read.
Are apologies for personal opinions routinely requested by the TD management?
It was not your opinion over which I am asking for an apology. It was your kneejerk need to respond idiotically to an article you clearly had not read, making statements that showed that you only wanted to slam this story and jump straight to identity politics. That was a shitty thing to do, and you should apologize or just admit that you're a shitty kind of person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame metrics & algorithms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sometimes complexity is a feature, not a bug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to claim that there is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry is pretty sad for a site called techdirt.
This falls into the same category for me as denying climate change or thinking that banning plastic straws in the US is going to help with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone is sad you are annoyed, please take a breath , relax and try to comprehend the world around you - it is amazing.
How is this similar to climate change denial, the two are not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) There is no climate change. (Or it's not man made)
2) Banning plastic straws in the US will help in any way.
3) There is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry.
All three of these statements share the attribute of being false.
Don't worry about my enjoyment of the world. I don't know about the whole thing being amazing, but I have access to some pretty spectacular pieces of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The reason for this is that most people in the tech industry aren't trying to undermine a conservative point of view; they're just ignoring it.
Liberal bias is not the same thing as Anti-conservative bias. Technology has ALWAYS had a liberal bias, whether it be surrounding modern technology, steam engines, weaving looms, printing presses, Roman roads, aqueducts, or any other piece of technology. That's kind of the point: conservatism takes the stance of "let's preserve what we've got" where as liberalism takes the stance of "let's improve on what we've got." Neither is wrong, but any time you've got an industry favoring improvement over preservation, you've got immediate liberal bias.
I prefer my libraries to have conservative bias and my search engines to have liberal bias. Conservative bias on search engines will result in manipulation by the established players; liberal bias keeps an even playing field as the algorithms continually change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Semantics
Liberalism is entirely not related to both of them.
Actually, I can hold liberal views that are extremely conservative like "homosexuality is ok" -- because, actually, it's the position of the Greeks in 500 B.C., and thus even more conservative than any of the homophobic positions in the last 2000 years. Same goes for abortion.
The opposite of Liberalism (and actually, Libertarianism) is Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is telling other people what they can do or not, like who they can fuck, which drugs they may take or what they can do to their own bodies.
Need I also to explain that left and right ALSO have nothing to do with either of the four words above? In a nutshell: Left is towards socialism, right is towards capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Semantics
I also don’t want to tell other people what they can or cannot say. Let people say what they want.
Censoring people is authoritarianism, right? Like Techdirt. Authoritarianism in the extreme. Not liberal at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Semantics
Time to break out the link again I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics
“Simple: we’ll just declare the Internet a public utility, and regulate its usage, designating it a “public square” by executive order. There. That’s done. Now everyone can speak freely”.
I love that guy, really I do. Expect the executive order shortly.
And go shove that cartoon up your snooty little ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics
It's pretty damned clear that social media is the modern public square, and speech in such should be unregulated by anyone, government OR CORPORATION.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
Posting an XKCD link without considering its inherent arguments is basically an argument from authority. Newsflash: XKCD's author, while pretty dang smart, is not a god or any other source of divine enlightenment.
Nah, that's me weighing who I was responding to and deciding that they weren't worth more effort than a single link, as the issue of community flagging of comments and what causes them has been explained time and time again to no effect, instead ignored by people claiming (among other things) some plot by the TD staff and/or objecting to the idea that acting like a child, troll and/or dishonestly has consequences.
It's pretty damned clear that social media is the modern public square, and speech in such should be unregulated by anyone, government OR CORPORATION.
So companies should have no say in who uses their platforms, simply because members of the public use them too? Yeah, no. Just because they're publicly available does not mean they're publicly owned, unless perhaps you want the government to buy them out, in which case then you can argue that ownership by the government means they can't moderate or choose who they want to use the platform.
Until and unless that happens companies are perfectly within their rights to control access to their property, whether on their own, by providing tools to the community to moderate, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
Everyone that thinks Techdirt is wrong to censor reasonable comments can make their voice heard here:
https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=123006
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amusingly,
As always, you are welcome to blame me for "censorong" you, but only if you admit that by doing so, you are absolving Techdirt by recognizing that flagging is an act of the userbase rather than the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amusingly,
Trump is now on a tear about fake news and the Internet, and believe me, your voice will be heard at the FCC. Even the pompous commentator above (ThatOneGuy) with tens of thousands of comments suddenly got silent when faced with the prospect of the FCC actually paying attention to what is going on here. Masnick makes a business out of fake news, and he utilizes the Internet to do so. That will soon be put to an end by the US government, with Donald Trump again demonstrating his peerless American leadership on behalf of the American people.
Trust me, I know first hand that Techdirt and their ilk are now under the microscope. The idea that the “community” censors speech here has always been and is still horseshit, it is done by Masnick and his fanatical staff personally. It is simply too coordinated for any other explanation, and this has been documented by several readers and commentators, and with time stamped records that disprove the assertion it is a “community” effort.
Like almost everything on Techdirt, community censorship is a lie. Most of the commentators use fake names. Even the commentators with real names then pose as others to try to bolster the opinion of a community that is corrupt and phony to the core.
Send your comment about your experience at Techdirt to the FCC here, they will listen: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov. Put the word Techdirt in the title of the Email, and it will get the attention it deserves.
Together, we can put an end to FAKE NEWS and FAKE COMMENTARY as practiced at Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, oh so Poe
This has to be satire. It so perfectly mimics the pro-Trump, anti-td party line.
To be fair, Pai has bigger adversaries on his plate, what with all the states passing their own net-neutrality laws.
And TechDirt doesn't mention Russian Collusion enough to get on Trump's top ten most wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again, oh so Poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Wacko Dacko"
And that's the convenience of being a self-admitted psychiatric patient. it reveals the desperation of those who feel they have to resort to taking cheap shots. Come back when you want to actually discuss a topic rather than swinging at low-hanging piñatas.
Regarding which, PaulT this is the problem with blanket deciding to strip large groups (say, crazies) of rights, including the right to bear arms. Our nation is full of imbiciles like Anonymous Coward here who think we shouldn't be regarded in common social discourse, let alone be afforded human rights. Once you take away rights you don't like, the rest become easier by established precedent.
And once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, it becomes easier to argue that (say) blacks and Muslims are also too dangerous. And expect those in power to get full exceptions.
Remember 63 million voters put Trump in office, and so far it appears that most of them want to purge the untermenschen, in contrast to, say, getting totally behind supply-side economics. Most of that bloc want to kill everyone who doesn't fit into their imaginary model.
And they'll come for mental patients and disabled people sooner on the list. But they won't stop there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Wacko Dacko"
Should all crazy people bear arms? Should they protect their craziness with deadly force?
I have to admit, this is a new minority position that I was heretofore unfamiliar with. Let me mull this for some period and I’ll get back to you. I’m assuming that you will not be released anytime soon.
Techdirt is a really unique place, I’ll concede that point readily. Unique in all the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Just to be clear"
Anonymous Coward your reading comprehension stuns me. I think what you did is typically regarded as the first half of a strawman argument, misstating the argument so that it is one you can effectively attack.
I didn't actually know how you felt about allowing crazy people access to their second amendment rights, but now I do, and your position doesn't surprise me. It does raise the question what other demographics of the population would you deny rights to? And what rights?
But, I get it, I have been diagnosed and as such, you suspect that I am weak and should be easy prey. It's a common strategem. One favored by our peerless leader, evidence has shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Just to be clear"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, let's be clear.
It sounds like your writing comprehension leaves something to be desired as well. You're making contradictory statements, and denying that for which there is obvious evidence. You really do seem like an acolyte of Donald J. Trump, as if you want to emulate him in every way.
I don't want to infer, since I can't tell what you're trying to say, other than your disapproval of my comments in general, and a distaste people with mental disorders. (Should we add cruel streak? It does seem you were trying to mock me earlier for receiving psychiatric treatment.)
I'm not sure if you're the same as the first hand guy. That's one of the problems of Anonymous Cowards It's not always clear which comments are from the same guy. In that regard you have me at a disadvantage.
Am I paranoid? I've been told such a lot. But with folks like you around who are evidently antagonistic, I think my distrust is warranted.
I could ask what you think, but I then realized I don't believe you are engaging me -- or anyone on this forum -- in good faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, let's be clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery Slope
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
Deterioration of rights over time in small increments is a rather common phenomenon here in the states, to the point we have false notions about boiling frogs we keep using as a metaphor.
Knowing common logical falacies does not an expert in logic make. And making a falacious argument doesn't necessarily make the proposed conclusion wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery Slope
"Deterioration of rights over time in small increments is a rather common phenomenon here in the states, to the point we have false notions about boiling frogs we keep using as a metaphor."
Which still doesn't make your particular slippery slope sensible in any way.
"And making a falacious argument doesn't necessarily make the proposed conclusion wrong."
No, but you haven't provided any reason to believe your proposed conclusion is right, either, so it's much easier to point out the logical fallacy you've made, and ask you to provide an actual non-fallacious argument if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
Will B. If you can't make sense of the statement [of mine that you quoted] then I see no reason to believe you'd seriously examine it under any circumstances. It appears to me you're just being contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
I'd think a slippery slope argument would sound more like Once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, you will decide, one at a time, that all groups are too dangerous.
I made a statement indicating trend in a direction. I didn't assert that it would reach the far end. The latter would indicate a slippery-slope fallacy.
So what I said wasn't really a slippery slope, though you might assert it looked like it could become one or lead to one.
The courts and legislature of the US are well known to encroach rights based on precedent. That you find when I suggest it not sensible, it tells me me you are either unfamiliar with US history, or are just refusing to acknowledge it.
Now again, Will B. why should I think your challenge is from stupidity, rather than malice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "if you want your conclusion to be seriously examined."
"I'd think a slippery slope argument would sound more like Once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, you will decide, one at a time, that all groups are too dangerous."
"Regarding which, PaulT this is the problem with blanket deciding to strip large groups (say, crazies) of rights, including the right to bear arms. Our nation is full of imbiciles like Anonymous Coward here who think we shouldn't be regarded in common social discourse, let alone be afforded human rights. Once you take away rights you don't like, the rest become easier by established precedent.
And once you decide that crazies are too dangerous to give full citizenship, it becomes easier to argue that (say) blacks and Muslims are also too dangerous."
Saying 'could' instead of 'will' does not excuse you from fearmongering. This is absolutely a slippery-slope argument, and it is one you continue not to support.
"Now again, Will B. why should I think your challenge is from stupidity, rather than malice?"
Bonus false dichotomy fallacy. Cheers; I won't be replying to this again unless you manage a real whopper I just can't ignore. (Or you provide some actual substance.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I won't be replying to this again
If this thread is what you regard as fair critique then I'd be glad for a promise never to reply to my posts ever again on any forum under any circumstances.
You accuse me of fearmongering while history is rife with examples of this kind of function / definition creep. That's why I find your interest in the truth suspect.
I welcome your silence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amusingly,
"It promotes ridiculous, offensive, false and defamatory articles with fake commentary, giving the appearance of an entire community of support, when in fact the only support is from a handful of fanatical or financially compensated phonies."
Evidence, plox. If I could be getting paid for this, I definitely wanna know; my current job sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just can't make that up
'Rudeness should be punished by thousand dollar fines... you asshole.'
I'm happy to say that no matter how much you complain it's still quite legal for people to mock you and/or flag your comments, and if you don't like it you are more than welcome to bugger off and create your own platform where you actually would be able to set your own rules for what is allowed, unlike on here.
Until then, enjoy the fact that people can flag your comments, you don't get to set the rules of what people are and are not allowed to do and say, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about either other than entertain people with your complaints, lies and hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just can't make that up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'For every action a reaction', not just for physics!
And when you make your own platform where you actually do have the ability to set out rules, you can make that one of them. Until then, you will just have to deal with the fact that platforms like this one allow the community to moderate comments, which can include hiding them behind a single mouse click if enough people feel that they fall into the 'abusive/trolling/spam' category for whatever reasons.
'Actions have consequences' applies in many ways, 'comments get hidden, occasionally in response to who's saying them, but more often how they are said' is one that applies here, and if certain people don't like their comments being flagged then it has been explained many times by many people how they can avoid that, with the very short version being simply, 'Don't be an ass.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'For every action a reaction', not just for physics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics
- Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC
and
- United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc
The court held couldn't even force cable networks to use full scrambling to prevent bleedover or restriction to night hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Semantics
The problem with pure liberalism is that for one person to have absolute freedom that means that they can take away freedoms of others, so the strongest gets freedom and everyone else is free to do what the strongest tells them. So it leads to authoritarianism. Until the weak ban together to overpower the strongest, at which point you have mob rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics
Liberalism is best defined by the old saw, "Your rights end where mine begin."
Where the rule of law (which protects our rights) applies, there's no mob rule because the law trumps all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Semantics
Many people do not agree upon what the word "freedom" means and certainly disagree about the word "liberty". For some these are about what a person can do while for others it means what they can not do.
Oh yeah ... why is a revolution considered to be mob rule?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Semantics
"Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm referring specifically to LGBTQ and Immigration issues.
The tech industry has long been very friendly to the LGBTQ community even when support for same sex marriage/etc. was much lower in the general public. Tech communities and LGBTQ communities tend to overlap very heavily geographically for a reason.
On immigration as well Silicon Valley is very in favor of it. Many tech employees are immigrants or children of immigrants themselves (especially Asian Americans who are heavily over-represented in the tech industry compared to other races).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have a fourth one for you:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is rapidly becoming a new dog-whistle, and one that lets folks know you're just outraged by what you're told to be outraged about by the talking points machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plastic
For those interested Kurzgesagt did a good video explaining the environmental effects of plastic.
The TL:DR version is essentially it's gray goo, broken down into microplastics by the sun and worming its way up the food chain until it gets stuck in our own bodies as indestructible tumors. Fun stuff!
The video doesn't address straws, but it addresses shopping bags. One-use plastic shopping bags are still cheaper (energy-wise) than reusable bagging solutions, so there's still debate to be had whether or not to stop using them. What we really need to do is recycle plastic way, way better than we do.
Of course, we humans are awful when it comes to any non-point source pollution. Every commons is doomed to tragedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I definitely agree. I'm just pointing out that within the last month, the straw thing has become a talking point to point out that liberal leaning locations are being ridiculous or something, because they're 'just plastic straws!' This despite the idea floating around for at least a year prior. So at this point I doubt the authenticity of anyone who acts like the straw thing is some minor triviality that's evidence of environmentalism run amok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody made that claim. The claim being disputed is that "Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President." The article doesn't even say it's wrong, just that the claimants "should do [their] due diligence" because the "evidence" presented so far is unconvincing. A good statistician would correct for confounding variables like site popularity before concluding a left/right bias is the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Additionally, this false dichotomy that a source is either conservative or it is not is a stupid stupid way to divide the world, especially the news media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good thing the article doesn't try to claim that, then.
You might consider reading the second paragraph from the end?
Yep, those two things are definitely equivalent all right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoh whoh whoh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trying to claim that there is no anti-conservative bias in the tech industry is pretty sad for a site called techdirt.
Can you point out where we have claimed that? Because we have not. The article is specifically about whether or not Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President. That is not, at all, the same thing as questioning whether the employees of the company tend to lean one direction or another in that made up nonsensical left/right spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree it's mostly nonsense, but a story title starting with "Conservatives:" works against this idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
If you're in favor of the FCC enforcing net neutrality, then you're the one paving the way for a brand new Fairness Doctrine. The FCC's entire history is full of censorship and mandating fairness. It's exactly the lack of FCC regulation that makes the nonsense that Trump is talking about impossible.
I shudder to think what would happen under a Trump Presidency with an active Fairness Doctrine (glad that was repealed) or with an FCC more used to wielding its powers in the name of "neutrality."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why stop at balancing conservative and liberal ideas?
- Your assertion lacks any substantiation
"which would be similar to the old "Fairness Doctrine.""
- The two things are not similar, not sure why you think this as you provided nothing in support of same.
Again ... NN != Fairness Doctrine. The two are not even close to being similar.
"The FCC's entire history is full of censorship and mandating fairness."
- Perhaps you need to read some history
" It's exactly the lack of FCC regulation that makes the nonsense that Trump is talking about impossible."
- LOL, this gold Jerry - Gold!!!!
Your list of talking points needs an update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is clearly shows that the present administration is out of their league so to speak, in over their heads, a few fries short of a happy meal, a few cans short of a six pack ...
these people are nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was very clear to anyone with an IQ over 80 what Guiliani meant when he said this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He Meant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was very clear to anyone with an IQ over 80 what Guiliani meant when he said this.
Yeah, I agree - Trump is a compulsively lying piece of orange colored shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And it's equally clear that anyone with an IQ over 80 could have managed to make his point clearly without bumblefucking his way to being a laughing stock....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it any wonder that the ideas of these conservatives might be viewed as detrimental to society or even illegal. How dare these impoverished down trodden say anything about their struggles, they have no right!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No there is a difference between FACTS and Crazy batshit ideas with no evidence to back it up. Or as you call it, Conservative viewpoints.
On a related note, Conservatism is dead, it has been replaced with Extremism. Own up to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right-wing nutters: authoritarian, reactionary, racist, sexist, bigoted and controlling. Fear "Mob rule" because they believe they are above the law or that it doesn't apply to them. Refer to the Constitution as the "Con"-stitution and absolutely hate democracy, characterising it as "Mob rule." Desire to "shrink government to the point where they can drown it in a bathtub."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which viewpoints are those—the ones about gay people, the ones about trans people, the ones about people of color, the ones about women, or the ones about poor people, all of which can be boiled down to “fuck you, got mine”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullshit. Ive seen it first hand. There is a concerted effort to suppress Conservative viewpoints across the Industry. Trump is correct to call it out.
"I've seen it firsthand" is not evidence. Can you respond to the actual points in the article? Or is that somehow not possible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a concerted effort to suppress Conservative viewpoints across the Industry
Well, you're free to do what LGBTQ people are supposed to do when faced with suppression - fuck off and go somewhere else. Amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do the devil worshiping GOP go elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why can't Alex Jones be a talking point with this? There was no coordinated effort to take his stuff down? Since WHEN did every internet platform work together, ALL at the same time, and their rules aren't even the same and all applied differently? (Criminal orgs aside, so did Alex Jones break the law somehow...?)
In the Bush W era Alex Jones was just the same: a guy who made loads of theories and was lampooned by lots of early-adopting video-makers. He was a source of ridicule and many people on the left eagerly awaited when he'd next put his foot in his mouth. People on the opposite side *relished* his words because they were thought of as idiotic and hilarious.
What the fuck happened there?
Looking at the way Alex Jones and other YouTubers are getting blocked or banned, there does appear to be suppression of certain viewpoints going on and it seems biased towards "crazy" conservatives or people who aren't in line with YouTube staff's political bent.
Can't we listen and let people's own words hang them anymore, or is that too dangerous to consider? If we're saying "shut them up because they're crazy", that's one step away from saying the First Amendment doesn't matter for the people I dislike.
The pendulum always swings in the states if you've lived long enough to see it, so don't be so eager to shut up people you don't like. We, as the public, can't put up with dissent at all anymore, it seems... when did we all get so fragile?
If we're shutting people up, no matter the viewpoint (I hear some left-leaning pages were removed from Facebook, too), we're only martyring those people in the long run. This will create more tribalistic left/right conflict. Even if the ones being taken down favours your personal viewpoint, it isn't making either side talk to one another and just dehumanizing each side to one another as "crazy censors" VS. "crazy extremists".
Don't be fooled by this attempt to stifle any rational discourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People started harassing dead children's parents and shooting up pizza parlors.
Yes, we can.
For example, in this case, somebody's words resulted in the consequence that he was removed from the private platforms that had previously hosted him.
Bullshit.
It's not an infringement of First Amendment rights, it's an exercise of them. Facebook and YouTube users have the right to threaten to take their business elsewhere if Facebook and YouTube continue to host Alex Jones. Facebook and YouTube have the right to block Alex Jones.
Alex Jones does not have a First Amendment right to use Facebook and YouTube. That is not a thing. Check the Constitution; it's not in there.
Nobody is suppressing anybody's First Amendment rights. Platforms and their customers are exercising their First Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trouble is, almost any gubmn't regulation scheme you can think of will have unacceptable unintended consequences.
About the only reasonable one I was able to come up with was some form of removing copyright...so if "Hamilton" decides he hates the way Techdirt moderates, he can make "Hamilton's Techdirt", which moderates the way Hamilton likes it, and Techdirt has no *legal* recourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For like the billionth time: The 1st Amendment only protects you from the governement and NOT another citizen/corporation. Analogy time! There is NO requirement I let you use my bullhorn even if I'm letting everyone else use it. There IS a prohibition on the government taking my bullhorn away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A vast (not my party) conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me an hour, an audio editor, and an anonymous email to Alex Jones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
First: I believe you mean mid-to-late. The first known use of the phrase was by Chris Lehane in 1995, but Clinton's use of it was in 1998.
Second: She wasn't referring to bad press; she was referring to the series of scandals plaguing the Clinton Administration (specifically, she was describing Ken Starr as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, not the news media).
And, while the phrase is a poor choice of words (again, Lehane's words, not Clinton's) and sounds paranoid and hysterical, if you don't think there was a coordinated effort by Republicans to make exaggerated claims of scandal against the Clintons then I don't know what to tell you. (Say, did you hear Lindsey Graham is calling for a new investigation into Clinton's e-mail server?)
So no, it's really not like Trump ranting about Google search rankings at all. It's a politician complaining about something unfavorable happening as a result of partisan bias; that's really the only thing the two situations have in common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
And then impeached him for the only crime they managed to find over the course of that investigation, which was, indeed, lying about a blowjob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A vast (not my party) conspiracy
Supply side economics was not actually implemented - right?
The draft did not excuse white rich people did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship IS possible among specific companies which appear to dominate the landscape, but the censorship itself will erode that dominance, as rival companies exploit the niche created by the exiled point of view. The few places that are neutral will become homes to those ostracized, who will be united by the force of censorship itself.
Shadowbanning and left-leaning search results definitely happen, but we can point out that it happens and the internet will adjust. It always does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
propaganda, yellow journalism and all around general bullshit has been in play like - forever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not forever. Just since there've been one three people (one to incite controversy between the other two.) This is hardly the first conspiracy theorist, or conspirator either, but ...
Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him, “What town are you from?” He would answer, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.” 3 Then Absalom would say to him, “Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.” 4 And Absalom would add, “If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that they receive justice.”
(circa 1000 B. C.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay I need to weigh in here before "OMG GOOGLE APPOLOGISTS!"
NEWS sites predominate Google when you search for Donald Trump NEWS. This would be CNN, NYT, AP, BBC, and WaPo.
PROPAGANDA sites don't make the cut: This would be Redstate, Townhall, Breitbart, Infowars, Washington Examiner (Barely, but still propaganda imo), Truthdig, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay I need to weigh in here before "OMG GOOGLE APPOLOGISTS!"
To be fair, FOX News could make the cut more often, they are unapologetically manipulating the headlines to comply with a specific partys line and are anything but conservative, but when you stay clear of their talking heads and headlines, they are indeed mostly factual in the articles. Probably also speaks to the trend in time how far bias is percieved from the bread and butter journalism - the article. Such a shallow perception!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Veracity of Fox News
I won't trust a FOX article, whether or not it is based on one of FOX' host personalities. If I do read it, it will be alongside coverage of the same events by other news agencies, and it will be to see what FOX' take (and Murdoch's take) is on the event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay I need to weigh in here before "OMG GOOGLE APPOLOGISTS!"
"The impressive amount of plea deals Mueller has racked up is not exactly screaming conspiracy! "
LOL - yeah but the plea deals others are forced into are not a conspiracy at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If somebody doesn't take Pajamas Media as seriously as The New York Times, obviously there's only one explanation: liberal bias!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet has shown credentialism for what it is. Individuals have broken stories and been ignored only to have the public "shocked" up to a quarter-century later when it finally hits the mainstream.
Same reason the "evil media companies" dominate: we want them to. This leads to them stealing ideas from indies who don't realize the game is rigged and literally feed the beast.
Even things like registered copyrights which predate the mainstream media's "scoops" doesn't convince a public that stays within its walled-off gardens, then complain about those who walled them off.
Bottom line is most people are stupid and can't think for themselves, their narcissism fed by internet companies who profit from their traffic. Kind of like Hollywood making movies about doing the right thing and laughing behind the backs of the public it claims to value.
What are most successful films and TV shows about? Losers who make the everyman feel good about himself. At the end of each episode, we get a feel-good lecture about what's really important in life from people who put money and power above it and laugh their tails off at how stupid "we" are.
Then some celebrity gives seven figures to some "spiritual guru" who has the nerve to call them on their hypocrisy.
There's no saving most of this species. A small number of them have "breakaway DNA" and are separating from the masses as a prelude to exterminating them. H5N1 was a dry run to ensure that the killer virus that is released won't blow back to destroy those who release it.
There is tons of evidence of this already. Wolves still exist except for those who turned into dogs, apes still exist except for those who evolved into humans (the wolf/dog analogy doesn't have racist connotations so it passes the "hate speech" filter.
There's no point in trying to convince obsolete DNA of something that might help it evolve. The answer is to simply evolve around it the way we did the apes, who still exist on the same planet as us, but in a totally different world. how do you think that happened? A few humans dud not sit down with the apes and reason with them. They built superior weapons, walls, hunted and cleared out the jungles, and built a society literally superimposed on the jungle the apes think they rule as its "alpha males."
Take a pet wolf into your home and it will attempt to take over the home because its DNA tells it to. Take a pet DOG into your home and it will train you to walk it, provide for it, and care for you. I used to have a dog who would bark loudly and run out to my terrace whenever anyone was outside. I laughed at this, not realizing the very smart pooch considered it its job to alert its masters to potential intrusions.
no one wants to confront evolution when it's occurring right in front of their eyes. The reality is too painful for those who will be left behind. The sociopaths in Hollywood thought they were the breakaway species until they turned on each other, because sociopathy is parasittc and unsustainable. They hate socialists the way wolves hate dogs. A wolf would tear a dog apart in a fight, yet this country has maybe a few hundred wolves who need protection, and about 300 million dogs. Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, because we should not be ignoring [checks notes] Alex Jones and his reporting on the homosexual tendencies of frogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was actually going to debate you on some of your points until I read this and what followed. Please come back to reality, it misses you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Algorithms
Probably the stupidest argument I've seen in some time.
That the left falls for it says more about their collective ability to rationalize their bias than it does about the fairness of search results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Algorithms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Algorithms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The facts have a left-leaning bias.
And as far back as the George W. Bush administration, people were complaining about how facts seemed to better support leftier suppositions than rightier ones. Bush would just demand new facts.
Maybe that's not because facts have a bias, but because the positions in DC have just shifted to the right since the 1970s. Nixon was more left than Clinton or Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
#metoo is a great example of censorship against conservatives who are banned for "misogyny" if they question any part of the movement, even if the movement is clearly logically flawed.
Why did twenty-two states in the Miss America pageant protest the elimination of the bikini contest? Because it's one thing to say "you go girl!" on Twitter, and quite another to lose the only chance to parade around in skimpy clothing for an audience of rich men and Hollywood executives. They call rich, powerful men predfators when they aren't busy trying to marry them. Point this out on Twitter and see how long it is before you get no retweets, no likes, and no replies except from those to whom you reply.
The problem with liberals is they want "open, honest debate" until they are losing, and they want to control the flow of information and discussion in what is supposed to be a two-way media that they want to turn into an echo chamber.
Liberals are so full of themselves that they believe bullying conservatives, or anyone with a dissenting point of view, is justified. They lay down a set of rules to which conservatives adapt and wind up snared when the rules are applied ot them (Franken, Gunn, et al.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, and…this is an issue, how? Al Franken was accused of some heinous acts and held accountable for it; James Gunn, despite having apologized years ago for the tweets that ultimately got him fired, was held accountable for saying some heinous things and defending them as “jokes”. If we are to hold people accountable for their bullshit, ideally, political ideology should never give someone a free pass from responsibility.
(And before you ask: No, I do not feel bad for Franken; yes, I feel bad for Gunn, but he fucked up and was held responsible for doing that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miss America Pagents and #MeToo
Wow, John Smith, your understanding of nuance is amazing!
I could get into the particulars of the issues you cherrypicked, but John Oliver did some pretty great deep dives on both of them.
Not that I expect you to check out what a stuffy Brit might say on such matters, but I wouldn't expect you to read (or consider) a direct explanation either.
Enjoy!
PS: Maybe in the future, try not presuming what any given class of individuals always does. If all of us did that, we might start presuming that every conservative follows Trump's high standards of loyalty, honesty and integrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
This is how we know you have no fucking idea what you're talking about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
Yeah, there's no story there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
You think that's liberal? It's not, it's actually an appeal to authority.
> #metoo is a great example of censorship against conservatives
It's not that either. Its catering to one's own peer-group, it's victim-olympics. It's telling your own people how badly suppressed you are.
Besides, what you are doing here, by complaining how conservatives are censored IS EXACTLY THE SAME. Victim-olympics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The facts have a left-leaning bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Algorithms
It is not "no bais because we use algorithms"...The algorithms can, and technically are biased.
Its not bias against conservative news sites, its bias against sites that have low rankings in those areas google believes to be proxies for quality and trust, such as incoming links, because in a world of a million news sites, google is not allowing people to determine the value of the content.
Bias against conservative voices only works if google's algorithm is down-ranking that content based on the perception of the political viewpoint of the content. But google news and google search do not factor that.
That is why the Wall Street Journal and Fox news, both eminently conservative outlets, ranked high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Algorithms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Algorithms
You missed an opportunity:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Googolplex
A googolplex cannot be written longhand, because we don't have enough particles in the universe on which to ink a zero.
I'd argue the organization and task-management of such a workforce would be impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Algorithms
Many two year olds get frustrated when they are told - No!
It takes a strong personality to overcome your own prejudices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump Tweets are not news.
It should be a regular reminder: President Trump has demonstrated time and time and time again that he has no grasp on reality, and if he weren't President of the United States, he'd be Just Another Crackpot on Twitter.
So his Tweets aren't news. What might be news is how others might react to his Tweets as if they have merit, much the way Scott Roeder acted on Bill O'Reilly's consistent ranting. Some people can't help but get their information from dubious sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinton Emails...again.
When I searched in Google, I ONLY had right-leaning websites in the search results. I need some consensus because I'm not going to take The Daily Caller at face-value.
Then again, Google is no angel. Remember the time all searches containing the word "gun" returned zero results?
How many times has Google been caught bumping their own services to the top of the search results?
There even exist several "deep web" search engines that will search sites that companies, such as Yahoo and Google, will filter out of results.
Finally, it is publicly known that Google's founders were funded by grants from the CIA and NSA while at Stanford, so, think what you want of that.
All this said, I agree that the study mentioned in the article is bogus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clinton Emails...again.
Obviously this is censorship - your rights have been violated! There is no other explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My conservative perspective
There's lots of reasons why. Seeing compulsive Bush hatred adopted by conservatives and reworked into compulsive Obama hatred is one. RW media is another. From my perspective, that was just an arms-race response to LW bias. It expanded & amplified what was wrong with media in the first place. I struggle to find value in it.
I still think there's widespread bias and I still think it trends left. However, I see where media outlets are a lot more self aware about bias than they used to be. There's also been a lot of attempts to by MSM to counter bias in it's ranks. Sometimes been really good (NPR coverage of 2008 elections), sometimes it's poorly thought-out and just reorders existing crappiness.
In the end, I'm no longer clear that bias is a problem in and of itself. At a minimum, it's not a top priority. What I am clear about is that attacking bias ignores the media's overpowering problem - which is systemic incompetence and skewed priorities.
I fully believe bad behavior within the Trump administration should be fully investigated & reported. Revealing it is the whole point of why extra-constitutional protections are afforded to the press.
However, I also strongly believe the same vigor that is being used to seek out and expose wrong doing in this administration was largely abdicated during the last administration.
That doesn't mean Obama was as morally bankrupt as Trump. The point is it doesn't matter how morally bankrupt Obama was. The press had a clear duty to it's constitutional protections to be an adversary to government and aggressively seek out & report bad government behavior. Too often, damning stories are handed to news outlets and they still have to be bullied into being interested (ie: Snowden revelations).
Fast forward to today. Have I seen clear indicators that Google news is trending left-leaning stories & downplaying right? Sure. I think that aligns with the number and tone of stories that are published. For the record, I've seen right-leaning stories also trend on Google news, admittedly not as often.
But the problem there isn't a bias problem, it's a lazy journalism problem. It's a problem that the vast majority of US news outlets all lead with the same 7 stories, often just copying and pasting each other content. It's a problem when news orgs only bring a tiny fraction of new stories to the table that they could be. It's a problems that fluff stories about sports and celebrities is believed to be of equal valuable to the public as is exposing malfeasance by the powerful.
It's a problem that the press doesn't weigh each story against it's duty to honor it's extra constitutional protections.
You want less bias? I do and I believe when press is doing their actual damn job (w/o taking 8 year hiatuses) they'd be a lot less likely to let natural human biases continually tilt their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would not call that the ultimate issue, but it is a huge one. The issue gets worse when you look at the 24-hour news networks: same four or five stories every hour, different talking heads staring into a camera while they wait for their turn to talk, none of them really saying much of anything that offers any new insight.
When John Oliver and his writers do a better job of journalism in a half-hour or so every week than MSNBC does in a full week of 24/7 news coverage, that says a lot about the state of American journalism. None of what that says is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I said this in another thread earlier; it's relevant here too:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My conservative perspective
The other part of that is that they're often uncritically reporting claims made by the subjects of the story. Side A says this, side B says that, and the reporters may not mention that court precedence has declared one side wrong, or there's a scientific consensus or strong evidence, or someone's a compulsive liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My conservative perspective
It takes a lot of research to set up a fair pair. But often that is not what goes into it. The 24h news-stations have a stock of people they can call in and they go down those lists to get someone in the studio within a number of hours to cover a specific "breaking news"! That is a big mistake: Any science is about reflecting and you can't just rattle off reflected stuff within hours of an incident!
Thus, to a degree, the focus on being first is making for a less reflected input on a conversation. #METOO and Trumps tweets are both low-reflection stuff with an "instant gratification"-need and has evolved into a public lynching far before a judge or an AG has viewed, much less reviewed it.
Now to make jokes around an issue, you usually need some reflecting and as opposed to 24h news, time is something the comedy shows are afforded! Huge cudos to John Olivers team and their digging. You can see how deep they go at times like the Murray episode. That is the kind of deep digging true journalism is evolving into.
Most news companies are using deep digging journalism like that, but it takes time and money they can't afford if the digged stories aren't a goldmine. The content you find in their publicantions are mostly comprised of agency news (the big media are buying access to the stories, so it is too expensive to not bring most of them. Besides, there is a certain quality guarantee in it!).
A bad development is the furtherance of hearsay news and outright echoing conspiracies, particularly among right wing media to fill the air for cheap with "different" news and perspectives. That is where you go down to the core of where "fake news" as a concept is problematic. If sloppy journalistic standards are fake news I would venture the claim that most journalistic entities in this day and age has stories that would meet the criteria, but there is a case for "some do it more than others".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My conservative perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My conservative perspective
Once we've got the basic sewage report, 20 additional reports about different things seen floating in the sewer, 100 commentaries about hue & color of the sludge trails - what exactly are the remaining 5000+ media people bringing to us - except nothing new at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My conservative perspective
Biggest problem is that no one ever bothers to look anything up, when are we going to realize the sound bites are coming from the limousine liberals? Do you condone it because what they’re saying sounds good or progressive? I don’t anymore, you’re either too lazy or want to buy into the hate rhetoric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monkey see, monkey throw poo...
It's not bias. You just get more accurate and actual news from those 96%. Truth hurts, huh. (well, hurts sociopaths)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
..."a quantum level" means small, guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What, specifically, did you mean when you said "a quantum level"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa, there! Slow right the fuck down! That would mean most conspiracy theories would never have taken off the way they did, and the mere fact that they did PROVES they're sopt on!
So something can't be right with this tortured logic of yours. You're just mad you have to swallow all the cognitive dissonance because of your resounding loss at that whole "E-Mail, Shme-mail" debacle of yours.
The People have a consitutionally guaranteed right to.. well, EVERYTHING they want to! EXCEPT FOR YOU CAUSE YOU HATE MURRICA!!! So shut up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please stop using that word!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please stop using that word!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Feminists, LGBT+...
The problem with any of these labels is there is no effective consistency among them, except that they identify themselves as that thing.
I'd suggest disassociating with any identity label, and stand by the notions and ideas you believe have merit, and if they happen to align with some ideology somewhere, let it stay coincidence.
Though there's also the phenomenon -- as seen on this forum -- that some people lump groups of people into an alleged like kind before making a generalization about them.
My grandson thinks that anything he wants to blast / stab / destroy / stomp on is a Decepticon. Typically he targets the local vert, tree-droppings, insects and enemy toys. Whatever his target, he labels it as such before blasting / stabbing / destroying / stomping on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freudian reveal #1: "proxy" instead of "indicative"
Doesn't even fit current expansion of the word for a duplicitous network node.
Of course you "pirates - drug addicts - leftist - liberals - globalists - corporatists" here are not going to find that significant. It's a "conservative" trait to regard individual words as having fixed firm meansing; liberals just go with the "gestalt" and see the piece as anti-conservative, anti-Trump, anti-American, therefore GOOD.Take a look at Drudge right now (or almost any time!) for counter. Oh, and note that Lanny Davis "made a mistake" last week in promising Cohen would undermine Trump. -- Try looking at reality, you PDALLGCs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freudian reveal #1: "proxy" instead of "indicative"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freudian reveal #2: the mere existence of this piece!
It's simply paid for counter-propaganda. Isn't credible that so many masnicks ALL just happen to go out of their way to defend Google ALL the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freudian reveal #2: the mere existence of this piece!
Except, uh, wasn't this posted just a week ago or so: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180816/16544540446/googles-location-info-failure-might-interest- ftc.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freudian reveal #2: the mere existence of this piece!
No shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
SO, heh, heh, I stop here. Not an interesting piece, anyway; late is good enough. -- And someone already made the obvious accusations! That fore-countering TOO is Freudian reveal because WORRY the lies may be exposed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
This is in your 3rd comment spammed within a minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
Just not in the way he intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freudian reveal #3: If premise were true, wouldn't need defense.
Says the boy who replied to himself twice within a minute. I applaud you blue. The cognitive dissonance in that statement alone would kill a better man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarians
It certainly is unreasonable for Libertarians to want to investigate whether they are getting fair treatment by tech companies. Libertarian doctrine says that tech companies can do what they like and if that includes suppressing Libertarian viewpoints, that's in accordance with their approach to laws.
So, yes, Libertarians are a bunch of hypocrites, who don't even believe in their own doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libertarians
That means that Libertarians don't think that the government should intervene if a company suppresses a certain kind of viewpoint. It doesn't mean that Libertarians don't want to know whether a company is doing that.
In this instance, the Libertarian viewpoint is "Companies have a right to do that; I have a right not to give them my business." And this falls under the approximately 50% of things I agree with Libertarians on.
That may be, but not in this specific instance.
(Though really, I'd argue that there's a pretty strong Libertarian streak in Silicon Valley. Pro-individual rights, pro-free market, overwhelmingly white and male.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libertarians
Yeah I read the article on RSS and popped in here to say, saying in regards to conservatives and libertarians that
seems quite a lot more applicable to one than the other. While there are some ways in which Silicon Valley has (at least performatively) a progressive set of norms and values, in many respects (particularly economically and about broad structural questions) the mindset seems profoundly, often myopically, libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight ...
And yet, somehow, he's surprised that a search for "Trump news" seems to overly focus on CNN?
All I can say is, thank whatever gods you believe in for term-limited presidencies :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The end is near
Soon, the public square will reappear in the form of regulation, and we will all be the better for it. Conservative voices will again be allowed to broadcast their opinions and be heard. In the same way that electricity is delivered without regard to politics, broadcasting public opinion will be heard without regard to politics.
No one would disagree that Trump is focused, effective and wields an enormous amount of power, especially with the American public. Now, there are big stakes in play - an upcoming election. Just watch.
You can run, Google, Facebook, YouTube (and Techdirt) but you won’t be able to hide long, and you will never survive the sustained attention of the American public that elected Trump, or Trump himself. Your days of left-leaning socialist propaganda are numbered, soon you will be consumed by the ravenous appetite real Americans for justice and equality, not diversity, anarchy and the rule of the angry mob.
“There’s an absolute surety to the hands-on conservation lifestyle of hunting, fishing and trapping where you know you’re going to consume today.” -Ted Nugent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The end is near
Hillary Clinton? Uninvestigated. The legendary wall Mexico was supposed to pay for? Nowhere in sight.
Give me a fucking break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The end is near
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The end is near
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The end is near
But even they will soon succumb to the Law and Justice of the American People.
I've been hearing that for the last 25 years. Either republicans are impotent and can't do shit, or the Clintons haven't done anything prosecutable.
Feel free to tell me which scenario you believe because all I heard from the simple-minded chimps at trump's rallies was "lock her up" - are you seriously telling me he can't even do that with a republican house, senate, executive branch, and justice department that he appointed?
Talk about being a useless idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, did Fox News go off the air within the past hour?
[citation needed]
That sounds like a threat. Possibly a violent one. Are you dreaming about killing me, Hamilton?
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone thinks I should not have a place in society because I am openly queer—an opinion they might willingly back up with violence—why should I accept, much less respect, that “diverse” opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should I ever accept/respect an opinion that says I am worthless subhuman filth that deserves no place in society because I am queer? (“Because America” is not a valid answer.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I said “accept”, not allow. I accept that someone has a right to hold an opinion, no matter how bigoted and ignorant. But I do not have to accept the opinion itself. And if I own a platform for speech, nobody, including you, can force me into allowing someone who wants me out of society to use my platform.
“Diversity of opinion” is reserved for opinions that deserve a spot in the marketplace of ideas. We can discuss our favorite songs, argue about our favorite movies, and debate any number of political topics all the live long day. If you bring forth an opinion that is somewhere along the lines of “fags should stay in the closet”, you should expect those who do not share such opinions to reject them outright. And if a platform owner/operator thinks the platform should not be associated with such speech, they should (and already do) have the right to reject such speech.
Call that “bias” if it makes you feel better. I doubt it will, but I suppose anything is worth a shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would argue that “diversity of opinion” is not reserved for only some and not other opinions. When you use the word “deserve”, you are speaking to a subjective standard. Fully Inclusive Diversity of opinion, in the form of Free Speech, is an objective standard, which is what makes it so powerful. It is not subject to individual opinions, it includes all opinions.
That seems to be the fundamental philosophical flaw of the left, and by extension, Techdirt. Americans can “get out of” their own sphere of opinions, that is one of our basic tenants. That is why Freedom of Speech is so important, it is not subjective, it is objective. Philosophically, we accept the proposition that each of us is a flawed individual, and will make mistakes, and should be open to correction by others. Techdirt markets their product by claiming there is no subjective truth, there is only objective truth, their truth. Anyone who steps outside of their truth is either mocked or censored.
That’s just short sighted and un-American. We hold these truths to be self-evident - not evident only to me. People are flawed, and subjective standards should always be suspect. Those principles that bind us together as a country are not individual, they are universal, tried and tested over hundreds of years.
Censoring is just short sighted and self defeating. Sooner or later the flawed individuals who wield the power of censorship will drift into tyranny and oppression. Censoring others will eventually backfire.
The benefit of Diversity of opinion, and by extension, the freedom to express that opinion in public, is a tenant that is self-evident. It is better for the public body as a whole, rather than a particular individual that is predisposed to abuse power. People have given their lives to protect this freedom (albeit among many others), and for good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know why anyone else would care about your personal and private choices.
Sexuality had, of course, absolutely nothing to do with the debate. But you had to accuse another poster you disagree with of being a "lesbian separatist" to justify complete and thorough undermining of her position.
If anyone is to blame for bringing sexuality into the criteria of discussion, Hamilton, it's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that's funny. Ha! Ha ha ha! You don't think that's funny? Well, obviously you have no sense of humor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who are not homophobic bigots that justify their bigotry with the “just joking” excuse. (A joke should never end with “I’m joking”.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You made this about sexual identity, at least in part, when you mentioned “the days of ‘so called’ diversity of ethnicity and sexual orientation”. You wanted this discussion; here I am to deliver it. And I mention my sexual identity because I want you to know you are speaking to an out queer person whose life can, and likely will, be affected by such issues.
Anti-LGBT discrimination is still a thing. An employer would never need to know what I do in my bedroom if they want to punish me for being openly queer. And enough religious evangelists of numerous sects have called for the societal shunning (at best) of LGBT people that I know religious-backed bigotry still exists.
You have yet to prove otherwise.
If we go by your objective standard, the second opinion should be just as “deserving” of acceptance and respect as the first. You can hopefully see why a great many people would consider that situation to be unacceptable.
The only objective notion of “freedom of speech” is “the government cannot exercise prior restraint against most of your speech”. (Try publishing classified information after telling the government you plan to do it, see how long you stay out of court.) Everything else is a subjective standard that differs from person to person; in the “two opinions” example above, anyone who holds the second opinion would consider it “free speech”, while people who disagree with that opinion would likely call it “hate speech” and want the people who hold that opinion to fuck off.
The First Amendment guarantees a person the right to speak their mind without government interference. It does not entitle them to an audience, a platform, and unquestioned acceptance/respect for their speech. Call it “bias” or “political correctness” if you wish; I call it “reality”.
[citation needed]
You can disagree with Techdirt “orthodoxy” and the opinions of commenters without being a smug, disingenuously polite asshole who claims they are being censored for their politics and not for being an asshole. (Your “aw shucks, golly gee” nice guy act does you no favors here.) People here flag you because you have proven yourself to be a troll; you will continue to be flagged for that reason until you decide to stop being one.
I guess that means I can hold in suspicion Shiva Ayyadurai’s claim of having invented email, then, given how his standard for that claim is, at best, subjective.
And if I were calling for censoring others, you might have a point. At the dirt worst, though, I am calling for platforms with an ounce of moral and ethical integrity to stop letting racists, homophobes, and other bigots onto those platforms. The bigots can go make their own platform if they want to be heard badly enough; they are not legally, morally, or ethically entitled to use the platforms of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In any case it's not put me off reading the comments on the posts, which are often as insightful as the posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Morally? No. First Amendment protected? Yes. That doesn't mean they are entitled to use someone else's platform to do it, but they can do it.
Depends. Do they believe the "lies" they are spreading is the truth? If so, then it's 1st Amendment protected opinion, especially if they have something in the way of evidence to back it up. But if they know it's a lie and continue to spread it anyway, then it falls under potentially either libel, slander, or defamation and is wrong, both morally and legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Flagged for what? Original thought? Because it’s not sycophantic libspeak? Where’s your tolerance now? How is censoring a view you don’t agree with good for anyone? Wake up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The end is near
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Death of Liberty
Anonymous Coward, you put too much confidence in Trump. He's going to fall, and it's going to be messy. And you won't get the last laugh, but your laugh will be later than ours.
Unless we see some miracle of social activism, here's how it's going to go down:
The First Amendment is unlikely to fall under President Trump. He's just too incompetent, and too many people enjoy the illusion of freedom. Also there's that nasty collusion-with-Russia business that is going to undermine the GOP's credibility with anyone who isn't a Total Trump Loyalist.
But don't worry, Anonymous Coward your Era of White Nationalist America will come soon enough. You'll need to wait for the Democratic National Party to blow their turn at the wheel. Again. Don't worry, they're killing themselves with infighting.
See, The last two Presidents already forged the Ring of Doom for Trump. Our robust intelligence and surveillance sectors are exactly what is necessary to route out the dissidents (all of them) and assure their careers [in anything] fail early on. Those that are too much trouble may just disappear.
The United States got lucky this time. Trump got adversarial with the intelligence community early and has been ever since. So instead of systematically erasing every American who ever thought a liberal thought in their lives, he's fighting with them on Twitter, and looking like an idiot for doing it.
But the DNC will take its turn, and right now the new no-corporate-money democrats are being squished by the old-guard democrats who get support from big tobacco and big media. And because they're beholden, nothing is going to change.
That is to say [80% of] everyone will still be one gig-economy paycheck from eviction. That is to say we'll still be dropping Hellfires on countries that seem too brown and too terroristy. That is to say we'll still be paying more for shitty healthcare than any other nation in the world (even those that have lower mortality rates than ours).
Life will continue to suck for most Americans, and the same old fascist I can fix everything song will still be popular, as will the Would you like to send our colored cousins home again? message. And you'll get some far-right ambitious despot like Trump. But maybe this time, he'll actually have some brain cells to rub together, and just maybe he'll actually know how to use the NSA and CIA.
Then you can have your fascist dictatorship and you'll be so happy and you'll sing all the party songs and march the party march and salute the party salute.
Of course, after they've come for the immigrants and brownskins and crazies and disabled and liberals, the purge trains aren't going to stop. And they'll look for traitors of the party, and as patriotic as you are, it just won't be patriotic enough.
Heck, Anonymous Coward, you may have a damn good run playing musical chairs with all the internal groups. But unless you're a Bush or a DeVos or a Clinton or some other name is, today, on the side of freight cars or cruise liners or skyscrapers, you're not going to make it to the last round.
And I get the feeling that before saving you from the mill, the Allies are going to wait for the Russians. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Death of Liberty
Even you have to admit that the stock market is doing well. My 401k hit it’s highest level ever yesterday.
And I certainly would protect your right to speak, you deserve that much respect. Your speech above is quite a good representation of your inner world. Not quite so attached to the real world, with actual people making actual money, but hey! Be happy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Death of Liberty
Think you could use some of that passion to speak to those who disagree with you with some civility?
Most people wouldn't choose to speak civilly with someone who's already branded them a monster. But you're either young and inexperienced or old and jaded, it's easy to take that route instead of trying to peel off the monster's mask you've pasted on your "enemies".
Do all "conservatives" hate gays? Do all people who think "conservatives" might have some good ideas deserve censure? What about centrists like me who see both sides as being stupid and the idea of "sides" being boiled into a melting pot of mindless hatred by the media and politicians alike?
Do I "get the bullet too"? Do I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Death of Liberty
If you do have something worthwhile to contribute, it might help to, you know, actually contribute it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Do I 'get the bullet too'?"
It's curious what you define as speaking with civility.
I'm only reflecting on what happened in history to other nations that have reached this point. History rhymes, and this one may have more stanzas than we thought, but we're right on schedule.
Personally I'd really (really!) rather avoid a purge. I agree with Mr. He's mad! Mad, I tell you! Anonymous Coward, above. I think everyone should be able to say what they want and participate in government. If only we could get them to also exercise rationality and critical thought on a consistent basis and comb for demagogues and fools.
But when we put authoritarians in office who decide they need to fix the population by reducing it, what do you think their terms are? Any society no matter how white and conformist is still going to feel like a pluralism full of criminals, freaks and heretics. They're not going to stop until their top fifty Facebook friends are the only people who are left.
Or until the Allies intervene.
Maybe they'll come to their senses and kill Robespierre at some point, but I wouldn't count on it.
Does your personal intellect, wisdom and experience have merit? Of course it does. But we don't live in a society that cares for yours or mine. And as such we no longer trust the Democrats to serve the people, and demagogues have been able to effectively take over the message of the Republicans.
If you want to imagine a better endgame and construct how we get there, please do. I am already invested in mine not playing out. But I watch our committees sabotaging efforts to do things differently, and they're only locking the rudder in place.
Conservatism (that is, staying the course and protecting the status quo) will kill us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Death of Liberty
Try actually reading the post and commenting on the content thereof. You don't have to agree with it but if you do in fact contribute a nugget of wisdom I will personally give you an Insightful vote. Till then, we will continue to flag you. This means at least five of us agree with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
You guys are a hoot, really. No one will take us seriously. We OWN the United States. Did you see DeSantos in Florida? Does he look serious to you? DId you see Rick Scott for Congress, something like 90% of the vote even in the face of Google’s slanted opinions?
I will miss the incredible humor your silly opinions provide once you are DROWNED OUT by conservative voices free to speak again.
Ok, well, maybe not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
Which predicates on defining who invented email.
That didn't go over so well now did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
Did you see that lady who was on the Manafort trial talk about her experience in the jury? It was really interesting, really a testament to the American system of justice. She said she REALLY wanted Manafort to be innocent, and she was a big Trump supporter, had the hat and everything. But he wasn’t. The facts showed he broke the law and should be punished. So she found him guilty, in spite of her personal feelings.
This forum is a terrible place to try to render judgement, the rules here are secretive, skewed, and biased almost beyond belief. I just wish there were a cheaper and more expeditious way to Shiva to get his case in front of a jury and let them decide. We should all have that right when we feel we have been unjustly injured. Taking that right away from Shiva is akin to taking it away from yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An by “No One” you mean “No One in the Radical Left”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a simple solution
If Trump and his followers don't like all the negative news they find about Trump, maybe Trump should, oh I don't know, STOP DOING NEGATIVE SHIT!
You've got the leader of the free world (tm):
-Giving cushy jobs to his cronies
-Appointing completely unqualified people to head up institutions they seem hell-bent on destroying
-Insulting leaders of other countries, especially our allies
-Coloring a Crayon-by-Number flag of his nation wrong
-Complaining about people exercising their Constitutional rights
-Making his watchdogs out to be the enemy
-Firing or removing clearances from anyone who disagrees with him
-Promising to 'drain the swamp' yet invites a whole cadre of Shreks to surround him and run his campaign
-Gives every appearance of using the Office for personal gain
-Golfing more than any other President in history despite his promise to not do so
-Doing everything possible to help his business buddies instead of the people
-Continuously bringing up his winning the election because he himself apparently still doesn't believe it
-Calling tyrants and dictators "strong" and "talented"
With a list like this, it's no wonder that we focus on his negative accomplishments. Virtually everything 'good' that I've seen in the news that he's done so far has been shown to have either a) been done by someone else and he's claiming the credit, b) was already done and in the works and he's claiming the credit, or c) his Office literally has no effect on something yet claims he did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a simple solution
(And yes, I do own a few shares here and there -- I don't follow every up and down though, as in that lies nothing but tears.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a simple solution
About short run and long run, I also dunno - I think we might be in for a good run, as long as Trump is steering the ship. He’s made a lot of money for his investors before, and I think he might be doing it again. That was kind of my rebuttal to all the long list of perceived negatives about him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dare you to say that to the Trump voters who still live near or below the poverty line and have not seen a rise in their wages since Agent Orange took office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Alternative" search results
It shouldn't be difficult to create a powered-by-Google search engine that favors committee-approved sources.
Conservipedia is essentially an effort to create a right-wing Wikipedia...with a qualified outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They do exist, Ninja, and boy, do they annoy me. Imagine rocking up to some random South Asian person and asking for permission to wear a Manchurian dress. Someone actually proposed that. David Frum took him down in a scorching article. The point is, those nutty leftists that the alt-right complains about to in fact exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Change my mind"
Go to Google.com, type in the word "first" and hit enter. Top hit is hard-coded to usfirst.org. Sergi is buddies with Dean Kamen.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Change my mind"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Change my mind"
Google does tailor searches to past search history in your browser cookies. Perhaps that says more about you and what you've been searching for than Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Change my mind"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't like either sides because they create the tribal us vs them bullshit that racism causes, but I can say with a clear head...
the left has gone so stupid that it would sign a pact with a literal devil if it would ensure the destruction of the right. I can't say that the right is not far behind... but they are lagging in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ya, so you’re another emasculated, ugly sheeple small-handed guy thinking your progressiveness will get you somewhere with whatever you’re attracted to, you’re a joke even to leftists, vote for bernie!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ego
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias? What Bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias? What Bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's small hands are real.
Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When LIBERALS call out bias in tech, there's a problem.
And I'm talking about EUROPEAN Liberals, not American ones.
I REALLY think that you should rethink your position if you think there isn't any sort of conservative bias online.
People say "Learn to Code" to a journalist, they get banned.
Blue Checkmarks go "throw the kids in the woodchipper" and they're still on Twitter.
Maybe, just MAYBE...
You're blind to the bias because you agree with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soros
George soros essentailly owns Google ass....
Search Google for "George Soros..." it's been scrubbed....
Search for Obama, you will find trash on Trump.
Google News sucks George Soros ass for air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leftism is unpatriotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]