Slashdot Mirror

It should be common knowledge, since even Leftist media sources reported on it, but here ya go:
Wikipedia
New York Times
The NY Post
Fox News
BBC
Al Jazeera

Is that enough for you?

"Total bias?" So basically what happened is "Trump asked whether Twitter has bias." And of course all right-wing news sites will run with the story.

You say that like the bias is imagined. Here is one recent example.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of reading it: Candace Owens, a black woman who is a conservative, took anti-white racist tweets by the newly hired member of the NYT editorial board, Sarah Jeong, and replaced "white" with "black". Result? Twitter did nothing to Sarah Jeong for her original tweets, but locked out Candace Owens' account for violating Twitter's rules. Twitter claims it was a "mistake."

This sort of thing has happened enough times that it sure seems like there is a bias problem.

Trump doesn't seem to take security or dedicating himself to the office that seriously though. Still works out of Trump Tower a lot, plays a lot of golf and has high level meetings at Mar a Largo. I can't see him being too restrained with his personal phone.

Fancy that, he might be more comfortable in a place where he he's been in charge of the security for decades, in contrast with a place where at least one secret service agent has come out saying she wouldn't take a bullet for him.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...

Also, high level meetings that cover many topics typically take hours and have long pauses while people consider their responses, so why be indoors? I can't see it being any worse than meeting people at Camp David.

Far from being the sharpest tool in the shed

Stupid people don't win the presidency over the opposition of every 'elite' in the world - including most of his own party's leaders - and then go on to lead the most active and productive administration in recent memory.

In any case, the "Person had an opportunity to do bad thing, therefore Person did the bad thing" fallacy is ironic coming from someone calling others stupid. If he was half as dumb and careless as you think he is he'd be blurting out nuclear secrets at every campaign rally.

NASA is considering a spectacular new idea for crewed exploration of Venus. This sounds like a great idea.

Once again, leftist using homosexuality as an insult. Right up there with Bill Maur, Rosie O'Donnel, and chelea Handler
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
https://www.foxnews.com/entert...
http://wbsm.com/homophobes-on-...

He was 41 and a marathon runner. He was probably killed off by his ChiCom overlords.

Most definitely suspicious -- middle-aged marathon runners never die of sudden heart attacks.

Correct link: https://www.foxnews.com/politi...

Man, google is really stepping in it hard as of late. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20... They are turning into a company, that is easy to hate. They are becoming a close minded and censorship happy group, who think they know best, trying to shape the would. This will backfire and fail, if not from government regulation then by people. This also applies to You tube. The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.

You're in the far-left filter bubble. The average person can see vulgar racism for what it is. There is no context, other than she was a social "justice" idiot like you, with the social "justice" hair dye, and surrounded by people who shared her racism and sexism.

I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders

And their breasts, and smelling their hair, and stroking their faces, and kissing them. Yes, I'm sure the average person will think this is all totally normal and fine. Fucking creep.

Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?

Oh, really? Then why has Ellison not been disavowed? Why did you skip over it? What about the black congressional caucus? What about Obama? Where's the national media storm?

No Republican would have survived the equivalent associations with David Duke. Not even Trump. He got lambasted just because he didn't disavow him quick enough.

pat yourself on the back

I'm not the one claiming moral superiority. I can fully admit politics is pragmatic, on either side.

I've seen some pretty impressive shameless exaggeration and exploitation of weather events for ratings over the years, mind you. But the Weather Channel has really stepped it up a notch here in a graphics department. Kudos to them!

Fear mongering? How so? Mandatory evacuation orders are not a joke. Even a three foot storm surge is not a joke.

Ten feet of water, 150 plus people in New Bern that did not head the MANDATORY evacuation warning. That is a foot higher than the example they showed in the animation.

https://weather.com/storms/hur...
http://www.newbernnc.gov/news_...

Maybe if people see what a storm surge could actually do with animations like this, less people would ignore the evacuation orders.
Mayor of New Bern interview - 10.5 foot storm surge.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/583...

“Objectively speaking, our goal was met—we pushed and successfully launched the search features in Spanish, and we thank Lisa for her support in advocating for this work. I sent Philipp a note yesterday to thank him because he and others voiced their support this too, and we greatly appreciate it. Even Sundar [Pichai, Google's CEO] gave the effort a shout out and comment in Spanish, which was really special.”

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...

Not to mention banning straws is actively fucking over people without the motor-skills necessary to drink from a glass.

Nobody is banning straws. .

Correction: http://www.foxnews.com/politic... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... https://www.fastcompany.com/40...

Yes, there is a lot ov virtue signaling going on, while the countries that are doing the actual plastic pollution continue unabated.

For me, it is a matter of whether we want to pat ourselves on the back, perhaps give out friend of the earth trophies, or actually fix the problem.

Banning plastic straws in the US is simply not going to accomplish anything.

.... Here come the racists, with the usual cesspit of comments.
They'll explain to you why they are
a: Not racist
b: "Facts" that "support" justified racial biases

You do realize, that is exactly how the New York Times defended Sarah Jeong?

The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.

Either they support free speech or they do not.

Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.

Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.

And this should change.

That's the point everyone is making, that although it is perfectly legal that these sites are censoring whoever they like, that should change.

There's some legal precedent for this: when a shopping center is torn down and a mall built in its place, the mall can't prevent [otherwise legal] postings on its corkboard, because the mall has taken place of the supermarket public corkboard. Even though the mall is privately owned - the supermarket was also privately owned.

There's some legal precedent for this: when a service makes editorial decisions about what can and cannot appear on its site, it is then responsible for the content. Newspapers pay people to write articles, they can require any [otherwise legal] style or content they like. A blogging system with a vetted cadre of editors can require that the posts be on specific topics, can have specific views, and so on.

A site that allows anyone to post should be required to allow any post that is otherwise legal.

It's even worse, because these sites *used to be* allowing of legal free-speech, but after the election all that changed. Now that they've lured everyone in and become big, suddenly gun advocates are no longer allowed, or conservative views are no longer allowed.

Social media doesn't have to allow free speech currently, but that should change.

That's the point everyone is making.

It's also quite obvious that this is what has to happen, and that it is going to happen. The "masters of the universe" are too timid and/or clueless to realize this and get out in front of it, so expect this to happen:

a) Lots of warnings about one-sided suppression
b) The midterms
c) Lots of finger-pointing highlighting one-sided suppression as the cause(*)
d) A new law, the "internet free speech act of 2019" soon after.

And again, the "masters of the universe" are too clueless to predict any of this, or avoid it before this happens.

(*) From either side, it doesn't matter. Enough Dems and Reps will be elected to provide fodder for both sides of this issue.

Candace Owens was banned from Twitter for simply retweeting what racist NY Times editor/writer Sarah Jeong posted, but changing all racial references from white to black. And Candace Owens is black. Why was she banned? She's a conservative. And that's not allowed.

Terms of Use | Fox News

Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment.

Oh now we have another vector. Hmmm

Maybe you're right it's not as if Google doesn't have a pattern of censorship for conservative content. Oh wait what do you know they do.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/...

So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?

Feel free to go again

One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?

But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now

http://www.bbc.com/

Trump attacks 'left-wing' Google search results

It seems you are factually challenged.

Let's test your premise further:

26 occurrences of "Trump" right now

24 occurrences of "Trump" right now

16 occurrences of "Trump" right now

4 occurrences of "Trump" right now

Boy, BBC sure does a lot of stories on Trump. Must be because they're as obsessed with him as US news outlets are...

met with this Russian woman at Trump Tower

Who did that Russian woman meet with before and after the Don Jr. meeting? Oh, that's right, it was Glenn Simpson, one of the co-founders from Fusion GPS, the law firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign. The law firm they used to hire an ex foreign agent to talk to Russian spies and come up with a smear dossier on the main opposition candidate. Huh, it's almost as if they were setting up the Trump campaign with bait. How's that for Russian collusion?

There is a scandal here. It's Watergate and McCarthyism mixed into one -- and it's the Democrats with black hands.

Correct, they won't be found guilty of anything related to Trump or the campaign. They'll be found guilty of crimes committed years before the campaign related to taxes, but absolutely nothing connected to the campaign.

Oh look, that is exactly what happened. Manafort guilty of 8 counts of tax fraud from 12 years ago, Cohen pleading to tax fraud and bank fraud for his taxi business. So just because his highly partisan Clinton fixer attorney convinced him to agree to plead to something that isn't a crime, that doesn't mean a damn thing. Bradley Smith former FEC chairman has explained there is no FEC violation.

Paying off people to keep quite is not a crime and is not a campaign contribution according to the FEC unless campaign funds were used. A plea deal is not a conviction, no evidence has been presented. And the noise about Trump being an "un-indicted co-conspirator" is crap as well. As Alan Dershowitz said even if Cohen plead to a real crime, doesn't mean Trump committed one. Trump has the full right to use his money to "catch and kill" any negative stories. And a candidate is allowed to spend as much of his own money on his campaign as he likes, there is no contribution cap for the candidates themselves.

This is no different than a candidate selling a foreign car and buying and American made car to "influence an election". As long as no campaign funds were used, there is no crime. And no one has claimed or has evidence of campaign funds being used. It isn't like he funneled $12m in campaign funds through Cohen or something.

But let's put this in perspective - if you think Trump buying these stories to hide them is an illegal campaign contribution intended to influence the election then you must also agree that NBC buying the Hollywood Access video and releasing it in October was also an illegal campaign contribution to Clinton that was explicitly intended to influence the election, right?

I don't use Facebook. I agree with you about their strategy, though. However, your post starts off with a rather far-left set of claims about Infowars. I believe Alex is a complete fool/idiot, their "news" sucks, and it's full of boring conspiracy theories, but "trying to dehumanize transgender people" sounds like you have a far-left pet political agenda. What did he actually do, call them "trannies" or something? Do you have actual evidence for your claims? I only see some guy named French who works at the New York Times (an organization demonstrably hiring racist anti-white staff who the left has twisted into knots trying to crawfish an explanation as an "anti-troll") who makes that claim about Alex Jone's "language". I'd like to see what exactly the NYT author means because it sounds like typical left-wing over-sensitivity, to me unless I can see WTF the conspiracy nutjobs actually did to earn this claim. Compare Sarah Jeong's racist tweets to Alex Jone's (supposedly) "dehumanizing language" and I kinda gotta wonder who is the most deserving of the title "racist" or "dehumanizer".

If the murderer had been a citizen, I really doubt the site would have seen it as newsworthy.

I'm blowing mod points to reply to your post, but it's important to point out that in this case you are flat out wrong. This story has been in the national news for a month since she went missing. It has been in the national news all along. When her body was found yesterday that was in the national news. Today it was revealed someone was charged with her murder, and it was an illegal immigrant.

This was a month ago (People magazine): https://people.com/crime/unive...
Three weeks ago (Fox News): http://www.foxnews.com/transcr...
Three weeks ago (CNN): https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26...
This was two weeks ago (USA Today): https://www.usatoday.com/story...

You get the idea. Google shows 2.7 million hits from news sources for her name. Just pointing out you have made a massive assumption ("By just reporting every crime committed by an illegal they can create the impression that all illegal immigrants are murderous") based on totally incorrect information ("If the murderer had been a citizen, I really doubt the site would have seen it as newsworthy.")

This man can store fat in skin cell... but is full of fat near vital organs. http://www.foxnews.com/health/...

And PraegerU, a conservative non-profit group that produces educational videos on conservative issues, was just banned by Facebook.

Meanwhile, leftist hate-speech is suspiciously ignored, until it's pointed out by the media:

In several instances, Facebook ignored repeated requests by users to delete hateful content that violated its guidelines. At least a dozen people, as well as the Anti-Defamation League in 2012, lodged protests with Facebook to no avail about a page called Jewish Ritual Murder. However, after ProPublica asked Facebook about the page, it was taken down.

Yep. "Jewish ritual murder" isn't hate speech, but a pro-gun-ownership political candidate is.

Scary times indeed.

The same article is available in Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/health/...

Yeah, but everyone knows that Fox News makes you either stupid or deluded. (And don't give me "correlation is not causation", unless you're also going to present a viable argument that every company that advertises is wasting their $$$.)

The same article is available in Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/health/...

Medical bankruptcies account for over 60% of all bankruptcies in this country. And since your a right wing ideologue here's a fox news article about the study:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2...

Fox News reports it differently.

The bottom line is that Russia meddled to help Trump beat Clinton. There is plenty of evidence that isn't even disputed by the conservative wing of the media, or the GOP for that matter.

Clearly, you are a troll that is either delusional or in it for lulz. Either way, generally a drag on intelligent conversation and debate.

here's the last comment riley made referring to Fox news, before this one:

Comment Fox News is a beacon of journalistic integrity?? (Score 4, Insightful) 104
by riley on Tuesday January 23, 2018 @12:30AM (#55982167) Attached to: Rupert Murdoch Pushes Facebook To Pay For News To Guarantee Quality

And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?

I'm sorry, who's a delusional troll? My guess would be the one with inconsistent positions.

The bottom line is that Russia meddled to help Trump beat Clinton. There is plenty of evidence that isn't even disputed by the conservative wing of the media, or the GOP for that matter.

Clearly, you are a troll that is either delusional or in it for lulz. Either way, generally a drag on intelligent conversation and debate.

Spotify has a long history of censorship, the most recent example being Alex Jones.

Spotify is better than things used to be, for sure, but it's still a central gatekeeper of culture. Those who wish to silence new kinds of art will continue to flock to it to silence those who push outside of the limits of the status quo.

With Napster, bittorrent especially Gnutella, there was effectively no limit on what you could find. If someone produced it, you could find it. Spotify is not replacing at least that aspect of pirate sources.

Fine. Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

Now, you can even point to real, factual news like the fact that collusion isn't a crime and therefore Trump is indeed suffering from a witch-hunt and people won't believe it.

Webster definition of collusion: "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy

Webster definition of conspiracy: "1 : the act of conspiring together 2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators"

Webster synonym of conspiracy: "2 a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose a conspiracy among the leading manufacturers to fix prices

Synonyms of conspiracy

collusion,"

Last time I checked, conspiracy was an indictable crime. Since conspiracy is an actual legal term, there could be a risk of possible lawsuit by publicly accusing someone of conspiracy. Collusion is a little more nebulous and has no legal meaning, at least in this sense.

I know. A decade or more ago I was trolling with fake news pretty successfully. I was just doing it for laughs, however. I think the real issue is that we've learned to monetize outrage very effectively, which means there's a real market for it.

Now, you can even point to real, factual news like the fact that collusion isn't a crime and therefore Trump is indeed suffering from a witch-hunt and people won't believe it.

The fake news has gotten so deep that it's countering fake news with fake news about factual information. Fucking fake news all the way down.

Mueller is a professional liar and propagandist.

Former head of the FBI for 12 years, appointed by the Trump DOJ, endorsed by Republicans back when this whole process started.

I totally believe you...

The fact that the came out with the latest faux indictments immediately before the summit tells anyone with a couple of functioning neurons that this was done to maintain the Russiagate narrative. Nothing more, nothing less.

Preach brother! You've disproven the indictment by timing and irrelevant hyperbole alone! All who disagree with you have less than a couple of functioning neurons!

I totally believe that too...

And note that Putin immediately called Mueller's bluff by offering to hand over the indicted Russian officials if the FBI provides evidence to back up their claims, which everyone knows Mueller isn't going to do.

Link please. Because the tale is that Putin offered to allow Mueller to observe interviews conducted by Russian officials in Russia if the Russians could question "U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul and 10 other 'U.S. officials and intelligence agents.'" Trump refused.

I mean, you've only totally gotten that one wrong... so I totally believe that other stuff.

Shes not that bad. Republicans abused their offices and drug her through the mud for years with the fake Bengazi bullshit and all of the conspiracy theories bullshit, just like the propagandists they are.

Bengazi wasn't fake. Real people died there. I'm not blaming Clinton or the Obama administration for that, even though mistakes were made. These are dangerous places where stuff happens.

But I do blame all of them for the cover-up where they blamed it on some poor schmuck for making a YouTube video and ruined his life. They knew it was a lie but they pushed it anyway. It was a shitty thing to do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/1...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

... on http://www.foxnews.com./

Ginsburg, but yes. I didn't realize she wasn't so hateful to us like the rest of our government. This:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html

I apologize for the source, but it was the first result on Google. "I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model." Wow. Shows she is a woman of the people. The Constitution is a tool the rich use to destroy our lives.

Abuse of power is all fun & games when you're in power, the problem is when you're on the receiving end.

Your memory is incredibly short - remember it is the Democrats that abused power, not Republicans.

The ACA passage? Some political manoeuvring, but not abuse of power. In fact, if it weren't for the fairly extraordinary policy of "no GOP Senator is allowed to vote yes" it would have garnered quite a few GOP votes, it was afterall a GOP concept.

Why is it so darn hard for the FBI to describe when and why they started their Trump Investigation?

It's not hard, Carter Page blabbed his mouth to a diplomat about the leaked emails months before anyone knew of leaked emails. That's a good and very valid pretext.

Why did the FBI pay individuals to try and infiltrate/influence the Trump campaign?

When even a top GOP member disagrees with you it means your conspiracy theory

Why were there so many "unmasking" requests from the US Ambassador to the UN in the final year of the Obama administration? (Her defense is that it wasn't her, it was her "staff"!)

I can't recall this one off-hand but I'll look into it, I'm not hopeful that it has any more validity than your other points.

Abuse of power is all fun & games when you're in power, the problem is when you're on the receiving end.

Your memory is incredibly short - remember it is the Democrats that abused power, not Republicans.

Why is it so darn hard for the FBI to describe when and why they started their Trump Investigation?

Why did the FBI pay individuals to try and infiltrate/influence the Trump campaign?

Why were there so many "unmasking" requests from the US Ambassador to the UN in the final year of the Obama administration? (Her defense is that it wasn't her, it was her "staff"!)

But... but... Discovery producers said Klingons are Trump supporters, so they're suppose to be racist...? http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

Star Trek already fell for leftist manipulation, Discovery is based on Trump's election http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

Not only that, Comey WAS NOT BIASED, they found! "Comey 'broke norms but not biased' - agency watchdog report" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44488351

Quit lying. The report merely stated the IG couldn't find any evidence Comey was biased. That's not the same thing as saying he wasn't biased.

Given everyone thought Hillary was going to win, Comey's actions can easily be interpreted as a clumsy, biased attempt to whitewash the investigation into Hillary's blatantly illegal email server - after all, why would you piss off the next President? But if you go public with data just a few days before an election she wins anyway - you give the impression of being transparent.

Because, get this:

IG refers five FBI employees for investigation, as more anti-Trump messages revealed

Yep - five FBI agents in the Hillary email investigation are demonstrably biased against Trump - and that was the same group that handled the "Russia investigation" that's the foundation of Mueller's "Russia! Russia! Russia!" collusion investigation.

This IG report rips the roots right out from under Mueller.

Because do you really think that if this office tossed protocol and procedure out the window in order to exonerate Hillary, they didn't do the same in order to frame Trump?

So if Mueller actually does have anything on Trump (almost certainly nothing at all - given Mueller keeps charging his witnesses with process crimes that destroy their credibility as witnesses, and given anything on Trump would have been leaked by Mueller's partisan clown posse by now...), it's going to be fatally tainted.

And Mueller doesn't have anything anyway.

Nice to see "Whataboutism" is alive and well and upthumbed when used against an alleged "Republican" who is a well-known supporter of Hillary. While we're playing the "whataboutism" game, how many times did Trump hypocritically defend Colin Powell? I'm pretty sure the number is zero.

But where was Powell's server exactly?
Inappropriately using a non-official address is *not* equivalent to setting up an incompetently secured server in your bathroom.

How many classified emails were confirmed to have been hacked in Powell's account?
Because the IG report has stated there's concrete proof at least one classified Hillary email in her server was compromised by a foreign government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

And you people hypocritically scream that Trump uses a regular cellphone to send Tweets that are intended to be public anyway.

'Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show

Fox News link just to piss off the Clintonistas - might as well pick that one, as they're all true.

Not sure about airline pilots, but flight controllers...

You've been ingesting too much Fox News. They've been lying about California's economy for years.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

Shhhhh! Don't tell them! The news that California is failing is actually a clever PR campaign to keep people in the flyover states from coming here. As the nation's most populous state, we have too many people here already.

Earthquakes, mudslides, drought, riot, stay away!

You've been ingesting too much Fox News. They've been lying about California's economy for years.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

I guess the idea that high taxes and reasonable regulations work pisses off the Ayn Rand-ites, so they have to constantly say that it's failing? That's some serious cognitive dissonance. You should probably get your head out of your ass.
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

First, there are plenty of people for these jobs but the government doesn't consider them "looking" because they haven't actually looked for a job in the last week or so. It's why the unemployment numbers aren't really that accurate.

Second, and this has been going on for decades, employers will put up fake jobs in that the position doesn't exist, but the employer wants to get a feel for who is out there and what they want in pay.

Third, as the most recent jobs numbers showed, the largest portion of job creation is service jobs. i.e. low wage positions. One could argue that an increase in service jobs is a reflection of a growing economy, it could also mean that automation is taking away some of the more manual jobs which pushes down employment for those who would have done those jobs, thus revealing the only job growth is at your local Kwik E Mart rather than a production line. Since one can't live off those wages, they don't bother applying for such jobs.

While the numbers indicate more jobs than people looking, as the con artist would say, they're fake.

He does indeed