Eric Schmidt Says Google News Will 'Engineer' Russian Propaganda Out of the Feed (vice.com)

Justin Ling, writing for Motherboard: Eric Schmidt, Executive Chariman of Alphabet, says the company is working to ferret out Russian propaganda from Google News after facing criticism that Kremlin-owned media sites had been given plum placement on the search giant's news and advertising platforms. "We're well aware of this one, and we're working on detecting this kind of scenario you're describing and deranking those kinds of sites," Schmidt said, after being asked why the world's largest search company continued to classify the Russian sites as news. Schmidt, in an interview at the Halifax International Security Forum over the weekend, name-checked two state-owned enterprises. "It's basically RT and Sputnik," Schmidt added. "We're well aware and we're trying to engineer the systems to prevent it."

Comments

Guess we won't be seeing Trump in that feed now

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness.

Re:Guess we won't be seeing Trump in that feed now

[The Cynical Critic]

Or anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders for that matter...

Doubt this will lead to anything other than any Google-owned services becoming left-wing echo chambers, causing everyone on these services who isn't comfortable with the echo chamber they've become to leave for competing services which then turn into right wing or center-right echo chambers (if they weren't that to begin with).

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is going to be upset about this, I would expect it to be Trump. Russia basically got him elected.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftist, not liberal.

Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing to "engineer" - this is just censorship.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Any post expressing conservative positions is by definition wrong, that's why they get modded down. There is no /. conspiracy at work here, just normal common sense.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[elcor]

Good catch! Yes it's the typical strategy of waiting for a negative event to occur and then jumping in with solutions that serve their agenda of control :D

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure seems like this sort of thing already happens on Slashdot. Ever notice how quickly any post expressing conservative positions is moderated to -1? It's becoming very obvious that there's a real effort to silence conservative views here. It's unclear whether the editors or liberal moderators are responsible, but there's little doubt that the same type of censorship is already present here. It's just called moderation and some people zealously defend it. But it's definitely a form of censorship, and Google will probably be doing something similar.

Have you been on Ars lately? It makes Slashdot look like a Tea Party meeting.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[AmiMoJo]

It's a news feed. Russian propaganda and fake news isn't news. It's a spam filter.

Maybe you consider spam filtering to be censorship... I block ads too. Even Russian ones.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

They mention RT and Sputnik but fail to mention CNN, HuffingtonPost, Salon. You know, predominately fake news sites.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Eric-the-Red will edit out Semite propaganda ... or Trotsky-ite dik-dyke globalist drool so common on /. ? Does he mix peas-poradge-hot with his mashed newage potatoes ??

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Long time member I got tossed-off ARS for calling them out as Semite Trotsky drool stooges. And /. is right up there ..... gonna be a hard rain pad're when yeomanry patience ends & the white-right-fist comes smashing !

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[mccrew]

There is nothing to "engineer" - this is just censorship.

This is a correct observation. But it does get me thinking about some questions:

1. As a private business, Google is in the business of data quality, that is, filtering out spam, link-farmed content, and so on. Is that censorship too? Or is that just maintaining data quality?
2. As a private business - with no first amendment obligations, I might point out - what is their responsibility to facilitate distribution of intentional falsehoods?
3. Does deliberate misinformation and propaganda merit the less / more / same weight as other factual content?
4. A plurality of the average American voter have demonstrated their inability to detect fact from fiction, or even know how easily they are getting played by well funded enemy states that are plotting our demise. Isn't it in our national security interests to combat false data, which is individually hyper-tuned to punch the buttons of each mark's biases, fears, and beliefs?

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is nothing to "engineer" - this is just censorship."

Only the government can censor, if somebody else does it's called "freedom of speech".
Otherwise Fox and friends would have been in jail since the dawn of time.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I was permanently banned from Ars for accidentally calling Bradley Manning he instead of she.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[w1z7ard]

Well I'll be damned... https://searchcode.com/codesea...

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[iMadeGhostzilla]

well funded enemy states that are plotting our demise.

What demise? The US is by far the most powerful and least threatened country, with *huge* geopolitical margin of error, and seems to be doing quite well. Compare to Russia (or, say, Israel) who have to walk a tight rope. Russia is looking to survive and, to the degree their plotting made a difference, the last thing they needed was Hawkish Hillary at the helm. As did we, in my opinion, for that matter.

As for the rest I agree, Google is a private company, and they are free to exercise their views what is right, including bias and censorship, in whichever way they please that is compatible with our laws.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this. I used to visit Ars daily and comment regularly, but I rarely bother to visit anymore given the extreme turn it has taken. It's mostly the fault of the writers and editorial staff who've gone wild with the slant they take in presenting "the facts". The comment section is 95% dim-witted one liners about Trump, moderated up to +100. They went off the rails and picked their side during gamergate because one of their writers was directly involved in it.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every CNN story either leaves out pertinent information, uses anonymous sources, or fabricates facts that they later correct once it's off the front page.

RT has more credibility at this point.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No. With practically monopolistic control over searching, coupled with how they track you, and how the big 3 (Google, FB, Apple) are run by leftists, what is going on easily falls into the realm of censorship.

Not that leftists care about business having the right to serve who they wish, as seen these last few years.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

They are putting politics above running a business.

It's no secret that every top Google exec donated to the DNC or Hillary directly, totalling over 60 million dollars in the last election cycle.

It's hilarious how badly they lost, and pissed away a fortune betting on a criminal. They're now breaking the ladders to build the walls, destroying themselves to try to buy the next election.

It's going to be amazing when Trump wins again. Like mass suicides and shit.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? There is greater censorship in western media. Will happily report Putin had some guy killed through radiation poisoning but will not do serious investigation into western-instigated assassinations, false flags, covert ops against its citizenry, trails of dead bodies behind the Clintons, and so on.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[oh_my_080980980]

As opposed to an establishment boot licking ass-hole telling us censorship is a good thing...

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The tinfoil is strong in this one.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[ClickOnThis]

They mention RT and Sputnik but fail to mention CNN, HuffingtonPost, Salon. You know, predominately fake news sites.

Show me one single story on CNN, HuffPo or Salon that is indisputably fake news.

I don't mean op-eds. They aren't news.

I don't mean stories with errors that get corrected later. That happens to all news outlets.

I don't mean stories that are real, but reported with a bias. The better news sites try to avoid bias, but it still slips in. They can mitigate it by reporting from various viewpoints and with commentators who have different views.

I mean deliberate fabrications, stories that are just plain false, that are intended to deceive, anger or frighten the reader, and that the outlet does not retract even when they are debunked. I mean stuff like "pizzagate."

And while you're at it, try doing the same for Fox News. I'm no fan of theirs, but I doubt you'll find they spread fake news of the kind I'm describing.

Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is not news at all, and does not belong in a news feed.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

What RT stories are "falsehoods" though? They might publish things that displease the establishment or put spins on things that people out side of the Green Party aren't going to like, but that doesn't make it "false".

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Show me one single story on CNN

That's not hard.

That's an outright fabrication, by stating "you can't download the dnc emails." CNN never retracted it. The entire point of it was to stop people from looking by making them fear that they'd be prosecuted.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

or even know how easily they are getting played by well funded enemy states that are plotting our demise.

Complete garbage and bullshit. The USSR can't even float the tonnage to be a threat to the US. Hell the USSR and China don't even come close. The US follows the same doctrine that military powers have for hundreds of years when they've been 'king of the world' have twice as much power as your next two nearest rivals. The only "form of demise" that either country could use to try something is an out-right first-fire nuclear launch. And they'd still lose.

You're advocating censorship because you think it's the right thing to do. It's not.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the rest I agree, Google is a private company, and they are free to exercise their views what is right, including bias and censorship, in whichever way they please that is compatible with our laws.

And it is our prerogative, nay, our duty, as citizens to fill the gaps which are left by the laws. We must demand accountability from Google and, barring that, I think boycotting due to overt censorship is absolutely in order.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

RT is REAL news. CBS is propaganda. ae911truth dot org

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[sd4f]

I stopped going to ars(e) during the gamergate issues as well. Ars has just become the reddit of tech sites; just a massive circlejerk where the only requirement is that you believe in their political religion.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"yeomanry patience ends & the white-right-fist comes smashing"

What a bizarre world you inhabit. You and the rest of these weirdoes have trouble leaving your fantasies, let alone the basement. "Mom, where did you put muh Confederate flag? How can I protect the freedums of the white race when I can't find muh goddam flag. I wish you'd leave muh stuff alone."

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a story.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[sexconker]

If Trump wins in 2020 I expect all out riots in the typical hipster cities (los angeles, san francisco, seattle/portland, austin or the other one, I always forget, new york city, etc.).

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Good catch!
Yes it's the typical strategy of waiting for a negative event to occur and then jumping in with solutions that serve their agenda of control :D

You mean in the way some Slashdot posters sit there waiting for pro or anti-Russian news and then jump in there with first posts trying to shape the debate? Coming in with pre-formed memes that "serve their agenda of control"? Something like that?

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow what a bunch of fags.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me an article on RT that's fakenews. Go ahead.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

If you personally want to filter something that's up to you, heck if they gave you the tools to make it easier that's at least empowering the individual, but when a company takes it upon themselves to 'remove content' based on their own random reasons then they are deciding what you get to see (or not). Their a company, so it's not illegal (as opposed to say if the government did it), but it's morally reprehensible. Today they say 'RT' & 'Sputnik', tomorrow maybe its one of your 'favorite sites'. And if it's new content trying to gain a foot hold or even compete with Alphabet products in some way, how would you know since its 'engineered out of the feed' you just wouldn't see it.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

RT does have quite a bit of flat-out Russian government propaganda, but mixed in there they also have some really good journalism every once in awhile. It's kind of like our news and the CIA paid articles and the like.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

'Every single day we're lying': Russia Today reporter resigns over coverage of Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, there are those of us who could write bots that simulate leftists and still make your life a living hell. I mean, you earned it. Still crying over Hillary. It's a cult.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[eaglesrule]

Sure seems like this sort of thing already happens on Slashdot. Ever notice how quickly any post expressing conservative positions is moderated to -1? It's becoming very obvious that there's a real effort to silence conservative views here.

It really just depends on the time of day, it seems. Earlier someone was complaining about Slashdot being a conservative echo chamber, and being unfairly censored as a result. It might even be a virtue that Slashdot gets accused of being both a liberal and conservative echo chamber, but then it may also depend on who the editor is for that particular article with their unlimited mod points. There is another small possibility that when lacking a convincing argument, blaming the 'other' is also a convenient excuse.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[ClickOnThis]

Another AC on this thread has it right: this is not a story.

Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news. It's just an opinion. Like your opinion that he did it deliberately to keep people from looking at the leaked e-mails. Whereas another tenable opinion is that he just got it wrong.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dailycaller (!) link says the story was "leaked emails from Hillary Clinton".

What you have there is an example of a presenter being wrong. It became a story only after his error was pointed out.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it was shot down by a missile while flying over Ukranian territory. I don't think it's outlandish to suggest the Ukranians maybe have had something to do with it.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the russia-blaming propaganda they've been spewing. There's a reason CNN is referred to as FNN: Fake News Network.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Another AC on this thread has it right: this is not a story.

Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news. It's just an opinion. Like your opinion that he did it deliberately to keep people from looking at the leaked e-mails. Whereas another tenable opinion is that he just got it wrong.

Agreed, the odd mistake not corrected is not a conspiracy. Now if a pattern occurs, you may have something. CNN is not fake news. They could have less opinion and cover more stories, but this is sadly the real world and they have to make a buck too. That being said, it is a good idea to fact check everything, when you can, particularly if it stands out.

At any rate, if you believe CNN is fake news, create a web site that fact checks CNN with real fact checks. We need one for Fox while we are at it, but more for stuff like Hannity and Fox and Friends. Of course you could also just support one of the legit fact checking web sites. I'm giving politifact (i think) like $5 a month. They perform a useful service.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[bongey]

Step out of your echo chamber, more than 20 over here, https://www.taskade.com/v/ByzM... . Or how about more than one higher employee calling the entire Russian story BS. https://www.projectveritas.com... .
CNN is worse than other left wing news organizations is because they pretend to be non-partisan

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Using anonymous sources is an old and valuable journalistic tool. RT uses anonymous sources. WikiLeaks only uses anonymous sources. Astute readers understand the limitations.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it's not fake, just wrong. Because there's a difference.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no good. I'd give up if I were you.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[bongey]

USSR ? Someone has played too much Street Fighter. You probably think bears in sidecars is normal in Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[AaronW]

Oh, you mean THAT Project Veritas run by O'Keefe who was caught heavily editing videos and taking them completely out of context, who has been hit with multiple restraining orders and sued, especially after the hit piece he did on abortion clinics? Hahahaha! That's like trusting The Onion for news.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"plotting our demise" implies nothing about how successful their plots have been, though President Trump is quite a result.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news

Nope. That was during broadcast TV, not during an opinion segment. That means Cuomo presented that information not as opinion, but as fact. In turn, he explicitly says "that it's okay for the media to do it." That again isn't opinion, that's him implying during a non-opinion segment that only the media are protected.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Oh, you mean THAT Project Veritas run by O'Keefe who was caught heavily editing videos and taking them completely out of context

You do know that they posted in the fully unedited videos right? They're actually worse when you watch the entire thing in full. So much so that the FBI is now looking into investigating planned parenthood.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Nah. Everyone knows that Putin rides bears in the USSR. And they also make you spill your drink.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[rtb61]

They have been rabbitting on about RT for years and yet still no examples. Come on you laxy fuckers, if you are going to keep bullshitting and least do so creatively. Where are those RT news pieces carefully edited to look really bad, nope nothing, just ohh ahh, propaganda but no examples. Seriously by now with all the bullshitting you should be able to point to at least 100 examples, 100 RT stories proven to be lies, 100 examples of RT deceitful RT propagdanda.

Fuck what those pieces of shit at Google are delivering, those fucking cunts delivered me a breaking news story about this incredible secret an actress was revealing, it was a fucking ad for makeup, those goddam arse holes cunts delivered me an ad for makeup as a breaking news story (getting google news off an Android phone is a lot trickier than getting it on especially when you are pissed off). Who the hell gives a fuck about a google news feed, I would rather https://duckduckgo.com/?q=RT&t... (no matter who you believe is right or wrong that is funny ;) ).

The reality is if their power was so great, a bunch of yobbo trolls would not have stolen the election from them. The power is directed at the people paying for ads and convincing they can achieve what they patently failed to be able to achieve but the bullshit will continue and where common sense prevails, campaign bribes will ensure it remain silent whilst idiots pay the scammers at Google billions to control the internet, suckers.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling? Because that's just stupid.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it's not fake, just wrong. Because there's a difference.

There is indeed a difference between making a mistake and flat-out lying.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anne Thwacks]

And there I was thinking CNN stood for "Chicken Noodle News"

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Igor -is that you?

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Also Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, and Gizmodo.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

If RT and other less overt Russian propagandists want to boycott Google, you'll be doing their job for them for free. Good call!

It's worth remembering that this came about due to illegal Russian interference in the US elections (how they interfered and what effect it had is unimportant). Those calling to allow this to continue are literally calling for Russia to interfere with US internal affairs, which places them as Russian propagandists or literal traitors.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinions are like arseholes. Likewise, partisan political opinions are usually from arseholes. Nobody interested in tech visits Slashdot for any related reason any more, they haven't for years. There's no tech opinions formed or shaped here, just an echo chamber of the alt-right. They come to rubberneck the car crash and to troll, that's about it.

Once Slashdot advertisers realise that it's become a cesspool of trolls and propagandists who have no interest in tech or in the site itself, what do you think will happen to ad revenue? If fuckedcompany were still around, Slashdot would be in the deadpool.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Conspiracy amplification site used to justify conspiracy site, priceless.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Spam and link farm stuff is not 'opinions'.

But some may be interested in the Russian opinion too. There are even times when they have a point.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just pointing out to the Russians how grown-up media works.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Less vodka will allow you to write more coherent sentences. Unless this is an example of your syntax when sober in which case I'd suggest more English lessons.

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the brain, Luke. Use the brain.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[aquacrayfish]

Using solely this 'it's on TV, therefore not opinion' logic, I'm pretty sure we can take down at least 80% of Fox News' content. You sure that's the metric you want to use for determining if something is news or opinion?

Still, that's my opinion. And I didn't get it from television, so far as you know anyway. ;)

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[aquacrayfish]

Yet another example of the benefits of the separation of church and state!

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftists only know who Hillary is because Trump &co won't shut up about her. She's far more useful as a dog whistle for you idiots than she is to the D's at this point. There's no path for her to another political position; she drives you into a frothing rage though.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Those calling to allow this to continue are literally calling for Russia to interfere with US internal affairs, which places them as Russian propagandists or literal traitors.

Did you just call supporters of free speech literal traitors? "1984" was not an instruction manual!

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Using solely this 'it's on TV, therefore not opinion' logic, I'm pretty sure we can take down at least 80% of Fox News' content. You sure that's the metric you want to use for determining if something is news or opinion?

You mean CNN's content right? Around 70% of what their prime channel, which is what we're talking about is pure opinion. Fox weighs in at a hefty 52% opinion. That's still less then NBC, CBS, ABC as well. All between 56-64%

 

Still, that's my opinion. And I didn't get it from television, so far as you know anyway. ;)

If you're going for fact, it's weighted against you. You can dig through pew research's own data on that one if you want.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[N3wsByt3]

Hmmm... well, let's use reciprocity of argument, then. You have made a whole truckload of conditions when you consider something fake new or not and ask for an example, and when someone delivers it, you say it was only an opinion.

Well, it always is, until it's actually proven in court, isn't it?

So let's turn it around: give me one example where RT has made 'fake news' that should be considered so with my own conditions, and where I personally can decide whether it's a good example or not.

Mind you that your or a journalists' opinion is not proof, but an opinion. As is that of everyone else, especially if I say deem it so. Under these same conditions, I dare you to give an example I find valid as well. you'll not be able to provide one.

IMHO, you're far too naïve. The truth is, both sides use propaganda - deliberately, and knowing it's BS - to the audience they want to convince.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[ZNetracer]

"A plurality of the average American voter have demonstrated their inability to detect fact from fiction, or even know how easily they are getting played by well funded enemy states that are plotting our demise." I don't think it's as much this as it has gotten near impossible to fact check anything that you read or hear or see on/in media today. Most if not all media sources are heavily, politically stilted in viewpoint and more yet, just regurgitate outright lies and nonsense. Right or left, it plagues all houses. It takes a lot of time and digging in order to ferret out the granules of truth. Time and effort that most people either don't have or don't wish to expend. The old adage, "Believe nothing you hear, half of what you read, and some of what you see", should probably be changed to, "Believe nothing you hear, vette all that you read, and be suspicious of everything that you see on video (unless you personally know who took it).

Re: Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Yet another example of the benefits of the separation of church and state!

Let's be realistic here. Many of those people simply replaced one religion for another, and still screech that they're atheists to boot.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Mashiki]

Conspiracy amplification site used to justify conspiracy site, priceless.

So you're saying unedited videos are a conspiracy? Just what conspiracy are we talking about here. Where PV was able to get them to admit to something? That they said they actively engaged in it? Well I suppose those are conspiracies. PP did conspire to engage in those practices and admitted to such.

I find it humorous to no end just how far people are willing to go to try and avoid something that might hurt their beliefs.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I called those in the US colluding with the Russians traitors, because they are, by definition. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Muh McCarthyism 2.0!

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Less THAN.

For FUCK'S SAKE, less THAN.

Try picking up a book.

Re:Censorship, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Are u looking to hire an hacker/private investigator? I will recommend you contact charlescyberwiz@gmail.com. He helped track my cheating spouse when i suspected he was cheating, all he requested for was a phone number. He can spy on any phone without physical access. If u need to keep track of the things your kids are doing on their phone/computer or track a cheater or scammer dont hesitate to contact him.You get unrestricted and unnoticeable access to your partner/spouse/anybody's social accounts,email etc.He will never disappoint u. Contact him today!
Thank me later!!

So

[Anonymous Coward]

Thom Hartmann is on RT and on Pacifica...I guest that means we need to ban Pacifica as "fake" news also.

Fix Google News before you fix Russian propaganda

[OffTheLip]

The new and improved Google News sucks. That should be Eric Schmidt's first order of business.

please ban recolored nazis too

[KiloByte]

It'd be nice if Google could also do something to certain other kinds of propaganda as well. Ones that promote racial and gender discrimination. James Damore did some research they can use.

Re:please ban recolored nazis too

[TimothyHollins]

That type of propaganda is unfortunately far more pervasive.

Re:please ban recolored nazis too

[nickittynickname]

Yeah, How about letting us see the news we want to see. I would love to be able to filter out any article relating to Politics. Instead I get dumb crap like groping allegations, Trump tweets and something engineered to engender outrage.

Re:please ban recolored nazis too

[Anonymous Coward]

James Damore is a jobless autistic whiny reichtard faggot. He's not known for vigorous research. He's known for being fired after being a whiny faggot.

Re:please ban recolored nazis too

[Anonymous Coward]

engender outrage.

I'm outraged that you just assumed Eric Schmuck's engender.

Re: please ban recolored nazis too

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, I suppose that's what happens when you get a masters in social and gender studies like Damore did.

Re: please ban recolored nazis too

[Anonymous Coward]

But we all know only whiny faggots and SJWs have any interest in social and gender studies.

Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are also state owned networks primarily geared towards propaganda.

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[Comboman]

Since when is Time-Warner a state?

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[jpbelang]

Pretty sure this was an , aka an Anonymous Cowardski.

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[viperidaenz]

Since they started making their own laws by buying legislation?

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure I can watch my Fox News... No propaganda.

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they do own a big piece of congress and write some of the legislation passed by them. I mean, the voters sold it to them, but you get my drift. The line between state and corporation is very blurry, almost nonexistent. Most people find this perfectly acceptable, as long as there's something to watch..

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[KiloByte]

Alas, whatever Cyrillic you wrote doesn't work on a site that fails at Unicode. Plus, -ski implies Poland (although, as we had been occupied by Russia for 144+2+52 years in the recent history, there's lots of Polacks, usually naturalized, there). And current Polish government is full-tilt national socialist[1], thus the kind of propaganda differs.

[1]. I don't mean this as an insult but a fact/opinion: NSDAP was mostly about race not nation, and not that keen on socialism either -- while our govt keeps talking about Germans trying to control us economically and via EU law, Ruskies doing subterfuge, Jews as usual, and Muslims trying to invade us and make non-white, all while enacting policies that come straight from communist times.

Re:Add CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN to the list

[Comboman]

The OP said state-owned, not state-owning.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[ThePawArmy]

You misspelled "Clinton".

"Engineer"

[110010001000]

"Engineer" means some automated way because we can't bother to curate the BS we are spewing out as it would cut into our money counting time.

While your at it

[Anonymous Coward]

See what you can do about teleSUR propaganda that has polluted your search results involving Venezuela for years. It's not a legitimate news source and pretending it is while getting bent out of shape about stupid Russian crap that no one sees is about par for the course for Valley Values liberals.

Re:While your at it

[Hal_Porter]

I'd rather Google just dumbly indexed news sites and didn't try to do editorial control. The problem with labelling sites propaganda and de-indexing them is where would it end. You can actually make a case for de-indexing most news sites

teleSUR - communist state funded propaganda paid for by Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia

RT, Sputnik - Russian state channels, paid for by Kremlin. Knowingly pushes lies if they suit it

BBC, Guardian - Knowingly push lies if they suit London SJWs. Very biased on BREXIT.

CNN, NYT, Huffington Post - Knowingly push lies if they suit the US Democratic party. Very biased on Trump.

Fox - Knowingly pushes lies if it supports US Republican Party

Breitbart - Used to be an US Republican mouthpiece, was later described by Ben Shapiro as 'Trump's Pravda', now pushes Bannon's odd agenda of 'Trumpism without Trump'. Currently in a quixotic quest to save Roy Moore who Bannon backed but Trump failed to endorse from allegations of paedophilia which most people have concluded are probably not completely baseless. Increasingly hated by establishment Republicans for backing a flawed, unelectable outsider candidate against their man, Luther Strange who was also endorsed by Trump. Hate by all Democrats, who would probably shut it and Fox down if they could.

I.e. pretty much any news site you can find some story they've covered in a very biased way and ended up making fools of themselves. And the Tech Journalism sites are even worse than the normal news ones - everyone knows the people who write for them are bloggers who care even less about journalism than the people who write for 'proper' news sites.

Re: While your at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old "they're all as bad as each other" trick, lumping the BBC in with RT.

Re:While your at it

[bongey]

BBC is a government news site, payed for by British tax dollars.

Re:While your at it

[Anne Thwacks]

BBC is a government news site, payed for by British tax dollars.

No it isn't. It is true that the TV licence is collected by the Government. The pounds pass through many layers of insulation between the Gov and the BBC's decision makers - even if they are not the "great and good" that they like to think they are. In terms of regurgitating Government news releases without question, I do not think they are particularly bad.

Re:While your at it

[Anonymous Coward]

British tax dollars

Oops! Wrong currency, comrade.

Re: While your at it

[Anonymous Coward]

What amused me more was the "very biased on Brexit" part. Here in the UK, anyone who doesn't believe puppies and unicorns will rain from the sky post-Brexit is bemoaned as "very biased on Brexit" by our own far right.

Re:While your at it

[helga the viking]

Ex Aussie Here:
One word: Ruper Murdoch

Fake news/biased news whatever it is isn't new, has been tricking people for years.

Now google 'dont be evil' is in a position where it can 'do no good'. What happens if RT reports as they did correctly that 'moderate rebels' were getting medical treatment from Israel which is now verified that they probably just were ISIS?

Whats been lost to stop a few Putin Trolls and alt right bigots is democratic press freedom

In other news...

[Baron_Yam]

Any serious Russian effort in future will be run through American proxies, leaving Google only one option - filter by opinion.

The only way to really beat this domestically is education, so people aren't so easily influenced. Of course, you can back that up with counter-attacks and advise the foreign governments that so long as they're detected meddling in your affairs, you'll continue meddling in theirs.

Ultimately the best you can hope for is that the cyber version of MAD evolves and the whole thing becomes a smaller problem as both sides generally choose not to inflame the situation in fear of having to deal with reprisals.

Re:In other news...

[BasilBrush]

Any policy that relies on "educating" the public is doomed to failure.

Re:In other news...

[Baron_Yam]

My previous policy of 'cull the stupid from the gene pool' was not met with open arms... ...and of course there's the problem that it probably isn't genetic but environmental anyway (or rather, the genetic problem exists throughout the species, but environment overcomes it in some).

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hold such contempt for your fellow citizen?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any policy that relies on "educating" the public is doomed to failure.

Then maybe we could employ some kind of exam or test before voters would be able to cast their votes. If they fail basic logic, or show they know nothing of the issues they are to be deciding, they could be denied their right to vote. We could run an campaign for "Get Out the Vote unless you're a retard or idiot. All others stay home."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's over 15 years of age. You will understand when you're older.

Re:In other news...

[greenwow]

We shouldn't do that, because it will hurt the Democrats. Turn-out helps us in almost every election. When we can get the people to the polls that don't care about politics, we win. By limiting votes, you are basically handing the elections to the Republicans.

Re:In other news...

[Baron_Yam]

The problem is that people are generally apathetic when they find things are pretty good... which they generally are in the USA.

However, Trump's base very passionately believes they are NOT good, and so they're motivated to campaign and vote.

What the apathetic voter needs to realise is that when they fail to vote for the status quo that has made them apathetic, they're giving more power to the people who want to disrupt it.

You must ALWAYS vote, no matter how little you care, or someone's going to vote in a way that makes you care in the next election cycle. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you can back that up with counter-attacks and advise the foreign governments that so long as they're detected meddling in your affairs, you'll continue meddling in theirs.

Ultimately the best you can hope for is that the cyber version of MAD evolves and the whole thing becomes a smaller problem as both sides generally choose not to inflame the situation in fear of having to deal with reprisals.

MAD assumes you can influence Russia through social media. Good luck with that. The political system in Russia is pretty much independent of voters. The best part -- Russians know about it and are ok with it.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. Let's disenfranchise those 'others' by taking away their vote. Twat.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's over 15 years of age. You will understand when you're older.

I solved that problem by self-administered lobotomy. I again have faith in my fellow human beings.

Re:In other news...

[HornWumpus]

Don't you have earth science homework or a letter to Santa to write?

Re:In other news...

[HornWumpus]

The Ds and Rs have been in MAD for decades. Which is why nothing ever changes. What we need now is a dirt dump, politicians in jail and all new parties.

Re:In other news...

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem with "cull the stupid from the gene pool" is that it quickly reaches defining "the stupid" as "people who disagree with me"....

Re:In other news...

[Baron_Yam]

> it quickly reaches defining "the stupid" as "people who disagree with me"....

Well... the original original plan was, in fact, "cull the people who disagree with me". So there's that.

I'm constantly refining the approach.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we've been saying this "we need to educate the masses" claptrap for 150 years.

The best and brightest minds of 7 generations have worked their damnedest on this project, and look where we are. What's going to break that pattern?

Re:In other news...

[Shotgun]

There's a simpler solution.

Blank ballots.

Every candidate is a write in, and must be legibly spelled correctly to count. If you can't be bothered to learn who is running for the race, how can you be bothered to learn their stances on the issues or how those stances will influence society?

Re:In other news...

[Shotgun]

That is what Trump is for. Yes, it is ok if he goes out to sea with the rest of the swamp.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been asleep? He appointed swamp dwellers to every single position possible. Trump is going to sea by way of a prison cell.

Re:In other news...

[lucasnate1]

They did? It seems like at least in our generation, the best minds prefer to go to wall street or to other, more money earning channels.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

where we are.

Most peaceful. Longest living. Healthiest. Lowest crime. Every measure is better for everyone in western society.

I am not sure what you are implying but what has failed in the last 7 generations.

Re:In other news...

[willy_me]

Any serious Russian effort in future will be run through American proxies

Good. If such an attempt is suspected, the authorities can raid the place, seize documentation, and shut them down. Much harder to do that when they are in Russia. It will probably be a lone individual but that is fine. What you are looking for is proof that they were working on behalf of Russia as this gives one leverage during future negotiations with Russia.

Re:In other news...

[HornWumpus]

The RNC hates Trump almost as much as the DNC does.

Because they know they are the second domino, right after Clinton goes to prison, their dirt gets dumped.

It's a lot like me and my sibs as mid teens. If anybody had snitched, we'd have all been up shit creek.

Re:In other news...

[Rick Schumann]

Let me tell you what the real problem is: The Internet itself. It's a clear case of 'too many people ruining a good thing'. When the Internet was a new thing, with few people using it, it started out to be a great thing. Then more people got involved, and it was still a great thing. To be fair, it's still a great thing -- in some ways. But now Too Many People are involved in it, it's been weaponized, subverted, twisted, distorted, and adulterated into something that is just overall a piece of shit. You've got some countries that censor the living fuck out of it, making it more or less useless for anything other than influencing weak-minded people who don't know any better than to believe their own governments propaganda, and you have countries like Russia that are using it literally as a weapon to socially destabilizes the U.S. and other countries, throw them into chaos, fuck up their elections, so that while everyone is distracted by pussy-grabber this and BREXIT that and fake news over there, Putin can be doing whatever it is that Putin is planning on doing. As-is, using social media of any kind, for any reason, is a non-starter anymore, even if it wasn't for the trolls, foreign national agents, terrorists, white supremacists, neo-nazis, and other yet-to-be-identified agitators/shit-stirrers/dickheads mucking up the works with their sewage, because all so-called 'social media' is just data-collection platforms out to profile everyone for purposes ranging from trying to suck as much money as they can out of their bank accounts for shit they probably don't need, to domestic surveillance of citizens just in case they're terrorists or somesuch shit. Then there's the fact that ISPs have wanted to turn it all back into walled gardens for years and years now, and with the current shit Administration in power, looks like they'll get their way; so much for any real value you might still squeeze out of your broadband bill every month, because they'll raise the prices even more, and slow down anything that they don't want you to see (and pay for) -- assuming that is they don't block access to things outright if it doesn't profit them. Then there's the recurrence of SPAM, widespread hacking of any Internet-facing computer or mobile device, and so on, and so on, and so on. If you're worrying about Google 'censoring' the Internet still after reading all this, then your focus is too narrow. Google is only one tiny part of the problems that are rendering the Internet, in general, pointless to bother with anymore.

Re: In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, I am pretty sure that on tests at least, I would beat you every time, yet I would still support guys like Trump just to poke you in the eye.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor old Wumpus, stupid cunt still thinks the lies of the alr right about Clinton will stand up in court.
30 years of bullshit, not one credible accusation resulting in charges.
3 investigations into Bengahazi and still no evidence.
What a dumbfuck.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

If google filters out everything but US media, then opinion pieces are all that will be left. Wake up. This is some scary stuff. RT is one of the few outlets that reports facts and sound bytes right from the horses mouth.

Re:In other news...

[AaronW]

Now they keep going on about a uranium deal that she had absolutely nothing to do with and a contribution to her charity by someone no longer involved with the deal which actually represents a tiny fraction of the uranium trade for uranium that can't leave the country anyway. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it true. About the worst is Bill's misogynistic behavior and her still supporting him. It's all whataboutism with Trump where he tries misdirecting blame at others and refuses to take responsibility for his own mistakes. Hell, even Fox News debunked the Uranium theory, much to the chagrin of their viewers.

Re: In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"facts and sound bytes"

"lies and unsound bytes" like the rest of the Russian trolls.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ian Telfer’s donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton.

Ian Telfer was chairman.

And then there's Bill flying to Moscow to give a speech for a cool half million. But the worst is a blowjob from a couple decades ago.

Re:In other news...

[Mashiki]

Now they keep going on about a uranium deal that she had absolutely nothing to do with

You really need to read more. She directly didn't have anything to do with it, that we know of. On the other hand, the person who was just unmuzzled has stated that as an informant operating under the government, the Obama administration knew that there were literal suitcases full of money handed to the Clinton Global Initiative. You know the same one that shutdown this year. On top of that, they really don't know where the uranium went, Shepard Smith was actually wrong FYI. Some of it went to Canada, and disappeared. That's it, it's gone.

You want a real kicker? Remember Lois Lerner? The person in the IRS that blocked Tea Party groups from charity status for years, and the government just turned around and paid $13m out to because she turned around and actually *did* use the IRS as a political weapon. You wanna know why there's still lawsuits? Because she's trying to get her testimony sealed. And it's already come out through a leaker, that even after she was told not to use the IRS as a political weapon to stifle political opponents, she went ahead and did it anyway. Then covered it up.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should probably read this and get a head of the curve for a change. Plenty of ties to both the CDI and Podesta group in this, and it's likely not going to be pretty. But it does need to come out.

Re: In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, hannity.com, that's bound to be truthful and impartial.

Re: In other news...

[Mashiki]

Oh, hannity.com, that's bound to be truthful and impartial.

Oh progressive! How one whines, when something comes up that really hurts that bubble they live in. Oh how they whine over a source, and can't read it because it might actually make them question things. Do you have any idea who Sara Carter is? Do you know why she's a respected investigative journalist? No, you probably don't.

I'll give you a hint though, she's the reason why Lois Learner is trying to get her own testimony sealed showing she used the IRS as a political weapon against Tea Party groups trying to get non-profit status. And while you're at it, you can read this right here and see how that uranium really was exported out of the US by slight-of-hand, and how it ties into Sara's article. FYI: Hillary Clinton's office was directly responsible for this action.

Re:In other news...

[slashrio]

The problem is that the public actually is constantly 'educated', but in the way of Bernais.

Only Russian?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about US propaganda?

Re:Only Russian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other countries like China and Russia block Facebook entirely. The US is one of the few countries that allows, if not allows businesses to profit from enemy psy-ops operations on their own soil.

Re:Only Russian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia doesn't block Facebook.

Re:Only Russian?

[AaronW]

They just heavily dox anyone who doesn't keep with the party line.

Re:Only Russian?

[slashrio]

The US is good, Russia is bad.
The US 'frees', Russia 'manipulates'.
Therefore, US 'information campaigns' are allowed, Russian 'propaganda' is not, even if it's news.

Negative news about Democrats = Russian propeganda

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll just quickly engineer that out of the news stream.

If there's one company I wouldn't trust to curate the news, it's Google.

Yay!

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Yay, corporate censorship! Down the memory hole! We're saved from the evil Russians.

But how will this 'engineering' be held democratically accountable? Who has effective oversight? We're further handing the basis of our democracy, i.e. access to information, over the a tiny minority of billionaires who can manipulate it and therefore us in any way they choose. Oh hang on, haven't I just described the mainstream media?

Re:Yay!

[AmiMoJo]

I'll take Google over Russian propaganda any time.

Re:Yay!

[sinij]

I'll take Google over Russian propaganda any time.

Of course you will AmiMoJo, because your SJW values closely align with Google. Now imagine if your feed was "curated" by Fox News or Breitbart. This is what inside this particular Pandora box and this is why we shouldn't open it.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

of course you would. You toe The Party line.

Re:Yay!

[AmiMoJo]

No need to imagine, just go to brietbart.com or turn on Fox News.

You didn't really think that one through, did you?

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But how will this 'engineering' be held democratically accountable? Who has effective oversight?"

The same people who decide not to bake wedding cakes for lesbian couples, or not to hire Atheists, THE BOSS.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thicker than a bowl of oatmeal with molasses mixed in, in winter, in Alaska.

Re:Yay!

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL another troll....

Re:Yay!

[oh_my_080980980]

More than you if you want some corporate entity to think for you.....

Re:Yay!

[Rockoon]

He doesnt want a corporate entity to think for him.

What he wants is a corporate entity to think for everyone else, giving his thought.

AmiMoJo is not a good person. Totalitarian through and through. Openly willing to screw with your kids minds too. Publicly admitted it.

Re:Yay!

[serviscope_minor]

AmiMoJo is not a good person. Totalitarian through and through. Openly willing to screw with your kids minds too. Publicly admitted it.

I'l bet he supports fluoridation too. He'll proably want to put it in icecream. Children's ice cream, Rockoon!

I for one will not put up with his plot to sap and impurify my precious bodily fluid.

Re:Yay!

[serviscope_minor]

But how will this 'engineering' be held democratically accountable?

You're asuming though that the status quo is better than them engineering this.

They already engineer the fuck out of search results because otherwise they'd be full of spam, linkfarms ans crappy blog posts. IOW they're already removing the crap which is hugely dominant.

How do you know the present engineering is wors than what they're proposing?

Oh hang on, haven't I just described the mainstream media?

In a word: no.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the other slashdot leftards are coming out of the woodwork.

Re:Yay!

[Mashiki]

No need to imagine, just go to brietbart.com or turn on Fox News.

You didn't really think that one through, did you?

So which part of brietbart and fox news have their own mobile devices that have news feeds directly on the device and curates them to tell you, what they want you to hear? Right. Cut the bullshit, you're advocating corporate censorship. Which shouldn't be a surprise since you also advocate censoring people with hate speech laws. Nothing you're saying supports democracy or an open society, only more control, more curtailed rights, less freedom.

You really didn't think any of this through, did you? It aligned with your beliefs and you god-damn well jumped in with both feet.

Re:Yay!

[HermMunster]

I had not visited breitbart.com before Trump's presidency. I had not watched Fox News for almost a decade. After hearing all this negativism about Trump, Bannon, Hannity, and others on these networks I decided to go and listen. Prior to that I read news articles and watched the actual videos on youtube.com. When someone, anyone, said that Trump said this or that I'd go get the full clip and watch. Most of the time it turned out to be false. It was someone making an interpretation (often extreme) and taking the comments out of context.

Trump didn't help, as the way he spoke was confusing, but if you were good enough you'd be able to work out what he was really trying to say. Knowing that the mass media was supporting Hillary I knew to take the news media to task, as we all should every day.

Getting back to breitbart.com and Fox News...well, about 2 months after Trump's win, with all the negative things being said and after hearing Trump supported both of those entities, I decided to go to those places to find out for myself. I read all those nasty things about them and I wanted to see if they were true.

I didn't find what I was hearing to be the case. These were not extremist sites. Fox News wasn't out making up news or offering up extreme interpretations and breitbart.com was nothing like I expected. It was pretty tame. I'd read comments and articles from various sources provided through reddit.com that were 100s of times worse than anything I saw on either Fox or breitbart.com.

I read all sorts of very negative comments by reddit members with a lot of those being hysterical and hostile, even to the point of calling for Trump and his son to be executed. You have to tell some of those people to take a break from all this. It was obviously getting to them.

Now, I don't visit either site often but when someone links to them I will go there and read the article. I try to read the comments. Sometimes they are quite extreme and other times they are well thought out, however I found breitbart.com is nothing like it is being described.

I read recently on breitbart.com that according to Alexa data breitbart.com has a higher traffic ranking (48th place) than the Washington Post (50th place).

If you haven't read the Washington Post, well some of that is outright batshit crazy and it is obvious that they are manipulating their readership. I read that Hannity has a larger audience than most of the competing news entities.

What Bezos said is that his Washington Post is basically acting as an echo chamber for his readers which are already predisposed to those kind of stories. My friends, that is no longer a news entity. If you haven't been paying attention to the headlines there you should be and if you do you'll note that almost every one of their articles is an opinion piece (opin-news). Frankly, I don't want to read opinion, I want to read just the news, however boring that may be.

Re:Yay!

[AmiMoJo]

Have you tried their apps? In fact Fox has half a dozen.

Re:Yay!

[Mashiki]

Have you tried their apps? In fact Fox has half a dozen.

That requires a person to make that choice. Google on the other hand holds dominant market share, with their *own* app that they want to use to curate news. You have no choice.

Re:Yay!

[Mashiki]

*insert joke that the first red-pill is always the hardest*

Thing is, this isn't limited to the US either. In Canada there are several right-of-centre blogs that have more public draw then our national newspapers. But those news papers will go out of their way to smear and malign them, even after they steal their content.

Re: Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all know why that is. I will give you credit for commenting on an id while I do not - Google has the best search product and has quite a bit of freedom in this country to do that. However, there is quite a bit of leftist thought that has nothing to do with fact and is just preference.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, look its another Russian shill, with yet another epic fail.
Poor widfle troll is triggered by reality, awwww, sorty about your butt hurt, realities left wing bias is really upseting for you isnt it snowflake?

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

The first red pill is a suppository with a blue coating.

Re: Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one of Putin's bots so I don't know if anything you say is true.

Re:Yay!

[bongey]

Just give it a rest AmiMoJo , Google has monopoly of search , which includes news. Fox News and Breitbart are not search engines with monopoly over how people get information from the web.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

These are at least better than PopeRatso. Totally senile.

AmiMojo is just misguided. He/she can be brought back to sanity. He just needs to read more.

Re:Yay!

[AmiMoJo]

Weird, when I open my browser it doesn't force me to view Google News. My phone has a number of non-Google news apps and they appear to be functional. Somehow I seem to have a choice.

Re:Yay!

[Mashiki]

By posting on /. you're a part of the "tech minority" that can understand to make that choice. The average person does not, and will not unless it impacts them directly. Hell the new phone I just bought came setup for: Google, Google's apps, Google's search, Google's browser(chrome), Google's "social media" system(hangouts), all preinstalled. There wasn't any other options as the default.

Re:Yay!

[AmiMoJo]

Are you saying that people don't know about apps? They think that because their phone doesn't come pre-installed with Facebook and Instagram and Twitter that it just doesn't have those features?

And that your phone had the full suit of Google apps, EXCEPT for the the Play Store. The Play Store that Google is very keen for you to browse because it makes them lots of money.

Re:Yay!

[bingoUV]

Trump didn't help, as the way he spoke was confusing, but if you were good enough you'd be able to work out what he was really trying to say

Great, I found someone who cares about reality.

Do you think it really matters what Trump is trying to say ? I heard him tell Hillary that she would be in jail (indirect underlying context was the situation where Trump becomes the President). But he made it very clear early on after becoming POTUS that it is not going to be so.

Did I hear it wrong ?

Re:Yay!

[slashrio]

Who needs democracy where the corporations are in charge?

Re:Yay!

[Mashiki]

They think that because their phone doesn't come pre-installed with Facebook and Instagram and Twitter that it just doesn't have those features?

My 6 year old smartphone that I replaced had facebook and twitter preinstalled. My s/o's 3 year old smartphone had facebook, instagram and twitter all installed, just a FYI.

And that your phone had the full suit of Google apps, EXCEPT for the the Play Store. The Play Store that Google is very keen for you to browse because it makes them lots of money.

I didn't mention that, because I figured you were smart enough to realize that all android builds have the play store installed by default.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

100% agree on this.

I checked out Fox News and Fox Business and they're WAY less toxic than the rest of the media.

While I wouldn't call them "fair and balanced" I'd say they're much closer to that description than any others out there. But of course no one can say they watch Fox News because the Democrats have spent a decade demonizing them so if you dare suggest they're not as bad you get labeled a racist and an idiot.

And that's what the left does. They wage these long wars against dissenting opinions using what basically amounts to propaganda and it works wonders.

The Ministry of Truth

[CrAlt]

The best books are those that tell you what you already know.

Easy Peasy

[religionofpeas]

Russian propaganda is easily recognized because it's written in Cyrillic !

Re:Easy Peasy

[bongey]

Written by Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.

If RT is out...

[alexandre]

... How is Fox still in?

Re:If RT is out...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if Fox is out, when are they coming for MSNBC and CNN?

Ohwait, lefties like MSNBC and CNN because they're both tripping over themselves to suck Hillary's dick

Re:If RT is out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must resist urge to respond to troll........

Re:If RT is out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Voice of America, or Radio Free Europe, or the BBC?

Re:If RT is out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or NPR.

Re:If RT is out...

[Anonymous Coward]

RT leans left; Foxnews supports imperialism.

Re:If RT is out...

[Mashiki]

Must resist urge to respond to troll........

They're not trolling. Read the DNC email leaks, left-wing publications including broadcast media were sending pre-publication information to her camp, to make sure that it was the correct narrative. And it wasn't limited to single publications. CBS, NBC, Politico, ABC, The New Yorker, WAPO, Boston Globe and so-on all did it. Hell, Donna Brazille came out and admitted that she leaked CNN debate questions to the Clinton camp. They were literally sucking the DNC and Clinton's dick and working as hard as they could to get her elected -- and still lost.

Faux News is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian propaganda stands out for the absurdity, but has anyone looked at the absolute facepalm that is Fox News lately? At least propaganda has an element of truth. Fox makes no pretense, it's pure ideology presented as news + whataboutism. I don't see how you would derank RT and not Fox.

Re:Faux News is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

And take a long hard look as MSNBC too, they're a propaganda machine!

But it's okay because it's propaganda for the correct side

Re:Faux News is next.

[HermMunster]

I can't say that I have heard much propaganda on Fox. I don't watch a lot of it because I have other things to do. However, from what I have watched though it may be slanted toward Trump I think it is a necessary thing. It doesn't bother me as long as they are right or at least trying to be right.

What I find more onerous are shows on MSNBC and CNN. Those are some outright extremists and often tell blatant lies meant to damage Trump and his presidency. This is not in question.

We've seen analysis showing that 90+ % of news on stations like MSNBC and CNN and even WaPo are negative about Trump while there's nothing like that on Fox News.

I've tracked what has been going on ever since I watched CNN and others that were distorting Trump's commentary during the election run up. I watched pundits for those shows on those networks literally come on and say Trump is Hitler, that he's a Nazi, that he's a white supremacist, that he's going to blow the world up with nukes, that he's a fascist. I've even read supporters say that Trump and Trump Jr. should be executed. I've watched employees of ESPN say that Trump is a white supremacist and that employee essentially got a way with it.

What Fox has been calling for is an investigation into a person's criminal activities and the activities by people in association with her. I have no problem with this call to action and I can't even begin to say how wrong it is to say Fox is generating propaganda. We have congressmen and senators calling for investigations and a special council something they have been doing for long time now.

We have the likes of CNN and MSNBC and others outright making claims of Russian collusion even though there's been no evidence that there is collusion over an investigation that's been ongoing for more than 10 months. We have the democrats filing for articles of impeachment against Trump something that is unrealistic and intended to sway the voters in the 2018 mid term elections. By the way virtually every Republican president including Reagan have been either threatened with impeachment or had articles of impeachment filed against them by the democrats. Without telling you that tidbit you have the likes of MSNBC & CNN making a huge deal out of it.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

The media have always been biassed, but not to the point of fabricating news stories based on outright lies, like they are now.
What especially worries me is when big public information sources like Google, that should be very carefully apolitical, get involved too. Its analogous to your local library burning any books that doesn't agree with the librarian's political party's interpretation of a "politically correct" social agenda, which by the way is EXACTLY what happened in 1930's Nazi Germany.

Re:Faux News is next.

[drinkypoo]

Its analogous to your local library burning any books that doesn't agree with the librarian's political party's interpretation of a "politically correct" social agenda, which by the way is EXACTLY what happened in 1930's Nazi Germany.

Claiming news was fake is EXACTLY what happened in 1930s Nazi Germany.

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

There is "bias" and there is calling groups of people half of whose membership is Jewish "nazis". The left has gotten unapologetically absurd.

Re:Faux News is next.

[Mashiki]

Claiming news was fake is EXACTLY what happened in 1930s Nazi Germany.

And you should read some of the media from the time. The media was exactly that, they were yellow press, sometimes muckracker levels of publication quality. The situation is similar because right now, actual investigative journalists are nowhere to be found. Politico, ABC, NBC, CBS? Nope they're not chasing real stories, they're crying over fish food dumped in a pond, and the president of the US taking a drink of water. The trust of the media is so damned low, and it's a creation of their own. They'd rather be hyper-partisan, chase that sweet-sweet-clickbait then anything else.

Re:Faux News is next.

[drinkypoo]

The trust of the media is so damned low, and it's a creation of their own. They'd rather be hyper-partisan, chase that sweet-sweet-clickbait then anything else.

I'd rather they be hyper-partisan. As shit as the Democrats are, the Republicans are ten times more shit.

Re:Faux News is next.

[Mashiki]

I'd rather they be hyper-partisan. As shit as the Democrats are, the Republicans are ten times more shit.

Really? Guess that's why they drove the neocons out of their party and those same neocons then went and nested inside the democrats and are happily wanting more wars right?

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

Wait... you actually don't believe that the Jewish people don't have an agenda to control everyone else? Dude why do you think they already totally control Hollywood and most of the media? not to mention a significant proportion of the banking system....
Furthermore if you think I'm pro-left you're way-off.

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

There is no "they". Jews don't act as a group. They occasionally worship as a group, but even that is highly fractured. High correlation of Jews in positions of high competence is not an indication of causation. Claiming otherwise is a classic "correlation implies causation" fallacy. Both Ayn Rand and Bernie Sanders were Jewish. Claiming that they both worked towards a common goal is a sheer lunacy. Yes, I am aware of the dialectic argument. I don't believe a conspiracy that vast could survive without large groups of conspirators going public.

Furthermore if you think I'm pro-left you're way-off.

I was making a general comment about where the conversation has moved by now. Since you seemed to be commenting on this as well, it seem appropriate. It may enforce your point in some respects and undermine it in others.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

>> There is no "they". Jews don't act as a group.

Wow. Good luck with that whole choosing to live in denial thing.

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

You have no evidence other than correlation. And correlation does not imply causation.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

Are you also one of those dudes that will not believe that humans are causing any climate change, because there is no completely irrefutable evidence?

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

Without stating my position on AGW, you do realize that the claim is not that we should believe it because it looks like it, but because the science is supposed to be settled? The claim that the science is settled requires quite a bit more than correlation.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

My analogy is one of refusing to apply the brakes until obtaining a degree of proof only available after actually driving over the upcoming edge of the proverbial cliff. Early application of the brakes may ultimately prove to have been unnecessary and consequently expose you to embarrassment, but would have definitely left you still alive.

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

My analogy is one of refusing to apply the brakes until obtaining a degree of proof only available after actually driving over the upcoming edge of the proverbial cliff.

That's a Pascal's wager argument and it's only applicable in justifying faith. Which, in itself, means that you don't believe you have enough evidence to justify your gut feeling. If you need Pascal's wager to justify acting to curb AGW, then this would mean that the science is not settled. Pascal's wager is the last resort before a rigorous logical chain of reasoning fall by the wayside into rationalizing one's beliefs. This argument is always a logical fallacy because it always ignores the cost of accepting the desired point of view (that potential harm in nonbelief exists and must be guarded against).

Re:Faux News is next.

[j-beda]

My analogy is one of refusing to apply the brakes until obtaining a degree of proof only available after actually driving over the upcoming edge of the proverbial cliff.

That's a Pascal's wager argument and it's only applicable in justifying faith.

Not entirely. Making any decision usually involves assigning some probability to the two sides and also assigning a magnitude to the importance of the outcomes. Pascal's wager assumes an infinite (or at least really-really-big) importance to the outcome (eternal damnation/eternal bliss) that basically overwhelms any non-zero probability of the bet "paying out".

Once can certainly rationally decide that the magnitude of the negative for AGW is large enough to justify responses while still feeling that AGW was "unlikely", without being in the "Pascal wager" regime where the "infinite good"/"infinite bad" render the actual odds moot. For example, a 20% chance of AGW being accurate might be large enough to take action, due to the large negative consequences, whereas for lesser stakes one might not feel taking action is worthwhile. Of course if one feels that the costs of action are similar in magnitude to the costs of AGW being accurate, then the calculations would be different.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

Not at all. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me personally to believe in anthropogenic climate change. No I wont fall into your mistake of using AGW acronym to describe whats happening, as the W part is at best contentious, and often used to purposely sidetrack the whole argument. For me, Whether the effect of human caused damage is warmth or something else seems totally irrelevant to the real point which is that we should stop causing the damage in the first place.

My analogy is intended to apply to those who refuse to believe in AGW until they have totally irrefutable proof, which will inevitably never come both because the system we are trying to understand is so complex that they will always find some loophole to wriggle out of facing the fact that they are in fact wrong. THis is human nature. Even under the most obvious evidence, some people can literally never allow themselves to admit they were ever wrong. This holds true even if the cost is death of the entire planet, vs a relative very trivial cost of having to do something that possibly hurts the economy.

Personally I'd rather we affirmative take action now, be poorer if necessary, and even possibly proved wrong later, than leave it too late while waiting for ultimate proof that will never come because it is an impossibly complex system to fully quantify.

I'm sure those people that live in denial of AGW actually won't die happy knowing they saved the richest few people a few more bucks.
It literally boggles my mind why others can't see it that too.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

>> I'm sure those people that live in denial of AGW

dammit you've got me doing it now. I meant ACC.

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

Pascal's wager assumes an infinite (or at least really-really-big) importance to the outcome (eternal damnation/eternal bliss) that basically overwhelms any non-zero probability of the bet "paying out".

A convinced atheist would see it otherwise. The importance of treating one's life as important (because it's all there is) would outweigh any fear mongering by the other "what if" would-be distractors.

For example, a 20% chance of AGW being accurate might be large enough to take action, due to the large negative consequences, whereas for lesser stakes one might not feel taking action is worthwhile.

Really? What if there is a 20% chance of 20% of civilization getting destroyed? And what if the only measure to combat the potential 20% destruction is to sacrifice 80% of the advances of the modern civilization? Will the turmoil which results be worth it? You are guilty of exactly what I said you would be guilty of if you were to buy into Pascal's-Wager-type argument. You fail to consider the significant cost of action.

In general there are 4 weights to consider and 2 probabilities. And then there will be 2 "expected values" of the outcomes based on whether the event occurs or not. The fallacy is to consider one of the 4 weights to be significantly larger than the other 3. When, in fact, 2 out of 4 weights are large. And the result skews the expected outcome significantly.

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

I'm sure those people that live in denial of AGW actually won't die happy knowing they saved the richest few people a few more bucks.

That's really, really not the argument. The argument is that we should not dismantle the civilization we have today in order to prevent some of it from falling apart 100 years from today. The numbers make all the difference. Forcing 20%-30% of humanity to suffer 100 years from today is horrible, but forcing 80% of humanity to suffer today (and suffer far greater -- war and famine) is worse. And the whole idea that the rich consume most resources is a myth. Most of their money only gives them control over economic activity. Someone with billions of dollars does not have billions of dollars of personal luxury. They control (ie, direct) companies (work activities) of many other individuals. The quality of life difference between the richest and the poorest (in the West) is very unlikely to be more than 2 orders of magnitude apart (even though "wealth" differences are as much as 9 order of magnitude apart). I could use multiple examples of how technology is equalizing (and how destroying it to reduce potential future harm would exacerbate the differences), but they will all sound like platitudes because everyone has heard them many times over.

But let's not forget how we got here. You accused (and that's the correct verb) the Jews of nefarious group action at the expense of other groups. The only evidence you can claim for it is correlation between success and being Jewish. But if you are careless and don't consider the cost of taking your argument at its faith value, you risk accusing millions of nefarious activities which they not only do not actively participate in, but which they actively oppose. This callous "God will sort them out" attitude is what brings me to the point of risking invoking Godwin's law.

Re:Faux News is next.

[j-beda]

For example, a 20% chance of AGW being accurate might be large enough to take action, due to the large negative consequences, whereas for lesser stakes one might not feel taking action is worthwhile.

Really? What if there is a 20% chance of 20% of civilization getting destroyed? And what if the only measure to combat the potential 20% destruction is to sacrifice 80% of the advances of the modern civilization? Will the turmoil which results be worth it? You are guilty of exactly what I said you would be guilty of if you were to buy into Pascal's-Wager-type argument. You fail to consider the significant cost of action.

In general there are 4 weights to consider and 2 probabilities. And then there will be 2 "expected values" of the outcomes based on whether the event occurs or not. The fallacy is to consider one of the 4 weights to be significantly larger than the other 3. When, in fact, 2 out of 4 weights are large. And the result skews the expected outcome significantly.

I fail to consider the significant cost of action? The very next sentence that you failed to quote read "Of course if one feels that the costs of action are similar in magnitude to the costs of AGW being accurate, then the calculations would be different."

I don't think you and I are really disagreeing on how one can rationally look at these types of arguments. There are a variety of costs to consider and a variety of probabilities. You dismissed someone's argument as being crap and disparaged it by comparing them to Pascal. I was merely pointing out that not all such arguments can not be so easily dismissed, for the very reasons you site above. In my mind, a better critique of someone making these types of arguments is to explicitly address the perceived inaccuracies of their "4 weights".

I did not explain the 4 weights as clearly as I should have (or as you did), or what I might think are reasonable values for them - I could have been clearer.

There are some interesting questions of how to deal with existential threats with various likelihoods. If we get away from the complications of things like AGW, pollution, population, and other "self-harm" issues and just think about something external that has less emotional baggage like a huge asteroid strike (60 miles should wipe out everything). If the asteroid had a +99% chance of hitting, I think most would agree that we should probably do a lot to try to mitigate it, and that if the odds were one in a billion it probably is not worthwhile to "spend" a lot of resources on it compared to other problems to be addressed. Figuring out rational responses for values between those extremes is not very easy.

Neil Stephenson explored some of these things in Seveneves which has the destruction of the moon causing the world to confront some of these issues. I thought it was a worthwhile read.

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

Re:Faux News is next.

[superwiz]

You dismissed someone's argument as being crap and disparaged it by comparing them to Pascal.

Yes, I did. They were trying to gin up hysteria over perceived overaccomplishment of Jews by trying to portray it as a result of a highly-probable neferious plot and likening such plot to highly-probable AGW. There is little doubt that they were trying to capitalize on hysteria over AGW (and demands for over-the-board actions to curtail it) in order to promote their pet-peeve view that suppression of equality of Jews in society is a survival imperative. This mode of erroneous thinking about dealing with threats (thought to be existential) is what allows for these types of whacky overreactions to seem normal.

Re:Faux News is next.

[j-beda]

You dismissed someone's argument as being crap and disparaged it by comparing them to Pascal.

Yes, I did. They were trying to gin up hysteria over perceived overaccomplishment of Jews by trying to portray it as a result of a highly-probable neferious plot and likening such plot to highly-probable AGW.

My error - I failed to recognize the start of this. Now that I look at the thread I have less interest in exploring the philosophy of existential threats. Congrats on speaking up for reason against racial hysteria - I seldom have the patience.

Re:Faux News is next.

[JustNiz]

>> The only evidence you can claim for it is correlation between success and being Jewish.

Not true at all and you know it. And please stop putting your words in my mouth.

they should just blacklist that content

[Anonymous Coward]

and the users who promote it. Problem solved.

Dear Goolag, I quite like RT

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I know that is biased in favor of Russia ? Sure I do. Just like the other media are biased in favor of their own country.
However , I have noticed that RT reports some news that are simply ignored or minimized by western media : quite helpful to try get a more complete picture.

Goolag : diversity everywhere, except when it comes to diversity of thought.

Re:Dear Goolag, I quite like RT

[Anonymous Coward]

I like RT too. You won't see this one on the NY Times frontpage anytime soon:

https://www.rt.com/news/410450-icc-investigate-cia-prisons-afghanistan/

Why just Russia?

[freak0fnature]

Why not dump all propaganda? Why just block the Russian propaganda?

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in all his great glorious wisdom, glorious leader allowed a ban on propaganda to quietly expire. Propaganda is legal again and it allows news companies to really segregate political sides.

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did that, they'd have nobody writing stories to fill their "news" feed.

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Expire? All major US media is owned by 6 companies with a common set of investors in those 6 companies. There's been no ban on propaganda in at least 2 generations. The only difference here is that they are going after non-mainstream/centralized media using "But Russia!" as an excuse. New McCarthy-ites..the lot 'em except this time the commies are the ones chasing boogeymen.

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me an actionable definition of 'propaganda'

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the US propaganda is too important to "National Security" to not continue to disseminate.
I mean how else are they going to get the public behind yet another huge waste of resources starting another war in the middle east? The Military Industrial Complex needs to get paid after all.

Re:Why just Russia?

[Obfuscant]

Why not dump all propaganda? Why just block the Russian propaganda?

Because pretty much everything is propoganda. Propoganda doesn't mean "false news". It meas information intended to promote one's agenda, or to hinder someone else's. VOA (Voice of America) is propoganda. Radio Moscow, Russia Today, WAPO, NYT, all have agendas to promote and agendas to hinder.

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio Moscow, Russia Today, WAPO, NYT, all have agendas to promote and agendas to hinder.

There's a key difference between promoting an agenda and propaganda best summarised in the Moynihan's "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." quote. Where Fox News, Sputnik, the Daily Mail and other propaganda rags will completely miss out or lie about facts, serious news sources will tend to include all the key ones and only miss out things which don't seem important to them. Where the propaganda rags will have their opinions everywhere but often pretend they hold different opinions, the serious news will often clearly state their own opinions in editorials.

This doesn't always change the accuracy of their conclusions but it does mean it's much clearer how the quality media arrives at their opinions and that makes it much easier for you to disagree when you have good reason. Not everything is the same.

Re:Why just Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because actual news is a thing of the past. There is only propaganda left.

What about American Propoganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or UK propoganda? or Chinese propoganda? Or Republican propoganda?

What is the difference between any of these and "Russian propoganda"?

Russian citizens seem to be able to figure out when their own government is propogandizing them, why can't Americans?

Re:Liberals won't like this

[HornWumpus]

Ruskys are stirring up dissent. They have been shown to have spent their money/influence pretty evenly on right and left.

They clearly expected Clinton to win. Why else would they have bought her off?

Remove the largest driver of propaganda

[techno_dan]

Isn't it about time that they also block the largest driver of propaganda? The U.S.! American news site publish so much false news that favours the U.S., that they are much worse than the Russians. Apply the rules equally to all.

In Other Words:

[DatbeDank]

"We're going to block news that HR and our Chief Diversity Officer find offensive."

Re:In Other Words:

[sinij]

"We're going to block news that HR and our Chief Diversity Officer find offensive."

Good post, too bad it isn't getting indexed by Google.

Re:In Other Words:

[originalGMC]

How about just stopping this advertising nonsense... talk about wasting the minds and talents of engineers. Spend your engineering time solving real problems. Fucking marketing bros, ruining the internet.

if only i could engineer it off my notifications

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck google news feeds the most pervasive malware on my android phone

Arab Spring anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me think again. When it's aimed against bad guys, social media is good. Arab Spring is an example of all those riots being coordinated through twitter and facebook and ppl were all happy to make sure the communication channels are as government-proof as possible so regimes in those Arab countries fall.

When it's aimed against good guys (us), it's bad - we really don't want anyone to be talking stuff that's undermining democracy.

Now let's make sure we have good algorithms in place to differentiate those two, and good people tweaking all those config settings of them algorithms to always block obnoxious ideas only.

Re:Arab Spring anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

HaHa ... hahaha ... St Peter will personally lead you to Heaven before such algorithms are devised. Best expect the debbl to come promising our pagan worlds delites if only prettypleasewibsuggar you spare one blojob for Billary.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton was elected by the Russian hacking efforts and is going to prison for collusion with Putin? You Drumpftard. See you at the impeachment / indictment moron! :D

Google visited Obama's White House 427 times

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminder that Eric Schmidt basically made weekly trips to Washington, DC for eight years.

Tell me again about how you're protecting me from state propaganda.

Google filtered news

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google decides what is propaganda now and what isn't? Now who is promoting propaganda? So filtered news isn't bad? So what sources are Google using anyway as news sources? Seems to me they basically provide news from reputable sources you don't have to filter out anything?

Re:Google filtered news

[Anonymous Coward]

So what sources are Google using anyway as news sources?

Wapo Guardian NYT. The liberal echo chamber.

Re:Google filtered news

[Anonymous Coward]

"So Google decides what is propaganda now and what isn't? "

Yeah, just like YOU at your kitchen table.
People you don't like, get the boot.
This is _their_ kitchen table and you know, just like your dad always tells you: 'as long as you put your feet under MY table, you'll do as I say!'.

Challenge Accepted!

[kdekorte]

Or as the Russian's would say... ! (at least that is what Google tells me the translation is)

Well then good luck to those relying o google news

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll get my information elsewhere, I actually already do on plethora of discussion forums (including reddig) where I can check on see posts of different proponents and filter out the truth myself Example of censorship: guess why there's little coverage of Syria war now that islamists and isis are loosing? That's right , they re loosing thanks to Russians and Iranians beating the crap out of them. Silence about that is pure censorship. Guess what, already new moves are on the table - saudi arabia partnering with Israel to start a war in Lebanon, where pro-iranian militia (Hezbollah) is rooted. But you don't really hear about that in the news.
RT and sputnik are biased, but are showing another side of the shiny coin, one that isn't pro western only and not giving any news not liked by the government agenda.

And god fobid that someone who isn't from establishment can win elections? Trump isn't good material for potus, but he did win. He got the votes like it or not. One reason is many people voted against a corrupt candidate. The whole fuss about russians isn't about inventing fake news, it's about uncovered the dirty laundry on democratic party. But I guess "they" don't want such influence, "they" prefer the truth to remain hidden because that favors a more suitable presidential candidate.

Filtering / ranking can be made objective

[presidenteloco]

It's machine learning algorithms being put to use here to filter and rank content.

Eventually, such automated analysis should be based on general algorithms that use principles of:
- epistemology - is there sound logical or plausible probabilistic support for the propositions in the content
- utterance theory - analysis of the sources (direct and indirect) of the information, their goals, their communication strategies, the purpose behind each utterance in terms of opinion influence or action influence.
- Detection of the level of "disinterest" that the utterer has in the content of the utterance and the opinions it will reinforce. The more disinterest (or counter-interest), the more credible is the utterance. "They said this even though it may hurt their interests" implies more likely true.
- detection of systemic bias (in the utterance and more generally by the source)
- detection of use of rhetorical tricks such as ad hominem attacks and many others.
- social psychology theories (deeper into understanding use of techniques of opinion amplification, meme formation, influence principles used by advertisers etc)
- Consistency with scientifically well-accepted facts and inferences, and with basic mathematics as applied to the content.

The key is that with sufficient abstraction of rule creation, it should be possible to make all of this independent of censoring a particular country or political faction's content. The "good stuff" or "objectively more plausible and less biased stuff" should get through.

If biased or less credible or "weaponized words" stuff is let through, it should be automatically commented on by the algorithms, which should point out the reasons for the assessment as not very reliable content.

Re: Filtering / ranking can be made objective

[invalid_user]

Good. That will filter out many WaPo articles. Just need to make sure Google applies them to everyone instead of just RT.

Re:Filtering / ranking can be made objective

[N3wsByt3]

Wouldn't that eliminate almost ALL articles and certainly opinion-pieces both in the West as beyond, and as well for Republicans as Democrats? I'm all for filtering out the BS if the filter is working, as long as it's applied consistently for everyone. What I do NOT want is filtering out just one side of the BS and then only hearing the BS of the ones pulling the strings.

Also; if the original mutter of a mutterer has been muttered by another mutterer, is that mutterer a muttering mutterer?

They already did this in Germany

[WillAffleckUW]

Not that hard, actually.

Just impacts their excessive profit, that's all.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[AmiMoJo]

What they wanted was Trump. The last minute email leak will go down as one of the greatest foreign ops in history. It's only flaw was that it was a bit too obvious, but it had the desired effect and if anything the subsequent investigation is only making it an even greater victory.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't buy her off. They got Trump for free.

local propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

US based propoganda will remain.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileak's Assange has repeatedly said the source of the leaks wasn't the Russians.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[HornWumpus]

Even if it was the Ruskys, they did the world a _huge_ favor.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

No one would care if everything in those emails were innocent. What the hell are you smoking to think the mere fact of leaking is more impact than the details those leaks uncover. It takes a special kind of retard to keep pushing that narrative.

Whether it's true or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the Russian backed news worked because it was solidly based in fact. That a specific party didn't like the facts presented has no bearing on their truth or falsity. Russia has come a long way from the days the posted blatant lies and called them truths. Now they can post truths and hurt us quite well.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Leak was from an insider of DNC, nothing to do with Russians.

When you want to know the truth

[boudie2]

You don't ask Eric Schmidt. There's bad people on all sides.

If google does this, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every other country will demand something similar.

End result, pretty much a completely broken internet.

I bet "Russian propoganda" is easy to spot

[Trailer Trash]

I mean, it's anything that would benefit a Republican candidate, right?

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

" Why else would they have bought her off? " They can donate to both sides, but they OWN Donald J. Trumptard. Clinton is Putin's #2 enemy. Trump is Putin's #1 pawn.

Engineer systems for censorship

[AHuxley]

What nation, SJW, group, faith, cult, political party, government will be able to ask for the next bans and total content removal?
Some easy to use gui for registered nations, SJW, faith groups, cults, mil, political parties, authors, actors, brands to request words, terms, names, sites, comments, accounts, links get banned?
Could govs set an options so users searching for banned terms get their search term, ip reported to their respective governments too?

Blasphemy? No searching for funny cartoons, animations about the history of a faith?. People of faith, a cult can list links, sites, users, accounts they want banned?
No more easy to find results about the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?
No history of Communist nations thats not approved by Communist parties?
Some books and authors are on a ban list too? No cultural appropriation?
Some parts of history will get banned?
Hide all movie reviews that are not positive? No more comments about an actor and why they got to be in a movie?
No news on illegal migration?
No news on how SJW are removing users comments and accounts?
Fiction? Non fiction will get removed in some parts of the world too? New authors get promoted? Classics get removed, pushed back in any search results?
Working with computers to remove DRM? Publishers want their DRM protected, so no more search results on DRM?
No results on p2p?
The work of whistleblowers? No more news about, comments on, the history of PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...?
No more finding out what DROPOUTJEEP, SWAP, TOTEGHOSTLY was?
No more looking for city, county and federal, mil FOIA results from the past as some of the released material might be reclassified?
Health news? Pollution? Will US states with powerful Ag-gag laws get to ban video and images globally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?
No searching for user comments about a nation, hotel, doctor, lawyer, politician?
Only allow good reviews of any autonomous car to be found?
No more citizen journalists? No independent media? No more First Amendment tests video results? No drone video clips that are not approved and registered with a gov?
No finding images of art work that would be copyright in another nation?

Re: Engineer systems for censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like what you have in Russia right now.

That's great

[Anonymous Coward]

But no matter the tech now or then, I still would not have voted for Hillary.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to worry, the OP misspelled 'Chairman'

Re:Liberals won't like this

[oh_my_080980980]

When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.

Be good sheeple and suck it up

[JustNiz]

Welcome to 1930's Germany all over again. Your worldview is now completely determined by a bunch of control freaks with a radical agenda masquerading as PeeCee-ism, and level of self-righteous arrogance that makes Kim Jong Un look rational and evenhanded.

Next up: Google announce they have just activated a neural net that is detecting any/all potential dissente++++

Re:Liberals won't like this

[oh_my_080980980]

And yet no proof. So if you mean faking people into believing something happened that didn't, then yeah you're right.

Hey Rocky!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Rocky! It's easy! Just listen for Boris or Natasha!

And....

[oh_my_080980980]

What exactly was the propaganda on RT....some story about fracking was it.....

Re:And....

[Tough Love]

What was not the propaganda on RT?

Re:And....

[Anonymous Coward]

What WAS the propaganda on RT? Compared to CNN? Is any alternative viewpoint propaganda? Dr Goebbels rests his case

Also, they will engineer in American propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

because that's the good propaganda that must be fed to people. This is nothing but censorship to shape opinion with people and prevent you from getting multiple sides of the issues.

US MSM is a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO I actually get a better sense of reality reading Chinese and Russian news, which was probably unthinkable for me even a few years ago. But more Western bias news, I'd read Canadian news over any USA ones, even if they are influenced by USA.

Re:if only i could engineer it off my notification

[Anonymous Coward]

You might need to learn how to use your phone. I don't get any google news feed notifications. Maybe you should switch to iPhone -- it's easier for simpletons to master.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Julkian Assange, host of The Julian Assange Show on RT.

What about Youtube?

[Tough Love]

What about Youtube, a notorious cesspool of belly crawling shitposters with a distinct odor of vodka, who regularly mob the comments section of videos that are even faintly critical of Trump or favorable to Trump's opponents.

Re: What about Youtube?

[invalid_user]

What you can do, is to ask Universities and mainstream media outlets to go debate them and show to us that they are mistaken.

But you won't. Cause you'll lose.

Mainstream media is leveraging its total control of the press, and _violence_, to silence reasons.

Re:Fix Google News before you fix Russian propagan

[Tough Love]

I switched to bing/news some time ago. Also sucks in various ways, but does not suck nearly as hard as google/news, which is just plain user-offensive.

This is nothing but censorship by proxy

[HermMunster]

Frankly, political views can and should be expressed by anyone, and read by anyone willing to listen.

There's no way Google can engineer propaganda out. Propaganda is a subjective term.

Literally this is the government trying to censor by proxy.

This is bad as Google is a defacto monopoly. If the government does this it would be a violation of the constitution, and to proxy it to a defacto monopoly, that's not covered by the constitution, it leaves American citizens without recourse.

I don't need Google to do this, I don't wish for anyone to tell me what I should or should not be reading. They are telling everyone that they are stupid and incapable of understanding the good and bad behind any given assertion.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Ol Olsoc]

When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.

Your rock called, says you need to get back under it.

It's not Censorship

[rsilvergun]

If they're combating Russian propagandists attempts to game the ranking system. You do realize that folks going to Google for news aren't actually there for the Russian propaganda, they're there for news.

Re:It's not Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Neutral news isn't available anymore, every news source has been reduced to a propaganda source.

If you want news, you'll have to get at least two opposing sides of propaganda and realize that the truth lies somewhere in between.

They don't want you to be able to figure this out. So they want to get rid of all opposing propaganda.

Re:It's not Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want news, you'll have to get at least two opposing sides of propaganda and realize that the truth lies somewhere in between.

"Some people say the Earth is a globe, others say it is flat. Therefore it is an upturned bowl. I am so clever!"

You're talking complete and utter garbage, in other words a textbook example of the balance fallacy. Not all news sources are equal, not all opposing sides present equally true or valid opinions, motive matters.

A common schoolyard negotiating tactic is to start with a far more extreme position than the one you would like, and allow negotiation to compromise to the one you originally intended. You are easily manipulated.

Re:It's not Censorship

[N3wsByt3]

This hinges on two assumption:

1)That there is such a thing as truly unbiased, neutral and objective news.
2)That only one side (the Russians) are not following in delivering point 1 while 'we' are.

Both premises are untrue.

So the dichotomy you make between 'real news' (from google), and 'fake news / propaganda' (from the Russians) just isn't there. It's already a biased fabrication of your mind, even while you're railing against biased news yourself. the hardest bias to note is the one of yourself, after all.

The truth is, people going to google for news invariably get served biased news with varying levels of propaganda and BS *from both sides*, whether its from RT or CNN.

Oh Noes!!

[Ol Olsoc]

The Russian contingent of Slashdot is going crazy! This cannot be allowed!

Quick, to the Pizzagate truthers shield, BorisMan! It's gonna be a long night!

No time for subtlety, we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level! And don't forget to mark me as a troll, have to earn your rubles, ya know.

Re:Oh Noes!!

[Baron_Yam]

>we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level!

The problem isn't a lack of evidence, the problem is a lack of trust in the agencies telling us about it because in the past they've not only told lies, but actively manufactured them to serve their agendas. (And gotten caught at it, obviously)

Of course, in the past those agendas were more or less in line with that of the White House.

Re:Oh Noes!!

[Ol Olsoc]

>we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level!

The problem isn't a lack of evidence, the problem is a lack of trust in the agencies telling us about it because in the past they've not only told lies, but actively manufactured them to serve their agendas. (And gotten caught at it, obviously)

Of course, in the past those agendas were more or less in line with that of the White House.

Trust? I catch flack in here sometimes because I listen to or watch NPR, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and get ready for it - here's the one that make people's heads asplode - Breitbart. Even a foray or two on RT on Youtube.

I don't trust anyone. But I want news. So I decide for myself who is telling the truth. It has a way of coming out.

The problem is, in the world, there is a tremendous amount of newsworthy stuff going on. There is only so much time, and that means the very act of deciding what to report tips off the agencies bias. Cannot be helped.

The biggest problem with the absolutely no evidence crowd is twofold. One is a willful denial that might make anti Vaxxers blush, and the other is a naive idea that all of any evidence has already been found and has been shown. Much of the evidence is counterintelligence based, and at this time is classified.

Things that we do know are that there have been meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, there has been communication between top Trump officials and Wikileaks, that a Senior Trump official attempted to use Russian encrypted equipment for communications between at least the campaign and somewhere in Russia, that several Trump senior officials have lied under oath, and some have failed to register as foreign agents. And that Trump fired James Comey for the express purpose of stopping an investigation, as he admitted to Russians visiting shortly after he fired Comey. There have been arrests made and one guilty confession already obtained.

That is a major shitload of absolutely no evidence already.

Re:Oh Noes!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the meetings with russians to buy dirt on Hillary? Why not? Hillary bought fabricated dossier on Trump, and Trump cant buy a dossier on Hillary? Interesting ...

Re:Oh Noes!!

[Ol Olsoc]

You mean the meetings with russians to buy dirt on Hillary? Why not? Hillary bought fabricated dossier on Trump, and Trump cant buy a dossier on Hillary? Interesting ...

You need to look up who Paul Singer was, tovarisch.

Re:Fix Google News before you fix Russian propagan

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of Russians died in WW2 so Google could rig elections for the Democrats.

Re:Fix Google News before you fix Russian propagan

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone ever see a pic of Eric Shit and think anything other than "douchebag"? Probably not even his own mother.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[WrongMonkey]

What the Russians wanted was to destroy confidence in the US electoral process.

Either candidate could have won, just as long as half the population doubted the veracity of the result.

AI based fact checking

[AlejandroTejadaC]

Google could make a better news service if they add an AI based "Check for Facts" option button to their News service. After a reader select this option: "Check for Facts", every sentence of the article is clearly underlined and color -marked as speculation(yellow), fact (green) or lie (red)... In this way, a reader could select their personal way to read and understand their news. This more balanced and fair than outright censorship. Now, figure this new and scary scenario: CNN post an article and the algorithm underline all sentences as truth (green underline), then someone in RT copy the same article, make a few insignificant changes (like adding dates and full names) and this same algorithm underlines the whole article as a lie (red underline)...

Google are two-faced hypocrites

[knorthern knight]

Remember some years ago when Rick Santorum was running for the Republican nomination, and he got Google-bombed?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/e...
https://www.npr.org/2016/02/25...

The lib-left thought it was hilarious, and guffawed a lot. When Rick Santorum complained, Google essentially said "not our problem".

When it turns out that Google-fixing might have hurt Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency, things are totally different. The lib-left goes full-feminist "That's not funny". Google doesn't consider this to be "not our problem"; they're all over it like flies over shit.

I guess it depends on who's ox is being gored. Guess which party Silicon Valley supports.

Re:Google are two-faced hypocrites

[Baron_Yam]

It's interesting how you managed to overlook the fundamental difference between the scenarios in order to justify your butthurt.

just banning click farming

[Anonymous Coward]

Because everyone who's anyone is upset that Russia could throw the US election with a minimal - by advertising standards - Facebook expenditure big tech has to "make announcements". This is no different than fighting click farms or fake news click farms. They are trying to improve the quality of their search returns and have probably read enough US history to know that trust busting is going to be discussed (but not acted on) as soon as Trump does an Elvis while tweeting.

But the idea that Russia swung the election for Clinton is laugh out loud funny. She was the Worst. Candidate. Ever. Now before you get all hillsterical and accuse me of sexism I voted for her as I despise the Republican Party. See: National Parks and EPA. She face planted in front of the goal and lost to a complete idiot but she and her cult can't let her accept any of the blame. It was Putinbernie that did it.

And ... she's gonna run again starting next year this time. That will be repulsive.

need new web crawler

[AndyKron]

I like alternate views. I need to find an unbiased, uncensored search engine.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[sexconker]

When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.

Your rock called, says you need to get back under it.

I just crawled out from under my rock.
Please show me the charges that have been filed against Donald Trump and the evidence to be presented. Also, when's the first hearing?

Oh? What's that? Complete silence when pressed for facts?

Re:Liberals won't like this

[aristotle-dude]

Exactly. Xians and Republicans are so stupid that they let Russians that speak poor English tell them how to vote. They did what Putin told them to do.

What's an Xian? Is that a Chinese Immigrant from a particular region of China like Cantonese or Mandarin? It looks like a Chinese surname.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[sexconker]

It takes a special kind of retard to keep pushing that narrative.

What I need in this life is a photo of someone with an "I'm with stupid" t-shirt walking around a Clinton rally and posing next to people with "I'm with her" shirts/signs.

Will tarnish Google's reputation

[poity]

If the algorithm cannot follow broadly defined principles to filter out propaganda to include Russia propaganda, and needs intervention to specifically single out such a narrow domain for human tweaking, then you are broadcasting to the world not only that you're willing to depart from broad principles, but that the algorithm is lackluster as well.

I can kind of predict what the excuse will be -- that this is an emergency situation, time is of the essence, and circumstances force us to depart from building a broadly principled anti-propaganda system in order to intervene specifically against Russia.

Of course, US is assailed every day by propaganda efforts from many adversaries, and the lack of similar publicly announced targeted efforts against Xinhua or PressTV for example, makes one wonder if they are volunteering as the retaliatory arm of the nation or of a particular defeated political party.

Re:Will tarnish Google's reputation

[JustNiz]

Actually they are demonstrating that by it not artificially filtering out information, their search engine algorithm is a actually better than their own very misguided social brainwashing agenda.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Trump was elected by Clinton.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Run Clinton again. Trump wants another term.

They don't do news any more, it's opinion now.

[Anonymous Coward]

We no longer have news written to inform. There was a day when journalism was supposed to focus on objective facts. Who did what and how one might verify those sources. These days, the papers won't even link to the legal opinions they talk about or other such things where sourcing is trivial. Never mind asking them to explain their forests of laundered anonymous sources telling us whatever they want us to hear.

There's no news any more, it's all opinion and clickbait and we're worse off for that.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Russiagate is just a false flag used to introduce information censorship, that's why is so hard fougth for it even if there is 0 evidence of occurring. The oligarchy needs very badly, as the air the capacity to censor & control the serf otherwise they know their days are numbered in the current era of high tech, practically they run against the clock.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Truer words have not been said since the last November!

"That's not a true Scotsman!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep clinging to your religion.

I think Putin's team is the greatest bunch of trolls in human history.
They got all of you Americans into completely over the top prejudices, infighting like crazy, with every "side" poisoned with conspiracy-theory-level insanity, tearing each other to pieces.

It's freakin hilarious. There is not enough popcorn in the world for this.

Too bad, team Putin and team EU are just as much total pieces of shit.

The only winning move is not to side.

Slashdot is now preventing "load more comments"

[Anonymous Coward]

This now join the ranks of google for censorship. The irony is that the only way you will ever see this post in an article "reporting concerns regarding censorship" is if they want to show you that they don't support censorship. I've been on slashdot as AC since the 90's. I'm out.

Re: Fix Google News before you fix Russian propaga

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of Russians died in WW2 so Putin and his cronies could steal their country's wealth with the willing support of the hirelings and lickspittles who suck on his corrupt teat, so ably represented here.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[penandpaper]

An edgy atheist way to say 'Christian'. Think of X-Mas for Christmas. Usually used by teenagers discovering atheism for the first time or adults who never got over growing up Christian and hold a grudge.

Take the RED PILL

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is going to be upset about this, I would expect it to be [Clinton]. Russia basically got [her] elected.

This conspiracy is much more huge than we even dared image. LISTEN TO tHEpAWaRMY!!!! The TRUTH is Clinton was elected, all these LIES about Trump being elected is just FAKE NEWS. While you are fooled into thinking that Trump is President, PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON is quietly setting up a GYNOCRATIC SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP. Everything is almost in place.

Come NOVEMBER 4th you will wake up with your guns confiscated, and your dicks cut off ... or locked in steel chastity cages at the very best.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

An edgy atheist way to say 'Christian'.

Actually it derives from the ancient Christian, sorry Xian, practice of using Chi Rho to designate Christ. 'X' is the chi obviously.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you smoking to think the mere fact of leaking is more impact than the details those leaks uncover.

What the hell are you smoking if you think the trivialities those leaks uncovered are of more concern than the fact of a hostile nation hacking the democratic processes of the USA?!

FFS. You don't have to love Clinton, but why do you hate America?

aha

[superwiz]

How about turning back on the feature which allows to exclude news sources from the feed? That would do it right away. RT is propaganda? What about Iranian "Press TV"? Or even BBC? I wouldn't trust BBC news on any British colony which stopped being a colony in the 20th century. The Brits never got over the losses. So if you read BBC, India and Israel are still 3rd-world countries. Simply excluding news sources with a "-source:" used to work on the news site the same way that "-site:" worked on the web search site. They stopped it to avoid "confirmation bias", also known as "filtering the bs you don't care about".

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect total narrative control by mid-December. If you haven't already you should be using alternative browsers, but expect them to be rather nasty about it.
Stop using Google DNS as well. If you use google docs you may have noticed some things missing or inaccessible.

Just russian?

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever every other country in the world? What about propaganda from the Democrat party?

Lets forget about where a story comes from, how does a program determine if something is true or propaganda? Sounds like Google want to determine what is true and what is fake. Guess it is a reason not to ever use google news, though I'm sure they will run plenty of propaganda news if it is pro-Democrat though.

Re:Just russian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, good old whataboutism. A difference of political opinion (Democrat/Rebulican) where both sides want what is best for the US but differ quite vocally in their views on how to achieve it. Destabilizing propaganda (RT/Sputnik) wants what is worst for the US, but is far more subtle than you apparently realise in how it achieves it. Selective truths, amplifying critical opinions to broaden each political sides view of each other to draw a wedge between them, subtle misreporting and the very occassional outright lies.

RT and Sputnik are explicitly tools of the Russian state, and spread propaganda with the express and intentional aim of destabilizing the west. This differs fundamentally from the opinions or news sources from a different country, and does not require any decisions made about the nature of truth in order to block.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[penandpaper]

Thanks for the history lesson. Not sure why you would call me Xian or think it obvious to know about ancient greek. But that also doesn't explain why use it in common parlance to distinguish yourself and others while using it as a pejorative. Hence my original post.

I don't think I have met anyone who uses it that is worth talking to. Your post is a good example. It would have been a very good post that was very informative but there is a subtle insult which I find common with the Xian usage. It's like a scarlet letter of a word the way you and others use it. Maybe I am just not pagan enough to understand.

Calling randoms on the internet 'Xians' when you don't know anything about them. You are reinforcing bad stereotypes. You should stop that. :)

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, when russians gave Clinton family millions and millions of dollars for Uranium One deal, and papa clinton personally 500 000 usd for "talking in Moscow conference" for "russian business people"?

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Chilling, but true.

Eyes wide shut

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet no proof.

Riiiiiight!

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Z80a]

Technically speaking, the problem here is when the emails were released.
If they for example had it before the primaries, they could had released it before Clinton was the dems presidential candidate, stopping her from getting the spot and allowing someone that could defeat trump to defeat trump (as in pretty much anyone else).

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuk u, he's pure aussie mate, rtard. U idiots, you should still watch out for China.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Democract voting was down, u dumb 20s didn't vote, haha

Re:Fix Google News before you fix Russian propagan

[Anonymous Coward]

I can vouch for this. Bing News also seems to present balanced political viewpoints / sources (e.g. link to both Fox & HuffPo) where as Google slants hard-SJW-Left (it's so obvious these days). Another thing Bing seems to link to smaller local newspapers as well as Patch. Hell, I've even seen posts from the Linux Kernel Mailing List in Bing News (I'm not shitting you, check the Tech section once in a while)

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the oligarchy's days numbered? They will soon not need humans to do their bidding. It will become a global monopoly before long.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

You should probably have kept it to thanks for the lesson instead of backing up in a corner and lashing miserably. :/

Hurrah!

[Anonymous Coward]

can't have the masses been shown they are being spoon feed american propaganda! They might learn to recognise it!

Google is "engineering" this for China anyway

[gotan]

The definition of what is "Russian Propaganda" is pretty flexible, as has been sufficiently demonstrated e.g. in some controversies around the last US-election.

But surely Google engineers will know exactly where to draw the line.
And since "Don't be evil" is their motto they can't go wrong, can they?

We should still put a bullet in Eric's head

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking traitor.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely...this "engineering" translates to "say what we like or we literally bury you in the haystack of information". People can get to the information as long as you know the full very specific and long phrase you're looking for...Alphabet will just remove the "convenience".

Re: Liberals won't like this

[penandpaper]

There's a lot of 'should' to make this thread more tactful. TBH, I don't expect much from A. cowards. I said my opinion. Sue me. t('.'t)

This is why

[nehumanuscrede]

your sources of information need to be diversified. This is why letting so few companies control what media we have is a bad idea.

One person can effectively make a decision that will determine what information you have access to. That persons personal beliefs -will- play a part in that decision making process. This is how you manipulate folks.

See Fox News ( Republican propaganda ) vs CNN ( Democrat Propaganda ) for extreme examples of this in action. You think the parent companies of either of these don't influence the information they provide ? :|

Ignore the " Russian " part of this story. It is irrelevant. Today they're considering censoring what they claim is " Russian Propaganda ", who knows what it will be tomorrow.

The bottom line is I prefer to have all the information available to me in raw form and I will make up my own damn mind as to what is relevant or not.

I don't need Google to do it for me.

Google Censorship of Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... Who decides what news you CAN see?

They are going to "engineer" the rank of what The Think Tanks SAY is Russian Propaganda? They Already "engineer" the rank of their properties to appear first and the FAKE NEWS THEY approve of.

Isn't this "engineering" of rank why they are under ANTITRUST investigation?

Same crap different day.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Aighearach]

Why would you expect a reply when you didn't even comprehend the words you were replying to? Find a newspaper, dummy.

Oh, right, you can't understand that there is a process, or what step we're on. In your world, murder can never even happen because if you only have a dead body and no conviction, there is no reason to suspect a crime. You just keep asking if there was a conviction, and if not, no crime happened!

If it turns out that there is a formal investigation after all, and it is still in progress, are you going to apologize to oh_my_* and eat your hat? No, of course not! You'll never remember it if you're wrong and events prove it.

Which should we understand: that in your perfect world charges would be filed before an investigation, or that you just don't fucking comprehend a very simple multi-step process? I'm thinking, both.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I love all these fucktards that think the âoeuranium one dealâ is real. You guys donâ(TM)t know very many able people if you think your leaders are that pathetic. Just snopes it.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[sexconker]

Why would you expect a reply when you didn't even comprehend the words you were replying to? Find a newspaper, dummy.

Oh, right, you can't understand that there is a process, or what step we're on. In your world, murder can never even happen because if you only have a dead body and no conviction, there is no reason to suspect a crime. You just keep asking if there was a conviction, and if not, no crime happened!

If it turns out that there is a formal investigation after all, and it is still in progress, are you going to apologize to oh_my_* and eat your hat? No, of course not! You'll never remember it if you're wrong and events prove it.

Which should we understand: that in your perfect world charges would be filed before an investigation, or that you just don't fucking comprehend a very simple multi-step process? I'm thinking, both.

I was responding to a post that insinuated that another user, who had questioned the lack of evidence for these allegations, had been living under a rock.

Saying someone has been "living under a rock" is an idiom that means the obviousness, oldness, or pervasiveness of some fact, trend, or event is so extreme that a person would have to have been far removed from society to not know about it.

I'll repeat my prior request:

Please show me the charges that have been filed against Donald Trump and the evidence to be presented. Also, when's the first hearing?

If you cannot provide such things, then they are not obvious, old, or pervasive. In fact, they likely do not exist. Thus Ol Olsoc, who insinuated that oh_my_080980980 had been living under a rock, is a fucking retard. As are you, for not understanding the situation.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Aighearach]

In your world, murder can never even happen because if you only have a dead body and no conviction, there is no reason to suspect a crime. You just keep asking if there was a conviction, and if not, no crime happened!

in your perfect world charges would be filed before an investigation

Please show me the charges that have been filed against Donald Trump and the evidence to be presented.

You fucking moron, you didn't even read what I said. You can't even comprehend that when I give you a sequence of steps, 1, 2, 3, that step 3 comes at the end, long after step 1.

Really?

[ebvwfbw]

So some foreign government would never think to use some US company or US person? They have in the past.

Besides, how would they ever differentiate it from a Democratic advertisement.

Re: Liberals won't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of popular vote, Clinton beat Trump. Trump had said that if Clinton had won the presidency without winning the popular vote, it would be wrong.

Re: Guess we won't be seeing Trump in that feed no

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK Schmidt had a seat on various bodies created by the Conservative Party, which is well to the right of Sanders, and about on a par with Clinton.

Re:Liberals won't like this

[sexconker]

Amazing. You still don't get it. The post by Ol Olsoc (in response to the post by oh_my_080980980) was implying that things had already happened.

oh_my_080980980's post, referring to the ongoing mission to dig up any dirt on Trump regarding Russia:

When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.

Ol Olsoc's response:

Your rock called, says you need to get back under it.

oh_my_080980980 is correctly pointing out that despite Hillary and the DNC and the media bending over backwards for a year and a half to find any shred of evidence directly linking Trump to some illegal dealings with Russia, nothing has been found.

Ol Olsoc made a post insinuating that the evidence/proof was obvious or old news and that one would have to have been living under a rock to not see it.

Yet he can't point to any evidence. Not one shred. Nor can you. All you can do is scream that it's obvious and that we're all fools for not seeing it. There's no procedure here because they've been on step 0 for a year and a half (as oh_my_080980980 pointed out). Procedures must proceed.
They have no evidence of anything yet the way your ilk talks Trump's impeachment is right around the corner.

You can go back to rocking yourself in the fetal position now. Would you like a pacifier, or are you fine sucking on your thumb?

Remiving lies isn't really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, don;t agree. When someone invents a lie to get a pieve of shit like trump elected by convincing ill educated hillbillies of it. I don't see the harm in weeding it out

Re:Liberals won't like this

[Aighearach]

You're just going in a circle like a moron. Why don't you go find somebody you trust to read the thread and explain it to you?

You didn't understand what was said. I'll repeat myself.

Oh, right, you can't understand that there is a process, or what step we're on. In your world, murder can never even happen because if you only have a dead body and no conviction, there is no reason to suspect a crime. You just keep asking if there was a conviction, and if not, no crime happened!

Don't be a fucking moron and ask for a conviction before there are charges. It is really stupid, and doesn't make the point you're thinking it made. Maybe stop talking for a fucking minute and read the words?