Slashdot Mirror
Trump Accuses Google of Rigging Search Results To Favor 'Bad' News About Him (cnet.com)
President Donald Trump says Google search results for "Trump News" show only negative coverage about him. From a report: The results present "only the viewing/reporting of Fake New (sic) Media," the president tweeted early Tuesday. He said it's a "very serious situation" that "will be addressed!" "In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of ... " he wrote in the first of two tweets at 5:24 a.m. ET. Update: White House probes Google after Trump accuses it of bias.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I looked at your link, read the entire thing,
so I asked myself, why are the results this way...
Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.
you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies.
They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms
While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules
CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.
it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.
so yes, the leaning to non-trump side.
Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue.
( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )
if you see me, smile and say hello.
This could damage their stock price. I'd sue for defamation - he is making a factual claim as the POTUS on an official communication channel.
And CNN is seen as right wing as well in Europe.
Politicaly compared to the rest of the world the US has a right wing and extreme right lunatics.
(Yes, Urup also has extreme right, but also extreme left and all things in between.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Not so long ago, there was another conservative, ex-military officer, a technologist who stood down Russia over Afghanistan, and battled the oil cartels. He was a white guy from the South.
His name was Jimmy Carter.
Carter did what he thought was right, and wasn't interested in polls. During his office, the primordial tech soup evolved into the first microcomputers. The long peace process with Vietnam was started. The Cold War got colder.
And conservative as he might be, he was also a Democrat.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:
1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.
People who doubt this should ask themselves:
1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
. - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
. - Single Payer healthcare
. - A livable minimum wage
. - An effort to ensure employment is available for all
For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.
The only hate I see is coming from your post. You may (and I'm sure you do, from your perspective) have personal reasons to be angry at them but you are the only one who can decide if you'll let it consume you or not is yourself.
Imagine if an academic wrote this about practicing software engineers: "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?
While you are googling, try "worst president" and set the time frame to "past year". Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.
In particular, there is this link: The White House's Disastrous Reaction to McCain's Death
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.