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.
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
I like your new invisible suit.
First item I see is their web site. You're the one making up fake news.
I think Google's machinations of the search results are well known.
A simple survey of different search engines show a rather dramatic difference.
You mean there are bits of good news out there? Besides the impending impeachment that is..
You know, if he spent his time actually doing good things instead of bad things he could spend a lot less time lying and going on and on about "fake" news. I mean if he didn't spend all of his time denying that he ever said or did the things he is on tape saying and doing he might have time to learn why you don't just get an economic advisor by searching on Amazon and figure out that his tariffs and trade wars are bad. Then, he wouldn't have to read about how stupid his policies are.
Shit-for-brains, Trump-feltching Russophiles.
Their skins are as gossamer-thin as their orange messiah's.
Probably because the media is so blatantly biased against Trump. I saw the TV news last night mocking Trump because he couldn't figure out the phone system on his desk. Never mind those things are notoriously unfriendly to use, or the fact that he just reached a new trade agreement with Mexico. No...it's all about Trump being an idiot and nothing more. The news media has been an axe-griding disaster. Google's search results are merely reflecting that.
Evolution, global warming, the facts about Trump... All these aspects of reality that mainstream media is willing to embrace, conservative media largely rejects. The result of these processes is that, to the conservative eye, reality appears to have a liberal bias. Is it such a bad thing that Google reflects that reality?
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
And trump clings onto his not-so-humble point of view as firmly as he shakes those hands with his trademark OTT handshake. He just has to tell himself there's no greater point of view that that of donald j trump and the rest of the world can just bend and twist and distort itself around the imaginary pedestal on which he puts himself.
This statement is probably bullshit, but it serves its purpose: His die hard fans will simply believe it and any bad news is simply propaganda against him. What is or what isn't doesn't really matter either way.
In a way, it's genius. What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.
I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As much as I dislike 46's tactics, I figured the search results would be pretty much negative. I just searched Trump on Google and went through the first 50 hits. I would say about 60% negative and 40% just reporting something with no obvious bias.
Considering that it's a site that is used internationally, and that in general international readers think it's funny you made Donald Duck the ruler of your country...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If the record doesn't reflect what you want, toss it out and supply your own "facts". Trump is mad that he's forced to face criticism and not allowed to make up his own facts.
And beyond all that, Google ranks pages essentially based on their popularity. If a lot of sites---especially popular sites---link to your content, then it gets ranked more highly regardless of how "good" or "true" it is. In that sense, Google's rankings simply reflect an unfavorable opinion of Trump.
This is more of the same attitude on the part of the President, and I scarcely see it as newsworthy. He's been at war with the media practically since his campaign started.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Bias is simple, and doesn't require any conspiracy.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is bias. Believing all news sources are biased against you is indistinguishable from believing in a conspiracy. The simple explanation here is just that Trump doesn't like news that isn't flattering to him and that there is a LOT of factual news that makes him objectively look bad. His own behavior is the simplest explanation, not bias. Some people like his behavior - many many more do not. Ergo a lot of of news isn't favorable to Trump.
OK Trump supporters, if you think Google is in with every other media outlet, but Fox, and rigged against you, PLEASE, build your own search engine. Rig it however you want. If you are so paranoid and delusional that you think algorithms are against your cause and refuse to consider that maybe just the majority of the world doesn't like or respect your president, then put that energy to good use and show us how it is done.
I personally look forward to the upcoming war between the Trump administration and the tech establishment. I think the Trump base has no idea who they are messing with or who holds the real power if they want to go to war with Google, Apple, and Amazon.
Someone should really build a "conservative alternative" to Google, which only has nice things to say about him and his Republican buddies. It seems that there is now a market for such a site.
Maybe they can call it "Redsearch.com" or something like that... although that URL might be a bit too close to some other web sites that conservatives wouldn't approve of :)
Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Or maybe there just isn't any positive news about Trump that doesn't come from sketchy wastelands like Infowars and Breitbart?
What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.
It works (on some) because he's saying it to his tribe who are already predisposed to believe it is true. Trump is basically preaching to the choir. That's why his ratings have bottomed out - his supporters don't care what he says and everyone else knows he's full of shit.
I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.
Hard to tell if electing Trump or Putin is the dumber move so you're probably right. Technically Trump lost the popular vote which makes it harder to pick a "winner".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well... He was elected by the majority of the electoral college... As defined in the Constitution.
Well duh, by far, most of the news relating to Trump and his appointees *IS* bad. So, it doesn't surprise me that most hits are related to bad news about Trump and crew. (Just my opinion. The narcissist in question and followers may perceive it differently.)
Typical Trump, thinks the world has it out for him and things are so unfair for him. When in reality he's just a complete dipshit dumbass moron who can't do anything right. Google isn't biased there's just a lot of bad news about you Donnie, because you suuuuuuuuuuuuuck at being president. Its pretty simple.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
name calling and the childish whining
I thought that was his platform.
What does a humble point of view mean ? Looking from below ? There are better points of view and wrong points of view. Look at a house from 1 cm away and tell me what you think of it....
Just because Trump puts himself on a pedestal doesn't automatically make him wrong. And objectively a president talks from a pedestal.
A bunch of comments from Russian Trolls and Nazis. Mostly anonymous. The days, they are a changing. Shouldn't we be fighting about improper use of static variables and quationable research papers. This is absolutely nauseating.
This is not the first time I've thought of Donald Trump as Zaphod. It is absolutely the closest we've ever come.
Am in London, have traveled through 63 countries and 42 of US states (+DC & PR); Iâ(TM)m less afraid for my safety here than many places, and Iâ(TM)ve had more dicey situations in the US (once in a mall during shooting for instance) than almost anywhere else.
Aside from war zones, the world is in general reasonably safe. The US isnâ(TM)t as developed in that regard as those who live there and never leave would think.
This may trigger you. Hug your therapy dog in your safe space and maybe close your eyes
May 2018 Ratings: Fox News Is Most-Watched Cable News Network for 197 Straight Months
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...
Didn't you think it a little pathetic to crow about one day ?
Is anyone else surprised it took Trump this long to guess the net-nanny password his aids put on his internet access. Whoops, looks like he got to google his own name for the first time in 2 years.
Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate
Nope. It's been flat since two years before Trump took office.
and low unemployment numbers.
Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.
But, I truly do thank you for illustrating the issue: Trump's rhetoric is at odds with reality, and his supporters would rather believe him than their own lying eyes.
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.
My news feed is Google-driven and every single day includes negative Trump news right at the top in the 'Headlines' section. There is absolutely an anti-Trump slant to the major media outlets (Fox excluded). The media money is overwhelmingly producing anti-Trump material, so that's what Google indexes. However, I don't believe Google is as impartial as they claim. James Damore's saga illuminated the internals of Google politics. Google is bearing partial responsibility for Trump. This is why they started their fake news initiative.
Well, the fact is that Google only trusts big names in news, like CNN and Fox, never mind how ridiculous they may be.
As they should. They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites. Giving equal weight to a random conspiracy theorist web site with 5 followers makes no sense for very good reason.
Majority of...?
You still do not know how US Presidential elections work? Perhaps you could, oh I dunno, learn?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.
No, it's the relentless nonsensical bullshit coming from US conservative media that is US conservative media's own enemy across the rest of the world.
If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire.
When I look out of my window, that's not what I see.
Hence, their bullshit isn't informative, we outside the US might as well skip it.
(Yes, I know, we're all evil depraved euro-communists over here...)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I honestly cannot comprehend where this sort of comment comes from. There is no need to "make Trump look bad," he does that job entirely on his own, all the media has to do is directly quote him. And that they have been doing. Think something stupid he's quoted as saying was taken out of context? Go find the original context and watch/read the whole thing. I have yet to do that and find that the context does anything to help him look better. On the contrary, often the context turns out to be nearly incoherent rambling.
Even if every single policy he signs into effect is pure gold for the entire world, it takes a special kind of denial to watch a single one of his speeches and not come to the conclusion that the man has issues of a kind not compatible with being president. He will, literally, directly contradict himself within a single speech/conversation, and then sometimes even follow that up by denying having said anything on the topic at all. I doesn't matter if gold comes out his arse, he clearly does not have the presence of mind for any position of power.
Actually, he was. By a ratio of 304 to 227.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The majority of the votes that count went to President Trump - 304 to 227.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The man sounds like Nixon. He may not actually BE paranoid, but with media making reality in TrumpWorld, the man sounds as paranoid and off the rails as Nixon (or more-so).
-
Anything to pull attention back to him from McCain's passing. RIP Sen. McCain.
Alex Jones, is that you?
And yes I am "alpina white" Caucasian (as in pasty white & blond hair because the sun and me we ain't friends). Firstly there is the *perception* of feeling unsafe, and the reality. The reality is that those area (and the other one near Paris which were qualified the same way) are not "muslim" only I am the living proof (*touch self* yes still solid not a ghost). Look joke aside your friends sound like my old uncle, giving the *perception* of something but not knowing the *reality* of that thing, in other word your friend was not speaking of experience but out of the right wing perception of the fear the area attracts. Same with the perception of people having fear of muslim in general. I give up I doubt anything could convince you anyway.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Well. Diamond and Silk and Candice Owens are racist and misogynist because they support President Trump, so...
/s
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I don't see someone typing "Trump news" in a google search box as plausible. Who actually does that?
Someone should teach him to type it in as: "Trump site:foxnews.com".
... tried to explain to him the reason why searching for "Trump" results in so many negative hits showing up. But... since he doesn't like being "lectured to" he wouldn't believe them anyway. Makes you wonder why he bothers to claim to have surrounded himself with "the best people" if he's not going to listen to what they say. [sigh]
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Don't bet on it: According to Nielsen Live +7-day data, in 2017 CNN’s median age was 60, while the median age of the Fox News and MSNBC viewer was 65.
And given the amount of racism on CNN and MSNBC, I think it's fair to say, they are giving Fox a run for its money when it comes to the "racist senior citizen demographic".
Poll: 72 percent say traditional outlets 'report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading'
Well, of course he would say that.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Not really relevant when you're talking about relative weighting. Something has to be at the top of the search results.
If you link to the original research source, you'll also see that it's mostly independent/left-leaning people that actually try to find out the veracity of what they read. Just claiming that something is not factual without actually trying to look into it at all is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
You're gonna have to keep your angry racist off-topic tirade down to 2 paragraphs max or I'm just not gonna even read it, ok?
We elected a professional internet troll - and a thin-skinned one at that - to the highest office. He's a total and indisputable failure at the job but we're stuck with him. He thrives on attention, why are we giving it to him? Internet trolls don't tend to go away when they get attention. There is plenty going on in the world that doesn't involve him, in spite of his own claims to the contrary.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The really worrisome part is not that Trump believes Google's search results are somehow biased against him. I can understand how he might feel this way, because of all the things that are coming to light about him, and he's probably feeling under siege from every direction. All he sees is bad news.
The problematic part is that he thinks it may be illegal for the news to be biased against him or for a company to be biased against him.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A full year before his election I was reading a fresh new screed against Trump on boingboing every day and realized... "He's going to win isn't he?" Because he's captured mindshare. His name is out there like a drumbeat, every day. The media are utterly obsessed with him, and he is unavoidable and unforgettable. And why is that? Because he's great entertainment for the masses.
All I said is: bias is simple.
Bias is simple but Trump's behavior and dislike of unflattering news that results from it is a proven fact. Occam's razor only applies when it isn't clear what the answer is between two choices. While there are clearly a minority of news sources that are biased against (and for) Trump, many more are simply accurately relaying facts without any significant bias for or against. The fact that these facts make Trump look like an asshat is a second order effect. There is a reason his approval ratings are generally historically low - the majority of people don't approve of his actions and it should surprise no one that the news reflects that disapproval.
Trump behaves like asshat = news reports asshattery is a FAR simpler explanation than assuming widespread and universally negative bias against Trump by google and news organizations.
We *are* talking about the guy who had to fight to get a speakerphone working, so he could talk to the President of Mexico, right? And he knows how to specify search terms?
Or, as the WaPo article that looked into this claim put it, he seems to be repeating a right-wing site's assertion that it was 96%.
Of course, there's no possibility that he's a sexual predator, contract-breaking crook, who's destroying the US because the people he's been laundering billions for have a hold on him.
Nope. Nahh...... Oh, and I've got a bridge for sale....
Actually, the PIGS, massive Middle Eastern immigration, and car fires in France and elsewhere in Europe make your point less than obvious.
Have you actually *traveled* to "France and elsewhere in Europe" ?
Oh, let me guess : Nope, you never left your house, because the media you've been watching has always been telling you that Europe is a scary communist place and too dangerous to travel to.
I'm not saying that there has never ever been a single car on fire in the whole Europe ever.
But it is extremely far from being any frequent thing to begin with, unlike what the media would like you to think.
It's not a common part of the landscape, at all. Just stop believing everything you read on extremists forums.
(Unlike strikes. Strikes seem to be some sort of national sport in France, and might be an explanation why it could be hard to travel there :-P )
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If the majority of news about you is what you consider "negative" then the majority of 1st page links will be "bad".
The news isn't what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it "fake".
If you say a lie enough times it might seem true to you, but those outside can still detect the lie.
I refuse to sign
MSNBC, CNN, and similar outfits publish so much garbage because it gets people angry and results in clickthroughs, and that's the same reason Google puts them at the top of search results. None of the corporate media, or Google, are interested in truth or good politics or rational debate, they want to maximize profit, and they will say and do whatever it takes.
No, what Axios claims is that "Democrats are more likely to take additional steps to verify what they’ve read than Republicans". Since Republicans already assume or know at a much greater rate than Democrats that news stories are fake, they have less to verify.
Well, 66% of millenials think the Earth is not round. As such, forgive me for not taking people's opinions on what they think as fake or false news as incontrovertible fact.
I would say that Dingy Harry started this mess. He used his position as majority leader of the Senate to smear the opposing party's presidential candidate. All of the major news outlets ran the story for several days using the same format:
"Harry Reid says 'Mitt Romney has never paid income taxes'".
Everyone new this was false, everyone. But it dominated news cycles for days and when Mitt did release his taxes, the news outlets barely covered it having moved on.
This is beyond fake news and it has only gotten worse. Now it's all 'they said, he said, that he might' BS every day.
That this is the best distraction our Cheeto-N-Chief can come up with
Well, you justified Google's choice by saying that "they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites". Given that so many people do not trust these web sites, that statement is wrong.
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but it's an interesting factoid on its own, since it puts into perspective the support of millennials for Democrats, progressivism, social justice, and environmentalism, doesn't it?
I can hardly wait until PhD students, diplomats, engineers and doctors can rely on a Trump approved search engine: Error : Your search - "Science" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords, e.g. "Chinese Hoax" Try more general keywords. e.g. "Creation Science" Error : Your search - "Russia" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords, e.g. "Crooked Hillary" Try more general keywords, e.g. "NO COLLUSION!" Error : Your search - "Stormy" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try premium version of this search engine for $140,000 Your search - "Fake News" returned 84 million results including: (Failing) New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Guardian, London Times, Irish Times, Independent, Reuters, AP, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, NHK, Der Spiegel, Scientific American, Economist, NASA, NOAA, WHO, CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5, Omorosa's tapes, Cohen's tapes, Billy Bush tapes, pee pee tapes... Your search - "Real news" returned 5 results: FoxNews InfoWars Breitbart National Enquirer trumptwitterarchive.com
Or maybe when you were seeing Trump's empty podium rather than hearing a speech by Sanders, it might have occurred to you that the corporate media's real job is to tell you what to think. I didn't see Sander name 'trending' on Google news either even when he was winning primary elections, but I did see one hit piece after another by the washington post that somehow always were in the list of top stories.
After the way the google-media trust collectively shit on Sanders, why would anyone expect them to represent Trump fairly and honestly either?
Story about CNN outright lying for a month and refusing to retract a story after EVERYONE knows its a lie. Its their Trump is getting impeached any day now, so its not a minor story either.
You believe CNN is honest, you are an idiot. Thanks for letting us know how dumb you are and that your opinion doesn't matter.
on economic issues. So is Hollywood when you look into it. There's a slight bent to the left on social issues, mostly Abortion & Gun Control. Anything that touches the economy at large are media is hard right. This is why Bernie Sanders was buried by MSNBC during the primary. They got caught when the guy who runs The Young Turks Youtube show wouldn't play ball, for all the good it did.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Google search results make him sound like a moron.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As reported by the Daily Wire:
"In order to assess how fairly search engine results portray political candidates and controversial issues, we collected over 1,200 URLs ranking highly in Google.com for politically-charged keywords such as “gun control”, “abortion”, “TPP”, and “Black Lives Matter”. Each URL was then assessed for political slant by politically active individuals from both the left and right. Finally, we used CanIRank’s SEO software to analyze how each URL compared in dozens of different ranking factors to determine whether Google’s algorithm treated websites similarly regardless of their political slant.
Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results."
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
If the world is biased against you, then of course, a neutral search algorithm will show that bias. Only a biased search algorithm would guarantee "fair and balanced" search results.
Harding's administration was pretty corrupt, too.
and that it let them re-patriot billions of dollars of profits virtually tax free (all of which went into the pockets of the CEOs and top shareholders in the form or stock buy backs) I think they can let this one slide.
Seriously, this is all just a distraction from the plundering of our nations commons that's been going on since Reagan declared "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
First it was media, and now it's the search engines. What's next?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Yeah, so what? You can't draw any conclusions from anything without first estimating the base rate.
Not a bad baseline for comparison—not if you compare Google in the 2010s with AT&T from the 1920s.
History of AT&T
Of course, you'll normalize your baseline for the 90-year difference taking into account the relative ability of people to visit Washington, and the pace at which the world now runs. You'll of course factor in the Snowden revelations of 2013 on Obama's rush for close contact with two central players in the larger drama—including technical staff to answer pointed questions about technical capabilities and postures. You'll also have read Michael Hayden's view of the momentous issues going on the behind the scenes between the intelligence community and the behemoths of modern social media (not as if they were actively reshaping the world, or anything like that; not as if they were principle driving engines of the lethargic post-Bush American recovery).
Playing to the Edge, by Michael V. Hayden — 6 March 2016
You'll take into account that Obama was one of the few technology-savvy president of living memory:
OSTP Initiatives
Obama was an innovation junkie. Will Trump follow in his footsteps? — 16 November 2016
(Continue reading, the article soon partially supports your side of this.)
You'll also take into account that pretty much the entirety of the net neutrality debate transpired during Obama's term. (I can't recommend Tim Wu's books highly enough.)
And after considering all these base-rate factors, you'll decide whether you need to pile yet another agenda on top of this (subtype: nefarious) to explain the Obama White House visitor log.
But only if you really give a shit about the coefficient of narrative baloney.
site:slashdot.org "net neutrality"
9,520 results
site:slashdot.org "Snowden"
8,340 results
site:slashdot.org "NSA"
7,070 results
site:slashdot.org "Google"
50,900 results
site:slashdot.org "Facebook"
61,700 results
I suppose you still think a regular stream of lobbyists and geeks (counted in public view) and generals and policy wonks (not counted in public view) into Obama's White House was situation irregular during his eight-year tenure?
Here's another seismic view of the Obama presidency:
Global Apple iPhone sales from 3rd quarter 2007 to 3rd quarter 2018
Odd that such a busy man would be paying more than normal attention to this sleepy industry.
Not really rigging.
Worse president ever? Perhaps... he is working hard at it.
You may have missed it when the other leading candidate for POTUS joked and laughed maniacally about the gruesome death of Libya's leader after the US and its allies bombed and destabilized the country. This was even after providing jihadists weapons and support for the purpose of destabilizing and conducting war in another country called Syria.
Now we have the usual suspects in the media that goaded the public into supporting a war with Iraq under false pretenses, (remember that one?) now also wanting to stir up shit with Russia for the sake of saving face for their own preferred political tribe. Somehow exposing the corruption and the financial hegemony that led to the choice of last election is of less actual concern than when Trump misspells words on Twitter posts.
It isn't Trump that I'm worried about. It's the collusion of the media corporations, internet platforms and payment processors to control what we see and hear and who gets to have a voice on the internet that concerns me. Because if anything will lead us to despotism and tyranny and endless war it's that.
Google's algorithms do not cause the majority of news about trump to be bad. Rather, the majority of news about trump is just bad. That in turn is the result of a bad man doing bad things.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
A story about cyclist killed in Tajikistan (not London/UK) reported by the some foreign journal (again not London/UK) , as a counter argument about some part of London NOT being "no-go" as conservative pretend ? And YOU wonder why people don't trust your handling at facts ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Worst president
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm not going to take your opinion because your reading comprehension is terrible. You misquoted your own article. 66% of 18-24 year olds have always believed the earth is round. Not only is the percentage reversed, most of them aren't even Millennials. Millennials are aged 22-37 (a 2 year overlap). Of 25-34 year olds (100% millennials), only 7% believe the world is flat. 93% either believe the world is round or are unsure of the answer. This is assuming a trustworthy poll and participants not just clicking at random or intentionally skewing results.
Well, you justified Google's choice by saying that "they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites". Given that so many people do not trust these web sites, that statement is wrong.
I made no such claim.
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but it's an interesting factoid on its own, since it puts into perspective the support of millennials for Democrats, progressivism, social justice, and environmentalism, doesn't it?
1) If you are asking me to seriously consider the weight of the 72% of people that see news as fake, or whatever, it has everything to do with the discussion
2) The rest is a bunch of flamebait I have no interest in responding to, which is funny considering you're accusing me of launching a non-sequitur
A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.
-- John Burroughs
As a long-time Donald Duck fan, I am deeply hurt and offended by your post!
the probability of getting a good article inst high.
Trump just has to face facts, he is a horrid little man that has no idea what he is doing. The media is reporting this correctly where trump isnt manipulating thing in his favor. Now he is aiming to manipulate google.
Google: president dumb f***
That way or with the letters.
Trump being baffled by Google search results is a symptom of the same lack of insight into now-ubiquitous technology that led Orrin Hatch to ask this stupid fucking question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's the same reason he retweets himself...too stupid to understand how to pin a tweet.
He's an idiot who should take tutoring from Barron, who he claims already has mastered "the cyber".
Unfortunately, his finger is also poised over Americal's nuclear triad. We could be doomed, and just not know it yetl
shoot the messenger.
Greed is the root of all evil.
If one person calls you an asshole you can probably just ignore that, but if everybody is calling you an asshole you might want to look at that a little more closely. WTF guys!?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Good golly guy! Just take your meds. They really do work.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'm not asking you to consider anything. I responded to the claim "They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites." I pointed out that if they "analyzed the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites", they wouldn't be selecting those web sites.
Obviously, Google either selects those web sites because they believe that they are credible despite what the public believes, or they simply are trying to create controversy to maximize revenue.
Then don't butt in other people's discussions, in particular if you can't be bothered to read the context.
So Google, Twitter, Facebook are now blocking foreign spies intentional interference on his behalf and Trump is missing his echo chamber...
You're on the Titanic and it's sinking. You run to the bridge, only to notice that Daffy Duck is the captain. There are now two things you can do: Cry in despair or laugh in despair.
I prefer to laugh. It's about as productive, just with higher serotonin levels.
Yes, it's horrible. And it's not like it could have been any better. When you have a two party system and both party field the equivalent of self destruction, there is nothing you can do. Quite frankly, if I had had to vote in the US in the last presidential election and someone asked me at gunpoint "Trump or Hillary", my answer would've been "shoot".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, then you should not read the caricatures of Klaus Stuttmann.
It's German, but even without Google translate most of it makes sense.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
Everyone knows. The cultists can vomit the party line until they dry heave talking points.
The issue is not whether this is happening. It has.
The issue is instead what to do about it now that it has happened and the assholes aren't being honest about it.
Solutions include setting up alternative social networks, decentralizing power out of these compromised corporations, and as usual poking fun at the obvious liars if only to enjoy them squealing.
That's it. That there is bias is not credibly deniable. The issue is instead how to address the problem now that it is established.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Does Donald Trump know that goggle results are biased by previous search history? Maybe Melania was using his browser recently.
Please toss your cookies after using the official presidential browser!
Not a single link you provided had anything to do with the Constitution. National Popular Vote movement? Opinion pieces about what it should be? Stop dealing in fantasies, AC - deal in facts. The electoral college votes for the President, and every State may decide how they want to decide who their electors will vote for. There is NO individual vote for the President - that's per the Constitution.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I do seem to recall something a while back that everyone thought was the most hilarious thing ever. I can't remember what... but basically if you typed "idiot" or "moron" or whatever into google and clicked "I'm feeling lucky" it would take you to Trump's website or whatever.
Actually, your link says that 66% of millennials have always thought the Earth was round. Only 4% of millenials have always thought the earth was flat, the other 30% are apparently unsure. Those are not great numbers, but the questions in the survey aren't great either. There is a trend that older people are more sure that the earth is round, but I do wonder if millenials, being younger, might be actually considering what they believed when they were very young children.
I'd want to see some corroboration and a more in depth look into why the answers differ according to age and income, before drawing any real conclusions from that survey.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Maybe he's switched to Google Canada because he's getting no love up here at the minute.
The poll results also showed that Flat Earthers were also more likely to consider themselves "very religious" (52%).
This is assuming a trustworthy poll and participants not just clicking at random or intentionally skewing results.
https://www.cnet.com/news/flat...
From a different article regarding the poll:
Could it be that at least some of these young people are tempted by these inducements and don't actually take the surveys seriously?
Also, only 84% of all Americans have "always believed" it was round. We're not much better than the millennials.
Whether it's 66% for or against, the point is: trust facts over people's opinions. I'd think on Slashdot that would be kind of an obvious point. Perhaps I'm wrong.
What surprises me is that anyone that would vote for Trump is a SlashDot user. I thought we had them all contained in Twitter.
Perhaps one should not read too much into poll results. Every time a pollster calls me, I’m having fun with them.
Well, there you go, exaggerating again. Actually, many of them specifically analyze the defects in the Electoral College that arise due to the fundamentally flawed coverage in the Constitution, and demonstrate the fallacies that go along with the fantasies of the various apologists by pointing out the actual reality of affairs.
You just confirmed my position. Thank you. People don't like how it operates, so they want to change it. As it operates today - the only votes that matter are the electoral college. You might not like it - but that's the fact.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Truth isn't Truth, Truth isn't truth, Truth isn't truth........
Repeat until the liberal media and Crooked Hillary disappear in a puff of smoke.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You're gonna have to keep your angry racist off-topic tirade down to 2 paragraphs max or I'm just not gonna even read it, ok?
Ironically, an angry, off-topic tirade might be just the thing to bait the press into distraction from its coverage of a scandal-ridden week or two for the POTUS.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I got that and I agree with you, I was adding a note of "don't believe everything you read"... Even when well intentioned and trying to be factual, it's possible to get things wrong. Instances of errors in the news, just means the news media is fallible, like everything else. It doesn't mean they're corrupt or untrustworthy like some people seem to think. No one is correct 100% of the time.
Fanatically anti-fanatical