Slashdot Mirror
Google Debunks Trump's Claim It Censored His State of the Union Address (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Google today, posting a native video of unknown origin to his Twitter account this afternoon claiming the search giant stopped promoting the State of the Union (SOTU) address on its homepage after he took office. It turns out the video he posted is not only misleading, but also contains what appears to be a fake screenshot of the Google homepage on the day in question. It has since been viewed more than 1.5 million times. In a statement given to The Verge, a Google spokesperson clarifies that the company promoted neither former President Barack Obama nor Trump's inaugural SOTU addresses in 2009 and 2017, respectively. That's because they were not technically State of the Union addresses, but "addresses to a joint session" of Congress, a tradition set back in 1993 so that new presidents didn't have to immediately deliver SOTU addresses after holding office for just a few weeks. Google resumed promoting Obama's SOTU address in 2010 and continued to do so through 2016, as he held office for all six of those years.
With regards to the 2018 SOTU, Google says it did in fact promote it on its homepage. "On January 30th 2018, we highlighted the livestream of President Trump's State of the Union on the google.com homepage," reads Google's statement. "We have historically not promoted the first address to Congress by a new President, which is not a State of the Union address. As a result, we didn't include a promotion on google.com for this address in either 2009 or 2017."
With regards to the 2018 SOTU, Google says it did in fact promote it on its homepage. "On January 30th 2018, we highlighted the livestream of President Trump's State of the Union on the google.com homepage," reads Google's statement. "We have historically not promoted the first address to Congress by a new President, which is not a State of the Union address. As a result, we didn't include a promotion on google.com for this address in either 2009 or 2017."
How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.
Facebook, Twitter, Google follow next in breaking TRUMP's fake news tweets. Good job. Google.
And how exactly is reason or evidence meant to convince religious right-wing voters of anything?
Facebook censors.
Google does as well. They just aren't stupid enough to admit it.
I'll take "If the NSDAP had a webpage" for $1000, Pat!
for defamation? This guy is straight out lying about the company and other companies and using fake screen shots?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
fuck off yourself - I'm for a free press searching for objective truth - not the leftist propaganda this place has been.
It's not "whataboutism" at all either, IVAN.
Just not in the way many conservatives think.
Trump wages war daily against the bedrock values that made Western Civilization great. Generally Western Civilization has considered dishonesty, hypocrisy, infidelity, deceit, corruption, narcissism, bullyism as negative character attributes. Trump revels in these daily. Trump as someone has recently noted has embarrassed us in front of our children. The Evangelical Christians cheer him on.
I'll take "If the NSDAP had a webpage" for $1000, Pat!
If you're talking to Pat, then it would be "I'd like an 'N,' Pat." "One 'N'." "I'd like to solve, Pat. If the NSDAP had a web page!" If you want to call out a category and an amount, then you need to talk to Alex.
And it won't matter that the video is likely doctored to hell, people will still believe it. For reasons I won't speculate on, conservatives seem to be primed to believe every cockamamie conspiracy theory that comes along. Any proof you may provide to disprove the conspiracy theory is deemed fake and proof that the conspiracy is correct, or simply ignored.
We have Eric Schmidt, former chief of Google, on record bowing and scraping before Queen Hillary and promising to do anything he possibly can to help her win. What else do you really need? If we believe you wretched corrupt self-righteous lying Nazi Liberals, the Republican Party is doomed and nobody likes it and their social media presence suggests they have zero support, but somehow run every branch of government. (right on cue, the sheep will rush to their keyboards to blame Russia and gerrymandering, as if they weren't 100% guilty of both. The 1980's called, and they would like their foreign policy back.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Apparently this is news for nerds. Someone pass the popcorn!
He's beating them at their own game. Not a good thing certainly.
Trump learned how journalists "be a force for change." Say whatever you want, then quietly redact (or not) later.
The people should drive the algorithm, not vice versa.
What is shown on those pages should be based on what people are demanding or viewing adjusted only per the algorithm's estimation of your personal priorities - which is spookily accurate. If it isn't the top news item searched for or viewed by people similar to you, it shouldn't be there.
If the Kardashians beat the state of the union, tough shit - no matter who is giving the state of the union. Perhaps the President de jeur should consider their own faults that have caused the people not to look for it if that happens. To do anything else is acting politically or in a nationalistic way.
The problem is the President committed treason, obstruction, tax fraud and about a hundred other crimes and your faggot ass has no spine in it so you justify continuing to support him because he's racist like you are. You should both hang.
They don't follow him, they are following their team flag.
e.g. Trump says "nobody is tougher on Russian than me"
and his followers dress in t-shirts saying "better Russian than Democrat" (i.e. party before country). So they don't believe him.
His party members, do visits to Putin promising not to add extra sanctions (e.g. Senator Rand Paul takes a letter from Trump to Putin... turns out he asked Trump to write a letter to get him a meeting). i.e. like employees going for a job review before the big boss.
When Trump drives away the last policy based Republicans he'll be at 100% approval rating among Republican, there just won't be many left in the Republican party.
Google has diarrhea.
The problem is the President committed treason, obstruction, tax fraud and about a hundred other crimes and your faggot ass has no spine in it so you justify continuing to support him because he's racist like you are. You should both hang.
I'm going to print that comment out and tack it to my corkboard - thanks! :-)
No corkboards in Federal prison, moronic Trump cowards.
Evangelical Christians don't. They *leaked* his "there'll be violence if Democrats get to power", and "this referendum will be about your religion", bullshit, he told them at the Whitehouse meeting last week. That's how the press knows what he said to them.
If you remember the children snatched from their parents was *God's* work, with bible verses quoted, and Huckerby Sanders defending the religion angle?
Well turns out snatching 18 month old babies from their mothers, isn't Gods work. And sure enough they're dying which isn't Gods work either.
The court orders the kids returned to their mothers, so ICE requires detaining sign a contract with only 2 option "a) I agree to be expelled without my kid, or b) Give me my kid and expel us both", i.e. trying to get them to waive their legal right to due process.
https://boingboing.net/2018/07/03/heres-the-insane-form-trump.html
Anyone that signed that contract was immediately expelled without their kid, because they'd waived the court protection, leaving only civil right to get their kid back.
And the detention camp supervisor warns they don't have the facilities in the desert tents and kids will die.
And the 18 month old gets a fever and dies due to lack of medical attention.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/paw9ky/toddler-died-after-getting-sick-in-ice-custody
Gods work? No. Evangelicals DO NOT LIKE getting labelled by Trump as the reason for him doing this.
Now 528 kids they have in detention camps with no way of returning them to their parents.
Seriously. Sputnik news. as in:
Sputnik (Russian pronunciation: [sputnk]; formerly The Voice of Russia and RIA Novosti) is a news agency, news website platform and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-owned news agency Rossiya Segodnya.[2] Headquartered in Moscow, Sputnik has regional editorial offices in Washington, Cairo, Beijing, London and Edinburgh. Sputnik focuses on global politics and economics and is geared towards a non-Russian audience.[3] According to The New York Times, Sputnik engages in bias and disinformation,[4] and has widely been described as a Russian propaganda outlet.
So I know I searched clinton during that election and did not see is awesome is winning. What total BS.
You seem to be confused; Perhaps an AC can educate you...
President Donald Trump must, by virtue of the oath he swore, uphold the Constitution of the United States which includes the various amendments - one of which states:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
Now, one could argue that calling him an Orange-Haired Turnip to his face is not 'a redress of grievances' but putting that aside...
Neither Alphabet Inc, nor its officers, nor its employees are required to swear the same oath as the President. Nor are they required to fulfill the Constitutional obligations of government - as they are not our government - as part of any SEC filing, act of incorporation, or other legal document. Thus President Trump has no right to go after them for anything, unless the Congress of the United States were to pass legislation making this the case.
Which would be promptly struck down, especially by a majority Conservative court. The notion of private and corporate property has been long established in United States' jurisprudence and the right to allow or not allow 'speech' in all its forms has always been a part of that. It is the same as asking and then telling a disruptive customer to leave a movie theater.
of the word "debunk".
What Google did was to distract, NOT debunk - And I note with great interest that the top dude at Google has refused to testify before the US Senate after being summoned (a BAD move). The US Senate could subpoena his posterior, but he is very lucky that the current chairman of the committee in question does not like to use a heavy hand.
Google has essentially said that they vary the results you get for a search based on your location and previous searches (though they refuse to provide any proof that this is what they are doing). There are two problems with this:
[1] Searches for basic facts, historical matters, etc should not return different results based on where the searcher is located or what the searcher has previously searched for. It's one thing to adjust results like that if searching for "great cookie recipe" or "movies showing tonight" "local parks" but it's entirely invalid if searching for "Statue of Liberty" or "USS Midway" or "Pittsburg" or "Eiffel tower" or "Abraham Lincoln" or "Harry Truman" or "Barack Obama" or "Donald Trump".
[2] Anybody can do a quick Google for Trump and see for themselves that the previously published studies are in fact quite correct: Most of the results Google returns are links to media outlets that are outright hostile to Trump and report mostly negative stuff on him (The "mainstream" press in the US has reported over 90% negative on Trump during his first year and a half in office).
It's the meeting last week. He pretended the election is about them.
https://nypost.com/2018/08/28/trump-to-evangelicals-therell-be-violence-if-we-lose-the-house/
“This Nov. 6th election is very much a referendum on not only me, it’s a referendum on your religion, it’s a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment.”
They're supposed to support him, because a vote for a Democrat is a vote against them. The message is basically "choose party above religion".
Google in this claim, is supposed to be part of the deep state conspiracy that's stopping him/them, and taking away their/his freedoms.
Trumplestiltzkin living in fairy tale land again.
Google doesn't have to prove anything. Let Trump prove his accusation.
And even if Google were completely biased against Trump and every single Google employee wore PISS TAPE IS REAL t-shirts and carefully deleted every single Trumpist media outlet from their search results, so. fucking. what?
There is nothing you can get from Google that you can't get from a host of competitors. Free speech is a bitch, ain't it? If you run for public office, especially the highest public office, you can't get upset when one of your ex-girlfriends says you got the baby dick and couldn't last more longer than a commercial break.
The problem here is not what Google has or has not done or does or does not believe. The problem is that Donald Motherfucking Trump honestly believes that hating his gelatinous ass should somehow be illegal, and is prepared to use the full power of the United States government against a company that doesn't like him.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You sure told him, Boris!
Parent post is literally reposting large amounts of Russian propaganda, read about Sputnik news if you think this is an exaggeration. This isn't particularly subtle either, Sputnik and RT don't try to hide their Russian origins, and as you can see from that link Sputnik was "established by the Russian government-owned news agency Rossiya Segodnya."
I guess the Russian sympathetic block has got their hands on mod points if unvarnished Russian propaganda is what passes for interesting or insightful.
Learn to spell. Then learn to think.
Google has to prove Trump is lying? The person most famous for lying? The person who has made over 4000 false or misleading statements in office?
No, the onus is on the person who has a reputation of being a liar to prove the truth of his claims.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You can't even keep Trump's taxes out of the public, he's going to be exposed in a couple months time and be escorted to Leavenworth shortly after. You backed a traitor because you're an un-American nazi faggot, plain and simple. Get out.
Nobody will miss you in the land of the free, you're too stupid to understand what the founding fathers were talking about and you never bothered to read it, quite obviously.
Donald Trump, king of fake news, lies again. Film at 11.
[ 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days ~ 7.6/day as of 2018-08-01 -- as noted and graphed ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Debunking would require them to provide some kind of evidence that what Trump said was false.
They are just denying it.
Not that I think google is lying, but still, this is not debunking.
Exactly. Google is a company. They are not required to to be neutral.
-- Cheers!
Skepticism is fine, but that implies you do research and maintain the factual record. Trump support is the antithesis of that. It's the denial and converse of the provable record, personified in every direction. It's nazism.
The article claims the screenshot was fake but doesn't provide any evidence to back up their claim. Even providing a hint of what makes it a fake would have been useful. Instead, all they did was claim it was fake without any further discussion.
They go on to make assumptions about how the video was generated, but the fact of the matter is they have no way of knowing. They put up a strawman argument, tear it down, and declare victory. This is really silly.
What they *could* have done is provided proof that Google *did* link Trump-related events, but they did not actually do that. This is clickbait. Nothing less, nothing more.
Kill Vladimir Putin and all of his circle today! Russia deserves peace!
annnnnd... let me guess... you're very much the only rational, objective one here, right?
remember, they also on the receiving end of the massive corporate tax break he just enacted. He's generating a ton of web traffic which is good for their ad business. He's lax on regulation which large corporations always love.
Bottom line, this is a bunch of very, very wealthy people having a completely meaningless scuff up while the world burns for the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But how do you feel about Jews? I wasn't clear from your post.
Maybe you should see a doctor about your "issues". Be careful when you pick one though! Or things could go very badly. I'd be a little big paranoid about it if I were you. And when you're crossing the street too. I'm sure they're out to get you.
Facebook censors. [breitbart.com]
Posting a liknk to Breitbart is more or less equivalent to saying "my pisshead mates down the pub told me". I mean sure, it might be true, but neither lends more credibility to the claim.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So why didn't he say that instead of a provably wrong statement?
You can explain all you like, but when he posts shit like 99% of all violence against blacks are caused by other blacks sourced by an organization that doesn't exist... People stop even try to see your way
Google ranks mainstream media sites differently, and news sites generally.. ranks higher up, and it wasn't always like this.
It wasn't always like this, the news sites were not a priority 10 years ago on google... i would barely ever get a CNN, NYTimes, Washingtonpost articles when I googled something like "Trump" or "McCain" or whatever, but now the whole first page is polluted with this stuff.
What's happening with Trump is that all the aforementioned media (including others) write (bad) articles about Trump 17 times a day for things he did do/say, and for things he didn't, which actually don't matter... what matter is that the keyword Trump is appearing all over these news sites, constantly. He's right but in a wrong way.
Google ranks media sites higher, and media sites bash Trump in whatever he does, so all search results appear as bad.
This is an issue, but it's a different issue than what Trump is saying. This ranking crap gives too much power to the media. Here's how it can be abused:
I'm Will Smith, and somebody blames me for rape. In our world, just a blame is enough for all the major and minor news networks to go with the story, so 100+ various news channels now have the same story with similar wording, and same keywords. Google crawls all the sites, and since it ranks news sites higher, the whole front page will be "Person X accused Will Smith of Rape"... and you will see the results with same title stacked together on the whole front page of google.,, and it will remain like that for a month.
Now after a month, a person X retracts or looses a lawsuit, but it's already too late... 1 billion people saw "Will Smith is probably a Rapist"... and in their minds that thought will forever linger. Google and the media just polarized 1 billion people to have an opinion, and quite a serious one at that. The alternative media sites will not appear in the search results, and I don't mean infowars.. I mean I never saw democracynow in search results, etc. It is always the same 8-10 sites, that are, in my opinion... just as bad as any other propaganda channels because they are not in the reporting news business anymore, they are in shaping opinions business now, because people are generally stupid... and are programmed from very young age to listen to the "tube". Unbiased, fact proven, real news, yeah ? Younger people, thank god, are waking up to it... and see the whole media industry in US as what they really are. Like George Carlin said..
"
then you have the media not just the
news media let's include them all the
media are almost literally exploding
with bullshit because they're located
right at the crossroads of all the other
bullshit the media are made up of equal
parts advertising politics business
public relations and show business these
people are sitting right at bullshit
junction there's enough bullshit in the
media for Texas to open a branch office
"
But hey.. if you would rather invent another epithet about Trump face color, instead of use your brain a bit... go for it. You're invaluable to this system, and good for you.
And Google said that Trump was dumb, and Google is always right.
Of course they tried to look up what Trump really said, but Google wasn't able to find that...
Google is a search engine. Why promote content of elected politicians on their search page? That's like, advertising. In the related news, the whitehouse.com has been returned to its former glory as a porn site.
How typical of Trump, he again tweeted something that's apparently right in general but wrong in the specifics.
My takeaway message from this article is that Trump is wrong because the speeches of Obama that were highlighted weren't State of the Union (SOFU) addresses, and they did highlight one of Trump's without having highlighted any other SOFU addresses. So my question is: did Google highlight more of Obama's speeches to congress than Trump's? Google seems to disagree with a snapshot of the video Trump posted, but they haven't addressed the overall message of the video.
This type of "debunking" is par for the course at this point, and it makes me wonder if Trump does it intentionally. I mean, when he says that "black unemployment has never been so low" the MSM as a whole ignores it, but if there's an inaccurate detail the MSM does backflips to debunk it even if the overall message is correct. For example: Trump has many tweets about our trade deficits and our trade deficit with China, which are annually around 500 and 300 billion, respectively, and he often conflates the two numbers. Technically he's wrong when he says we have a 500b trade deficit with China, but the overall message of "we have a huge trade deficit with China and we should do something about it" is still correct. Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) discusses this in a recent video where he says that Trump is usually "directionally correct" in what he says even if the details are often incorrect.
Skip to 21:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ah, someone makes an allegation and it is up to the victim to prove they are guilty? My...how...American of you.
On one side there are people thinking Google is the new Big Brother incarnate and is driven by leftist censorship
On the other side there are pople thinking Trump is lying, always
Interesting reading the number of posting and upvoting in the thread
On a side note: This is how wars start: Bunch of people thinking I am right, other bunch of people thinking.... I am right
There are very few (per capita) left leaning people in the USA.
Two blocks: conservative right, liberal right. Both have right wing politics, both are generally conservative. Both are seen internationally strongly nationalist.
The left groups are very small as are the far right* groups, neither of those have much of a representation. Even though Trump is said to have legitimized far right politics it isn't generally true, he have however pushed some issues/opinions that are shared with many far right groups - but that isn't the same thing.
(* as many so called far right groups are reactionary or even revolutionary rather than conservative the term is a bit of a misnomer, also see the horseshoe theory)
Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Something the Witchfinder General has no concept of, not his Salem Witch Trial friends.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are two things that, above all else, are likely to cause Donald Trump to get out his iPhone and fire up Twitter:
1. He needs to distract attention from a mistake made by him or his administration
2. He sees a news story (or, as often as not, a "news" story) that strongly affirms his worldview. This includes, but is not limited to, stories about the evils of Clinton/Obama, favorable poll results, anything anti-Mueller, positive news about the economy, and anything that feeds into Trump's belief that he (or Republicans in general) are the targets of a vast conspiracy.
Condition 1 was met this week due to the mishandling of John McCain's death. And condition 2 was fulfilled when Fox News' Lou Dobbs reported on Monday about a "study" published by PJ Media that says that 96% of Google searches for Trump news deliver results from liberal news outlets.
Needless to say, it's not true. We put "study" in quotes, because to generate that result, it was necessary to do two things: (1) Develop a dubious study design, and then (2) Fake the results when the study design didn't produce the desired output. It's very easy, of course, for anyone to go to Google and search "Trump" or "Trump news" and see for themselves that plenty of results from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Examiner, Breitbart, etc. show up. Beyond that, there's the logic that Google wants to sell its product(s) to people of all stripes, and its search results are controlled by a complex 200-part mathematical algorithm. So, there are not good answers to the questions of "how?" and "why?" the search engine would do what PJ Media/Dobbs/Trump claim.
Trump will continue attacking anything that he sees as a challenge to his fragile ego, regardless of how far beyond reason it is for him to do so. Constitutional norms mean nothing to this maniac, and the constitution itself is but a vague reference to him - certainly not a document he has any familiarity with. It's unfortunate that the "opposition" party lacks the stones to actually take action against this goon. This may be our last chance to save our democracy and the democrats are asleep at the wheel.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's tempting to upmod the sputnik-inspired OP troll for some context. The OP troll was citing Sputnik (AKA Russia Times/Voice of Russia) for proof of Google's anti-Trump bias. For further proof might I direct the reader to Vladmir Putin's favorite real news source, Pravda.
For an interesting data visualization project, I'd love to see a "media bias or a simple pro/anti Trump bias" correlation heatmap between FoxNews and Sputnik. Many of my FoxNews-watching friends and family in the U.S. are pro-Trump, but only one of my friends here in Ireland is pro-Trump, a Russian guy who presumably can rely on Sputnik and related sources.
I was browsing this encyclopedic style guide to presenting uniformly and correctly ideas to the public.
It demonstrates that the New York Times is doing its best to be fair and accurate in all things.
I'm not sure which group you think is "liberal right" in America (maybe the Libertarian party?), the Democrats are on the left and in no way conservative.
Pro taxes, pro gun control, pro abortion, anti religious freedom, anti small government, anti industry, etc, are not the signs of a conservative party in the US.
Manafort was considered innocent now hes been proven guilty.
Whats the problem?
One of the odd developments in the technological age is that it looks like the Europeans will be taking the lead in taming the tech giants. Americans have been brainwashed into worshiping business, so any resistance to what the tech companies are doing to us is met with howls of protest. Even the American Left is in the tank for global business. Things are different with the Europeans, who maintain that old socialist distrust of capitalists. That’s what you see in stories like this one, where the Euros are trying to reign in the socials.
The thing that no one ever seems to discuss is that companies like Facebook don’t make anything and their service is barely adequate. What they are doing is exploiting a natural monopoly so they can monetize the creative work of their users, including their personal information. Social media companies are skimming operations that operate on the fringe of legality. These companies harvest all sorts of information from users without their explicit permission. They are even trying to harvest your medical and financial records
The fact is, the social media companies, and that includes Google, have figured out how to transfer the value of creators from the owner to the tech giant. After all, Google’s search engine can only work if there is something worth finding. The search engine has value, but so does the content. The same is true of the content on FaceBook or Twitter. The only reason to be on those platforms is the content generated by users. The platform is a tiny portion of the value, but the platform owners consume all of the revenue from the system.
This is why, as an aside, newspapers and magazines are going broke. It’s not the only reason, but it is a big reason. If the New York Times took down its web site today, just shut it down completely, subscriptions would suddenly spike. The reason is, the entire liberal ecosystem relies on the New York Times for content and direction. It is the home church of the Progressive cult. Their regular readers would go ba
Are you seriously implying that having faith in journalists is a good thing?
Absolutely it is. Not blind faith of course but the importance of journalism and journalists to maintaining a free and fair society almost cannot be overstated. So yes I have a well justified faith (for lack of a better word) that journalists are by and large a good thing.
Skepticism is good. Faith is not.
Journalism IS skepticism provided it is permitted to do its job.
This is an awesome feed for my book, thank you guys
... but a Twitter post from Trump is pure Gold! (If you are Stephen Colbert)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
calling him an Orange-Haired Turnip to his face is not 'a redress of grievances'
That's a face?
Lots of christian and conservative sites I visit don't autocomplete anymore.
Say it ain't so.
Facebook censors. [breitbart.com]
Posting a liknk to Breitbart is more or less equivalent to saying "my pisshead mates down the pub told me". I mean sure, it might be true, but neither lends more credibility to the claim.
Good sir, that analogy is completely incorrect.
A person tends to lie less as they become more and more inebriated, as inhibitions break down and mental acuity slows the ability to keep lies straight and truth hidden lessens, as the old saying goes "in vino veritas" (in wine there is the truth).
Linking to Brietbart is like saying "The smelly, compulsive liar at work who makes your skin crawl said".
If I received two conflicting pieces of information, one from Brietbart and one from a crazy and clearly drunk hobo, I'd believe the hobo.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Facebook censors.
Google does as well. They just aren't stupid enough to admit it.
How many liberal voices can you find on Breitbart?
This thread reads like an angry discussion in a retirement home three days after the meds stopped flowing. So many angry grandpas screaming at Hillary-shaped clouds.
Manafort doesn't run Google, so is not a part of this debate, perhaps. Google has not been proven guilty, at least not of censoring Trump.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I've only seen 16-year olds use this word in a serious context. You might as well have used "destroyed" and go for the 12-year old version.
Google simply defended / counterargued against Trump's claim. It is less a matter of evidence and more one of clarifying their policies and taking a formal position.
Which, arguably, makes no difference to this case, because now the game is on; Trump is notorious for using claims that are factually imprecise but generally carry some weight of truth, and are very effective in setting the agenda for months to come; the factual details don't matter that much. Trump has just made a very effective move against an area where the 'opposition' seemingly has an advantage, and has twisted it to spur discussion as to whether the public is manipulated, with all the connotations and assumptions this might carry.
The spotlight will now be on Google's role in ensuring balanced political coverage for months to come, and why this hasn't been the case until now (as per the argument), potentially exposing Google and creating (bad) awareness for the company. This can in turn make it very difficult for Google to not react in a way that presumably will favour Trump, even if the imbalance in coverage so far was an organic result of their search algorithms and reflecting the actual distribution of online opinions, rather than some overarching scheming and plotting on Google's part.
And if Google's main line of defense to this is "na-uh technically that wasn't the right video" then I have bad news for them.
Go back to Venezuela and eat your dogs.
It sure is convenient when you can just dismiss arguments out of hand and never have to confront them.
Google is directly on record as being biased in their own words. I don't really care about what happened with the SOTU address, we already know about the bias at this point because we've been comparing results with other engines.
Funny thing, but I have a hard time finding anything from Wikileaks on Google, for example, never mind the emails are DKIM validated and true. I have to work hard to craft a search to find things I already know to be there... or just use another engine and find it on the first page, easily.
Funny how that works.
Liberals are the voice of censorship now. It's kind of sad, really. Don't agree with something? Declare it Nazi and ban it rather than meet it head on and change it.
You say this purely because Google is "on your side". If they were leading conservative ideals AND had the massive monopoly on advertising, internet video, web search, cellphone OS, whatever else, you'd be crying day and night about it.
It turns out the video he posted is not only misleading, but also contains what appears to be a fake screenshot of the Google homepage on the day in question.
LOL, and where does the fake news come from, again?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Just did a quick check of the wayback machine--Google's claim is not supported by the archives. I bracketed a 4 hour block of time around the SOTU, and there is no highlight shown...
Here is 8PM EST google from 30 Jan, 2018
https://web.archive.org/web/20180130152021/https://www.google.com/
technical whipping boy, Occam's Strop (think about it...)
No, posting a link to Brietbart is equivalent to saying "when I visited my friend who is in an asylum because he is a pathological liar he said ..."
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You are confusing a judicial abstraction with reality. If I kill someone for fun today I will be guilty of murder at the moment they die, not if and when a prosecutor convinces a jury of the fact.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If the Democrats controlled Congress today, Trump would be impeached by the end of the week.
That your GOP representative quietly tolerate this shows they care more about partisanism than their duties to this nation.
I just checked and the wayback machine appears to corroborate the presidents claims. According to the archives (you have to check all the times, takes awhile) from 2012 to 2016 google did have a link on their homepage about the SOTU and from 2017-2018 there is no link.
"It's fun to obey the machine" - Ralph Wiggum
Hahahaa people upvoted you to insightful. Stupid.
"anti small government"
The GOP hasn't been small government in my lifetime and I'm over 60.
Classic Shooting the Messenger fallacy. Fail.
It seems that the real role of the parties is to distort the will of the people. Either by manipulating congressional districts, by suppressing voter turnout or, now, by influencing what media dare to publish.
Maybe in the future more can be done to make one vote equal, say, 0.0004% of a congressman everywhere in the country and the first amendment be honored
Nullius in verba
You should research how many regulations have been killed in the last 2 years.
That your rag of a news source doesn't tell you the truth doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Ignoring the "not technically SOTU", the Jan 30, 2018 address was promoted, right?
Curiously I can't find it on the Wayback Machine, though Obama's are indeed there from well early each morning on the days noted.
Here's Jan 30, 2018 mid-afternoon:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
Can anyone point me to the right time of day, or alternative to archive.org which has a capture showing what's claimed in the article?
Facebook censors. [breitbart.com]
Posting a liknk to Breitbart is more or less equivalent to saying "my pisshead mates down the pub told me". I mean sure, it might be true, but neither lends more credibility to the claim.
"I won't believe that boy who cried wolf until he's been eaten." - serviscope_minor
Google vs Trump is like two pompous, rich and pathetic liars with no responsibility, fighting with each other to let spectators know who is better of them..
Facebook censors. [breitbart.com]
Posting a liknk to Breitbart is more or less equivalent to saying "my pisshead mates down the pub told me". I mean sure, it might be true, but neither lends more credibility to the claim.
"I won't believe that boy who cried wolf until he's been eaten." - serviscope_minor
Well... yeah, actually. That's how that works. That is, in fact, the moral of the story. Liars are not believed even when they tell the truth. Breitbart lies incessantly, therefore it is not to be believed.
I understand thinking is hard for you, but you could at least try.
I mean, publishing lies to harm the reputation of a brand is libel, isn't it?
Learn to read.
Lives of average, and most people would be no different with Hillary, an agent of the financial and power elite. THAT is the GP's point. IMNSHO they would be worse off as Hillary would have continued to sell the US out to multinational and foreign financial interests.
Also: Hillary did and would be getting away with it. The attention paid to Trump's misdeeds ... (all presidents had great misdeeds - Obama lied his way into the government controlling nearly 20% of the US economy "If you like your doctor ... etc.)
The attention paid to Trump's misdeeds is a refreshing change from the fawning Democrats lavish on their corrupt idols like Hillary. Remember the lies of Bill Clinton? "It's just about sex" we were told. Now suddenly it's "Me too" and every man is presumed to be a sexual predator while Clinton actually was one while in office and while being elected and none of those precious Democrat snowflakes cared a bit. Hillary not only didn't care, she attacked the victims. Remember "Bimbo eruptions' ? Me too indeed.
Donna Brazille and others admitted the corruption and collusion at the heart of the Democratic Party and DNC. Sanders and the typical
working class Democrat thrown under the bus by the power elite. Next time the Democrats should nominate a true candidate for the people. Otherwise:
Reap what you sow.
Once in power, they get to overspend to get re-elected.
They do better as the majority party under a Democrat president. Split government works best to keep borrowing down to one aircraft carrier every 3 days rather than one every 24 hours.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Take out abortion and you just described trump LOL
LOL. Classic believing Russian propaganda fallacy.
Hint: corporations are people, they are allowed to support a candidate you dolt.
I believe the republicans do the same shit.
Came here for this. Was not disappointed.
And if the queen had balls, she'd be king. So what's your point?
I've never said or believed that Fox Corporation should be investigated or censored for making up bullshit. If you want to talk about Google needing some anti-trust ass-kicking for monopolistic practices, we can talk about that. But for chrissake, do you not see the danger in threatening a company with criminal prosecution for having a political point of view? And that's what your big, moist baby is doing from the White House right fucking now. Give me a break.
If Google were a conservative company, you'd line up to be a human shield for them right now.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Where's the liberal engineers who planned, and executed this plot to make our dear leader look bad. I want them outted now.
yeah, it should have been marked informative
Except the "conservatives" are the last to create a whole new cabinet level position when Bush created DHS. Trump wants to create a whole new branch of the military as well. Last I checked these were Republicans doing this. Your statement about Democrats describes the 1980s version.
Pro taxes is also another way of saying that Democrats will actually pay for their spending unlike Republicans who have been deficit spending for 30 years now.
I'm not sure why you think Democrats are anti-religious freedom, that is blatantly false and shows you have fallen into the factitious war on Christmas crap that never existed. The same ilk they say Democrats were trying to invoke Sharia law because reasons.
Seriously, you don't event recognize what the word means. Liberal means will to change while conservative is better with the status quo. Liberal right means making things more authoritarian, that is exactly Trump. Conservative right always stood as a check against change for the sake of change. Some things really do work properly so it is good to have a balance.
Good comment, comrade. Have a chai!
And they aren't...
Heil Hitlary! Down with free speech! Down with the deplorable working class! Long live the oligarchy! Profit! Heil Hitlary!
You’re a blues guitar player, so naturally, you don’t undestand cause and effect. As a live sound engineer for over 30 years, without a doubt, the dumbest, most childish, stupid loud and pathetic band member is always the guitarists. (and that’s against competition from singers, no mean feat) 5 note pentatonic blues guitarists are the worst of all.One pub I know has a sign saying guitarists must be accompanied by an adult.
Social injustice warrior suits you rather well.
Then nothing of importance was lost.
I cannot understand how anyone in the USA can support Trump.
He lies, cheats and manipulates so much that I get the impression that even he no longer knows when he's telling the truth or not.
He has no dignity, and let's not even consider his lack of integrity.
His only concern seems to be, "what do I need to say/do to come out on top".
He has lowered American politics to a disgustingly low level.
But, He's made it safe to say "Merry Christmas" again.
And, He's gonna ban 'bortions. And gay cakes. And Muslims (the poor one's anyway). And Latinos. And the dirty MSM. And an independent judiciary. And science.
He loves guns, rich people, coal, and large-breasted bimbos.
He's a shining example of what all true 'Murican men should aspire to.
Praise Him. Praise His name.
Why is that Slashdips?
Oh. That's right. You're all idiots.
You stumbled across the core of this issue. Actually it *is* Google's job to 'maximize shareholder value'. If any part of their jobs involves a decision whose options will result in varying levels of profit, it's pretty much their job as a publicly traded company to choose the most profitable option.
Sure, there is a lot more nuance than just that, but this is the core of the issue. Google is a business, and has a business interest based on which speech gets highlighted more than other speech on their platforms. Now, if we start considering Google as a Common Carrier of Free Speech in a legal sense... then things get interesting. But that too is a really stupid fucking idea.