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."
Facebook censors.
Google does as well. They just aren't stupid enough to admit it.
How can anyone respect, admire, follow, or in any way support this overfed cesspool of ignorance and corruption defies science.
I voted for Trump after voting for Obama twice. And given an identical scenario I'd do it again.
I considered Trump the lesser of two evils when Hillary was the other option. And I still do. Aside from that, I get tremendous pleasure from seeing and hearing how upset people are that Trump is president, despite the reality that their lives would be no different if Hillary had been elected, because the life of a prole remains miserable regardless of who is in office. I know that truth will be uncomfortable for you snowflakes, but you know what ?
I don't care.
The Democrats should have presented a more acceptable candidate than Clinton. I am far from the only person who thinks this : many Democrats
think so too. Clinton lost her own election. Trump inherited the win because Clinton was such a terrible choice of candidate. This is what the Democrats get for allowing the Clinton machine to manipulate them.
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.
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.
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. . . .
No different with Hillary? She wasn't colluding with a foreign government to gain power, so immediately your claims are incorrect. Her platform was entirely different to Trumps, which again doesn't make your argument seem well informed.
Clinton lost her election with a lot of help from Russia, as every single US intelligence agency claims. Or are they all deep state?
Criticism is great - as long as its basis is fact. But that's not what Trump does. He dismisses entire organizations out of hand when they report factually on things that present him in a negative light. He calls the media "the enemy of the people". He tells people to trust him, not the media. His legal counsel says dumb shit like "Truth is not truth".