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.
It would help if the cesspool had published this policy beforehand, so that people wouldn't get the wrong impression.
One problem with all of this is that the ranking algorithms are largely opaque - things that happen for completely legitimate and reasonable reasons can be seen to be the child of ignorance and corruption.
A very good example of the way people can take something completely innocent the wrong way is Google's treatment of Trump and Clinton in the last election. The examples show the Google suggestions for various search completions, against those same searches on Yahoo and Bing.
For example, searching for "Hillary Clinton is " shows many results of "is awesome", "is winning", and so on for Google, while that same search on Yahoo and Bing results in many disparaging completions.
All of this, despite "Hillary Clinton is a liar" versus "Hillary Clinton is awesome" shows that the former search term has a much higher relevance.
The Google search term "crooked " returned "smile", "smile lyrics", and "creek" at the time, while the same search on Yahoo and Bing returned "Crooked Hillary" despite *that* phrase having an obvious trend relevance during the election cycle.
On a more recent note, searching YouTube for "How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter", the *exact* title of a video by Anne Coulter, puts the exact match far below a list of dissenting videos that google thinks you should see instead.
It all boils down to Robert Epstein's published paper that shows that search engine results can sway an election.
Google is making use of their position in light of that paper.
Wouldn't you?
This effect has been well documented for the last couple of years or so.
Even the Google search "when is the election" shows a smiling image of Hillary Clinton, as if her presidential opponent didn't exist. That page clearly (and subliminally) associates the smiling image of Hillary with the upcoming election.
All these results *seem* to be statistically and scientifically valid.
This is the sort of thing our president is complaining about.
And it seems that there is, in fact, a problem here.
Are you seriously implying that having faith in journalists is a good thing? Skepticism is good. Faith is not.
So true. Except for Rachel Maddow, I have faith in Rachel Maddow, I sincerely hope she never shakes it. And Dan Rather, likewise. Oh, and Jake Tapper. And... oh, um, a number of these towering figures who so obviously believe in and uphold the fundamental tenets of professional journalism.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"Faith" is the wrong word...
Not always. I have faith that certain journalists, none of whom work for Fox, will always put their journalistic integrity first. Not blind faith, mind you, but faith. It takes some effort to build that and tends to evaporate instantly if shaken. At least for a person with a functioning brain.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"Faith" is the wrong word...
Not always. I have faith that certain journalists, none of whom work for Fox, will always put their journalistic integrity first. Not blind faith, mind you, but faith. It takes some effort to build that and tends to evaporate instantly if shaken. At least for a person with a functioning brain.
Wow, Russian shitmodders are everywhere.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
To a smaller extent on the left? Please. Have you ever listened to some of the more insane SJWs? Both extreme ends are fucking nuts.
My only hope now is that we're just looking at a vocal minority on both ends, with a middle ground disgusted by both of them that eventually will want to have real information again. So far, though, I see no justification for that hope.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They're all bad. Some are better than others.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yep, spot on, its obvious, the conga line of Incel gun nut sock puppets include
Super Kendoll.
Archangel Mike
Okian warrior
Frosty Piss.
Lgw
Blindseer.
All the Cayenne various trolls
All spout the same RWNJ bullshit talking points.
They rarely post in the same thread, or on the same day, it so obvious they should be embarrassed.
I waste so many mod points on these useless turds.
What!? I'm not included!?
I guess I'll just have to do even more to debunk & destroy Leftist/SJW Post-Modernist nonsense and hateful intolerance.
Strat :)
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
He has done more to undermine public faith in journalism than ANY Western leader in history.
Fox News is fake. WWE is fake. Santa Claus is fake. Magical Jesus is fake. Compared to most of the things Americans have been indoctrinated into, Donald J Trump is a fucking paragon of truthfulness. And that's why he's President.