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.
And how exactly is reason or evidence meant to convince religious right-wing voters of anything?
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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/
I couldn't find anything definitive on whether Google determines what is and what is not news and then ranks the sites accordingly. What I could find is that if a site is popular then it ranks higher than sites that are less popular. Next up... it's not Google's job to sort through and censor popular trending sites based on the content of those sites in a general way. So if everybody from Brietbart to Fox to CNN to wapo is talking about Will Smith rape then guess what?? that is going to be trending in the search at the moment. This is not bias on Google's part and I don't see how Google is supposed to determine whether Will Smith is guilty or not in order to decide whether those results should be displayed or not.
Case in point. Trump posts a fake article claiming that Google stopped promoting state of the union address after Trump got elected. This then gets trending and news sites pick it up and look into it. When they find out that Trump either lied or is woefully ignorant about something as basic as the difference between the joint-address and the SOTU address and is therefore easy to brainwash they report on this fact. This may be viewed as negative Trump news because he lied through his teeth in a deliberate attempt to spread fake news and mislead the public. Is it the news media's fault because they report on something that is definitely trending and verify and debunk it? Should they then be blamed for spreading negative news? and should google be blamed for displaying trending relevant information to the search at hand?
Firstly just because the media are writing negative things about him it doesn't mean there is a problem; you won't find many positive stories about natural disasters, rapes, bank fraud either because it isn't the job of the media to make coverage of anything equally positive/negative.
Secondly, even if you put aside the question of whether there is an issue with the media Trump's compliant is that it's negative press for him that is showing, and he wants media outlets with more positive coverage to be more visible. Just about any sane analysis would back the argument that the media he wants listing higher is less truthful than the media he dislikes. Thus you can't use his point as a critique of truth in the media, it's a blatant attack on any reporting that isn't positive.
Finally, the argument you make about the media getting too much power and the impacts you list are equally if not more applicable to Trump's use of Twitter as capably demonstrated by the very story we are commenting on. Trump loves Twitter because amongst other reasons he can say whatever he wants directly with no one being able to validate or add comment before publication. The sheer volume of things that he says on there that are provably false removes any credibility he has when complaining about the accuracy of the media.
Except Trump blatantly lies daily while journalists from major news sources tend to be accurate and only rarely need significant retractions/corrections. They have bias in what they choose to report and which details they focus on, but they rarely outright lie like Trump does. They're playing different games.