Eric Schmidt Says Google News Will 'Engineer' Russian Propaganda Out of the Feed (vice.com) 356
Justin Ling, writing for Motherboard: Eric Schmidt, Executive Chariman of Alphabet, says the company is working to ferret out Russian propaganda from Google News after facing criticism that Kremlin-owned media sites had been given plum placement on the search giant's news and advertising platforms. "We're well aware of this one, and we're working on detecting this kind of scenario you're describing and deranking those kinds of sites," Schmidt said, after being asked why the world's largest search company continued to classify the Russian sites as news. Schmidt, in an interview at the Halifax International Security Forum over the weekend, name-checked two state-owned enterprises. "It's basically RT and Sputnik," Schmidt added. "We're well aware and we're trying to engineer the systems to prevent it."
Censorship, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a news feed. Russian propaganda and fake news isn't news. It's a spam filter.
Maybe you consider spam filtering to be censorship... I block ads too. Even Russian ones.
Re: Censorship, plain and simple (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost every CNN story either leaves out pertinent information, uses anonymous sources, or fabricates facts that they later correct once it's off the front page.
RT has more credibility at this point.
Re: Censorship, plain and simple (Score:3, Insightful)
RT does have quite a bit of flat-out Russian government propaganda, but mixed in there they also have some really good journalism every once in awhile. It's kind of like our news and the CIA paid articles and the like.
Re:Censorship, plain and simple (Score:4, Insightful)
They mention RT and Sputnik but fail to mention CNN, HuffingtonPost, Salon. You know, predominately fake news sites.
Show me one single story on CNN, HuffPo or Salon that is indisputably fake news.
I don't mean op-eds. They aren't news.
I don't mean stories with errors that get corrected later. That happens to all news outlets.
I don't mean stories that are real, but reported with a bias. The better news sites try to avoid bias, but it still slips in. They can mitigate it by reporting from various viewpoints and with commentators who have different views.
I mean deliberate fabrications, stories that are just plain false, that are intended to deceive, anger or frighten the reader, and that the outlet does not retract even when they are debunked. I mean stuff like "pizzagate."
And while you're at it, try doing the same for Fox News. I'm no fan of theirs, but I doubt you'll find they spread fake news of the kind I'm describing.
Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is not news at all, and does not belong in a news feed.
Re:Censorship, plain and simple (Score:4, Informative)
Show me one single story on CNN
That's not hard. [dailycaller.com]
That's an outright fabrication, by stating "you can't download the dnc emails." CNN never retracted it. The entire point of it was to stop people from looking by making them fear that they'd be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another AC on this thread has it right: this is not a story.
Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news. It's just an opinion. Like your opinion that he did it deliberately to keep people from looking at the leaked e-mails. Whereas another tenable opinion is that he just got it wrong.
Re:Censorship, plain and simple (Score:4, Informative)
Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news
Nope. That was during broadcast TV, not during an opinion segment. That means Cuomo presented that information not as opinion, but as fact. In turn, he explicitly says "that it's okay for the media to do it." That again isn't opinion, that's him implying during a non-opinion segment that only the media are protected.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, you mean THAT Project Veritas run by O'Keefe who was caught heavily editing videos and taking them completely out of context, who has been hit with multiple restraining orders and sued, especially after the hit piece he did on abortion clinics? Hahahaha! That's like trusting The Onion for news.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you mean THAT Project Veritas run by O'Keefe who was caught heavily editing videos and taking them completely out of context
You do know that they posted in the fully unedited videos right? They're actually worse when you watch the entire thing in full. So much so that the FBI is now looking into investigating planned parenthood. [dailycaller.com]
Re:Censorship, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
They have been rabbitting on about RT for years and yet still no examples. Come on you laxy fuckers, if you are going to keep bullshitting and least do so creatively. Where are those RT news pieces carefully edited to look really bad, nope nothing, just ohh ahh, propaganda but no examples. Seriously by now with all the bullshitting you should be able to point to at least 100 examples, 100 RT stories proven to be lies, 100 examples of RT deceitful RT propagdanda.
Fuck what those pieces of shit at Google are delivering, those fucking cunts delivered me a breaking news story about this incredible secret an actress was revealing, it was a fucking ad for makeup, those goddam arse holes cunts delivered me an ad for makeup as a breaking news story (getting google news off an Android phone is a lot trickier than getting it on especially when you are pissed off). Who the hell gives a fuck about a google news feed, I would rather https://duckduckgo.com/?q=RT&t... [duckduckgo.com] (no matter who you believe is right or wrong that is funny ;) ).
The reality is if their power was so great, a bunch of yobbo trolls would not have stolen the election from them. The power is directed at the people paying for ads and convincing they can achieve what they patently failed to be able to achieve but the bullshit will continue and where common sense prevails, campaign bribes will ensure it remain silent whilst idiots pay the scammers at Google billions to control the internet, suckers.
Re:Censorship, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing to "engineer" - this is just censorship.
This is a correct observation. But it does get me thinking about some questions:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well funded enemy states that are plotting our demise.
What demise? The US is by far the most powerful and least threatened country, with *huge* geopolitical margin of error, and seems to be doing quite well. Compare to Russia (or, say, Israel) who have to walk a tight rope. Russia is looking to survive and, to the degree their plotting made a difference, the last thing they needed was Hawkish Hillary at the helm. As did we, in my opinion, for that matter.
As for the rest I agree, Google is a private company, and they are free to exercise their views what is rig
Re: (Score:3)
or even know how easily they are getting played by well funded enemy states that are plotting our demise.
Complete garbage and bullshit. The USSR can't even float the tonnage to be a threat to the US. Hell the USSR and China don't even come close. The US follows the same doctrine that military powers have for hundreds of years when they've been 'king of the world' have twice as much power as your next two nearest rivals. The only "form of demise" that either country could use to try something is an out-right first-fire nuclear launch. And they'd still lose.
You're advocating censorship because you think it'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. Everyone knows that Putin rides bears in the USSR. And they also make you spill your drink.
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump wins in 2020 I expect all out riots in the typical hipster cities (los angeles, san francisco, seattle/portland, austin or the other one, I always forget, new york city, etc.).
Filtering / ranking can be made objective (Score:5, Insightful)
It's machine learning algorithms being put to use here to filter and rank content.
Eventually, such automated analysis should be based on general algorithms that use principles of:
- epistemology - is there sound logical or plausible probabilistic support for the propositions in the content
- utterance theory - analysis of the sources (direct and indirect) of the information, their goals, their communication strategies, the purpose behind each utterance in terms of opinion influence or action influence.
- Detection of the level of "disinterest" that the utterer has in the content of the utterance and the opinions it will reinforce. The more disinterest (or counter-interest), the more credible is the utterance. "They said this even though it may hurt their interests" implies more likely true.
- detection of systemic bias (in the utterance and more generally by the source)
- detection of use of rhetorical tricks such as ad hominem attacks and many others.
- social psychology theories (deeper into understanding use of techniques of opinion amplification, meme formation, influence principles used by advertisers etc)
- Consistency with scientifically well-accepted facts and inferences, and with basic mathematics as applied to the content.
The key is that with sufficient abstraction of rule creation, it should be possible to make all of this independent of censoring a particular country or political faction's content. The "good stuff" or "objectively more plausible and less biased stuff" should get through.
If biased or less credible or "weaponized words" stuff is let through, it should be automatically commented on by the algorithms, which should point out the reasons for the assessment as not very reliable content.
It's not Censorship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This hinges on two assumption:
1)That there is such a thing as truly unbiased, neutral and objective news.
2)That only one side (the Russians) are not following in delivering point 1 while 'we' are.
Both premises are untrue.
So the dichotomy you make between 'real news' (from google), and 'fake news / propaganda' (from the Russians) just isn't there. It's already a biased fabrication of your mind, even while you're railing against biased news yourself. the hardest bias to note is the one of yourself, after all.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure seems like this sort of thing already happens on Slashdot. Ever notice how quickly any post expressing conservative positions is moderated to -1? It's becoming very obvious that there's a real effort to silence conservative views here. It's unclear whether the editors or liberal moderators are responsible, but there's little doubt that the same type of censorship is already present here. It's just called moderation and some people zealously defend it. But it's definitely a form of censorship, and Google will probably be doing something similar.
Have you been on Ars lately? It makes Slashdot look like a Tea Party meeting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure seems like this sort of thing already happens on Slashdot. Ever notice how quickly any post expressing conservative positions is moderated to -1? It's becoming very obvious that there's a real effort to silence conservative views here.
It really just depends on the time of day, it seems. Earlier someone was complaining about Slashdot being a conservative echo chamber, and being unfairly censored as a result. It might even be a virtue that Slashdot gets accused of being both a liberal and conservative echo chamber, but then it may also depend on who the editor is for that particular article with their unlimited mod points. There is another small possibility that when lacking a convincing argument, blaming the 'other' is also a convenient
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good catch! :D
Yes it's the typical strategy of waiting for a negative event to occur and then jumping in with solutions that serve their agenda of control
You mean in the way some Slashdot posters sit there waiting for pro or anti-Russian news and then jump in there with first posts trying to shape the debate? Coming in with pre-formed memes that "serve their agenda of control"? Something like that?
Fix Google News before you fix Russian propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to bing/news some time ago. Also sucks in various ways, but does not suck nearly as hard as google/news, which is just plain user-offensive.
please ban recolored nazis too (Score:2, Insightful)
It'd be nice if Google could also do something to certain other kinds of propaganda as well. Ones that promote racial and gender discrimination. James Damore did some research they can use.
"Engineer" (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any serious Russian effort in future will be run through American proxies, leaving Google only one option - filter by opinion.
The only way to really beat this domestically is education, so people aren't so easily influenced. Of course, you can back that up with counter-attacks and advise the foreign governments that so long as they're detected meddling in your affairs, you'll continue meddling in theirs.
Ultimately the best you can hope for is that the cyber version of MAD evolves and the whole thing becomes a smaller problem as both sides generally choose not to inflame the situation in fear of having to deal with reprisals.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any policy that relies on "educating" the public is doomed to failure.
Re: (Score:2)
My previous policy of 'cull the stupid from the gene pool' was not met with open arms... ...and of course there's the problem that it probably isn't genetic but environmental anyway (or rather, the genetic problem exists throughout the species, but environment overcomes it in some).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> it quickly reaches defining "the stupid" as "people who disagree with me"....
Well... the original original plan was, in fact, "cull the people who disagree with me". So there's that.
I'm constantly refining the approach.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a simpler solution.
Blank ballots.
Every candidate is a write in, and must be legibly spelled correctly to count. If you can't be bothered to learn who is running for the race, how can you be bothered to learn their stances on the issues or how those stances will influence society?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people are generally apathetic when they find things are pretty good... which they generally are in the USA.
However, Trump's base very passionately believes they are NOT good, and so they're motivated to campaign and vote.
What the apathetic voter needs to realise is that when they fail to vote for the status quo that has made them apathetic, they're giving more power to the people who want to disrupt it.
You must ALWAYS vote, no matter how little you care, or someone's going to vote in a
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have earth science homework or a letter to Santa to write?
Re: (Score:2)
They did? It seems like at least in our generation, the best minds prefer to go to wall street or to other, more money earning channels.
Re: (Score:2)
Any serious Russian effort in future will be run through American proxies
Good. If such an attempt is suspected, the authorities can raid the place, seize documentation, and shut them down. Much harder to do that when they are in Russia. It will probably be a lone individual but that is fine. What you are looking for is proof that they were working on behalf of Russia as this gives one leverage during future negotiations with Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Ds and Rs have been in MAD for decades. Which is why nothing ever changes. What we need now is a dirt dump, politicians in jail and all new parties.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what Trump is for. Yes, it is ok if he goes out to sea with the rest of the swamp.
Re: (Score:2)
The RNC hates Trump almost as much as the DNC does.
Because they know they are the second domino, right after Clinton goes to prison, their dirt gets dumped.
It's a lot like me and my sibs as mid teens. If anybody had snitched, we'd have all been up shit creek.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they keep going on about a uranium deal that she had absolutely nothing to do with and a contribution to her charity by someone no longer involved with the deal which actually represents a tiny fraction of the uranium trade for uranium that can't leave the country anyway. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it true. About the worst is Bill's misogynistic behavior and her still supporting him. It's all whataboutism with Trump where he tries misdirecting blame at others and refuses to take responsibil
Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay, corporate censorship! Down the memory hole! We're saved from the evil Russians.
But how will this 'engineering' be held democratically accountable? Who has effective oversight? We're further handing the basis of our democracy, i.e. access to information, over the a tiny minority of billionaires who can manipulate it and therefore us in any way they choose. Oh hang on, haven't I just described the mainstream media?
Re: (Score:3)
But how will this 'engineering' be held democratically accountable?
You're asuming though that the status quo is better than them engineering this.
They already engineer the fuck out of search results because otherwise they'd be full of spam, linkfarms ans crappy blog posts. IOW they're already removing the crap which is hugely dominant.
How do you know the present engineering is wors than what they're proposing?
Oh hang on, haven't I just described the mainstream media?
In a word: no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take Google over Russian propaganda any time.
Of course you will AmiMoJo, because your SJW values closely align with Google. Now imagine if your feed was "curated" by Fox News or Breitbart. This is what inside this particular Pandora box and this is why we shouldn't open it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No need to imagine, just go to brietbart.com or turn on Fox News.
You didn't really think that one through, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AmiMoJo is not a good person. Totalitarian through and through. Openly willing to screw with your kids minds too. Publicly admitted it.
I'l bet he supports fluoridation too. He'll proably want to put it in icecream. Children's ice cream, Rockoon!
I for one will not put up with his plot to sap and impurify my precious bodily fluid.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried their apps? In fact Fox has half a dozen.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried their apps? In fact Fox has half a dozen.
That requires a person to make that choice. Google on the other hand holds dominant market share, with their *own* app that they want to use to curate news. You have no choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*insert joke that the first red-pill is always the hardest*
Thing is, this isn't limited to the US either. In Canada there are several right-of-centre blogs that have more public draw then our national newspapers. But those news papers will go out of their way to smear and malign them, even after they steal their content.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy Peasy (Score:3)
Russian propaganda is easily recognized because it's written in Cyrillic !
Re: (Score:2)
If RT is out... (Score:3, Insightful)
... How is Fox still in?
Re: (Score:2)
Must resist urge to respond to troll........
They're not trolling. Read the DNC email leaks, left-wing publications including broadcast media were sending pre-publication information to her camp, to make sure that it was the correct narrative. And it wasn't limited to single publications. CBS, NBC, Politico, ABC, The New Yorker, WAPO, Boston Globe and so-on all did it. Hell, Donna Brazille came out and admitted that she leaked CNN debate questions to the Clinton camp. They were literally sucking the DNC and Clinton's dick and working as hard as th
Why just Russia? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not dump all propaganda? Why just block the Russian propaganda?
Because pretty much everything is propoganda. Propoganda doesn't mean "false news". It meas information intended to promote one's agenda, or to hinder someone else's. VOA (Voice of America) is propoganda. Radio Moscow, Russia Today, WAPO, NYT, all have agendas to promote and agendas to hinder.
Remove the largest driver of propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
In Other Words: (Score:4, Insightful)
"We're going to block news that HR and our Chief Diversity Officer find offensive."
Re: (Score:2)
"We're going to block news that HR and our Chief Diversity Officer find offensive."
Good post, too bad it isn't getting indexed by Google.
Challenge Accepted! (Score:3)
When you want to know the truth (Score:2)
What about Youtube? (Score:3)
What about Youtube, a notorious cesspool of belly crawling shitposters with a distinct odor of vodka, who regularly mob the comments section of videos that are even faintly critical of Trump or favorable to Trump's opponents.
This is nothing but censorship by proxy (Score:3)
Frankly, political views can and should be expressed by anyone, and read by anyone willing to listen.
There's no way Google can engineer propaganda out. Propaganda is a subjective term.
Literally this is the government trying to censor by proxy.
This is bad as Google is a defacto monopoly. If the government does this it would be a violation of the constitution, and to proxy it to a defacto monopoly, that's not covered by the constitution, it leaves American citizens without recourse.
I don't need Google to do this, I don't wish for anyone to tell me what I should or should not be reading. They are telling everyone that they are stupid and incapable of understanding the good and bad behind any given assertion.
Oh Noes!! (Score:2)
Quick, to the Pizzagate truthers shield, BorisMan! It's gonna be a long night!
No time for subtlety, we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level! And don't forget to mark me as a troll, have to earn your rubles, ya know.
Re: (Score:2)
>we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level!
The problem isn't a lack of evidence, the problem is a lack of trust in the agencies telling us about it because in the past they've not only told lies, but actively manufactured them to serve their agendas. (And gotten caught at it, obviously)
Of course, in the past those agendas were more or less in line with that of the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
>we have to fall back on the absolutely no evidence ever level!
The problem isn't a lack of evidence, the problem is a lack of trust in the agencies telling us about it because in the past they've not only told lies, but actively manufactured them to serve their agendas. (And gotten caught at it, obviously)
Of course, in the past those agendas were more or less in line with that of the White House.
Trust? I catch flack in here sometimes because I listen to or watch NPR, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and get ready for it - here's the one that make people's heads asplode - Breitbart. Even a foray or two on RT on Youtube.
I don't trust anyone. But I want news. So I decide for myself who is telling the truth. It has a way of coming out.
The problem is, in the world, there is a tremendous amount of newsworthy stuff going on. There is only so much time, and that means the very act of deciding what to report tips off
Google are two-faced hypocrites (Score:4, Informative)
Remember some years ago when Rick Santorum was running for the Republican nomination, and he got Google-bombed?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/e... [huffingtonpost.ca]
https://www.npr.org/2016/02/25... [npr.org]
The lib-left thought it was hilarious, and guffawed a lot. When Rick Santorum complained, Google essentially said "not our problem".
When it turns out that Google-fixing might have hurt Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency, things are totally different. The lib-left goes full-feminist "That's not funny". Google doesn't consider this to be "not our problem"; they're all over it like flies over shit.
I guess it depends on who's ox is being gored. Guess which party Silicon Valley supports.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how you managed to overlook the fundamental difference between the scenarios in order to justify your butthurt.
need new web crawler (Score:2)
Will tarnish Google's reputation (Score:2)
If the algorithm cannot follow broadly defined principles to filter out propaganda to include Russia propaganda, and needs intervention to specifically single out such a narrow domain for human tweaking, then you are broadcasting to the world not only that you're willing to depart from broad principles, but that the algorithm is lackluster as well.
I can kind of predict what the excuse will be -- that this is an emergency situation, time is of the essence, and circumstances force us to depart from building a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are demonstrating that by it not artificially filtering out information, their search engine algorithm is a actually better than their own very misguided social brainwashing agenda.
aha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.
Your rock called, says you need to get back under it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When? They've been looking and looking and looking. Year and half now. Still nothing.
Your rock called, says you need to get back under it.
I just crawled out from under my rock.
Please show me the charges that have been filed against Donald Trump and the evidence to be presented. Also, when's the first hearing?
Oh? What's that? Complete silence when pressed for facts?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An edgy atheist way to say 'Christian'. Think of X-Mas for Christmas. Usually used by teenagers discovering atheism for the first time or adults who never got over growing up Christian and hold a grudge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ruskys are stirring up dissent. They have been shown to have spent their money/influence pretty evenly on right and left.
They clearly expected Clinton to win. Why else would they have bought her off?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Either candidate could have won, just as long as half the population doubted the veracity of the result.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Even if it was the Ruskys, they did the world a _huge_ favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking, the problem here is when the emails were released.
If they for example had it before the primaries, they could had released it before Clinton was the dems presidential candidate, stopping her from getting the spot and allowing someone that could defeat trump to defeat trump (as in pretty much anyone else).
Re: (Score:2)
Since they started making their own laws by buying legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, whatever Cyrillic you wrote doesn't work on a site that fails at Unicode. Plus, -ski implies Poland (although, as we had been occupied by Russia for 144+2+52 years in the recent history, there's lots of Polacks, usually naturalized, there). And current Polish government is full-tilt national socialist[1], thus the kind of propaganda differs.
[1]. I don't mean this as an insult but a fact/opinion: NSDAP was mostly about race not nation, and not that keen on socialism either -- while our govt keeps tal
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They just heavily dox anyone who doesn't keep with the party line.
Re:While your at it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather Google just dumbly indexed news sites and didn't try to do editorial control. The problem with labelling sites propaganda and de-indexing them is where would it end. You can actually make a case for de-indexing most news sites
teleSUR - communist state funded propaganda paid for by Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia
RT, Sputnik - Russian state channels, paid for by Kremlin. Knowingly pushes lies if they suit it
BBC, Guardian - Knowingly push lies if they suit London SJWs. Very biased on BREXIT.
CNN, NYT, Huffington Post - Knowingly push lies if they suit the US Democratic party. Very biased on Trump.
Fox - Knowingly pushes lies if it supports US Republican Party
Breitbart - Used to be an US Republican mouthpiece, was later described by Ben Shapiro as 'Trump's Pravda', now pushes Bannon's odd agenda of 'Trumpism without Trump'. Currently in a quixotic quest to save Roy Moore who Bannon backed but Trump failed to endorse from allegations of paedophilia which most people have concluded are probably not completely baseless. Increasingly hated by establishment Republicans for backing a flawed, unelectable outsider candidate against their man, Luther Strange who was also endorsed by Trump. Hate by all Democrats, who would probably shut it and Fox down if they could.
I.e. pretty much any news site you can find some story they've covered in a very biased way and ended up making fools of themselves. And the Tech Journalism sites are even worse than the normal news ones - everyone knows the people who write for them are bloggers who care even less about journalism than the people who write for 'proper' news sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was not the propaganda on RT?
Re: (Score:2)
The media have always been biassed, but not to the point of fabricating news stories based on outright lies, like they are now.
What especially worries me is when big public information sources like Google, that should be very carefully apolitical, get involved too. Its analogous to your local library burning any books that doesn't agree with the librarian's political party's interpretation of a "politically correct" social agenda, which by the way is EXACTLY what happened in 1930's Nazi Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Its analogous to your local library burning any books that doesn't agree with the librarian's political party's interpretation of a "politically correct" social agenda, which by the way is EXACTLY what happened in 1930's Nazi Germany.
Claiming news was fake is EXACTLY what happened in 1930s Nazi Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doubt this will lead to anything other than any Google-owned services becoming left-wing echo chambers, causing everyone on these services who isn't comfortable with the echo chamber they've become to leave for competing services which then turn into right wing or center-right echo chambers (if they weren't that to begin with).