Google Tweaked Algorithm After Rise In US Shootings (theguardian.com) 190
A senior search engineer at Google revealed that the company had to tweak its algorithm to combat misinformation after mass shootings. The Guardian reports: "In these last few years, there's been a tragic increase in shootings," Pandu Nayak, who joined the company 14 years ago to work on its search engine, said. "And it turns out that during these shootings, in the fog of events that are unfolding, a lot of misinformation can arise in various ways. "And so to address that we have developed algorithms that recognize that a bad event is taking place and that we should increase our notions of 'authority', increase the weight of 'authority' in our ranking so that we surface high quality content rather than misinformation in this critical time here."
Authority, by Google's definition, means pages that comply with the company's search quality evaluator guidelines, a 166-page document (PDF) that the company distributes to its 16,000 search quality raters. Those employees are responsible for checking tweaks to Google's algorithm to ensure that they give the best results, rating search results on two scales: one that marks whether the searcher's needs are met (if the search is for "Google Jobs," for instance, a maps result showing the location of Google's head office "fails to meet" needs, while the company's career's page "fully meets"), and a second that marks the page's quality, defined over 80 pages of the guidelines with "very high quality MC" (main content), "very high level of E-A-T" (expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness) and "very positive reputation."
Authority, by Google's definition, means pages that comply with the company's search quality evaluator guidelines, a 166-page document (PDF) that the company distributes to its 16,000 search quality raters. Those employees are responsible for checking tweaks to Google's algorithm to ensure that they give the best results, rating search results on two scales: one that marks whether the searcher's needs are met (if the search is for "Google Jobs," for instance, a maps result showing the location of Google's head office "fails to meet" needs, while the company's career's page "fully meets"), and a second that marks the page's quality, defined over 80 pages of the guidelines with "very high quality MC" (main content), "very high level of E-A-T" (expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness) and "very positive reputation."
First. (Score:1)
benis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
The topic is about reporting correctly on shootings. With that in mind. No 4.
In 2014, 68 children died from accidental gun deaths.
I could not find data about how many drownings were "in a bathtub". I could find data about how many children drowned in 2014 (the same year).
Accidental drownings: 734
The risk of a child accidentally drowning is much higher per year than the risk of being accidentally killed by a firearm. By an order of magnitude. This doesn't take into account factors like how many kids have access to swimming pools, lakes or the ocean, or how many families have firearms. But as a gross indicator it is fairly telling.
Other unintentional deaths for minors in 2014 that had a higher total than accidental firearm deaths.
Motor Vehicle: 1485
Pedestrian: 535 (getting hit by a vehicle)
Fire: 251
Suffocation: 205
Poisoning: 200
Pedal cyclist: 78
Struck by: 77 (getting hit by something not covered by the other categories)
The reality is, accidental firearm deaths are not a big public health issue for minors. There are plenty of other much larger risks, including the risk of purposeful death by firearm at 1237.
The single largest threat to minors is vehicles. What is crazy about vehicles is that they are more dangerous "by accident" than firearms are "on purpose".
All data from the CDC.
https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb... [cdc.gov]
Re: Yeah Bullshit. (Score:1)
Did you guys get the recent one where the girl taking testosterone shot people that she didn't like?
Cause i think CNN missed that one, must've been a busy day
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why did you cherry pick 2014? I seems to be a year with an unusually low number of accidental firearm deaths.
2017: 95
2016: 104
2015: 77
2013: 94
2012: 78
(using your link to the CDC data)
Anyway, your argument is what-about-ism. Even if other types of accident result in more deaths, it doesn't mean that steps should not be taken to reduce ~100 needless child deaths per year.
If I were playing Devil's advocate here, I'd probably try arguing that ~100 children a year is worth it for the benefits of having an armed
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't cherry pick 2014. The OP used a quote from 2014 and I matched data to that year.
"Tucker Carlson, Aug. 9, 2014 Pants on Fire"
Was this not obvious?
Now, getting on to the extra data. All of those years have low totals. With an average of 86 per year it just isn't a common event. It's a rate of about 0.03 per 100000 population.
No, it is not a what-about-ism. This is public health data. The government has a limited amount of money to spend so public health policy is made based on data like this.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies then, it was just misfortune that 2014 was the lowest in a decade. The point still stands though.
It's a rate of about 0.03 per 100000 population.
A rather arbitrary number, isn't it? Why not 300 per 10 population? That's just as meaningless.
I think what you are trying to say is that there are /relatively/ few accidental shootings of children compared to other ways minors accidentally die, and that with limited resources available the government should divert them elsewhere.
I would counter that you can't reasonably expect the surviving victims
Re: (Score:1)
The point still stands though.
Drink! Amimojo insists his point stands when it doesn't (and never did)!
For the benefit of everyone else, the OP AC made a list of things Fox said that are false.
The GP AC was responding to one specific item on the list - a statement by Tucker Carlson comparing kids dying to guns vs drowning in bathtubs.
In other words, GP was verifying whether a statement really is a lie. It wasn't an argument for or against guns, but merely checking the numbers on gun deaths vs other kinds of deaths.
So no, it's nothing lik
Re: (Score:1)
X per 100000 is the standard statistical measure for a variable versus population.
"you can't reasonably expect the surviving victims and their families and friends not to agitate for action on this issue"
I agree. But as per my my other post:
"From a public health perspective this accidental firearm death rate would warrant a short awareness campaign with informational flyers sent out to gun shops and gun clubs to give out."
Re: (Score:2)
I would counter that you can't reasonably expect the surviving victims and their families and friends not to agitate for action on this issue, and few governments are willing to take this "all or nothing" approach to tackling issues.
Sure, but we shouldn't give them undue influence and promote them so highly that inflates the actual importance of the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
If you stay on the actual news articles, which isn't easy, Fox, CNN, etc. are all mostly accurate
There are multiple forms of bias.
The first is outright false claims, the sort you'll hear from the Hannity example given above.
The second is out-of-proportion promotion, taking a small story and talking about it all the time as if it was a big one. Not technically false, but you're trying to push a narrative in the audience's mind.
The third is burying news, basically the second example but reversed.
The cable news usually avoid #1 above, or if they do, they use the weasel words of "well _people_ are saying t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
With editing worthy of Mr. Ed. [washingtontimes.com]
"It's all lies, Wilburrrr." [wideopenpets.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, with selective editing they managed to turn "we will try to prevent Russian interference in US democracy" into "we are trying to throw the 2020 election".
Also, people keep claiming that Veritas releases the raw, unedited footage. Where is it? Give us the link.
Re: (Score:3)
If I keep ignoring the evidence [usatoday.com]I can't hear you LA LA LA LA LA. I only believe Trump when I want to [fortune.com] LA LA LA LA LA.
Re: (Score:1)
Never mind that the "evidence" all comes from those with a conflict of interest, such as DNC paid consultants Crowdstrike or James "Least Untruthful" Clapper.
After all, anything repeated often enough becomes the truth.
Mueller is going to be releasing more indictments any day now, right?
Re: (Score:1)
So, Trump has a conflict of interest? Trump is lying to you?
Ah, so you admit that Mueller found enough evidence to obtain indictments in connection with the Volume 1 report activities. I suppose that grand jury was rife with conflicts of interest too?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
18 or more lawyers, a general warrant to look for crimes, 40 million dollars later, and the only thing Mueller accomplished was an attempt at redefining the standard of innocence.
Speaking of legal action, the judge threw out the libel case against Project Veritas. [thehill.com] You know the one where they exposed one of Bob Creamer's Trump rally agitators? Perhaps you should go find some evidence of that on usatoday.com
Re: America (Score:2)
Pretend Trump didn't acknowledge election interference. Pretend Mueller didn't indict a bunch of Russians. Doesn't change then fact that both happened and the rest of us know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
18 or more lawyers, a general warrant to look for crimes, 40 million dollars later, and the only thing Mueller accomplished was an attempt at redefining the standard of innocence.
The Mueller investigation came to three conclusions.
Mueller very clearly documented the Russian efforts to affect the election. We know it happened. If you're saying it's all BS, then I'm sorry, I don't know what to say to that other than we're going to disagree.
He also said he was not successful in uncovering evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to throw the election. So that angle is going to be a dead end.
He finally said that that you _could_ make a pretty decent case that he obstructed
Re: (Score:2)
Mueller very clearly documented the Russian efforts to affect the election.
Which amounted to what was normal for every election. It's a correlation that's being purposely inflated as causation for propaganda purposes. Russians are being singled out in this regard for obvious reasons.
Regardless, whoever leaked the DNC emails did this country a great service by pulling back the curtain to show just how rigged the system is. Now Google wants to add to that with their thumb on the scale. Think about what that means for actual democracy.
As for O'Keif, he's just the messenger. I can car
Re: (Score:2)
That article is very light on what this influence actually looked like. I only saw accessing email accounts and sharing those emails of members of the DNC and Clinton campaign. The article doesn't go into any detail on how exactly that caused harm.
They probably don't because the only thing I've heard doesn't look very good; the DNC conspired to elevate Clinton over all other delegates (and Sanders was specifically targeted). A lot of people don't consider this type of revelation to be bad; they like to kno
Same old Google (Score:1, Insightful)
What they're saying is, in the event of a shooting, Google will direct you to CNN and other left wing news sources so they can tell you how evil guns are. Google has long stopped being a search engine and is now a project for manipulating public opinion. They want to control the narrative, they want to you to see only one side of the argument and not the other, and they want to tell you what you should think and who you should vote for.
Since Google now shows edited content, rather than the most relevant s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2. "anyone who is harmed by this misinformation should be able to sue Google"
Sue away. You'll lose because you've got no grounds.
Re:Same old Google (Score:4, Informative)
CNN is not "left wing" by any measure.
Any measure.
Are [allsides.com] you [mediabiasfactcheck.com] sure? [adfontesmedia.com]
"anyone who is harmed by this misinformation should be able to sue Google"
Sue away. You'll lose because you've got no grounds.
There are grounds in limited situations both within the US [upenn.edu] and the EU [euagenda.eu]
Do you or the person that gave you a positive mod have your own citations or is this a situation of DogDude's opinion versus authoritative facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure?
After reading your links I am. Two of your links rate CNN as "left leaning" or "skews left" (barely), and the third gives it a solid "left" rating on the page you linked. But if you look at their methodology [mediabiasfactcheck.com] page, they go into more detail about how they rated CNN specifically and call it a "moderate left bias" rating.
For both All Sides and Media Bias Fact Check, they suggest that this situation is relatively new: CNN was rated "center" on All Sides until 2018. All Sides also said this: "CNN is, without a
Re:Same old Google (Score:5, Informative)
First, the summary is wrong. Shootings in the United States haven't been increasing.
Second, your statement that 'CNN is not "left wing" by any measure.' is also factually inaccurate. Here's a measure [mediabiasfactcheck.com], CNN is rated "left wing" on it. Here's another [adfontesmedia.com], and another [washingtonpost.com], with CNN to the left of the center point of Americans on all of them.
Re:Same old Google (Score:4, Interesting)
If you include 2018, gun deaths are down (versus the previous year).
https://www.thetrace.org/2019/... [thetrace.org]
The long term trend is also down (e.g. decade on decade).
Looking at small divergences in the data hides the trend. Just like with global warming data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your stats are comparing just two years, 2017 and 2018. But if you look at the longer term trend in the data I presented, you can see that actually the upward trend is very clear.
Also 2017 seems to have been something of an anomaly for mass shootings, so you are basically cherry picking the worst case for comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that is correct. Since the previous year the rate is down. That is a fact. It was to point out short term trends are misleading. I explained to you that you need to look at the long term trend. Parroting it back is inane.
And I explained to you that looking at the long term trend, it is definitively down and continuing down.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.or... [pewsocialtrends.org]
You presented short term data that conveniently cuts off the long term peak from the 1980s. From the 1980s to now it has been a steady decline.
Re: (Score:2)
The same wikipedia page you cited disproves your contention about the longer trend [wikipedia.org]. Gun homicides are clearly way down from their peak in the early 90s. Even that chart misleads, because it uses totals and not the firearm homicide rate, which is currently around a 50-year low, at half of what it was in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
Murders involving guns are up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But he probably meant mass shootings, since those are what tend to get all the fake news. They are also up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Be interesting to look up some international stats too. There were a few in Canada recently, notable because they were accompanied by a lot of fake news about the nationality, race, politics and religion of the shooter.
Murders involving guns are up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That chart has two significant flaws. The first is the bias introduced in the framing of the question: Why look only at murders committed with guns? Second, that chart shows absolute numbers, not a rate. After adjusting for population [google.com], the firearm assault homicide trend is actually slightly downwards. I haven't correlated that against the overall downward homicide trend to see if murderers are preferring guns more or less.
But he probably meant mass shootings, since those are what tend to get all the fake news. They are also up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Those numbers are also not population-adjusted, and have a couple of additional fla
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After adjusting for population, the firearm assault homicide trend is actually slightly downwards.
Your own link shows the rate rising over two decades. It's higher than it was in 1999.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CNN is *insanely* obsessed with phony Trump conspiracies 24/7 and routinely engages in over-the-top PC behavior. Those are hallmarks of the hard, lunatic, left.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link to some examples? I browsed their site earlier and didn't see any.
CNN gaslighting (Score:2, Informative)
CNN not able to confirm that Ngo's attackers were Antifa [cnn.com]
Coumo defending the honour and virtue of Antifa [youtube.com]
Brian Stelter spends less than a minute to say attack on Ngo was "unacceptable" [youtube.com] after editing the video to leave out the punches and kicks. Definitely not an assault on journalism, like denying a press pass is.
That's Google's "authoritative news source", defending modern day brownshirts just because they are leftists.
Re: (Score:2)
So by not leaping to conclusions early (they did later print multiple articles about the Ngo attack noting that it was Antifa who did it) and some subjective opinion stuff you don't like is hard evidence of them being the "far, lunatic left"?
Re: (Score:2)
Drink! Amimojo using the same argument Trump supporters used to why Trump didn't come out and explicitly condemn white supremacists and Nazis as fast as the left wanted back when Charlottesville happened!
Uhh, this feels like comparing apples and oranges.
There was no question that the Charlottesville event was a white supremacist rally. It was organized and advertised by white supremacists. That was the point.
Astonishingly dishonest (Score:2, Informative)
CNN spent two flippin' years telling everybody Trump "colluded" with Russia. Their anchor, Cuomo, is the leftist brother of the leftist governor Cuomo of New York who has said Republicans are not welcome in his state.
Their other two big talking heads are Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper, both of whom are leftist homosexuals who have long been on a misson to trash conservatives.
They have had an endless supply of Trump haters and Republican haters on their channel as "experts" commenting on nearly everything tha
Re: (Score:2)
1. CNN is not "left wing" by any measure.
Sure, CNN just "accidentally" gave the debate questions to Hillary. It happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Being an establishment idiot is a leftwing value. Look at the DNC candidate field right now. Look at who won it last time.
Bowing to establishment authority is something the left does very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an establishment idiot is a leftwing value
Then it's not "left wing," it's mainstream. Left-wing and Right-wing are left and right of center. Both extremist sides consider themselves 'normal', consider centrists to be the same as the extremists on the other side, and generally deny that a center can exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide your name and address for service of process, so that I may sue you for the misinformation that you have presented. After all, if you want to be a publisher you need to take fu
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be. That's John Barron's address.
Re:Same old Google (Score:4, Insightful)
CNN and other left wing news sources
/facepalm
Have you ever seen an actual left wing news source? [alamy.com]
Reference point (Score:5, Informative)
For us here on the other side of the ocean, it seems that the USA politic is gone so much bat-shit insane on the hardcore far right politics, that if this is your point of reference then of course everything seems "left wing" compared to it.
And we here around look like "Evil euro communists !" on USA's scale.
(Affordable education, without going bankrupt on "Student loans"? Can you imagine it ?!?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least we can publicly criticize a violent ideology that endorses pedophilia, without going to jail or getting fined over it. [coe.int] Can you say the same?
Oh I forgot, freedom of speech is "hard right" these days.
Titties vs Nazis (Score:2, Insightful)
At least we can publicly criticize a violent ideology that endorses pedophilia,
And at least we don't live in a country which goes banana at the slightest display of nudity [wikipedia.org].
Countries that tolerate titties vs country that tolerates nazis ? I've made my choice...
How would the Michael Brown incident be reported t (Score:5, Insightful)
Given this sort of intervention, how would the notorious Michael Brown - Ferguson riots incident of 2014 [wikipedia.org] be reported today?
For those who don't remember, that incident involved a white police officer shooting a black man named Michael Brown.
The initial reports placed the blame on the police officer, and portrayed Michael Brown as innocent. There ended up being damaging riots, and the Black Lives Matter group got lots of attention.
Then as the investigation into the incident continued, it became more and more obvious that the police officer had apparently been attacked by Michael Brown, and the officer was acting in self defense. So much of the original narrative was then seen as being totally nonsensical. Witnesses had lied. There was clear video footage showing Michael Brown engaging in violent behavior at a store just prior to the shooting incident. The forensics clearly showed that the police officer acted very reasonably considering the situation.
If the incident happened today, would this kind of intervention by Google have helped prevent the what happened in Ferguson? Would Michael Brown have been highlighted as the aggressor, like the investigation eventually indicated, right away, possibly preventing the riots and the attention that BLM undeservingly obtained as a result of questionable initial reports?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure the 'authority' sources were any better than the rumour mill in that situation. I mean, their sources were the rumour mill.
Take something even more newsworthy. On 11th September 2001 mainstream media sites all went down. Only non-authoritative sources could handle the traffic, and they handled it superbly.
So fuck Google and their censorship.
Re: How would the Michael Brown incident be report (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the incident happened today, would this kind of intervention by Google have helped prevent the what happened in Ferguson?
We can be sure that contradicting an authoritative source like CNN [youtube.com] will result in being downranked as "conspiracy" or "fake news". Therefore the next Ferguson will probably be even worse.
Google News itself is a great example of how Google applies its "fairness" doctrine towards shaping the reality it wants people to believe. Vox and Vice as sources for top headlines would also seem to be decent evidence for this.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the "right" algorithm then that doesn't make them a "publisher" anymore?
Your complaint is simply that they have chosen to weigh things differently from what you would. Half the reason Google became a better search engine than AltaVista, Excite, AskJeeves, and more; was that they were able to sift out the crud websites and bring better quality websites to the top. Nobody had any issues with this until just 3-4 years ago, but now they're suddenly a "publisher" and "editing the internet."
They've been d
Re: (Score:1)
Oh come on. Google blatantly manipulates the results to fit into their left-speak extreme ideological mentality. Google has been filtering out the crud for a long time and they became very good at it, but you cannot deny that lately their internal mandate has changed from filter the useless junk crud to filter out and/or manipulate search results to display results that fit into their very narrow belief system.
A perfect example is to search for "white couples" and look at what images you get. Over half th
Re: (Score:2)
There's a feedback link on Google search results pages. Use it.
Every time they return bollocks as you've described, I'm giving them feedback that their search is shit and they've just forced me to use bing.com.
Re: (Score:2)
A perfect example is to search for "white couples" and look at what images you get
It's because "white couples" matches the phrase "black and white couples" which is something that is more often searched. Why would I be interested in searching for "white couples?" That's a weird thing to search for. I could just look in my own house to see that. But Black and White Couples.. well, that's more unusual. That's something different to look for. Doesn't mean that it's actually more prevalent as an image subject.
Same for "White people." That's a phrase that's more often used by non-white people
Re: Same old Google (Score:2)
I've heard it said that Google is now on their 4th generation search algorithm. The 2nd generation algorithm - the one that was really good at searching for what you asked - is what made Google's reputation for search.
Re:Same old Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah. It's probably to prevent directing people to the numerous right wing "news" sources that will baselessly claim the shooting didn't happen and is instead a vast conspiracy to take away the people's right to bear arms. Resulting in fun stuff like fools hounding [theatlantic.com] the parents of victims of said violence for being a part of the "hoax".
Re: (Score:1)
Nah. It's probably to prevent directing people to the numerous right wing "news" sources that will baselessly claim the shooting didn't happen and is instead a vast conspiracy to take away the people's right to bear arms.
It's only school shootings they report as not happening.
With other shootings they make sure to claim that the shooter is a Muslim before it turns out to be "yet another independent right wing lunatic".
Re: (Score:2)
It happens with alarming regularity too. You can be sure that after any mass shooting there will be claims that it was a leftist false flag operation, that the shooter was a Muslim or an immigrant, or as you say that it didn't happen at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bias can happen, and it's not ideal. But in comparison to outright deceptions and lies that are commonly pushed today it is a non-issue. I always found it odd that the same people who publish outright falsehoods to support a point whine and moan about "bias" when what they are doing is several magnitudes worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Excellent point.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry that your personal brand of politics is defined by lies.
Also, you can't determine relevance without some editorial control.
Re: Same old Google (Score:2)
"Google will direct you to CNN and other Establishment news sources so they can tell you how evil guns are."
FTFY
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Many people disagree, and can objectively support their opinion.
From https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias [allsides.com]
"We found CNN Web News has a tendency to include a lot of Opinion and Analysis without labeling it clearly as such until afterreaders click through to the full article. This means CNN displays Opinion-level content alongside hard news on the homepage, making it look like the Opinion pieces are objective, fact-based news.
"We also found that there are Left-leaning and Center articles feature
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that you rely on Russia Today speaks volumes. Thanks for playing, tovarishch.
Re: (Score:2)
As does the fact that you completely ignore the other two links, sheeple.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The right wants to draw an equivalence, "see you're just as bad!". But it's not even close. Fox News is basically a state propaganda channel. There's also the definition issue of the reality of the American 'center'. Our center is really on the conservative side, especially economi
Re: (Score:2)
Math is Racist [cnn.com] and this isnt just on CNN, its from the CNN Business division.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking through the stupidly-titled/click-bait-titled article, I read that it's more about the misuse of statistics to support the outcomes that disproportionate target by race and wealth. I hope that we can all agree that even when statistics are "Correct," they can be used to misrepresent and lie. The argument in the book referred to is not that data and math are inherently racist, but when they are combined with racial assumptions (like 'poor grammar' = 'credit risk'). I don't know that I agree with all
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting to compare Fox News and North Korean state news: https://youtu.be/il-22Q8mECc [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
How about "wingnut" and "moonbat"?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think that'll help. Those CNN wingnuts are demonstrably moonbat.
This isn't about bias (Score:1)
This particular article is about accuracy more than bias I think.
Information is WRONG early in a serious event. Frequently. Because information is still being gathered. I've had police give me incorrect information during an active shooter incident (because they believed it was true) and heard rumors from others on what was an wasn't true, and you're lucky if 20-30% of what you learn is accurate. Traditional media outlets--no matter which whey they lean and how little time their reporters have to cover thin
Re:Same old Google (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't read CNN regularly, but looking at their US homepage right now these criticisms don't seem to be entirely accurate.
For example, they clearly label opinion and analysis pieces with those words, e.g. "Opinion: Why stowing away on an airplane undercarriage is a fatal mistake".
Kind of a bizarre one to have an opinion on, given that it's factually well established to be extremely risky and often fatal, but they labelled it which is the point.
The left bias is harder to quantify. They do cover stories that look bad for """the left""" [cnn.com] but I'd like to see some examples of stories they ignored to spun.
Re: (Score:2)
I've found across media these days, anything starting with "Analysis" means "Opinion." I wish they wouldn't use that word, but it's opinion piece, "here's what _I_ think those facts really mean" as opposed to "here are those facts."
Re: (Score:2)
incidentally, I doubt they eveor corrected the record asnd admitted (as NBC amazingly did) that actually the USA and Canada quietly siezed and removed many tons of yellowcake from Iraq after Saddam Hussein was eliminated
The dispute was over yellow cake that Saddam may have been (and turned out not to be) smuggling in for the purposes of weapons research. The yellowcake that was found in Iraq was known to be there, as it was legally acquired before the first Gulf War, was declared to and managed by the IAEA, and was not in breach of the original Gulf War cease-fire. Because of those safeguards, that uranium was ill-suited for the use of weapons manufacturing; Saddam needed uranium that was not known to the West.
Google must be broken up (Score:1)
Google is 1,000 times worse than Microsoft in 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Google must be broken up (Score:2)
It's almost like the big tech companies have been colluding with one another to stifle political speech...
Hmmmm... could that be because all the "competing" companies is Surveillance Valley are actually owned by the same tiny handful of inbred upper class twit "venture capitalists"?
Break up Alphabet! (Score:2)
Google/Alphabet has gained far too much monopoly power; has become brazenly intrusive into people's private lives; and has repeatedly abused its power to manipulate search results. It's time for Uncle Sam to step in and break up Alphabet.
At very least, each of the units below needs to become a fully separate company that is legally barred from exchanging data with the others.
Android
Search
Surveillance ("advertising")
Gmail
Cloud platform
Maps
Media content (play music, play books, etc)
Chrome browser
ChromeOS
Money exchange? (Score:2)
At very least, each of the units below needs to become a fully separate company that is legally barred from exchanging data with the others.
Android
Search
Surveillance ("advertising")
Gmail
Cloud platform
Maps
Media content (play music, play books, etc)
Chrome browser
ChromeOS
Depends on what they're allowed to still exchange.
Because they could still exchange money (flow "Surveillance" -> everybody else) and links/includes (every other webpage on your list relies on "Google Analytics"'s surveil^H sorry "Marketing research").
Which is more or less how everything is financed nowadays already, even for members which are not part of the Alphabet family (e.g.: Chrome isn't the only browser that Google is financing. Google is also financing Mozilla. Because when you look down to it,
Passionate about WordPress development! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wanna bet right wing sources will be suppressed by this?
And rightly so. When the 'right wing sources' pull their heads out of their asses and decides to come live in reality along with the rest of us, we'll check out your sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't take long for the authoritarians to show up. How's that thing with the covington kids working out these days? Better yet, how is going after Andy Ngo got assaulted and the media spent the better part of two days defending the attack of a journalist until the public outcry became too much that even CNN buckled. Well some of those reporters are still supporting him being attacked.
Something dangerous attacks on journalism something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But its the right that hates gay asian journalists! Get with the narrative.
Well let's be fair, asians aren't on the progressive stack anymore. The fact that he's male and gay, pushes him down as far as you can go in that little circle of victimization.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single dollar you've given to Andy Ngo is going to get spent on underage rentboys you dumb fuck. Mind you, there probably aren't a lot of conservative dollars that don't eventually get spent on underage prostitutes, so business as usual I guess.
Wow. It's like you skipped all those leftwing journos having been arrested in the last 3 years for child rape, manufacturing child porn, and the big gigantic push in normalizing pedophilia coming out of progressive circles. It's almost like...1970's...all over again, with the same politically aligned people trying to get age of consent laws removed too.
Re: (Score:2)
So are they going to do that, and save the lives of our children? Or is it more important that they generate more ad impressions?
Gee, what do you think?
I'm convinced that even if we somehow managed to solve all of the worlds problems, end hunger, stop all major crime, and bring peace to all nations, the news media would simply step in to fill the void by creating mayhem of their own to drive sales. I remember seeing a list of professions that attract the most sociopaths. CEO was number one, which just seems obvious, but media and journalism also both placed on the top ten.
Re: (Score:1)
Stanstead: Get results for (obscure) Stanstead, but with a link for "did you mean Stansted?" to get the more famous airport
Milenium: Get results for millennium without any link to get a weirdo incorrect spelling
Rosie the Ribbiter: Get "Showing results for rosie the riveter. Search instead for rosie the ribbiter" with a search link. The first link on the ribbiter page of results is "One Giant Leap for Frogkind".
So it seems to do what you probably want.
Re: (Score:1)