The end of freedom of expression online:

Some Liberal ideas are good -- like caring for all people and Welfare State. But those who oppose Freedom are evil.

 

From the PJ Media article:

I can uderstand how lefties would find conservative concern over this ridiculous, lefties aren't threatened at all, but I would urge lefties with any sense to appreciate the same tools can be turned against them. Moreover, while now hate is the bete noire the same tools can target expressions of feminism, environmentalism or socialism.

 

PJ Media explains the blacklisting process step by step:

Some notes:
Alexa’s website requires subscription.
In this blacklisting process the substance or content of the targeted sites is not reviewed, it is assumed if ADL or the SPLC says a site promotes hate this is what it does.
Software can be written to engage this process automatically, no human needs to do anything more than launch it and await it’s report.

 

No, we have the better and smarter Freedom of Speech as you have in the USA ... because we don't allow our enemies to abuse the rights to destroy them... but you are so foolish to allow and the results we saw last time in Charlottesville! Very clever Freedom of Speech version you have ... so clever that we laugh about only!

 

I apologize, you are not a racist, only your posts are:

ROTFL

 

Right wing morons: GOOGLE HAS A LEFT WING BIAS!!!!!

left wing morons: GOOGLE HAS A RIGHT WING BIAS!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...rightwing-bias-algorithm-political-propaganda

Its fascinating how similar some parts of the spectrum are.

 

America needs to take the right, put it over it's knee, and give it a good spanking.

 

You truely have to be a moron to think Google has a pro right wing bias

And a moron to think Google is non partisan and has no bias at all

 

Thanks for so quickly providing an example of what I was talking about. Most people here aren't so helpful.

If people think Google is biased then I recommend they not use it. There are plenty of search engines out there.

This whole discussion tells me that the real problem here is not the bias of Google, but the biases of its users. The increasing intolerance people have for even encountering an opinion they disagree with is much scarier than anything Google is capable of.

 

Google is only bias to get as much information from the users and to make as much profit as possible...!

 

How about your intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you about Google and dares to think that Google could be flawed in some way?

You are as bad as the people you condemn

 

Lefties like to make up their own definitions of racist and Nazi and pretty much any other word that they can use to push their agenda, many do it on this very board. As far as conspiracy theories, look no further than Russia, Russia, Russia.

 

I freely admit it, I'm intolerant of stupidity. That leaves a great deal to be intolerant of, not least on this forum. The vast majority of 'bias' claims have much more to do with the biases of the accuser than their target. Even when they are right it tends to be more 'stopped clock syndrome' than any great insight.

I haven't claimed Google is not flawed, I've pointed out that its users are a great deal more flawed. Right wingers claim bias, left wingers claim bias. I claim that says everything about them & nothing about Google. It may well have biases, but threads like this aren't about discussing those, they are about people with a particular mindset reinforcing their own sense of victimhood and walling themselves off from information that might contradict their biases.

Your reaction tells me my instincts are on target.

 

Ok what DO you claim about Google?

You think everyone else stupid so why not enlighten us All Knowing One about the most popular search engine on the Internet?

Btw, I didn't see any leftwinger claim Google is biased toward the right

Just one who claims anyone who says Google is biased either way is a moron

 

LOL, another free speech hater. The left have become the thought police. Certainly a far cry from liberals just 40 years ago. Guess they become fascists when they don't get their way.

 

They have their free speech rights, these nazis in the US whom you defend as though they don't have free speech rights. It's amusing that you arrest at the criticism of them being what will remove their rights as opposed to their own behaviours.

 

LOL, the thickness continues. Defend free speech = you are a Nazi. Liberal logic 101.

 

The monopoly of a tiny few ( Google, Facebook etc) is going to lead to terrible trouble if governments don't get their acts together.

 

You think my commenting on your defence of nazis free speech rights, which they already have, is the same as calling you a nazi?

I can't see any other reason for this abusive turd you just dropped.

 

Both the leftist and rightist collectivists are hate groups. By left and right, I refer principally to BLM and their fellow leftists collectivists and the alt right and their fellow rightists' collectivists. Each side believes it has the moral purity and therefore have the right to violate the individual rights of the other side. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Both sides are fascists, both sides believe might makes right, and both sides believe hate speech, as defined by them, is not protected free speech and they have ever moral right to use violence to stop it.

There are few greater evils than to use a man's skin color to judge the moral and intellectual worth if his soul and character. This is not the actions of civilized men, but the actions of primitive barbarians such as some the American Indian tribes, i.e., the Apache and the Comanche to name a few, as well as most of the southern plantation owners of yesterday, as well as today's BLM and the Alt Right. The must be repudiated as strongly as possible for the new fascists thugs they are. They must be condemned as anti-America wannabe tyrants who want to tell us who are heroes ought to be, what are nation must become, and what thoughts we may have that are approved as pure by the gang leades of the moment.

I condemn in the strongest terms possible, in the name of life, liberty, and the rights of man, the BLM and their fellow travelers, and the Alt Right and their fellow travelers as pro tyranny and pro-fascists murdering thug with no moral standing or claim to justice.

If Man is to reach the stars, travel the galaxies, colonize the universe, and build an existence that is the heaven he seeks, he must renounce racism, bigotry, and faith, and return to reason and science by discovering and following Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

Miss Rand: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination."--Ayn Rand

Let us up pick up her banner, grasp her philosophy, reach for the stars of the future, in the name of the best within us, and not the nearest gun, bat, or car to muder and maim out of hatred for the good, and fear of the wonder of life. The future is ours. What it becomes is what we will have made of it.

 

Deleted

 

Yet the left in general here ignores the violence used to suppress free speech even to the point of defending it which is tacit approval of the use of violence.

 

There hasn't been any suppression of free speech. Milo The Raging Queen can be listened to 24/7 by any American with an internet connection. If neo-nazis are going to have their free speech removed it'll be by their own hand. Organising bullshit rallies which culminate in driving over a white woman is domestic terrorism not free speech.

I think white peeps are having some trouble processing the fact that right in front of them their very own community displays kinship with the bazillion Islomofascist terrorists they keep stashed under their beds. Same tactic, too, vehicular terrorism. They'd have their caliphate in a NY heartbeat and you would submit or die.

 

So basically you again defend and excuse violence.

 

There are no adequate alternatives, just look at the scope of search engine coverage and usage, compare Google's market share (80.52%) with it's closest rival ("Bing" at 6.92% or third-place "Yahoo" with 5.35). The monumental difference in users yields a huge difference in the volume of data collected and this enables Google to improve and refine delivery of search results much better than any competitor. I've compared Google with Bing. Searching for images I estimate Google produces about 2/3 more than Bing and includes all of Bing's results.

I think the problem of Google's bias is quite evident in their documented methodology for proposed "hate group" site erradication, a more objective source to identify such sites should be used. Nobody can claim SPLC or ADL are highly objective in their identification of "hate groups".