Audit: Google Heavily Favors CNN and Left Media in Mass Shooting Coverage

Conservatives 2016 - "We want less restrictions on business! ... We want fewer regulations!"
Conservatives 2019 - "Stop screwing with free speech and search results"

 

Just like they claimed to be the moral majority, fiscal conservatives and wanting to make America great again by refusing to limit their spending like they forced on Oblama with sequestration. I do believe we are seeing the biggest vindictive hypocrites in history from the GOP. They have destroyed their integrity they had since Reagan, of course he was no conservative either like Trump...Ahhh these word games such rhetoric as never heard before.

 

Hardly so if they are not registered as a foreign entity..

 

Is Google registered as a foreign entity?

Yes or no?

 

No.

And neither is Trump.

Does that convince you that Trump isn't alligned with Putin?

 

A swing and a miss...Trump and Google are not one in the same..A syllogism formal fallacy....."God I love smoking weed" has as much to do with Google as The Don and his oversized clown clothes...

 

Logic fallacy. Of course he is aligned with Putin.

 

The dynamic is precisely the same. A lack of acknowledgement of allegiance is not a lack of allegiance.

 

They will eventually be required to put a warning on their search page.

 

So it would be OK with you if all gun manufacturers made and sold fully automatic weapons to everyone?

And comparing this forum to Google is like comparing a sling to an M1 Abrams.

 

Fewer regulations =/= no regulations.

 

Democrats always: Business is evil and must be regulated!
Democrats today: Google is fine and must not be regulated.

 

They don’t even understand how they work.

Buried way down the article is the discussion of algorithm based searches, which is the real question.

 

The case for the unregulated free market is that it produces the most rational allocation of resources, via price signals, and this
allocation means the fastest growth in output. Where the market is generally free -- where the cost of entry and exit is zero or very low -- you get the
optimum price for goods: enough to reward the supplier, but as low as possible for the consumer.

However, there are other considerations, which suggest that the free market should be regulated by the state.
Anyone who does Econ 101 will know about them, gathered under the general concept of 'Market Failure'.

One area which is considered an example of 'Market Failure' is when a firm establishes a monopoly (or a group of firms, an oligopoly) in one area of the economy.
It's not hard to show that the maximum profit-point for a monopoly, in terms of prices, results in pricing its goods higher than would be the case in a free market.

Thus the case of 'natural monopolies' where it is hard to have competition in the nature of the case, like in supplying electricity to your home, we often find either outright state ownership, or strong regulation.

On line suppliers of information, like Google and Amazon have to be considered in this category, assuming you believe that access to information, or at least political information, should be as free as possible.

Google and Amazon and all the services provided by Corporate America (or Corporate World), will be heavily influenced by the rising generation of young college-educated technocrats, and similar. They will be sensitive to the people who have educated this generation.

One of the tenets of this education is that no protected group (sexual, racial) should be exposed to anything that lowers its self esteem.

To enforce this dictum, however, runs straight into the peculular American concept of almost unlimited Free Speech.

If I write a book, or have a website, which argues persuasively against the 'blank slate' thesis -- all human beings are born perfectly equal in all mental abilities and inclinations -- my offering will offend some powerful groups, or those who have appropriated the role of spokesman for them.

My views and arguments will be labelled Thoughtcrime, whoops, sorry, I mean 'hate speech'. Amazon will be under pressure not to stock my books, website hosts will be under pressure to not host me.

This trend is fairly recent and its progress is slow, because it runs counter to 250 years of American traditions, unevenly established but real, including traditions that were for many years championed most strongly by liberals. However, although slow and hesitant, progress here is steady.

Then there is the problem of search engine neutrality, a more complex issue. Whistleblowers within Facebook and Google have described what happens. This sort of thing can happen almost unconsciously. If I am a librarian and you ask me to recommend books on physics, I just automatically leave books on, say, 'the electric universe' or 'cold fusion' at the bottom of the list, which means not on it at all. It's just obvious to me that these are not in the same league as mainstream orthodox science. A century ago I would treated Wegener's thesis on continental drift the same way. In my mind it's not 'bias', it's just obvious. For a young liberal making choices about the best sources of information on some current event, it's the same thing.

What to do about it? Very tricky. Liberals who point out the conservative contradiction here -- against government regulating companies except when the results of their decisions displease us -- are on solid ground. Of course they exaggerate -- conservatives are not libertarians and do not oppose government regulation on principle -- but it's definitely not a comfortable thing for a conservative to be arguing that the state should influence the content of information offered by a private company. Anyone interested in the most relevant legal/historical parallel should read the Wiki article on the 'Fairness Doctrine', here.

There can also be unintended consequences. Years ago, the FCC made broadcasters present 'balanced' programs when dealing with political issues. (Bandwidith not being treated as private property, and thus legitimately regulated by the state.) The result, according to one article I read, was that broadcasters tended just to avoid politically controversial subjects altogether, which seems plausible. (See link in previous paragraph.)

Of course there is a difference between forcing a broadcaster to present 'both sides' of an issue, on the one hand, and forcing an online bookseller or website host or social media outlet to simply allow all legal viewpoints, on the other.

I think it's a tricky issue and I haven't made up my mind about what should be done about it.

 

I couldn't give a shyt if gun manufacturers made and sold fully automatic weapons. And comparing Google to this forum is one and the same in principle. Sorry you people are clouded in your so called freedoms.

 

Your Trumpsters merely ape your president it's not like you have a mind of your own...

 

Agreed, they are the arm of the corportists, both dem and republican. If your a tea party conservative or a progressive Dem they try to shut you out. Look what they did to Gabbard after the debate. They froze her account and did not let her buy space the night when she was the most searched name.

 

So you approve of private business who has a near monopoly, deciding what people should think? Obviously there are other search engines, but we’re talking averages.

Democrats forever: “private business ****ing with people is perfectly fine as long as it hurts people we don’t like.”

And the algorithms are written by humans. Not difficult to push the algorithm to show what the humans want it to show. Considering how openly biased Googles workforce is, there is nothing surprising.

 

The people do not elect the president the Electoral college does..

 

Churches are very biased also should we monitor what they are saying?

 

If a person is naive enough to trust a corporation they deserve to get burned...

 

GOOGLE needs to be ENRONed.

 

We are now, where the hell have you been? we have agents in mosques and right wing churches and we had agents in southern churches during the 60s

 

Any time I do a search (primarily political searches), I use the same subject line and search google and then Duck Duck go. Vastly different results.

 

Trump supporters in 2019: "Bust up the monopolies."