Employee leaks hundreds of Google documents revealing its search-results manipulation and biases

[Delicieuxz]

22 minutes ago, Sauron said:

1) that's your opinion and 2) objectivity is obviously not the only metric they would be applying here - it's also a matter of how relevant to the search an article from those outlets is likely to be. Larger outlets like CNN are more likely to have talked about any given topic than a relatively smaller network like RT. Sites like the WSJ also make better use of SEO than others, which naturally leads Google in "preferring" them - that's arguably a problem of its own but hardly a conspiracy.

I think that RT is a much larger outlet than CNN. RT has over 100 million unique weekly TV viewers, according to Ipsos, and is the #1 watched news outlet on YouTube.

 

CNN doesn't touch probably more than half of what RT does, and I wouldn't trust their presentation of the stuff they do touch, considering that CNN does 100% staged interviews with actors and green screens, and keeps making entirely false claims (like 'it's illegal to read the leaked DNC emails').

 

Quote

The Young Turks, a mostly left leaning outlet, is also significantly lower than both CNN and RT, as well as the notoriously right leaning Fox News and the openly nazi outlet Breitbart - do you have an explanation for that in your "anti right wing" conspiracy theory?

What anti right-wing conspiracy theory are you referring to?

 

Quote

Why is it that it's only the righties who whine about conspiracy theorists being buried by Google results? I could give you the solution to massive corporations controlling the spread of information but I don't think you'd like it.

When did I become a righty? You're reading and commenting on a whole lot of what isn't there to be read.

 

Also, since when is RT right-wing? I think they have more left-wing talent then right-wing talent, though they don't display any particular left / right leaning.

[spartaman64]

18 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The problem is Google is skewing news sources, and they are pushing a left wing bias. And Fox News is pretty left biased, and centrist for the most part compared to most of the mainstream media, also CNN and MSNBC constantly smear them, which I think is a serious problem that only contributes to the political division in the US. These companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple need to be platforms not publishers placing a bias on information.

have we been watching the same fox news? 

[CarlBar]

Can i just say as a european i find US left vs right talk hilarious given your extreme left is often closer to our extreme right than anything else.

 

No  don't really have anything meaningful to add, but i allways find the craziness that is US politics one half funny and one half, (since they are the big superpower), scare your crap white frightening.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Google may be biased, but don't forget that they also have their personal filter bubble thing going on.  If a conservative does a search on any subject, he/she will get different results than if a progressive enters the exact same search term.  So the only way to look for bias is to do it from a machine that has never been connected to any Google accounts or is in any way known to Google.

 

As for the whole left versus right debate, IMO the US is completely and utterly screwed.  The best thing would be to put a wall around the entire country so we can protect the rest of the world.  Preferably one that's high enough and has some sort of ceiling or large net to prevent planes from escaping and stop them from polluting space as well.  Oh, and cut the internet cables too. 

 

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I think that RT is a much larger outlet than CNN. RT has over 100 million unique weekly TV viewers, according to Ipsos, and is the #1 watched news outlet on YouTube.

 

CNN doesn't touch probably more than half of what RT does, and I wouldn't trust their presentation of the stuff they do touch, considering that CNN does 100% staged interviews with actors and green screens, and keeps making entirely false claims (like 'it's illegal to read the leaked DNC emails').

 

What anti right-wing conspiracy theory are you referring to?

 

When did I become a righty? You're reading and commenting on a whole lot of what isn't there to be read.

 

Also, since when is RT right-wing? I think they have more left-wing talent then right-wing talent, though they don't display any particular left / right leaning. 

I'm sorry, you've used PJW and project veritas as sources and both relentlessly insist that this is a plight from the left to censor the right. I assumed you were on board with that - if you aren't, I'd check my sources better if I were you.

[Master Disaster]

I just read the last few pages, how is this thread still active?

 

4 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

As for the whole left versus right debate, IMO the US is completely and utterly screwed.  The best thing would be to put a wall around the entire country so we can protect the rest of the world.  Preferably one that's high enough and has some sort of ceiling or large net to prevent planes from escaping and stop them from polluting space as well.  Oh, and cut the internet cables too. 

 

Da fuq man.... That's one very strong opinion. Ftr segregation is never a good thing and punishing an entire country for a few of the more prolific residents is extreme to the max.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

18 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Da fuq man.... That's one very strong opinion.

If that's considered strong, it's a good thing I removed the part about carpet-bombing it from the map then. 

 

18 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Ftr segregation is never a good thing and punishing an entire country for a few of the more prolific residents is extreme to the max.

Segregation in general isn't good, but then again in the medical world it's normal procedure to quarantine patients to stop the spread of an infectious disease.

 

Oh, and as for punishing an entire country, let's not forget who voted for those prolific residents.  The nominees on both sides were truly horrid people.  Millions of people voted for those two. 

Sure, there's always the "some of them are good people" argument.  Then again that didn't stop the annoying orange from wanting to build a wall to stop all Mexican refugees from crossing the border. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

Addendum - the left/right spectrum, except when discussing things on a country by country basis and in the broadest terms possible with that country's political sphere, is utterly moronic.

Ah! We're starting calling names now?  From bad to worse!  THAT is truly going to elevate the debate!

[Delicieuxz]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm sorry, you've used PJW and project veritas as sources and both relentlessly insist that this is a plight from the left to censor the right. I assumed you were on board with that - if you aren't, I'd check my sources better if I were you.

I'd only check my sources better if the ones I was using were incorrect. Them being associated with a political leaning is not grounds for me to avoid pointing out some verifiable news they published.

 

If an example of a right-wing voice being censored in Google search is used, that doesn't automatically means the person who used it must be right-wing, as if only a right-wing person states truth that doesn't make the right-wing look bad. It only shows that Google is in-fact censoring search results. The thread I've made has nothing directly do with left and right-wing and I would have just as readily posted an example of a left-wing person being censored.

 

steelo's comments are on-point, in saying that the US has become polarized to the point where everything is interpreted as either a 'for us' or 'against us' along party lines:

20 hours ago, steelo said:

Sadly, the U.S. is more divided than ever. You are absolutely 100% correct, each 'group' only looks after their own while telling everybody else to 'screw themselves'

 

20 hours ago, steelo said:

I grow so tired of hearing, 'Well, you heard that from a right (or left) wing source. Indeed, we have become so polarized that I honestly fear for the future of our nation. It's really simple...elections have become about what elected officials can do for THEM, not what's best for the nation.

 

I'm not even a US citizen, so don't expect me to conform to the extreme perception distortions that people in the US are suffering. And for anyone who is interpreting everything they come across along 'left vs right' and 'us vs them lines', well, they're not going to be able to recognize any truth because their fundamental perception is polarized and believing in a false dichotomy.

[SenKa]

This thread is getting locked in... Three... Two...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

RT is pretty much the most objective English MSM available right now. You'll find more truth there than at any of the other outlets in Google's site-ranking image that are rated higher than it. That's a part of why talent from places like BBC, NYT, NBC, CNN, keep going to work at RT, at least in their own words.

Huh???  O_o

Is this a joke?

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-11/russias-rt-contesting-very-meaning-truth

https://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today

 

 

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I'd only check my sources better if the ones I was using were incorrect. Them being associated with a political leaning is not grounds for me to avoid pointing out some news they published.

Except they are incorrect in their extrapolation from this, as I said.

7 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

if an example of a right-wing voice being censored in Google search is used, that doesn't automatically means the person who used it must be right-wing, as if only a right-wing person states truth that doesn't make the right-wing look bad.

I just explained to you why that is not what's going on here.

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

steelo's comments are on-point, in saying that the US has become polarized to the point where everything is interpreted as either a 'for us' or 'against us' along party lines

You cited heavily political sources about heavily political topics, it's only natural the response would be political.

9 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I'm not even a US citizen, so don't expect me to conform to the extreme perception distortions that people in the US are suffering. And for anyone who is interpreting everything they come across along 'left vs right' and 'us vs them lines', well, they're not going to be able to recognize any truth because their fundamental perception is polarized and believing in a false dichotomy.

I'm sorry but if you don't see why this kind of "news" is being used as a radicalization tool I think you're missing the bigger picture.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I think that RT is a much larger outlet than CNN. RT has over 100 million unique weekly TV viewers, according to Ipsos, and is the #1 watched news outlet on YouTube.

 

CNN doesn't touch probably more than half of what RT does, and I wouldn't trust their presentation of the stuff they do touch, considering that CNN does 100% staged interviews with actors and green screens, and keeps making entirely false claims (like 'it's illegal to read the leaked DNC emails').

 

What anti right-wing conspiracy theory are you referring to?

 

When did I become a righty? You're reading and commenting on a whole lot of what isn't there to be read.

 

Also, since when is RT right-wing? I think they have more left-wing talent then right-wing talent, though they don't display any particular left / right leaning.

It's certainly not because you have a large public in numbers that quality is there.

 

Some of the largest number of books sold are Harlequin books, and I wouldn't dare say that these are "quality books". And they certainly NOT elevate knowledge...

 

RT is certainly NOT an objective and reliable source of information. And correlating reliability and numbers of viewers is really a surprising argument... O_o

[Delicieuxz]

16 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Huh???  O_o

Is this a joke?

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-11/russias-rt-contesting-very-meaning-truth

https://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today

No, of course not.

 

You posting some smear and propaganda articles doesn't constitute an argument to the contrary. Especially when it comes from a crazy Russophobic hack like Julia Ioffe and The Guardian:

 

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/paul-dacre-singles-out-ex-guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-for-attack-in-society-of-editors-speech/

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/john-pilger-says-guardian-column-was-axed-in-purge-of-journalists-saying-what-the-paper-no-longer-says/

https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/10/04/longtime-friend-of-deported-guardian-reporter-speaks-out-on-their-work-inhabiting-the-role-of-a-foreign-agent-of-imperialism-2/

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/09/28/investigation-slams-guardian-cooperation-with-novice-reporter-linked-to-us-regime-change-machine-2/

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-06/guardians-reputation-tatters-after-forger-revealed-have-co-authored-assange-smear

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-wikileaks-us-sweden

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

No, of course not.

 

You posting some smear and propaganda articles doesn't constitute an argument to the contrary. Especially when it comes from a crazy hack like Julia Ioffe and The Guardian:

 

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/paul-dacre-singles-out-ex-guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-for-attack-in-society-of-editors-speech/

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/john-pilger-says-guardian-column-was-axed-in-purge-of-journalists-saying-what-the-paper-no-longer-says/

https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/10/04/longtime-friend-of-deported-guardian-reporter-speaks-out-on-their-work-inhabiting-the-role-of-a-foreign-agent-of-imperialism-2/

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/09/28/investigation-slams-guardian-cooperation-with-novice-reporter-linked-to-us-regime-change-machine-2/

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-06/guardians-reputation-tatters-after-forger-revealed-have-co-authored-assange-smear

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-wikileaks-us-sweden

 

 

Do you even see what press you're quoting yourself?

[Delicieuxz]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You cited heavily political sources about heavily political topics, it's only natural the response would be political.

Nope. I posted a technical news story about a search engine's functioning without mentioning politics or political leanings. You and some others have done your best to shoehorn it into politics using straw man arguments and false accusations because you, and not the OP or the story, are biased.

[Delicieuxz]

33 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Do you even see what press you're quoting yourself?

Yes. There is a mix of left and right-leaning sources there. What you're saying is that you evaluate information based on confirmation bias triggers, and even when they aren't there you just pretend they are to create an excuse to dismiss inconvenient information.

 

Those stories I linked you to are all factual. That you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the inarguable truth confirms what I could already see from your previous postings.

[Delicieuxz]

13 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Do you even see what press you're quoting yourself?

In addition to what I posted above, The Guardian is also the outlet that claimed there were Russian football fans singing Nazi songs at FIFA 2018, when video footage released showing they were actually UK football fans... and then those fans were caught by UK police and charged confirming that The Guardian had been making up anti-Russia lies. They also claimed that a photo posted by Sputnik of the Notre Dame cathedral burning was fake, and then later had to issue an apology when the people who appeared in the photo confirmed it was real. It's a rabidly and perpetually dishonest outlet.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Nope. I posted a technical news story about a search engine's functioning. You and some others have done your best to shoehorn it into politics using straw man arguments and false accusations.

No man, sorry but this is incredibly naive. Things like this are inherently political and the sources you quoted have been ranting for years about this stuff in a very political way. In fact if I recall correctly this isn't the first time you've been quoting heavily right wing sources and then failing to understand the thick political undertones (or pretending to).

 

Try posting a topic about a new power supply, see then how many people try to "shoehorn in" politics. There's a reason this instantly became political and it's not because people are looking for an argument where there isn't one.

13 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

You posting some smear and propaganda articles doesn't constitute an argument to the contrary. Especially when it comes from a crazy hack like Julia Ioffe and The Guardian

Oh, so you can dismiss sources off hand due to (real or perceived) political bias, but when other people call you out for posting that sort of stuff they're seeing politics where there is none? I thought you were all about taking articles at face values and in a vacuum?

[Delicieuxz]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

No man, sorry but this is incredibly naive. Things like this are inherently political and the sources you quoted have been ranting for years about this stuff in a very political way.

This is coming from the person who incorrectly assumed I am right-wing and that the OP was about arguing that there's a conspiracy against right-wing news. You're blinded by your bias.

 

Quote

In fact if I recall correctly this isn't the first time you've been quoting heavily right wing sources and then failing to understand the thick political undertones (or pretending to).

Yet I am not right-wing. Actually, I've quoted sources from all over the spectrum and including nowhere on it. I don't identify myself by a political leaning - I think it's crazy to. That you are triggered by non-political information that doesn't validate your own biases suggests you are hyper-partisan at all times.

 

Quote

Try posting a topic about a new power supply, see then how many people try to "shoehorn in" politics. There's a reason this instantly became political and it's not because people are looking for an argument where there isn't one.

It's because some people are looking for an argument where there isn't one, and some people are so consumed and driven by their biases that they can't stand to have them not be pandered to wherever they detect a faint possibility for it.

 

Quote

Oh, so you can dismiss sources off hand due to (real or perceived) political bias, but when other people call you out for posting that sort of stuff they're seeing politics where there is none? I thought you were all about taking articles at face values and in a vacuum?

Another straw man: I didn't accuse those sources of political bias, but of being hacks and propaganda. Though, considering they are attacking a news site over its political reporting, it kind of implies they are containing a political bias. However, I didn't bring those articles or even that topic up, so direct your criticism towards Cora_Lie and yourself, where it belongs.

 

Also, talk about false equivalency. A news item about the manipulation of a search engine that many people here are using regularly is non-political, but is technical. Attack articles against a news outlet over its political reporting, specifically calling it a "Kremlin propaganda channel", are obviously talking about politics by design. It's ridiculous that you're feigning ignorance to that fact.

[Guest]

I never considered The Guardian as being an unbiaised newspaper, and I don't think you can quote me anywhere writing that.

What I find interesting on the other hand is that you use me linking an article written by someone else in that newspaper to determine/"prove" that I am biaised, pro-left, etc.

Well... In another I myself talked about my "socialist side", I know perfectly where my political preferences stand, but I am also perfectly able to see both sides of the coin and stand on the middle...  Keep in mind expression I use quite often "critical thinking" and being objective.

 

Now... Disguizing alt-right discourse and arguments in the form of an analysis and using dubious sources while calling them "facts" is at a minimum hypocritical in nature.

 

The other thing I find interesting is also that in your original post you yourself wrote that you were aware of the political aspect of your post and were letting the mods be judges to lock or not the post. And now you are accusing others of turning your post into a political subject.

Explain to me how you make the disctinction between the cause and the effect here?

 

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

This is coming from the person who incorrectly assumed I am right-wing

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are it's a duck even if it doesn't know it.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

I never considered The Guardian as being an unbiaised newspaper, and I don't think you can quote me anywhere writing that.

You cited The Guardian as a definitive source for an argument of yours, and I pointed out the flaw in that argument by showing some of the much worse things The Guardian is confirmed to be guilty of, including specifically on the topic which you were using The Guardian as an authority for.

 

Quote

What I find interesting on the other hand is that you use me linking an article written by someone else in that newspaper to determine/"prove" that I am biaised, pro-left, etc.

Where did that happen? It was your baseless dismissal of information that I called out. And I haven't called you "pro-left". You're just making things up.

 

Quote

Well... In another I myself talked about my "socialist side", I know perfectly where my political preferences stand, but I am also perfectly able to see both sides of the coin and stand on the middle...  Keep in mind expression I use quite often "critical thinking" and being objective.

How interesting, but non-evidenced. Also, your political leaning is not my concern.

 

Quote

Now... Disguizing alt-right discourse and arguments in the form of an analysis and using dubious sources while calling them "facts" is at a minimum hypocritical in nature.

Which hasn't happened. If you frame truth as enemy (whether you choose to call it alt-right or anything else), then you will never be able to have it in you or be on the side of it.

 

Quote

The other thing I find interesting is also that in your original post you yourself wrote that you were of the political aspect of your post

I did not. Stop lying.

 

Quote

and were letting the mods be judges to lock or not the post. And now you are accusing others of turning your post into a political subject.

What you're doing is creating chaos in a thread to destroy it because you have no control over your biases.

[Delicieuxz]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are it's a duck even if it doesn't know it.

That you polarize everything you hear into 'left' or 'right', and feel compelled to attack and smear anything that doesn't polarize to your position, speaks of a serious issue within yourself.

[Blademaster91]

27 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Also, talk about false equivalency. A news item about the manipulation of a search engine that many people here are using regularly is non-political, but is technical. Attack articles against a news outlet over its political reporting, specifically calling it a "Kremlin propaganda channel", are obviously talking about politics by design. It's ridiculous that you're feigning ignorance to that fact.

Google filtering out and outright censoring search results isn't anything new, but apparently it's fine when those results don't fit a persons certain political leaning.

19 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

The other thing I find interesting is also that in your original post you yourself wrote that you were aware of the political aspect of your post and were letting the mods be judges to lock or not the post. And now you are accusing others of turning your post into a political subject.

Explain to me how you make the disctinction between the cause and the effect here?

 

 Thats because to post news you have to give your own opinion in the OP, which in this thread seems hardly politically charged to me,compared to people that felt the need to rush in and say "no you're wrong and that's just right wing nonsense", and make this thread pure political left vs. right bs without putting up any better sources themselves to prove their point.