White House investigating Google after Trump accuses it of bias

[gk10002000]

all search engines have "bisases".  It is inherent in their design.  Some do context matching attempts, some do simple number of hits matching, etc.  All newspapers, radio and tv stations have things similar to editors in chief and those editors edit material for content or publication.  Some agencies openly state their bias, left wing, right wing, republican or democrat, against any form of government or whatever.  Welcome to Free speech

[alocacoc]

Trump Has Changed How Teens View the News

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/trump-has-changed-how-teens-view-the-news/568783/

 

If so, that's good. Very good. Nice to see when youngsters start to use their brain.

 

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, alocacoc said:

Trump Has Changed How Teens View the News

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/trump-has-changed-how-teens-view-the-news/568783/

 

If so, that's good. Very good. Nice to see when youngsters start to use their brain.

Alternate POV would say youngsters brainwashed by the leader of the idiocracy - Trump

[UncleTouchyFingers]

Its high time for an Internet Bill of Rights. 

 

The biggest tech companies have a monopoly over the internet and the free flow of information and speech. 

 

 

 

 

[mtls2005]

1 hour ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Its high time for an Internet Bill of Rights. 

 

The biggest tech companies have a monopoly over the internet and the free flow of information and speech. 

 

 

 

 

 

What is an Internet Bill of Rights?

 

No one really has a monopoly "over the internet". You can use DuckDuckGo if you want.

 

What am I missing? Was this covered on Fox Opinion recently? If so, just link to the video, if you can find it.

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 12:17 PM, Esso49 said:

Whilst no doubt Twitter and Facebook most certainly will allow anything to get money from anybody,  until that is they are shamed by other media,  I can not help thinking that the only reason Trump is raising the issue is solely the fact they will not bow to his political pressure and only allow posts that are  complimentary to him. Narcissus personified.   Mind you FB and Twitter do have a lot to answer for.

I'm convinced that their search engine doesn't show some pro Trump sites. Many times I've tried to follow up on something I've seen, and google doesn't come up with anything about it.

As the largest search engine on the planet, they have an obligation to be unbiased.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Alternate POV would say youngsters brainwashed by the leader of the idiocracy - Trump

I'll agree to brainwashed youngsters, but not as to those doing the brainwashing.

There seems to be a surfeit of young people that refuse to allow any speech that they don't approve of, and it certainly isn't conservative speech that they want to hear. 

[mtls2005]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm convinced that their search engine doesn't show some pro Trump sites. Many times I've tried to follow up on something I've seen, and google doesn't come up with anything about it.

 

Can you share an example that supports your "conviction"?

 

Google can't read your mind so you have to use the proper search criteria.

 

Pro-tRUmp websites come up for me when I'm trying to figure out why he tweeted some cray-cray thing. But the Russian websites don't come up. Sad.

 

Have you tried other search engines? Do they also "hide" what you're looking for?

 

Note that the really dark-web stuff you may be looking for is not indexed.

 

 

https://searchenginewatch.com/2018/05/21/no-need-for-google-12-alternative-search-engines-in-2018/

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Can you share an example that supports your "conviction"?

 

Google can't read your mind so you have to use the proper search criteria.

 

Pro-tRUmp websites come up for me when I'm trying to figure out why he tweeted some cray-cray thing. But the Russian websites don't come up. Sad.

 

Have you tried other search engines? Do they also "hide" what you're looking for?

 

Note that the really dark-web stuff you may be looking for is not indexed.

 

 

https://searchenginewatch.com/2018/05/21/no-need-for-google-12-alternative-search-engines-in-2018/

 

It's not possible to prove a negative, and I don't have access to the boffins that write the code that google uses to know what they do. However, I've not found what I was looking for often enough to be suspicious. Plenty of the opposing viewpoint comes up though.

[johnnybangkok]

10 hours ago, uncleeagle said:

He didnt express a 50s view and it isnt true that women are biased because of male oppression or being told they cant do X but they can do Y. The same biases exist in countries such as Sweden which have been pushing hard line gender equality and opportunity for decades. His view simply reflected known and accepted scientific fact that biological differences exist and men and women do not make the same choices. 

 

He was fired for stating accepted scientific fact...science of the 2000s not the 1950s.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be somewhat obsessed by this one person despite the fact that Google employs 85,000 people.... but I'll answer yours and this guy's obvious gender bias. 

The real truth is there is no scientific reasoning or fact to back up your or this idiots bias with the closest you will get being either nature v nurture (women are pigeon-holed more easily through nurture) or physical (we all accept that women cannot physically perform the same as men). There is no basis in science to say that women cannot do what men can do cerebrally.  The engineer in question wrote a 10 page memo arguing that  'The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes... "  He was then sacked because this went against Google's code of conduct by "advancing incorrect assumptions about gender". Now if you can produce a peer reviewed science paper confirming this guys bias then I'll gladly  take this all back but with the exception of spatial awareness, you will find nothing that says men perform better than women in any cerebral capacity.

Getting back to the topic of this discussion though.

Whilst doing a bit of research to counter-argue your points I Googled 'Googles sacks employee' and despite this being controversial for Google the search results came up with literally pages upon pages of results. If you then want to follow this to it's logical conclusion, Trump's moan that Google is manipulating it's search results to reflect badly on himself and stifle right wing commentary doesn't pass muster as wouldn't they start this supposed censoring by getting rid of less than complimentary articles about themselves? You can test this with other searches too. Try:

'Google a terrible place to work' or 'I hate Google' or anything derogatory against them. The results still come up because there is no bias. The reason Trump gets such bad results is simply because most people hate him. And Google records that and gives you an accurate result. 

It's that simple. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You seem to be somewhat obsessed by this one person despite the fact that Google employs 85,000 people.... but I'll answer yours and this guy's obvious gender bias. 

The real truth is there is no scientific reasoning or fact to back up your or this idiots bias with the closest you will get being either nature v nurture (women are pigeon-holed more easily through nurture) or physical (we all accept that women cannot physically perform the same as men). There is no basis in science to say that women cannot do what men can do cerebrally.  The engineer in question wrote a 10 page memo arguing that  'The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes... "  He was then sacked because this went against Google's code of conduct by "advancing incorrect assumptions about gender". Now if you can produce a peer reviewed science paper confirming this guys bias then I'll gladly  take this all back but with the exception of spatial awareness, you will find nothing that says men perform better than women in any cerebral capacity.

Getting back to the topic of this discussion though.

Whilst doing a bit of research to counter-argue your points I Googled 'Googles sacks employee' and despite this being controversial for Google the search results came up with literally pages upon pages of results. If you then want to follow this to it's logical conclusion, Trump's moan that Google is manipulating it's search results to reflect badly on himself and stifle right wing commentary doesn't pass muster as wouldn't they start this supposed censoring by getting rid of less than complimentary articles about themselves? You can test this with other searches too. Try:

'Google a terrible place to work' or 'I hate Google' or anything derogatory against them. The results still come up because there is no bias. The reason Trump gets such bad results is simply because most people hate him. And Google records that and gives you an accurate result. 

It's that simple. 

 

Not so simple. If google was unbiased against Trump, plenty of positive sites would also come up, and that doesn't appear to happen when I've gone looking. 

They'd be really stupid to censor results unfavourable to themselves as that would just be adding proof to the supposition.

 

As for women  not being as physical as men- not always so. I hope the women in the military can pass the same physical as the men, or they shouldn't be anywhere near a combat situation.

Also, I worked in a female dominated occupation for 24 years and they  can be just as horrible as men. Some of the nastiest people I had the misfortune to work with/ for were women.

[Becker]

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not possible to prove a negative, and I don't have access to the boffins that write the code that google uses to know what they do. However, I've not found what I was looking for often enough to be suspicious. 

Maybe because it's not there at all?

[mtls2005]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not possible to prove a negative, and I don't have access to the boffins that write the code that google uses to know what they do. However, I've not found what I was looking for often enough to be suspicious. Plenty of the opposing viewpoint comes up though.

 

Surely you can share a recent search, then others can try to replicate the censorship you seem to be experiencing? Yes? No?

 

Just tell us what you were looking for?

[watcharacters]

On 8/29/2018 at 8:23 AM, jimmyyy said:

Thank you for your question fine sir.  Search Jobs for protesters on duck duck go, or that other evil company that has a search browser.  They pay 15.00 an hour plus miles, to protest against trump.  Do some research who is paying those fees, and in a few hours you will find a soros funded charity or NGO footing the bill. 

 

 

On 8/29/2018 at 8:49 AM, jimmyyy said:

On 8/29/2018 at 8:20 AM, attrayant said:

 

 

On 8/29/2018 at 8:44 AM, Becker said:

Or I could just do a search on paranoia and other related mental illnesses.

perhaps you could find a cure for the liberals. 

 

Becker was merely trying to help you.   No need to attack liberals.

 

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Surely you can share a recent search, then others can try to replicate the censorship you seem to be experiencing? Yes? No?

 

Just tell us what you were looking for?

Perhaps he typed in "intelligent people who admire Donald Trump" and got nothing back.  Sad!

[billd766]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm convinced that their search engine doesn't show some pro Trump sites. Many times I've tried to follow up on something I've seen, and google doesn't come up with anything about it.

As the largest search engine on the planet, they have an obligation to be unbiased.

 

You could always try a different search engine.  

 

https://www.reliablesoft.net/top-10-search-engines-in-the-world/

 

https://fossbytes.com/google-alternative-best-search-engine/

 

There are many more out there.

 

I used Google to search for them as Google is the search engine that I use.

 

 

[mtls2005]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Perhaps he typed in "intelligent people who admire Donald Trump" and got nothing back.  Sad!

 

"Donald tRUmp" "skinny jeans"?

 

Perhaps what he seeks doesn't exist?

 

PEBCAK, as they say.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm convinced that their search engine doesn't show some pro Trump sites. Many times I've tried to follow up on something I've seen, and google doesn't come up with anything about it.

As the largest search engine on the planet, they have an obligation to be unbiased.

Google has a tendency to base it's rankings on sites that deal with facts.

That'll probably be why you don't see sites that enforce your cognitive dissonance as much as you would like. Best to just stick with your usual Alex Jones, Breitbart and Fox. 

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not so simple. If google was unbiased against Trump, plenty of positive sites would also come up, and that doesn't appear to happen when I've gone looking. 

They'd be really stupid to censor results unfavourable to themselves as that would just be adding proof to the supposition.

 

As for women  not being as physical as men- not always so. I hope the women in the military can pass the same physical as the men, or they shouldn't be anywhere near a combat situation.

Also, I worked in a female dominated occupation for 24 years and they  can be just as horrible as men. Some of the nastiest people I had the misfortune to work with/ for were women.

They speak highly of you too

[johnnybangkok]

4 minutes ago, uncleeagle said:

Prove this tendency as opposed to making it up...youre a left wing troll spouting the usual left wing narrative....youre the modern day equivalent of a Nazi during the time of Hitlers Germany and im sure they virtue signaled and thought they were right too....

Here you go, proof. Something that you seem to be VERY short on with your arguments (rantings).

https://www.link-assistant.com/news/site-quality.html

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 8/29/2018 at 8:09 AM, jimmyyy said:

  They are using their platforms as political tools in order to fix an election for the left.  This is against US election law. 

 

Tell that to the Russians, please!  

[heybruce]

On 8/28/2018 at 9:23 PM, jimmyyy said:

Thank you for your question fine sir.  Search Jobs for protesters on duck duck go, or that other evil company that has a search browser.  They pay 15.00 an hour plus miles, to protest against trump.  Do some research who is paying those fees, and in a few hours you will find a soros funded charity or NGO footing the bill. 

" The claims about a conspiracy to disrupt the Trump campaign lacked any real proof that such a campaign was actually afoot, much less that any figures such George Soros or Republican rival Ted Cruz were behind those efforts. Nearly all these claims pointed to the above-cited Craigslist ads as evidence, but all of those ads simply sought door-to-door canvassers during an election year; none of them advertised positions as paid agitators or protesters."    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm convinced that their search engine doesn't show some pro Trump sites. Many times I've tried to follow up on something I've seen, and google doesn't come up with anything about it.

As the largest search engine on the planet, they have an obligation to be unbiased.

More likely the the "something I've seen" was:

 

1.  So old it is buried deep in the search result.

2.  Not from a credible source.

3.  Inadequately described by you.

[Rimmer]

Multiple personal attacks and abusive posts have been removed, best check your mail box for your suspension!!

[heybruce]

It's interesting how the source of Trump's paranoia divides publications between left and right:   https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/

 

They consider The Economist and Forbes to be "Right" publications.  I am a longtime regular reader of The Economist and don't ever recall reading a pro-Trump article in it.  I've read many detailing his appalling lack of qualifications to be President.  I don't read Forbes regularly but do consider them a reliable source for news and, if I remember correctly, have on occasion referenced them to support past criticism of Trump.

 

Funny, I always though of myself as a rational centrist, now I learn that I'm a conservative Trump hater.  You learn something new all the time.

 

Regarding the article's conclusion that the Google search engine is biased based upon their searches using only the word "Trump"; I have frequently been frustrated in my attempts to find credible news articles using Google on some current hot topic, only to find the results dominated by right-wing opinion and conspiracy theory sites.  Google search results depend not only on what you are searching for, but when you do your search.

[Opl]

Google Trolls Trump By Already Renaming Senate Office Building After John McCain

"At the heart of Trump’s beef with Google is his desire for the American people to only see positive coverage of him. Trump wants state-controlled Internet and media. "

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/29/google-trolls-trump-by-already-renaming-senate-office-building-after-john-mccain.html

[Scott]

On 8/28/2018 at 6:23 PM, jimmyyy said:

Thank you for your question fine sir.  Search Jobs for protesters on duck duck go, or that other evil company that has a search browser.  They pay 15.00 an hour plus miles, to protest against trump.  Do some research who is paying those fees, and in a few hours you will find a soros funded charity or NGO footing the bill. 

Why don't you try something factually correct.   We had a person suspended for a post about paid protestors -- he had posted a copy of the add.   I then called the number.   It wasn't even a functioning number.   None of them are.  

 

If this is some attempt to start that false narrative it will result in a problem.  

 

[Slip]

On 8/29/2018 at 8:23 AM, jimmyyy said:

Thank you for your question fine sir.  Search Jobs for protesters on duck duck go, or that other evil company that has a search browser.  They pay 15.00 an hour plus miles, to protest against trump.  Do some research who is paying those fees, and in a few hours you will find a soros funded charity or NGO footing the bill. 

 

22 minutes ago, Scott said:

Why don't you try something factually correct.   We had a person suspended for a post about paid protestors -- he had posted a copy of the add.   I then called the number.   It wasn't even a functioning number.   None of them are.  

 

If this is some attempt to start that false narrative it will result in a problem.  

 

Trolls gonna troll...

[bendejo]

On 8/28/2018 at 10:06 PM, Foexie said:

You will see:

 

the Russians or North korea will be behind this fake news.

 

Maybe he's giving Hillary and Obama some time off?

Soros:  if it wasn't for Glen Beck no one on the right would have ever heard of him.

 

White House investigating Google after Trump accuses it of bias

Anything that comes from the WH these days should be taken as seriously as something coming from a talking chicken.

 

 

 

[bendejo]

On 8/29/2018 at 2:00 AM, mtls2005 said:

96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

 

That's because only 4% of media outlets report true, factual, un-fake news, among them are Fox, Breitbart, etc  

 

I check Google news daily, and they indeed cite some sources well known to be to the right, such as National Review, The Hill, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, etc.

What must be driving DT nuts even crazier is that these are now critical of him as well.