U.S President Trump: Google ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship.

[First77]

U.S President Trump says Google ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship. Vows to take action

President Donald Trump has accused search giant Google of deliberately highlighting negative news about his administration, and “controlling what we can and cannot see.” Trump vowed that the situation “will be addressed.”

“Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” the president exclaimed via Twitter on Tuesday morning.

https://www.rt.com/usa

[1714164432]

1714164432

[1714164432]

1714164432

[1714164432]

1714164432

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

U.S President Trump claims Google ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship. Vows to take action

President Donald Trump has accused search giant Google of deliberately highlighting negative news about his administration, and “controlling what we can and cannot see.” Trump vowed that the situation “will be addressed.”

“Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” the president exclaimed via Twitter on Tuesday morning.

https://www.rt.com/usa

It's not important who speaks about facts, even if it is the president of the united states of america... present reality can't be changed by the word of anyone.

Trump is fully right, look at what they did when you searched hitlary during the election...

Why was eric schmidt fired?

According to Lapinski, it is notable that Schmidt's resignation was announced mere hours after US President Donald Trump issued an executive order that blocks transactions of the property of persons involved in human rights abuses, human trafficking and corruption.

During the 2016 US presidential race, Schmidt played an instrumental role in Hillary Clinton's campaign, acting as what Lapinski called a "CTO" of the campaign. This became known when Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails were shared on WikiLeaks. The emails revealed Schmidt secretly funded the Groundwork Foundation, a top technology provider for Clinton.

so as we all know what the clinton were up to... how and more importantly why did eric supported her sooo much? Simply asking the question is already eliminating a lot of possibilities.

Google chairman wants to censor the internet for hate speech: ‘Spell check’ for terrorism is needed, says Eric Schmidt

    He says doing this would 'de-escalate tensions on social media'
    But failed to provide any concrete plans on ways this could be done
    It follows an announcement by the White House that it is talking with technology firms to take 'common sense' measures to prevent terrorism
    For more of the latest Google news visit www.dailymail.co.uk/google


Technology groups have a duty to combat terrorism using tools such as a hate speech 'spell checker', according to Google chairman, Eric Schmidt.

could anyone please explain me how you fight terrorism with censorship? I mean those fine gentlemen know exactly what they do, what they want and for what reason, and you want me to be dumb enough to believe the shit that mr schidt says because he has a billionaire? sooo stuuuupid.

this one is interesting : http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/eric-schimdt-penthouse-new-york-photos-apartment.html

what ever anyway...

https://yacy.net/en/index.html





once upon a time I tried to make it work... but didn't persevere enough to see a result... but again it's a promising interesting idea...

I am curious who but the guilty can say that trump is wrong on this issue? no need to be able to make yacy work to understand it...

then what I found really surpising was the reaction of some google employees when they were given the chance to participate in the IA awarness developement... how righteous they pretend to be like...

like bill clinton during his payback speech I guess...

it is sad how a few traitors disposed at critical point can control or at least sabotage entire operations and billions of hours of work... but I guess it's inexperience from the management, specially if they believe that censoring speech is the way to oppose the jihad.

but the truth is some what more sinister, about protecting some dirty secrets... what is yaci knowing that google doesn't display (because it logs everything it can:)).

how to save google? the first step is to understand what is going on, who is black mailed, who has dirt on whom, and what are the real allegiance inside the company... at least it is always possible to revert to an old snapshot of the code before the agents of hillary and her gangs skewed the results...

and maybe see about the issue about demonetization, I am sorry but I am sure that some non globalists affiliated small brands would love to advertize on all channels, and refusing them to be able to generate ads revenues is a crime against the shareholders... there isn't only P&G and pepsi in life...

and use bookmarks... no need to query the loggers.

[suchmoon]

That's disappointing. I was quite sure that Trump uses Bing.

[vy99]

U.S President Trump claims Google ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship. Vows to take action

President Donald Trump has accused search giant Google of deliberately highlighting negative news about his administration, and “controlling what we can and cannot see.” Trump vowed that the situation “will be addressed.”

“Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” the president exclaimed via Twitter on Tuesday morning.

https://www.rt.com/usa

First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.

Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

[Spendulus]

....
First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.

Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

I've definitely seen rigged Google results. It's been noted on this forum in the past. But certainly you can not say "xyz uses algorithms that can't be rigged" unless you can present the algorithms for examination and prove that those were the routines used for a given search. You can do neither.

On your second claim I'm quite dubious.

Please take a moment to review this snip. It's exactly when an internet service starts to EDIT communications it is acting as an "Internet Content Provider", and it no longer has the immunity provided under the Communications Decency Act (USA law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)


In February 2012, the Ninth Circuit decided in THE FOLLOWING 2008 RULING, that Roommates.com did not violate the FHA because Roommate selection is protected under the first amendment and dismissed the case. This decision did not find the prior 2008 ruling to be reversed Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 2012 WL 310849 (9th Cir. February 2, 2012).
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).[57]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected immunity for the Roommates.com roommate matching service for claims brought under the federal Fair Housing Act[58] and California housing discrimination laws.[59] The court concluded that the manner in which the service elicited information from users concerning their roommate preferences (by having dropdowns specifying gender, presence of children, and sexual orientation), and the manner in which it utilized that information in generating roommate matches (by eliminating profiles that did not match user specifications), the matching service created or developed the information claimed to violate the FHA, and thus was responsible for it as an "information content provider."

[vy99]

....
First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.

Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

I've definitely seen rigged Google results. It's been noted on this forum in the past. But certainly you can not say "xyz uses algorithms that can't be rigged" unless you can present the algorithms for examination and prove that those were the routines used for a given search. You can do neither.

The question is, is what you're seeing "rigged" from Google themselves or is the algorithm being manipulated externally? Because it's definitely possible to do the latter. If I make a post saying "Keanu Reeves is the best actor" and I'm able to send it around and people share it and link it around then in a couple weeks when someone types "who is the best actor?" into Google, Keanu Reeves will pop up. It doesn't mean that it was rigged internally from Google, it just means the algorithm was manipulated.

Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

[Spendulus]

....
First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.

Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

I've definitely seen rigged Google results. It's been noted on this forum in the past. But certainly you can not say "xyz uses algorithms that can't be rigged" unless you can present the algorithms for examination and prove that those were the routines used for a given search. You can do neither.

The question is, is what you're seeing "rigged" from Google themselves or is the algorithm being manipulated externally? Because it's definitely possible to do the latter. If I make a post saying "Keanu Reeves is the best actor" and I'm able to send it around and people share it and link it around then in a couple weeks when someone types "who is the best actor?" into Google, Keanu Reeves will pop up. It doesn't mean that it was rigged internally from Google, it just means the algorithm was manipulated.

Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

This is an interesting question because otherwise intelligent people are willing to BELIEVE that Google is impartial, or they are not.

Neither you or I would accept that with a random number generator in a crypto program we use to create private keys. We would require it to be open source and subject to review.

Now, having said that, let me ask a simple question. What do you KNOW, versus what do you BELIEVE?

Side note: We KNOW Twitter and Facebook act against conservative writers, it is not a belief.

[vy99]

....
First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.

Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

I've definitely seen rigged Google results. It's been noted on this forum in the past. But certainly you can not say "xyz uses algorithms that can't be rigged" unless you can present the algorithms for examination and prove that those were the routines used for a given search. You can do neither.

The question is, is what you're seeing "rigged" from Google themselves or is the algorithm being manipulated externally? Because it's definitely possible to do the latter. If I make a post saying "Keanu Reeves is the best actor" and I'm able to send it around and people share it and link it around then in a couple weeks when someone types "who is the best actor?" into Google, Keanu Reeves will pop up. It doesn't mean that it was rigged internally from Google, it just means the algorithm was manipulated.

Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

This is an interesting question because otherwise intelligent people are willing to BELIEVE that Google is impartial, or they are not.

Neither you or I would accept that with a random number generator in a crypto program we use to create private keys. We would require it to be open source and subject to review.

Now, having said that, let me ask a simple question. What do you KNOW, versus what do you BELIEVE?

Well I can't sit here and pretend I KNOW 100% about Google but I do have experience with their algorithms and I've seen first-hand how it can be manipulated. If someone puts in enough effort and money they can easily change the search results to suit their needs.

If I'm Trump I wouldn't be worried so much about Google the company I'd be looking into who/what is behind the search manipulation (if there's anyone).

[suchmoon]

This is an interesting question because otherwise intelligent people are willing to BELIEVE that Google is impartial, or they are not.

I would be far more worried if Google attempted to be "impartial" by giving some sort of "equalization" to e.g. bad and good news on a certain topic.

Side note: We KNOW Twitter and Facebook act against conservative writers, it is not a belief.

Who's "we"? This sounds very much like a belief unless you can provide data and stats (not anecdotes) to support that. I have a feeling though that just like with Google, it's not really possible for an outsider to obtain such proof. However you (or "we") can choose a different platform or search engine to use - one that is neutral, or even one that favors conservative writers, if that's what you prefer.

[First77]

Well I can't sit here and pretend I KNOW 100% about Google but I do have experience with their algorithms and I've seen first-hand how it can be manipulated. If someone puts in enough effort and money they can easily change the search results to suit their needs.  If I'm Trump I wouldn't be worried so much about Google the company I'd be looking into who/what is behind the search manipulation (if there's anyone).

Google may not be scam but yesterday U.S President said  "google search results are bad and unreliable. Good websites are not shown in top 10 of google".

In other words of U.S President 'do not use google.com"

[InvoKing]

He can't use his brain correctly then why should someone blame him about accusing everyone of censoring him!
Trump act like this :
1- This person/organisation spread good news about me and think I am good then I will like it.
2- This person/organisation doesn't support me publicly or criticised me or is talking about my shameful storieS then I will attack it at every opportunity. Comey, Jeff Sessions, Mueller, CNN, Google... The list is still getting bigger and bigger...

[Kofiy]

If this claim is true, what can the president do? Can he sue Google ?

[Brian_Hunt]

Tech giants are actually getting too powerful in recent times. Though, Trump's word can't be taken for what it is. We still cannot deny the possible presence of some truth in these allegations. It is no news that the media has deliberately targeted Trump even from the onset of his campaign. And I wouldn't be surprised if the tech world has joined as most of them have been very vocal in criticizing him. He has however made himself a very easy prey too. But when he says he will take action, what does he have in mind? Is he going to sue the company? Or is he hoping to sign some new executive order concerning censorship on the internet?

[vy99]

Well I can't sit here and pretend I KNOW 100% about Google but I do have experience with their algorithms and I've seen first-hand how it can be manipulated. If someone puts in enough effort and money they can easily change the search results to suit their needs.  If I'm Trump I wouldn't be worried so much about Google the company I'd be looking into who/what is behind the search manipulation (if there's anyone).

Google may not be scam but yesterday U.S President said  "google search results are bad and unreliable. Good websites are not shown in top 10 of google".

In other words of U.S President 'do not use google.com"

Do you always do what the President tells you to do?

[First77]

He can't use his brain correctly then why should someone blame him about accusing everyone of censoring him!

google search results could be rigged to give boost to google adsense websites or google results are bad and unreliable.

[InvoKing]

He can't use his brain correctly then why should someone blame him about accusing everyone of censoring him!

google search results could be rigged to give boost to google adsense websites or google results are bad and unreliable.

I agree, Google has some limit and even some censorship but this isn't the spirit of what Trump is seeking. The worst POTUS wants to see people blindly supporting him, as said before he wants loyal citizens just like any other dictator. Hopefully, we aren't anymore in 1939...

[First77]

I agree, Google has some limit and even some censorship but this isn't the spirit of what Trump is seeking. The worst POTUS wants to see people blindly supporting him, as said before he wants loyal citizens just like any other dictator. Hopefully, we aren't anymore in 1939...

Google tracking users & using it for adsense/google ads ??

I was on real estate website magicbricks.com and I searched for "panvel navi mumbai". Next day when I was on other websites, I was getting google ads for "magicbricks panvel properties". The same happened to me after my search on amazon.com for chairs, clothes etc..

[Spendulus]

He can't use his brain correctly then why should someone blame him about accusing everyone of censoring him!

google search results could be rigged to give boost to google adsense websites or google results are bad and unreliable.

I agree, Google has some limit and even some censorship but this isn't the spirit of what Trump is seeking. The worst POTUS wants to see people blindly supporting him, as said before he wants loyal citizens just like any other dictator. Hopefully, we aren't anymore in 1939...

Try it yourself.

Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.

Then try "Trump cri".

Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there.  Right out in the open.

[suchmoon]

Try it yourself.

Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.

Then try "Trump cri".

Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there.  Right out in the open.

Or perhaps autocomplete reflects what people are searching for most often. But that wouldn't make a good conspiracy theory.

BTW I got "Hillary Clinton cries" and "Trump Crimea" so not sure what your point really is.

[First77]

Do you always do what the President tells you to do?

Stock markets do what U.S President tells them to do. Google, Facebook, Apple Inc. Amazon going back to $200 billion

[zcooipo]

I think that most of the websites now have such problems, "manipulating search results," but they need evidence to sanction them. Where is the evidence?

[Spendulus]

Try it yourself.

Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.

Then try "Trump cri".

Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there.  Right out in the open.

Or perhaps autocomplete reflects what people are searching for most often. But that wouldn't make a good conspiracy theory.

BTW I got "Hillary Clinton cries" and "Trump Crimea" so not sure what your point really is.

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

Anybody that does not believe that Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter do not actively censor, shadow ban, preferentially auto complete, and use all other tactics in their book to promote their own ideology is foolish. But try it out yourself, don't take anyone's word for it.

And remember, it's not who they discriminate against today. It's the fact that tomorrow, it could be you.

[suchmoon]

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

Do you have data to support that? I wouldn't search for either of those but I'm not going to say NEVER. Someone could have searched for Hillary crying about losing the election. And perhaps "crimes" isn't such a hot topic outside of your bubble, or maybe people search for more specific terms. You can't seriously use autocomplete as some sort of proof of bias. Just ask Santorum.

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

I didn't look much further down the list but I think I had "Trump crime" at #3 or 4. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Even Fox News can have "Trump" and "crime" in a header and it could be about Trump being tough on crime.

[First77]

Looks like Google CEO will be fired from the job  

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

Try it yourself.

Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.

Then try "Trump cri".

Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there.  Right out in the open.

Or perhaps autocomplete reflects what people are searching for most often. But that wouldn't make a good conspiracy theory.

BTW I got "Hillary Clinton cries" and "Trump Crimea" so not sure what your point really is.

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

Anybody that does not believe that Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter do not actively censor, shadow ban, preferentially auto complete, and use all other tactics in their book to promote their own ideology is foolish. But try it out yourself, don't take anyone's word for it.

And remember, it's not who they discriminate against today. It's the fact that tomorrow, it could be you.

or your daughter when she escape alive a pedo island and try to speak out about those who raped her... it's war, don't forget it. and in all wars there are the propagandists of the other side trying to demoralize and justify their actions... prime targets, there are a few here... pity, mery or tolerance is for the weak, their deaths is the only appropriate answer...

nice video about the union speech made by the wh : https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034907478566359041/video/1  (from here https://www.infowars.com/trump-provides-example-of-google-bias-after-being-called-liar/ )

and what about the splinter cell at the cia setup by obama? there, there is no other choice but to death squad them on the american soil, does haspel has what it takes to clean the mess? it should already be done by now... traitors must die.

[Spendulus]

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

Do you have data to support that? I wouldn't search for either of those but I'm not going to say NEVER. Someone could have searched for Hillary crying about losing the election. And perhaps "crimes" isn't such a hot topic outside of your bubble, or maybe people search for more specific terms. You can't seriously use autocomplete as some sort of proof of bias. Just ask Santorum.

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

I didn't look much further down the list but I think I had "Trump crime" at #3 or 4. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Even Fox News can have "Trump" and "crime" in a header and it could be about Trump being tough on crime.

Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers.

Check this article as one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

[KingScorpio]

trump = us president that believes in kapitalism but effectivly does communism.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

trump = us president that believes in kapitalism but effectivly does communism.

trump = defend free speech and try to avoid the necessary killing
obama = create splinter cia cell to destroy and erase all opposition to his ambitions... by destroying the first amendement (to get the second, 3,4,5,etc) until they get run pedo mcmansion us wide with epstein and weinstein as ceos.

they must hate trump because the only way to buy him is to offer him AGA, aka, American Great Again, but those traitors want exactly the opposite.

they hate him sooooo much... they have nothing to bribe him, and threats are quite difficult to foment against a potus... but since there is a splinter cell at the cia, extreme caution and annihilation death squad should be roving above the traitors mansion and cleaning the kill list fast... there is not much time (or maybe I am just to cautionnary).

ps it's a full on war.

[Spendulus]

....
Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

There's apparently a rule at Google that they try to not show negative results about a person when that is a search for the person by name.

It's pretty much certain they followed this rule / are following this rule with Hillary but not with Trump.

It's not "just how it works." It's intentional manipulation by the Google staff. It may not be company policy, entirely possible it's just the sort of people they get from the local community.

[GreenBits]

....
Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

There's apparently a rule at Google that they try to not show negative results about a person when that is a search for the person by name.

It's pretty much certain they followed this rule / are following this rule with Hillary but not with Trump.

It's not "just how it works." It's intentional manipulation by the Google staff. It may not be company policy, entirely possible it's just the sort of people they get from the local community.

Or, is there even the remote possibility that the overwhelming majority of copy generated about President Trump is simply negative? You can't draw blood from a stone. The media does not like the POTUS; and 'liberal' (read - anti Trump) media is much more ubiquitous than the quasi conservative echo chambers. So, when you roll the Google dice re:Trump, you are most likely to hit shit, as this is the majority of the content available.

I say quasi conservative cuz this thing that Trump and his followers are doing is SO far from conservatism. I miss traditional, small gov, fiscally responsible conservatism. It's gone the way of the dodo as of late.

Props to the moderator here. I remember this sub being the Wild West  Missed all you guys!

[suchmoon]

Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers.

Check this article as one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

The only somewhat credible example in that article was "Donald Trump is dead" although it's not exactly negative in the same sense as "crime" or "lie" or "putin's puppet" - which is a real autocomplete from Bing BTW. I tried "Donald Trump is dead" and I got a snopes fact-check (spoiler alert: Trump is not really dead).

The rest of it was comparing Google to Bing/Yahoo even though Google clearly stated that they filter off negative autocompletes so of course Bing/Yahoo will show more garbage.

But thanks for some good laughs. I recommend trying Bing with:

chuck schumer is
paul ryan is
betsy devos is
nancy pelosi is

[Spendulus]

Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers.

Check this article as one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

The only somewhat credible example in that article was "Donald Trump is dead" although it's not exactly negative in the same sense as "crime" or "lie" or "putin's puppet" - which is a real autocomplete from Bing BTW. I tried "Donald Trump is dead" and I got a snopes fact-check (spoiler alert: Trump is not really dead).

The rest of it was comparing Google to Bing/Yahoo even though Google clearly stated that they filter off negative autocompletes so of course Bing/Yahoo will show more garbage.

But thanks for some good laughs. I recommend trying Bing with:

chuck schumer is
paul ryan is
betsy devos is
nancy pelosi is

There are many other examples besides Epstein's work, but may I suggest a reasonable approach to this whole issue?

It would be to not believe a single word Google, Youtube, Facebook or Twitter says about their "Unbias," and simply assume they are totally evil in their intentions, until and if proven otherwise by examination of the algorithms.

This is what we do with crypto.

You can't go wrong with this approach.

[suchmoon]

There are many other examples besides Epstein's work, but may I suggest a reasonable approach to this whole issue?

It would be to not believe a single word Google, Youtube, Facebook or Twitter says about their "Unbias," and simply assume they are totally evil in their intentions, until and if proven otherwise by examination of the algorithms.

This is what we do with crypto.

You can't go wrong with this approach.

Sounds like a plan. I may disagree on how this "evil" manifests itself but I can agree on not trusting giant corporations.

[Spendulus]

There are many other examples besides Epstein's work, but may I suggest a reasonable approach to this whole issue?

It would be to not believe a single word Google, Youtube, Facebook or Twitter says about their "Unbias," and simply assume they are totally evil in their intentions, until and if proven otherwise by examination of the algorithms.

This is what we do with crypto.

You can't go wrong with this approach.

Sounds like a plan. I may disagree on how this "evil" manifests itself but I can agree on not trusting giant corporations.

Understood. But verifying and confirming the operation of an algorithm knows no political approach.

And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....

Related. I read when looking into this subject, that if you type into Google "I want to kill myself," that one of the standard responses is a line to a suicide hotline. That's likely an unqualified social good. I'm sure there are other cases like that....

[tvbcof]

...
And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....
...

Actually Google (and Google nearly alone) 'took a stand' against China and their social engineering prerogatives back about 8 years ago IIRC.  They pitched a bitch when they discovered a certain form of hacking and bailed out of the country closing some offices in the process.  That's the way I remember it, and I don't remember it being secret info.  None of the other biggies (Facefuck, Microsuck, etc) had the guts to do this.

As the years drift by I'm more and more inclined to see Google as straight-up evil and question the 'valiant' things they do/did.  What was the effect of Google bailing?  In fact domestic providers picked up the slack and took social engineering to a new level with 'social credit scores' and what-not.

At this point in time I don't see any reason to doubt that Google would be ga-ga about the idea of social credit scores and chomping at the bit to deploy a solution which involved them on the American people.  Could it be the case that even way back in 2010 Google and China agreed to 'fight' in order to use the Chinese society as a development platform?  Google would have faced a multitude of problems doing so to the American people due to differences in our respective governments and due to the American people having a different sense of right and wrong.  Was Google management as slimy and anti-American 8 years ago as they have been over the last few years?  I personally do not know, but it's a valid question.

[First77]

U.S President is the leader of the free world.

[Spendulus]

...
And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....
...

Actually Google (and Google nearly alone) 'took a stand' against China and their social engineering prerogatives back about 8 years ago IIRC.  They pitched a bitch when they discovered a certain form of hacking and bailed out of the country closing some offices in the process.  That's the way I remember it, and I don't remember it being secret info.  None of the other biggies (Facefuck, Microsuck, etc) had the guts to do this.

As the years drift by I'm more and more inclined to see Google as straight-up evil and question the 'valiant' things they do/did.  What was the effect of Google bailing?  In fact domestic providers picked up the slack and took social engineering to a new level with 'social credit scores' and what-not.

At this point in time I don't see any reason to doubt that Google would be ga-ga about the idea of social credit scores and chomping at the bit to deploy a solution which involved them on the American people.  Could it be the case that even way back in 2010 Google and China agreed to 'fight' in order to use the Chinese society as a development platform?  Google would have faced a multitude of problems doing so to the American people due to differences in our respective governments and due to the American people having a different sense of right and wrong.  Was Google management as slimy and anti-American 8 years ago as they have been over the last few years?  I personally do not know, but it's a valid question.

Maybe it took them a couple of years to get fully corrupt.

But they are now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/01/google-accused-chilling-complicity-china-plans-launch-censored/

[popcorn1]

Google is in bed with the bad government to control your lives        all to suck your monies out your pockets to feed the Clintons and the likes plus themselves ..
If we google keep the political bums happy we will pay less tax get the government contracts this is how these greedy humans thinks..

To MR TRUMPS  set your own political site up were people can speak BUT put an 18 years old warning on it    then we are all adults and can say what we likes..
EVEN bitcointalk  is becoming a government lick ass ..

[Spendulus]

...
And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....
...

.....None of the other biggies (Facefuck, Microsuck....

The sooner these evils are all replaced with peer to peer blockchain derivatives the better off we will all be.

[squatz1]

Even with Trump coming out and saying stuff like this, I don't think there is going to be any regulation when it comes to the search engines -- I think they have the money to lobby the government (at least Congress) into looking the other way while they push forward with their crazy monopoly over the internet.

I know a good amount of people are going to use the 'it's a private company, they can do WHATEVER they want'

Well look at these links and fines and see if that's really acceptable

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/

https://www.politico.eu/pro/russian-antitrust-regulator-rules-against-google-report/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/13/oracle-sues-google-over-android-os and https://www.politico.eu/article/politico-pros-morning-tech-tsm-deal-uber-arrests-anti-google-campaign-software-bundling/

While I'm not usually the one calling for regulation, I do think we're reaching monopoly scale here with Google.....

[Spendulus]

Even with Trump coming out and saying stuff like this, I don't think there is going to be any regulation when it comes to the search engines -- I think they have the money to lobby the government (at least Congress) into looking the other way while they push forward with their crazy monopoly over the internet.

I know a good amount of people are going to use the 'it's a private company, they can do WHATEVER they want'....

These companies reside in far left areas and employ there. Resulting in perhaps 100,000 people of a homogeneous far left mentality employed in filtering content for an America that is very, very diverse and which does NOT want their snowflake politics attitude or decision making.

Effectively these companies were and are pushing a far left political agenda. If I was Google I'd relocate some of the jobs to Kansas and Kentucky, before I was forced to.

Medium term I believe Google is replaceable by peer to peer search engine algorithms.

Meantime they can't be allowed to tilt elections in the USA.

[suchmoon]

Effectively these companies were and are pushing a far left political agenda. If I was Google I'd relocate some of the jobs to Kansas and Kentucky, before I was forced to.

Even in Kansas or Kentucky they would still be employing educated people in urban areas, which would likely sway left. Google already has offices in TX, GA, NC, PA - states that Trump won.

Meantime they can't be allowed to tilt elections in the USA.

Citizens United would probably disagree.

[xtraelv]

I think it is just "alternative facts".

It is well known that google search results depend on your previous search results.

Different people can search google and get a different set of results.



https://microarts.com/insights/why-googles-search-results-vary-from-person-to-person/

[Spendulus]

I think it is just "alternative facts".

It is well known that google search results depend on your previous search results.

Different people can search google and get a different set of results.



https://microarts.com/insights/why-googles-search-results-vary-from-person-to-person/

People that have studied this use scientific methods.

Example, for each search, use a clean computer cleared of cookies and a VPN.

[xtraelv]

I think it is just "alternative facts".

It is well known that google search results depend on your previous search results.

Different people can search google and get a different set of results.



https://microarts.com/insights/why-googles-search-results-vary-from-person-to-person/

People that have studied this use scientific methods.

Example, for each search, use a clean computer cleared of cookies and a VPN.

I realize that but even using a VPN could be affecting the results.

1) A lot of VPN providers are known.

2) VPN IPs are often shared and may skew the results.

https://privacy.google.com/your-data.html
What data is collected:

Things you search for
Websites you visit
Videos you watch
Ads you click on or tap
Your location
Device information
IP address and cookie data

(Your location is also revealed through your system time, OS language and OS version.)

Based on your google account:
Name
Email address and password
Birthday
Gender
Phone number
Country

Device information
Potentially they can collect:
User-Agent, Architecture, OS Language, System Time, Screen Resolution.
https://browserleaks.com/

What about analytics on the pages they visit ? A lot of websites use Javascript to tract for google analytics. This information is likely to be fed back to your google user profiles. https://developers.google.com/analytics/resources/concepts/gaConceptsTrackingOverview

Without knowing their exact methodology and having other researchers check it - I would be skeptical to accept it on face value.

The reason so many people use google is because it gives them the information that they want to see. This is both handy and dangerous.

The reason people use bing is because it is bundled as malware with some software distributions.

The other mentioned search engines are just not in the same league as google. I sometimes check them "just in case" they have indexed something not available on google.

Even using a clean computer can potentially skew the data - because how many people would use a clean computer to search stuff ?

https://privacy.net/analyzer/

Try the Canvas Fingerprinting


EDIT:

I did a totally unscientific test. Didn't clear cookies. (I dislike Trump).

I searched:

Trump
Obama
and Hillary Clinton

The I let auto predict provide the suggestions.

Starting with a to z

Obama a, Obama b, Obama c...

The only abusive suggestion was Obama j = Obama Jackass

The other suggestions were all relevant.

However I did find this:


https://www.etsy.com/shop/spacedoutdesigns?ref=l2-shop-header-avatar

Then I searched:
Obama is a
Trump is a
Clinton is a







The results contradict the covfefe.

[Spendulus]

.....

Without knowing their exact methodology and having other researchers check it - I would be skeptical to accept it on face value.
....

That's pretty funny.

I start out and say "Don't Trust Google" and you are saying "Don't trust people who tell you ... you shouldn't trust google..."

I just tried the auto complete test again.

Hillary cri = NOT ONE of ten about crimes
Trump cri = SIX of ten about crime

Really that's pretty simple, isn't it?

Doing exactly the same thing with Duck-Duck-go, both Trump and Hillary show four of eight responses with the phrase "crime."

[xtraelv]

.....

Without knowing their exact methodology and having other researchers check it - I would be skeptical to accept it on face value.
....

That's pretty funny.

I start out and say "Don't Trust Google" and you are saying "Don't trust people who tell you ... you shouldn't trust google..."

I just tried the auto complete test again.

Hillary cri = NOT ONE of ten about crimes
Trump cri = SIX of ten about crime

Really that's pretty simple, isn't it?

Doing exactly the same thing with Duck-Duck-go, both Trump and Hillary show four of eight responses with the phrase "crime."

Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. He is the type of person who will make up stuff and misuse info for his own agenda and has been caught doing so numerous times.

Research is only reliable if people have been able to check it over. Anyone can finance a study to say anything.
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/

I'm not sure what the obsession is with Clinton but it is no longer a campaign trail. Trump is the serving President . Clinton is not even a federal employee.





No exciting results here.

[suchmoon]

http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/

Thank you. Reading the comments under that story makes me want to apologize to everyone I ever called an idiot on Bitcointalk.

[Spendulus]

...
Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. ....

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

[xtraelv]

...
Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. ....

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

Because Trump is a serving president embroiled in controversy. People close to him  George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates all have been charged / convicted of crimes. Some of those crimes benefited Trump.

Hillary Clinton is no longer in a position of authority. A "has been". Just like people don't write about George W Bush anymore.

The only people that would be interested in Hillary are the people that want to deflect attention from Trump. I doubt that Democrats are googling Hillary. Really - Hillary's computer is old news -  it got boring during the election already. Jared has done almost the same thing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-emails-security-clearances-revoked-democrats-latest-a7986541.html

I've never been to the USA so a lot of American political antics don't affect me but I know he will leave a big mess behind. He breaks relationships with other nations and then expects credit for partly patching it up again.

He might have drained the swamp - but have you ever seen the creatures a freshly drained swamp attracts ?

The attack on the media and now on google I see as an assault onto journalistic speech. That is a worry in any country.

I agree that politicians generally are not to be trusted. It is the only occupation where you can advertise lies and not get shut down by the authorities for false advertising.

[Spendulus]

...
Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. ....

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

Because Trump is a serving president embroiled in controversy. People close to him  George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates all have been charged / convicted of crimes. Some of those crimes benefited Trump.

Hillary Clinton is no longer in a position of authority. A "has been". Just like people don't write about George W Bush anymore.

The only people that would be interested in Hillary are the people that want to deflect attention from Trump. I doubt that Democrats are googling Hillary. Really - Hillary's computer is old news -  it got boring during the election already. Jared has done almost the same thing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-emails-security-clearances-revoked-democrats-latest-a7986541.html

I've never been to the USA so a lot of American political antics don't affect me but I know he will leave a big mess behind. He breaks relationships with other nations and then expects credit for partly patching it up again.

He might have drained the swamp - but have you ever seen the creatures a freshly drained swamp attracts ?

The attack on the media and now on google I see as an assault onto journalistic speech. That is a worry in any country.

I agree that politicians generally are not to be trusted. It is the only occupation where you can advertise lies and not get shut down by the authorities for false advertising.

Here is the problem. When experiments and research in various fields such as psychology and medicine are done, blind and double-blind experimental protocols are used. This means for the blind protocol, that the test operators in contact with the subjects do not know what the purpose is. For the double blind those who supervise the test operators do not know.

These are used because the pervasive effects of bias make accurate findings impossible without the strictest of these protocols.

Now I could argue that your analysis is biased and imperfect. But that's not the point. The point is that the protocols used by the likes of Google and Facebook are biased and imperfect. In other words, you would defend with bias, biased protocols that are in turn the natural output product of biased individuals.

Yet these are the very projects which blind and double blind experimentation is well understood to handle.

There can be no in between. There is only a scientific approach or a biased approach.

There is no defense that can be made by Google without providing facts and algorithms, and that they (apparently) will not do.

We know from the history of cryptography that the algorithms held secret are the easiest to break, or to find flaws in. Those which are published and critiqued repeatedly, right out in the open, are the strongest security methods by far.

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

[suchmoon]

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

Probably not crude / amateurish but quite shitty in many other ways. But what do you suggest - force them to open source it, or force some government regulation of "fairness"? These are private companies. Facebook and Twitter are not really essential to anyone so who cares. Google has a near-monopoly position in search and a duopoly in smartphones so there is quite a bit of government pressure on them already, particularly in Europe.

[Spendulus]

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

Probably not crude / amateurish but quite shitty in many other ways. But what do you suggest - force them to open source it, or force some government regulation of "fairness"? These are private companies. Facebook and Twitter are not really essential to anyone so who cares. Google has a near-monopoly position in search and a duopoly in smartphones so there is quite a bit of government pressure on them already, particularly in Europe.

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

[suchmoon]

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

I mean how do you suggest to actually make it happen. An open source alternative may be better in some ways but that's not a solution, more like a wish. How do we create it and entice people to use it? Government regulation can slap a fine on Google, or ban it, or criminalize its use. Government regulation isn't gonna give you an alternative, let alone a fair one.

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

[Spendulus]

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

I mean how do you suggest to actually make it happen. An open source alternative may be better in some ways but that's not a solution, more like a wish. How do we create it and entice people to use it? Government regulation can slap a fine on Google, or ban it, or criminalize its use. Government regulation isn't gonna give you an alternative, let alone a fair one.

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

First would be attempting to correctly state the problem and the solutions as we have been doing here. Don't underestimate the importance of this simple requirement. Not saying that this is all 100% perfect construction of the issue...

[tvbcof]

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

A 'somewhat' open source solution doesn't cut it from a security perspective.   All that is good for is to get free labor from the naive pool of the high-IQ population who doesn't receive a pay stub from Big Evil.  Here in corp/gov merged 2018, the primary usefulness of such a solution would be to see what is NOT open-sourced to help narrow down where the back-doors are.

[xtraelv]

The sad part is that they are tightening copyright and patents rather than relaxing them.

If there were no patents or copyright then they would be forced to share or develop technology in secret.

Most patents never make it to the market or are used badly. https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17222380/apple-virtnetx-patent-troll-litigation-500-million-imessage-facetime-case

If you ban patents and limit and discourage copyright then the business models would change to open source.

[First77]

Google search showed Indian Prime minister "Narendra Modi" among top 10 criminals in the world. use google.com. How reliable are the tech giants ?

[adamantasaurus]

This is how trump works:

Anything negative about him in the media= fake news/rigged

Anything positive about him= I am smart and you're all dumb.

The audacity of this president I swear to god! haha how can someone that arrogant and just a plain baffoon be allowed to run a country we need a stricter interview process for the president!

[philipma1957]

That's disappointing. I was quite sure that Trump uses Bing.

I make good money searching with bing.

Why would anyone want to use google?

I think Trump uses yahoo as his search engine.

[First77]

First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally. Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

"Do not track" request is enabled in my chrome browser.

I have Kaspersky anti-virus link on my website and yesterday to check the links I clicked them. Today when I am on other websites I am getting google adsense/ads for Kaspersky.

People who click on Kaspersky from my website and they may buy later, they can click on google ads when they see them on other websites.

[Spendulus]

First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally. Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

"Do not track" request is enabled in my chrome browser.

I have Kaspersky anti-virus link on my website and yesterday to check the links I clicked them. Today when I am on other websites I am getting google adsense/ads for Kaspersky.

People who click on Kaspersky from my website and they may buy later, they can click on google ads when they see them on other websites.

It's a common misconception that Google is a private company, so they can do whatever they want. Let's investigate that and see what the facts are. I'll just google the subject....

Anyone see a little problem there?

[xtraelv]

First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally. Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

"Do not track" request is enabled in my chrome browser.

I have Kaspersky anti-virus link on my website and yesterday to check the links I clicked them. Today when I am on other websites I am getting google adsense/ads for Kaspersky.

People who click on Kaspersky from my website and they may buy later, they can click on google ads when they see them on other websites.

Turning off you tracking cookies does not stop google from logging your searches.

https://www.businessinsider.com/even-if-you-cleared-your-history-google-records-your-search-activity-2018-4/?r=AU&IR=T

It's a common misconception that Google is a private company, so they can do whatever they want. Let's investigate that and see what the facts are. I'll just google the subject....

Anyone see a little problem there?

There is quite a bit on google about it.

You could use duckduckgo which is privacy oriented. There are also plenty of other search engines.

Or use a google account with your "nickname", no friends and no personal email.

I have a facebook, twitter, linkedin and google+ with no friends and maximum privacy settings. All of them are parasitic applications that track, sell your private data and block you from viewing content if you don't have them.

I also use a different computer for online activity than the one I use for work  / exchanges & wallets and contemplating getting another for even more hardened security.

Privacy often is also not taken into account by Government departments and authorities. For instance when making a submission on a law change or certain complaints your name is publicly available. Then there are the databases that we don't have access to.  Or private information about us stored by foreign governments.

[First77]

I have a facebook, twitter, linkedin and google+ with no friends and maximum privacy settings. All of them are parasitic applications that track, sell your private data and block you from viewing content if you don't have them.

DO NOT BUY FROM google adsense/google advertisements shown on websites. Google ads are the real problems.

[Spendulus]

First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally. Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.

"Do not track" request is enabled in my chrome browser.

I have Kaspersky anti-virus link on my website and yesterday to check the links I clicked them. Today when I am on other websites I am getting google adsense/ads for Kaspersky.

People who click on Kaspersky from my website and they may buy later, they can click on google ads when they see them on other websites.

Facebook is tracking now, too....

[TECSHARE]

Google got its seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the well known venture capital arm of the CIA. These companies are not private, impartial, or separate from the government by any means.

[Spendulus]

Google got its seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the well known venture capital arm of the CIA. These companies are not private, impartial, or separate from the government by any means.

Look at how I revise your statement.

Google got its seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the well known venture capital arm of the CIA. These companies are not private, impartial, or separate from the governments by any means.

That's 21st century scary.