Google allegedly prevent Trump from winning in 2020, push far left agenda

[PrimeNumber7]

I am surprised to not see any threads about this yet.

Project Veritas recently released hidden cam footage of conversations with Google executive detailing plans to meddle in the 2020 presidential election to prevent Trump from getting reelelcted. The video also features someone who claims to be a google "insider" detailing how Google uses its various search features to push a far left win agenda, such as using "auto complete" to provide suggestions to "men can" such as "can pregnant", "have babies" and "have periods".

James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas has claimed YouTube censored the above referenced video by removing the video from its platform. He has also claimed the project veritas reddit account has been banned very shortly after publishing said video.

US Representative Gohmert of Texas has responded to the video saying, in part:

This video shows Google’s biases are now a threat to a free and fair election

I saw some reports that Project Veritas' website was down earlier in the day, but this might have been fake. As of now, their website is running, and they are hosting the video themselves. I cannot find a way to upload the video here as a mirror.

I think this should concern you, even if you dislike President Trump. It should not be up to a few people inside a monopoly to decide who gets elected and what policies get pushed onto Americans. If you want to change the beliefs of other Americans, you should use persuasion to change my mind, not what amounts to censorship and manipulation. 

[1713912478]

1713912478

[1713912478]

1713912478

[Quickseller]

It seems that google (and other major tech companies) are in fact abusing section 230 of the DCMA.

The tech companies have not quite gotten this bad -- it appears they are moving in this direction -- a company may ban all speech except those derogatory to a certain group of political ideology (or in favor of that groups competitor), and claim the content on their platform is user generated and as such exempt from libel liability. I do not think this is what was intended when section 230 was drafted, I believe the intention was to allow for competing ideas to be published.   

[TECSHARE]

Veristas is doing amazing work. As you can see, mostly as a result of their Pinterest story, there is a tidal wave of whistle blowers emerging, and based on how they are reacting to all of Project Veritas's platforms by trying to silence them, they are terrified of this. I predict we will be seeing lots more leakers, at least up until 2020.

[Astargath]

It seems that google (and other major tech companies) are in fact abusing section 230 of the DCMA.

The tech companies have not quite gotten this bad -- it appears they are moving in this direction -- a company may ban all speech except those derogatory to a certain group of political ideology (or in favor of that groups competitor), and claim the content on their platform is user generated and as such exempt from libel liability. I do not think this is what was intended when section 230 was drafted, I believe the intention was to allow for competing ideas to be published.   

It has been happening since trump got elected, youtube/google, facebook or twitter. All of those are banning people that support trump, youtube is clearly demonetizing trump supporters and conservatives, they are not even hiding it at this point, its blatantly there.

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

[TECSHARE]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

[TECSHARE]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

[mOgliE]

Who would have thought that giving too much power to companies without regulating them is a bad idea?

Incredible no?

[fatnet]

Who would have thought that giving too much power to companies without regulating them is a bad idea?

Incredible no?

corporation called google has too much power?
lets give enough power to corporation called america to destroy it.
lol

[Spendulus]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

Nobody is forbidding them to break existing law.

There are simply clear consequences if they do, and they have.

Nobody is going to prevent them from doing things that cause them to do significant jail time.

[TECSHARE]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

Nobody is forbidding them to break existing law.

There are simply clear consequences if they do, and they have.

Nobody is going to prevent them from doing things that cause them to do significant jail time.

freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

[Spendulus]

...
freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

What you are really saying is (blah-blah-blah) it's okay for Google to dictate the results of the next election.

And no, it's not.

[Mastrhiggins]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

[TECSHARE]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

[Mastrhiggins]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see.

So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing.   Wonder why?

[PrimeNumber7]

Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

This is the classic Libertarian view. I usually am in favor of free markets, but not with the major tech companies. I don’t think these companies are doing business fairly in an objective sense. They earn money via advertising for the most part and mostly do not charge their users. In an open and free market, I would expect to see companies compete with google and other tech companies by paying customers to use their services but we are not seeing that. 

More importantly, google and other tech companies have special protection from the government from legal liability for libel. In exchange for receiving this protection, it should not be unreasonable to expect these companies to be neutral, at least towards mainstream ideas.

[r1s2g3]

Surprising, Are you saying that Trump is not aware of it and did not warn these companies?
I think companies can be held accountable if they are discriminating the user on the basis of their political associations.

[TECSHARE]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see.

So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing.   Wonder why?

Ah, ad hominem attacks, the last bastion of those without any logical argument. It is a fact that illegal aliens are voting even though they are legally prohibited from doing so. This is the main motivation behind issuing them drivers licenses, because many states automatically add people to the voter registration rolls when they apply for one. Russia isn't shipping millions of people into the country to vote. Russia also does not have the power to almost completely silence 50%+ of the population.

[Spendulus]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia .....

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

There are two impacts of flooding our borders with illegal immigrants.

First, there is the certainty that some of these will directly vote, illegally, in our elections.

Second there is a likelihood they will largely be Democratic voters, which would affect outcomes in swing states.

FYI, these are well understood tactics of the US Democratic Party, nothing new at all.

[fatnet]

...
freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

What you are really saying is (blah-blah-blah) it's okay for Google to dictate the results of the next election.

And no, it's not.

they dont dictate, they just express their opinion while not touching anyone who is not using google. you can express your opinion even if u are big and wealthy even if smb like u may think that big and wealthy should be punished for expressing their opinions

[Vishnu.Reang]

If Fox News was doing the same, then I am sure that a lot of the left-wing intellectuals could have gone ballistic. I am from India, and even here we have noticed Google and Facebook shamelessly interfering in local politics. If you check Google News India, it is full of articles from extreme left media outlets such as the Quint, Netional Herald, the Hindu and the Print. You will never find any articles from the most popular Indian media outlets, such as Republic or Swarajya.

[fatnet]

Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

This is the classic Libertarian view. I usually am in favor of free markets, but not with the major tech companies. I don’t think these companies are doing business fairly in an objective sense. They earn money via advertising for the most part and mostly do not charge their users. In an open and free market, I would expect to see companies compete with google and other tech companies by paying customers to use their services but we are not seeing that. 

More importantly, google and other tech companies have special protection from the government from legal liability for libel. In exchange for receiving this protection, it should not be unreasonable to expect these companies to be neutral, at least towards mainstream ideas.

well im not a libertarian you mean but my ethics views are libertarian
any info about prorection they receive from the government? im not trolling, ive never heard it before. if they receive they should just stop receiving it lol.
i know, that big tech companies dont pay taxes not because of laws but because they can, which shows how useless progressive taxation is how bad they are, but you should punish them for not paying taxes, not for banning trump supporters

[PrimeNumber7]

Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

This is the classic Libertarian view. I usually am in favor of free markets, but not with the major tech companies. I don’t think these companies are doing business fairly in an objective sense. They earn money via advertising for the most part and mostly do not charge their users. In an open and free market, I would expect to see companies compete with google and other tech companies by paying customers to use their services but we are not seeing that. 

More importantly, google and other tech companies have special protection from the government from legal liability for libel. In exchange for receiving this protection, it should not be unreasonable to expect these companies to be neutral, at least towards mainstream ideas.

well im not a libertarian you mean but my ethics views are libertarian
any info about prorection they receive from the government? im not trolling, ive never heard it before. if they receive they should just stop receiving it lol.
i know, that big tech companies dont pay taxes not because of laws but because they can, which shows how useless progressive taxation is how bad they are, but you should punish them for not paying taxes, not for banning trump supporters

The protection I am referring to is the protection from libel lawsuits under section 230 of the DCMA. If a tech company displays content that is libelous to a third party, written by another third party, it cannot be sued for libel by the defamed party, even if they are aware of the defamation.

This protection from defamation lawsuits is a key part of tech companies business models because they do not have to validate truth to what they display.

The idea behind this protection is it promotes open and free speech, and debate.

Project Veritas has shown google to removing a portion of free and open debate and speech, while  keeping the low costs and positive user experience associated with not having to moderate content for truth.

Taxation is an entirely different issue. All corporations do their best to pay as little taxes as they can while following the law. If they paid more taxes than the law requires, they would be short-charging their shareholders.  Taxing corporations in the first place is a form of double taxation because owners of corporations will pay taxes on dividends or capital gains, in addition to the corporation paying taxes on its income.

[fatnet]

Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

This is the classic Libertarian view. I usually am in favor of free markets, but not with the major tech companies. I don’t think these companies are doing business fairly in an objective sense. They earn money via advertising for the most part and mostly do not charge their users. In an open and free market, I would expect to see companies compete with google and other tech companies by paying customers to use their services but we are not seeing that. 

More importantly, google and other tech companies have special protection from the government from legal liability for libel. In exchange for receiving this protection, it should not be unreasonable to expect these companies to be neutral, at least towards mainstream ideas.

well im not a libertarian you mean but my ethics views are libertarian
any info about prorection they receive from the government? im not trolling, ive never heard it before. if they receive they should just stop receiving it lol.
i know, that big tech companies dont pay taxes not because of laws but because they can, which shows how useless progressive taxation is how bad they are, but you should punish them for not paying taxes, not for banning trump supporters

The protection I am referring to is the protection from libel lawsuits under section 230 of the DCMA. If a tech company displays content that is libelous to a third party, written by another third party, it cannot be sued for libel by the defamed party, even if they are aware of the defamation.

This protection from defamation lawsuits is a key part of tech companies business models because they do not have to validate truth to what they display.

The idea behind this protection is it promotes open and free speech, and debate.

Project Veritas has shown google to removing a portion of free and open debate and speech, while  keeping the low costs and positive user experience associated with not having to moderate content for truth.

Taxation is an entirely different issue. All corporations do their best to pay as little taxes as they can while following the law. If they paid more taxes than the law requires, they would be short-charging their shareholders.  Taxing corporations in the first place is a form of double taxation because owners of corporations will pay taxes on dividends or capital gains, in addition to the corporation paying taxes on its income.

yeah, thats bad, but, as i said, i would deny section 230 of the DCMA, and force tech companies to pay taxes. forcing them to pay taxes is much more usable

[Cnut237]

Tech companies manipulating voters is not new news. This has been going on for a while. Undoubtedly it is getting worse and is a threat to democracy, but it's far from being a left-wing conspiracy. It's more pro-right-wing if anything. Take the Cambridge Analytica scandal for example. Here's a couple of links from the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

[TheCoinGrabber]

I remember there was a video recording of a female Google executive talking about it's their "responsibility" to make sure another Trump win don't happen in 2020 and that smaller companies don't have the resources to accomplish that.

I just sat here mouth wide-open when I watched it, then it made my blood curdle.

[fatnet]

Tech companies manipulating voters is not new news. This has been going on for a while. Undoubtedly it is getting worse and is a threat to democracy, but it's far from being a left-wing conspiracy. It's more pro-right-wing if anything. Take the Cambridge Analytica scandal for example. Here's a couple of links from the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

>pro-right-wing
yeah, cultural marxism is so right wing
---
threat to a democracy is an existence of democracy

[Spendulus]

Tech companies manipulating voters is not new news. This has been going on for a while. Undoubtedly it is getting worse and is a threat to democracy, but it's far from being a left-wing conspiracy. It's more pro-right-wing if anything. ....

An interesting comment, made on the day that Reddit censored r/Trump.

Every day another conservative voice is being silenced, and you dare to say that?

[Mastrhiggins]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see.

So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing.   Wonder why?

Ah, ad hominem attacks, the last bastion of those without any logical argument. It is a fact that illegal aliens are voting even though they are legally prohibited from doing so. This is the main motivation behind issuing them drivers licenses, because many states automatically add people to the voter registration rolls when they apply for one. Russia isn't shipping millions of people into the country to vote. Russia also does not have the power to almost completely silence 50%+ of the population.

In what quantities do you believe people (not using aliens to demonize them) who came to the country illegally are voting?  What %?  Enough to swing an election?

If it is so rampant how are Republicans in power at all?

[Patarawan]

Tulsi Gabbard did good but the democrats will probably shut her down to push their favorite like they did with Hillary... democrats? they should change name.
Trump do not have to worry...democrats are shooting at each other.

[Spendulus]

....
In what quantities do you believe people (not using aliens to demonize them) who came to the country illegally are voting?  What %?  Enough to swing an election?

If it is so rampant how are Republicans in power at all?

First of all, fuck your lame attempt to be polite and nice and not offend anyone.

The term you are looking for is "illegal alien." Just one example...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

....specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

[Juggy777]

I remember there was a video recording of a female Google executive talking about it's their "responsibility" to make sure another Trump win don't happen in 2020 and that smaller companies don't have the resources to accomplish that.

I just sat here mouth wide-open when I watched it, then it made my blood curdle.

These are the disadvantages of Technology and I’m not surprised Google is indulging in such shady practices, because they know they can easily manipulate the results of the American election. However I don’t understand what’s their problem with Trump, I don’t remember him attacking google in any of his tweets. @TheCoinGrabber there’s nothing we can do about it if Google decides to proceed ahead, except use our own mind and vote for whom we feel is deserving.

[Mastrhiggins]

....
In what quantities do you believe people (not using aliens to demonize them) who came to the country illegally are voting?  What %?  Enough to swing an election?

If it is so rampant how are Republicans in power at all?

First of all, fuck your lame attempt to be polite and nice and not offend anyone.

The term you are looking for is "illegal alien." Just one example...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

....specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

Was this attack really necessary?

They are people just like you and me.   No imaginary line should make them different.  Get over yourself.

Also.  ""Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters"?

Not enough evidence to be conclusive..but ok.

[Spendulus]

....
Was this attack really necessary?

They are people just like you and me.   No imaginary line should make them different.  Get over yourself.

Also.  ""Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters"?

Not enough evidence to be conclusive..but ok.

Yes it was necessary. I have nothing to get over. I'm around these people all the time, and like others, do not need or appreciate being lectured to on how to talk. They respect me and I respect them, and some are good friends.

Just call illegal aliens, illegal aliens. Get over it. It's totally a fantasy of liberal thinking that this is pejorative instead of merely descriptive.

Oh, and that was just one study. There are others. But more alarming is a tacit encouragement by the Democrats that they should vote, and so there is at least partial responsibility there.

[PrimeNumber7]

The protection I am referring to is the protection from libel lawsuits under section 230 of the DCMA. If a tech company displays content that is libelous to a third party, written by another third party, it cannot be sued for libel by the defamed party, even if they are aware of the defamation.

This protection from defamation lawsuits is a key part of tech companies business models because they do not have to validate truth to what they display.

The idea behind this protection is it promotes open and free speech, and debate.

Project Veritas has shown google to removing a portion of free and open debate and speech, while  keeping the low costs and positive user experience associated with not having to moderate content for truth.

Taxation is an entirely different issue. All corporations do their best to pay as little taxes as they can while following the law. If they paid more taxes than the law requires, they would be short-charging their shareholders.  Taxing corporations in the first place is a form of double taxation because owners of corporations will pay taxes on dividends or capital gains, in addition to the corporation paying taxes on its income.

yeah, thats bad, but, as i said, i would deny section 230 of the DCMA, and force tech companies to pay taxes. forcing them to pay taxes is much more usable

There are a couple of lawsuits making their ways through the courts trying to create precedent that various major tech companies are "publishers" under section 230, and there is a small push in congress that would force companies to be politically neutral to get section 230 protections/benefits.

These companies will most probably not operate without section 230 protections, and if there were requirements to keep these protections, the companies would follow these requirements.

[Spendulus]

...There are a couple of lawsuits making their ways through the courts trying to create precedent that various major tech companies are "publishers" under section 230, and there is a small push in congress that would force companies to be politically neutral to get section 230 protections/benefits.

These companies will most probably not operate without section 230 protections, and if there were requirements to keep these protections, the companies would follow these requirements.

Congress is pretty hopeless, and these companies' censorship favors democrats. So democrats will fight those reforms, that that's what we'll be looking at through the 2020 elections. But it goes considerably deeper than that.

[legendster]

Surprising, Are you saying that Trump is not aware of it and did not warn these companies?
I think companies can be held accountable if they are discriminating the user on the basis of their political associations.

Btw Trump is directly responsible for breaking up Amazon and ruining Bezos' life. Of course Bezos just played right into the hands of Sanchez but everyone knows how Trump literally hates Mr "Bozo"..

And if all companies start becoming accountable, would that not be problematic? Say someone hating on Putin for his pokery might be a Hero in US and a Villain in a Putin lovin country.. what if say company X is present in both countries but is forced to choose a side? Still accountable?

[Spendulus]

Surprising, Are you saying that Trump is not aware of it and did not warn these companies?
I think companies can be held accountable if they are discriminating the user on the basis of their political associations.

Btw Trump is directly responsible for breaking up Amazon and ruining Bezos' life. Of course Bezos just played right into the hands of Sanchez but everyone knows how Trump literally hates Mr "Bozo"..

And if all companies start becoming accountable, would that not be problematic? Say someone hating on Putin for his pokery might be a Hero in US and a Villain in a Putin lovin country.. what if say company X is present in both countries but is forced to choose a side? Still accountable?

These countries have already caved to demands by various world governments, repeatedly.

[PrimeNumber7]

...There are a couple of lawsuits making their ways through the courts trying to create precedent that various major tech companies are "publishers" under section 230, and there is a small push in congress that would force companies to be politically neutral to get section 230 protections/benefits.

These companies will most probably not operate without section 230 protections, and if there were requirements to keep these protections, the companies would follow these requirements.

Congress is pretty hopeless, and these companies' censorship favors democrats. So democrats will fight those reforms, that that's what we'll be looking at through the 2020 elections. But it goes considerably deeper than that.

Any politician who is thinking about the long term should be worried about this. Today the tech companies favor Democrats but tomorrow they may favor republicans.

The censorship also may energize the republican base enough to get them to donate more and vote in larger numbers in 2020. If this happens, there may be enough support in Congress to pass legislation breaking up some of these companies.

[Spendulus]

...There are a couple of lawsuits making their ways through the courts trying to create precedent that various major tech companies are "publishers" under section 230, and there is a small push in congress that would force companies to be politically neutral to get section 230 protections/benefits.

These companies will most probably not operate without section 230 protections, and if there were requirements to keep these protections, the companies would follow these requirements.

Congress is pretty hopeless, and these companies' censorship favors democrats. So democrats will fight those reforms, that that's what we'll be looking at through the 2020 elections. But it goes considerably deeper than that.

Any politician who is thinking about the long term should be worried about this. Today the tech companies favor Democrats but tomorrow they may favor republicans. ....

No, they won't. Not unless you moved them out and away from places like San Francisco.