4 ms·

One example of Google trying to manipulate the last US elections: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/13/hillary-google-bias-confirmed-experiment/ http://www.

One example of Google trying to manipulate the last US elections: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/13/hillary-google-bias-confirmed-experiment/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/13/hillary-google-bias...

IMTDb 9y ago
Yeah breitbart is probably the most neutral source on this issue.
- kiproping 9y ago
  Are there any truly non-biased news sources left anymore?
  - krapp 9y ago
    Are you implying that because bias exists, all news sources are equally credible?
    - yahna 9y ago
      It's just whataboutism and false equivalencies. Standard tactics.
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    No, but I believe you can trust those that are open about their biases. For example, The Economist is very, very open about being a pro-free trade, pro-free market, pro-individual rights organ, in the tradition of classical liberalism. When you read a piece on, say, immigration in The Economist, you can suss the truth out because of this. Like it or not, the same is probably true of Breitbart - for example, I'd take their coverage of Chicago gun violence with a grain of salt, but would probably pa attention to their coverage of the opioid crises, than the ivory tower view of the NY Times. What scares me more is when organizations claim to be impartial, like Google, Facebook, or the Times. Claiming to be impartial is claiming to represent absolute truth.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  Why does it matter it is "biased"? It was the only mainstream news agency that reported this in this detail. Other news outlets reported it too: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/10/google-says-search-isnt-biased-toward-hillary-clinton/85725014/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/10/google-s... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-ma... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-denies-manipulating-search-results-to-favor-hillary-clinton/article/2593562 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-denies-manipulating... https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/05/30/google-gave-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory/ https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/05/30/google-gave-hill... I checked it myself during the time and Breitbart article is entirely correct.
  - caseysoftware 9y ago
    But but but.. an unperson said it, therefore it is false and a half step from heresy.
    - zentiggr 9y ago
      Doubleplusungoodspeak
  - yahna 9y ago
    > Why does it matter it is "biased"? because "Biased" isn't really the term that Breitbart deserves. "liars", "frauds", "propaganda" are closer.
zimpenfish 9y ago
They're parroting a biased source (#3) reporting a ludicrous "experiment" from a biased (#2) conspiracy theorising (#1) actor. It's a dog shit story from front to back. 1. He's tried this claim before - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-e... 2. He has previous with Google which makes him egregiously biased against them - https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-with-google-over-a-security-warning/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-wit... 3. Sputnik News is a Russian government controlled news agency and therefore somewhat unreliable in the best of cases etc. etc. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Epstein's institute turned out to be Russian funded.

IMTDb 9y ago

Yeah breitbart is probably the most neutral source on this issue.

kiproping 9y ago
Are there any truly non-biased news sources left anymore?
- krapp 9y ago
  Are you implying that because bias exists, all news sources are equally credible?
  - yahna 9y ago
    It's just whataboutism and false equivalencies. Standard tactics.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  No, but I believe you can trust those that are open about their biases. For example, The Economist is very, very open about being a pro-free trade, pro-free market, pro-individual rights organ, in the tradition of classical liberalism. When you read a piece on, say, immigration in The Economist, you can suss the truth out because of this. Like it or not, the same is probably true of Breitbart - for example, I'd take their coverage of Chicago gun violence with a grain of salt, but would probably pa attention to their coverage of the opioid crises, than the ivory tower view of the NY Times. What scares me more is when organizations claim to be impartial, like Google, Facebook, or the Times. Claiming to be impartial is claiming to represent absolute truth.
anotherbrownguy 9y ago
Why does it matter it is "biased"? It was the only mainstream news agency that reported this in this detail. Other news outlets reported it too: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/10/google-says-search-isnt-biased-toward-hillary-clinton/85725014/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/10/google-s... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-ma... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-denies-manipulating-search-results-to-favor-hillary-clinton/article/2593562 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-denies-manipulating... https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/05/30/google-gave-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory/ https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/05/30/google-gave-hill... I checked it myself during the time and Breitbart article is entirely correct.
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  But but but.. an unperson said it, therefore it is false and a half step from heresy.
  - zentiggr 9y ago
    Doubleplusungoodspeak
- yahna 9y ago
  > Why does it matter it is "biased"? because "Biased" isn't really the term that Breitbart deserves. "liars", "frauds", "propaganda" are closer.

zimpenfish 9y ago

They're parroting a biased source (#3) reporting a ludicrous "experiment" from a biased (#2) conspiracy theorising (#1) actor. It's a dog shit story from front to back. 1. He's tried this claim before - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-e... 2. He has previous with Google which makes him egregiously biased against them - https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-with-google-over-a-security-warning/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-wit... 3. Sputnik News is a Russian government controlled news agency and therefore somewhat unreliable in the best of cases etc. etc. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Epstein's institute turned out to be Russian funded.