7 ms·

Given the bias inside of Google and the fact they have already demonstrated that they are not a neutral arbitrator, the last thing I want to have is them being

Given the bias inside of Google and the fact they have already demonstrated that they are not a neutral arbitrator, the last thing I want to have is them being the arbitrator of who or what news is seen. This is more of an attempt to consolidate their power, what you can and cannot see etc.. Hard pass.

eclipxe 9y ago
There is no bias.
- smaddox 9y ago
  Those are not the articles you're looking for...
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Bias? Google is now paying the infrastructure cost for channels like Alex Jones as no advertisers to generate revenues for Google. But in the name of free speech Google allows on YouTube and foots the bill. What could be more unbias?
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Alex Jones is the scapegoat extremist. They regularly demonetize anything that occasionally contains an opinion even slightly right of center (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan). Like Facebook, they partner with multiple left-leaning organizations to determine what news is "accurate", and don't allow even a center-right voice in that process. Their internal politics, as we've learned from the Damore debacle, are so extreme that employees are allowed to physically threaten, in writing, other employees who hold right wing opinions, without consequence.
  - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
    Facebook will be overjoyed to learn that they are not allowing a right-of-center voice into the process. You should probably bring that to the attention of British and US authorities; they'll be eager to know, given the recent news.
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      Right of center news sources? They've been openly hiding them from the feed through their partnership with Snopes and Politifact. Your uncle sharing InfoWars doesn't count.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        >Snopes and Politifact If these are your enemies, your political views might be a little further than "slightly" right of center.
        fortythirteen 9y ago
        Don't be hyperbolic and put the word "enemies" in my mouth. They are biased sources, though. Those who align with the left typically don't see it, because the organizations align with their biases... and because people rarely read beyond the "truth gauge" at the top of their articles. Politifact will regularly find a small technicality with a right wing politician and use it to label something "untrue", but give a pass to left wingers. They are run by the Tampa Bay Times, whose editorial board endorses almost exclusively Democrats. Snopes is just a mom and pop shop whose editorial team has about as much accreditation as your average blogger. The only reason they have any presumed credibility is because of how long the site has been around.
        WalterGR 9y ago
        Could you cite some neutral sources to support your claims?
        fortythirteen 9y ago
        Unfortunately, most articles pointing this out come from right-wing outlets, because they're the ones incentivized to put in the work. I don't think that negates the facts (pun-ish unintended), because you can investigate the claims yourself. Here, though, is a Forbes article detailing how they engage is coverups of their own political punditry: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#331d7aae7c14 https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-200...
- simula67 9y ago
  Google has fact checked a claim that was not made in right leaning Daily Caller website : http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-fea... Although it may be bugs and not bias : https://www.poynter.org/news/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-google-wrongly-appending-fact-check-daily-caller https://www.poynter.org/news/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-goo... Google continuing to host Alex Jones may not be be 'in the name of free speech', they may not want people to go to other platforms to get their content. They can lead users to other videos from any video ( using the side bar ) and make money from those videos which does contain advertisements
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    There is really not competition for Google with YouTube plus they now have over 1.6 billion hours consumed a day. So getting rid of Alex Jones content do not think would hurt YT in any manner. Google does not have to play the cost for more left leaning content like they have to do with alt right content.
    - simula67 9y ago
      > There is really not competition for Google with YouTube plus they now have over 1.6 billion hours consumed a day. So getting rid of Alex Jones content do not think would hurt YT in any manner. Current dominance != future dominance. Read the concept behind innovators dilemma Also youtube has stiff competition from Facebook : https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/12/05/how-facebook-watch-will-overtake-youtube-as-biggest-video-platform.amp https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/12/05/how-f...
      - jacksmith21006 9y ago
        Have read innovators dilemma. There is little chance for YT to be distrubted at this point. The problem for a competitor is YT was built during a period of time it was possible, barely, to do this. I say barely as in Google had a ton of engineering challenges. Not sure if technical but serving over 1.6 billion hours of video a day is really hard. But now with all the content in one place it is impossible to compete. Wife and me talking about Marsha getting hit with a football. Just turn around and ask the Google Home to play it and it plays a video of the scene. Same with Mary laughing at clowns funeral.
WalterGR 9y ago
Given the bias inside of Google and the fact they have already demonstrated that they are not a neutral arbitrator I hear this accusation a lot, but I haven't heard about (or perhaps I just forgot) specific examples. Perhaps there's a comprehensive rundown of what's being alleged, somewhere on the web? Alternately, can someone clue me in with examples?
- markdog12 9y ago
  Damore's class action lawsuit: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%... Some tidbits: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+sued+by+james+damore&t=ffab&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+sued+by+james+damore&t=ffab...
  - WalterGR 9y ago
    And how is Google not a neutral arbitrator?

eclipxe 9y ago

There is no bias.

smaddox 9y ago
Those are not the articles you're looking for...

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Bias? Google is now paying the infrastructure cost for channels like Alex Jones as no advertisers to generate revenues for Google. But in the name of free speech Google allows on YouTube and foots the bill. What could be more unbias?

fortythirteen 9y ago
Alex Jones is the scapegoat extremist. They regularly demonetize anything that occasionally contains an opinion even slightly right of center (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan). Like Facebook, they partner with multiple left-leaning organizations to determine what news is "accurate", and don't allow even a center-right voice in that process. Their internal politics, as we've learned from the Damore debacle, are so extreme that employees are allowed to physically threaten, in writing, other employees who hold right wing opinions, without consequence.
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  Facebook will be overjoyed to learn that they are not allowing a right-of-center voice into the process. You should probably bring that to the attention of British and US authorities; they'll be eager to know, given the recent news.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    Right of center news sources? They've been openly hiding them from the feed through their partnership with Snopes and Politifact. Your uncle sharing InfoWars doesn't count.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      >Snopes and Politifact If these are your enemies, your political views might be a little further than "slightly" right of center.
      - fortythirteen 9y ago
        Don't be hyperbolic and put the word "enemies" in my mouth. They are biased sources, though. Those who align with the left typically don't see it, because the organizations align with their biases... and because people rarely read beyond the "truth gauge" at the top of their articles. Politifact will regularly find a small technicality with a right wing politician and use it to label something "untrue", but give a pass to left wingers. They are run by the Tampa Bay Times, whose editorial board endorses almost exclusively Democrats. Snopes is just a mom and pop shop whose editorial team has about as much accreditation as your average blogger. The only reason they have any presumed credibility is because of how long the site has been around.
        WalterGR 9y ago
        Could you cite some neutral sources to support your claims?
        fortythirteen 9y ago
        Unfortunately, most articles pointing this out come from right-wing outlets, because they're the ones incentivized to put in the work. I don't think that negates the facts (pun-ish unintended), because you can investigate the claims yourself. Here, though, is a Forbes article detailing how they engage is coverups of their own political punditry: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#331d7aae7c14 https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-200...
simula67 9y ago
Google has fact checked a claim that was not made in right leaning Daily Caller website : http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-fea... Although it may be bugs and not bias : https://www.poynter.org/news/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-google-wrongly-appending-fact-check-daily-caller https://www.poynter.org/news/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-goo... Google continuing to host Alex Jones may not be be 'in the name of free speech', they may not want people to go to other platforms to get their content. They can lead users to other videos from any video ( using the side bar ) and make money from those videos which does contain advertisements
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  There is really not competition for Google with YouTube plus they now have over 1.6 billion hours consumed a day. So getting rid of Alex Jones content do not think would hurt YT in any manner. Google does not have to play the cost for more left leaning content like they have to do with alt right content.
  - simula67 9y ago
    > There is really not competition for Google with YouTube plus they now have over 1.6 billion hours consumed a day. So getting rid of Alex Jones content do not think would hurt YT in any manner. Current dominance != future dominance. Read the concept behind innovators dilemma Also youtube has stiff competition from Facebook : https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/12/05/how-facebook-watch-will-overtake-youtube-as-biggest-video-platform.amp https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/12/05/how-f...
    - jacksmith21006 9y ago
      Have read innovators dilemma. There is little chance for YT to be distrubted at this point. The problem for a competitor is YT was built during a period of time it was possible, barely, to do this. I say barely as in Google had a ton of engineering challenges. Not sure if technical but serving over 1.6 billion hours of video a day is really hard. But now with all the content in one place it is impossible to compete. Wife and me talking about Marsha getting hit with a football. Just turn around and ask the Google Home to play it and it plays a video of the scene. Same with Mary laughing at clowns funeral.

WalterGR 9y ago

Given the bias inside of Google and the fact they have already demonstrated that they are not a neutral arbitrator I hear this accusation a lot, but I haven't heard about (or perhaps I just forgot) specific examples. Perhaps there's a comprehensive rundown of what's being alleged, somewhere on the web? Alternately, can someone clue me in with examples?

markdog12 9y ago
Damore's class action lawsuit: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%... Some tidbits: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+sued+by+james+damore&t=ffab&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+sued+by+james+damore&t=ffab...
- WalterGR 9y ago
  And how is Google not a neutral arbitrator?