5 ms·

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 sp

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...
        dnomad 9y ago
        Isn't that convenient? The only sources that document this widespread, omnipresent bias against right-wing are far-right "news" organizations who themselves engage in endless propaganda. BTW, that forbes article doesn't show any kind of determined bias on behalf of Politifact. I don't think you really grasp what the problem is when we talk about bias in journalism. Newspapers can make mistakes. Newspapers can even report totally incorrect information. What's important is that mistakes and erroneous reporting are acknowledged, discussed, and critiqued. It's like science -- peer review is the key. When an organization like Politifact makes a claim and is then subjected to legitimate critique and then it responds to such criticism -- that is the process working. This is very different from what happens with the far-right news complex though, isn't it?
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.

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...
        dnomad 9y ago
        Isn't that convenient? The only sources that document this widespread, omnipresent bias against right-wing are far-right "news" organizations who themselves engage in endless propaganda. BTW, that forbes article doesn't show any kind of determined bias on behalf of Politifact. I don't think you really grasp what the problem is when we talk about bias in journalism. Newspapers can make mistakes. Newspapers can even report totally incorrect information. What's important is that mistakes and erroneous reporting are acknowledged, discussed, and critiqued. It's like science -- peer review is the key. When an organization like Politifact makes a claim and is then subjected to legitimate critique and then it responds to such criticism -- that is the process working. This is very different from what happens with the far-right news complex though, isn't it?

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.