Bowsite.com

If you think it is not a real danger to conservative thought and societal freedom of expression, you are self-deluding.

Nah, no bias there.

Further...

Report: Google News Results Overwhelmingly Favor CNN, Excludes Conservative Sources

It does not violate Twitter’s rules against abuse to wish death upon National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Dana Loesch’s children, Twitter ruled Monday.

“The only way these people learn is if it affects them directly,” Twitter user Milan Legius wrote in a reply to Loesch. “So if Dana Loesch has to have her children murdered before she’ll understand, I guess that’s what needs to happen.”

“You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people,” Twitter’s rules state.

But when Loesch’s husband Chris reported the tweet wishing death upon their children, Twitter ruled in favor of Legius.

“We have reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of the Twitter Rules against abusive behavior,” Twitter wrote in an email that Chris shared with The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I wish Twitter just treated all users consistently,” Dana told TheDCNF. She is used to abuse on Twitter, where the replies to her tweets are often misogynistic.

continued

Random memos always make me question things, like the "catastrophe plan" style memo of some GOP leaders to help be ready for legal challenges should the dems take back a branch of the legislature this fall. They just feel fishy...

Just google the simple word Imbecile and you’ll see what I mean.

It’s like a drunk saying “well officer, in court and on your report you mention me driving intoxicated, urinating in public, punching a random bystander, but why didn’t you put in the police report that I flossed and donated blood today!?”

Sorry Jeffrey, if you suck, you just suck.

By definition that is what Trolls are, full of crap

PZ. Since you just seem to have A problem picking up how to play this game, I'll give you a hint In order to win you have to use facts, not made up stuff and talking points you heard at the local bath house.

Since you seem to enjoy having your ass handed to you maybe that advice will not be something you might want to use

What a coincidence, he buys up the stocks and they start cracking down on conservatives.

Via Free Beacon:

Liberal billionaire George Soros drastically increased his shares in a handful of tech companies after previously bashing such companies as a “menace” and while a coalition of progressive groups he financially backs pushes a campaign that includes a goal of breaking up Facebook.

Soros made the large stock purchases during the second quarter through Soros Fund Management, the financier’s New York City-based investment firm. The purchases include 159,200 shares in Facebook (valued at $31 million), 250,000 shares in Twitter (valued at $11 million), and 54,500 shares in Apple (valued at $10 million), Security and Exchange Commission filings show.

Soros did not have holdings in any of those companies during the first quarter, according to the fund’s previous filings.

Soros additionally reported 12,400 shares in Alphabet, Google’s parent company, valued at $14 million. However, the shares in Alphabet decreased by $12 million from the previous quarter.

continued at link

I just googled "Veterans are" and didn't get anything remotely like Slade's sample.. The first was "veterans are heroes".... no negative suggestions. Don't believe everything you see on the net.

Exactly the same thing for me when I googled it. Don't believe everything, especially from certain posters.

For example, if my wife searches for new blenders, the search goes through our wifi router and other portals as it goes to the WWW. When I look at FB or google over the next few days, I get blender ads as well - despite not looking at blenders on my devices.

The value to googles paying customers is to be able to target adds to users. This makes googles customers money, and thus makes google more money...

Be it social media or search engines, they show you suggestions and ad's based on what you have searched!

This is one issue with social media creating self affirming bubbles. The algorithm shows you more of what YOU seek, not more of what is real. So you start believing your view is wider and more factual than it may be, given you are not provided any contrary information which may be real.

The google newsfeed is supposed to be a bit more neutral vs driven by YOUR choices, part of which means using major "news" agencies like Fox, CNN, ABC, Reuters, AP, etc OVER smaller L or R angled sources. So if you search the news feed, you get more major news agencies, vs your further left or right sources.

End point, if your search engine suggests certain things when you start typing, it's most likely YOU have searched those things, or someone on your network has, recently or repeatedly...

What I do know is that I Googled all the same represented above 10 times. Same computer within a few minutes of each other and never got what slade and others got but more interesting i never got the same results. All 10 different

So what's up with that?

There is no doubt that all social media is slanted left and evidently search engines are to or there would not be all the obvious things on them that are happening

I also know one has to be an very non informed person to believe that every internet search yields the same results every time for every user

I am the appeaser Slade refers to I believe. If so, coming from him it is taken as a compliment.

Others are correct, if one googled those phrases, they would populate when typing something similar the next time. So now we can understand what happens. Slade Googles trash to find what comes up So he can post stuff. Then accuses the left of causing this. Lol!

Jeff, get out a little. You are over the top with this stuff. What Slade calls appeasing, sane people call balance.

Have a tough time believing that. But, software does pick up on patterns. Do you Google other, what can be construed as negative "topics"?

The positive ones posted above are what I received on my computer in my office, at home, my phone and at least 10 others at school that I was not logged into. Without logging in any software anticipation would have been voided. Almost to a T the same positive phrases came up.

My sample size might not qualify as scientific, but hopefully we both understand a sample of one is useless.

So, as you can see I was not intellectually lazy.

Integrity, we need more of it. Falsehoods from the right need to be challenged on equal footing as those from the left. Credit goes to the first poster who called this out.

Have you even read one article on liberal frustration with censorship?

The answer is no because in your world every thing is slanted one way. The possibility does not exist.

I am not naive. I am in it everyday, I am in education. I have never been a member of the faculty association because they do not represent what I believe. Ask anyone on my campus, I am a very vocal voice, more than any other, standing up for free speech and for 20 plus years have refused to back down. At the risk of continued employment before I was tenured.

Guys like you and Slade are critical of anyone who post original thoughts, you both call them feelings. Yet, you both have a pattern of posting links and name calling because that is all you have. If you guys are conservatives, I want to be something else.

I don't even read your links any more, or watch them.

You are something else, might as well be a democrat with all of the appeasement & Maverickisims like the Bushies, Rommney & McCain, Flake, Boner, Snow etc......... weakness is not a virtue.

Nothing to see rubes, move along and join the masses of the naive.

You don't even get what it means to be a conservative in the likeness of the majority of our FF.

Most believed in freedom- to live, say and think what we want as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

A thread about censorship from guys like you too blind to see how the cartel/cabal on the CF tries to censor anyone who disagrees with them through their name calling and bully tactics. It is why so many have left here.

Get out of the basement, but if you are locked in order Braveheart on Netflix and watch it until you get it.

Trump is a man, not God. I have enough conviction to state when I agree and when I disagree. Mark this down, within a short period of time after he leaves office some of you will finally have the courage to point out his faults.

Actually Slade I was out in the real world unlike you. That is why I was able to check numerous search engines to prove you and your mom's basement computer are full of crap.

After criticizing social media platforms for mass-censoring conservatives and the alternative media earlier this month, President Trump has turned his attention to Google. Not a moment too soon — of all the politically biased tech giants, Google is by far the most dangerous.

Trump’s critical comments about Google referenced statistics from a report in PJ Media which found that a staggering 96 percent of search results for “Trump” return results from news sites that are hostile to the President. Breitbart News’ own investigation found the same result.

As Google search results are personalized, this wasn’t a strictly scientific study — that would require tests on hundreds, if not thousands of Google users. But the fact that a conservative columnist received search results that were 96 percent liberal should be deeply worrying. If that’s what a conservative with a (presumably) conservative search history sees, what kind of results are being sent to swing-voters?

The fact that it could be a problem of all search engines, not just Google, due to the way search algorithms detect “trustworthy” content is true, but Google holds a stranglehold on the search market. It’s closest english-language competitor, Bing, holds 7 percent of the market for searches according to NetMarketShare.

Another obvious problem with Google search is how its algorithm repeatedly surfaces information from Wikipedia at the top of search results. Wikipedia is an “online encyclopedia” that relies on a mass of anonymous, unaccountable editors to create its myriad of pages. The encyclopedia’s citation rules, which favor academic and establishment media sources while excluding sources like Breitbart News and the Daily Caller as “unreliable” inherently favor the left.

So too does its cabal of unaccountable left-wing editors, who are slowly but surely turning the purportedly non-partisan encyclopedia into a platform for anti-Trump propaganda. Wikipedia editors recently added Trump to a list of advocates of the “white genocide conspiracy theory” following his comments on the racially motivated murders of white farmers in South Africa. They previously included ICE detention centers on a Wikipedia list of “concentration camps.” The result of Google’s reliance on a far-left encyclopedia is that false information – fake news, you could say – has the potential to reach the top of the search engine’s results, like the time when the California GOP were labeled a “Nazi” party on Wikipedia, a categorization that then made its way to Google.

While Google leaps to address individual scandals like the California GOP, don’t expect any fundamental changes to address bias — the company is fundamentally hostile to Trump and to Trumpism. After all, this is a company whose senior management was on the verge of tears following his election victory. Furthermore, the company has quite publicly announced their intention to pour millions of dollars into propping up the legacy media, including direct funding of far-left anti-Trump publications like Vox.

Election-swinging power

If Google’s well-documented far-left biases are trickling into its search algorithm, what is the worst that could happen? If recent research is to be believed, the worst would be no more election victories for conservative candidates — ever.

The research, led by former Psychology Today editor Dr. Robert Epstein shows that when presented with negative search results about a candidate, the opinions of undecided voters shift against that candidate by a staggering 43.4 percent — enough to swing virtually any election. Epstein’s earlier research suggests that Google already biased its search results towards Hillary Clinton in 2016, shifting up to 2.6 million votes in her favor (just below the margin by which she won the popular vote).

Google’s upper management has, in the past, been brazen about its political biases. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet in 2016, set up a shadowy organization called “The Groundwork” aimed at harnessing the expertise of Silicon Valley to put Hillary Clinton in the White House. In a 2014 email leaked by WikiLeaks, Clinton campaign manager John Podesta also claimed that Schmidt wanted to be “head outside adviser” to the Clinton campaign.

It’s impossible to say for sure if Google is deliberately stacking its search results against Trump. And that’s the entire problem — the company is not currently required to be transparent about its algorithms, who’s in charge of them, and what their biases are. Given the vast power that this company has accumulated — the power to “organize the world’s information”, as the company’s own mission statement reads — how can this be allowed to continue?

Please post some more of other peoples' opinions.

Experimented with a couple of rarely used minor browsers today searching on several search engines and comparing results before and after clearing cookies. Search results were very different. While not being able to duplicate totally negative results, Google did seem to have a more liberal bias on its results than Duck-Duck-Go.

I think that if one reads a lot of conservative and very conservative sites and blogs and is unaware of how a browser collects cookies and rarely (if ever) visits sites like CNN, MSNBS, search results could be very skewed compared to someone who relies on the general media.

Most people are unaware of how computers work, how websites are administered and the complexities of programming. I have noticed that Facebook has become more restrictive in that many of the friends I follow and news (conservative bloggers) no longer shows unless I actually dig and do a search for these contacts that have become "missing". Blocking, restricting and banning dissident voices to proREgressive views is happening and IMHO restricts 1A freedom of speech (thoughts and opinions).

This can be obvious as seen by the actions of Facebook and Twitter (conservative pundits, Prager U, etc.)...and it can be more subtle with search results dealing with news and current events. When these actions influence a rather dumb public who are not aware of this sort of manipulation, it could easily sway an election unfairly.

see link

If you view far left or right as center - because for YOU it is the point of calibration... Does that cause you to see an artificial reality?

Now you go do a search, and the thing pumps out some moderate info (google newsfeed being a more neutral algorithm than the google search engine which is based on your history and the history of those on your network) and it's viewed as "conservative" or "liberal"... Is it really, or is it because it is not fitting your calibration or, it's causing a challenge to one's sense of reality and thus creating internal pushback towards the viewed information?

I poked around to see if I could find some info on this, and one article from science daily was interesting and seemed to fit that: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180530154457.htm Note, this is actually about conspiracies. Reading it, the points listed just felt similar to the idea that say, a search engine company would set it's algorithm's to the left or right.

If something challenges the reality we perceive, we choose to perceive it as wrong or "off mark" or "off the rails" etc., more often then we are likely to investigate to see if we are on mark or should adjust.

Sorry - this is longer than it should have been and certainly a different angle related to the question of search or SM companies pushing a certain agenda. Just got me thinking (something I like about the CF) and thus searching around... figured I'd chuck it out there for consideration.

There is zero doubt that there is an industry-wide bias against conservative people, thoughts, ideas, and history in media, social media, communication technology, education, and government. Probably in some others that I have left out.

Leftists are bullies and they are doing their best to bully conservatism into oblivion.

You don't believe I went to see Anne Coulter?

Lee Smith: FaceBook, Google, and Twitter are Not Platforms But Publishers and Should, Therefore, Not Have the Special Protections for Neutral Platforms in the Communications Decency Act

His article was recently flagged by FaceBook as "spam," as so many articles written by conservative-leaning journalists are these days. (see link)

The founder of a pro-life advocacy group called out Twitter's CEO Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight for censoring her organization on the social media platform.

Live Action founder Lila Rose said that her group has been "totally banned" from advertising on Twitter for the past three years.

The group's Twitter account has close to 70,000 followers, and its Facebook page has more than 2 million followers.

At the same time as her group is being shadow-banned, Rose said, pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood are being permitted to advertise on Twitter.

continued

Speaking before Senators and Representatives today, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey repeatedly referred to his platform as a “public square” while simultaneously arguing that he has the right to remove lawful content protected by the First Amendment from it. Dorsey testified at two congressional committees today; the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Energy and Commerce committee. At both sessions, Dorsey continually referred to Twitter as either a “public square” or a “digital public square.”

The Twitter CEO’s wording is significant — according to U.S. law, speech and expression in the public square are protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether the public squares are under private ownership.

The precedent was set in Marsh v. Alabama, a 1946 supreme court ruling which found that a Jehovah’s Witness who attempted to distribute religious materials in a company town that was entirely owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Co. could not be arrested on the grounds that she was trespassing on private property. The court concluded that since the company owned the entire town (including the sidewalks), it constituted a public square under private ownership and that the Jehovah’s Witness’ right to free speech in the public square took priority over the company’s right to remove trespassers.

If Twitter is a public square under private ownership, it is obliged to protect the First Amendment rights of its users. Dorsey’s entire project of controlling “conversational health” and banning constitutionally protected speech on his platform would be a violation of the First Amendment. Dorsey would have no option but to relinquish the power of blocking and filtering users for lawful speech, and instead return that power to users via optional filters.

Nothing to see here...... shadup and move along....... resistance is futile......

A video recorded by Google shortly after the 2016 presidential election reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement emerging around the globe.

On August 30, Freedom Watch filed a massive class action lawsuit against tech giants Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Apple claiming the companies conspired by entering into an explicit or tacit agreement, in parallel to each other, to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which states, “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

Continued

Facebook blacklisted the conservative news page run by disabled Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage with no warning or explanation — after he reportedly spent more than $300,000 on Facebook advertising.

On his new website which aims to put an end to social media censorship, Air Force veteran and triple-amputee Brian Kolfage explains who he is and the challenges he’s facing stating: “I’m a veteran of The United States Air Force. I was severely wounded in Combat, on 9/11/2004 while serving in Iraq I lost both my legs entirely and my right hand. I’m the most severely wounded US Airman to survive.”

(continued at link)