[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Funny, when the Guardian accused Google of right wing bias I don't recall anyone calling the Guardian a bunch of paranoids.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... propaganda

So, you're saying that Google has a right wing bias, annnnnnd a left wing bias.
Gotcha. Totally logical.

First, if you haven't noticed I get really, really irate when people play the "So you're saying" game with me.

That's where YOU say something and blame ME for it.

Kindly do not do this with with me again.

I said what I said. Anything else is in your imagination.

Lol. So what you're saying is, you throw a tantrum when people apply logic to your nonsensical statements? Gotcha.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't understand why Google is even perceived to have a bias.

The European Union thinks they do.

http://theconversation.com/eus-antitrus ... book-80659

$1:

On June 27, the European Union imposed a €2.4 billion (US$2.75 billion) fine on Google for giving favorable treatment in its search engine results to its own comparison shopping service.

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't understand why Google is even perceived to have a bias.

The European Union thinks they do.

http://theconversation.com/eus-antitrus ... book-80659

$1:

On June 27, the European Union imposed a €2.4 billion (US$2.75 billion) fine on Google for giving favorable treatment in its search engine results to its own comparison shopping service.

Shopping results. For paid for advertisers. Selling things like eye shadow, beanie babies, and leggo.
Not political news that shapes the world we live in.

[BartSimpson]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Lol. So what you're saying is, you throw a tantrum when people apply logic to your nonsensical statements? Gotcha.

There is no logic in straw man arguments.

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Lol. So what you're saying is, you throw a tantrum when people apply logic to your nonsensical statements? Gotcha.

There is no logic in straw man arguments.

So what you're saying is I'm arguing with the straw man?

[BartSimpson]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Lol. So what you're saying is, you throw a tantrum when people apply logic to your nonsensical statements? Gotcha.

There is no logic in straw man arguments.

So what you're saying is I'm arguing with the straw man?

Now you're trolling. Time to stop.

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Now you're trolling. Time to stop.

Lol. First rule of the playground. When the other kid gets angry over something dumb, or tries to make up rules that benefit only them, double down cause the fun has just begun.

Doesn't work on adults though. So there is that.

[martin14]

REVEALED: Google employees discussed 'leveraging' search engine to promote pro-immigration sites after Trump's travel ban

The emails were sent on January 29, 2017, two days after Trump signed the first order
Employees discussed promoting ACLU's website to help counter the 'islamophobic, algorhithmically biased results' coming up
They described it as 'super timely and imperative' information
One wrote: 'This country and Google would not exist without immigration'
There were several in favor but a public affairs executive asked whether pro-Trump sites would receive the same promotion
The suggestions were never put in place and Google says it was just a 'brainstorming' session


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l-ban.html

[N_Fiddledog]

martin14 martin14:

REVEALED: Google employees discussed 'leveraging' search engine to promote pro-immigration sites after Trump's travel ban

The emails were sent on January 29, 2017, two days after Trump signed the first order
Employees discussed promoting ACLU's website to help counter the 'islamophobic, algorhithmically biased results' coming up
They described it as 'super timely and imperative' information
One wrote: 'This country and Google would not exist without immigration'
There were several in favor but a public affairs executive asked whether pro-Trump sites would receive the same promotion
The suggestions were never put in place and Google says it was just a 'brainstorming' session


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l-ban.html

In fact...

[Prof_Chomsky]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

martin14 martin14:

REVEALED: Google employees discussed 'leveraging' search engine to promote pro-immigration sites after Trump's travel ban

The emails were sent on January 29, 2017, two days after Trump signed the first order
Employees discussed promoting ACLU's website to help counter the 'islamophobic, algorhithmically biased results' coming up
They described it as 'super timely and imperative' information
One wrote: 'This country and Google would not exist without immigration'
There were several in favor but a public affairs executive asked whether pro-Trump sites would receive the same promotion
The suggestions were never put in place and Google says it was just a 'brainstorming' session


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l-ban.html

In fact...

So right wing nut jobs intentionally create and promote 'islamophobic, algorhithmically biased results' in an effort to sway Google's search results and change the narrative of facts in the country. Google notices, and holds a brainstorming session on how to best ensure nut jobs can't manipulate their search results, and now Google is the one doing something wrong.