# Uh-oh: Trump Googled himself, and now he wants Google searches censored/regulated



## Xzi (Aug 28, 2018)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...himself-and-doesnt-like-what-he-sees-illegal/

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbjabj/trump-news-fake-google-twitter-search

I'm surprised Trump finally wandered out on to the internet outside of Twitter.  He's had a bad couple weeks, so it's not exactly shocking that a Google search returns a lot of negative results.  As most of us know, Google uses an algorithm that gives you results based on a number of variables.



			
				VICE said:
			
		

> Google presents search results based on an algorithm that takes into account a large number of variables — including your search history, location and what sites you frequently visit.



So much for being the party of limited government.  First they take their playbook straight out of Orwell's 1984*, now they want to censor any non-favorable news coverage.



			
				WaPo said:
			
		

> “I am not for big government, but I really do believe that the government should step in and really check this out,” Hardaway told Dobbs in the interview.




* "Facts are not facts," "do not believe your eyes and ears"


----------



## KiiWii (Aug 28, 2018)

What a fucking tool.


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 28, 2018)

I don't think that google should be promoting hateful sites, but I also think that trump is in the wrong here. This is almost orwellian.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 28, 2018)

if anyone now think trump is not starting a tyranical movement in our democracy needs there damn head examined for brain damage WAKE THE HELL UP CONGRESS


----------



## nando (Aug 28, 2018)

it's starting to look a lot like china


----------



## Aletron9000 (Aug 28, 2018)

Google just finds sites that match that criteria. If so many news sites are saying these things about him, then it will show up in google. In my opinion, this is the stupidest thing i have heard yet.


----------



## Lumince (Aug 28, 2018)

Man.... He would not have seen it ever.... then someone HAD to bring it up!! HAD TOO


----------



## Thunder Hawk (Aug 28, 2018)

Xzi said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...himself-and-doesnt-like-what-he-sees-illegal/
> 
> https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbjabj/trump-news-fake-google-twitter-search
> 
> ...


Wouldn't be the first time that Google has censored and/or manipulated the search results and rankings. Google and its liberal left-wing thinking and beliefs can very well prioritize unfavorable results to reflect its own political affiliation.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 28, 2018)

US is slowly turning into China under Trump's rule...


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 28, 2018)

I feel like a snowflake joke should go here, but I don't feel like making it.

Anyway, the main person suppressing news by calling it all fake news, is worried about being suppressed?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 28, 2018)

Okay, seriously: I don't believe a fucking word of it. It's an early april fool's joke...right? Right? 


In case he's serious: just ignore him. Say something like "sure, Donald. We'll investigate it" and be done with it. Within a few days, he'll be mad at something/someone else ("It's raining HERE while the criminal democratic states have SUN! These rainclouds need to be regulated BETTER!!!" ) and he'll have forgotten this self-caused shit.


----------



## Arras (Aug 28, 2018)

Thunder Hawk said:


> Wouldn't be the first time that Google has censored and/or manipulated the search results and rankings. Google and its liberal left-wing thinking and beliefs can very well prioritize unfavorable results to reflect its own political affiliation.


I'm curious though. We all know Google prioritizes results partially based on how well known/popular resulting sites are, so hypothetically, what if it's just that liberal-leaning people do more google searches overall? It'd definitely affect what types of content resulted from a search, and not through any malicious "censoring/manipulating" on Google's part - it would just be what the majority wants to see, so it's what Google shows them. At that point, what would even need to be changed? You can't really tell companies to stop catering to their largest userbase.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Aug 28, 2018)

I'm still not convinced I shouldn't support him or his supporters. I never voted for him. I never went to a protest with a torch or a rally. I just said to my peers I love my country and I was frowned upon. How can you guys wake up every day with so much built up anger? Do you want to see our country fall?


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Aug 28, 2018)

I support the guy, but he obviously has no clue how the technical world works. Or apparently freedoms.


----------



## Savior-X (Aug 28, 2018)

US is becoming like China? lol. A few corporations got together to remove Alex Jones from their sites hours apart, and the big three ban/block conservatives or anyone that thinks differently, but Trump is the problem. It can't possibly be the same politicians that have been in office for 20+ years. Nahhh.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

Thunder Hawk said:


> Wouldn't be the first time that Google has censored and/or manipulated the search results and rankings. Google and its liberal left-wing thinking and beliefs can very well prioritize unfavorable results to reflect its own political affiliation.


For god sake, even the algorithm is liberal now?  Maybe Google simply prefers actual sourced news to opinion jockeys who just throw shit against the wall hoping something sticks.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Aug 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> For god sake, even the algorithm is liberal now?  Maybe Google simply prefers actual sourced news to opinion jockeys who just throw shit against the wall hoping something sticks.


The algorithm is literally machine learning. All google does is collect user searches and prioritize them. That and companies can promote their brand by paying Platforms like google to promote their brand on a higher level. Even then, most news outlets are bad or biased these days. So, is there really a good one out there Mr. Trump? No, I thought so. Also, who gives a flying fuck if Trump doesn't agree with Google prioritizing searches based on other world wide users interests. So the fuck what? He can't control a international company simply because he doesn't agree. Last time I checked, most of the worlds nations are Republican or Democratic (Not counting China or North Korea). Therefore, having one Nation decide the way a platform works on a International scale is beyond me.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

Savior-X said:


> US is becoming like China? lol. A few corporations got together to remove Alex Jones from their sites hours apart, and the big three ban/block conservatives or anyone that thinks differently, but Trump is the problem. It can't possibly be the same politicians that have been in office for 20+ years. Nahhh.


Alex Jones is an extreme outlier, a guy who used his platform to attack individuals who had already been victimized by another tragedy.  Youtube and others were well within their rights to stop providing that platform.  Conservative pundits still haven't learned the rule of thumb in comedy/political commentary: you always punch up, never down.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 29, 2018)

Savior-X said:


> US is becoming like China? lol. A few corporations got together to remove Alex Jones from their sites hours apart, and the big three ban/block conservatives or anyone that thinks differently, but Trump is the problem. It can't possibly be the same politicians that have been in office for 20+ years. Nahhh.



Those platforms have the right to deny him service. It's funny because generally the right likes to argue this because of anti-gay or anti-Islam businesses denying service to those sets of people (or whomever else they want to).


----------



## Savior-X (Aug 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Alex Jones is an extreme outlier, a guy who used his platform to attack individuals who had already been victimized by another tragedy.  Youtube and others were well within their rights to stop providing that platform.  Conservative pundits still haven't learned the rule of thumb in comedy/political commentary: you always punch up, never down.


He's being sued so let the courts decide that. The fact a few douchebags in silicon valley got together to determine his fate should be a red flag for all of us. All of these companies are well within their rights, that's why we need some sort of internet bill of rights.


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

Savior-X said:


> He's being sued so let the courts decide that. The fact a few douchebags in silicon valley got together to determine his fate should be a red flag for all of us.



Hey... Said things was his OWN groups rules that got him in trouble. "Business's have absolute rights to do what they want!" That's what they spout... until it happens to them.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Savior-X said:


> He's being sued so let the courts decide that. The fact a few douchebags in silicon valley got together to determine his fate should be a red flag for all of us. All of these companies are well within their rights, that's why we need some sort of internet bill of rights.


Like... Some sort of Net Neutrality bill or something...


----------



## Tigran (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Like... Some sort of Net Neutrality bill or something...



Well... that would still be something completely different.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 29, 2018)

Those biased sons of bitches keep reporting on things he does and says, and it makes him look like an asshole.


----------



## heraymo (Aug 29, 2018)

Savior-X said:


> US is becoming like China? lol. A few corporations got together to remove Alex Jones from their sites hours apart, and the big three ban/block conservatives or anyone that thinks differently, but Trump is the problem. It can't possibly be the same politicians that have been in office for 20+ years. Nahhh.





Savior-X said:


> He's being sued so let the courts decide that. The fact a few douchebags in silicon valley got together to determine his fate should be a red flag for all of us. All of these companies are well within their rights, that's why we need some sort of internet bill of rights.





Savior-X said:


> He's being sued so let the courts decide that. The fact a few douchebags in silicon valley got together to determine his fate should be a red flag for all of us. All of these companies are well within their rights, that's why we need some sort of internet bill of rights.



Don't need a interent bill of rights this would fall under the first admentment. you see the first admendment isn't there to protect ideas and thought we all agree with its there to protect ideas and thought of those we don't agree with Alex Jones was the first of many more to come its not going to stop there until someone takes it to court and it goes to the supreme court. these companys were not in there rights to take alex jones down there terms of service can't violate the first admenment just have to wait for someone to have the resources to take this to court now it will happen


----------



## kuwanger (Aug 29, 2018)

Savior-X said:


> He's being sued so let the courts decide that.



Are you okay with every bot account, every revenge porn account, every pirate account, etc to all keep their accounts and "let the courts decide" on whether they get banned or not?



Savior-X said:


> All of these companies are well within their rights, that's why we need some sort of internet bill of rights.



Would that "internet bill of rights" work through the courts?  Would it have standard standards for DoS or DDoS?  Would it differentiate between DoS by protesters vs bot accounts?  Really, what would an "internet bill of rights" even mean without international jurisdiction and treaties?  Would that mean every case should be tried through the ICC?

The term "internet bill of rights" sounds nice.  I'm not sure how much it'd really even apply in this case--bills of rights tend to be in reference to governments, and there's tons of governments who would not accept something akin to "freedom of speech".  What you're suggesting sounds very feel good, but is any of it meaningful or practical?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

heraymo said:


> Don't need a interent bill of rights this would fall under the first admentment. you see the first admendment isn't there to protect ideas and thought we all agree with its there to protect ideas and thought of those we don't agree with Alex Jones was the first of many more to come its not going to stop there until someone takes it to court and it goes to the supreme court. these companys were not in there rights to take alex jones down there terms of service can't violate the first admenment just have to wait for someone to have the resources to take this to court now it will happen


It's never been the case that social media platforms have to adhere to the first amendment.  Saying the wrong things on GBATemp will get you banned just like any other online forum.  Nobody is going to challenge this in court, because they'd lose.  Private entities are free to refuse service to whoever they'd like.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2018)

TBH, Google does hide negative articles about themselves.
It wouldn't surprise me if Google was prioritizing pro liberal sites.

Also, according to the article, he doesn't want to censor the internet, he wants search providers to not censor the internet.


----------



## koim (Aug 29, 2018)

Aletron9000 said:


> Google just finds sites that match that criteria. If so many news sites are saying these things about him, then it will show up in google. In my opinion, this is the stupidest thing i have heard yet.


the thing is Google can be manipulated to some extent. try to search for "idiot" in google image


----------



## LoganK93 (Aug 29, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Those biased sons of bitches keep reporting on things he does and says, and it makes him look like an asshole.


So like, we should just let him be an asshole in peace? Reporting on the bad things he does just makes them known, not cause them. If he does good things, wouldn't the news about him also be good?


----------



## Pleng (Aug 29, 2018)

LoganK93 said:


> So like, we should just let him be an asshole in peace? Reporting on the bad things he does just makes them known, not cause them. If he does good things, wouldn't the news about him also be good?



Wow... Way to miss the sarcasm, there!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Well... that would still be something completely different.


It is and it isn't at the same time


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

LoganK93 said:


> So like, we should just let him be an asshole in peace? Reporting on the bad things he does just makes them known, not cause them. If he does good things, wouldn't the news about him also be good?


I'm pretty certain that was sarcasm and what you said was the point.


----------



## Thunder Hawk (Aug 29, 2018)

koim said:


> the thing is Google can be manipulated to some extent. try to search for "idiot" in google image


Found this wonderful man:






But yeah, search manipulation is a bad thing.


----------



## heraymo (Aug 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's never been the case that social media platforms have to adhere to the first amendment.  Saying the wrong things on GBATemp will get you banned just like any other online forum.  Nobody is going to challenge this in court, because they'd lose.  Private entities are free to refuse service to whoever they'd like.


   we will have to see i have a feeling the EFF will take it on soon.


----------



## kuwanger (Aug 29, 2018)

LoganK93 said:


> If he does good things, wouldn't the news about him also be good?



You don't understand. It's a government^W business^W liberal media conspiracy to represent what Trump does in a bad light.  When Trump was locking up all those illegal immigrants, the liberal media was reporting about separating children from their parents and having those children (as young as toddlers) going before judges for a hearing.  See, that just makes Trump look like an asshole.  Next thing you know there will be the story of Trump taking a serial killer off the street, and all the liberal media will focus on his how Trump cooked up the serial killer and ate him.

You have to understand, to Trump it's not too important about the details of what he does.  He just wants to get his message out, and he hates it when point out what he's actually doing or supporting.  I guess that's a great way to run a [criminal] business where deniability is key.


----------



## weatMod (Aug 29, 2018)

everyone at google needs to just fuck right off back to their attics
 how is it this piece of shit  monopoly has  not been  broken up yet?
these new captures make me want to go full on Nasim  Aghdam
this is beyond the fucking pale here
you get ONE captcha you god damn greedy kayaks not fucking  FIFTY !
go program your own self driving algorithms  we are not your fucking slaves!
i swear if i see see Sergi Brin or Larry page i am going to grab the nearest street sign and fire plug and shove it straight up their ass


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

weatMod said:


> everyone at google needs to just fuck right off back to their attics
> how is it this piece of shit  monopoly has  not been  broken up yet?
> these new captures make me want to go full on Nasim  Aghdam
> this is beyond the fucking pale here
> ...


You good?


----------



## weatMod (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You good?


yeah i am good
 but this is fucking bullshit i have been downloading one game for a week  and  it now takes 10 minutes to make an image board post cause of piece of shit google. how do they get away with this crap?
 just solve the next next 70 captchas  your time is not valuable at all
i should be getting a fucking pay check here ,for programing their shitty self driving algos that are never going to work anyways


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

heraymo said:


> we will have to see i have a feeling the EFF will take it on soon.


Unless you're suggesting that all social media is going to be acquired by the government, there is no "we'll see."  Just as a baker can't be forced into making a cake for a gay wedding, social media can't be forced to give a platform to a person advocating for violence and death threats.  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" is posted somewhere in just about every business in America.


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 29, 2018)

From the first criminal to the first black man to the first idiot.
I know that after Trump, there will be a woman in charge.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just that Trump made presidency a joke.
GG Trump, gg.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 29, 2018)

Trump or not, whoever thinks that Google isn't doing what he suggested after their history of controversies, especially as of lately, is a fucking moron.

But please, do go on with your attempt to crap on his reputation. It worked SO WELL during the election! It's not like you alienated literally everyone who doesn't agree with you and your lies. That's why we have a woman as president now...oh wait.


4 more years! 4 more years!


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> But please, do go on with your attempt to crap on his reputation. It worked SO WELL during the election! It's not like you alienated literally everyone who doesn't agree with you and your lies. That's why we have a woman as president now...oh wait.


Lol, you mean his reputation of bankrupting casinos, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to raw dog pornstars, and welching on all his debts?  I think he did a solid job of shitting all over his own reputation before anyone else had a chance.

Both Hillary and Trump were shit candidates.  The difference is that nobody formed a cult around Hillary and started pretending she was flawless.


----------



## kuwanger (Aug 29, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> But please, do go on with your attempt to crap on his reputation. It worked SO WELL during the election!



What I most remember about the election was more the primaries.  10+ Republican jackals were obsessed with the other "real competition" until finally Trump had such a lead, the Republican Party was forced to support a joke Reality TV Star who is antithetical to just about every supposed value of the Republican platform of the last 30 years.  You'd think that'd be enough for most Republicans to at some level boycott voting for an incompetent buffoon of a guy that'd make the US look like a laughing stock--and Dan Quayle a genius.

Meanwhile on the Democrat side, we saw the Democrat Party vote in Hillary without really listen to their constituents.  Once in that position, Hillary took winning the Presidency to be tantamount to simply strolling into the White House because what really was her competition?  So, in the end, the hubris of one woman and the incompetence (but showmanship) of one man got us to where we are today.  Oh, that and 10+ Republicans too interested into making a name for themselves than any interest in the common good or working together to achieve a goal.

It's little wonder then that once there was an R by the President's name, they just went lock step into doing his agenda (mostly).  It's not that they support Trump.  It's that they support the notion of whoever wins, so long as it's a Republican (preferably them), gets to do their agenda.  So, how's that Repeal going?  Oh, right, Repeal and Replace going?


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2018)

I'm just going to say, I hate both sides. I hate Hillary. And I hate Trump. Because they both pose extreme logical ideals leaning way too far left, or way too far right.
medicare for everyone? I can get behind that.
Legalizing marijuana, no I cannot.
Having guns is important,
But having certain restrictions on types of guns is not a terrible idea, especially if it's a military grade weapon that has a high fire rate and is high power, but guns are good, just limit the ones that are truly unnecessary.
Now let me ask everyone's mental state, because let's be honest. Everyone is a bit insane.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I hate Hillary. And I hate Trump. Because they both pose extreme logical ideals leaning way too far left, or way too far right.


Hillary was considered a centrist at best, a corporate bureaucrat, which is the reason a lot of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.  The center has clearly moved to the right if Hillary is suddenly "far left."



monkeyman4412 said:


> Legalizing marijuana, no I cannot.


Well, that one is happening regardless of who is president.  The reasons for keeping it illegal were and are completely bogus, so the public's response to the disinformation campaign against weed is 55%+ support for legalization.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, that one is happening regardless of who is president.  The reasons for keeping it illegal were and are completely bogus, so the public's response to the disinformation campaign against weed is 55%+ support for legalization.


Seems like better medicare is going the same way. Despite their efforts to mess up or even get rid of Obamacare, the majority seems to want "medicare for all".


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Seems like better medicare is going the same way. Despite their efforts to mess up or even get rid of Obamacare, the majority seems to want "medicare for all".


Let's hope, but it's not really going the same way as marijuana legalization until at least a few states actually enact it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 29, 2018)

The ensuing discussion here is satire at it's very finest. 

Google's search algorithm takes your own history as a base for future searches, as well what the general public thinks. It may very well be that in the USA, his popularity is about 50-50, but him constantly taking the piss on the rest of the world ensured that the amount of people disliking him REALLY sways the favor. His popularity in Belgium is at best 1%*, and I assume that's no difference in the majority of the rest of the world. You can say it's pretty unfair, but Trump supporters generally bitch more about how bad the rest of the world understands him than pointing out something good he actually achieved**.


Yet somehow, he says "I don't like google because it shows me arguments why I might be a lousy president", and all of the sudden people that probably can't even name three search engines dislike it as well. Holy Jezus...just use bing if you really want to...

oh, wait...that one also contains sources that indicate that Trump might not be the best president ever. Well...maybe yahoo can... Damn...that one also contains links to those filthy leftist sites. Hmm...sorry, alt right friends: perhaps you better get off the internet. The best way to avoid people with different opinions. 




*no joke: I know someone who supports him. To a degree I find it daring, as it takes guts to go against LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE I know in person.
**okay, on the good side: the guy looks amazing for his age. It's not a criteria I think matters much for a POTUS, but ey...it's a good thing. 





koim said:


> the thing is Google can be manipulated to some extent. try to search for "idiot" in google image


Makes sense: just about half the images on the first page show Donald Trump (with Boris Johnson at a second place at around 5% of results).


----------



## grey72 (Aug 29, 2018)

can someone enlighten me as to why the FUCK is the temp turning into reddit


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 29, 2018)

grey72 said:


> can someone enlighten me as to why the FUCK is the temp turning into reddit


It has a politics section and suddenly it's Reddit?

Or are you referring to the fact that we have threads that criticize our president?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> It may very well be that in the USA, his popularity is about 50-50


That would be super generous in his favor. Last I heard his approval rating was 36%


----------



## grey72 (Aug 29, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It has a politics section and suddenly it's Reddit?
> 
> Or are you referring to the fact that we have threads that criticize our president?



I suppose I overreacted, but I've read a variation of this exact thread with this exact banter a million times over on Reddit. Just kinda frustrated the argument ends up at the same place every single time. Just wanted to lighten up the mood a bit that's all


Just to clarify, I don't have a horse in this race, American politics is fucked on both sides


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 29, 2018)

grey72 said:


> can someone enlighten me as to why the FUCK is the temp turning into reddit



Basically, the political section is to keep political idiots contained into one section so it doesn't spill out all over the board.
It's easier to moderate as well ; )


----------



## Shadowfied (Aug 29, 2018)

I love how everyone just goes "GOOGLE IS COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE, THEY JUST SCAN FOR CONTENT" just straight out of their ass. They also selectively decide which sites are considered "news". There is absolutely a bias in Google.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Aug 29, 2018)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I'm just going to say, I hate both sides. I hate Hillary. And I hate Trump. Because they both pose extreme logical ideals leaning way too far left, or way too far right.
> medicare for everyone? I can get behind that.
> Legalizing marijuana, no I cannot.
> Having guns is important,
> ...


Yes to certain restrictions, SWAT raided the apartments I used to live in because the downstairs neighbor had a grenade. I also do believe that guns are important because they can protect people from tyranny.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 29, 2018)

Shadowfied said:


> I love how everyone just goes "GOOGLE IS COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE, THEY JUST SCAN FOR CONTENT" just straight out of their ass. They also selectively decide which sites are considered "news". There is absolutely a bias in Google.


Human intervention is not super common in what comes up in Google searches, unless there's a DMCA request or something (minus torrent sites, which I still don't get why they're targeted for search engine removal).
Most of what you see is where it is in searches because of popularity at the time or based on the user's own search trends. Everyone and everything has a bit of bias, but it's blown out of proportion by people who call everything that's remotely negative about them "fake news". Not saying any names; but you know.


----------



## Pleng (Aug 30, 2018)

Shadowfied said:


> I love how everyone just goes "GOOGLE IS COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE, THEY JUST SCAN FOR CONTENT" just straight out of their ass.



Yea... Except nobody's actually said that...


----------



## Shadowfied (Aug 30, 2018)

Pleng said:


> Yea... Except nobody's actually said that...


Check page 1


----------



## Fugelmir (Aug 30, 2018)

Google is super biased.  Remember when they outed that engineer for calling out their oppressive ideological groupthink?


----------



## Viri (Aug 30, 2018)

Trump needs to start using Duck Duck Go!


----------



## Pleng (Aug 30, 2018)

Shadowfied said:


> Check page 1



One person hinted at the second half of your statement. Kinda. That's hardly everyone. It's like half... So my generalisation (0) is way closer than yours (infinity)


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 30, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> Google is super biased.  Remember when they outed that engineer for calling out their oppressive ideological groupthink?






Sophie-bear said:


> Human intervention is not super common in what comes up in Google searches, unless there's a DMCA request or something (minus torrent sites, which I still don't get why they're targeted for search engine removal).



Google's employees are not Google's web crawlers. The web crawlers (which are bots) don't discriminate as much as you want to believe.
I will say this until I see evidence to the contrary.


----------



## orangy57 (Aug 30, 2018)

We've gotten to the point where Donald Trump is practically brainwashing his followers. He's teaching everybody that any negative facts against him are fake and lies, and to only watch his approved news (FOX.) Like doesn't that remind you of a certain country? The worst part is that all of his followers don't ever question this stuff, it's like they believe he can do no wrong even when he is doing stuff that is objectively bad. If he flip-flops on an issue, his supporters follow. It's almost cultish in a way


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 30, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> Google is super biased.  Remember when they outed that engineer for calling out their oppressive ideological groupthink?


But no PragerU isn't biased at all!

p.s i'm being sarcastic for all you morons out there


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 30, 2018)

grey72 said:


> I suppose I overreacted, but I've read a variation of this exact thread with this exact banter a million times over on Reddit. Just kinda frustrated the argument ends up at the same place every single time. Just wanted to lighten up the mood a bit that's all


Can't disagree on that. Nothing lightens up the mood than cranky comparisons and all capital swear words. 

Oh, and...perhaps an idea to cut down reading so many reddit-topics then?  I'd say that even with Donald as president, you could probably get all the opinions on his "discuss this"-bombs summarized in less than a thousand threads.

...

Probably.



Viri said:


> Trump needs to start using Duck Duck Go!


Just for fun, I duckduckgo'd "Trump news".

First link (translated): "Trump warns violence when losing elections".

I guess the combined efforts of wikipedia, bing, yahoo and yandex (huh?) isn't bringing "the best" Trump news either if you're hellbent that "the best" only consists of positive vibes. 



But...WAIT! I've got it. I can end this current shitstorm easily.

@donald Trump: in case you're reading this, I've got the perfect solution for you. It's called "Completely Honest And Objective Search engine" (or 'chaos' for short*). It's specifically aimed at bringing all the good news you bring. In fact, if you chaos it for "Trump news", it'll immediately show all the gggggrrrrreeeaaaat thing you've done since your presidency: --> CLICK HERE FOR THE LONG LIST OF RESULTS <-- .
No need to thank me. You're welcome. Keep on making that America Great, mate. 



*believe it or not, but I wasn't aiming for that word joke when I abbreviated it


----------



## Viri (Aug 30, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I guess the combined efforts of wikipedia, bing, yahoo and yandex (huh?) isn't bringing "the best" Trump news either if you're hellbent that "the best" only consists of positive vibes.


I dunno, but everyone should start using Duck Duck Go anyway, because fuck Google.


----------



## grey72 (Aug 30, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Can't disagree on that. Nothing lightens up the mood than cranky comparisons and all capital swear words.


Ooof, ouch you don't let up do ya?



Taleweaver said:


> oh, and...perhaps an idea to cut down reading so many reddit-topics then?  I'd say that even with Donald as president, you could probably get all the opinions on his "discuss this"-bombs summarized in less than a thousand threads.


Come on dude, you know how ridiculous the situation is; every other topic devolves into that discussion eventually. It's like a disease. Or heck, maybe it's just another stupid meme that I haven't caught on to


----------



## Fugelmir (Aug 30, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> Google's employees are not Google's web crawlers. The web crawlers (which are bots) don't discriminate as much as you want to believe.
> I will say this until I see evidence to the contrary.



Humans program the bots and they censor conservative media, obfuscating it entirely.  But that's besides the point as they deplatform and demonetize content they dont like or agree with directly.  The apocalypse ensured conservative news outlets couldn't make money from adsense.  

And as for the PragerU bias -- it is a conservative thinktank and makes no secret of it.  It also backs its videos up with legitimate arguments.  Watch CNN try to crucify trump over not being kind enough when tweeting about McCain.  The free press is extremely biased to the left which is okay...but it is also ridiculously lazy and predictable which is a problem.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 30, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> if anyone now think trump is not starting a tyranical movement in our democracy needs there damn head examined for brain damage WAKE THE HELL UP CONGRESS


anyone who believes in the false RED/BLUE dichotomy needs to WAKE THE HELL UP.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 30, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> anyone who believes in the false RED/BLUE dichotomy needs to WAKE THE HELL UP.



There is a dichotomy, but they way I see it, it's more "for the corporations" vs. "for the people". Unfortunately, the latter doesn't usually tend to get very far, and the former does because they're funded by tycoons.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Aug 30, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> There is a dichotomy, but they way I see it, it's more "for the corporations" vs. "for the people". Unfortunately, the latter doesn't usually tend to get very far, and the former does because they're funded by tycoons.


there is no "for the people". The people are comprised of individuals and individual rights are being trampled on by both red and blue.


----------



## Dissaor (Aug 30, 2018)

Don't know specifics of Trump's case, but Google was already fined by the EU with 4.300.000.000 euros (thousand million is not a billion btw) in the android anitrust case, so is not that "crazy" to think they are manipulating the algorithm in the way Trumps says, but, there's no proof so far of that I think, so, no case for me yet.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 30, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> there is no "for the people". The people are comprised of individuals and individual rights are being trampled on by both red and blue.


There is "for the people", just, like I said, they don't tend to get very far. We could go back and forth on this forever, I'm just going to leave it at that.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> anyone who believes in the false RED/BLUE dichotomy needs to WAKE THE HELL UP.


It's a false dichotomy because Trump doesn't have any true morals or ideology?  It's common knowledge that he used to call himself a Democrat.


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 4, 2018)

_Google - Your Ultra Safe PC Left Wing Liberal Space.
_
This is best examplified in YouTube.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 5, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> This is best examplified in YouTube.


How do you figure?


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 5, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How do you figure?


https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

Take a look.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 5, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en
> 
> Take a look.



Nothing there has a political bias for or against any political ideology. If YouTube wants to keep advertisers, they have to have ad-friendly content.
Not sure why or how you can twist that to be favoring a political ideology, but ok..


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 5, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en
> 
> Take a look.


So... Hang on, which of those guidelines do you think is oppressive of right-wing beliefs?...


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... Hang on, which of those guidelines do you think is oppressive of right-wing beliefs?...


Just because it supports left-wing beliefs doesn't necessarily mean it opposes right-wing ones.

"*Hateful content: *Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not suitable for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be suitable for advertising."

I've seen more than one video of Hitler giving a speech that has comments, likes, and even the link to the channel disabled. I mean ffs if you don't like a video don't watch it.
This is what I meant by safe space.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> I'm still not convinced I shouldn't support him or his supporters. I never voted for him. I never went to a protest with a torch or a rally. I just said to my peers I love my country and I was frowned upon. How can you guys wake up every day with so much built up anger? Do you want to see our country fall?



*quietly raises hand*


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Just because it supports left-wing beliefs doesn't necessarily mean it opposes right-wing ones.
> 
> "*Hateful content: *Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not suitable for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be suitable for advertising."
> 
> ...


So your issue is that YouTube refuses to support hateful content on their platform?


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So your issue is that YouTube refuses to support hateful content on their platform?


I mean that works in theory, but not in paper. A bot doesn't know context.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> I mean that works in theory, but not in paper. A bot doesn't know context.


Which is why appeals exist, which the content creators can use to escalate to a real person if they care enough and feel their content has been wrongly taken down


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2018)

fyi youtube isn't government run so first amendment really doesn't apply IT ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT which is exactly why this thing on censorship is bad unlike youtube a government crackdown will lead to bloodshed as people will rise and fight


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 6, 2018)

"Safe space", because we don't have a "president" calling everything fake news and threatening to censor or regulate everything that isn't in the same vein as Fox News.


----------



## Fugelmir (Sep 7, 2018)

Hey, if you want to whinge about your president, go nuts.  He's the best president I've seen in my 31 years and if I was American, I'd be overjoyed and definitely vote for him again.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> Hey, if you want to whinge about your president, go nuts.  He's the best president I've seen in my 31 years and if I was American, I'd be overjoyed and definitely vote for him again.


Er... Why, exactly? What has he done that you admire/benefits you?


----------



## XDel (Sep 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> First they take their playbook straight out of Orwell's 1984*, now they want to censor any non-favorable news coverage.
> * "Facts are not facts," "do not believe your eyes and ears"



I have read 1984, living in America is nothing like that. What is does remind me of... what the world reminds me of, is Aldous Huxley's Brave new world. It also reminds me of a play book Edward Bernays once wrote titled Propaganda. Or the warnings of the late Neil Postman. 

Let me share with you a few quotes:


"No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders."

"But when the example of the leader is not at hand and the herd must think for itself, it does so by means of clichés, pat words or images which stand for a whole group of ideas or experiences. Not many years ago, it was only necessary to tag a political candidate with the word interests to stampede millions of people into voting against him, because anything associated with "the interests" seemed necessary corrupt. Recently the word Bolshevik has performed a similar service for persons who wished to frighten the public away from a line of action."

"By playing upon an old cliché, or manipulating a new one, the propagandist can sometimes swing a whole mass group emotions."

"Who are the men, who, without our realizing it, give us our ideas, tell us whom to admire and whom to despise, what to believe about the ownership of public utilities .. about immigration who tell us how our houses should be designed, what furniture we should put into them, what menus we should serve at our table, what kind of shirts we must wear, what sports we should indulge in, what plays we should see, what charities we should support, what pictures we should admire, what slang we should affect, what jokes we should laugh at?" - Edward Bernays (1928)

--------------------

“In America, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it is certainly useful to have a few when a pollster shows up. But these are opinions of a quite different roder from eighteenth- or nineteenth-century opinions. It is probably more accurate to call them emotions rather than opinions, which would account for the fact that they change from week to week, as the pollsters tell us. What is happening here is that television is altering the meaning of 'being informed' by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. I am using this world almost in the precise sense in which it is used by spies in the CIA or KGB. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information--misplace, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information--information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed. Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?” 
― Neil Postman

--------------

“As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensating to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate”

― Aldous Huxley


----------



## dpad_5678 (Sep 7, 2018)

Thunder Hawk said:


> Wouldn't be the first time that Google has censored and/or manipulated the search results and rankings. Google and its liberal left-wing thinking and beliefs can very well prioritize unfavorable results to reflect its own political affiliation.


Everything is rigged by liberals according to the easily-offended conservatives, right?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Everything is rigged by liberals according to the easily-offended conservatives, right?


And even hypothetically speaking in that case, there's SUCH a HUGE difference between a company manipulating search results to favor one side or the other (assuming no malice on either side, that would still be shitty, but...) and the PRESIDENT of our country quite literally completely overstepping the VERY FIRST amendment just because he doesn't like what people are saying about him


----------



## dpad_5678 (Sep 7, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And even hypothetically speaking in that case, there's SUCH a HUGE difference between a company manipulating search results to favor one side or the other (assuming no malice on either side, that would still be shitty, but...) and the PRESIDENT of our country quite literally completely overstepping the VERY FIRST amendment just because he doesn't like what people are saying about him


Exactly. Just because I am against most rightist views, I do not support censoring them (unless they are racist or hateful, in which they most often are).

HOWEVER, if a private organization like, say, YouTube, wanted to remove content from their site, they can do that and do not have to provide any reason. Sure, we may have Freedom of Speech/Press/Expression, but in no way whatsoever are they obligated to honor those rights (eg, owning pornographic content is legal, but it's against YouTube ToS to upload it their, and they're in their rights to remove any pornographic content that someone publishes on their website).

Their removal of Alex Jones really set off the rights but I find it strange how it's not okay to go after some dumb little asshole that threatens and verbally abuses school shooting victims and their families, but physically attacking journalists (literally) is perfectly fine.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 7, 2018)

XDel said:


> I have read 1984, living in America is nothing like that.


I didn't say living here was like that (yet).  I said the Trump administration is taking their playbook from 1984.  Those quotes are from Giuliani and Trump respectively, and they're almost word for word from that book as well.


----------



## XDel (Sep 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I didn't say living here was like that (yet).  I said the Trump administration is taking their playbook from 1984.  Those quotes are from Giuliani and Trump respectively, and they're almost word for word from that book as well.



I don't doubt they said it, I just doubt that with the current state of propaganda that rules the herd, that there will be enough troops to bolster such a regime, unless they were to bring in troops from outside the U.S, or of course used some sort of tragedy to motivate the people against themselves in such a manner, or what have you.

Brave New World on the other hand... we have been there for quite some time. Who needs cages and guns when we're made passive and content with our prisons. Lock us in our apartment with a VR Set, Sport Entertainment, or Gossip Programming, and most of us feel free enough.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 7, 2018)




----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 7, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> Hey, if you want to whinge about your president, go nuts.  He's the best president I've seen in my 31 years and if I was American, I'd be overjoyed and definitely vote for him again.



dude i notice your CANADIAN (why lie if your in the US and are a racist biggot trump lover (I can garentee seeing that the only 33% that approve are probably racist or neo nazi's which in my mind is horrifying) as i was saying Canadians don't vote in the US Election they vote for their own country so uh why even say untrue statements?


----------



## bodefuceta (Sep 7, 2018)

I wish there was a decent search engine that isn't so left leaning, but I don't think regulating is the correct answer.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 7, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> dude i notice your CANADIAN (why lie if your in the US and are a racist biggot trump lover (I can garentee seeing that the only 33% that approve are probably racist or neo nazi's which in my mind is horrifying) as i was saying Canadians don't vote in the US Election they vote for their own country so uh why even say untrue statements?


I don't understand what you are saying. While I think he is just trolling, it says he is from Canadian and he said "if i was American". I don't see the lie here.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 7, 2018)

whats beyond me is why people except for racist voted for him makes no sense imo


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> whats beyond me is why people except for racist voted for him makes no sense imo


Some people saw him as "anti-establishment" and thought he'd shake things up

Which, I mean, they weren't wrong, he's definitely shaken up the news cycle and foreign relations. In terms of politics though he has neither changed anything establishment-wise nor done anything that is objectively positive


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 7, 2018)

so very true trust me if trump had it 100% his way he'd declare emergency power and rule for the rest of his pathetic life and I'm scared that might ACTUALLY happen


----------



## Fugelmir (Sep 8, 2018)

It isn't racist to support Trump.  I like a lot of decisions he's made especially regarding Israel.  

I think he's wrong on climate change but it's still far safer to have that stance than follow the environmental fanatics who own 5 houses and cruise everywhere in a carbon spwwingpersonal jet.

Trump is not a perfect person, as is no government or country.  He has supported America well and even detractors have to concede that the economy is booming thanks largely to his policy.

As a Canadian, I am jealous of Americans because they have a leader who values his country instead of constantly attacking its core values.  

America is the greatest country on Earth.  But Israel is probably going to pass it at some point.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> It isn't racist to support Trump.


Supporting a racist makes one complicit.



Fugelmir said:


> I think he's wrong on climate change but it's still far safer to have that stance than follow the environmental fanatics who own 5 houses and cruise everywhere in a carbon spwwingpersonal jet.


Those aren't the two options.



Fugelmir said:


> He has supported America well and even detractors have to concede that the economy is booming thanks largely to his policy.


There is no evidence that the economy is doing any better due to Trump's policies.



Fugelmir said:


> As a Canadian, I am jealous of Americans because they have a leader who values his country instead of constantly attacking its core values.


There's a lot of evidence that Trump cares more about himself than the country.


----------



## Fugelmir (Sep 8, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Supporting a racist makes one complicit.
> 
> 
> Those aren't the two options.
> ...



If that is the extent of your rebuttal, I think you're gonna end up with another 4 years of Trump.   Hopefully someone in your camp can come up with something convincing enough to change minds.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 8, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> If that is the extent of your rebuttal, I think you're gonna end up with another 4 years of Trump.   Hopefully someone in your camp can come up with something convincing enough to change minds.


The pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## kingfrost (Sep 8, 2018)

I love that conservatives are for smaller government but now want to regulate social media. What agency will do this? Who will they answer to? What rules will they abide by? How much will this cost our country?

I'll wait for your answers...


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 8, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I love that conservatives are for smaller government but now want to regulate social media. What agency will do this? Who will they answer to? What rules will they abide by? How much will this cost our country?
> 
> I'll wait for your answers...



They only support government regulation that fits their agenda. Ironically, it's the same on the other side yet they'll criticize it until the cows come home.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 8, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I love that conservatives are for smaller government but now want to regulate social media. What agency will do this? Who will they answer to? What rules will they abide by? How much will this cost our country?
> 
> I'll wait for your answers...


NO agency can, the first amendment LITERALLY says that the government can't make any laws to restrict speech against them. They'd either have to start a constitutional convention to re-word or remove the first amendment, or they'd need a partisan Supreme Court that's willing to break their oath to uphold the Constitution and look the other way

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sophie-bear said:


> They only support government regulation that fits their agenda. Ironically, it's the same on the other side yet they'll criticize it until the cows come home.


I mean, yeah, typically someone would only agree with legislation that fits their core values. It IS rather hypocritical, though, to say that you want a small government when it comes to taxation, regulation of economy, and hate speech/discrimination law, yet turn around the second things aren't going your way and try to censor any dissent rather than practicing what you preach


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 8, 2018)

I know it's hard to ignore youtube, but if you really think they are bad, support Bitchute or other alternatives.
A monopoly like google is never beneficial. 
If youtube were to go offline today, 90% or more of videos on the internet would disappear. Even though I do not support censorship like in China, it was actually a smart move to ban youtube. It allowed Chinese companies to emerge in China. All other countries now heavily depend on American companies (youtube, twitter, to some extend facebook).


----------



## kingfrost (Sep 8, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> They only support government regulation that fits their agenda. Ironically, it's the same on the other side yet they'll criticize it until the cows come home.



I mean if you're saying that both sides are hypocritical than yeah that's true. However, democrats are typically for more government regulation in general, in both social and economical senses.

The major difference being that that one side imagines its suppressed by invisible enemies while the other side has actually faced actual suppression. Of course, with the way history is rewritten on a daily basis, I'm sure the War On Christmas will soon be their Civil Rights movement.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 8, 2018)

Maybe they should regulate Sinclair TV instead.


----------

