"Regulation is bad! Unless it's to force people to say nice things about me."
Goddamn it I've aged 10 years in the last 18 months.
There's a really craven irony that the kind of thing this administration championed, under Ajit Pai, the allowance that ISP's can do whatever they want with regard to which sites get preferential treatment, isn't having that same philosophy being applied to a search engine company.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Google are doing any filtering specifically for political bias. I think that the typical FOX viewer prefers the TV to the internet, and the typical non-FOX user doesn't, and so the search results are dependent on viewership and linkage.
My point is, even if Google WAS doing what Trump is claiming, then according to the philosophy of the Trump FCC, there shouldn't be a problem with them doing that.
Of course, hypocrisy is one of the seven virtues of modern Republicanism now, so I'm not surprised.
Someone pointed it out in the First amendment thread, but do a google search for "Idiot". Confirmation google is biased against trump.
I get stories about how Trump is mad about a billboard that calls him an idiot?
Like if anything his is "how to shoot yourself in the foot by drawing attention to things you don't like by being a dipshit that can't shut the hell up while also being president"
Someone pointed it out in the First amendment thread, but do a google search for "Idiot". Confirmation google is biased against trump.
I get stories about how Trump is mad about a billboard that calls him an idiot?
Like if anything his is "how to shoot yourself in the foot by drawing attention to things you don't like by being a dipshit that can't shut the hell up while also being president"
It's just half the front page are articles/websites about him with the headline Idiot in them, and quite a few pictures. It's just kind of funny that he pops up on the front page of results.
RickRude on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Image search for “idiot” makes it much more clear
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It's true, it's very easy to claim that the media has a left-leaning bias if you are constantly lying all the time about things that they can easily fact-check you on and also you invent your own definition of what "left-leaning" means in order to include famously conservative newspapers within that sphere.
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
Unlikely many, as Bing etc. do exist. They could push for regulation of search, but that would require understanding it conceptually first, which is really too specialized for politicians.
That's not even getting into positive vs negative sentiment classification rules.
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
None, because of this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it, even if the Trump Administration and GOP haven't.
There is a disparity across search engines. Google's image results for 'idiot' in incognito mode vs, say, Bing (also incog) are somewhat different.
I am not informed enough to say for certain what this means.
They all have their own search algorithms.
Incognito should dereference most of your current cookies making you seem like a clean new session with no browsing history. There's some information they can use to still connect you to your last sessions so actually dumping cache and cookies and grabbing at least a new IP works better.
However all major search engines personalize search results to some measure. They tilt the results to what they think you want, because delivering the thing you want with as little input from your end as possible is the goal. Compare the results from incognito sessions, to results from a day of non logged in browsing, to the results you get when your account is logged in. I think they've calmed this down slightly since people figured out they were doing it.
However this also doesn't change that the search algorithms are different at a base level and that they weight results differently so it decides, "this is definitely the thing they are looking for", differently. Bing and google will always return different results because they are using a different algorithm by which to decide pages are valid search results.
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
None, because of this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it, even if the Trump Administration and GOP haven't.
I wasn't wondering what the FCC could do that would be constitutional. A Trump tweet demanding that Ajit Pai do something followed by some stupid action on Pai's part is perfectly fitting with how 2018 is going so far.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
None, because of this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it, even if the Trump Administration and GOP haven't.
I wasn't wondering what the FCC could do that would be constitutional. A Trump tweet demanding that Ajit Pai do something followed by some stupid action on Pai's part is perfectly fitting with how 2018 is going so far.
Well yeah, the FCC can do something. Which would then be immediately hit with a lawsuit by Google and probably literally every other tech company in existence and then immediately ruled in favor of Google by every court on First Amendment grounds.
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
None, because of this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it, even if the Trump Administration and GOP haven't.
I wasn't wondering what the FCC could do that would be constitutional. A Trump tweet demanding that Ajit Pai do something followed by some stupid action on Pai's part is perfectly fitting with how 2018 is going so far.
Well yeah, the FCC can do something. Which would then be immediately hit with a lawsuit by Google and probably literally every other tech company in existence and then immediately ruled in favor of Google by every court on First Amendment grounds.
Hopefully. Or the FCC could attempt to mandate something similar to the Fairness Doctrine be applied to search algorithms... And there will be a talk with Google about their 86% market share and how it'd be a shame if the FTC decided to look into that to determine if they're a monopoly that needs some anti-trust hammering.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The funniest part is WSJ being partially left leaning. Mmhmmm, sure.
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
None, because of this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it, even if the Trump Administration and GOP haven't.
I wasn't wondering what the FCC could do that would be constitutional. A Trump tweet demanding that Ajit Pai do something followed by some stupid action on Pai's part is perfectly fitting with how 2018 is going so far.
Well yeah, the FCC can do something. Which would then be immediately hit with a lawsuit by Google and probably literally every other tech company in existence and then immediately ruled in favor of Google by every court on First Amendment grounds.
Hopefully. Or the FCC could attempt to mandate something similar to the Fairness Doctrine be applied to search algorithms... And there will be a talk with Google about their 86% market share and how it'd be a shame if the FTC decided to look into that to determine if they're a monopoly that needs some anti-trust hammering.
I have been lurking on Free Republic, if anything to get a pulse on extreme right wing/libertarian reactions to news without having to go though the cesspool that is /r/the_donald. When article comes up there about how Google is censoring right wing speech. An argument breaks out immediately. On one side you have people saying that the government should intervene, while others reply in a panic about government regulation.
"They need to pass a law that says if Google edits content they get their DMCA exemption revoked!"
"NO! find another search engine, the government should not be regulating companies! Let the market decide!"
"Passing a law isn't "regulation" dummy!"
"Yes it is! if anything It's a monopoly and should be broken up!"
The logic is baffling...
halkun on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
There is a disparity across search engines. Google's image results for 'idiot' in incognito mode vs, say, Bing (also incog) are somewhat different.
I am not informed enough to say for certain what this means.
Duckduckgo still associates Trump pictures to 'idiot' but to a lesser degree (and other politicians have single images there).
So it would seem to me that the activists are optimising their association against Google's search algorithm, but it's being picked up elsewhere as well, even with Duckduckgo not trying to guess user preferences.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
OK, I think this is the place: On Thursday, Orrin Hatch wrote a letter asking the FTC to take a gander at Google in regards to search and digtal advertising.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Didn't the FCC preempt states passing their own net neutrality rules, ruling them illegal ahead of time?
Yes, but SCOTUS hasn't said if they actually could do that.
I also think some of the legislation that is going on isn't "ISPs that want to do business in the state have to follow Net Neutrality." but "ISPs that want to do business with the state (or other government entities within the state) have to follow Net Neutrality." Meaning it's not a law so much as a condition for future contracts with some of the biggest customers ISPs could ever want.
OK, I think this is the place: On Thursday, Orrin Hatch wrote a letter asking the FTC to take a gander at Google in regards to search and digtal advertising.
He should make like a censor and shut the fuck up.
This should be interesting. A republican DoJ arguing against state’s rights as an election looms.
Also there’s no way the how the FCC went about it’s own decision doesn’t get brought up, including the fraudulent comments supporting a repeal that they knew where fraudulent.
This should be interesting. A republican DoJ arguing against state’s rights as an election looms.
Also there’s no way the how the FCC went about it’s own decision doesn’t get brought up, including the fraudulent comments supporting a repeal that they knew where fraudulent.
More to the point, if I'm not mistaken, the FCC got rid of the protections by arguing they did not have jurisdiction to regulate them. Then they tried to say that states have no right to either. They can't have it both ways.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It's not the first time the administration has tried legal action against California. It's also not going to be the only time they lose to California. At best they'll get some sort of stay in place but they'll lose the overall decision.
+3
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
It's not the first time the administration has tried legal action against California. It's also not going to be the only time they lose to California. At best they'll get some sort of stay in place but they'll lose the overall decision.
Why would they lose to California? Justice Kavannaugh will write the decision "suck it, libs!"
+23
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
It's not the first time the administration has tried legal action against California. It's also not going to be the only time they lose to California. At best they'll get some sort of stay in place but they'll lose the overall decision.
Why would they lose to California? Justice Kavannaugh will write the decision "suck it, libs!"
Posts
They aren't just signal boosting they are "looking into policy" based off this and the fact it got onto Trump's radar via Fox News.
Trump’s economic adviser: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated
They are for no regulations unless it is regulating speech that makes them feel bad about themselves. And people's easy access to that speech.
Goddamn it I've aged 10 years in the last 18 months.
There's a really craven irony that the kind of thing this administration championed, under Ajit Pai, the allowance that ISP's can do whatever they want with regard to which sites get preferential treatment, isn't having that same philosophy being applied to a search engine company.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Google are doing any filtering specifically for political bias. I think that the typical FOX viewer prefers the TV to the internet, and the typical non-FOX user doesn't, and so the search results are dependent on viewership and linkage.
My point is, even if Google WAS doing what Trump is claiming, then according to the philosophy of the Trump FCC, there shouldn't be a problem with them doing that.
Of course, hypocrisy is one of the seven virtues of modern Republicanism now, so I'm not surprised.
I dunno, seems pretty accurate to me. Trump is, after all, an idiot.
I get stories about how Trump is mad about a billboard that calls him an idiot?
Like if anything his is "how to shoot yourself in the foot by drawing attention to things you don't like by being a dipshit that can't shut the hell up while also being president"
It's just half the front page are articles/websites about him with the headline Idiot in them, and quite a few pictures. It's just kind of funny that he pops up on the front page of results.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I am not informed enough to say for certain what this means.
Visit him at Monstrous Pigments' Instagram and Facebook pages!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The WSJ's news tends to be pretty fact based, so it's left leaning in the Colbert joke sort of way. Their opinion page only has a passing familiarity with reality.
I wonder what levers the FCC could pull to put pressure on Google.
Unlikely many, as Bing etc. do exist. They could push for regulation of search, but that would require understanding it conceptually first, which is really too specialized for politicians.
That's not even getting into positive vs negative sentiment classification rules.
None, because of this thing called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it, even if the Trump Administration and GOP haven't.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
They all have their own search algorithms.
Incognito should dereference most of your current cookies making you seem like a clean new session with no browsing history. There's some information they can use to still connect you to your last sessions so actually dumping cache and cookies and grabbing at least a new IP works better.
However all major search engines personalize search results to some measure. They tilt the results to what they think you want, because delivering the thing you want with as little input from your end as possible is the goal. Compare the results from incognito sessions, to results from a day of non logged in browsing, to the results you get when your account is logged in. I think they've calmed this down slightly since people figured out they were doing it.
However this also doesn't change that the search algorithms are different at a base level and that they weight results differently so it decides, "this is definitely the thing they are looking for", differently. Bing and google will always return different results because they are using a different algorithm by which to decide pages are valid search results.
Visit him at Monstrous Pigments' Instagram and Facebook pages!
I wasn't wondering what the FCC could do that would be constitutional. A Trump tweet demanding that Ajit Pai do something followed by some stupid action on Pai's part is perfectly fitting with how 2018 is going so far.
Well yeah, the FCC can do something. Which would then be immediately hit with a lawsuit by Google and probably literally every other tech company in existence and then immediately ruled in favor of Google by every court on First Amendment grounds.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Hopefully. Or the FCC could attempt to mandate something similar to the Fairness Doctrine be applied to search algorithms... And there will be a talk with Google about their 86% market share and how it'd be a shame if the FTC decided to look into that to determine if they're a monopoly that needs some anti-trust hammering.
"They need to pass a law that says if Google edits content they get their DMCA exemption revoked!"
"NO! find another search engine, the government should not be regulating companies! Let the market decide!"
"Passing a law isn't "regulation" dummy!"
"Yes it is! if anything It's a monopoly and should be broken up!"
The logic is baffling...
The FCC can "choose which evidence to believe," court says.
Seems about right for this Truth isn't Truth administration.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Duckduckgo still associates Trump pictures to 'idiot' but to a lesser degree (and other politicians have single images there).
So it would seem to me that the activists are optimising their association against Google's search algorithm, but it's being picked up elsewhere as well, even with Duckduckgo not trying to guess user preferences.
On Thursday, Orrin Hatch wrote a letter asking the FTC to take a gander at Google in regards to search and digtal advertising.
I also think some of the legislation that is going on isn't "ISPs that want to do business in the state have to follow Net Neutrality." but "ISPs that want to do business with the state (or other government entities within the state) have to follow Net Neutrality." Meaning it's not a law so much as a condition for future contracts with some of the biggest customers ISPs could ever want.
He should make like a censor and shut the fuck up.
And the balkanization of rules begins!
Officially signed into law.
DoJ is suing
Also there’s no way the how the FCC went about it’s own decision doesn’t get brought up, including the fraudulent comments supporting a repeal that they knew where fraudulent.
More to the point, if I'm not mistaken, the FCC got rid of the protections by arguing they did not have jurisdiction to regulate them. Then they tried to say that states have no right to either. They can't have it both ways.
Why would they lose to California? Justice Kavannaugh will write the decision "suck it, libs!"
Yeah, that’s the sticking point.