Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Okay, Google. Search 'Clinton's Emails'

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
Ok Google, search 'donald trump fraud'.


Basically - Google is a bit more careful with public figures.
ChadFord · 31-35, M
Trump is not perfect but probably one of the least fraudulent Presidents. He also doesn’t coddle anyone and that Drives the Demonrats insane. @QuixoticSoul
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@ChadFord *whoosh*
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul With public figures? Every single celebrity is a public figure. So, are they "careful" with everyone?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile I am not google - but clearly, they aren’t out to only “protect” Hillary.
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul What of the google executives talking about how they need to stop "a situation like trump getting elected never happening again"?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile Does that have something to do with the search behavior demonstrated in yours and mine examples?
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
daisymay · 51-55, T
omg, too funny! 🤣
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@daisymay What's funny? Further proof that google interferes with politics?
daisymay · 51-55, T
@cunningcrocodile You definitely have your finger square on the pulse of this 🤣
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@daisymay Yes, I know. Hence the lawsuits and proposals to split up google and facebook.
daisymay · 51-55, T
@cunningcrocodile So, why again are they protecting "Donald Trump fraud" searches?
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@daisymay Protecting? And who is "protecting" donald trump searches? As displayed from searches relating to hillary clinton and donald trump, they selectively allow certain searches to autocomplete.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile Proposals to split up Facebook and Google are all about anti-trust issues, they have nothing to do with any of this.

And even if split up, they will still have to learn how to tackle the flood of fake news and misinformation - or as it was referenced earlier, the “Donald Trump” situation.
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul Could you give me some examples of fake news?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile You can get some background here:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-conservative-supersharers-drove-fake-news-in-the-2016-election

At this point we’re removed enough from 2016 to get some historical perspective.
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul Oh right yeah, ALL of the fake news was purely from conservatives.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile A huge majority of it was, yes. Quite blatantly, too - and every serious examination of the trends demonstrates this. We’ll see if the other side decides to adopt this approach next time around.
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul No, the huge majority wasn't. I can show statistics that show that more left leaning sources pushed fake news. And EXTREMELY blatantly, too. I'm not interested in dividing things down political tribal lines so I'm not going to entertain anyone saying it was "a huge majority" one way or the other. Which is just a way of saying "I want to say it was all the side I dislike, but i need to appear reasonable", whilst showing me an article that claims that it wasn't some of these people, some of those people, from all sides, just "conservatives".
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile It was basically just conservatives lmao - one subset of them anyway. This might be difficult for you to accept, but them’s the breaks.

As a strategy, the left simply missed the boat on this election. Perhaps for next year you’ll see the rise of left wing faux-satire sites, etc as well - but in ‘16 that mostly existed on one side of the aisle.
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul No, it really wasn't just conservatives. Do you have any other articles to try and prove this ridiculous belief? Maybe they will win this time, considering they are having all of their competition censored. I believe there are bad goings on with both sides, and so all information should be available for people to make their own mind up. So when one side gets absolutely insane with their censorship, it really makes me question their intentions.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cunningcrocodile Preventing people from being bombarded by outright false information masquerading as news isn’t censorship. We aren’t talking about opinions, here.

But sure, at this point a number of institutions made various meta-analyses of this phenomenon, and results are pretty similar. Here is a Princeton-led study.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf

Anecdotally, I remember dealing with an entire flood of random blatantly fake articles - and they were always from conservative sources. I can’t even think of one viral bit of pro-Hillary fake news. I’m sure some existed, but the proportion is impressively skewed.
daisymay · 51-55, T
@QuixoticSoul
I can’t even think of one viral bit pro-Hillary fake news

I'm sure someone will create one real quick to prove you wrong.
cunningcrocodile · 31-35, F
@QuixoticSoul I'm sorry but if you pretend that all fake news comes from conservatives then I can't take you seriously. I can concede that a lot of fake news comes from some conservative sources. But I can also concede that a lot of fake news comes from other sources. I also notice that the idea of "fake news" is pushed to attack opinions that disagree with the establishment dogma. But then when independent people challenging the mainstream narrative started calling out the establishment's fake news, all of a sudden, fake news was this hateful term. Now the establishment are censoring people and then attacking them, without the protagonist having an ability to defend themselves, they go back to pushing this fake news rubbish. And looking at the history of the lies governments push, and the sort of disgusting activities they lie about to put into place, and how they get the press to report in a way that supports it - I think this sets a dangerous precedence. I'm sure you are aware that during the slave trade, many states demonised opinions critical of the slave trade, and tried to brand it in ways similar to what today the establishment would do with "fake news"? And you can't think of one bit of hillary fake news? So the russian collusion rubbish was never peddled?
daisymay · 51-55, T
@cunningcrocodile
Now the establishment are censoring people

This has not happened at all. If you are aware of First Amendment violations, why aren't you reporting them?