Board 8 > Google censorship cracks down on anti-war left-wing sites, too

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because if it doesn't confirm to Vlado's pre-existing worldview, it must be fake and Google is pushing false news to the top of its search results.

Orrrrrrrrr the simpler solution is that the top search results are accurate and you just want to deny facts.
---

Vlado posted...

fabricated

Lol
---

Also, Ulti, I don't really care either way. But what bugs me is Vlado putting on this mantle of being a paragon of freedom and righteousness, fighting against totalitarian censorship. Well news flash: for all the bitching you guys do about how "racism" and "sexism" have no meaning anymore thanks to overzealous leftists, people like you (ESPECIALLY Vlado) have rendered "censorship" meaningless.

This is a guy who argued in favor of state sponsored censorship of a children's cartoon, and continues ignoring any requests in THIS TOPIC for clarification on his views. This is a guy who was pro-boycott when it meant attacking video game reviewers during the GamerGate era, but when people suggested boycotting games they found offense, he cried and pitched a fit about SJWs censoring artistic freedom. Vlado doesn't give a SHIT about censorship. He just loves acting like he and his beliefs are victims of a globalist agenda. Rather than him just being a hypocritical asshole.

Furthermore, we have no actual proof of censorship in this topic. The letter Vlado posted is unsourced, and given Vlado's penchant for peddling lies (see: the Seth Rich debacle), I'd say I need a LOT more proof of his allegations before I automatically buy into this new victim complex.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Espeon posted...

Because if it doesn't confirm to Vlado's pre-existing worldview, it must be fake and Google is pushing false news to the top of its search results.

Orrrrrrrrr the simpler solution is that the top search results are accurate and you just want to deny facts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

According to Wikipedia, this guy had a lawsuit with Google because they blocked his website over malware concerns (which proved to be true.). And he conveniently wrote a thinkpiece for Politico in 2015 about how Google could rig the 2016 election. WHOAMG HE WAS RIGHT! Look at the article on DailyMail quoting Sputnik Today, it MUST be true.

Okay, that's very dismissive, but when you have a guy who had a pre-existing beef with Google back in 2012, who then wrote an article in 2015 about how they could rig the 2016 election, and then does a study in 2016 that totally confirms what he said would happen...I'm skeptical. One data point does not a fact make. Hell, I'm looking up "Hillary is", "Hillary Clinton is", "Donald Trump is", "Trump is", "Bernie is", and "Bernie Sanders is" on google right now, and I cannot replicate even remotely similar results.
---

Google tailors results to each individual person these days, and what it thinks you want, so any way of proving what it does with searches would need a large sample. One of the reasons it's a shit website.

UltimaterializerX posted...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

ok full throttle.
---

Espeon posted...

when you have a guy who had a pre-existing beef with Google back in 2012, who then wrote an article in 2015 about how they could rig the 2016 election, and then does a study in 2016 that totally confirms what he said would happen...I'm skeptical

Your critical thinking skills just aren't on the same level as crazies who denounce everything that conflicts with their prior notions and parade everything that doesn't.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Watching the leftists on this board defend open censorship is hilarious.

That's because they are not actual leftists. They are globalists. Globalist fanboys, to be precise.
---

Vlado posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Watching the leftists on this board defend open censorship is hilarious.

That's because they are not actual leftists. They are globalists. Globalist fanboys, to be precise.

I didn't realize you considered yourself a leftist. What with your open defense of censorship and all.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Robert Epstein is a liberal. He had no reason to lie about Google's search results if they helped Hillary Clinton.

He hates GOOGLE, so yes, he has a reason to make GOOGLE look shady. Also, I don't know if you remember, but during this past election cycle, there was a candidate named Bernie Sanders who many liberals thought Hillary screwed out of his rightful place at the top of the Democratic ticket. So even if Epstein is a liberal, it IS possible for him to have a bias against Hillary, like many of this board's own liberals did.

But again, my qualm is with his attitude towards GOOGLE, not towards Hillary.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Robert Epstein is a liberal. He had no reason to lie about Google's search results if they helped Hillary Clinton.

To be perfectly fair, other researchers did not come to the same conclusion as him. And Robert Epsetein is hardly unbiased. Not when it comes to politics, but to Google.

"In 2012, Epstein publicly disputed with Google Search over a security warning placed on links to his website.[10] His website, which features mental health screening tests, was blocked for serving malware that could infect visitors to the site. Epstein emailed "Larry Page, Google's chief executive; David Drummond, Google’s legal counsel; Epstein's congressman; and journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wired, and Newsweek."[10] In it, Epstein threatened legal action if the warning concerning his website was not removed, and denied that any problems with his website existed.[10] Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still criticized Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection.[11] Epstein has since continued anti-Google advocacy, writing in TIME magazine that Google had "a fundamentally deceptive business model".[12][13] Epstein also has said that Google could rig the 2016 US presidential election and that search engine manipulation was "a serious threat to the democratic system of government".[14] According to Epstein, "Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration."[14]"

Particularly interesting is that he wrote an article in 2015, criticizing Google and saying they could tamper with the 2016 election via search manipulation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a year later, he's claiming Google tampered with the 2016 election via search manipulation and going "See? I'm not crazy, Google is evil!"

That said, none of that is actually in the article you posted, so it's fair that you wouldn't know. I'm pleased that this isn't an "Ulti didn't read" situation, because it's more pleasant to have an actual discussion with you than to ignore you. That said, Epstein definitely has an agenda.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

So even though he's speaking 100% fact it's not valid because he had an axe to grind.

LiB8erals in a nutshell.

Where is the proof that it's fact? Where is a secondary source backing up his claims? THAT is why I question the validity of a guy who has a reason to make Google look like the bad guys.
---

Well, I guess that's what I get for thinking Ulti may want to debate something intelligently.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Like this is very well-known information and is so blatantly obvious that only a liberal could deny its validity.

"but liberals are the ones who see everything in terms of team red vs. team blue, guys!"
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Young Turks covered this awhile back, but they deleted it from their channel so you have to watch a mirrored video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd_yzouiXX8

Like this is very well-known information and is so blatantly obvious that only a liberal could deny its validity.

Looking up the mirrored video on YouTube, it seems that TYT took it down on the basis of the creators believing it to be factually inaccurate. The person reposting it believes Google "got to them", but still.
---

For the record, Young Turks deleted the video because they couldn't verify the information and their own research lead them to believe it was false.
---

Vlado posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Watching the leftists on this board defend open censorship is hilarious.

That's because they are not actual leftists. They are globalists. Globalist fanboys, to be precise.

Sweet, can I buy a George Soros action figure? I can't wait to see Al Gore at next year's GlobalCon!
---

Why are people still responding in this topic when Vlado can't give us a reason why he's ok with the Steven Universe censorship?
---

Because showing a healthy gay couple to children is DANGEROUS

They might start thinking that being gay is ACCEPTABLE
---

obviously we can't show a healthy gay couple in a cartoon because a millennia old fairytale book that was mistranslated and retconned to hell and back says homosexuality is wrong.
---

DANGEROUS Ariana?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Why are people still responding in this topic when Vlado can't give us a reason why he's ok with the Steven Universe censorship?

How many times has that happened though? An argument, or three, or seventeen, buries Vlado, and he's allowed to continue with no consequences. Creates another topic a week later, his arguments get buried again a bunch of times, he ignores it, and so on and so forth. Why even ask the question? After like 13 years people (including you) aren't going to suddenly decide "hey maybe continuing to engage Vlado and therefore encouraging him to continue 'debating' like this is a bad idea."

There are people in the world who don't like globalism, or share some opinions with Vlado. Many have some valid points. It's a viewpoint that could add to the board if it was almost literally anybody else. I'd be interested in reading a conversation about the wider pros and cons and how they fit into specific situations. B8 is capable of that. But we simultaneously allow the main purveyor of this view to be like this, which is frustrating. That or he's making everything up, which is very possible given how often he's coincidentally landed against the majority of b8 on his views, combined with his tone. Either way, why bother?

(I guess me continuing to make posts like this is my own lack of self control, though. But it's legitimately frustrating to me to see a post like that. That's the kind of post you make when you don't know the person you're dealing with)
---

Dunking on him in his own topics is fun though

I would agree with you if he was disrupting other topics
---

i am Strongly against censroship , of the dick ANd the vagina , as a feminist . very rarely say this but.. japan is Wrong about that shit

I too prefer to sleep in the nude, I didn't realize we had that in common!
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Why are people still responding in this topic when Vlado can't give us a reason why he's ok with the Steven Universe censorship?

How many times has that happened though? An argument, or three, or seventeen, buries Vlado, and he's allowed to continue with no consequences. Creates another topic a week later, his arguments get buried again a bunch of times, he ignores it, and so on and so forth. Why even ask the question? After like 13 years people (including you) aren't going to suddenly decide "hey maybe continuing to engage Vlado and therefore encouraging him to continue 'debating' like this is a bad idea."

There are people in the world who don't like globalism, or share some opinions with Vlado. Many have some valid points. It's a viewpoint that could add to the board if it was almost literally anybody else. I'd be interested in reading a conversation about the wider pros and cons and how they fit into specific situations. B8 is capable of that. But we simultaneously allow the main purveyor of this view to be like this, which is frustrating. That or he's making everything up, which is very possible given how often he's coincidentally landed against the majority of b8 on his views, combined with his tone. Either way, why bother?

(I guess me continuing to make posts like this is my own lack of self control, though. But it's legitimately frustrating to me to see a post like that. That's the kind of post you make when you don't know the person you're dealing with)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
---

https://yourlogicalphallacyis.com/getting-mad-online

https://yourlogicalphallacyis.com/jrpg-villains
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Dunking on him in his own topics is fun though

I would agree with you if he was disrupting other topics

True, he's not the corrosive influence he could be in other topics, but it always stops being "dunking on him" (like mocking him for being a JRPG villain, which is fine - I'd rather there were no responses but alas) after a point, and then becomes some sort of attempt at reasoned debate - which people must surely, surely know by now is doomed to failure?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Why are people still responding in this topic when Vlado can't give us a reason why he's ok with the Steven Universe censorship?

As I said, I'll answer as soon as SEP answers my own question. :)

whoa posted...

https://yourlogicalphallacyis.com/getting-mad-online

kek
---

Meanwhile, at CNN...


Total jokes.
---

Man, I thought Vlado couldn't be more pathetic than he already was, but once again he exceeds my expectations
---

that guy changed pants and shoes in six seconds

wow they should have televised that, that's pretty impressive

why did he need to change his clothes? I don't get why they would be pretending there was another person there
---

^
Are you trying to divert people from the obvious with nonsensical sentences?

I can't find the exact video the timestamps match, but here's the video CNN themselves released. Subtract ~18 seconds from the timestamps and they match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EbXOUCpGQ
---

http://i.imgur.com/n9oCxHz.jpg?1
---

Vlado posted...

^
Are you trying to divert people from the obvious with nonsensical sentences?

I can't find the exact video the timestamps match, but here's the video CNN themselves released. Subtract ~18 seconds from the timestamps and they match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EbXOUCpGQ

what's nonsensical about the sentences?
I don't understand what CNN's motivation to fake the reporter being two different people is. What does the changing of clothes accomplish?
---

having watching the video, I think I was misunderstanding the picture? I don't get why they're highlighting the haircut to prove it's the same guy in both images.. like, yeah, obviously it's the same guy. What's the point?

What about that indicates it was staged?
---

Wait, what? There's no way you aren't pretending.

The reporter is initially in shorts, and then puts on long pants in the period between noticing the car and supposedly pulling the guy out. Making it very obvious that the guy was in no danger, and that the second part of the "rescue" (when the reporter wears long pants) was staged.
---

Okay Vlado that's getting pretty offensively dumb of you.

CNN doesn't present the video as if it's a continuous account of the event.

To think that a man is in no danger as he sits in a truck floating down a ravine is asinine.
---

lmao, 1984 doublethink at work. Suuuuuuure, he's in such huge danger that the reporter had time to change clothes before "saving" him. lmao
---

I really can't fathom this level of idiocy from the people who genuinely saw this and thought "fake!" because the reporter put on better shoes and pants to go on a soaking wet grassy slope to help pull an elderly man out of his truck window with camera cables as his truck floats down the ravine.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Okay Vlado that's getting pretty offensively dumb of you.

"Getting"?
---

it looks like the car is floating very slowly and he says something about going to find a rope and in the time the rope search is going on he puts on different pants

it wasn't like split second "oh no he's immediately going to die!" danger, but they still helped him out. If they weren't there he would have just continued floating away.
---

Vlado posted...

lmao, 1984 doublethink at work. Suuuuuuure, he's in such huge danger that the reporter had time to change clothes before "saving" him. lmao

You saw the truck drive into the water with a man inside, and it started floating.

How do you propose that man got out if not with the help of this news crew
---