Board 8 > Nationalist politics topic 16: Zealots accidentally bring us to historical truth

(+) Yeah! (+)

Inviso the point is that he's admitting he's bigoted, do not over-analyze.
---

goolag's mega bias revealed:

Of the 6,302 articles appearing on Google's top stories during the month in focus, more than 10 percent came from CNN. The New York Times and Washington Post were up next, garnering 6.5 and 5.6 percent of the results, respectively.

Fox News, the most mainstream right-wing outlet, was the source for only 3 percent of stories appearing in the top box. Then it was back to liberal outlets, with the BBC, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Politico and ABC News filling out the rest of the top 10. Overall, 62.4 percent of the most common sources were left-leaning, while only 11.3 perfect were said to be right-leaning.

Note that Fox is globalist-owned, so it's not really right-wing, but "right-wing." Therefore, no right-wing sources in the top 10.

Perhaps an even more damning indictment than Googles detected liberal bias, however, is that nearly all (86 percent) of the stories promoted by the search giant came from just 20 sources across the entire internet, which doesnt exactly display much of a commitment to diversity of information and opinion.

Literal echo chamber.

https://www.rt.com/usa/459233-google-liberal-bias-news-study/

Also, https://www.rt.com/usa/461720-google-blacklist-fringe-conservative/

Of course.
---

Or, and I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for someone who believes RT is the pinnacle of accurate reporting, but OR, rather than there being a liberal bias in terms of what articles get higher search results, liberal news sources tend to provide factual information more often, making them more trusted news sources.

Keep in mind, the sources you support accused Hillary Clinton and the DNC of assassinating a guy based on zero evidence, and cited themselves as the source for their own reporting.
---

https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1139290196422172674

The corporations are starting to sweat. The Woke Capital strategy isn't working. The left isn't placated with rainbow flags and diversity quotas. They want your money.
---

Ah money, the only thing the right never wants to give up. Their dignity, their principles, but never their money.
---

Espeon posted...

rather than there being a liberal bias in terms of what articles get higher search results, liberal news sources tend to provide factual information more often, making them more trusted news sources.

So, let me state the facts here:
- goolag is a heavily liberal company, it's literal company policy coming from the top to the bottom
- cnn, wp, nyt, and the rest in the top 10 are liberal sources (except fake conservative - neocon - source fox news)
- non-goolag search engines don't show such bias

And you believe that it's not because goolag have tweaked the search results, but because "the liberal sources are more accurate". lmfao
---

The top 10 are popular well known news sources. Probably the 10 biggest news sources in the West

Like what big conservative source should be there that is snubbed?
---

Vlado posted...

Espeon posted...

rather than there being a liberal bias in terms of what articles get higher search results, liberal news sources tend to provide factual information more often, making them more trusted news sources.

So, let me state the facts here:
- goolag is a heavily liberal company, it's literal company policy coming from the top to the bottom
- cnn, wp, nyt, and the rest in the top 10 are liberal sources (except fake conservative - neocon - source fox news)
- non-goolag search engines don't show such bias

And you believe that it's not because goolag have tweaked the search results, but because "the liberal sources are more accurate". lmfao

With the sole exception of your third point, you don't exactly have any real reason behind your accusations other than "Google promotes information I disagree with, therefore Google must be cheating, rather than I'm just wrong". And in the cast of that third point, Google has a larger reputation to maintain, so it makes sense that they would tweak their algorithms to provide to most useful and factual information possible. I mean, who gives a fuck what BING finds when you look up the news?

Which is more likely: there is a massive conspiracy to drown out conservative thought in the form of having the largest search engine only promote liberal websites...or you, someone whose idea of posting news is linking to unverified stories from RussiaToday that either blatantly lie in their reporting, or at least tweak the facts to show a far more conservative spin than reality suggests?

It's common sense...you're just wrong, but it's only natural to want to believe you're not wrong (or that, given your long history of white knight status on Board 8, you're not the "bad guy" for holding the incorrect beliefs you hold.)
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The left isn't placated with rainbow flags and diversity quotas. They want your money.

"the left wants your money" is a nonsensical statement because it assumes that if amazon were to pay higher taxes, this extra money all goes to the left. which is based on nothing.

"the left doesn't want amazon to pay a ridiclously low tax rate for no reason" is a more accurate statement.
---

Inviso posted...

massive conspiracy to drown out conservative thought

It's one company whose bosses are hard-left. They tell their employees to censor conservative media. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a company's employees doing what their bosses tell them to do.
---

Vlado posted...

Inviso posted...

massive conspiracy to drown out conservative thought

It's one company whose bosses are hard-left. They tell their employees to censor conservative media. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a company's employees doing what their bosses tell them to do.

Or again, youre just wrong and the company is just filtering out unreliable information from unreliable sources.
---

So you're insisting it's just a big coincidence AND that conservative sources are "unreliable" and liberal ones are "reliable." Because objective reality is just that far left of centre.

lmfao
---

Vlado posted...

So you're insisting it's just a big coincidence AND that conservative sources are "unreliable" and liberal ones are "reliable." Because objective reality is just that far left of centre.

lmfao

As opposed to you insisting the opposite with no real proof? I mean, at least my belief doesnt require that there be an orchestrated conspiracy in order for me to be right.
---

"the left wants your money" is a nonsensical statement because it assumes that if amazon were to pay higher taxes, this extra money all goes to the left. which is based on nothing.

Presumably, if the left holds enough power to raise taxes, it would also hold enough power to dictate how the taxes are spent, yes? And presumably, they would ensure it is spent on things they want and value and prioritize?

Like, do you envision some sort of scenario where President Sanders and a Democrat congress pass massive tax hikes, and then... what? Give the money to charter schools? Faith based Christian programs?
---

well, there's no president sanders now, is there?

you can argue trump is a leftist, but if he gets extra money by raising taxes, i doubt he's going to spend it on climate change research programs and other "typical leftist" stuff.
---

Espeon posted...

an orchestrated conspiracy

As I already pointed out, a company giving an order to its employees is not a conspiracy.
---

Vlado posted...

So you're insisting it's just a big coincidence AND that conservative sources are "unreliable" and liberal ones are "reliable." Because objective reality is just that far left of centre.

lmfao

what reliable true conservative sources do you think should show up in the top ten instead
---

Vlado posted...

Espeon posted...

an orchestrated conspiracy

As I already pointed out, a company giving an order to its employees is not a conspiracy.

The conspiracy is the belief that the company itself would manipulate data and force its employees to do so as well. Try to keep up.
---

First, you don't know what "conspiracy" means.

Second, it's the algorithms that are manipulated to prioritise certain sources over others. And they have admitted doing it. Remember this? https://www.rt.com/news/410444-google-alphabet-derank-rt/
---

Vlado posted...

First, you don't know what "conspiracy" means.

Second, it's the algorithms that are manipulated to prioritise certain sources over others. And they have admitted doing it. Remember this? https://www.rt.com/news/410444-google-alphabet-derank-rt/

Right. That doesnt change my point that its not a conspiracy to prioritize factual information over journalism that has been historically riddled with falsehoods. If RT is an organization that cannot be trusted to present accurate information, why shouldnt Google limit their exposure. And Im saying this based entirely on your regular posting of RT articles with GLARING falsehoods and lies in them.
---

Oh yeah, all those "lies and falsehoods" of which you've proven false exactly zero.

And the guy didn't say they'd de-rank "inaccurate sources," he specifically said RT and Sputnik. Therefore, they can hand-pick which sources to de-rank. That's rigging the results. It's no longer a search engine, but Big Brother only leaving those sources that praise the party.
---

as a test, i googled "trump iran news" and i got an RT article on page three, which i think is pretty fair. i don't live in russia so i don't expect the site to turn up on page one or anything.
---

Vlado posted...

Oh yeah, all those "lies and falsehoods" of which you've proven false exactly zero.

And the guy didn't say they'd de-rank "inaccurate sources," he specifically said RT and Sputnik. Therefore, they can hand-pick which sources to de-rank. That's rigging the results. It's no longer a search engine, but Big Brother only leaving those sources that praise the party.

Again. Why are you putting the onus on Google to be more biased in their search results, as opposed to putting the onus on RT to be more honest and factual? RT consistently reports lies, so they do not deserve to be primary search results for anyone seeking honest information. I know you and Smuffin love posting random, right-wing blogs as your primary sources of information, but people who actually want to be informed should have access to verifiable and trustworthy news.
---

https://twitter.com/TheDanCotter/status/1139726169891196929
---

pretty dumb tweet by bernie tbqh. he could have easily rebuked dimon just by saying his definition of socialism is bullshit.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

as a test, i googled "trump iran news" and i got an RT article on page three, which i think is pretty fair. i don't live in russia so i don't expect the site to turn up on page one or anything.

It's an international site, and the accuracy of its reports is far better than cnn, nyt, wp, etc. It should be on the top page, among the top 3 results, if not the top result.

Inviso posted...

RT consistently reports lies

Yeah, that never happened. Just because you call white black doesn't make it such.

Meanwhile, facebook getting quite Orwellian - you can get banned for off-platform behaviour such as neutrally reporting on someone they don't like.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-14/facebooks-secret-hate-agent-formula-leaked-insider
---

We've LITERALLY had instances of highlighting RT articles and the factual inaccuracies they've "reported" and the best arguments you could muster were either "they printed a retraction later" which doesn't mean shit if you post a lie in the first place, because the people stupid enough to believe and promote that lie don't care enough to correct themselves for promoting a lie...OR you just responded "lmfao okay" because you couldn't conjure up a coherent argument as to why their falsehoods were acceptable to publish as facts.
---

Let's see them.
---

Vlado posted...

Let's see them.

You already have. You have the internet and you have archives. Do the work yourself for once.
---

Just as I thought. You claim something is happening systematically, but you can't provide even a single piece of evidence.

Next.
---

Vlado posted...

Just as I thought. You claim something is happening systematically, but you can't provide even a single piece of evidence.

Next.

What evidence do YOU have that RT is being censored by Google for political reasons, as opposed to it being an untrustworthy news source? Let's be real, sweetie, you have a long history of pulling that "Let's see proof" shit when other people make arguments, then turning around and telling them to "look it up yourself" when they ask YOU for proof of your claims.
---

Inviso posted...

What evidence do YOU have that RT is being censored by Google for political reasons

The statement of the then-CEO is not enough? lmfao
---

Vlado posted...

Inviso posted...

What evidence do YOU have that RT is being censored by Google for political reasons

The statement of the then-CEO is not enough? lmfao

I said "for political reasons". Saying the CEO's statement is political censorship is like complaining that the National Enquirer isn't given more prominence for factual search results. Your whole argument is based around the notion that the multitudes of articles from NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and apparently even Fox News (which, despite claims of them being globalist shills, you still have no problem with them reporting that the Democrats had a man murdered) are all lies, and that the small number of right-wing news sources that you follow (solely because they agree with things you think, as you've never made any effort to seek out information opposing your world views) are accurate, and being censored.

Forgive me for thinking that, while said censorship is POSSIBLE, it's far more likely that you're just wrong, and that, given your history of posting false information and seeking information solely from questionable sources, you're in no position to make accusations of a globalist conspiracy from Google.
---

Vlado posted...

It's an international site, and the accuracy of its reports is far better than cnn, nyt, wp, etc. It should be on the top page, among the top 3 results, if not the top result.

i highly doubt that, given that RT has as much of a bias (pro-putin) as CNN (pro-establishment dems). i don't believe they're much worse than CNN, bias-wise, but i don't think they're any better, either.

but even assuming you're correct about RT being the most accurate news site, the top result should be the most popular result, not the most accurate result. it's a search engine, not a scientific source. if i google "the universe," i don't expect the top result to be some incredible, peer-reviewed 1000-page scientific study that 5 people have read, even though technically it may be one of the most accurate and best publications on the subject. that simply isn't the way google is meant to be used. the idea that RT should be the top result here in the netherlands (where people are a gazillion times more familiar with CNN) is ridiculous.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

It's an international site, and the accuracy of its reports is far better than cnn, nyt, wp, etc. It should be on the top page, among the top 3 results, if not the top result.

i highly doubt that, given that RT has as much of a bias (pro-putin) as CNN (pro-establishment dems). i don't believe they're much worse than CNN, bias-wise, but i don't think they're any better, either.

but even assuming you're correct about RT being the most accurate news site, the top result should be the most popular result, not the most accurate result. it's a search engine, not a scientific source. if i google "the universe," i don't expect the top result to be some incredible, peer-reviewed 1000-page scientific study that 5 people have read, even though technically it may be one of the most accurate and best publications on the subject. that simply isn't the way google is meant to be used. the idea that RT should be the top result here in the netherlands (where people are a gazillion times more familiar with CNN) is ridiculous.

To be fair to Vlado, I think his argument (as nonsensical as it is), is that RT is not ALLOWED to become as popular as CNN, due to being sandbagged in terms of how often it shows up as a search result.
---

Vlado posted...

Meanwhile, facebook getting quite Orwellian

orwell must be rolling in his grave over sentences like these. how many times does it need to be repeated that facebook is a private company and that if you don't like it, you're free to use some other social network? orwell was talking about the government being evil, not private companies doing shit that you may not like.
---

Inviso posted...

I said "for political reasons".

"We want to combat Russian propaganda" is exactly a political reason. As we all know quite well, the truth serves perfectly as "Russian propaganda" in the last 20-30 years. He never said "false stories" or "inaccurate reporting," as he doesn't want to outright lie and be held liable for it.

Inviso posted...

you're in no position to make accusations of a globalist conspiracy from Google

It was literally funded by CIA and NSA. Google is an arm of the US government, i.e. the deep state, which is controlled by globalists.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

Mr Lasastryke posted...

but even assuming you're correct about RT being the most accurate news site, the top result should be the most popular result, not the most accurate result. it's a search engine, not a scientific source. if i google "the universe," i don't expect the top result to be some incredible, peer-reviewed 1000-page scientific study that 5 people have read, even though technically it may be one of the most accurate and best publications on the subject. that simply isn't the way google is meant to be used. the idea that RT should be the top result here in the netherlands (where people are a gazillion times more familiar with CNN) is ridiculous.

Fair enough. It still should be on the top page.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Meanwhile, facebook getting quite Orwellian

orwell must be rolling in his grave over sentences like these. how many times does it need to be repeated that facebook is a private company and that if you don't like it, you're free to use some other social network? orwell was talking about the government being evil, not private companies doing shit that you may not like.

Why should it automatically be considered something better if it's not a government that does it? Facebook are more powerful than most countries' governments. Furthermore, the "use another social network" part is idiotic. Yes, switching can be easily done. Bringing over all your contacts can't.

You think Orwell wouldn't write the same things about a corporation if something like this had seemed feasible when he lived?
---

Vlado posted...

Fair enough. It still should be on the top page.

well, a lot of the results on the top page i get are dutch news sources. i think that's fair, as they will be more relevant to dutch people using google.

Furthermore, the "use another social network" part is idiotic. Yes, switching can be easily done. Bringing over all your contacts can't.

uh, i was on a dutch social network for years before i switched over to facebook. it really isn't that hard. besides, there's plenty of ways to contact people besides using a social network.

but the more important point is that you have the option of using another social network. you don't have this option if there's just one, government-approved social network. that's what orwell was writing about.

You think Orwell wouldn't write the same things about a corporation if something like this had seemed feasible when he lived?

possibly, but it's not what 1984 is about.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, i was on a dutch social network for years before i switched over to facebook. it really isn't that hard. besides, there's plenty of ways to contact people besides using a social network.

You switched from a local one to a global monopoly. And we're talking the opposite case.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

but the more important point is that you have the option of using another social network.

And? What good will that option do me if none of my contacts use the other social network? Facebook's software is nothing extraordinary, but it's the user base that makes them a monopoly.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

possibly, but it's not what 1984 is about.

It's about tyranny. Just because it happens to be from a government rather than a corporation doesn't invalidate the points made when applied to a corporation/a cartel.

Meanwhile,

Its Time for Sweden to Admit Explosions Are a National Emergency

https://quillette.com/2019/06/11/its-time-for-sweden-to-admit-explosions-are-a-national-emergency/

I needn't add more than the title.
---

Again, none of that is proof of anything, and "Russian propaganda" is synonymous with "lying", so you're just doing the usual conservative thing where you adhere to EXACT wording when defending your side, but interpret and throw wild allegations based on inferred meanings whenever it suits your purposes.

Fact: RussiaToday is on the same level as the National Inquirer in terms of producing factual and credible reporting. You've personally proven that with the blatant falsehoods you've posted in this very topic series under the banner of "news". It is not a conspiracy or censorship to provide more attention to news organizations with more credibility and a longer history of credibility.

Stop playing the fucking victim.
---

Again, you can't provide even a single example of your claims. Repeating the same thing over and over won't make it true.
---

Vlado posted...

Facebook's software is nothing extraordinary, but it's the user base that makes them a monopoly.

wut? 99% of gen Z uses instagram rather than facebook. yes, i know facebook owns instagram, but...
---

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1140416589260566528

NYT reporter insists we take Vladimir Putin at his word and assume he is telling the truth!
---

wow does vlado work for the NYT
---

Conservatives: YouTube needs to stop censoring conservative voices!

Also conservatives:

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Facebook's software is nothing extraordinary, but it's the user base that makes them a monopoly.

wut? 99% of gen Z uses instagram rather than facebook. yes, i know facebook owns instagram, but...

I don't get your point. You yourself say they are two brands of the same company.

TheRock1525 posted...

Also conservatives:

*a conservative
---

Meanwhile, Japan refusing to buy the claim Iran attacked those tankers...
https://archive.fo/Ia24j

I like this quote:

"Even if it's the United States that makes the assertion, we cannot simply say we believe it," he said.

If having expertise sophisticated enough to conduct the attack could be a reason to conclude that the attacker was Iran, "That would apply to the United States and Israel as well," said a source at the Foreign Ministry.

---

Good for Japan, questioning the nationalist narrative.
---

Vlado posted...

*a conservative

https://reason.com/2017/10/10/republicans-are-far-from-consistent-cham

*7 in 10 conservatives
---

Vlado posted...

I don't get your point. You yourself say they are two brands of the same company.

i'm saying that if your argument is "facebook is a monopoly because everyone uses facebook," i'm saying the "everyone uses facebook" part is wrong because tons of people use instagram rather than facebook.

if your argument is "facebook (the company) is a monopoly because they own both facebook (the social network) and instagram," that's an understandable stance but not quite correct. a lot of people are on linkedin, for instance.

for clarity's sake, is your argument that both facebook and instagram are terrible? you only seem to complain about the censorship on facebook. don't think i've ever seen you bring up insta.
---