"Second Source" Confirms Project Veritas Report on YouTube Meddling in Irish Abortion

OMM 0000

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/26/second-source-confirms-project-veritas-report-on-youtube-meddling-in-irish-abortion-referendum-searches/

Another source at Google has corroborated a report from Project Veritas that appears to show that YouTube manually interfered in search results related to the referendum to decriminalize abortion in Ireland, which was won by the pro-abortion side.

The source, a former software engineer at Google, confirmed to Breitbart News that YouTube manually intervened in search results related to the referendum at least one week before the vote in Ireland.

Put politics and abortion aside for a moment, I find this stuff quite worrying. If it's true, US tech companies are attempting to interfere in Irish referendum results.

Boom_Bap

You should look at your own sources OP for the sources of the second source.

Walter Bishop

It's also quite worrying that people would use Breitbart for their news, or believe anything from Project Veritas, who are proven liars and proponents of attempts to 'entrap' people.

OMM 0000

Walter Bishop wrote: »

It's also quite worrying that people would use Breitbart for their news, or believe anything from Project Veritas, who are proven liars and proponents of attempts to 'entrap' people.

I think it's important to read all sorts of news sources. There is so much misinformation by everyone, you have to read it all and come to your own conclusions.

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

Actually, yes. It would set a terrifying precedent and bring down all sorts of bad press upon Google. Might even catalyse international, coordinated action and all for influencing a referendum result?

I wouldn't trust a nasty publication like Breitbart on this. I'll wait for independent verification.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I think it's important to read all sorts of news sources. There is so much misinformation by everyone, you have to read it all and come to your own conclusions.

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

Sure but reading too much of the extremist nonsense is never a good idea. I'd apply the same logic to far lefty outlets as well. Surely, the Telegraph, Spectator, Sun and Daily Mail would be suitable for Conservatives?

Diceicle

The Googler in the Video, Jen, is it just me or does she sound Irish?
Quite disturbing to think the way Google want to shape the world on their terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9pIfGqo_Xo

Walter Bishop

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I think it's important to read all sorts of news sources. There is so much misinformation by everyone, you have to read it all and come to your own conclusions.

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

I do find that fairly hard to believe actually. Why would they? If the answer is 'it's part of the MSM liberal elite agenda' then get out of here.


What definitely isn't remotely convincing is the preferred 'news' outlet of the alt-right saying that another alt-right organisation has discovered 'proof' of something that they and their followers would love to be true.

Walter Bishop

Diceicle wrote: »

The Googler in the Video, Jen, is it just me or does she sound Irish?
Quite disturbing to think the way Google want to shape the world on their terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9pIfGqo_Xo

Thankfully Breitbart and Project Veritas would never try to shape the world on their terms...

Diceicle

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Thankfully Breitbart and Project Veritas would never try to shape the world on their terms...

The difference being Google has the ways and means to actually do it. Veritas and the likes of Breitbart, their influence is miniscule compared to the big tech companies.

Boom_Bap

But but but it's no secret, and I'm talking about since the dawn of google, that results can be manipulated.



Why is it such a big deal now?

OMM 0000

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I do find that fairly hard to believe actually. Why would they?

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Thankfully Breitbart and Project Veritas would never try to shape the world on their terms...

So you think Google wouldn't, but Breitbart and Project Veritas would.

Interesting...

Diceicle

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I do find that fairly hard to believe actually. Why would they? If the answer is 'it's part of the MSM liberal elite agenda' then get out of here.


What definitely isn't remotely convincing is the preferred 'news' outlet of the alt-right saying that another alt-right organisation has discovered 'proof' of something that they and their followers would love to be true.

You don't believe there to be an anti-conservative / pro-liberal bias in the likes of Twitter, FB, Pinterest, Google?

notobtuse

The leaked documents of censorship involved a discussion thread from within Google that included a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland... that were blacklisted. The leaked documents from a Google employee was provided to Breitbart. It only makes sense that Breitbart would be the media entity first to report on it.

Walter Bishop

OMM 0000 wrote: »

So you think Google wouldn't, but Breitbart and Project Veritas would.

Interesting...

I didn't say Google wouldn't, but that there is no credible proof that they have.



Breitbart and Project Veritas do have form for false claims and biased reporting.


If you want to read more sources, find some more balanced mainstream ones, rather than reading all the extremists (right or left) and trying to make up your mind amongst them.

OMM 0000

Many of the "mainstream" sources are just as extreme.

I'd call them all a mixed bag.

They all have an agenda.

For example, CNN and MSNBC are still full-time on the conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent. FOX still won't stop obsessing about Hilllary Clinton.

Boom_Bap

notobtuse wrote: »

The leaked documents of censorship involved a discussion thread from within Google that included a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland... that were blacklisted. The leaked documents from a Google employee was provided to Breitbart. It only makes sense that Breitbart would be the media entity first to report on it.

are you sure that these things are being 'censored' to not try to influence?

mad muffin

The left and right. Battling a cyber Cold War for our very souls.

notobtuse

Boom_Bap wrote: »

are you sure that these things are being 'censored' to not try to influence?

If the report is true, by not including pro-life results (until pages later - usually after most would stop looking) in a person's search, Google is preforming a form of censorship.

Boom_Bap

notobtuse wrote: »

If the report is true, by not including pro-life results (until pages later - usually after most would stop looking) in a person's search, Google is preforming a form of censorship.

But how is it supposed to sort results? There has to be some sort of sort happen.

notobtuse

mad muffin wrote: »

The left and right. Battling a cyber Cold War for our very souls.

The left maybe, but most of the right just wants to present viewpoints the media chooses to ignore so the readers can make an informed decision.

gctest50

notobtuse wrote: »

If the report is true, by not including pro-life results (until pages later - usually after most would stop looking) in a person's search, Google is preforming a form of censorship.

Some "Pro-Life" scum set up fake abortion website :




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/hse-complains-to-google-over-myoptions-ie-website-1.3782115

" Yesterday the top return on a Google search for “My Options” was for a site called myoptions.website, not operated by the HSE, but run by an anti-abortion group.

The site contains a mobile number and an email address, promises a free ultrasound and has a video claiming links between abortion and cancer. "

jimgoose

The Message always takes on some attributes of the Messenger, which is why he was historically shot. Good enough for the bastard.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

but most of the right just wants to present viewpoints the media chooses to ignore so the readers can make an informed decision.

That's every bit as much a delusion as if somebody said it about left-leaning media.


Take the video in the OP, for example - you don't think the makers of that video have a particular position which they want the viewer to arrive at?

notobtuse

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But how is it supposed to sort results? There has to be some sort of sort happen.

I'd say sort the results by what people searching think happens... That the resulting sources that people click on from similar searches would appear at the top.

notobtuse

osarusan wrote: »

That's every bit as much a delusion as if somebody said it about left-leaning media.


Take the video in the OP, for example - you don't think the makers of that video have a particular position which they want the viewer to arrive at?

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about everyday people.

But sure, PV does. The main guy is conservative and goes after stories that help his cause. The MSM does it also. He doesn't have a massive operation. They target something/somebody they feel is doing something illegal, immoral or shady. And they'll report on the results of the investigation. Something widely reported on by the MSM won't get investigated, and why should such a small organization go after something everyone else is reporting on? And since the MSM usually ignores (until they can't ignore something any longer) most subjects that would hurt liberal/progressive ideals and values, it leaves PV a big swath of targets to go after. Why is it that only right leaning media entities are evil? Since we know almost all media reporting is biased, wouldn't anybody want to read both viewpoints on a subject matter in order to develop their own conclusions?

ILoveYourVibes

OMM 0000 wrote: »

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/26/second-source-confirms-project-veritas-report-on-youtube-meddling-in-irish-abortion-referendum-searches/



Put politics and abortion aside for a moment, I find this stuff quite worrying. If it's true, US tech companies are attempting to interfere in Irish referendum results.

I believe you but its puzzling. We are tiny I wouldn't have thought we mattered at all!?

notobtuse

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I believe you but its puzzling. We are tiny I wouldn't have thought we mattered at all!?

Every soul collected by Google is important. They help pay their bills and attitudes.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

Se we know almost all media reporting is biased, wouldn't anybody want to read both viewpoints on a subject matter in order to develop their own conclusions?

I don't disagree with this, but it clearly contradicts what you said earlier that most right-leaning media organisations just want to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

Offering a right-leaning slant to counteract a left-leaning slant isn't necessarily going to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

They may have more stuff in their head, but that doesn't mean they'll be any more informed.

Boom_Bap

notobtuse wrote: »

I'd say sort the results by what people searching think happens... That the resulting sources that people click on from similar searches would appear at the top.

But do you not see how that can be manipulated?


Get 10 people to hit a link from a search, get 100 people to do it.....and there you have it, that result jumps up the search results.


There has to be logic behind the results, and logic behind the sort order.

OMM 0000

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I believe you but its puzzling. We are tiny I wouldn't have thought we mattered at all!?

It's bizarre alright.

If it's true, the only conclusion I can come to is either a) they're doing this for all sorts of things or b) there's an Irish person working there who has some influence. For example, perhaps the head of search is Irish or something.

I know they've a big office in Dublin. Do the people working there have any influence over the search algorithms?

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Many of the "mainstream" sources are just as extreme.

I'd call them all a mixed bag.

They all have an agenda.

For example, CNN and MSNBC are still full-time on the conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent. FOX still won't stop obsessing about Hilllary Clinton.

Could you supply a quote from CNN where they state that Trump is a "Russian agent"?