Irish Google Exec Reveal Plan to Prevent A Trump situation in 2020

ancapailldorcha · 26-06-2019 10:29am

Hector Savage wrote: »

Give over will ya !

"Rightwing" to you is anyone slightly to the right of Stalin ffs!

Quote me where I said this please.

Eric Cartman · 26-06-2019 10:35am

I think at this point internet search is a utility similar to the connection its brought over, any alteration of an algorithm to enhance / detract from results on any viewpoint (no matter how crazy) should be illegal. If a user wants to search for flat earth marxists or free market white utopias or whatever , the results should not be ranked by the companies ‘political ideals’

The veritas project are shady as hell but even those examples like the “hillary clintons emails” on they showed are too real and even that indicates a dangerous precident, the undercover video can be chopped up however you like , but reffering to the trump situation as a negative thing to be prevented from happening again or the female ceo’s thing is very telling of what manipulation they want

Sonics2k · 26-06-2019 1:09pm

So, are we just ignoring the very simple fact that this is released by Project Veritas, a group which have repeatedly released fake videos and articles.

Instead we're just going along with the confirmation bias that Big Corporation is bad.

biko · 26-06-2019 1:14pm

Russian "collusion" investigated for years by FBI, nothing found.
Google says outright they will "hack" the next election - no outrage.

To me the videos are clear.

Eric Cartman · 26-06-2019 1:28pm

biko wrote: »

Russian "collusion" investigated for years by FBI, nothing found.
Google says outright they will "hack" the next election - no outrage.

To me the videos are clear.

I think this is quite accurate, ignoring where the content is coming from, Id be rather impressed if they had the funds to deepfake all of theninformation contained within, and im not talking about the guy in the dark with the changed voice, you have video clips of google execs & a dev specifically talking about altering search results to produce viewpoints and information sources that align with an agenda they have chosen and thats scary.

batgoat · 26-06-2019 1:48pm

biko wrote: »

Russian "collusion" investigated for years by FBI, nothing found.
Google says outright they will "hack" the next election - no outrage.

To me the videos are clear.

It did find that Russian actively tried to interfere with the election though... This included via online campaigns so for Google to actively combat foreign states engaging in interference, that in itself would be correct.

Sonics2k · 26-06-2019 2:11pm

biko wrote: »

Russian "collusion" investigated for years by FBI, nothing found.
Google says outright they will "hack" the next election - no outrage.

To me the videos are clear.

Really Biko? Are you going to trot that out? "Nothing found". We just ignoring all the arrests, jail times and so on?

Also, a Google Exec, one of thousands was caught on tape saying these things and they are bad. But we both know the video is massively edited.

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 2:27pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, are we just ignoring the very simple fact that this is released by Project Veritas, a group which have repeatedly released fake videos and articles.

Instead we're just going along with the confirmation bias that Big Corporation is bad.

Google executives are being grilled by Congress over the alarming reports out by Project Veritas. Seems like good investigative journalism to me. But the majority of the MSM is ignoring it. Is it any wonder trust in media has hit rock bottom in the US.

Sonics2k · 26-06-2019 2:33pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Google executives are being grilled by Congress over the alarming reports out by Project Veritas. Seems like good investigative journalism to me. But the majority of the MSM is ignoring it. Is it any wonder trust in media has hit rock bottom in the US.

Which Congress absolutely should do, and more media outlets should be reporting on it.

But, the key thing is that the video has been extremely edited. It cuts to her talking, cuts back to the reporter, cuts back to her again from a different angle and in a different seat, cuts back to the reporter and then cuts back again.

We don't know the full content of the video. Veritas won't release it. They also have a long history of releasing heavily edited videos.

batgoat · 26-06-2019 2:37pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Which Congress absolutely should do, and more media outlets should be reporting on it.

But, the key thing is that the video has been extremely edited. It cuts to her talking, cuts back to the reporter, cuts back to her again from a different angle and in a different seat, cuts back to the reporter and then cuts back again.

We don't know the full content of the video. Veritas won't release it. They also have a long history of releasing heavily edited videos.

And it's the exact same thing with the email thread that got reduced to one message. They're basically aiming for shock value. Exact same as they did with planned parenthood stuff.

splashuum · 26-06-2019 2:46pm

Who gives a feck where this has come from? We have the indisputable raw footage of her and googles objectives?

Here's another insider leak that was given to veritas yesterday. It seems google are openly disabling the suggestion feature when users google search particular activists. Its 100% evident that they are bias. If you deny this, you are simply bias.

https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/on_peterson-REDACTED.png

ancapailldorcha · 26-06-2019 2:54pm

splashuum wrote: »

Who gives a feck where this has come from? We have the indisputable raw footage of her and googles objectives?

https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/on_peterson-REDACTED.png

Here's another insider leak above that was given to veritas yesterday . Its 100% evident that they are bias. If you deny this, you are simply bias.

Where it comes from matters hugely, no? Until I see independent verification from a respectable source, I'll just dismiss this as the conspiracy nonsense that it patently is. You've chosen to wholly imbibe this simply because it suits your confirmation bias and have shown little indication of having lent any thought to the legitimacy of this claim at all.

By the way, the "either you agree with me or you're a [insert insult of choice here]" argument is an incredibly poor one.

splashuum · 26-06-2019 3:08pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'll just dismiss this as the conspiracy nonsense that it patently is.

You are certainly a character I will give you that :rolleyes:
There's literally reams of evidence that proves google's bias.

For instance, google image "idiot" and you will be see hundreds of images for Donald Trump.
However if you google image "fool" "dumbass" "dumbo" etc, Donald will not appear. A small example of clear search engine manipulation

IAmTheReign · 26-06-2019 3:08pm

splashuum wrote: »

Who gives a feck where this has come from? We have the indisputable raw footage of her and googles objectives?

Here's another insider leak that was given to veritas yesterday. It seems they are openly disabling the suggestion feature when users google search particular activists. Its 100% evident that they are bias. If you deny this, you are simply bias.

https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/on_peterson-REDACTED.png

We do not have indisputable raw footage though. We have a heavily edited video and a supposed email that anyone could put together in MS Paint. And it's coming from a supposed 'news' agency with a history of faking the news to push a certain agenda. If the video actually said what they claim they would have no reason to edit it but they did.

ancapailldorcha · 26-06-2019 3:25pm

splashuum wrote: »

You are certainly a character I will give you that :rolleyes:
There's literally reams of evidence that proves google's bias.

Feel free to post it.

splashuum · 26-06-2019 3:27pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Feel free to post it.

Look at my two previous posts on this thread.

ancapailldorcha · 26-06-2019 3:29pm

splashuum wrote: »

Look at my two previous posts on this thread.

I did. A dodgy video and a screenshot. Neither are evidence.

NaFirinne · 26-06-2019 3:30pm

Is the banning of conservative or non liberal enough views across social media not evidence enough?

I bet if they introduced the Mark of the beast some people would still be looking for evidence.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 3:32pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I did. A dodgy video and a screenshot. Neither are evidence.

The google executive pretty much admitted it did happen.

That said the video is gone from YouTube owned by, er... whatsits.

splashuum · 26-06-2019 3:36pm

There little point entering debate with some in this thread.

rossie1977 · 26-06-2019 4:04pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Google executives are being grilled by Congress over the alarming reports out by Project Veritas. Seems like good investigative journalism to me. But the majority of the MSM is ignoring it. Is it any wonder trust in media has hit rock bottom in the US.

Yeah and Congress spent months on the Acorn incident and even Obama got involved which eventually took down the company putting loads of people out of work and people on lower income worse off.

In the end the whole thing was completely shown to be edited in such a way to make it look like Acorn and its employees had done something wrong when they didn't.

NaFirinne wrote: »

Is the banning of conservative or non liberal enough views across social media not evidence enough?

I bet if they introduced the Mark of the beast some people would still be looking for evidence.

Who has been banned for simply having conservative views?

Trump is most high profile person in the world and he hasn’t been banned on twitter. Ted Cruz no, Sean Hannity no, Mike Pence no.

The folks getting banned on social media are those advocating violence from their supporters and they come from far right, far left, Muslim community. It just happens that the most vocal extreme voices in the US are those on the far right right now.

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 4:09pm

I had to laugh as O’Keefe shuts down Charlie Warzel of the New York Times over their hypocrisy. Great Twitter War stuff. I guess the elite media isn't used to being called out.

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1143304264925798401?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1143304264925798401&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Famgreatness.com%2F2019%2F06%2F25%2Fproject-veritas-bombshell-video-ruffles-some-feathers%2F

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 4:11pm

Hopefully Google are working hard to ensure fake news purveyors like Trump, InfoWars and Project Veritas have a limited effect on elections. Facebook are supposed to be doing the same. It's a shame the Republican Senate are refusing to allow votes on safeguarding the elections but reducing the effect of propaganda should make things a lot fairer.

JohnMc1 · 26-06-2019 4:20pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Hopefully Google are working hard to ensure fake news purveyors like Trump, InfoWars and Project Veritas have a limited effect on elections. Facebook are supposed to be doing the same. It's a shame the Republican Senate are refusing to allow votes on safeguarding the elections but reducing the effect of propaganda should make things a lot fairer.

LOL. Censorship is bad. Unless we're the ones that are doing it. Got to love the Left. If it wasn't double standards they wouldn't have any.

Skylinehead · 26-06-2019 4:26pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think at this point internet search is a utility similar to the connection its brought over, any alteration of an algorithm to enhance / detract from results on any viewpoint (no matter how crazy) should be illegal. If a user wants to search for flat earth marxists or free market white utopias or whatever , the results should not be ranked by the companies ‘political ideals’

The veritas project are shady as hell but even those examples like the “hillary clintons emails” on they showed are too real and even that indicates a dangerous precident, the undercover video can be chopped up however you like , but reffering to the trump situation as a negative thing to be prevented from happening again or the female ceo’s thing is very telling of what manipulation they want

Ha. You'd be the exact kind of person arguing against net neutrality in the States because of the wonders of capitalism, and yet here you are saying that internet searches should be regulated as a utility.

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 5:02pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

LOL. Censorship is bad. Unless we're the ones that are doing it. Got to love the Left. If it wasn't double standards they wouldn't have any.

I never said censorship is inherently bad. Are you thinking of someone else?

splashuum · 26-06-2019 5:25pm

Even mainstream news is covering it. Please continue to stick up for your beloved Google.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quCgvqeZrY&feature=share

Sonics2k · 26-06-2019 5:41pm

splashuum wrote: »

Even mainstream news is covering it. Please continue to stick up for your beloved Google.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quCgvqeZrY&feature=share

Hold up a second, let's put aside the outrage comments and be smart.

The content of the video and what the Exec is saying is extremely dodgy. Nobody has said otherwise. No matter your political leaning, this is something to be concerned about.

The fair point brought up is that the video has been edited and released by a group known for releasing fake videos with massive amounts of editing. No matter your political leaning, this is something to be concerned about.

Previously the claim was that MSM is avoiding it, this has been proven false with articles from a few major outlets, on both sides.

c.p.w.g.w · 26-06-2019 5:53pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Project Veritas doing an 'investigate piece' on Democrats would only be negative. This is same group who tried to frame Washington Post in order to get Roy Moore's name cleared even though O'keefe himself felt Moore was guilty.

What are liberal views and why would those views result in bans?

Nobody is getting banned on social media because they hold Conservative views. People are getting banned because they are advocating violence against other groups..

Except Kathy Griffin promoting violence against a kid wearing a MAGA hat...that's ok

rossie1977 · 26-06-2019 6:44pm

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Except Kathy Griffin promoting violence against a kid wearing a MAGA hat...that's ok

I don't follow Kathy Griffin so you are going to have to link to social media posts in question.

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 7:28pm

Go to Google and search on the terms ‘Men Can ‘ and then ‘Women Can ‘ (making sure to put a space after the word ‘can’) and look at their top results. Does anyone believe Google is showing the top results chosen on what most people search for? If you believe they are then I have a bridge in NYC to sell you. IMO this is a flagrant attempt of Google to manipulate results and push their social and preferred agenda.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 8:04pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

The folks getting banned on social media are those advocating violence from their supporters and they come from far right, far left, Muslim community. It just happens that the most vocal extreme voices in the US are those on the far right right now.

Not true at all, unless you think gender critical posts are “violent” in themselves.

https://twitter.com/feministcurrent/status/1067260736928280577?s=21

mad muffin · 26-06-2019 9:29pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

I don't follow Kathy Griffin so you are going to have to link to social media posts in question.

You don’t need to follow her to know what happened. It was a liberals wet dream. They were ready to lynch those poor kids.

As usual it turned to be all false. All orchestrated by the liberals. Nothing that the liberals keep complaining about is real.

They are the most violent. Intolerant. Racist group. Don’t forget. The Democrats are the party of slavery.

I wouldn’t put it past google, Facebook, and the rest of the liberals to stoop to this kind of thing.

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 9:32pm

mad muffin wrote: »

You don’t need to follow her to know what happened. It was a liberals wet dream. They were ready to lynch those poor kids.

As usual it turned to be all false. All orchestrated by the liberals. Nothing that the liberals keep complaining about is real.

They are the most violent. Intolerant. Racist group. Don’t forget. The Democrats are the party of slavery.

I wouldn’t put it past google, Facebook, and the rest of the liberals to stoop to this kind of thing.

Not many democrats waving confederate flags and defending confederate monuments.

mad muffin · 26-06-2019 9:34pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Not many democrats waving confederate flags and defending confederate monuments.

They probably don’t even know the history of their own party…

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 9:43pm

mad muffin wrote: »

They probably don’t even know the history of their own party…

More likely they don't have to go back centuries to find something good their party did.

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 9:50pm

MrFresh wrote: »

More likely they don't have to go back centuries to find something good their party did.

Which party was chiefly responsible for getting the Civil Rights Act passed? Hint, it wasn't the Democrats.

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 9:57pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Which party was chiefly responsible for getting the Civil Rights Act passed? Hint, it wasn't the Democrats.

Are you talking about the Civil Rights Act pushed by Kennedy, then by Johnson and voted in favour of by both parties?

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 9:58pm

mad muffin wrote: »

You don’t need to follow her to know what happened. It was a liberals wet dream. They were ready to lynch those poor kids.

As usual it turned to be all false. All orchestrated by the liberals. Nothing that the liberals keep complaining about is real.

They are the most violent. Intolerant. Racist group. Don’t forget. The Democrats are the party of slavery.

I wouldn’t put it past google, Facebook, and the rest of the liberals to stoop to this kind of thing.

Good news… The Covington teen could very well win his hundreds of millions US dollar lawsuit against CNN, NBC Universal and MSNBC for defamation. I see them all settling for a lesser amount before it goes to trial, but then it’s onto to the other 51 entities put on notice.

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 10:03pm

MrFresh wrote: »

Are you talking about the Civil Rights Act pushed by Kennedy, then by Johnson and voted in favour of by both parties?

Yes. More Republicans voted for the civil rights act as a percentage than Democrats did. The House passed the bill in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 yea votes from Democrats, which was only 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, which was 78 percent of their party. It then passed the Senate with a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, but only 69 percent of Democrats. As a percentage of total votes who would you say were the good guys?

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 10:06pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes. More Republicans voted for the civil rights act as a percentage than Democrats did. The House passed the bill in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 yea votes from Democrats, which was only 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, which was 78 percent of their party. It then passed the Senate with a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, but only 69 percent of Democrats. As a percentage of total votes who would you say were the good guys?

The people who voted for it.

Wibbs · 26-06-2019 10:07pm

Google are dicks. This is a given. You are the product. Just like Arsebook. And they in turn are the product of a mindset of some of their generation, though mostly it's about making bank. QV Arsebook backing both sides of the US political sphere. If actual fascists made their greasy tills ring they'd back them to the hilt. Currently they reckon being "liberal" makes more cash, so that's where they lean.

The movers and shakers at the top give two hoots, so long as they can order "ethnic" food into their enclaves and crow at exclusive tax deductible charity soirees about "diversity", so long as it's of the clean and minted sort, or at a comfortable arms length. The kind of length that arty black and white photos of refugees they can ooh and ahh about in galleries. There's also an element of them thinking they're the next step, the best of mankind, with added Aspergers. Big nope. Avoid them like the plague and one can.

notobtuse · 26-06-2019 10:10pm

MrFresh wrote: »

The people who voted for it.

Agreed. So you also agree Republicans were, on average, much better people, right?

Melanchthon · 26-06-2019 11:15pm

splashuum wrote: »

You are certainly a character I will give you that :rolleyes:
There's literally reams of evidence that proves google's bias.

For instance, google image "idiot" and you will be see hundreds of images for Donald Trump.
However if you google image "fool" "dumbass" "dumbo" etc, Donald will not appear. A small example of clear search engine manipulation

That's on google image search ? If so I doubt its google being delibrately biased image search at least used to be very open to manipulation.
Example for a while if you googled "Turkish people" on image search it came up with pictures of cockroaches presumably because of Greek/Armenian manipulation.

batgoat wrote: »

And it's the exact same thing with the email thread that got reduced to one message. They're basically aiming for shock value. Exact same as they did with planned parenthood stuff.

That's a pretty bad example to use to support the point your trying to make as earlier this year that material was tested in court including a independent forensic review of the videos. They weren't doctored.

ww. w. .nationalreview.c. om/
corner/fifth-circuit-ruling-dismantles-planned-parenthood-talking-points/ sorry have to break URL's as new user but nr is a proper source if conservative leaning

That O'Keefe guy has definitely done some untrustworthy editing and misrepresenting videos but they have been tested in court a bit and they don't always loose.

I'd trust them as much as I trust Vice Media, both willing to be shady attempted buggings and huge respective bias etc but occasionally its an actual story

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 26-06-2019 11:21pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes. More Republicans voted for the civil rights act as a percentage than Democrats did. The House passed the bill in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 yea votes from Democrats, which was only 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, which was 78 percent of their party. It then passed the Senate with a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, but only 69 percent of Democrats. As a percentage of total votes who would you say were the good guys?

Well the southern democrats are far right by modern standards.

MrFresh · 26-06-2019 11:41pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Agreed. So you also agree Republicans were, on average, much better people, right?

They had better party discipline for sure. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Both parties voted in favour and it was a democratic president who pushed it in the first place. Calling it a Republican accomplishment takes some odd gymnastics. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans put a higher proportion of Republican reps votes for it. So I'll grant you that. They were proportionally more the good guys then.

notobtuse · 27-06-2019 1:45pm

MrFresh wrote: »

They had better party discipline for sure. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Both parties voted in favour and it was a democratic president who pushed it in the first place. Calling it a Republican accomplishment takes some odd gymnastics. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans put a higher proportion of Republican reps votes for it. So I'll grant you that. They were proportionally more the good guys then.

The point is reality of who Republicans/Conservatives are is quite different than the old chestnuts which are simply dishonest stereotypical characterizations by the Democrats/Progressives and their MSM allies.

MrFresh · 27-06-2019 3:02pm

notobtuse wrote: »

The point is reality of who Republicans/Conservatives are is quite different than the old chestnuts which are simply dishonest stereotypical characterizations by the Democrats/Progressives and their MSM allies.

You picked two examples, one from the 60's and one from centuries ago. But they don't describe the current Republican party who fit very well into their stereotypical characterisations.

B0jangles · 27-06-2019 3:04pm

MrFresh wrote: »

You picked two examples, one from the 60's and one from centuries ago. But they don't describe the current Republican party who fit very well into their stereotypical characterisations.

I was just thinking that; if you have to look back almost 60 years to find a time when the party you support was behaving reasonably well, you might want to reconsider your support for that party...

notobtuse · 27-06-2019 3:50pm

MrFresh wrote: »

You picked two examples, one from the 60's and one from centuries ago. But they don't describe the current Republican party who fit very well into their stereotypical characterisations.

What current stereotypical characterizations are those you speak of?

Irish Google Exec Reveal Plan to Prevent A Trump situation in 2020

Comments