Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

135

Comments

  • #62
    splashuum
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭splashuum


    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


  • #63
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,097 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    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.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • #64
    splashuum
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭splashuum


    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


  • #65
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


    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.


  • #66
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,097 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    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.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    splashuum
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭splashuum


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Feel free to post it.

    Look at my two previous posts on this thread.


  • #68
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,097 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    splashuum wrote: »
    Look at my two previous posts on this thread.

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

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • #69
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭NaFirinne


    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.


  • #70
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    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.


  • #71
    splashuum
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭splashuum


    There little point entering debate with some in this thread. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    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.


  • #73
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #74
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    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.


  • #75
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    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.


  • #76
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    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.


  • #77
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    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?


  • #78
    splashuum
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭splashuum


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

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


  • #79
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    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.


  • #80
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    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


  • #81
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #83
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    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


  • #84
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    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.


  • #85
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    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.


  • #86
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    MrFresh wrote: »
    Not many democrats waving confederate flags and defending confederate monuments.

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


  • #87
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    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.


  • #88
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #89
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    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?


  • #90
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



Advertisement