This is not a forum on politics, so I will just note that you are stating as fact things that, outside of the conservative media echo chamber, have not at all been established as facts. Making my comment topical to this forum I will just add that it is welcome for search engines to not affirm that sort of unverified info by offering such things as "top results."
Usage of phrases such as 'conservative media echo chamber' indicate you hold strong biases, and while there is nothing wrong with that, hopefully you can nevertheless appreciate the error of having someone with such strong views "curate" search results. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Needless to say then curated search results are a slippery slope at best, which is why search engines should drop their recent fondness for preferring certain viewpoints over others and get back to their core business of delivering results based strictly upon context & popularity metrics.
p.s. And the Hunter Biden laptop scandal is a perfect example of censorship gone awry. A week before a major election, a laptop emerges from the Democrat nominee's son containing explosive business details which suggest he and his father may be compromised by the Chinese as well as other foreign actors, and yet there's a near media blackout on the story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how investigative journalism is supposed to work. Suffice to say then not exactly democracy's finest hour and therefore when the dust settles I expect there will be structural changes among our media groups for if they refuse to do their jobs then they are hardly worth having.
News organizations looking at the particulars of such a last-minute revelation, finding them lacking, and choosing not to run with it is not actually censorship. I don't think you understand what the word "censorship" means. FoxNews even took a pass on it. People within the NY Post didn't even want their names on the story because it was so weak. The fact that you're continuing to repeat it here (on a non-political forum) as though it were true (and topical to an Apple forum) only speaks to the power of the echo chamber I mentioned. I do have strong biases, toward reality.
Outside the echo chamber, that's already happened. To the rest of the world, that would indeed be that.
You really believe what you just wrote?? Well then, you're in for a rude surprise when the indictments start to drop.
The FBI currently has three separate teams combing over Hunter's laptop, one dealing with money laundering, one for child exploitation, and then a third team as well.
Sure, the press is hoping they can bury the story and people will forget, but we'll see how that strategy plays out for the laptop is indeed legit and those who suggest otherwise are playing partisan politics.
This is not a forum on politics, so I will just note that you are stating as fact things that, outside of the conservative media echo chamber, have not at all been established as facts. Making my comment topical to this forum I will just add that it is welcome for search engines to not affirm that sort of unverified info by offering such things as "top results."
We’re a week and a half in to it. Give it time. If you are as open as you claim to be you should be eager to see what happens instead of silencing everyone. This is just like the left when they jumped on Trump when he said his wires were tapped. Took them 2 minutes to say no they weren’t instead of even bothering to look in to it. No apologies were given when it was proven true.
I don't think that was ever actually proven true. Also, it has nothing to do with a forum on Apple things.
I’m sure Apple stockholders won’t be happy; that’s a big slice of revenue gone and given Apple’s privacy stance they won’t monetize the data to make up for it.
For those saying this would put Apple in the crosshairs for monopoly rulings, I disagree. Apple customers willingly pay a premium for the quality of service - hw and sw - and security. There are options.
Apple has become a monopoly due to it's expansive halo of product and services. The App is a monopoly which dictates rates and it is the only way for a developer to sell an app for the worlds best phone.
Incorrect. iOS is a minority market share and thus not a monopoly of the smartphone app market. Apple can’t have a monopoly on it’s on store and titles any more than McDonald’s had a monopoly over its own stores and menu items. “No Whopper!? No sushi!? Monopoly!” uhh no.
Outside the echo chamber, that's already happened. To the rest of the world, that would indeed be that.
You really believe what you just wrote?? Well then, you're in for a rude surprise when the indictments start to drop.
The FBI currently has three separate teams combing over Hunter's laptop, one dealing with money laundering, one for child exploitation, and then a third team as well.
Sure, the press is hoping they can bury the story and people will forget, but we'll see how that strategy plays out for the laptop is indeed legit and those who suggest otherwise are playing partisan politics.
This is not a forum on politics, so I will just note that you are stating as fact things that, outside of the conservative media echo chamber, have not at all been established as facts. Making my comment topical to this forum I will just add that it is welcome for search engines to not affirm that sort of unverified info by offering such things as "top results."
We’re a week and a half in to it. Give it time. If you are as open as you claim to be you should be eager to see what happens instead of silencing everyone. This is just like the left when they jumped on Trump when he said his wires were tapped. Took them 2 minutes to say no they weren’t instead of even bothering to look in to it. No apologies were given when it was proven true.
I don't think that was ever actually proven true. Also, it has nothing to do with a forum on Apple things.
It was never proven not true, and this is a perfect example of what can happen with an Apple search engine. You’re 0-2. Want to continue this discussion?
Outside the echo chamber, that's already happened. To the rest of the world, that would indeed be that.
You really believe what you just wrote?? Well then, you're in for a rude surprise when the indictments start to drop.
The FBI currently has three separate teams combing over Hunter's laptop, one dealing with money laundering, one for child exploitation, and then a third team as well.
Sure, the press is hoping they can bury the story and people will forget, but we'll see how that strategy plays out for the laptop is indeed legit and those who suggest otherwise are playing partisan politics.
This is not a forum on politics, so I will just note that you are stating as fact things that, outside of the conservative media echo chamber, have not at all been established as facts. Making my comment topical to this forum I will just add that it is welcome for search engines to not affirm that sort of unverified info by offering such things as "top results."
We’re a week and a half in to it. Give it time. If you are as open as you claim to be you should be eager to see what happens instead of silencing everyone. This is just like the left when they jumped on Trump when he said his wires were tapped. Took them 2 minutes to say no they weren’t instead of even bothering to look in to it. No apologies were given when it was proven true.
I don't think that was ever actually proven true. Also, it has nothing to do with a forum on Apple things.
It was never proven not true, and this is a perfect example of what can happen with an Apple search engine. You’re 0-2. Want to continue this discussion?
Charming. You have offered what is known as the negative proof fallacy (while using a double-negative for bonus points). That is, asserting that something is true because it has not been exhaustively proven false. That's not how any of this works. You could likewise claim you have been abducted by aliens. The fact that others likely can't (or won't bother to) exhaustively prove that you have not been abducted by aliens is not then useable as an affirmation that it is true. The reality-based world expects you to show compelling evidence that you've been abducted by aliens. If you don't, an Apple search engine's algorithms would be justified in not taking your claims seriously.
Would love Apple to demolish Google search and ads for making knockoffs after stealing secrets from Apple's iPhone.
Look at this way: if Google hadn't stolen the ideas then they would have released that piece of crap they originally planned to release. Can you imagine the kind of anti-trust investigations Apple would be facing today?
There is something oddly creepy when people state something they think is correct to contradict someone else and add LOL. Or is it just me?
Anyhoo... here is a link for you. If Steve believed it then that's good enough for me, he didn't need to quote other peoples' opinions. Oh, and he was there.
I just played around with the search built into iOS 14.1 and it certainly seems to work very well. Are we sure this isn't just using an existing search engine? If not and it is Apple's in-house effort then it surely won't be long before it is used elsewhere. I did notice HomePods are now saying 'I sent the answer to your iPhone' rather than 'sorry I can't answer that.' I wonder if this is more evidence?
News organizations looking at the particulars of such a last-minute revelation, finding them lacking, and choosing not to run with it is not actually censorship. I don't think you understand what the word "censorship" means. FoxNews even took a pass on it. People within the NY Post didn't even want their names on the story because it was so weak. The fact that you're continuing to repeat it here (on a non-political forum) as though it were true (and topical to an Apple forum) only speaks to the power of the echo chamber I mentioned. I do have strong biases, toward reality.
Well what you state above is simply not true. Tucker Carlson devoted his -entire- show on Tuesday evening to interview Tony Bobulinksi, who was Hunter Biden's business partner when together they brokered a deal with the Chinese company CEFC Energy, in which the Bidens were paid $10 million, essentially for 'access'.
And Bobulinski was about as credible a witness as one could imagine, bringing along receipts, emails, text messages, and even voice messages he received from the Bidens to corroborate his story. So to say media groups examined Hunter's laptop and couldn't find anything newsworthy there is about as irresponsible a statement as one could make, for there are smoking guns aplenty which the media have simply chosen to ignore.
Moreover more than 7.5 million people watched Tucker's show on Tuesday, breaking a record, so Fox hardly took a pass on it. Likewise the editors of the NY Post have been on Tucker's show for a week straight discussing this laptop, so your assertions about both Fox & the Post thinking the story weak are simply false.
In any event yes these are political comments, however this thread took a political turn back when the moderator mentioned censorship himself, and you certainly haven't minded playing this game either so let us all not faint quite so easily.
Fox News' own lawyers recently defended Mr. Carlson in court by stating that he does not actually rely on factual information and as such is not to be taken seriously.
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
Fox News' own lawyers recently defended Mr. Carlson in court by stating that he does not actually rely on factual information and as such is not to be taken seriously.
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
The link you tried to submit is broken, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
Even so, should Tony Bobulinski, and all other guests on Tucker Carlson, not be taken seriously as well...?
If nothing else, I give you points for audacity.
Fixed the link. As to your question, no, they probably shouldn't be taken seriously if they're appearing on that show. It is not a serious show.
Fixed the link. As to your question, no, they probably shouldn't be taken seriously if they're appearing on that show. It is not a serious show.
Thank you for the fixed link, although the article ran about as expected. For instance:
Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
Basically when lawyers and money get together, the lawyers will say whatever they need to in order to secure the win for their client. As they should I suppose.
So I would not take this NPR article and run to the hills with it.
In any event it's pretty clear by watching Tucker's show here and there that it is in fact rather serious the majority of the time. In fact Tucker will often discuss topics that other programs won't dare touch, so in that respect, he adds tremendous value amongst an otherwise homogenous media environment.
And his interview the other night with Bobulinski was lights out, the sort of investigative journalism the media used to take an interest in. So you have to give him kudos for conducting an interview everyone else was too afraid to touch.
Any self-respecting “investigative journalist” who wishes to maintain any credibility would surely decline a defense based on the argument that he is not accountable for what he says because everybody knows he is not reliant on factual information.
In this case, Carlson doesn’t worry about having general credibility, because as you have demonstrated, his revenue-generating audience doesn’t care if he’s fact-independent, so long as he entertains by giving them what they want to hear.
Which, once again, is why anything he says should definitely be buried way, way down in any results generated by the rumored Apple search engine.
Fox News' own lawyers recently defended Mr. Carlson in court by stating that he does not actually rely on factual information and as such is not to be taken seriously.
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
The link you tried to submit is broken, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
Even so, should Tony Bobulinski, and all other guests on Tucker Carlson, not be taken seriously as well...?
If nothing else, I give you points for audacity.
Fixed the link. As to your question, no, they probably shouldn't be taken seriously if they're appearing on that show. It is not a serious show.
You have a link where the Biden’s deny any of this is true? Not them arguing that it’s a distraction, or Russian misinformation, I mean Hunter saying that isn’t me in the photographs. Joe, saying I’m not the big guy. Maybe help the FBI out because they have an investigation going. Although you wouldn’t know it by tuning in to any of the major news outlets or doing a Google search on it. Amazing you know so much that isn’t real in just 1 week. You should have been on the team that wasted 3.5 years on the Russian collusion delusion, the one with all the unnamed sources.
Censoring articles, censoring search results, is what we’re afraid of, and past history shows we have a right to be. You get bonus points for attempting to associate the negative proof fallacy with current events. You have no idea what’s going on with this story yet you want to pretend it isn’t real just because you don’t want to believe it. For 3.5 years we heard about the pee tape. Where is it? Never saw it. Still had to hear about it. Meanwhile I have seen photos of Hunter snorting lines of off a hook...., can’t even say it here...
Suffice to say then not exactly democracy's finest hour and therefore when the dust settles I expect there will be structural changes among our media groups for if they refuse to do their jobs then they are hardly worth having.
Ah yes, in order to fight "censorship" you've got to censor the media for not "doing their jobs" in reporting what you deem is correct. Brilliant solution. How about just state run media controlled by the administration in charge? That seems like a good path.
Fox News' own lawyers recently defended Mr. Carlson in court by stating that he does not actually rely on factual information and as such is not to be taken seriously.
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
The link you tried to submit is broken, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
Even so, should Tony Bobulinski, and all other guests on Tucker Carlson, not be taken seriously as well...?
If nothing else, I give you points for audacity.
Fixed the link. As to your question, no, they probably shouldn't be taken seriously if they're appearing on that show. It is not a serious show.
You have a link where the Biden’s deny any of this is true? Not them arguing that it’s a distraction, or Russian misinformation, I mean Hunter saying that isn’t me in the photographs. Joe, saying I’m not the big guy. Maybe help the FBI out because they have an investigation going. Although you wouldn’t know it by tuning in to any of the major news outlets or doing a Google search on it. Amazing you know so much that isn’t real in just 1 week. You should have been on the team that wasted 3.5 years on the Russian collusion delusion, the one with all the unnamed sources.
Censoring articles, censoring search results, is what we’re afraid of, and past history shows we have a right to be. You get bonus points for attempting to associate the negative proof fallacy with current events. You have no idea what’s going on with this story yet you want to pretend it isn’t real just because you don’t want to believe it. For 3.5 years we heard about the pee tape. Where is it? Never saw it. Still had to hear about it. Meanwhile I have seen photos of Hunter snorting lines of off a hook...., can’t even say it here...
Major news outlets are not reporting on it because there's nothing to report until you have verifiable evidence — THAT is how responsible journalism functions. This whole thing is covered in enough red flags that nobody, not even the New York Post writer who penned the story, wants to put their name on it. Rudy Giuliani is NOT a reliable narrator of verifiable truth by most sane people's standards, nor is Tucker Carlson.
It's funny you guys point to the Russia investigation which in reality led to a huge pile of indictments and other investigations spun off to other jurisdictions and a massive Russian disinformation campaign targeting our elections, so it's not like there wasn't anything there. Yet then point to "spy gate" and previously (or still, actually) Benghazi and Clinton's emails etc etc which have led to precisely jack shit over years of investigations now. So, that is a good foundation for understanding why most reasonable people are not willing to give this story much attention until there's something there there. If the FBI is investigating it, then they'll determine if there are crimes that should be investigated, and then we can get all outraged and whatever. So far nobody has concluded as much. WEIRD.
One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
Despite the document's questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.
LOL and you wonder why people aren't giving this story its fair shake. I'm all for getting to the bottom of legit corruption and crime, but anyone who's looking at this with a clear head sees that it's buried in piles of unadulterated bullshit. Why? Well, there are some obvious conclusions that can be drawn here.
BUT, to get back on topic, why exactly do we think Apple would censor this in a search engine as some here are picturing? Breitbart and Daily Caller are in Apple News, so you can get your fill of garbage news over there easily. Safari doesn't filter any of these sources. Mainstream media as it were IS reporting on this subject, just not in the way you like, which is NOT censorship or failure of journalism by any definition. This whole argument is a joke.
Suffice to say then not exactly democracy's finest hour and therefore when the dust settles I expect there will be structural changes among our media groups for if they refuse to do their jobs then they are hardly worth having.
Ah yes, in order to fight "censorship" you've got to censor the media for not "doing their jobs" in reporting what you deem is correct. Brilliant solution. How about just state run media controlled by the administration in charge? That seems like a good path.
Fox News' own lawyers recently defended Mr. Carlson in court by stating that he does not actually rely on factual information and as such is not to be taken seriously.
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
The link you tried to submit is broken, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
Even so, should Tony Bobulinski, and all other guests on Tucker Carlson, not be taken seriously as well...?
If nothing else, I give you points for audacity.
Fixed the link. As to your question, no, they probably shouldn't be taken seriously if they're appearing on that show. It is not a serious show.
You have a link where the Biden’s deny any of this is true? Not them arguing that it’s a distraction, or Russian misinformation, I mean Hunter saying that isn’t me in the photographs. Joe, saying I’m not the big guy. Maybe help the FBI out because they have an investigation going. Although you wouldn’t know it by tuning in to any of the major news outlets or doing a Google search on it. Amazing you know so much that isn’t real in just 1 week. You should have been on the team that wasted 3.5 years on the Russian collusion delusion, the one with all the unnamed sources.
Censoring articles, censoring search results, is what we’re afraid of, and past history shows we have a right to be. You get bonus points for attempting to associate the negative proof fallacy with current events. You have no idea what’s going on with this story yet you want to pretend it isn’t real just because you don’t want to believe it. For 3.5 years we heard about the pee tape. Where is it? Never saw it. Still had to hear about it. Meanwhile I have seen photos of Hunter snorting lines of off a hook...., can’t even say it here...
Major news outlets are not reporting on it because there's nothing to report until you have verifiable evidence — THAT is how responsible journalism functions. This whole thing is covered in enough red flags that nobody, not even the New York Post writer who penned the story, wants to put their name on it. Rudy Giuliani is NOT a reliable narrator of verifiable truth by most sane people's standards, nor is Tucker Carlson.
It's funny you guys point to the Russia investigation which in reality led to a huge pile of indictments and other investigations spun off to other jurisdictions and a massive Russian disinformation campaign targeting our elections, so it's not like there wasn't anything there. Yet then point to "spy gate" and previously (or still, actually) Benghazi and Clinton's emails etc etc which have led to precisely jack shit over years of investigations now. So, that is a good foundation for understanding why most reasonable people are not willing to give this story much attention until there's something there there. If the FBI is investigating it, then they'll determine if there are crimes that should be investigated, and then we can get all outraged and whatever. So far nobody has concluded as much. WEIRD.
So you agree the Russia collusion delusion over the last 3.5 years was a complete waste, along with the impeachment. Both cases where there is proof, the opposition party is guilty of those exact charges and then some. And now, not only is that proof is not being mentioned in mainstream press, but being taken down and banned when it is.
Read up on what an indictment is and then get back to me.
Suffice to say then not exactly democracy's finest hour and therefore when the dust settles I expect there will be structural changes among our media groups for if they refuse to do their jobs then they are hardly worth having.
Ah yes, in order to fight "censorship" you've got to censor the media for not "doing their jobs" in reporting what you deem is correct. Brilliant solution. How about just state run media controlled by the administration in charge? That seems like a good path.
Fox News' own lawyers recently defended Mr. Carlson in court by stating that he does not actually rely on factual information and as such is not to be taken seriously.
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
The link you tried to submit is broken, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
Even so, should Tony Bobulinski, and all other guests on Tucker Carlson, not be taken seriously as well...?
If nothing else, I give you points for audacity.
Fixed the link. As to your question, no, they probably shouldn't be taken seriously if they're appearing on that show. It is not a serious show.
You have a link where the Biden’s deny any of this is true? Not them arguing that it’s a distraction, or Russian misinformation, I mean Hunter saying that isn’t me in the photographs. Joe, saying I’m not the big guy. Maybe help the FBI out because they have an investigation going. Although you wouldn’t know it by tuning in to any of the major news outlets or doing a Google search on it. Amazing you know so much that isn’t real in just 1 week. You should have been on the team that wasted 3.5 years on the Russian collusion delusion, the one with all the unnamed sources.
Censoring articles, censoring search results, is what we’re afraid of, and past history shows we have a right to be. You get bonus points for attempting to associate the negative proof fallacy with current events. You have no idea what’s going on with this story yet you want to pretend it isn’t real just because you don’t want to believe it. For 3.5 years we heard about the pee tape. Where is it? Never saw it. Still had to hear about it. Meanwhile I have seen photos of Hunter snorting lines of off a hook...., can’t even say it here...
Major news outlets are not reporting on it because there's nothing to report until you have verifiable evidence — THAT is how responsible journalism functions. This whole thing is covered in enough red flags that nobody, not even the New York Post writer who penned the story, wants to put their name on it. Rudy Giuliani is NOT a reliable narrator of verifiable truth by most sane people's standards, nor is Tucker Carlson.
It's funny you guys point to the Russia investigation which in reality led to a huge pile of indictments and other investigations spun off to other jurisdictions and a massive Russian disinformation campaign targeting our elections, so it's not like there wasn't anything there. Yet then point to "spy gate" and previously (or still, actually) Benghazi and Clinton's emails etc etc which have led to precisely jack shit over years of investigations now. So, that is a good foundation for understanding why most reasonable people are not willing to give this story much attention until there's something there there. If the FBI is investigating it, then they'll determine if there are crimes that should be investigated, and then we can get all outraged and whatever. So far nobody has concluded as much. WEIRD.
So you agree the Russia collusion delusion over the last 3.5 years was a complete waste, along with the impeachment. Both cases where there is proof, the opposition party is guilty of those exact charges and then some. And now, not only is that proof is not being mentioned in mainstream press, but being taken down and banned when it is.
Read up on what an indictment is and then get back to me.
The Russia investigation led to quite a few convictions as well. An honest reading of the Mueller report suggests an obstruction of justice indictment for the President, which was only omitted because DOJ rules prohibited Mueller from reaching a conclusion. Part 1 of his report is also incredibly damning, and would have been worse had Trump's obstruction not been so vigorous. It clearly says Russia interfered in the election and helped Trump, and that Trump was happy to take the help. It just didn't find enough evidence of direct coordination to recommend a conspiracy charge. The bi-partisan, Republican led intelligence committee's report on the subject goes even further. The Ukraine thing was also damning if you actually "read the transcript." The "complete waste" here is more about the politicians who were too spineless to take action in response to all this damning information.
The challenge for a search engine isn't about "censoring" information but sifting and sorting, so that the most accurate, relevant and valuable information is atop the results for any given search query. This shouldn't be done based on political bias. That's made all the more difficult, however, when things like the pandemic or climate change are politicized, and that politicization causes loads of misinformation and uninformed opinions to be dumped out on the internet. Facts and the science should drive the search results. When one "side" politicizes a subject and rails against the inconvenient truths found in the science, they will inevitably claim that fact and science-based search results are politically biased, when they are not.
I left your link to the NBC story, so that others may see how the game is played. Does anyone remember the Steele dossier, which was the hoax used to kickstart the entire narrative that Trump was in cahoots with Putin to steal the '16 election?? Well hindsight being 20/20 we now know the Clinton campaign paid Steele to write up the phony dossier. And considering Trump was dogged for 3+ years by the whole Russia/Russia/Russia allegation, I would say Clinton received a good return for her money.
Anyway, similar deal with the above NBC story... Just replace "Steele Dossier" with "Typhoon Investigations". Only difference being the Steele dossier was used for offense while the Typhoon report is being used for defense.
Regardless, the same people are being fooled in the same way as with the Steele Dossier... Will they never learn?
But how can anyone be so sure?
Well easy.
Joe Biden’s campaign spokesman Jamal Brown just yesterday refused to deny that Joe Biden met with Tony Bobulinski, and moreover refused to dismiss any of the contents which have been released so far from Hunter Biden's laptop as not being legitimate.
That being the case, it certainly looks like Tucker Carlson & the NY Post are onto something, which is why those with partisan axes to grind should not be in charge of curating search results.
Donald Trump and his staff were repeatedly caught in provable lies about contact with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign following an actual investigation from law enforcement and diligent reporting.
Joe Biden's press secretary refuses to comment either way on a smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents and partisan tabloids.
And you losers think this is something worth spreading as a gotcha. smh
I left your link to the NBC story, so that others may see how the game is played. Does anyone remember the Steele dossier, which was the hoax used to kickstart the entire narrative that Trump was in cahoots with Putin to steal the '16 election?? Well hindsight being 20/20 we now know the Clinton campaign paid Steele to write up the phony dossier. And considering Trump was dogged for 3+ years by the whole Russia/Russia/Russia allegation, I would say Clinton received a good return for her money.
Anyway, similar deal with the above NBC story... Just replace "Steele Dossier" with "Typhoon Investigations". Only difference being the Steele dossier was used for offense while the Typhoon report is being used for defense.
Regardless, the same people are being fooled in the same way as with the Steele Dossier... Will they never learn?
But how can anyone be so sure?
Well easy.
Joe Biden’s campaign spokesman Jamal Brown just yesterday refused to deny that Joe Biden met with Tony Bobulinski, and moreover refused to dismiss any of the contents which have been released so far from Hunter Biden's laptop as not being legitimate.
That being the case, it certainly looks like Tucker Carlson & the NY Post are onto something, which is why those with partisan axes to grind should not be in charge of curating search results.
The FBI started its investigation into the Trump campaign's interactions with Russia months before they were made aware of the "Steele Dossier" by Republican Senator and P.O.W. war hero John McCain, after the 2016 election. Convicted Trump campaign lackey George Papadpolous bragging about Russian contacts triggered initial suspicions with federal investigators. Also, the "Steele Dossier" was initiated by a Republican donor during the 2016 primaries, back when Lindsey Graham, Mark Rubio and others were still willing to state the most unflattering truths about Mr. Trump. Also, there are, I believe, eight guilty pleas/convictions resulting from the Mueller investigation. No matter how many times Trump's defenders repeat false claims that there was no there there, the facts will disagree.
This is why search algorithms are so challenged when trying to sort past such copious and repeated misinformation.
The challenge for a search engine isn't about "censoring" information but sifting and sorting, so that the most accurate, relevant and valuable information is atop the results for any given search query. This shouldn't be done based on political bias. That's made all the more difficult, however, when things like the pandemic or climate change are politicized, and that politicization causes loads of misinformation and uninformed opinions to be dumped out on the internet. Facts and the science should drive the search results.
When one "side" politicizes a subject and rails against the inconvenient truths found in the science, they will inevitably claim that fact and science-based search results are politically biased, when they are not.
The above belies a shocking naivete about how a great deal of "science" is conducted. For how do scientists earn their living?? Well they need grant money to conduct their research...
That being the case, much of science is influenced in ways which are not disclosed to the public. Find out who's supplying the grant money, and suddenly you'll see that politics is indeed plastered all over "science", whether we're talking global warming, medicine, or a hundred other topics where potentially a lot of money will change hands based upon those 'scientific' findings.
So again, this is why it's absolutely imperative to not have curated search results, and instead leave it up to users to judge what is valid and what is not.
The above belies a manipulative distortion of how science works. Yes, it's well known that the fossil fuels industry has backed garbage "science" to obfuscate the climate change issue. There are established methods through peer review, etc. that make it possible to suss that out, such that only politically motivated people try to promote the garbage as science. Science is conducted by humans and nobody is perfect, but it's gaslighting nonsense to claim that there is no discernible truth in science.
The above also belies either manipulative distortion or abject ignorance about how internet search works. Search engines by definition produce curated results. If they didn't, everything would be randomized garbage, and there would be no point in their existence. Both of your comments here represent a sort of gaslighting nihilism. Nobody needs that.
The FBI started its investigation into the Trump campaign's interactions with Russia months before they were made aware of the "Steele Dossier." Convicted Trump lackey George Papadpolous bragging about Russian contacts triggered initial suspicions with federal investigators. Also, the "Steele Dossier" was initiated by a Republican donor during the 2016 primaries, back when Lindsey Graham, Mark Rubio and others were still willing to state the most unflattering truths about Mr. Trump. Also, there are, I believe, eight guilty pleas/convictions resulting from the Mueller investigation. No matter how many times Trump's defenders repeat false claims that there was no there there, the facts will disagree.
This is why search algorithms are so challenged when trying to sort past such copious and repeated misinformation.
Fear not, in the weeks ahead much more information will be disclosed about what happened back in 2016 regarding the Steele dossier. And what I'm referring to specifically are forthcoming criminal indictments.
Once the indictments start dropping, and they will, you will be able to look back upon these posts you've written and judge for yourself how much you got right and how much you got wrong.
In the meantime, the whole point of a search engine is to deliver results which the user may find interesting. And since no one knows the complete truth on any given matter, not to mention that people are often fallible, are reasons enough to not play favorites when returning results.
Yeah, yeah, there's "a storm coming" and all that. Keep dreaming.
Comments
I don't think that was ever actually proven true. Also, it has nothing to do with a forum on Apple things.
Anyhoo... here is a link for you. If Steve believed it then that's good enough for me, he didn't need to quote other peoples' opinions. Oh, and he was there.
https://venturebeat.com/2011/10/20/how-steve-jobs-felt-betrayed-by-eric-schmidt-over-googles-android/
P.S. And as such, his dribblings should definitely appear low down on the list of any given search results on a new Apple search engine.
Censoring articles, censoring search results, is what we’re afraid of, and past history shows we have a right to be. You get bonus points for attempting to associate the negative proof fallacy with current events. You have no idea what’s going on with this story yet you want to pretend it isn’t real just because you don’t want to believe it. For 3.5 years we heard about the pee tape. Where is it? Never saw it. Still had to hear about it. Meanwhile I have seen photos of Hunter snorting lines of off a hook...., can’t even say it here...
Major news outlets are not reporting on it because there's nothing to report until you have verifiable evidence — THAT is how responsible journalism functions. This whole thing is covered in enough red flags that nobody, not even the New York Post writer who penned the story, wants to put their name on it. Rudy Giuliani is NOT a reliable narrator of verifiable truth by most sane people's standards, nor is Tucker Carlson.
It's funny you guys point to the Russia investigation which in reality led to a huge pile of indictments and other investigations spun off to other jurisdictions and a massive Russian disinformation campaign targeting our elections, so it's not like there wasn't anything there. Yet then point to "spy gate" and previously (or still, actually) Benghazi and Clinton's emails etc etc which have led to precisely jack shit over years of investigations now. So, that is a good foundation for understanding why most reasonable people are not willing to give this story much attention until there's something there there. If the FBI is investigating it, then they'll determine if there are crimes that should be investigated, and then we can get all outraged and whatever. So far nobody has concluded as much. WEIRD.
After weeks of ripping on him, Tucker now does a 180. Guessing his employers are sick of this shit too:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-suddenly-says-its-time-to-leave-hunter-biden-alone
And his "stolen" secret files that were going to incriminate Biden were found on a UPS store floor. LOL on so many levels, why the fuck would you mail a flash drive of important documents to begin with?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/why-did-tucker-carlson-send-a-flash-drive-through-the-mail.html
And and AND... this is the BEST part — "How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge"
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1245387
LOL and you wonder why people aren't giving this story its fair shake. I'm all for getting to the bottom of legit corruption and crime, but anyone who's looking at this with a clear head sees that it's buried in piles of unadulterated bullshit. Why? Well, there are some obvious conclusions that can be drawn here.
BUT, to get back on topic, why exactly do we think Apple would censor this in a search engine as some here are picturing? Breitbart and Daily Caller are in Apple News, so you can get your fill of garbage news over there easily. Safari doesn't filter any of these sources. Mainstream media as it were IS reporting on this subject, just not in the way you like, which is NOT censorship or failure of journalism by any definition. This whole argument is a joke.
Read up on what an indictment is and then get back to me.
The challenge for a search engine isn't about "censoring" information but sifting and sorting, so that the most accurate, relevant and valuable information is atop the results for any given search query. This shouldn't be done based on political bias. That's made all the more difficult, however, when things like the pandemic or climate change are politicized, and that politicization causes loads of misinformation and uninformed opinions to be dumped out on the internet. Facts and the science should drive the search results. When one "side" politicizes a subject and rails against the inconvenient truths found in the science, they will inevitably claim that fact and science-based search results are politically biased, when they are not.
Joe Biden's press secretary refuses to comment either way on a smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents and partisan tabloids.
And you losers think this is something worth spreading as a gotcha. smh
This is why search algorithms are so challenged when trying to sort past such copious and repeated misinformation.
The above also belies either manipulative distortion or abject ignorance about how internet search works. Search engines by definition produce curated results. If they didn't, everything would be randomized garbage, and there would be no point in their existence. Both of your comments here represent a sort of gaslighting nihilism. Nobody needs that.