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.
So you readily admit the fossil fuels industry will monkey around with "science" in order to arrive at a predetermined result. Fair enough, I can agree with that.
However you then seemingly turn a blind eye and pretend there are no other offenders in this space.
If so, you are either naive or dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, and assume the former.
Also, there is no need to quibble when I use the word curate. I mean it simply to allude to the activity you've been saying you favor, which is to rank search results based upon some notion of political correctness, no doubt decided upon by the editors of NPR or some such group who you feel represents "the truth".
I agree with you though, nobody needs that.
EDIT: Over the years there have been many climate scandals, but perhaps the biggest of them all was the ClimateGate scandal of 2009 in which the network from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia was hacked... And the emails released were pretty damning, indicating the scientists themselves were skeptical of their own work. The media (of course) tried to downplay the scandal as nothing more than colleagues having a bit of fun at one another's expense, but if you actually read some of the emails, it becomes pretty clear how borderline fraudulent much of so-called climate science really is. But shh, don't tell Greta.
So again, the last thing we need are search engines making politicized decisions on our behalf.
You're just going to respond to each reply by lobbing another piece of misinformation out there, aren't you? "ClimateGate" has been debunked.
This is a TERRIBLE IDEA. I was against Apple TV+ because I don’t think Apple should be creating content.. this is much much scarier to me. As much as I love Apple my politics don’t line up with them and Big Tech Censorship of Conservative Voices is a HUGE PROBLEM. I don’t think Apple would play it any different from Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg. We will see more one-sided censorship. How ironic that 1984 was the inspiration for the Apple’s ad decades ago.. people are now getting de-platformed for “wrong think”. Our own President is censored on Twitter! Does Apple really wanna be doing this? I do not like this.
For starters, it seems odd that anyone would object to Apple creating TV content, but I guess that's an issue for another thread. As for censorship, who knows what Apple will do? Is having another choice really such a bad thing? Even if they did censor searches, are you any worse off than you are now?
You can be worse off. Now you have one more source for false witness. A source that has spent years building its reputation in one area now attempting to used it’s earn status in a new specialty. The default is people will automatically trust what information/results Apple presents. Political philosophy/point of view on topics is completely different than delivering a product.
This is a TERRIBLE IDEA. I was against Apple TV+ because I don’t think Apple should be creating content.. this is much much scarier to me. As much as I love Apple my politics don’t line up with them and Big Tech Censorship of Conservative Voices is a HUGE PROBLEM. I don’t think Apple would play it any different from Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg. We will see more one-sided censorship. How ironic that 1984 was the inspiration for the Apple’s ad decades ago.. people are now getting de-platformed for “wrong think”. Our own President is censored on Twitter! Does Apple really wanna be doing this? I do not like this.
History will show that what’s being censored is mistruths, misdirection and misinformation. It just happens there’s one major source of that above all others these past few years.
You get to moderate these forums. Thankfully you don’t get to moderate more than that. There are emails, videos, recordings, text messages, witnesses, willing to tell what they saw, heard, wrote, and you do not want them to have a voice. Meanwhile we spent 3.5 years on accusations and unnamed sources and you’re fine with that?
There are people out there that think the world is flat. Others think it is hollow with aliens living inside. Yet more don’t believe the holocaust happened. What if one of those people gained control to the levers and switches of Google or Bing. Do they have the right to decide what’s a mistruth, misdirection, yadda, yadda?
We also have a POTUS that retweets info regarding QAnon and then acts like he doesn't understand why it was a big deal? He then denies knowledge of QAnon and can't grasp that concept that he is the president, and what he ( re-tweets ) is seen and embraced by lots of people.
You're just going to respond to each reply by lobbing another piece of misinformation out there, aren't you? "ClimateGate" has been debunked.
I assumed you would respond by saying as much, which is why I already addressed the so-called "debunking" in my reply.
Essentially what we have going on here is an information war amongst the various factions of the media, so it is left up to the individual to decide who is telling the truth.
There are those who are inclined to believe the official narratives under all circumstances, versus those of us who have grown skeptical over time of the official narratives and therefore prefer to do our own research.
That being the case, people like myself bristle at search engines performing any kind of censorship or downranking of results. After all, that is what China proudly does, and I hardly think we want to follow their example.
We also have a POTUS that retweets info regarding QAnon and then acts like he doesn't understand why it was a big deal? He then denies knowledge of QAnon and can't grasp that concept that he is the president, and what he ( re-tweets ) is seen and embraced by lots of people.
Well, obviously there is some gamesmanship going on between Trump and QAnon.
Nevertheless as far as search engines are concerned, the question remains: Who should be the 'arbiter of truth' to decide whether something should be censored or not?
Jon Stewart?
"Censored." I don't think that word means what you think it means.
We also have a POTUS that retweets info regarding QAnon and then acts like he doesn't understand why it was a big deal? He then denies knowledge of QAnon and can't grasp that concept that he is the president, and what he ( re-tweets ) is seen and embraced by lots of people.
Well, obviously there is some gamesmanship going on between Trump and QAnon.
Nevertheless as far as search engines are concerned, the question remains: Who should be the 'arbiter of truth' to decide whether something should be censored or not?
Jon Stewart?
If there was any way for one man to do such a thing, I would very much trust Jon Stewart as a censor. He calls bullshit on liberals and conservatives alike.
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.
What? No, I don't agree with you. There were a hundred criminal charges against three Russian companies and 34 individuals, eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials, numerous investigations spun off to other jurisdictions, not to mention the massive documentation we now have on Russian interference efforts – so no, not a "complete waste" by any stretch of the imagination.
All of the investigations into "the opposition party" — I assume you're referring to "spy gate" and the related conspiracy theory garbage that's been repeated ad nauseam — thus far have amounted to jack shit.
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.
Jesus fucking christ. The origins of the FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump campaign connections to Russia and the ensuing special counsel stem from Papadapoulos meeting Downer about Russia having info on Clinton, not the Steele dossier. This is well documented at this point, so it's your fault you're relying on misinformation for a non-starter of an argument.
It was an unfinished, unverified oppo research piece, some of which has been corroborated, other parts not so much. At least Steele was an actual person. LOL
Your reliance on whataboutism based on misinformation makes this discussion about curated search results an exercise in frustration.
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.
Yeah, 'cause that's working really well with foreign disinformation campaigns, anti-vaxxers, Covid-deniers, and the QAnon pizzagate nutbags.
This is why social media networks have a responsibility to stamp out harmful misinformation that literally is killing people.
There are those who are inclined to believe the official narratives under all circumstances, versus those of us who have grown skeptical over time of the official narratives and therefore prefer to do our own research.
Nearly every time I see someone say "do your own research", it's in the context of them posting something that's quite clearly and verifiably bullshit to anyone with critical thinking skills — most recently, Covid-denial, 5G FUD, flat-earther/moon-hoaxers, and obviously everyone's favorite, QAnon. You'll have to forgive those of us who don't trust people like yourself to "do your own research" and come up with anything worthwhile to the rest of us.
The job of a search engine is to provide accurate results, not a random pile of garbage that the user has to sift through.
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.
Which "forthcoming criminal indictments" are you referring to? Literally all of the investigations and reports on this and all related "spygate" stuff for the past few years have fizzled without any major revelations. There's a reason the President has been loudly clamoring for the Justice Department and others to indict his political opponents and they're not doing it, because they don't have anything after coming back empty-handed time and time again.
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.
Yeah, 'cause that's working really well with foreign disinformation campaigns, anti-vaxxers, Covid-deniers, and the QAnon pizzagate nutbags.
This is why social media networks have a responsibility to stamp out harmful misinformation that literally is killing people.
There are those who are inclined to believe the official narratives under all circumstances, versus those of us who have grown skeptical over time of the official narratives and therefore prefer to do our own research.
Nearly every time I see someone say "do your own research", it's in the context of them posting something that's quite clearly and verifiably bullshit to anyone with critical thinking skills — most recently, Covid-denial, 5G FUD, flat-earther/moon-hoaxers, and obviously everyone's favorite, QAnon. You'll have to forgive those of us who don't trust people like yourself to "do your own research" and come up with anything worthwhile to the rest of us.
The job of a search engine is to provide accurate results, not a random pile of garbage that the user has to sift through.
The "do your own research" gang is often very consistent in this regard.
A guy who didn't read a transcript is attempting to make fun of another guy who didn't read the transcript. So what is your point?
You have most of the MSM refusing to give even 30 seconds of coverage to Hunter's laptop which provides a treasure trove of crimes. Your post is loaded with irony.
A guy who didn't read a transcript is attempting to make fun of another guy who didn't read the transcript. So what is your point?
You have most of the MSM refusing to give even 30 seconds of coverage to Hunter's laptop which provides a treasure trove of crimes. Your post is loaded with irony.
A guy who didn't read a transcript is attempting to makemaking fun of another guy who didn't read the transcript.
Fixed that for you, since you're having trouble understanding the point.
Comments
We also have a POTUS that retweets info regarding QAnon and then acts like he doesn't understand why it was a big deal? He then denies knowledge of QAnon and can't grasp that concept that he is the president, and what he ( re-tweets ) is seen and embraced by lots of people.
All of the investigations into "the opposition party" — I assume you're referring to "spy gate" and the related conspiracy theory garbage that's been repeated ad nauseam — thus far have amounted to jack shit.
It was an unfinished, unverified oppo research piece, some of which has been corroborated, other parts not so much. At least Steele was an actual person. LOL
Your reliance on whataboutism based on misinformation makes this discussion about curated search results an exercise in frustration.
Yeah, 'cause that's working really well with foreign disinformation campaigns, anti-vaxxers, Covid-deniers, and the QAnon pizzagate nutbags.
This is why social media networks have a responsibility to stamp out harmful misinformation that literally is killing people.
Also, all search results now are "curated". Duh.
Nearly every time I see someone say "do your own research", it's in the context of them posting something that's quite clearly and verifiably bullshit to anyone with critical thinking skills — most recently, Covid-denial, 5G FUD, flat-earther/moon-hoaxers, and obviously everyone's favorite, QAnon. You'll have to forgive those of us who don't trust people like yourself to "do your own research" and come up with anything worthwhile to the rest of us.
The job of a search engine is to provide accurate results, not a random pile of garbage that the user has to sift through.
Which "forthcoming criminal indictments" are you referring to? Literally all of the investigations and reports on this and all related "spygate" stuff for the past few years have fizzled without any major revelations. There's a reason the President has been loudly clamoring for the Justice Department and others to indict his political opponents and they're not doing it, because they don't have anything after coming back empty-handed time and time again.
You have most of the MSM refusing to give even 30 seconds of coverage to Hunter's laptop which provides a treasure trove of crimes. Your post is loaded with irony.
Fixed that for you, since you're having trouble understanding the point.