anton zuykov

GeorgeBMac said:

curt12 said:

SpamSandwich said:

In response to an earlier comment, I did an image search on DuckDuckGo and here are the top results:

Bing:


DDG:

What's Elfred E. Newman doing in there?  
THIS IS BIASED!   NO WAY!

Idially, you would need to run that from multiple IPs and count the number of first couple of hundred pictures.  That would be at least some kind of fair comparison.

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

curt12 said:

maestro64 said:

The example they use in the hearing search idiot and get Trump picture, so end users are all tagging Trumps photos with the word idiot so when google craws around the web, it finds a bunch of website with Trumps picture tagged with idiot. So now Trumps picture is now associated with Idiot. 

If I search "idiot" on Bing or Yahoo, Trump is also among the top image hits. So multiple major search engines agree on the relevance of that association.

FWIW so does DuckDuckGo. In fact at DDG nearly every first page result includes Trump. Evidence that search is driven by user interaction more than anything else no matter what search engine is used. 

Russian search engine Yandex? Yup lots of Trump stories. The uncensored Gibiru Search? Yup you got it, more Trump. Even the Czech Republic's Seznam will give the same results. It's not a Google thing. 

 

Another nice strawman you got yourself here, eh, gator? How do you do that? You must be a walking strawman factory.
It is not that google elliminates the results with certain keywords. It is the emotional tone of the articles is what you should be looking for, if you were in any way honest about your small “research” into the matter. Instead, you pretended not to understand what others have said here, or simply dont care what the actual problem is. Propaganda is done not via full censorship of the information. It is rather a different approach, that is a bit more subtle (subtle for people like you). For example, harvard, which is in no way a right wing place, had this to say about the tone of the coverage of Trump https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

so, if you show people more of the left leaning msm in search results, that pretty much guarantees that the coverage will be 80-90 negative for that particular topic. That is the whole point of propaganda, when you do it in a more subtle way (for the average joe), and you still achieve the goal of brain washing the masses. How do you think Hitler’s propaganda or USSR propaganda was so successful? It was successful for the same reason - you dont censor everything fully, but you put a twist on every piece of info as to create a coherent (yet deceitful) picture. So, msm not doing their job of being journalists (instead writing hit pieces) + google provising links more to those types of articles, guarantees the coverage will be VERY biased (look up that study) for the majority of the population. Of course, what you DONT WANNA HAVE (when you do propaganda) is a whole bunch of alternative sources that will disprove you. So, in an open society you start calling thosr sources nazies and banning them from the your platforms for the masses, as to elliminate the threat.

This is exaclty what has been happening in the last year or so. Multiple platforms banning the same person within 24 hrs is not a coincidence. 

Ah, so what you're saying is ALL the world's search engines are in cahoots, maybe using some backdoor channels where they secretly discuss what to promote and what to hide. Did I get that right? 

1. You dont need all search engines to be “in cahoots”. You just need google and facebook news agregator, becasue about 70-80% of the population use both to get their news from. You dont need more to achieve a goal of controlling the masses, becasue you already got them.
2. If tech companies have coordinated the purge of the alternative sources (as in, removing a person from various platforms of different tech firms within 24 hrs), why cant they coordinate their algs to be doing the same? What makes you think it is impossible? What justification you have for even trying to fool yourself into thinking it is not possible? 

again, you seem not to think your responses through, do you....

Of course nearly anything is possible. That doesn't prove that thing you imagine happened actually happened. At this point it has become obvious to me at least that the only evidence that you have to offer is you think it to be so. There's nothing else you have is there? if not then the discussion is at an end since I suspect this will rapidly devolve into a series of he said/she said posts sprinkled with ad-homs. I'm not interested if that's what it's coming down to. 

1. Google consistenly favours left leaning media
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/16/google-news-results-left-leaning/1651278002/

2. Left leaning media coverage for trump was 8: 1 - 11:1 negative.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

so, google showing more left leaning coverage + the knowledge that the left leaning MSM have HEAVY leaning toward negative news associated with trump clearly shows that you are wrong here, gator.
Stubborn facts and reality are a bitch, eh gator?

In order for you to cast doubt on what I said, you have to disprove 1 and 2. And you cant, because now you have to find actual facts.... which would be impossible to do, because those reports already contain facts indicating that you are wrong.

As for knowing whether Google has its algs modified to do that or not - the proof is in the pudding i.e. results of how those algs perform and what they present. It is a black box problem, and you dont need to know what is inside, to know the high level laws it operates on, when you have results like that.

Did you even read your own links thoroughly before offering them as proof of Google search bias? I think not. Read them again, and more carefully. 

I did. The link does proof that Google does have strong left leaning bias. That was the whole point of the link. Looks like you missed that...again. What a shame

gatorguy said:

SpamSandwich said:

In response to an earlier comment, I did an image search on DuckDuckGo and here are the top results:

Only one Trump image/photo in that one (in Catholic church garb), followed up of course by dozens of article links to President Trump if you're being honest. 
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=idiot+image&t=h_&ia=news

Fyi: ducduck still uses google. 

Upd: i think I am wrong on that one.. 

gatorguy said:

anton zuykov said:

gatorguy said:

curt12 said:

maestro64 said:

The example they use in the hearing search idiot and get Trump picture, so end users are all tagging Trumps photos with the word idiot so when google craws around the web, it finds a bunch of website with Trumps picture tagged with idiot. So now Trumps picture is now associated with Idiot. 

If I search "idiot" on Bing or Yahoo, Trump is also among the top image hits. So multiple major search engines agree on the relevance of that association.

FWIW so does DuckDuckGo. In fact at DDG nearly every first page result includes Trump. Evidence that search is driven by user interaction more than anything else no matter what search engine is used. 

Russian search engine Yandex? Yup lots of Trump stories. The uncensored Gibiru Search? Yup you got it, more Trump. Even the Czech Republic's Seznam will give the same results. It's not a Google thing. 

 

Another nice strawman you got yourself here, eh, gator? How do you do that? You must be a walking strawman factory.
It is not that google elliminates the results with certain keywords. It is the emotional tone of the articles is what you should be looking for, if you were in any way honest about your small “research” into the matter. Instead, you pretended not to understand what others have said here, or simply dont care what the actual problem is. Propaganda is done not via full censorship of the information. It is rather a different approach, that is a bit more subtle (subtle for people like you). For example, harvard, which is in no way a right wing place, had this to say about the tone of the coverage of Trump https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

so, if you show people more of the left leaning msm in search results, that pretty much guarantees that the coverage will be 80-90 negative for that particular topic. That is the whole point of propaganda, when you do it in a more subtle way (for the average joe), and you still achieve the goal of brain washing the masses. How do you think Hitler’s propaganda or USSR propaganda was so successful? It was successful for the same reason - you dont censor everything fully, but you put a twist on every piece of info as to create a coherent (yet deceitful) picture. So, msm not doing their job of being journalists (instead writing hit pieces) + google provising links more to those types of articles, guarantees the coverage will be VERY biased (look up that study) for the majority of the population. Of course, what you DONT WANNA HAVE (when you do propaganda) is a whole bunch of alternative sources that will disprove you. So, in an open society you start calling thosr sources nazies and banning them from the your platforms for the masses, as to elliminate the threat.

This is exaclty what has been happening in the last year or so. Multiple platforms banning the same person within 24 hrs is not a coincidence. 

Ah, so what you're saying is ALL the world's search engines are in cahoots, maybe using some backdoor channels where they secretly discuss what to promote and what to hide. Did I get that right? 

1. You dont need all search engines to be “in cahoots”. You just need google and facebook news agregator, becasue about 70-80% of the population use both to get their news from. You dont need more to achieve a goal of controlling the masses, becasue you already got them.
2. If tech companies have coordinated the purge of the alternative sources (as in, removing a person from various platforms of different tech firms within 24 hrs), why cant they coordinate their algs to be doing the same? What makes you think it is impossible? What justification you have for even trying to fool yourself into thinking it is not possible? 

again, you seem not to think your responses through, do you....

I also like how you glossed over the facts in my post, and instead proceeded to bravely construct another strawman that you immediately attempted to defeat via mockery. Smh. 

gatorguy said:

curt12 said:

maestro64 said:

The example they use in the hearing search idiot and get Trump picture, so end users are all tagging Trumps photos with the word idiot so when google craws around the web, it finds a bunch of website with Trumps picture tagged with idiot. So now Trumps picture is now associated with Idiot. 

If I search "idiot" on Bing or Yahoo, Trump is also among the top image hits. So multiple major search engines agree on the relevance of that association.

FWIW so does DuckDuckGo. In fact at DDG nearly every first page result includes Trump. Evidence that search is driven by user interaction more than anything else no matter what search engine is used. 

Russian search engine Yandex? Yup lots of Trump stories. The uncensored Gibiru Search? Yup you got it, more Trump. Even the Czech Republic's Seznam will give the same results. It's not a Google thing. 

 

Another nice strawman you got yourself here, eh, gator? How do you do that? You must be a walking strawman factory.
It is not that google elliminates the results with certain keywords. It is the emotional tone of the articles is what you should be looking for, if you were in any way honest about your small “research” into the matter. Instead, you pretended not to understand what others have said here, or simply dont care what the actual problem is. Propaganda is done not via full censorship of the information. It is rather a different approach, that is a bit more subtle (subtle for people like you). For example, harvard, which is in no way a right wing place, had this to say about the tone of the coverage of Trump https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

so, if you show people more of the left leaning msm in search results, that pretty much guarantees that the coverage will be 80-90 negative for that particular topic. That is the whole point of propaganda, when you do it in a more subtle way (for the average joe), and you still achieve the goal of brain washing the masses. How do you think Hitler’s propaganda or USSR propaganda was so successful? It was successful for the same reason - you dont censor everything fully, but you put a twist on every piece of info as to create a coherent (yet deceitful) picture. So, msm not doing their job of being journalists (instead writing hit pieces) + google provising links more to those types of articles, guarantees the coverage will be VERY biased (look up that study) for the majority of the population. Of course, what you DONT WANNA HAVE (when you do propaganda) is a whole bunch of alternative sources that will disprove you. So, in an open society you start calling thosr sources nazies and banning them from the your platforms for the masses, as to elliminate the threat.

This is exaclty what has been happening in the last year or so. Multiple platforms banning the same person within 24 hrs is not a coincidence. No amount of talking on behalf of CEO can undo those facts. You of course can deny facts, but that does not change  the reality of the problem.