Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,249 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/28/election-interference-google-purges-breitbart-from-search-results/
While, the article is focused on Breitbart, follow the links, this directly affects the 2nd Ammendment movements

One example given is how google purged "breitbart" from it's 'autosuggest' predictive AI, from it's autocorrect such as 'brietbart' "did you mean..."
and from showing up on subject searched concerning topics and articles they cover...

Remember, Google execs stated in sworn testimony to congress "there are no blacklists" despite multiple whistle-blowers providing copies of those blacklists. When are these execs going to jail for perjury to congress like what's his name?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/28/election-interference-google-purges-breitbart-from-search-results/
While, the article is focused on Breitbart, follow the links, this directly affects the 2nd Ammendment movements

One example given is how google purged "breitbart" from it's 'autosuggest' predictive AI, from it's autocorrect such as 'brietbart' "did you mean..."
and from showing up on subject searched concerning topics and articles they cover...

Remember, Google execs stated in sworn testimony to congress "there are no blacklists" despite multiple whistle-blowers providing copies of those blacklists. When are these execs going to jail for perjury to congress like what's his name?
One of the issues with digital technology and capitalism - he who control the networks and has the money can control the conversation and the ideas the people and nation is exposed to. Scary stuff. One area where government oversight of big business might be welcomed. Often you cannot trust big corporations to "do the right thing" (in this case, treat political views they personally do not agree with, without bias).
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,760 Posts
Trust busting going on weeks now..
Russians, Ukraine didn’t do all the election interference as I types last year.
.google, face book others in ended in globalization, transfer technology...
.the steerage dept..turned blind eye?
Or encouraging individuals staffing?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,760 Posts
Television did all this first, google Followed suit..
trust busting tv stations should happen next...
disclosure should be required left hand corner In red stating
“commentaries, content of this network is driven Politically basely by owners,
Feelings snd beliefs.not necessarily by proving truths researched facts ..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/28/election-interference-google-purges-breitbart-from-search-results/
While, the article is focused on Breitbart, follow the links, this directly affects the 2nd Ammendment movements

One example given is how google purged "breitbart" from it's 'autosuggest' predictive AI, from it's autocorrect such as 'brietbart' "did you mean..."
and from showing up on subject searched concerning topics and articles they cover...

Remember, Google execs stated in sworn testimony to congress "there are no blacklists" despite multiple whistle-blowers providing copies of those blacklists. When are these execs going to jail for perjury to congress like what's his name?
You can really see the bias when you start using other search engines. For example, run a search on Google and then run the same search on Bing comparing the type and order of results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
You can really see the bias when you start using other search engines. For example, run a search on Google and then run the same search on Bing comparing the type and order of results.
I highly recommend DuckDuckGo.com
They do not track, collect, or store information when you search. You can add it to your Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox, so it becomes your default search engine.
Google has a bad track record when it comes to firearms-related videos on YouTube (which they own). Every little bit not to support them.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,760 Posts
Govt. uses your spell check..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,249 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I highly recommend DuckDuckGo.com
They do not track, collect, or store information when you search. You can add it to your Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox, so it becomes your default search engine.
Google has a bad track record when it comes to firearms-related videos on YouTube (which they own). Every little bit not to support them.

Duck Duck Go uses Microsofts engine
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,760 Posts
I’m trying duck do do..two days now..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Duck Duck Go uses Microsofts engine
Here's what I found: "DuckDuckGo uses its web crawler, DuckDuckBot, and up to 400 other sources to compile its search results, including other search engines like Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex, and crowdsourcing sites like Wikipedia." So the search results come from many sources put together.

The maps function only uses Bing (Microsoft) with links to Yelp for reviews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,603 Posts
I use "Brave" as Web Browser, retaining Google as search function. Works well! Google may compile it's cookies, etc. But they source from an anonymous Browser which doesn't provide 'trail'. So the 'cookies' duly deposited so associated have no tie to source! As Brave auto-clears those tidbits, not much to go from. Now if you are registered somewhere and "sign in" to a site, bets are off since they then know of course precisely who you are.
As far as Privacy, California and the European Union, offer some protections by Regulating on behalf of the residents. Kudos to "The Guardian" UK newspaper, which kindly respects Calif!

Concerning "Breitbart". "Misinformation" is of particular concern nowadays. Political/social organizations/activist groups, are NOT protected in "free speech" when 'reasonably' knowingly and willingly publish/republish false information. Particularly when cast as "true facts" rather than "opinion." Differing 'hosts' may interpret such material differently. Certainly Facebook and Twitter have contrasting enforcement policies. Yet their views as to "false context" remain similar. Sources publishing information within specter of false and history of "persistent and habitually" doing so, are not protected by 2nd Amendment free speech rights. My often Citation: Mr. Justice Holmes: "You cannot cry 'fire' in a crowded theater!' Often yet quoted as seminal to 2nd Amendment limitations. As most law... The cost/benefit ratio! Google may do as it reasonably 'perceives'.
As far as "privacy" in this world... The very best protection many of us have... our data, frankly "BORING"! Whether it's my "heartbreak of jock itch", "weaponizing personal flatulence" or nowadays "anti Trump with intent..." Grumpy old man syndrome and 'comfortable in my skin' as... 'My dear, I don't give a damn...!" :) :) :)
Best & Keep Safe!
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
How Google is (illegally) censoring the internet and supressing non PC
show me in the constitution where it says it's "illegal" for a private entity to censor....... because if that was the case, this website or the countless of disscusion websites on the net are engaging in this illegal activity, by either censoring members post or banning members for what they write.
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,893 Posts
It has nothing to do with constitutional issues.
They have a license/agreement/protection from any liability from what is posted on their site, because they are classified as a media platform.
This is what they wanted, anybody say what they want we are just the platform, not the publishers.

Now as time has gone by they have moved into censoring, restricting an de-monetizing "certain" posters. This amounts to being a publisher, no longer just a platform. There are different rules for different roles.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,166 Posts
It has nothing to do with constitutional issues.
They have a license/agreement/protection from any liability from what is posted on their site, because they are classified as a media platform.
This is what they wanted, anybody say what they want we are just the platform, not the publishers.

Now as time has gone by they have moved into censoring, restricting an de-monetizing "certain" posters. This amounts to being a publisher, no longer just a platform. There are different rules for different roles.
Isnt that just like Gunboards and so many other privately held websites? On this one board alone the rules don’t allow politics or insults and moderators edit posts in accordance. I think it was member Iskra who posted the law allowing such “censorship”. I’m not sure I grasp how you define “publisher” because content is edited?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
I highly recommend DuckDuckGo.com
They do not track, collect, or store information when you search. You can add it to your Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox, so it becomes your default search engine.
Google has a bad track record when it comes to firearms-related videos on YouTube (which they own). Every little bit not to support them.
Good call.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,760 Posts
Still using it...so far so good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
It has nothing to do with constitutional issues.
They have a license/agreement/protection from any liability from what is posted on their site, because they are classified as a media platform.
This is what they wanted, anybody say what they want we are just the platform, not the publishers.

Now as time has gone by they have moved into censoring, restricting an de-monetizing "certain" posters. This amounts to being a publisher, no longer just a platform. There are different rules for different roles.
Exactly. You cannot be free from liability as a platform but then censor like you are a publisher. The reason for the removal of liability was to preserve freedom of speech and thought, hence, the requirement for a lack of censorship.

If they want to censor, they they are a media publisher and subject to the liability that incurs.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,760 Posts
Congressman stated ...your google, face book too big to supervise your own staffs...personalized inputs!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,166 Posts
Exactly. You cannot be free from liability as a platform but then censor like you are a publisher. The reason for the removal of liability was to preserve freedom of speech and thought, hence, the requirement for a lack of censorship.

If they want to censor, they they are a media publisher and subject to the liability that incurs.
That answers none of my questions and skips to a conclusion.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top