Tech tyranny Google, Facebook

[6olden .]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Would of been a lot worse if Hillary won

——-
Hacked emails show Eric Schmidt played a crucial role in Team Hillary’s election tech

https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-p...election-tech/

Hillary's Silicon Valley friends: Now Google boss Eric Schmidt revealed to have designed Clinton's website - and Mark Zuckerberg asked for help getting into campaigning

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpaigning.html

Originally Posted by craigiri

And what would either have to do with the price of eggs?

Designing a web site? C'mon....that's $15 an hour stuff (or cheaper- on fivver).

Help for getting into politics? You don't mention that outfits like the Kochs and Mercers and Scaifes have been doing this for DECADES and not on the sideline but actually writing LAW that their paid-off Republican friends then introduce verbatim.

As I said, perpetual victims....

In the bigger picture, Conservatives are the people who wanted unlimited corporate money in politics. They claimed that, once they did that, they would rule forever because - of course, they'd be the mostly highly paid-off.

Now along come a few people who perhaps don't use all their money for selfish reasons...who actually want better things for the country.....and, almost on cure, you equate designing a web site with the BILLIONS the Kochs have created (AFP, Tea Party, Cato and dozens more...ALEC and laws...and that's just one set of brothers!).....

Please....be real. You have to be kidding us.

Beware of that racistliar and trump supporter whiteboi jm1982..

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Not strictly true.

Web search results are algorithmically derived. However other results presented may be editorialized, or promoted for various reasons.

The issue is determining what are web search results and what could be editorial, since it's not 100% clear to non-techies what is even an ad (which would be promoted content).

Further a specific URL or range of URLs can be weighted, thus presented lower in the overall results, or higher. Of course URLs can be excluded entirely. This is entirely by design, and was not created to skew results, but that doesn't mean it can't be, its purpose is to help filter suspect or known sites whose content is or maybe illegal in that market.

Now whether or not any of this is being done to promote an agenda or not is not known. .

I don't think any of us can fully detail the situation in a forum post...but what I am getting at is that subjects are looked at within the greater culture that they exist. That's the "western value" part I mentioned.

You've probably read some of the same articles I have. Google constantly has meetings in which the top search programmers find a dozen or so "weird results" from the past week and then work to fix them. But they don't just fix the particular instances...they try to look further down for the root the particular problem.

They are not going to "weigh" results from Alex Jones the same way they do from a longer term and more well known and mainstream source.

Another example was the "Santorum" situation where some people flooded the search engine to make that word mean the wrong thing. Those situations are harder today.

But taking it out to further examples...I ask "what is the best form of government" and I am not presented with Googles answer. I am presented with various educational sites to find.
1. ALL the different types of governments.
2. Opinions on which is the best
3. What is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

That would seem a good result.

All humans have agendas. As I said before, Google leans toward the Greek/Roman/Enlightenment and Western liberalism and education. Naturally. But if the person searching desires to learn more about dictators, they can do that also.

Most westerners have an agenda toward civility and polite behavior. So if I checked google for how to settle situations when I am angry....
"Seeing Red? How To Cool Off When You're Angry"

Now, some might say it should say "pull out your gun or knife or put up your fists"....would be the result they want to see.

Just because a particular POV exists does not mean it is real or relevant. This ties in the whole Fox News and National Enquirer thing(s) which have trained people not to care about facts or such things any longer. To those people, the very idea that someone can get more than just Tuckers paid-for view on things may be troubling.

[TwoByFour]

Originally Posted by craigiri

You've probably read some of the same articles I have. Google constantly has meetings in which the top search programmers find a dozen or so "weird results" from the past week and then work to fix them. But they don't just fix the particular instances...they try to look further down for the root the particular problem.

Of course this begs the question of what is the problem that is being fixed? People have expectations on what a search should show and Google (and others) try to produce a result that meets the average expectation, that is, so most people are going to be happy with the result. But obviously some people have different expectations than others so any search engine is never going to satisfy everybody's expectation.

People who complain about search results need to ask themselves (a) what is it I expect to happen, and (b) what is a better (or more fair) algorithm than what is currently being done? The search engine ranks each page in order to present an ordered list, so what is the sorting and ranking algorithm that would be better?

If the search is on Trump, and there are 1,000,000 web pages with the word "Trump" on them, which ones goes to the front of the list? Algorithms do not know good news from bad news, they only do things like count number of times the word shows up, if it is in the title of the article, how many other web pages link to the web page being ranked, etc. None of this is human biased toward or against good or bad news, but it is biased towards the way most people would sort 1,000,000 web pages.

If the conservatives are angry about this, they should come up with an algorithm that would work in all cases, work for most people, and also fix the problem they see. Have some Republican politician push it to Google. I really don't believe Google or Microsoft is biased in the way they are being accused, I think conservatives have their feelings hurt because their topics are just not ranking very high in search sorting algorithms.

[warhorse78]

Originally Posted by Grlzrl

I wanted to comment on the posts in the Jusse Smollitt thread but I think this deserves it's own thread. Tucker Carlson is doing a Tech Tyranny series and it's worth discussing. It's really SCARY what these companies are doing and how much influence they wield.

They talked about how the results of searches far and away favor liberal sites. They talked about how Google had get out the vote sites that were directed at Latinos to influence the election their way. If you want to some of it, you can Google Tucker Carlson tech tyranny and watch some of the segments.

No offense, but the conservatives are as much to blame for this, We have monopoly laws in place on purpose, and neither side is going after these companies. I wish someone would stop Disney taking over Fox. That is just too much, but no one seems to have any balls left.