Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's their company however they operate on a public internet that is not owned by them. You can't intentionally mislead people without disclosing your intentions. Did Google disclose that their FREE supposedly organic public search engine was biased? No.
There are so many websites that intentionally mislead people... Washington Post, for example... The internet is a free medium, semi-free from government intrusion, I prefer it that way.. I don't want any government (foreign or domestic) to start censoring websites based on "misleading" people because I know the government will abuse it to censor anyone who disagrees with the government... Tech CEOs are replace every so years, the corruptness of liberal CEOs will eventually end... I have no worries about that... Merry Christmas...
There are so many websites that intentionally mislead people... Washington Post, for example... The internet is a free medium, semi-free from government intrusion, I prefer it that way.. I don't want any government (foreign or domestic) to start censoring websites based on "misleading" people because I know the government will abuse it to censor anyone who disagrees with the government... Tech CEOs are replace every so years, the corruptness of liberal CEOs will eventually end... I have no worries about that... Merry Christmas...
There is a vast difference between a free organic search engine and a for profit news site.
Not surprising. Just google "can white people experience racism". And top result which is fully shown before you even click on the link says "no" and than explains critical race theory as if it's a concrete fact. Not only that but every single link that pops up for the next few pages says the same thing. If you ask any question on google related to any progressive ideology it does the same thing.
There is a vast difference between a free organic search engine and a for profit news site.
I disagree because this free search engine is the default search engine installed on every smart phone and has a browser that is also recognized as default on most PCs. Google makes billion selling apps on there store. In fact it is even the default browser installed on this very site.
There are so many websites that intentionally mislead people... Washington Post, for example... The internet is a free medium, semi-free from government intrusion, I prefer it that way.. I don't want any government (foreign or domestic) to start censoring websites based on "misleading" people because I know the government will abuse it to censor anyone who disagrees with the government... Tech CEOs are replace every so years, the corruptness of liberal CEOs will eventually end... I have no worries about that... Merry Christmas...
I'm not suggesting censorship. What I'm suggesting is Google manipulating their free search results favoring one thing over another is like a pharmaceutical company intentionally misleading on it's products. Nobody would claim that a pharmaceutical company has the 1st amendment right to mislead. If they want to manipulated their paid results that's fine. Like I said in another post if Google want's to start their own internet then they do have an obligation to NOT manipulate and mislead people in their free organic search results. I believe that Google does have some legal obligation in their free search results to be fair and impartial.
BTW the first amendment doesn't protect you from defamation and slander against other people or businesses.
Could someone please present some evidence other than a youtube of some dork making claims pulled out of the air? Otherwise--stop making accusations, otherwise the only thing it does is make the accuser look foolish. Read up on algorithms before swallowing nonsense.
I don't know about that. The dork put up some pretty convincing evidence of Googles manipulation of its searches. He compared them to yahoo and Bing, the evidence was as plain as day.
I don't know about that. The dork put up some pretty convincing evidence of Googles manipulation of its searches. He compared them to yahoo and Bing, the evidence was as plain as day.
Different search engines have different search algorithims, which is why they have different results.....I work in SEO so I know how this all works. If they all worked the same, then there would be no competition between Google and Bing.
Too bad its not true... I tried looking for Trump.. All of which had some NEGATIVE links to Trump...
Trump li
Trump or
Trump bro
Trump ru
Google did NOT eliminate negative links to candidates but I am sure it was just a technical error...
Try finding a negative link to Hillary on Google. What seems to come up first and foremost are a number of links "debunking" any of the negative information we have discovered about her. It's obvious sites such as Snopes.com, jokes like Politifact have been infiltrated by the left wing liberals, and morphed into their own agenda.
And by the same token when you Google anything on Donald Trump, it's hard to find anything that is not just the left's and main stream news media's attacks on him.
I'm not suggesting censorship. What I'm suggesting is Google manipulating their free search results favoring one thing over another is like a pharmaceutical company intentionally misleading on it's products. Nobody would claim that a pharmaceutical company has the 1st amendment right to mislead. If they want to manipulated their paid results that's fine. Like I said in another post if Google want's to start their own internet then they do have an obligation to NOT manipulate and mislead people in their free organic search results. I believe that Google does have some legal obligation in their free search results to be fair and impartial.
BTW the first amendment doesn't protect you from defamation and slander against other people or businesses.
I am not saying that they are not legally liable, that's up to the courts to decide.. I am just saying there are no laws to lie to a person... but I guess it depends on the lie...
very disturbing. need to find alternatives to google.
Not surprising @ all....... Google cannot be trusted (Or they shouldnt be anyway)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
