Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Show your support for what this community means to you:


Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)



Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Take a look around and join the community. Have a topic? Join us and start a thread.

But how is Google/Youtube influencing minds of the electorate?

pawzpawz Posts: 5,410
Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.

So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:

trump state of the union



It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.

Not so fast.



What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.

In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.








I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.


oregonblitzkriegTierbsHsotBoobsPostGameOrangeSlicesDerekJohnsondnc
«1

Comments

  • Youtube’s influence on the electorate is convincing alienated teens and adult shut-ins that failed academic Jordan Peterson is a generational philosopher for saying shit like “boys need to clean their rooms”.
    doogieGrundleStiltzkinpawzDooglesSwayeMikeDamonejarlsbergraygunphineasoregonblitzkriegTierbsHsotBoobs
  • greenbloodgreenblood Posts: 7,053
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    Helps Trump IMO
    GrundleStiltzkin
  • GwadGwad Posts: 948
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Awesomes 500 Comments
    Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?
  • doogiedoogie Posts: 6,585
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    65,800,000 examples say “No”
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 16,696
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    edited January 31
    Right. And in your mind @pawz the brietbart dick sucking video should be the first link.
    MikeDamonepawzdnc
  • SledogSledog Posts: 6,130
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    Leftist computer nerds fucking up America.
    oregonblitzkriegTierbsHsotBoobs
  • Sledog said:

    Leftist computer nerds fucking up America.

    See the Sledog's of the world as another reason "the right" is losing in the rankings.
    pawzCirrhosisDawgTierbsHsotBoobsdnc
  • pawzpawz Posts: 5,410
    Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes

    pawz said:

    Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.

    So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:

    trump state of the union



    It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.

    Not so fast.



    What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.

    In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.








    I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.


    This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.

    In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.

    So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.

    Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.

    This makes sense.


    Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different.
  • pawzpawz Posts: 5,410
    Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    2001400ex said:

    Right. And in your mind @pawz the brietbart dick sucking video should be the first link.

    Nice to see reading comprehension still eludes you, shill.



    #aclockworkshill
    MikeDamone
  • salemcoogsalemcoog Posts: 8,708
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    Gwad said:

    Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?

    You're not there yet.

    Sometimes I think you're getting close.


    But not yet.
    pawz
  • pawzpawz Posts: 5,410
    Swaye's Wigwam 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    Gwad said:

    Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?

    Me thinks effective critical thinking begins with source material, not others interpretation of source material.


    Wouldn't you agree?
    dnc
  • pawz said:

    pawz said:

    Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.

    So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:

    trump state of the union



    It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.

    Not so fast.



    What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.

    In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.








    I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.


    This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.

    In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.

    So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.

    Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.

    This makes sense.


    Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different.
    Yeah it had all the words "Trump" "state" "of" "the" "union." Search breaks everything down. It that case, it's not looking for all of those in a row for whatever reason.
  • GwadGwad Posts: 948
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Awesomes 500 Comments
    pawz said:

    Gwad said:

    Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?

    Me thinks effective critical thinking begins with source material, not others interpretation of source material.


    Wouldn't you agree?
    I do not. But the problem that requires proper discernment in this thread eludes me.
  • SwayeSwaye Posts: 24,495
    Swaye's Wigwam Solar Eclipse Donator 10000 Comments 250 Answers

    Swaye said:

    pawz said:

    pawz said:

    Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.

    So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:

    trump state of the union



    It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.

    Not so fast.



    What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.

    In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.








    I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.


    This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.

    In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.

    So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.

    Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.

    This makes sense.


    Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different.
    Sounds like you have been looking up tips for being a sexual predator and biasing the engine. I know this, because when I performed the search you suggested, Trump Sexual Predator was number 1.
    I am constantly sweating grindr ads when I have share my screen for presentations.
    I have to spend a good ten minutes a day wiping everything on the company iPad before I turn it in daily. Can't have piles of metadata of gay porn, sexual stalker guidebook searches, and me and @dnc Facetiming nude.
    pawzLebamDawgTierbsHsotBoobsdnc
  • pawz said:

    Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.

    So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:

    trump state of the union



    It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.

    Not so fast.



    What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.

    In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.







    I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.


    This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.

    In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.

    So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.

    Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
    You're right that there's a lot more going on behind the algorithms:
    https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006


    You're wrong that Google isn't inherently biased:



    "the left" is not more likely to seek this stuff out, they just don't get de-platformed. Dennis Prager is a faggot, but there's no way his videos should be demonetized and suppressed:
    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356966-prageru-sues-google-youtube-for-censoring-conservative-videos

    Then there was the time twitter simply removed the most popular hashtag because they didn't like it:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4uavdb/twitter_users_erupt_dncleaks_disappears_from/


    This is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate.
    pawzTierbsHsotBoobsoregonblitzkriegPostGameOrangeSlices
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Posts: 10,804
    10000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes

    pawz said:

    Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.

    So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:

    trump state of the union



    It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.

    Not so fast.



    What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.

    In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.







    I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.


    This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.

    In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.

    So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.

    Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
    You're right that there's a lot more going on behind the algorithms:
    https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006


    You're wrong that Google isn't inherently biased:



    "the left" is not more likely to seek this stuff out, they just don't get de-platformed. Dennis Prager is a faggot, but there's no way his videos should be demonetized and suppressed:
    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356966-prageru-sues-google-youtube-for-censoring-conservative-videos

    Then there was the time twitter simply removed the most popular hashtag because they didn't like it:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4uavdb/twitter_users_erupt_dncleaks_disappears_from/


    This is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate.



    Man...you really shouldn't have done that.
Sign In or Register to comment.