Im talking about Google, not the social media examples you posted. There could be something to the Hill article, but thats about labeling videos as restricted content and not relevant to Pawz observation.
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
Im talking about Google, not the social media examples you posted. There could be something to the Hill article, but thats about labeling videos as restricted content and not relevant to Pawz observation.
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
Im talking about Google, not the social media examples you posted. There could be something to the Hill article, but thats about labeling videos as restricted content and not relevant to Pawz observation.
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
That Google Trends data is real, there is no doubting that. This is since 2004 in a query I just did:
That being said, why would Google suppress it from Search, but not Trends, which is just as public? Again, those screenshots of the search suppression have zero dates and zero context. The research done in that Daily Mail article also sounded very legit:
That Google Trends data is real, there is no doubting that. This is since 2004 in a query I just did:
That being said, why would Google suppress it from Search, but not Trends, which is just as public? Again, those screenshots of the search suppression have zero dates and zero context. The research done in that Daily Mail article also sounded very legit:
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.
Stick with your original gut feeling and the evidence you presented in the original poast. You're spot on correct. Google/YouTube are leftist enemies of free speech. Proven fact that they've attempted to silence views they don't agree with. Petersens videos are a case in point. They tried to shut him down. And many, many others.
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 is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate.
And it's high time these practices should be absolutely against the law. The internet is where most people go to get their info. If you have most of these monopolies censoring views they don't agree with, it makes them more powerful than the government, and potentially more dangerous.
Why don't we just pool our passion and work out a way to educate children so they can discern for themselves in an effective manner. We can all agree going to school and just regurgitating information has been deemed not effective?
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 is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate.
And it's high time these practices should be absolutely against the law. The internet is where most people go to get their info. If you have most of these monopolies censoring views they don't agree with, it makes them more powerful than the government, and potentially more dangerous.
obk needs the government to babysit him when he's online.
The right has Fox News to disseminate their bullshit, and the left has google.
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 is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate.
And it's high time these practices should be absolutely against the law. The internet is where most people go to get their info. If you have most of these monopolies censoring views they don't agree with, it makes them more powerful than the government, and potentially more dangerous.
obk needs the government to babysit him when he's online.
The right has Fox News to disseminate their bullshit, and the left has google.
Quit crying, you whiny cunt.
You're a faggot lefttard, of course you support censorship.
Comments
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
"But for Clinton, they appear to be withheld even when those same terms are proven to be extremely popular in Google Trends – thus disproving the company’s claim that autocomplete shows the most popular terms people are searching for."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html
That being said, why would Google suppress it from Search, but not Trends, which is just as public? Again, those screenshots of the search suppression have zero dates and zero context. The research done in that Daily Mail article also sounded very legit:
Finally:
The right has Fox News to disseminate their bullshit, and the left has google.
Quit crying, you whiny cunt.
Do you want us to call your mom?