Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 260 posts

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#141

Post by moultano »

bhk wrote: post #136
moultano wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy to pass it along to debug if you have a specific query in mind. In the cases of this I've seen in the past, there's been a specific actionable bug that we were able to fix. (Lots of other search engines use each other as backends, so don't be too surprised when they return consistent results.)

Infowars being buried so deeply in the "Alex Jones" results is highly suspicious. How can Google's results be so ineffective compared to other search engines? The "Pelosi drunk" results are also markedly different from DDG. I just now tried this one because the results were being manually short-circuited the day after the video went viral, both by DDG and Google (but not Bing). It appears that DDG has reverted to del…

Google does not curate web results, ever. The results for [pelosi drunk] are different certainly, but in what sense are DDG's better?

Google has a policy about "sensitive and disparaging terms associated with named individuals" in autocomplete https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/7368877?hl=en which is often why you sometimes may not see the queries in autocomplete that you expect. It also has a policy about "violent or gory predictions" so it wouldn't surprise me if you aren't seeing autocomplete suggesting the Christchurch video, if that's what you mean.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#142

Post by anm89 »

dv_dt wrote: post #50
anm89 wrote: post #22

This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform". Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access" It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information…

I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.

Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now, regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#143

Post by darkpuma »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #133
Laukhi64 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really disagree with anything else you say, but... >When has a war with USA ever saved lives? I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? It's fine to say that the costs of an interventionist foreign policy don't outweigh the benefits; I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it's absolutely inaccurate to say that the benefits don't exist. USA at the very least con…

I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? Nitpicking your nitpick: Contrary to the American tendency to act like we singlehandedly won WW2, we were a latecomer to the war and not a central power prior to that war. There were many countries involved in it. It's possible that the US played a critical role in Japan's surrender. It's also possible they would have surrendered an…

I think you're discounting the roll of America's massive industrial output, which shipped more than 17 million tons of goods to the Soviet Union throughout the war, including more than 400,000 trucks/jeeps, 7,000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes, and 1.75 million tons of food, just to name a bit.

Relative to national size, the Soviet Union received more tanks and planes from the British than the Americans, but the American trucks in particular were incredibly important for the Soviets. During that same period the Soviet Union only produced a fraction of that many trucks and Soviet trucks were frankly inferior trucks. Beyond the obvious logistic advantages of trucks in a war largely characterized by mobility, receiving American trucks allowed the Soviet Union to dedicate more of it's (relatively limited) industrial capacity to the production of tanks and airplanes.

Incidentally, here is something else American students aren't taught (I wonder if Japanese students are?): The leadership of the Japanese military considered the emperor to be a figurehead and after the 2nd atomic bombing when the Emperor was preparing to surrender, the staff office of the Ministry of War as well as several members of the Imperial Guard seized control of the Imperial Palace, with the goal of preventing surrender. They failed of course, but only due to the bravery and good luck of a few people in the Palace. The point here being, there were high ranking elements of the Japanese military that wanted to continue fighting even after the second bomb, and even with the Soviets preparing an invasion. Nationalism is a hell of a drug...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#144

Post by anm89 »

lukifer wrote: post #121
anm89 wrote: post #22

This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform". Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access" It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information…

There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have no concept of eminent domain [0] when it comes to technology, data, or intellectual property. If it's in the public interest to build a bridge, lay train tracks, etc., your private property can be purchased against your wishes at a fair market price. When it co…

As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#145

Post by DoreenMichele »

darkpuma wrote: post #143
DoreenMichele wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? Nitpicking your nitpick: Contrary to the American tendency to act like we singlehandedly won WW2, we were a latecomer to the war and not a central power prior to that war. There were many countries involved in it. It's possible that the US played a critical role in Japan's surrender. It's also possible they would have surrendered an…

I think you're discounting the roll of America's massive industrial output, which shipped more than 17 million tons of goods to the Soviet Union throughout the war, including more than 400,000 trucks/jeeps, 7,000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes, and 1.75 million tons of food, just to name a bit. Relative to national size, the Soviet Union received more tanks and planes from the British than the Americans, but the American tr…

The only thing I'm discounting is the American tendency to talk like we are the center of the universe and always have been. I'm saying "WW2 wasn't a war with the US. There were multiple countries on both sides of that war."

That's it. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't actually translate to "America didn't count and made no difference whatsoever in the war effort."

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#146

Post by darkpuma »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #145
darkpuma wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're discounting the roll of America's massive industrial output, which shipped more than 17 million tons of goods to the Soviet Union throughout the war, including more than 400,000 trucks/jeeps, 7,000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes, and 1.75 million tons of food, just to name a bit. Relative to national size, the Soviet Union received more tanks and planes from the British than the Americans, but the American tr…

The only thing I'm discounting is the American tendency to talk like we are the center of the universe and always have been. I'm saying "WW2 wasn't a war with the US. There were multiple countries on both sides of that war." That's it. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't actually translate to "America didn't count and made no difference whatsoever in the war effort."

Americans do call it a World War, don't they? I think you're being a bit too cynical.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#147

Post by Laukhi64 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #133
Laukhi64 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really disagree with anything else you say, but... >When has a war with USA ever saved lives? I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? It's fine to say that the costs of an interventionist foreign policy don't outweigh the benefits; I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it's absolutely inaccurate to say that the benefits don't exist. USA at the very least con…

I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? Nitpicking your nitpick: Contrary to the American tendency to act like we singlehandedly won WW2, we were a latecomer to the war and not a central power prior to that war. There were many countries involved in it. It's possible that the US played a critical role in Japan's surrender. It's also possible they would have surrendered an…

I know this very well. The US was late in a sense to the European theater, but the most substantial contribution of the US was lend-lease in any case. It's of course inaccurate to say that the US was the primary contributor to the European Theatre (that was probably the USSR), but the American contribution shouldn't be understated, either.

Japan was absolutely not going to surrender following the atomic bombs, unless you consider a conditional surrender in which they would keep all their colonial assets something even close to tolerable. The idea that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was at all a threat to the Japanese is laughable; the Kwantung Army was a hollow shell with most of it moved back to the home isles, which was why the USSR had such an easy time there, and the Soviets had essentially no capability to accomplish an amphibious invasion.

It's true that Japan had already been 'defeated', but the dysfunction of its military and government meant that the sensible option was impossible to accomplish because those who tried would immediately be susceptible to coups from ultra-nationalist factions. Which in fact nearly happened even after the bombs were dropped and the surrender decision was made.

>...Japan would never have surrendered so quickly without use of the atomic bomb...

This is absolutely true, and the statement made by the Emperor directly refers to the bombs. The only alternative story is the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, but not only was that not a plausible threat to the home isles, but during Prime Minister's meeting with the Emperor in which the PM recommended unconditional surrender, he mentioned the bombs and (I don't think, IIRC) the Soviet invasion.

>...victory would have required a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland, costing hundreds of thousands of lives.

I don't know of anyone who disputes that Operation Downfall would have been a bloody affair that would have killed this amount, if not more.

Edit: I just realized that somebody else already posted a bunch of what I wrote.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#148

Post by dang »

danielvinson wrote: post #96
dang wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changed to that now. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797 .

In general, I think people would appreciate the link not being to a paywall.

Users usually post workarounds in the thread. There's one elsewhere in this thread.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#149

Post by DoreenMichele »

darkpuma wrote: post #146
DoreenMichele wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I'm discounting is the American tendency to talk like we are the center of the universe and always have been. I'm saying "WW2 wasn't a war with the US. There were multiple countries on both sides of that war." That's it. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't actually translate to "America didn't count and made no difference whatsoever in the war effort."

Americans do call it a World War, don't they? I think you're being a bit too cynical.

Perhaps pedantic. But the comment I was replying to specifically framed WW2 as "a war with the US" and I've had foreign friends, such as in Canada, who have commented on America's tendency to talk like we singlehandedly won that war.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#150

Post by dang »

camel_Snake wrote: post #85
bufferoverflow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand you're trying to do character assassination. Thankfully, we have actual videos of google insiders. I also trust my own eyes, I see which political side gets banned en masse by Google, Twitter, FB and other large Silicon Valley companies. Are you going to deny this too?

Ooh, I think I know. Is ISIS the political party of which you speak?

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN