161–170 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work at Google on ranking algorithms for Search. I'm aware of everything that controls how web pages are ranked. If I ever encountered a system that was designed to alter the results for political reasons, I would resign.
Does your claim include the keyword "abortion"? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/abortions-near...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The media analysis skills of folks on HN continue to astound. What makes you think project veritas is a credible source? Im serious.
The video recording. Are you gonna claim they are fake?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated The subtext I'm reading is that the "major" political accounts probably have specific flags set by Google internally to prevent automated shut-offs like this. If Google is not applying these whitelist flags to all candidates in a fair and systematic fashion, it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit c…
>it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others Which is still not illegal. Fox News does it all the time.
https://ijr.com/ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/
> A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do
https://www.rt.com/usa/421808-obama-facebook-mine-data/
Carol Davidsen, former director for media analytics for Obama’s 2012 campaign, has poured oil onto the fire by reveling in a series of tweets that Facebook allowed them to do “things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do.”
That reportedly included “suck[ing] out the entire social graph” – an individual’s network of friends on Facebook – in a bid to target more and more potential voters through friends’ friends on social media.
...
After Facebook “realized” what the Obama campaign staffers had been doing, they preferred to turn a blind eye for one simple reason: “they were on our side,” Davidsen claimed.
They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply "A war in which America was on it's own and did everything" ; that's a cynical read of it. A less cynical read would be that "war with the US" means "war in which the US was a participant." Germany did declare war with the US , hence there was in fact a war with the US. Of course, Germany was also at war with lots of other people. All Americans are taught that in sch…
Since I wrote it I'll clue you in. The phrase plainly means a "modern" "war", in which USA decides, usually after extensive government and media gaslighting, to violently invade a nation that did nothing to provoke such invasion. We've done this many times since the early 1950s. This entire WWII sub-thread is a quivering mass of willful cynical misreading and look-how-much-irrelevant-history-I-know posturing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others Which is still not illegal. Fox News does it all the time.
> Which is still not illegal. I think it most of europe it is illegal. Not so in the US ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others Which is still not illegal. Fox News does it all the time.
BUT Tulsi has bought and paid for the Google Ads that were disabled during a critical SIX hours when interest in her was high and her top placed ad would have driven traffic to her donation page. She BOUGHT that ad time just as much as an advertiser buys Superbowl ad time. This was an outright breach of contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others Which is still not illegal. Fox News does it all the time.
And Facebook supported Obama. It’s not like Silicon Valley attempts to be impartial on any level. https://ijr.com/ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/ > A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do https://www.rt.com/usa/421808-obama-facebook-mine-data/ Carol Davidsen, former director for media…
It might be more appropriate to link to a indepdent article about this rather than Gabbard's site. Here is one from The Verge [1]. It sounds like Google's fraud/spam algorithms automatically triggered the suspension (maybe due to a large increase in spend meant to build on Gabbard's post debate momentum). The account was unlocked after human intervention. Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically moti…
> insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe How is that hard to believe? We know for a fact Google does political censorship. https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis... https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-googl... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8 (note these are fresh links just from the last 2 days)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Facebook supported Obama. It’s not like Silicon Valley attempts to be impartial on any level. https://ijr.com/ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/ > A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do https://www.rt.com/usa/421808-obama-facebook-mine-data/ Carol Davidsen, former director for media…
That is entirely possible but I don’t trust Russia Today as a source, and, I have never heard of IJR before. Would like to see other sources saying the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Veritas is tabloid propaganda. They have less than zero credibility.
You realize the rightwingers say the same about CNN, NYT, and other "reputable" sources? They are all dirty, on all sides. Thankfully, we have videos, so we don't have to rely on anybody's reputation.