31–40 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Website that constantly talks about 'struggle' and 'revolution' is not extremist at all.
"Extremist" is a weasel word for when a person didn't really do anything yet, but you are already trying to censor them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Extremist" is a weasel word for when a person didn't really do anything yet, but you are already trying to censor them.
Marxists and socialists did not do anything yet. Now you are just trolling.
But you would like to, won't you? You would like to get into people's heads? You consider people your peons and you want to pull switches in their heads because you know better what they should think?
In short, you are a putinist.
'Problematic'. There's that word, again. The news need not even be 'fake' anymore. Simply 'problematic' will do.
Here's Mark Zuckerberg not long ago:
> While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue.
Problematic to whom, one wonders? The loser? Those who feel most aggrieved? This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course).
Hillary Clinton, with much irony and little self-awareness, summed up the intent behind this move in her latest book:
> “Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism....This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. “The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves”.
So the message is clear: Trust us, you dolts. We know best.
Google isn't doing very well on "socialist". One of the "Top Stories" is WorldNet Daily: "Chilling! Left on brink of socialist victory in U.S. 'We have to have the courage to say something is wrong. This is insanity' Published: 6 days ago" That's not even fake news. That's like news from an alternate universe in which Bernie Sanders won.
I think this tells us (a) results differ from person to person - we knew that, but it means we can't see what's being shown to others and how bad it might be; and (b) "socialist" is mostly used as a swear word these days.
I think we're close to 1984 world and thought control... but coming from tech giants like Facebook and Google.
Ever once in a while I link someone or mentioned what is in articles such as these, below, and I rarely find people believe it until they read it in name-brand media. Maybe I am wrong but from 9/11 to the Snowden leaks to now it feels like we are on some accelerated path towards 1984 where conspiracy theories are becoming reality. For example: the US gov actively influences movies and TV scripts for propaganda purpos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot-checking, and I agree, this doesn't at all seem to be "fake news". Much like the actual communists that I've known, I find myself disagreeing with the opinions, priorities, and judgements, but it doesn't seem to be misleading or mischaracterizing the truth.
The thing about "fake news" is that nobody can agree on an objective definition of what it is. So people just train their models on controversial pages and hope for the best.
The point is, press lost all credibility a long time ago, so now we can apply this label far and wide.
Now we know the so-called liberal bias was that they were censoring all the (mostly) right wing fake news stories coming from the Russian backed troll teams.
Google has often said that it cannot reveal too much or people would use that information to try to game the rankings Isn't this the same "security by obscurity" argument?
For Google to protect it's ranking algorithms, non-disclosure and the legal right to proprietary knowledge is the best defense. It's not obscure, it's private.
Remember when the right wing groups were up in arms about the censoring of non-liberal news by the news moderators and FB had to reorganise the whole team. Now we know the so-called liberal bias was that they were censoring all the (mostly) right wing fake news stories coming from the Russian backed troll teams.
> "Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines" 'Problematic'. There's that word, again. The news need not even be 'fake' anymore. Simply 'problematic' will do. Here's Mark Zuckerberg not long ago: > While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue. Problematic to whom, one wonders? The loser…
adjective: constituting or presenting a problem
Or are the "word-checkers" in on the big conspiracy too?