41–50 of 50 posts
If you editorialize, you’re a publisher. If you want copyright immunity, you can’t editorialize.
- - -
Further, HN is also biased.
My political views are deemed an inherent flame war, no matter how calmly stated or supported by evidence — and I’d encourage you to review my comments and see exactly what @dang deems so wrong think it must be silenced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was that 3 hours of lectures by doctors faked, I'm curious. What about it was fake, and what about it was putting anyone In danger?
If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do... The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
Obviously the video isn't "fake". That's crying wolf. The video is real, you just don't like what those doctors have to say.
The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
Yeah, or maybe it's the opposite. That's a medical discussion. Snopes and Google should have nothing to do with it. And calling it fake is just manipulation.
> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Google is manually making these decisions to block conservative websites So show us the evidence.
There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in "Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories):
https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl...
See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".
"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong." I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier. I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as th…
Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong." I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier. I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as th…
Impressive mental backflips. Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
Withdraw unto yourself and your immediate/close community.
Sure, and then when they are wrong you go down with the ship, oblivious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do... The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Impressive mental backflips. Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
Look at the graph in 2012 - it spiked UP a huge percent in a very short time. Then again in 2015 - looks like visibility doubled in 6 months. Was that 'deserved'? Was that 'censoring' other sites?
For traffic to drop to zero overnight when nothing much is happening, and especially for election related terms, is unheard of.
Look, elsewhere on HN there is a story about how Facebook banned Breitbart because they posted a video of doctors talking about COVID, and they banned Trump for saying children aren't infectious: a claim widely made by many scientists. Tech companies are utterly untrustworthy when it comes to Breitbart. They want to erase it from the internet because it's conservative and those firms have hired far, far too many extreme leftists who loathe anything conservative.
> You don't have to agree with them politically to see that Google is applying different standards to conservative content than to more liberal content. Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking? (Granting, yes, perfect b…
Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing. I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked. That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook...
This seems like a legitimate HN story but it was flagged to oblivion when it was posted yesterday.
Don't talk to me about cancel culture.