Verv wrote:As to how this is occurring, I am not sure. It could be that important news topics really do have a hands on human curator, or that certain topics have filters turned on for them that allow the left wing (and centrist) sources come to the surface more naturally without there being direct human involvement.
Well, the Google engineer who blew the whistle certainly showed that there are domain names that are inherently banned in news results. It's very clear that they are doing that at YouTube, and they frankly admit as much.
However, there is also clearly a weighting. For example, the Philadelphia shooter who shot 6 cops only garnered headlines while it was live. The reason? The shooter was black, he shot police officers, and it was a drug-related offense. The next day, there were 5 people shot in Philadelphia. Again, no coverage. Why? No arrestee and black victims. Clearly, the media only wants to highlight shootings if the shooters are white and/or the victims are white (and the shooter is not black). It's too obvious by half now.
Additionally, people like James Keefe of Project Veritas are infiltrating the media and confirming with evidence what we already know.
Drlee wrote:Running a pro assault weapon article after a mass shooting? Who does that?
People who love the second amendment and are opposed to people who will use a mass shooting to propose gun control legislation that clearly would have done nothing to address the mass shooting.
Drlee wrote:Would simply posting that we ought to limit access to assault weapons (for example) qualify as "left"?
Yes. The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect freedom from tyranny. It has nothing to do with hunting.
Drlee wrote:Why have they not brought anti-trust action against Google? It is, after all, the very definition of a monopoly.
Prager v. YouTube isn't an anti-trust action, but it is getting pretty close to it.
Drlee wrote:Where is the proof that they are censoring one political idea except in unsupported allegations by the likes of Brietbart and Fox News. (And, of course, Verv's source.)
Pretty much the entire conservative content creator community of YouTube is claiming that, and the people who watch them.
skinster wrote:CNN, NYT and The CIA/Bezo Post are not leftwing.
By US standards, they are.
Drlee wrote:The US has practically no left wing. Even MSNBC is right of center.
If you are a communist, sure. They are left wing by US standards. Not European standards.
Palmyrene wrote:If there is "cultural marxism", it's not in the US.
How would you know as a 15-year old in Syria?
Drlee wrote:It is a made-up term designed to motivate hard right aspirants to toe the political line with republicans. (Not conservatives....Republicans.)
Most of the hard right doesn't give a fuck about the Republicans for the obvious reason that most Republican pols are spineless beta cucks.
AFIAK wrote:Left wing websites like Counterpunch and WSWS complained about a significant drop in traffic after Google changed it's algorithm to promote mainstream sources of news.
Yes. Tim Pool, Sargon of Akkad, Styxhexenhammer666, Mark Dice, Lauren Southern, etc. have all said the same thing. Prager U vs. YouTube has a federal lawsuit against YouTube, because they originally thought it was purely the result of a bad algorithm, but YouTube admitted that they had human reviewers flag all these creators and demonetize their content.
Prosthethic Conscience wrote:One other thing to make you laugh - they say they've patented their method. Who the hell would want to copy it?
Nobody, but they may be getting paid for it, because they are not monetizing content, which means their costs are going up and their revenue is going down. In fact, they are violating their legal obligation to maximize shareholder value.
Rancid wrote:Does the bias of the news source matter if you as the reader understand that its biased?
No. Access to the news source does though. They are also falsifying the trending algorithms to make certain stories, candidates, etc. appear more popular than they really are. The NYTimes does this with its phony best seller list.
Drlee wrote:The thing about left-leaning websites (only as opposed to right wing leaning ones) is that they have to serve a higher standard because of the more critical standard applied by left wing viewers/readers.
Drlee wrote:Since the US does not actually have any significant left(ish) movement and for all intent and purpose no socialist or communist movements at all, their ideas are woefully absent in media at all. Even Bernie, who claims to be a "democratic socialist" is center right.
Yeah, because center right people really want a Green New Deal written up by AOC and her ilk. Sure. Right wingers for outlawing the internal combustion engine and curtailing air travel, because of CO2 emissions.
I know you think everyone is stupid compared to you, but you could at least give people the benefit of the doubt on sentience.
Rancid wrote:This just like how Fox news needs to stop calling itself "far and balanced".
They dropped that in 2016 after they canned Roger Ailes. You guys need to come up to speed. It's 2019.
Drlee wrote:MSNBC is pretty good about calling their shows what they are but Fox can't be bothered.
Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham all note that they are commentators with a political bias. Sean Hannity is probably the loudest of them on this. The irony is that as a non-journalist, he has been well ahead of so-called journalists with respect to Trump and his followers. I was too throughout 2015-2016.
foxdemon wrote:I have noticed there is a disinformation campaign amongst those who identify with the left to claim there is no such thing as neo-Marxism, but these terms, and critical theory, have been around for about 100 years. Possibly neo-Marxists are trying to pretend they aren’t Marxists so that they won’t be associated with their ideology’s demonstratively genocidal history?
I think they believe if nobody knows they are around and pushing an agenda, nobody will oppose them. That's why the objections to the censorship story or the demand of evidence is just patently ridiculous. Anyone who watches conservative YouTubers knew this a year ago.
Hong Wu wrote:The leaked documents contain literal in-code references to Google's projects for "reranking", "censorship" and "blacklists."
This is why they are left to gaslighting the entire public--and why it's not going to work.
Drlee wrote:Fox News is not News. It fills its evening schedule with pundits.
So does the rest of cable news.
Drlee wrote:From Trump's perspective, for example, MSNBC impacts an audience he fears deeply while Fox appeals to the already converted.
Trump doesn't fear them. He trolled his way to the presidency by knowing exactly how they would respond. His attacks on Elijah Cummings aren't for his FoxNews audience exclusively.
Drlee wrote:As the voters turn against the republicans (and 2018 proved that they have) they will not necessarily look to MSNBC or CNN but may flee the news cycle altogether in favor of local news.
Local news is for weather, traffic and sports scores.
Finfinder wrote:Next we will get lecture on why there there is no "deep state" in politics.
Yeah, and their Trump-Russia conspiracy theory isn't a conspiracy theory...
Drlee wrote:It is the General who, despite the president's tampering attempts to maintain the traditions and practices that have protected us for generations.
It is the civil servant who, knowing that tampering with some environmental regulations will devastate one area or another, quietly resists the efforts of the temporary occupants of the Whitehouse or congress.
It is the business owner who quietly moves behind the scenes to prevent disruption of our economy for temporary political cache.
It is the police chief who maintains a steady hand on her department despite the popularity of radical change.
It is the intelligence officer who decides what information to give to the leadership based upon his/her very real beliefs about what is (and usually always has been) important.
It the American career diplomat who assures a foreign leader that we are not about to go off of our rails and that normalcy will return soon.
It's people who have not been elected to office who are trying to prevent people who have been elected to office from exercising the powers entrusted to them by the voters.
Drlee wrote:Certain right wing people, like Brietbart News have glomed onto the term and used it to describe some nefarious star-chamber, pulling the strings of government and industry while resisting their efforts to change the nation forever.
They glommed on to a term that they first heard from people like Bill Moyers describing the Reagan administration ignoring the Democrats in the fight against communism in Central America.
Drlee wrote:Certainly if someone accused me of being a "deep state operative" I would laugh and buy them a ticket to the next Bond movie.
How generous. The next one is going to be the last, as cultural Marxism dictates that the one that follows will have a black woman as 007--effectively signaling the end of the franchise in much the same way that all the Hillary Clinton propaganda killed off Star Wars, Mad Max and Ghostbusters, among others.
Saeko wrote:Reddit and Vimeo have suspended Project Veritas accounts over this. Holy shit...
Yes. It's clear that Project Veritas hit very close to home with this one.
Verv wrote:Oh, OK... So, according to you, being right wing means being socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Bingo! That's Drlee's stated position in a nutshell. However, he routinely campaigns for Democratic party ideas, not Republican--not that the Republicans are conservative, as their budget deals with the Democrats since 2010 can attest.
Drlee wrote:There is no reasonable case to be made for opposing feminism except a very narrow and very tenuous religious one.
Not for a liberal. For a conservative, there are lots of reasons. Conservatives would take Aristotle's view of women more to heart. Whereas, the modern welfare statist wants to push women into the workforce so that they can tax women and drive down wages for men. By effectively creating motherless children, we've seen problems with socialization in children skyrocket. American lefists/liberals cannot understand why an American kid from a family with a good income and good schools would become a mass shooter. However, the modern mid-to-late 20th Century liberal ignores both science (e.g., Harry Harlow) and spiritual foundations, and reams of statistics on the prospects of children from broken homes. You couldn't get beyond the notion of equality in the gay marriage debates. You were incapable of even understanding Octavian Caesar's objective, and why his conception of marriage (mater mony
or matrimony) lasted until that fucking moron Kennedy, who went along with a bunch of women who shouldn't be on a court in the first place, decided to overturn traditional marriage without the first clue for what the institution was intended. He ended up waxing on about "love." What a mindless, insipid, blithering fool.
Drlee wrote:He was the face and voice of American conservatism (along with Buckley) for a very long time.
Buckley was a strong Catholic, and certainly not a fan of the LGBTQ crowd.
Drlee wrote:The irony is that when one takes the long view of the two bedrock Conservative ideas, social libertarian-ism and fiscal conservatism (in other words developed US Constitutionalism) one acquires the method to protect the rights of like minded people through states rights and local government.
The founders did NOT believe in social liberalism. Washington expressly stated that a populace with poor morals could not self-govern--i.e., could not be democratic. Democracy requires a moral population, not a hedonistic one.
Drlee wrote:When you ban it by federal law, as neocons tried to do with the Defense of Marriage Act, you not only impose your views on everyone in the country, you deal a severe blow to states rights.
A bunch of the neocons are gay Jews in the first place. Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the neocons.
Drlee wrote:Real conservatives would take the position that the only time the central government should impose its will on the states is when there is a compelling national interest to do it.
Stable heterosexual marriages are the foundation of a civilized society. That's what a true conservative knows straight away.
Drlee wrote:I maintain that the SCOTUS decision to strike down laws banning same sex marriage IS a conservative position because it is based on the most fundamental conservative ethic of equal protection under the law and therefor something to be enforced on the states.
And you are absolutely and utterly wrong. Kennedy's opinion wasn't based on the law or the constitution at all. The case was brought by a lesbian who didn't think she should have to pay estate taxes, and should have the same benefit of intestate distribution without inheritance tax afforded to a surviving spouse. On that basis, and in complete violation of the courts own rules as expressed in Ashwander v. TVA, he took a view that was utterly unripe for consideration and well outside the scope instant case. He should have been impeached for what he did--and jailed.
Drlee wrote:On the other hand, the myriad regulations formulated by the Department of Education and enforced through the withholding of federal aid money and lawsuits, it a direct assault on the supremacy of the people and the state.
The Department of Education was Jimmy Carter. It's an abomination. However, local governments aren't compelled and shouldn't be seeking federal funding in the first place.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:But the right wing is not generally against divorce; Reagan divorced and remarried, and Trump did so twice.
Both when they were registered Democrats. Neither of them are right wing.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:There's plenty of divorce among right wingers. Hardly any right wingers care about it.
It's a conservative position not an authoritarian one.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Being against feminism is patriarchal.
Again, it's conservative.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You listed "anti-LGBTQ". That is, by definition, a bigoted position - being against people for what they fundamentally are.
Conservatism rejects the premise entirely. Conservatism considers it behavior--not what someone is
, but rather what someone does
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Being "anti-SJW", if you actually take it as a political position (rather than, say, liking to laugh at personal excesses and blunders in putting forward social justice) is also bigoted - it's being against someone because they are for social justice.
By that definition, having a political opinion is bigoted.
Verv wrote:At one point the Democrats were home to a significant group of people who even opposed school integration, a position that would be unfathomable today.
(cough cough) Joe Biden.
Verv wrote:So we are, again, just talking about this from the perspective of classical liberals who think that their definition of conservative is the only valid one.
That's exactly it. In American parlance, an American classical liberal is a libertarian that believes that the population must be moral in order to be self-governing--that is, without a moral populace, self government will not work and the population will require a strong hand, monarch, leviathan, etc.
Verv wrote:On the political compass, then, classical liberalism is basically a philosophy that is entirely to the Left, would you agree?
It's anti-authoritarian, so not entirely to the left.
Verv wrote:Buckley, the never-Trumper
William F, not Chris. William F was dead before Obama won the White House. He would have been appalled that his son voted for Obama.
Verv wrote:I do not know how "state's rights" is now some relevant position in the year 2019
Sanctuary cities and sanctuary states and the belief on the left that the states can ignore federal immigration law...
Drlee wrote:When you have no point to make Verve, you resort to insult and sarcasm.
As if calling everyone whom you disagree with an idiot or a bigot isn't insulting?
Drlee wrote:I won't bother you with history any more.
You don't bother with history anyway. I had to point out to you that Eisenhower warned against a scientific-technological elite and ran "Operation Wetback" against Bracero workers; I had to point out to you that Lincoln abrogated the treaty with the Sioux and then held the largest mass execution in US history when they revolted; I had to point out to you that Thomas Jefferson changed the punishment for sodomy from death to 20-years in prison in Virginia. You are only interested in the establishment's version of history. I'm more than willing to read and debate Howard Zinn and his ilk as well.
Hong Wu wrote:Google insider claims that he had a "dead man's switch" and that any employee at a high enough level can search through Google's code and find these things. Given the nature of the project, I suspect that's true. It makes their decisions to deny that they're doing certain things really strange, though. It has a lot to do with that "bubble" mentality I think; they must have believed that no one would report what is easily searched for and found.
Another interesting quote was "I got tested" because he was making over $200k a year and has now given that up.
He he. It was a brilliant cache of code to expose. That's the nice thing about debating liberals in this context. That's why they still can't get passed the fact that the HadCRU hack and HARRY_READ_ME.txt basically killed off public belief in global warming science. Even that got scrubbed from the internet--which goes to show the spread of the deep state, and why they simply aren't believed anymore.