More moderation associated with more hate speech and misinformation, not politics.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Researchers have already tested Google’s algorithms for political bias
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Given that "hate speech and misinformation" appear to be some people's preferred political platform; I'm guessing that this isn't going to satisfy them.
Upvote
244
(264
/
-20)
Conservatives: “We’re being persecuted for our political beliefs!”
Everyone else: “You’re being persecuted for wanting tax cuts and smaller government?”
C: “...no.”
EE: “Promoting economic growth through free market competition?”
C: “No...”
EE: “Free trade? Right to work? Unrestricted health care programs?”
C: “No, no, no!”
EE: “Then which beliefs are you being persecuted for?”
C: “Well... you know...”
Everyone else: “You’re being persecuted for wanting tax cuts and smaller government?”
C: “...no.”
EE: “Promoting economic growth through free market competition?”
C: “No...”
EE: “Free trade? Right to work? Unrestricted health care programs?”
C: “No, no, no!”
EE: “Then which beliefs are you being persecuted for?”
C: “Well... you know...”
Upvote
328
(358
/
-30)
The idea that Google is actively censoring "conservative" content is laughable on its face, else Youtube recommendations wouldn't be 99% Nazi garbage.
Upvote
128
(180
/
-52)
Upvote
97
(108
/
-11)
A video containing no false or misleading statements can be labeled true.
Not sure why that’s hard to understand.
Upvote
137
(156
/
-19)
Does this surprise ANYONE?
Most republican policies and arguments are against equality, and this perspective attracts those who well, you know, don't WANT equality. Who are against X or Y groups - and who spout hateful words.
Additionally, most republican arguments are not based on facts, soooooo...yeah.
If the policies aren't hateful and if the arguments were supported by facts, then they aren't taken down.
This factual data isn't going to affect them though lol. It's not going to convince them because they'll just say that their "alternative facts" are being ignored...
Most republican policies and arguments are against equality, and this perspective attracts those who well, you know, don't WANT equality. Who are against X or Y groups - and who spout hateful words.
Additionally, most republican arguments are not based on facts, soooooo...yeah.
If the policies aren't hateful and if the arguments were supported by facts, then they aren't taken down.
This factual data isn't going to affect them though lol. It's not going to convince them because they'll just say that their "alternative facts" are being ignored...
Upvote
84
(131
/
-47)
But I'm a Republican piece of shit who's made multiple statements on the record confirming my racism, misogyny, and blind ignorance ... why is Google saying so many bad things about me? Wah! Muh bias!
The funny thing is that they seem to know they're horrible people, because they get upset when their actual stated positions are brought to light. Seems like they should be celebrating that exposure, instead.
The funny thing is that they seem to know they're horrible people, because they get upset when their actual stated positions are brought to light. Seems like they should be celebrating that exposure, instead.
Upvote
58
(99
/
-41)
That said, I think many Conservatives think PolitiFact and Snopes are "left-leaning", so they are still going to argue that tech remains biased.
Upvote
159
(169
/
-10)
Upvote
155
(186
/
-31)
More people use it to claim they've been wrongly labeled with "hatespeech" for simply saying "unpopular" things.
Like "Stoning should be a legal punishment for gays."
Upvote
130
(154
/
-24)
That's fairly easy to figure out. If a video (or, as is the case with a proportion of ars comments) starts with a premise that is not factual and then expounds on that premise to make an argument on an issue/point of view/subject, then that video could be labeled 'false'. I myself, when watching obvious bullshit, just call bullshit 'Bullshit', but I'm assuming they're attempting to be polite when labeling bullshit 'false'.
Upvote
82
(92
/
-10)
The one where he flouted federal regulations regarding whistleblowers?
Upvote
105
(122
/
-17)
Kudos for the empirical approach but ultimately it's useless. A conservative mind is locked up tighter than a Chinese quarantine. They will simply reduce the dissonance by attributing the results to researchers' bias.
Upvote
62
(88
/
-26)
I think the UN defines it quite well:
But do go on about how this clearly implicates your totally genuine feelings about, you know, taxes and small-government.
Upvote
112
(131
/
-19)
"Conservatives" are not getting censored. Extreme far right and moderately left-Democratic to far-left voices are. Methodology for testing this is based on vague labels and a lot of reports on the trend seem to ignore Google's statements by Ben Gomes which openly admit to the political censorship policy using the terms "fake news" and "authoritative sources". https://blog.google/products/search/our ... ts-search/
Leftist/antiwar sites like WSWS, Antiwar.com, Black Agenda Report, AlterNet, Democracy Now!, Common Dreams, and Truthout all had their Google search traffic decimated, cut in half or worse by this policy of deliberate search result demotion.
Leftist/antiwar sites like WSWS, Antiwar.com, Black Agenda Report, AlterNet, Democracy Now!, Common Dreams, and Truthout all had their Google search traffic decimated, cut in half or worse by this policy of deliberate search result demotion.
Upvote
25
(40
/
-15)
Upvote
13
(25
/
-12)
Well, that's only "unpopular" with those that disagree with that notion. Those people that advocate stoning gays may also be "unpopular", so it's gets a bit complicated once the ball gets rolling.
/s if needed
Upvote
8
(18
/
-10)
Killing all the Jews is only unpopular with Jews, so totally not hate speech.
Upvote
75
(90
/
-15)
Upvote
7
(11
/
-4)
Well, it's unpopular with me and I'm not Jewish and while I catch your meaning I must disagree with that.
See how complicated it gets?
Upvote
57
(60
/
-3)
No, just He Who Must Not Be Named In Legal Proceedings Wherein His Identity Is Irrelevant To The Veracity Of His Claims Which Were Independently Confirmed By Testimony Of Other Officials And Revealing His Identity Serves No Purpose Other Than To Enable Defenders Of The President To Attack Him Personally And/Or Fire Him From His Federal Job.
That doesn't quite roll off the tongue though.
Upvote
119
(128
/
-9)
Until financial conservatives tell the following people to eat shit and fuck off out of the Republican party, you are bound at the hip to them and no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will change that.
* People who want to punish women for having sex.
* People who have no qualms splitting up Hispanic families and treating them like subhumans fleeing gang violence born out of us deporting people hardened in the crucible of our horrid prisons, who in turn destroyed everything.
* People who want to cut SNAP benefits to everyone because fuck those people, wink wink
* Etc.
You want your vaunted tax cuts, even though the corporations who will actually get them will gladly sell you lead-tainted bottled water if they could? Tell the Evangelicals, the neo-Nazis, etc. to get lost. Oh, you need them to win against people like me? Well then!
Upvote
111
(141
/
-30)
No it really isn't. It is a clearly defined phrase that some people opt to try and make it look like it's a loaded phrase or has different meaning or blah blah blah blah blah. Hate speech is discriminatory speech against an individual or group of people based on their race, disability, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion and things that would fall under a protected class. Just because some conservatives or folks like you like to act like there are different interpretation because it suits your modus operandi does not mean much of anything in reality.
Upvote
70
(92
/
-22)
One of these involves criminals who have willfully sexually abused children, while the other involves consenting adults.
Totally the same thing though /s.
Upvote
146
(157
/
-11)
#1 involves people who took advantage of pre-pubescent children who are neither physically, mentally, emotionally, or psychologically ready for sex, and it causes untold harm to them.
"2 "Gays", as you so eloquently put it, involves two or more consenting adults. As long as what they do does not kill them or others or render them mentally or physically crippled for life to the point they are wards of the state, they are free to do whatever they want. Put on that Big Bird costume and get out the whip and Pepto Bismol for all I care; they're consenting adults.
Upvote
97
(104
/
-7)
Umm, you're clearly missing my snark. I'm trying to add a little satire to the proceedings. Relax.
Upvote
-7
(11
/
-18)