The power of ignorance

Stunning! Senior Facebook Engineer Admits “We Tear Down Posters Welcoming Trump Supporters”

World Net Daily reported on a similar study that found that despite the tech giant’s claim to be “a fair and balanced arbiter of facts,” a significant percentage of searches produce material that leans politically either to the “left” or the “far left.”

And then there’s this: YOUTUBE BURIES ANN COULTER VIDEO TO PREVENT USERS FROM FINDING IT. They did a small test on whether something could be found on Youtube by typing in its name.

This is a perfect example of how big tech firms like Facebook, Google, and Youtube fashion their code to prevent conservatives from being found in search results and how viewers are given all liberal sources instead.

The folks at Information Liberation did a search for an Ann Coulter video entitled “How Trump Should Deal With Cohen & Manafort – Ann Coulter.” This video featured the best selling author’s appearance on C-Span last week where she slammed Big Tech for its bias against conservatives.

You’ll never guess what happened. And this is Ann Coulter. They are not only devious, but are rightly afraid that if the truth managed to leak out, the left would be finished beyond redemption. They do not seek truth but power. Keeping their minions as ignorant as possible is part of the way it is done.

This entry was posted in Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to The power of ignorance

  1. cohenite

    Tell it to dot, Mitch and a few others who rabbit on about government interference in private property rights every time some one suggests government intervention in this bias by these bastards.

  2. As to Sinc who says that people can go to other platforms if they don’t like what’s happening.

  3. In another era this would be the equivalent of US post refusing to deliver pamphlets from the republicans.
    Or refusing to list the phone numbers of conservatives.

    Only the democrats.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    If they keep on this sort of behaviour Trump’s SEC will break them up. Google will be forced to split into an advertising arm, Search, YouTube, Maps etc. Possibly into several even smaller chunks – especially advertising given their market dominance.

  5. struth

    The Law is already in place to deal with this.
    If they are editing content, they are publishers, not carriers.
    They are therefore liable for all content.

  6. New Chum

    I thought a listed public company was required to operate in the interest of shareholders and if they are not they can be in trouble and possible class action.

  7. Tim Neilson

    They are therefore liable for all content.

    True, but I’m not sure where the burden of proof is about the “common carrier” defence, and I’ve a fair suspicion about what would happen if any case got before a stock-standard middle class pinko judge.

    Better for Trump to start kicking them in the bollocks with legislation expressly denying them common carrier status unless they can prove to a high standard that they don’t skew their content.

  8. Tel

    Tim Neilson #2805453,

    Try this one.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

    There’s a few key phrases in there which might hang Google:
    * “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse”
    * “Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services”
    * “technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools”
    * “deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment”
    * “voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material”

    So if there’s a public statement (even an agreement with the users) that these services are neutral and don’t filter except in cases where the content it illegal, then very hard to claim “good faith” when you get caught doing it in secret.

    Hard to claim you are supporting diversity of political discourse when you delete all of one side just before an election.

    Can’t claim “user control” because the users have been falsely led to believe there is no filter, and anyway there’s no option to turn the filter off. Besides that, people like Alex Jones have been forcibly removed (for reasons that are vague and untestable) leaving the users unable to access those videos whatever they do.

    In terms of “obscenity, stalking, and harassment” those are already illegal, so if Google can prove they are doing takedowns based on existing legal standards (or even if they are a close approximation) they should be in the clear. However cases like PragerU are not even a tiny bit close to “obscenity, stalking, and harassment” although perhaps Alex Jones might be getting close to that at times.

  9. Kneel

    “…but I’m not sure where the burden of proof is about the “common carrier” defence…”

    I’ve said it before….
    Just take them to court and make sure they nail their colours to the mast about what, exactly, they are legally – are they a common carrier and therefore can’t censor, or are they a publisher, in which case they are responsible for everything on their site(s).
    If these cases settle out of court, they will bury it under non-disclosure deals for the settlement, so you have to ensure it goes the distance and have them ON OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS stating they are a common-carrier (or not).
    They cannot win here and they know it – no matter which side they pick, they have done things they shouldn’t (common carrier? but you excluded this person… Publisher? this article is defamatory!). So there will be massive pressure to take a settlement. Just don’t cave in. Force them to pick, then hammer them based on their choice.

  10. Cynic of Ayr

    This sort of stuff demonstrates the absolute stupidity of these so-called “intellectuals.”
    They live in, work in and own, an obscenely profitable business in the Capitalist System.
    They disagree with the Capitalist System, pushing hard for a Socialist System.
    These two facts are not questioned.
    But here’s the kicker, in a Socialist System, they could not exist!
    Isn’t this remarkable? They push for a System, a system of total control, that they could not exist in.
    Zuckerberg’s business could not exist in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela, yet that’s exactly what he strives for.
    As I said, remarkable!

  11. Zuckerberg’s business could not exist in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela, yet that’s exactly what he strives for.

    Don’t be sure of that. In a US ruled by the likes of the Clintons, they would wield immense power, they would be an arm of the politburo. They are already emulating what was old Soviet censorship practices: https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/06/27/soviet-censorship-how-did-the-ussr-control-the-public_790892.

  12. 2dogs

    If you want to see Google bias, search for any British topic, like Brexit.

    You will get articles from The Guardian coming in as either the top or the second result every time.

    Now, one might, as a result of this, somehow think that The Guardian is some kind of mainstream, widely read, British newspaper.

    One would be wrong. It ranks 19th in terms of circulation.

    And even then, over half of those sales come from the British taxpayer.

  13. Death Giraffe

    Libertarians could choose to see this as either a free speech issue and back conservatives or they can paint it as a property rights issue and yet again side with social justice warrior idiots.
    There is enough room with the facts here to make either case from a libertarian position.
    Any guesses which way they will go?

  14. Death Giraffe

    Libertarians aren’t the friends of conservatives.

  15. Tim Neilson

    Thanks Tel,
    But this, from your link, is a little worrying

    Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

    Kneel, in the light of the majority judgements in the Obergefell case, what do you think a “progressive” judge would do with the definition of the obligations and immunities of a “common carrier”? I think that the Orange God-Emperor should try to get some standards codified.

  16. Iampeter

    Free speech, property rights, freedom of association and individual rights in general are not “devious”. You are just being a confused leftist along with the rest of the hopeless conservative movement and have no clue what’s going on.

    This is going to lead to yet another massive expansion of the regulatory state into private enterprise once again spearheaded by the confused leftists of the conservative movement.

    You idiots are literally fighting for censorship in the same breath as you claim to be arguing against it.
    There are no words.

  17. Rococo Liberal

    SUrely the answer is to get Rupert, the Kochs and those nice quite brothers who own the UK Telegraph to buy a majority interest in Google and then convert it to a right wing company.

  18. struth

    Iampathetic can’t see that the rule of law which is already in place, shouldn’t cover everybody.

  19. Whalehunt fun

    I am willing to temporarily gorget Libertarianism if it prevents Google Facebook And Twitter owners staff and management being assett stripped and jailed.
    Actually flogging should be in their too.

  20. Mr Black

    This is the fundamental weakness in any society that values principles over results. The right have spent so long proclaiming their principles prevent them from opposing communists, sexual deviants, censors, corrupt politicians and every other stripe of civil cancer that the cancer simply took over the host as there was nothing to stop it.

    Part of having a constitution permitting free speech is severely punishing people who want to deny you free speech. You cannot, for instance, be against slavery but permit the population to vote on whether or not to enslave you. Liberties must be defended from the domestic enemies that are ALWAYS looking to undermine them. And not defended with pointless words but with cold, hard steel.

    People should be free to use their rights in any way they choose, except to try and deny them to others.

  21. Cynic of Ayr

    bemused…
    Zuckerberg’s business could not exist in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela, yet that’s exactly what he strives for.
    Don’t be sure of that.
    Ah! But Pocohontas is determined to nationalise all big business that earn a quid. Zuckerberg’s little news chop shop will fall into the category.
    Now, to ensure Zuckerberg stays in the fold, “special” treatment must be given. In Russia and China, that’s allowed, but in the US? Not so much. I doubt the US would ever get to total socialism, like the Countries I mentioned. There’d be another civil war.
    Still, no matter the if and buts of it all, Zuckerberg is still too confused to realise that, with a Socialist System he craves, he is at much greater risk of having his shenanigans curtailed. Lot m0re work crawling and donating than what he does now. And if he strays, by lefty law, once a lefty gets on the wrong side of the lefties, he’s on the outer, big time! More than a few have found that out the hard way.
    Of course, Zuckerberg is only an example, as he has plenty of equally confused mates. This is the part I don’t understand. These fellers, in reality, are not dullards. They’re smart fellers. But they seem to pursue these really dumb ideas! I don’t get it.

  22. One ScoMo doesn’t make a Spring

    make sure they nail their colours to the mast …

    That should be ‘make sure they nail their trousers to the mast…’

    Don’t you mean colours Humphrey ?

    I do not, this way it prevents them from climbing down.

    (Yes Minister)

  23. Petros

    In a similar vein, if you Google the amount of protein in beans, the Google answer of 21gm per 100gm is wrong but it is repeated on multiple websites. Have a look at a tin of baked beans. It is usually about 6gm per 100gm. The idiot vegans use this misinformation to try to justify their imprudent dietary choice. I suspect this is deliberate on Google’s part and all about pushing their hypocritical socialist agenda.

  24. Iampeter

    Did you guys realize YouTube has red in its logo? Jesus Christ Monkey Balls! They’ve been crypto-marxists this whole time! We didn’t listen. Why didn’t we listen.

    Anyway conservatives have the situation in hand. They are going to deal with Marxists and leftists by calling for…leftist and Marxist regulation of private enterprise of course!

    It’s brilliant.

    I can’t wait for the next insightful and intelligent piece on this issue from the brilliant political mind of Steve Kates and read the thoughtful and totally not-completely-confused-by-absolutely-everything comments.

  25. Diogenes

    Can’t claim “user control” because the users have been falsely led to believe there is no filter, and anyway there’s no option to turn the filter off

    There used to be 37 filters applied. You and I could search for the same terms, but depending on which Operating System , Browser, assumed gender, assumed age, assumed location (this is easy to test using a VPN) , previous search history you will get very different search results as Eli Parisier (a leftist, but he warned about this in a TED talk many many years ago) demonstrated. At the time of the Egypt Coup, he had two friends, one a very political animal, the other not, but who does a lot of travelling, this is general results , not the ‘news’ …
    For political junkie – it took 3 pages before any tours/attractions/history appeared, the rest was political
    For the traveller – 5 pages before anything on the violence

  26. Tel

    Iampathetic can’t see that the rule of law which is already in place, shouldn’t cover everybody.

    He does not even accept the premise that a nation of people can create laws by any means.

  27. Tel

    SUrely the answer is to get Rupert, the Kochs and those nice quite brothers who own the UK Telegraph to buy a majority interest in Google and then convert it to a right wing company.

    It would be way cheaper to build a search engine and video hosting from scratch than to buy a controlling interest in the significantly overpriced alphabet stocks.

  28. Kneel

    “what do you think a “progressive” judge would do with the definition of the obligations and immunities of a “common carrier”?”

    The same thing they always do – set ridiculous precendents based on distorted language. Same MO as all leftists, really.

    Fortunately, PDT has already appointed one SCJ and another on the way, which MAY reduce the progressive influence on that particular bench.

  29. RobK

    Petros,
    the Google answer of 21gm per 100gm is wrong but it is repeated on multiple websites. Have a look at a tin of baked beans. It is usually about 6gm per 100gm.
    The protein of dry beans is about 21% w/w. Canned beans are cooked and swollen and in a sweet fluid so the protein w/w is much reduced.

Comments are closed.