Search:

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;858130]My results were in incognito mode using a VPN, so they weren't influenced by any search history.[/QUOTE]So I guess not. Maybe Google expects more people to want to read news then.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

My results were in incognito mode using a VPN, so they weren't influenced by any search history.

So I guess not. Maybe Google expects more people to want to read news then.

[QUOTE=yzb25;858079]With all due respect, I strongly disagree with Wikipedia's assessment of Trump's intentions, taken from ABC and WSJ, two sources that are frankly atrocious. I wrote a long reply to that, but there's also a much shorter response:

The Saudi government invariably gave this money as a bribe and Trump accepted this money, presumably aware he was being bribed. He then proceeded to do things the Saudi government liked. That is, if nothing else, an objective conflict of interest, plain and simple. I cannot definitively prove that Trump accepted this money with ulterior motives, because I am not inside of Trump's head. However, I doubt ABC and WSJ would hesitate to make the very natural assumption that some other world leader had ulterior motives, were they in the same situation. I would also hope it'd at least be clear to you that Hillary Clinton would absolutely be taking that money with ulterior motives, were she in that position LMAO.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have been locked in a power struggle for decades. Iran's foreign objective is to expel Western forces from the Middle East, annihilate the state of Israel and support the rise of fellow authoritarian theocracies that will resist foreign interference. The Saudi objective is to support the rise of Salafism and reign as the undisputed power of the Islamic world, by any means necessary.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have a mutual hatred of Iran, and their goals are also not incompatible. They are also strong mutual allies of the US. Hence they have a very close relationship.

[SPOILER=longer reply to WSJ's assessment]
The assessment that the weapons deal was done to "counter-balance Iran" is wildly charitable. If one is concerned that a tyrannical, theocratic terrorist state is a threat to peace, one does not address that concern by funnelling billions of weapons to their more tyrannical, more theocratic and more terrorist neighbour.

The kingdom is widely suspected to have funnelled funding and weapons to ISIS and other groups fighting Assad in Syria, an enemy of theirs. There's been leaks of high-ranking US officials espousing the claim, meaning the US government has intelligence that corroborates this. Trump would have agreed to the weapons deal aware of that intelligence. There's also lots of rich Saudi individuals funding a range terrorist groups aligned with the kingdom's agenda (including Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and the LeT), which the kingdom is aware of and does nothing to crack down on.

The Saudi Kingdom is also using the US weapons to wage an illegal war in Yemen, targetting schools, hospitals and other fundamental civillian structures. Millions of people have already died, and the warring has been so ruthless that the Saudi kingdom has actually caused a famine. They are trying to crush the houthi rebels, which are aligned with Iran, in spite calls from the Houthi rebels for a ceasefire. These calls have been ignored, even in spite of the recent Corona outbreak. The weapons the US gov. have provided have played a critical role in allowing the Saudis to carry out this slaughter.

The Iranian regime, though terrible in their own right, comes nowhere close to causing the level of devastation in the Middle East that the Saudis do. It should also be noted giving the Saudis weapons to fight catastrophic wars with Iranian proxies has done nothing to actually deter Iran's influence in the Middle East. In fact, these actions have largely helped to vindicate the terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that Iran supports. A cynic may guess the US doesn't actually wish to truly destroy Iran's influence, because the presence of the Saudi/Iran rivalry creates a powerful demand for US weapons, and Iran's isolation allows the US to control the bulk of the world's oil exports.

It is, in my view, far more plausible Trump is simply swayed by the millions in funds he's personally received from Saudi Arabia, and the extensive funding Saudi and Arms lobbyists funnel to the Republican party (and the Democrats). The Saudi government also sells its oil in dollars, which lends the US major economic power. There's also the following famous Trump quote regarding the kingdom:

“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million... Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”
[/spoiler][/QUOTE]


I really don't think your post deserves that spoiler around that juicy, juicy information. The US conflict in the middle east is very complex and that information helps enlighten us about it. I do have two problems with your opinions in the spoiler though..


[QUOTE]"It is, in my view, far more plausible Trump is simply swayed by the millions in funds he's personally received from Saudi Arabia"[/QUOTE]

The US government has been backing Saudi Arabia for quite a long time. Obama and Bush's administrations also sent them weapons and money while not building hotels or whatnot there. While I believe your statement to be true, I don't think this point deserves the same amount of attention as for the other reasons the US backs Saudi Arabia. More prominent reasons are the economic and political ties to that government.

[QUOTE]"The Iranian regime, though terrible in their own right, comes nowhere close to causing the level of devastation in the Middle East that the Saudis do. It should also be noted giving the Saudis weapons to fight catastrophic wars with Iranian proxies has done nothing to actually deter Iran's influence in the Middle East."[/QUOTE]

First, I find that evaluation of their "destructiveness" to be unfair. Considering all of Saudi Arabia and Iran's proxies, I would say that it's about equal. Iran's government also seems more ambitious in its goals and had they more resources, I believe they would create greater humanitarian crimes.

Second, supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons does deter Iran's influence. It's true, Iran has nonetheless greatly expanded its field of power, but I think it would have been much bigger had Saudi Arabia had less support from the US government.

____

Good post yzb.

Originally Posted by yzb25

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with Wikipedia's assessment of Trump's intentions, taken from ABC and WSJ, two sources that are frankly atrocious. I wrote a long reply to that, but there's also a much shorter response:

The Saudi government invariably gave this money as a bribe and Trump accepted this money, presumably aware he was being bribed. He then proceeded to do things the Saudi government liked. That is, if nothing else, an objective conflict of interest, plain and simple. I cannot definitively prove that Trump accepted this money with ulterior motives, because I am not inside of Trump's head. However, I doubt ABC and WSJ would hesitate to make the very natural assumption that some other world leader had ulterior motives, were they in the same situation. I would also hope it'd at least be clear to you that Hillary Clinton would absolutely be taking that money with ulterior motives, were she in that position LMAO.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have been locked in a power struggle for decades. Iran's foreign objective is to expel Western forces from the Middle East, annihilate the state of Israel and support the rise of fellow authoritarian theocracies that will resist foreign interference. The Saudi objective is to support the rise of Salafism and reign as the undisputed power of the Islamic world, by any means necessary.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have a mutual hatred of Iran, and their goals are also not incompatible. They are also strong mutual allies of the US. Hence they have a very close relationship.

Spoiler : longer reply to WSJ's assessment :

The assessment that the weapons deal was done to "counter-balance Iran" is wildly charitable. If one is concerned that a tyrannical, theocratic terrorist state is a threat to peace, one does not address that concern by funnelling billions of weapons to their more tyrannical, more theocratic and more terrorist neighbour.

The kingdom is widely suspected to have funnelled funding and weapons to ISIS and other groups fighting Assad in Syria, an enemy of theirs. There's been leaks of high-ranking US officials espousing the claim, meaning the US government has intelligence that corroborates this. Trump would have agreed to the weapons deal aware of that intelligence. There's also lots of rich Saudi individuals funding a range terrorist groups aligned with the kingdom's agenda (including Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and the LeT), which the kingdom is aware of and does nothing to crack down on.

The Saudi Kingdom is also using the US weapons to wage an illegal war in Yemen, targetting schools, hospitals and other fundamental civillian structures. Millions of people have already died, and the warring has been so ruthless that the Saudi kingdom has actually caused a famine. They are trying to crush the houthi rebels, which are aligned with Iran, in spite calls from the Houthi rebels for a ceasefire. These calls have been ignored, even in spite of the recent Corona outbreak. The weapons the US gov. have provided have played a critical role in allowing the Saudis to carry out this slaughter.

The Iranian regime, though terrible in their own right, comes nowhere close to causing the level of devastation in the Middle East that the Saudis do. It should also be noted giving the Saudis weapons to fight catastrophic wars with Iranian proxies has done nothing to actually deter Iran's influence in the Middle East. In fact, these actions have largely helped to vindicate the terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that Iran supports. A cynic may guess the US doesn't actually wish to truly destroy Iran's influence, because the presence of the Saudi/Iran rivalry creates a powerful demand for US weapons, and Iran's isolation allows the US to control the bulk of the world's oil exports.

It is, in my view, far more plausible Trump is simply swayed by the millions in funds he's personally received from Saudi Arabia, and the extensive funding Saudi and Arms lobbyists funnel to the Republican party (and the Democrats). The Saudi government also sells its oil in dollars, which lends the US major economic power. There's also the following famous Trump quote regarding the kingdom:

“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million... Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

I really don't think your post deserves that spoiler around that juicy, juicy information. The US conflict in the middle east is very complex and that information helps enlighten us about it. I do have two problems with your opinions in the spoiler though..

"It is, in my view, far more plausible Trump is simply swayed by the millions in funds he's personally received from Saudi Arabia"

The US government has been backing Saudi Arabia for quite a long time. Obama and Bush's administrations also sent them weapons and money while not building hotels or whatnot there. While I believe your statement to be true, I don't think this point deserves the same amount of attention as for the other reasons the US backs Saudi Arabia. More prominent reasons are the economic and political ties to that government.

"The Iranian regime, though terrible in their own right, comes nowhere close to causing the level of devastation in the Middle East that the Saudis do. It should also be noted giving the Saudis weapons to fight catastrophic wars with Iranian proxies has done nothing to actually deter Iran's influence in the Middle East."

First, I find that evaluation of their "destructiveness" to be unfair. Considering all of Saudi Arabia and Iran's proxies, I would say that it's about equal. Iran's government also seems more ambitious in its goals and had they more resources, I believe they would create greater humanitarian crimes.

Second, supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons does deter Iran's influence. It's true, Iran has nonetheless greatly expanded its field of power, but I think it would have been much bigger had Saudi Arabia had less support from the US government.

____

Good post yzb.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;858046]I find that a very strange explanation because I've never searched anything like "Corona is bad" or whatever. I've always doubted it was as serious as they claimed it to be, hence why I'd find the idea of Google showing me results that I don't want to find (and that I've practically never googled) bizarre.

I don't doubt the algorithm for determining the search hits is complex, but I'm not so sure we can put it down to something as simple as my search history.[/QUOTE]

Is it all that strange? I'm just saying to be aware that Google will show you different results based on your search patterns.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with machine learning, but Google uses it to determine what to show you. It takes a test set (your search history) and creates a heuristic (a guess) into actual associations of what you would click on. Depending on where you click after it has made its guess, the algorithm revises its next heuristic to better match what it thinks you want.

[B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]So yes, Google search results are biased based on your search history.
[/COLOR][/B]

Let's take my search result for example.
Some of my relevant recent searches are:
opb, intimate partner violence statistics, Uyghur, inflation, oil futures, Kyoto animation fires
I also regularly search for statistics and occasionally read the abstracts of academic papers (I know, boring).
So I don't think it was surprising that Google showed my original sources.

From oops' search results, we can probably guess he reads a lot of news. While you might not have [I]directly [/I]searched Corno is bad/hoax, everyone -including your- search results are biased based on what their search history is.

[IMG]https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=26924&d=1588634348[/IMG]

Originally Posted by Ganelon

I find that a very strange explanation because I've never searched anything like "Corona is bad" or whatever. I've always doubted it was as serious as they claimed it to be, hence why I'd find the idea of Google showing me results that I don't want to find (and that I've practically never googled) bizarre.

I don't doubt the algorithm for determining the search hits is complex, but I'm not so sure we can put it down to something as simple as my search history.

Is it all that strange? I'm just saying to be aware that Google will show you different results based on your search patterns.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with machine learning, but Google uses it to determine what to show you. It takes a test set (your search history) and creates a heuristic (a guess) into actual associations of what you would click on. Depending on where you click after it has made its guess, the algorithm revises its next heuristic to better match what it thinks you want.

So yes, Google search results are biased based on your search history.


Let's take my search result for example.
Some of my relevant recent searches are:
opb, intimate partner violence statistics, Uyghur, inflation, oil futures, Kyoto animation fires
I also regularly search for statistics and occasionally read the abstracts of academic papers (I know, boring).
So I don't think it was surprising that Google showed my original sources.

From oops' search results, we can probably guess he reads a lot of news. While you might not have directly searched Corno is bad/hoax, everyone -including your- search results are biased based on what their search history is.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;856733]They are most definitely not both right leaning. You can most easily tell this by looking st their candidates: Obama/Hillary Clinton and most importantly, Bernie Sanders. Bernie is almost a communist, hes really, really far left. Obama and Clinton were both progressive/socially liberal (e.g. Obamacare).

Trump is special because he�s the first truly right-wing (or conservative) leader in a relatively long time. It�s why everyone hates him, PLUS the media has become extremely important over the past20 years; they�re a lot more important than they were a while back.[/QUOTE]

Trump is special because he is radically conservative. It's quite important in our view of politics today due to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-hzc6blGI"]Overton Window[/URL]. Because his ideas are louder and more radical than other conservative words going around it makes the less radical conservative policies put forth seem more acceptable. For instance, we still don't have his proposed wall, nor has the US government made Mexico pay for it yet, but we do have stricter immigration policies.

Not everyone hates him, there are a bunch of Trump supporters, but he does grow dissent, even in his own party. Those that are opposed to his ideas also come within his own party (such as those are more center), but since they are "his" party they need to work with him if they want to enact policies acceptable to them.

Bernie Sanders is probably the most liberal politician in Washington. He has voted along with his party like 298/300 times (don't quote me on that). He is also very popular where I live Portland, Oregon. A lot of people here are Bernie supporters.


[QUOTE]wrt to authoritarianism, bc that�s what I found really bizarre, the Democrats� record is far from clean: they tried to impeach Trump over reasons that are somewhat dubious, in a trial where no evidence was presented and where they basically blamed Trump over something Biden did. I cannot remember exactly what the media had to say about it but I remember reading the reasons the (senate?) gave for the impeachment and it had basically nothing to do with what the media were accusing trump of (I believe it had something to do with �securing the next election for himself�, or perhaps with the notion that what he did was unconstitutional, one of which was not even mentioned in the impeachment document).[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't claim directly that Trump is pushing for an authoritarian government, but he has definitely overstepped the boundaries of US law. In fact, he has been impeached (accused) and is the 3rd or 4th president in history to be impeached. If you don't think Bill Clinton and Nixon were special, then you should neither think Trump is special.

He wrote a letter/email/note to a high ranking official in Ukraine to soft-threaten him into looking into Biden so that he would have something to use against him in the next election. That is abuse of power. This evidence was not able to be brought up because of Senate Republicans voting along party lines to not incriminate Trump. Only two republicans dissented, one being Mitt Romney (rather famous for being center, and willing to make compromises) and the other somebody I forgot.

(my view) I don't think there is any real doubt whether or not Trump abused power. The vote was solely to demonstrate partisanship.


[QUOTE]second, IIRC they actually investigated the 2016 election and found evidence that, hold on to your hats, the Democrats has tampered with the election. I believe, though this is just from memory and I may be wrong, that they stopped the investigation at that point.

None of these points are exactly indicative of fair play on the Democrats� part.[/QUOTE]

One side wrong does not make the other side right.
This reminds me of when I talked to a member of my family about the Uyghurs in China being put into concentration camps. He countered that the US has killed loads of native people.
Yes, the US killed many Native Americans AND China is putting native populations into concentration camps. Both are true.

Similarly, Democrats in government do bad things, Republicans in government do bad things. The badness of their doings are also relatively different and of different scale.


[QUOTE]If you read the media, you�ll notice that they very often do the following thing; they don�t report the news, they just criticize trump. That website I linked is, in my opinion, how a real news article should be written: it�s impartial. It first described the study, mentioned some problems with it, and then argued that it still points to the notion that corona may be a lot more prevalent than previously thought.

meanwhile, many of the hits I got on google skipped the first step and started naming various scientists who criticized the study. The difference is, the first guys had a story to tell; the second had *their* story to tell.

same thing with the media. I�d encourage you to do your own research and not to listen to the unwashed masses on CNN/whatever because they really don�t know what they�re talking about. You cannot possibly claim to be impartial when your news article starts with �Fact Checking: President Trump 101. I�ll argue that this unfortunately also seems to occur on the republican side of things, although, as far as I�ve been able to tell, it�s less common there. And also less virulent. If you only listen to the media, you�ll get the feeling Teumpmonly does/says stupid shit, which I really don�t agree with.[/QUOTE]

How Google presents information to you is a complex topic but at the base, aamirus is correct. It uses your search history to determine what to show you and is inherently biased BASED ON YOU. Google feeds many variables it collects about your searches (your search history, what you read, how long you read them...) and associates it statistically into program. This algorithm takes your sample set and tests it against what it guesses would interest you and spits out the results

[URL="https://youtu.be/o6zfp6lRw2E?t=45"]IOW Google search bias is based on your bias. [/URL]

So watch out for your own internet bubble.

This site really doesn't want me to post lol.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

They are most definitely not both right leaning. You can most easily tell this by looking st their candidates: Obama/Hillary Clinton and most importantly, Bernie Sanders. Bernie is almost a communist, hes really, really far left. Obama and Clinton were both progressive/socially liberal (e.g. Obamacare).

Trump is special because he�s the first truly right-wing (or conservative) leader in a relatively long time. It�s why everyone hates him, PLUS the media has become extremely important over the past20 years; they�re a lot more important than they were a while back.

Trump is special because he is radically conservative. It's quite important in our view of politics today due to the Overton Window. Because his ideas are louder and more radical than other conservative words going around it makes the less radical conservative policies put forth seem more acceptable. For instance, we still don't have his proposed wall, nor has the US government made Mexico pay for it yet, but we do have stricter immigration policies.

Not everyone hates him, there are a bunch of Trump supporters, but he does grow dissent, even in his own party. Those that are opposed to his ideas also come within his own party (such as those are more center), but since they are "his" party they need to work with him if they want to enact policies acceptable to them.

Bernie Sanders is probably the most liberal politician in Washington. He has voted along with his party like 298/300 times (don't quote me on that). He is also very popular where I live Portland, Oregon. A lot of people here are Bernie supporters.

wrt to authoritarianism, bc that�s what I found really bizarre, the Democrats� record is far from clean: they tried to impeach Trump over reasons that are somewhat dubious, in a trial where no evidence was presented and where they basically blamed Trump over something Biden did. I cannot remember exactly what the media had to say about it but I remember reading the reasons the (senate?) gave for the impeachment and it had basically nothing to do with what the media were accusing trump of (I believe it had something to do with �securing the next election for himself�, or perhaps with the notion that what he did was unconstitutional, one of which was not even mentioned in the impeachment document).

I wouldn't claim directly that Trump is pushing for an authoritarian government, but he has definitely overstepped the boundaries of US law. In fact, he has been impeached (accused) and is the 3rd or 4th president in history to be impeached. If you don't think Bill Clinton and Nixon were special, then you should neither think Trump is special.

He wrote a letter/email/note to a high ranking official in Ukraine to soft-threaten him into looking into Biden so that he would have something to use against him in the next election. That is abuse of power. This evidence was not able to be brought up because of Senate Republicans voting along party lines to not incriminate Trump. Only two republicans dissented, one being Mitt Romney (rather famous for being center, and willing to make compromises) and the other somebody I forgot.

(my view) I don't think there is any real doubt whether or not Trump abused power. The vote was solely to demonstrate partisanship.

second, IIRC they actually investigated the 2016 election and found evidence that, hold on to your hats, the Democrats has tampered with the election. I believe, though this is just from memory and I may be wrong, that they stopped the investigation at that point.

None of these points are exactly indicative of fair play on the Democrats� part.

One side wrong does not make the other side right.
This reminds me of when I talked to a member of my family about the Uyghurs in China being put into concentration camps. He countered that the US has killed loads of native people.
Yes, the US killed many Native Americans AND China is putting native populations into concentration camps. Both are true.

Similarly, Democrats in government do bad things, Republicans in government do bad things. The badness of their doings are also relatively different and of different scale.

If you read the media, you�ll notice that they very often do the following thing; they don�t report the news, they just criticize trump. That website I linked is, in my opinion, how a real news article should be written: it�s impartial. It first described the study, mentioned some problems with it, and then argued that it still points to the notion that corona may be a lot more prevalent than previously thought.

meanwhile, many of the hits I got on google skipped the first step and started naming various scientists who criticized the study. The difference is, the first guys had a story to tell; the second had *their* story to tell.

same thing with the media. I�d encourage you to do your own research and not to listen to the unwashed masses on CNN/whatever because they really don�t know what they�re talking about. You cannot possibly claim to be impartial when your news article starts with �Fact Checking: President Trump 101. I�ll argue that this unfortunately also seems to occur on the republican side of things, although, as far as I�ve been able to tell, it�s less common there. And also less virulent. If you only listen to the media, you�ll get the feeling Teumpmonly does/says stupid shit, which I really don�t agree with.

How Google presents information to you is a complex topic but at the base, aamirus is correct. It uses your search history to determine what to show you and is inherently biased BASED ON YOU. Google feeds many variables it collects about your searches (your search history, what you read, how long you read them...) and associates it statistically into program. This algorithm takes your sample set and tests it against what it guesses would interest you and spits out the results

IOW Google search bias is based on your bias.

So watch out for your own internet bubble.

This site really doesn't want me to post lol.

Wrote up a long reply to Ganelon, but then got distracted took a shower and now I'm stuck rewriting it. Screw me.

Wrote up a long reply to Ganelon, but then got distracted took a shower and now I'm stuck rewriting it. Screw me.

[QUOTE=theoneceko;855616]REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

^
This thread summarized in a single word[/QUOTE]

Can't agree with that summary.

It was more like:
"Trump is bad."
"New outlets are biased."
"Trump is bad."
"I heard you."

Or in a single word:
"Uhh..."

Originally Posted by theoneceko

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

^
This thread summarized in a single word

Can't agree with that summary.

It was more like:
"Trump is bad."
"New outlets are biased."
"Trump is bad."
"I heard you."

Or in a single word:
"Uhh..."