Google manipulating negative search terms about Hillary

Um, link to legitimate source? I don't watch random internet videos, from any part of the political spectrum. Usually tin-hat land.

But from the first frame, it looks like an excellent source of confirmation bias. Not that you needed any.

 

Good for Hillary!

 

Peter Thiel gives a lot of talks on this topic, though more on the side of the customer. Democracy isn't an accurate depiction of America so much as an oligarchy, so I'm not sure what democracy is being bought at this rate. I don't respect many or any of his views, but he does straight out tell it like it is, and he always talks about the American government as a transactional entity.

For what it's worth, Republican representatives are generally easier to buy and dumber. hard truth

“I think one of the challenges we have in the Republican Party is … our representatives, our senators, are somewhat lower IQ than the people on the other side. So I think there is something to be said for getting some really smart people in there.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/p...and-the-need-for-the-gop-to-get-smarter-reps/

 

as for Google: lol. Money is speech y'all, and so is having a fast-loading search product.

 

First result for me is breitbart

So...

 

Well nowhere does Google say that their predictive search feature is based ENTIRELY on what others are searching. It says that it is one of the factors but obviously they will not (nor should they) disclose their algorithms for predictive search ( https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/106230?hl=en ).

This implication that Google is manipulating search results because of a couple of dumb examples is ridiculous.

Here is a quick video I made just for you showing 3 negative things about Hillary Clinton from the same predictive search feature. Took me 20 seconds lol- http://www.fastswf.com/6mMLkAQ

 

Just to be clear, when Google completes "Hillary Clinton ind" with "Hillary Clinton India" instead of "Hillary Clinton indictment," Google is NOT saying that more people search for "Hillary Clinton India." (which they are not, more people are searching for "Hillary Clinton indictment").

Google IS saying, based on prior searches AND the wide range of content available on the web, that "Hillary Clinton India" is more relevant search than "Hillary Clinton indictment."

 

[Educational Post]
While there may be some low IQ Republican representatives, I don't think there is any question that the lowest IQ representatives are Democrats. Look at Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi -- these people are truly stupid. Just completely brain dead. In general, liberals make decisions based on emotions and feel and conservatives make decisions based on economic logic and cost-benefit analysis. Their brains are literally programmed on different wavelengths. A liberal will pay any amount of money to save an endangered species or help save the planet from whatever this month's really urgent threat is. A liberal will advocate taking in all refugees regardless of cost. A conservative will apply a cost-benefit analysis to any decision, and is not afraid to offend if the answer leads to an unsympathetic conclusion. Liberals get all dreamy when Obama dances on Ellen and while simultaneously conservatives think he's a pu$$y. Different brain types that process the same information very differently. I also think the Republicans in general hold positions of greater responsibility in society -- heads of households, business leaders, etc than liberals, many of whom hold low level jobs, are single and young, or do not have employees reporting to them and dependent upon their actions. As people age and take on greater responsibility, they often make a rightward turn in their political beliefs. No coincidence.

The_Conquistador's Continuum of Intelligence and Political Beliefs

1. I would say that the absolute smartest people I know (almost equal in intelligence to myself) are extremely conservative in nature, and many of them are libertarian. This group would include extremely successful business owners, West Point/Naval Academy grads, and some ultra-educated medical doctors and academic PHDs. I would be categorized in this group.

2. The next smartest set of people I know are liberals. I would include in this group lawyers and scientists -- smart, educated people with little real world business experience. B-Bob and SamFisher would be an example of this group.

3. The next smartest set of people are a large bucket of businessmen, some doctors, and functionally skilled professionals (engineers, accountants, bankers, architects -- that sort of thing). These people are generally Republicans. The bedrock of society -- homeowners, tax payers, heads of households, honest hard-working people.

4. Then below that you've got a group of lesser skilled professionals who don't make quite as much money -- this group is probably center-right. Nurses, auto-repair, teachers, IT professionals, policemen/firemen, military. This is a group that has average intelligence.

5. Then you've got a HUGE group of virtually unskilled labor who make low wages. This group is almost exclusively liberal. Food service, janitors, landscapers, TSA gropers, musicians, hourly retail people, bus drivers, low level government employees, waiters, etc. This is a below-average IQ group.

6. Below that is the lowest IQ group -- completely unskilled labor, unemployed, inner-city urban people on welfare, people who move furniture, pizza delivery, shoe shiners, fry cooks, etc This group is 100% liberal.


GOOD DAY

 

Thank god. We're counting on the liberal media to bring us home the election. Gooooo media!

 

Im starting to use Bing more. I find there is too much manipulation in the google results.

 

Rocket River

 

I've come to learn that the people who go around accusing others of being sheep usually end up being the ones who are the real sheep. Especially when they struggle to construct coherent sentences while doing so.

 

By and Large
There is so much information out there
It would be a full time job to weed out the facts from the fiction
so
we end up relying on 'news' orgs to do it for us
We then have to decide which are 'credible' and which are not
There are still so many of them that we now have 'news' sources
who vet our 'news sources'

Rocket River

 

That's what Facebook is for! - RocketsLegend

 

tldr

Pro Tip teej. Keep it short and pithy.

 

Right wingers are the biggest cry babies about the media.

Glen Beck was actually spot on for once with his commentary about the Facebook meeting they had.