If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

So the latest advice from Al Qaeda to terrorists in the west is to specifically target white people in order to avoid the 'hate crime' label.

 

[Dak]

So the latest advice from Al Qaeda to terrorists in the west is to specifically target white people in order to avoid the 'hate crime' label.

I can't imagine why they get referred to as al-CIAda.

 

[CiG]

Here is something to make us all feel better.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/01/elite-k-8-school-teaches-white-students-theyre-born-racist/

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

whoa, is there any evidence of posts being deleted?

Not just posts being removed but people being outright banned. One of the more publicized examples : http://heatst.com/tech/lauren-southern-facebook-reverses-conservative-censorship-twitter-verifies/

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This 4th of July Google logo is really triggering me right now. Not even a single rainbow? Come on guys.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

So this happened, Black Lives Matter Toronto stalls Pride parade

 

[CiG]

Pathetic idiots interrupt other marching pathetic idiots and act like babies because they're pathetic.

 

[Einherjar86]

That ignores the politics of it's creator, who is most certainly a liberal. Actually recently the staff of facebook were made to complete a course teaching them how to spot and deal with their own biases in how they moderate facebook because there were so many complaints from conservative users claiming their content was removed.

Zuckerberg's politics happen to coincide with most of his user clientele, so of course he's going to exploit the platform.

If he came out of the closet as a racist and Mussolini sympathizer, I guarantee it would have an impact on his stock value. It might not ruin him, but it would hurt him.

The political views of a service's customer base should only be relevant to the service when there's an obvious market impetus to encourage satisfying their customers. No one is going to stop using Facebook just because certain right-wing stories get pushed high on a newsfeed, because the users would still have their own community to talk to away from it, and because there's no alternative social website good enough to merit a switch in favor of an agreeable political atmosphere. A hippie vegan restaurant or a gun range, however? Obvious reasons to incorporate bias and not offend your customers, even if it offends non-customers.

An even more glaring example (from what I saw the Facebook thing might have been blown out of proportion anyways (I mean, be honest fellas, Breitbart is not as valid a news source as CNN)) would be Google not giving any negative search terms for Hillary Clinton-related searches, when they would certainly show up on Bing and Yahoo, all the while having no issue giving negative results for Donald Trump. Someone made a YouTube video about it, Google quickly threw out a "Oh it's nothing, we try to hide negative results from anyone", and then immediately changed their algorithm to make it equal with Trump. It's difficult for me to imagine that Google execs were like "Hey, our users lean left, let's bias things towards Clinton to make them happy", all the while Microsoft execs either thought "Hey, our users are exactly split down the middle" or "Hey, let's risk offending our left-leaning userbase".

It's also hard for me to believe that Google's algorithms reflected nothing but the subterfuge of the people who wrote them. A lot goes into writing algorithms. Remember a few years ago when everyone was up in arms because Google was "racist"? That wasn't because some programmer consciously thought "I'd really like it if fewer black people showed up on Google image results."

Whether it's Google, Facebook, CNN, FOX, etc... all might be manipulated by individuals with particular political leanings, but this doesn't amount to saying that "x and y are liberally biased." At their foundations, they're financially biased. This isn't to say they have no impact on the political climate, but their manipulation of the political, to whatever extend it can be detected, serves primarily a market purpose - otherwise these platforms wouldn't be the media behemoths that they are.

 

[CiG]

If he came out of the closet as a racist and Mussolini sympathizer, I guarantee it would have an impact on his stock value. It might not ruin him, but it would hurt him.

Random hypothetical example, what are you implying?

 

[Einherjar86]

That Zuckerberg's politics can only be said to matter in that they already coincide with those of most Facebook users. So yes, his politics may influence what Facebook does, but he knows this isn't going to have any significant impact on Facebook's stock performance.

So if it appeared that I was "ignoring the politics of its creator," that's because in this case Zuckerberg's politics serve his market value, thereby contributing to my original point.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Pathetic idiots interrupt other marching pathetic idiots and act like babies because they're pathetic.

This bit really cracked me up:

"We are not taking any space away from any folks. When we talk about homophobia, transphobia, we go through that too ... It should be a cohesive unit, not one against the other. Anti-blackness needs to be addressed and they can be addressed at the same time, in the same spaces," she said.

"We didn't bully our way into Pride ...

A bit tonally different than:

 

[Dak]

I notice they aren't marching in Chicago or Detroit ghettos.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's also hard for me to believe that Google's algorithms reflected nothing but the subterfuge of the people who wrote them. A lot goes into writing algorithms. Remember a few years ago when everyone was up in arms because Google was "racist"? That wasn't because some programmer consciously thought "I'd really like it if fewer black people showed up on Google image results."

Whether it's Google, Facebook, CNN, FOX, etc... all might be manipulated by individuals with particular political leanings, but this doesn't amount to saying that "x and y are liberally biased." At their foundations, they're financially biased. This isn't to say they have no impact on the political climate, but their manipulation of the political, to whatever extend it can be detected, serves primarily a market purpose - otherwise these platforms wouldn't be the media behemoths that they are.

Fundamentally, Google is supposed to rank auto-complete results according to how often they're searched for. That's how it always worked before, and two other major search engines had results that largely mirrored Google's results, with the specific exception of searches related to Hillary Clinton. How do you explain "hillary clinton indictment" not returning any results if not conscious manipulation of their system? I've never heard of black people not showing up on Google Images btw, do you mean the gorilla thing? Because I think that was due to flaws in automated facial recognition; gorillas have dark skin, gorillas have faces similar to humans, mistakes are made (kinda like those blink-detecting cameras that don't work on Asian people). I don't see how something like that could explain the Clinton thing, unless it had something to do with preventing Googlebombing (which I never saw mentioned).

You still haven't explained the market purpose for hiding Clinton-related negative search terms.

 

[CiG]

That Zuckerberg's politics can only be said to matter in that they already coincide with those of most Facebook users. So yes, his politics may influence what Facebook does, but he knows this isn't going to have any significant impact on Facebook's stock performance.

So if it appeared that I was "ignoring the politics of its creator," that's because in this case Zuckerberg's politics serve his market value, thereby contributing to my original point.

Twitter has already seen backlash over the way it treats right/conservative users, facebook isn't immune to this and that's exactly why facebook staff had to do courses teaching them about how to spot their biases. The Merkel thing didn't help either, honestly I see facebook crashing in the next couple of years unless it's actions change drastically.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fundamentally, Google is supposed to rank auto-complete results according to how often they're searched for. That's how it always worked before, and two other major search engines had results that largely mirrored Google's results, with the specific exception of searches related to Hillary Clinton. How do you explain "hillary clinton indictment" not returning any results if not conscious manipulation of their system? I've never heard of black people not showing up on Google Images btw, do you mean the gorilla thing? Because I think that was due to flaws in automated facial recognition; gorillas have dark skin, gorillas have faces similar to humans, mistakes are made (kinda like those blink-detecting cameras that don't work on Asian people). I don't see how something like that could explain the Clinton thing, unless it had something to do with preventing Googlebombing (which I never saw mentioned).

You still haven't explained the market purpose for hiding Clinton-related negative search terms.

Re. Google being racist - it was due to flaws in facial recognition. That's what I was saying; it had nothing to do with the intentions or malicious motives of its programmers.

Google also tends to turn up "white" results when asked about beauty, and "black" results when asked about ugliness and/or unprofessional attire. But I'm not saying that programmers are racist; I'm saying that it often reflects trends beyond any individual motivation.

Re. the "market purpose" for hiding Clinton-related search terms - I have no idea. How am I supposed to know? Why am I supposed to know? I'm saying that media systems react to popular opinion, especially the popular opinion of their users. Otherwise Google wouldn't have corrected the Clinton-related term issue.

Twitter has already seen backlash over the way it treats right/conservative users, facebook isn't immune to this and that's exactly why facebook staff had to do courses teaching them about how to spot their biases. The Merkel thing didn't help either, honestly I see facebook crashing in the next couple of years unless it's actions change drastically.

Exactly! The point is that Facebook will correct, as Google did; otherwise, they'll fail economically. I'm saying that these media platforms are, at their foundation, simply trying to make a profit. There's no left-wing or right-wing bias. It's all market performance.

 

[Dak]

Exactly! The point is that Facebook will correct, as Google did; otherwise, they'll fail economically. I'm saying that these media platforms are, at their foundation, simply trying to make a profit. There's no left-wing or right-wing bias. It's all market performance.

It's financially verifiable that Silicone Valley "leans" Democrat in its political support. But the market pushes back.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/31/the-myth-of-silicon-valley-libertarianism.html

Tech CEOs are arguably some of the Democrats’ biggest fan-boys: In the 2012 presidential election, 83 percent of employee donations from some of the nation’s top tech firms went to Obama. Among the tech elite, 64 percent of all political donations from investors and startup founders since 2008 have gone to liberal candidates and causes. Perhaps the most brutal statistic of all: Only 3 percent of tech startup founders identify as Republican.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's not at all what I'm saying. The people who work in tech can lean whichever way they want. That doesn't change how these media platforms perform in the market at large; and if they want to succeed, then they succumb to market pressures. Come on, this isn't a very radical argument at all.

The goal of a tech start-up is to make money. At that point, politics doesn't matter unless it serves a viable financial end. Ideally, media platforms can impact the way people think through feedback and other complex mechanisms, but they always operate within the demands of the market, or they tank.

 

[Dak]

That's not at all what I'm saying. The people who work in tech can lean whichever way they want. That doesn't change how these media platforms perform in the market at large; and if they want to succeed, then they succumb to market pressures. Come on, this isn't a very radical argument at all.

The goal of a tech start-up is to make money. At that point, politics doesn't matter unless it serves a viable financial end. Ideally, media platforms can impact the way people think through feedback and other complex mechanisms, but they always operate within the demands of the market, or they tank.

Well if it were some startup we were talking about I'd agree. Facebook hasn't been in that category for like a decade. There's a certain feeling of being "untouchable" which comes with having a certain segment of marketshare (FB is pretty much 100% market share for what it does), and so it's no surprise that certain elements within the organization may have felt free to "nudge" things in a way that they thought was "right".

http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-...uppressed-conser-1775461006?rev=1462799465508

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sing-questions-about-its-political-influence/

Of course FB responds with essentially "we're sorry we got caught, won't happen again."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Re. Google being racist - it was due to flaws in facial recognition. That's what I was saying; it had nothing to do with the intentions or malicious motives of its programmers.

Google also tends to turn up "white" results when asked about beauty, and "black" results when asked about ugliness and/or unprofessional attire. But I'm not saying that programmers are racist; I'm saying that it often reflects trends beyond any individual motivation.

Re. the "market purpose" for hiding Clinton-related search terms - I have no idea. How am I supposed to know? Why am I supposed to know? I'm saying that media systems react to popular opinion, especially the popular opinion of their users. Otherwise Google wouldn't have corrected the Clinton-related term issue.



Exactly! The point is that Facebook will correct, as Google did; otherwise, they'll fail economically. I'm saying that these media platforms are, at their foundation, simply trying to make a profit. There's no left-wing or right-wing bias. It's all market performance.

There's a huge difference between the facial recognition issue and the result sorting issue. The former case is some kind of computer algorithm causing upset among a certain group, threatening their brand and marketing, therefore encouraging Google to manipulate it to satisfy their customers. The latter is a computer algorithm behaving as it always had, Google then manipulating it for "reasons unknown", resulting in a brief scandal, and then further manipulation by Google to ensure fair play.

The reason I'm asking for the market purpose is because it's relevant to prove your theory applicable to this instance. If you start from the POV that corporations ONLY do things to react to popular opinion, then obviously you're right by definition, but I'm disputing that theory. Corporations react to popular opinion when they feel it will make them sell more product; if it can't be demonstrated that displaying "hillary clinton indictment" would impact their sales, then there is no clear economic motive behind the action, and therefore it becomes a question of why a corporation would go out of their way to voluntarily spend effort on work of no value. Since the move was controversial and immediately caused Google to react, and since this is a corporation that invented the PageRank algorithm in the first place, the move could arguably even be viewed as creating negative publicity for them. I mean, I'm right-wing as fuck and I don't care that popular left-wing searches are displayed; I fully expect them to be as someone that uses Google for its ability to provide relevant and important results. I don't think most people that lean (D) are going to have conniptions just seeing "hillary clinton indictment" pop up, and I've never read any case where users had complained about said search term. Therefore, since the profit-motive seems negligible at best, I propose that this is an exception to your argument, and that when corporations are still controlled by their founders with a tight leash, their founders are likely and able to inject personal biases.

 

[CiG]

I remember the claim that if you google beauty you get overwhelmingly white results, I tested it a few times and found that it was actually quite diverse. Calling bullshit on that one.