I thought it was because the obama's exec privelege claims & his lapdogs on the DOJ stonewalled everything.
I thought it was because the obama's exec privelege claims & his lapdogs on the DOJ stonewalled everything.
The ratio of Obama's executive privilege issuances compared to Trump is about the same ratio as their golf outings and vacation days. As is their level of outrage from so called tea-partiers.
Looks like the Democrats will be getting a lot of outside help; as Google looks to control the flow of information; much more serious than the Russians.
https://spectator.org/the-google-fascists/
1. Google is not foreign help. Haven't you heard? The Citizen's United verdict said among other things that Corporations have free speech and that free speech extended to unlimited contributions to candidates. This decision was celebrated by conservatives and came about because of conservative justices on the Supreme Court. I thought this decision was hogwash and so did the liberal justices on the court. Now conservatives are crying? I'd say though shit because they got exactly what they asked for. However, if Conservatives want to pass new laws outlawing Corporate contributions, I'd support that cause.
2. The Republican pimp isn't credible. He has a criminal conviction because of how he conducted one of his investigations. He has paid out more than six-figures in settlements for defaming some of the subjects of his "sting" videos. He has been caught multiple times deceptively editing his videos splicing the answer to one of his questions to another of his questions.
All that being said, overall, I agree with the Conservative POV on social media/search censorship. It has been going on for a long time. Conservatives have only recently noticed it because it has begun to impact them. If that Google memo is authentic, it is part of the ongoing stupidy they regularly engage in. I would think if you want more female CEOs the way to make the point about the lack of female CEO's is to present an accurate picture of how many female CEO's there are. Not engineer it so it looks balanced. The likely result of people seeing that is people walking away thinking there is no problem.
When I got my new Samsung Note back in November, I set it up with a new Google account. I was looking at Google News. I did a search for a story I was interested in. A strange headline from the Washington Examiner (A Conservative Tabloid) caught my eye. I clicked on it. From that point forward, Google assumed I was a Conservative and that I want to see stories with a conservative bias so that is what it puts first in my Google News results. When my alarm goes off in the morning, with today's headlines selected, it reads headlines from the Washington Examiner. That is one of the biggest problems. Rather than attempt to inform or educate Google tries to lock everyone into their own personal echo chamber as they have determined that is what makes them the most money.
If you think a particular Google decision about content censorship is bad, at the root of it is money. If Alex Jones makes a video saying Sandy Hook is a hoax, Google's advertisers rightfully complain and then Google rather than removing the one offending video nukes his whole account. What it comes down to is that Google sold us a bill of goods a long time ago that said automated moderation of content is better than human moderation of content. That is why they have to take all of Alex Jones's content down otherwise they would have to hire a team of people to go through all of his old videos plus all of his new ones. Then they would have to do the same for every individual on their platform conservative or liberal that has ever said anything that is deemed false or controversial.
