Ten oz

Right, power and responsibility should have some relationship.

Quality of information has always been an issue. I don't think there was really ever a time when information was presented truest as it could be. Books are full of as much propaganda and inaccuracies as are things on the internet today. Over the years I have come to realize that everything I think I know about history is just a loose timeline of events and little else. Unfortunately society is moved by popular understandings and not facts. So while it is important to strive to know the truth it is also useful to know what everyone else is thinking. So thing like op-eds can be useful. Like you said though there must be an investment. Google, YouTube, Twitter, and etc algorithms does its best to push what people will click on. The algorithms aren't passing judgement the on quality of the source. As Alex Jones has been taken to court for his lies YouTube and Twitter have banned him to shield themselves from liability. Alex Jones can still be found on the internet by those who want to hear what he is saying. I see no freedom of speech issue there. As for Google and Facebook one only needs to look at what has gone on with Russia. Facebook in particular has had a rough year as the value of the company has swung up and down by tens of billions of dollars over data and privacy concerns. Companies have no choice but to start doing a better job discerning between whats real and whats fake if they are to continue to be success. This will seem ageist but I think part of the problem is that people above the age of 45 don't understand how the internet works. They grew up with well regulated media, TV and Radio, where one couldn't knowingly make false claims without being fined or sued. I get the impression older people think many of the same regulations apply to the internet. That if they see a video online of someone claiming something that on some level the claim must be true or else to poster of the video could be sued. Of course that isn't the case. The poster of a video could be anonymous and the content pure B.S. made to get as many views as possible. Views and clicks being the end goal is another concept I think older people struggle with. They grew up thinking of TV marketing in simple terms. They saw ratings and commercials as one for one exchange. They weren't considering the manner in which data collected on which gender and age group watched what was being used and struggle to understand how data is used online. They view commercials as advertising and content as real rather than knowing that everything (the content and ads) is advertisement. In my opinion it is why the Russia interference in 2016 isn't a bigger deal. People simply don't understand it. They is an apathetic view that the ads targeted to individuals don't matter because most people ignore ads. They don't understand that it was the news articles and content itself they were consuming that was created by Russia. Not just ads. That what they were being told, Clinton has slaves in a Pizza shop, was not true.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the inconvenience of retyping usernames and passwords . It is its natural manure,” - Thomas Jefferson

The U.S. has done more good around the world than has Mexico but that doesn't mean much to a specific discussion about U.S. Mexico relations and immigration. In my opinion it is out of respect for Israel that many of us in this discussion expect better from them. Just as my fellow countrymen here in the States are better than a stupid wall on the southern boarder and separating families so too are Israelis better than expanded settlements. Simply picking favorites between Israel and Palestinians or identifying one as better than the other accomplishes very little. The U.S. is a safer, more tolerant, and generous country than is Mexico but that doesn't mean we get to treat Mexicans like trash.

Alex Jones has his own website, radio show, is a published author, and etc. He is being allowed to say what he wants. YouTube, Twitter, and etc are merely platforms Alex Jones was using (monetizing) in additions to the others he still has. Alex Jones is upset because he he is losing the revenue streams. His freedom of speech is totally intact. Another step is to use the filters provided and search via key words for the specific things one wants rather than just follow what's trending or viewing what's recommended. For example don't stay synced to all your accounts. If your logged in to Chrome and it is synced to your Youtube and Facebook accounts it tracks your activity which influences what ads you see and what content is recommended to you. Just sign out of everything you aren't using and don't need to be signed in for is one small step. Also one should regularly clean their disc of cookies and clear out history.

@Phi for All I agree with your point but don't feel what has happened with Alex Jones is analogous to journalism and equal time. YouTube, Twitter, Tumbrl, and etc are not news networks or edited journalism of any kind. Their "airtime" is limitless and their audience views it totally al la carte applying the filters of their own choosing. Alex Jones was taken off due to legal concerns and not as a judgement on his political positions.

@rangerxI don't even see it as a free speech issue. Jones has his own website, radio show, had published a couple books, and etc. I find the notion that Alex Jones is being denied free speech ridiculous. Not being allowed carte blanche access on every platform of choice one wants is an assault on freedom to speech.

I agree but was a bit dismayed, not surprised, that Bill Maher took the position that Alex Jones was being denied his right to speech. So it isn't purely "rightwingers" saying it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeqVYjxUh24

The Alex Jones thing has been going for a few weeks now. This thread isn't specifically about Trump and or Google.

Over the past several weeks media personality Alex Jones has had various social media accounts shut down. Alex Jones is broadly viewed as a right wing pundit. Claims of political bias and censorship of right leaning views have been made regarding Alex Jones's situation. Now today Trump has claimed that Google's search algorithms are political bias. I have seen and heard various arguments regarding this. How do members of this forum view the issue? I personally think all the arguments about freedom of speech, inappropriate censorship, and people being to PC are nonsense. Figures like Alex Jones can (and do) have their own websites where they say what they want. They can sell publish, sell swag, post videos, and etc. Twitter, YouTube, and etc are not obligated to them a platform. As for Google one can filter their searches however they choose.

It is an imperfect process though. Innocent people have been found guilt. Besides a person can only be murdered once. Life can come to exist indefinitely.

We have still never seen it happen. Our own relative view towards our own understanding not withstanding we haven't verified. So how can we know how close we are to understand how? Our confidence is measured against nothing. When we find other types of life or able to record life coming to be we will know more than we do today.

In my opinion it comes from the way we are raised. If one grows up in a society that teaches woman should be subservient to men one will most likely habor some version of that belief. Additional once something is accepted as true one takes on the burden of proof to prove otherwise. Proving negatives isn't possible. I am familiar with Dawkins. My take on his view is that he seems to let sleeping dogs lay. Jesus has long been believed to have been real and Dawkins doesn't have evidence proving otherwise nor does he care to research the matter. So his position is a bit flippant.

I disagree. For all I know other life currently exists here on earth and we (Humans) haven't discovered it yet. All I can infer is that we are not aware of any other life. Either way I feel it counters the Fermi Paradox.

We (Humans) have yet to replicate creating life despite seemingly knowing the conditions which were necessary here on earth for it. So I think it is fair to say we don't yet fully understand the process. So it is useful when people attempt to limit extraterrestrial life to our limited understanding of life. *Not implying you are doing that. All life on earth has DNA and represents just a single type of life. I have never felt the Fermi Paradox is a true paradox. We consider Earth's conditions to be good for life and yet life only created here on earth a single time. To me that implies the probability for the creation of life is low even when conditions allow for it. If the probability were high I would expect to see more than one type of life on Earth. Rather all life is cellular DNA based evolved from a single source(s). I am open to there being life out in the universe which is different than what we can currently imagine. Perhaps we are already inundated with the evidence of their existence but just haven't identified it yet.

I do not believe, not even a little, that Trump's supports would have give 2 sh!ts about the whether or not the flag was at half mast. Last week Trump's personal Attorney for the last decade pled guilt to felonies and implicated Trump in campaign crimes. Also Trump's former campaign chairman was found guilt of multiple felonies. Trump's approval rating hasn't moved. Trump has openly criticized McCain in the past, Trump's aides (Kelly Sadler) dismissed McCain as "dying anyway", and won't be attending the funeral. I will be very surprised if Trump doesn't attack McCain on tweet this upcoming weekend. Trump loves the attention he receives on cable news and McCain will be stealing away too much of it this week.Trump will most definitely criticize Obama's eulogy of McCain and probably cry foul about the positive manner that the fake news media handles the various eulogies and contrast it against the unfair treatment he receives. Messing around with the flag at the White House was just the an initial flirtation. More is coming.

In most the polling I have seen throughout my life the majority of people polled claim they vote for the person or the policies and not the Party. In my opinion John McCain is a good example of why I feel that is a lie. In 2016 McCain got 1.35 million votes winning re-election over his Democratic opponent who receive 1.03 million (Green Party candidate got 140k). Same election in Arizona Trump got 1.25 million votes to Clinton's 1.16 million votes (no 3rd party on the ticket). As people McCain and Trump were very far apart. Their policies were 180 degrees from each other. Despite that damn near everyone who voted for McCain in 2016 also voted for Trump. McCain had long been for immigration reform which included pathways to citizenship for undocumented and a guest worker program. Trump central battle cry was "ball the wall". No pathways for undocumented and guest worker programs. Trump was for torture, McCain was against torture. McCain had long advocated for reforming DOD spending and supported Gate's efforts to reign it in under Obama, Trump advocated to make it rain on DOD with record budget increases. Trump personally berated McCain as a member of the swamp he sought to rid the country of. McCain served AZ for for 31yrs. As he is mourned today in AZ what's his legacy to those who elected him I wonder. The indifference that belies the sort of person who'd vote McCain and Trump in the same ballot easily extends itself to ignoring indictments and guilty pleas. Following blistering criticism from lawmakers in both parties and veterans groups, President Donald Trump announced Monday he had signed a formal proclamation that would give Sen. John McCain his full honors. In a statement, Trump said he'd signed the proclamation keeping the White House flag at half-staff through the Arizona Republican's interment, scheduled for Sunday. https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna904061?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fwhite-house%2Fw-h-flag-back-full-staff-after-mccain-s-death-n904061

I could be wrong but I do not recall previous admins citing different protocols for the White House itself.

This is the tragedy of McCain's career. He partnered with snakes who ultimately considered him disposable. He compromised on torture, immigration, and endured attacks on his own character in service to a party which repaid his efforts by spitting on his legacy. McCain was a hero and great man yet as a contradiction to both served terrible masters.

I agree. Palin wasn't the catalyst. Still took someone to lean into it though. McCain corrected the record on the birther stuff. Mitt Romney almost went there with the whole Benghazi "acts of terror" stuff but pulled back. Palin was the most visible candidate for a meaningful national position who embraced it.

No doubt. Either way though Palin and the Tea party laid the ground work and push a lot of nonsensical talking points into the popular political sphere. McCain was against it but sadly allowed his campaign to be its launching platform.

Palin was the prototype. She attacked to media, knew nothing, hated fact checkers, appealed to bigots, considered education bias, and on and on. Palin and the tea party laid the ground work for Trump's B.S. tone

This is how I feel. McCain played ball an increasing amount post the 2000 primary chasing his presidential aspirations. It was unfortunate.

I would agree 100% if not for Sarah Palin. The selection of Palin makes me doubt how much control over the rest of his admin he would have had. That said McCain with a reasonable running mate would have been and excellent choice.

The response would be denial but a large portion of the population. Many don't believe in climate change or evolution and things like anti vaccine nonsense is catching on. There are growing numbers of people who aren't sure if the Earth isn't. Until aliens come down to earth in a spetical too great to be ignored many will continue to deny they exist and many more will claim not to be sure if they exist for the sake of being netural on the issue. People will not broadly accept the words of scientist on the matter in my opinion. To be honest if I were a scientist will empirical proof of alien life I would probably just keep it to myself. People don't accept those things which they choose not to. I would not sacrifice the rest of my life arguing about it.