Political Bias Online claim

[Ten oz]

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.

 

[rangerx]

It's Monday. Google is the enemy d'jour. Tomorrow it will be something or someone else under a lower bar.

There's not need to discuss Google itself, because it only distracts from the point that Trump is a psychopath.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's Monday. Google is the enemy d'jour. Tomorrow it will be something or someone else under a lower bar.

There's not need to discuss Google itself, because it only distracts from the point that Trump is a psychopath.

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

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

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

Indeed, it's more about rightwingers expecting they have every right to yell fire in theaters.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Indeed, it's more about rightwingers expecting they have every right to yell fire in theaters.

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

 

[rangerx]

Well, he supports free speech, but from a personal responsibility standpoint. Today's Republican has abandoned the personal responsibility part.

[Ten oz]

@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. 

[Phi for All]

Why should every marginal, extremist viewpoint get equal airtime? I think that's a big part of why the media is the way it is, trying to give the perception of non-bias by forcing all issues to have the same importance. Alex Jones is one of the worst of the non-stop fearmongers who use screaming incredulity to pound out his conspiracies, drowning out quieter voices of reason.

[Ten oz]

@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. 

[MigL]

While I might agree with your viewpoint regarding A Jones and D Trump's claims about Google, who gets to decide what are " marginal, extremist' viewpoints, Phi ?
In China, it is the government that decides. Is that the road we want to go down ?

Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are no longer considered private entities, but mechanism for disseminating news/information.
A Jones should be allowed to demonstrate to all, what an idiot he is.
And D trump should not be able to influence, skew or censor Google's search results.

[CharonY]

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

While I might agree with your viewpoint regarding A Jones and D Trump's claims about Google, who gets to decide what are " marginal, extremist' viewpoints, Phi ?
In China, it is the government that decides. Is that the road we want to go down ?

Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are no longer considered private entities, but mechanism for disseminating news/information.
A Jones should be allowed to demonstrate to all, what an idiot he is.
And D trump should not be able to influence, skew or censor Google's search results.

Here is the thing, though. Google, Twitter etc. are not actually tools to disseminate or access information in an unbiased way. They rank posts according to some sort of algorithm, typically related to ways to monetize your use of the platform. As we have seen with the troll factories these algorithms can also be manipulated (and not only by the service providers), 

It is therefore a general issue that private entities are holding de facto monopolies on how we navigate or use the internet.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Here is the thing, though. Google, Twitter etc. are not actually tools to disseminate or access information in an unbiased way. They rank posts according to some sort of algorithm, typically related to ways to monetize your use of the platform. As we have seen with the troll factories these algorithms can also be manipulated (and not only by the service providers), 

It is therefore a general issue that private entities are holding de facto monopolies on how we navigate or use the internet.

Part of the solution is to reduce your identity footprint as much as possible, so that you are not served tailored ads or particular information in general. They serve you what they think you want to see according to your profile. If you want information al a carte you need to work on this and that means seeing what you would consider 'chaff' as well.

[geordief]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Part of the solution is to reduce your identity footprint as much as possible, so that you are not served tailored ads or particular information in general. They serve you what they think you want to see according to your profile. If you want information al a carte you need to work on this and that means seeing what you would consider 'chaff' as well.

Any practical advice as to how to go about that? (reduce your identity footprint)

[iNow]

Step 1: Convert to Amish.

Step 2: Grow a killer beard.

Step 3: Learn to churn butter and stitch gussets into the crotch of your pants. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by iNow

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

While I might agree with your viewpoint regarding A Jones and D Trump's claims about Google, who gets to decide what are " marginal, extremist' viewpoints, Phi ?

The low-hanging fruit would seem to be claims that only survive because of heavy manipulation on social media. FB and Google get paid to deceive us with a skewed version of our world to inform our decision-making process. Extremists were jubilant when Trump began campaigning, because they were finally able to push their marginal agendas of conspiracy and hate. Social media money makes them look much more relevant, numerous, and popular than they really are. 

[rangerx]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

A Jones should be allowed to demonstrate to all, what an idiot he is.

Not if it incites violence or other uncivil acts. Trump is the news cycle today suggesting violence if the GOP gets a shellac-ING in the fall.

Besides that, one would have to be a bigger idiot if they can't find Alex Jones on the internet. Boohoo, evil Googles blocking my INFOWARZ!!

What a joke.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

A Jones should be allowed to demonstrate to all, what an idiot he is.
And D trump should not be able to influence, skew or censor Google's search results.

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. 

 

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Part of the solution is to reduce your identity footprint as much as possible, so that you are not served tailored ads or particular information in general. They serve you what they think you want to see according to your profile. If you want information al a carte you need to work on this and that means seeing what you would consider 'chaff' as well.

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. 

 

9 hours ago, geordief said:

Any practical advice as to how to go about that? (reduce your identity footprint)

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. 

 

[geordief]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

 

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. 

 

OK I was afraid to do that because I thought it might delete  my passwords

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

OK I was afraid to do that because I thought it might delete  my passwords

"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

[CharonY]

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Part of the solution is to reduce your identity footprint as much as possible, so that you are not served tailored ads or particular information in general. They serve you what they think you want to see according to your profile. If you want information al a carte you need to work on this and that means seeing what you would consider 'chaff' as well.

Even if you manage to erase your own footprint, the online platform will still be delivering content according either other cues or simply provide the most popular links. 

[geordief]

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Even if you manage to erase your own footprint, the online platform will still be delivering content according either other cues or simply provide the most popular links. 

That's good isn't it?If you go to the library you expect the books to be arranged in some kind of order....

 

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

That's good isn't it?If you go to the library you expect the books to be arranged in some kind of order....

 

Well, there are several issues. One is that notoriously short and emotional reports ("clickbait") are disseminated much faster and broader than, say long-form reports. The latter could then be buried in the searches. Another is that by looking at what is shown in youtube in anonymous mode, it seems that I clearly do not understand the world anymore (and it seems to be dominated by angry young men).

[geordief]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, there are several issues. One is that notoriously short and emotional reports ("clickbait") are disseminated much faster and broader than, say long-form reports. The latter could then be buried in the searches. Another is that by looking at what is shown in youtube in anonymous mode, it seems that I clearly do not understand the world anymore (and it seems to be dominated by angry young men).

Do you use your own tricks to weed out the results you are not looking for?

 

[CharonY]

22 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do you use your own tricks to weed out the results you are not looking for?

 

Depends. Science literature is probably the easiest as there are indicators you can use to assess quality (especially within your field of expertise). For news I rely on digest of media outlets that are generally considered to be factual and avoid op/eds and opinion pieces for the most part. To get an idea about a topic I try to read up on several long-form articles and try isolate the gist out of them. Simply put, I do not see an ideal way to get information without at least some amount of time investment. Exceptions are probably very simple directly answerable questions. I would watch a youtube video showing how to frame a drywall, example, but would have misgivings trying to learn anything regarding politics or history, for example.

Sometime around 2000 I was thinking that the vast amount of information available on the internet would provide folks with quality information at ones fingertip. I massively underestimated the challenges of source evaluation. Meanwhile my friends in the history department are laughing behind their pile of books.

On reflection, I find that as a whole I am far less inclined to check out random websites than when I was a student. I.e. I have become more selective, which could mean that I catch up later to new sources that could be considered reliable.

Edited August 29, 2018 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Depends. Science literature is probably the easiest as there are indicators you can use to assess quality (especially within your field of expertise). For news I rely on digest of media outlets that are generally considered to be factual and avoid op/eds and opinion pieces for the most part. To get an idea about a topic I try to read up on several long-form articles and try isolate the gist out of them. Simply put, I do not see an ideal way to get information without at least some amount of time investment. Exceptions are probably very simple directly answerable questions. I would watch a youtube video showing how to frame a drywall, example, but would have misgivings trying to learn anything regarding politics or history, for example.

Sometime around 2000 I was thinking that the vast amount of information available on the internet would provide folks with quality information at ones fingertip. I massively underestimated the challenges of source evaluation. Meanwhile my friends in the history department are laughing behind their pile of books.

On reflection, I find that as a whole I am far less inclined to check out random websites than when I was a student. I.e. I have become more selective, which could mean that I catch up later to new sources that could be considered reliable

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.