Trump

[1972Shocker]

Dr. Robert Epstein: Study claims Google reflected 'very dramatic bias' in 2016 election search results

https://www.foxnews.com/media/google...-epstein-levin

"In 2016, I set up the first-ever monitoring system that allowed me to look over the shoulders of a diverse group of American voters -- there were 95 people in 24 states," he said.

"I looked at politically oriented searches that these people were conducting on Google, Bing and Yahoo. I was able to preserve more than 13,000 searches and 98,000 web pages, and I found very dramatic bias in Google's search results... favoring Hillary Clinton -- whom I supported strongly."

"That level of bias was sufficient, I calculated, to have shifted over time somewhere between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary without anyone knowing that this had occurred," he claimed.

---

I have no idea how valid this guy's study and research is but at least he claims he was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

[jdshock]

jdshock, you said, “The problem with that is that you would then have a totally impartial site (like shockernet) all of a sudden being subject to liability.”

That is NOT a reflection of my argument, which is why I dismissed it. Social sites SHOULD NOT be censoring content UNLESS it is illegal. That’s all. Under this law, Kungwu would be a platform and couldn’t ban someone unless they were harassing someone under the law. He doesn’t have to establish his impartiality, he only has to not ban people.

Yeah, man, I get what you're arguing. I'm just saying, as a practical matter, whether the site is banning people is going to be a fact question for the judge or jury. Whereas under the current law, it's a question of law where you just file a quick little motion that says "hey, I'm a website so I can't be deemed a publisher." Trust me, I really do get the argument you're making. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

That's aside from the fact that the internet would be an ABSOLUTELY miserable place if websites cannot ban people. I know I'd spend a lot less time here when 9/10 posts are "CHECK OUT THIS FACIAL CREAM" as opposed to the current 1/1000.

[wufan]

Yeah, man, I get what you're arguing. I'm just saying, as a practical matter, whether the site is banning people is going to be a fact question for the judge or jury. Whereas under the current law, it's a question of law where you just file a quick little motion that says "hey, I'm a website so I can't be deemed a publisher." Trust me, I really do get the argument you're making. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

That's aside from the fact that the internet would be an ABSOLUTELY miserable place if websites cannot ban people. I know I'd spend a lot less time here when 9/10 posts are "CHECK OUT THIS FACIAL CREAM" as opposed to the current 1/1000.

That’s an easy fix. No solicitation without prior approval. What about Tulsi’s case? Good or bad that google banned her and are claiming they can’t be sued due to CDA 230, and is it possible that it is evidence that, whether intentional or not, that the internet is censoring people?

[jdshock]

That’s an easy fix. No solicitation without prior approval. What about Tulsi’s case? Good or bad that google banned her and are claiming they can’t be sued due to CDA 230, and is it possible that it is evidence that, whether intentional or not, that the internet is censoring people?

You need approval in advance to advertise on public platforms, is that what you are saying? Again, are you saying this is part of the underlying law? Or would this be a shockernet specific policy? Because if it's a shockernet specific policy, then what's to prevent someone from saying "my site wide rule is that you must agree with me to post" or whatever it is and then delete various viewpoints. But we're like 5 posts in and you have yet to recognize that you are absolutely increasing hurdles for folks like KW. You are radically transforming the way libel laws work and creating fact questions that will be very difficult to defeat. And you haven't once said what evidence you'd look to. What is the evidence that Twitter deserves to be subjected to libel laws? Because Doc couldn't find some conservative retired military guy?

Yeah, assuming Tulsi Gabbard's allegations are correct, that's bad. The Westboro Baptist Church is bad. Doesn't mean I don't think they're allowed to do what they do, though. I do happen to think that Gabbard probably gains a lot more from the publicity of the lawsuit than she ever will in monetary damages. I also suspect it's a little column A and a little column B (as most things tend to be) when we're talking about why it happened. I also think search is very different from social media sites, and I think Google can and should be addressed in different ways. Google is a monopoly and a near-necessity. I see no reason not to regulate Google the way utilities are regulated. But that's an entirely different subject.

I just think the internet tends to be a young place, for the most part (though, if you only frequent shockernet, you might have a different opinion). And therefore the internet tends to be a fairly liberal place by and large. Sites are always going to have liberal leanings, and liberal posts are going to easily outnumber conservative postings. Conservatives who are internet savvy feel outnumbered and that's a crappy feeling. So they are asking for government intervention in this area. Like, we're talking about people that defend the idea that Hobby Lobby has free speech rights, and these same people are trying to make sure that Facebook and Twitter are subjected to libel laws for what its users say?

[Kung Wu]

You need approval in advance to advertise on public platforms, is that what you are saying? Again, are you saying this is part of the underlying law? Or would this be a shockernet specific policy? Because if it's a shockernet specific policy, then what's to prevent someone from saying "my site wide rule is that you must agree with me to post" or whatever it is and then delete various viewpoints. But we're like 5 posts in and you have yet to recognize that you are absolutely increasing hurdles for folks like KW. You are radically transforming the way libel laws work and creating fact questions that will be very difficult to defeat. And you haven't once said what evidence you'd look to. What is the evidence that Twitter deserves to be subjected to libel laws? Because Doc couldn't find some conservative retired military guy?

First of all ... this service is hosted in the Cayman Islands, behind a Swiss firewall, downstream from a Chinese proxy, routed through a Nigerian router, and tunneled through a wifi access point in a Vietnamese coffee shop which is secured by a multi-factor Israeli-based VPN. COME AND GET ME SUCKERS!!

Second of all ... I AINT GOIN' BACK TO PRISON!

[jdshock]

First of all ... this service is hosted in the Cayman Islands, behind a Swiss firewall, downstream from a Chinese proxy, routed through a Nigerian router, and tunneled through a wifi access point in a Vietnamese coffee shop which is secured by a multi-factor Israeli-based VPN. COME AND GET ME SUCKERS!!

Second of all ... I AINT GOIN' BACK TO PRISON!

All of this was hypothetical. I am very confident that if I ever said anything bad about Tekele Cotton you'd (i) ban me immediately; and (ii) ensure Mr. Cotton was provided my own home address to continue the conversation privately.

[Kung Wu]

All of this was hypothetical. I am very confident that if I ever said anything bad about Tekele Cotton you'd (i) ban me immediately; and (ii) ensure Mr. Cotton was provided my own home address to continue the conversation privately.

Hypothetical indeed, because what could possibly be said that is bad about Cotton?

[1972Shocker]

[1972Shocker]

Whistleblower’s lawyer ‘gave away the game’ with tweets documenting coup plot from the early days of Trump’s presidency

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...residency.html

If the House Democrats are foolish enough to impeach President Trump, then the Senate trial could become the forum for putting these coup plotters themselves on trial. Remember that Mitch McConnell can write the rules governing the trial, and can structure them to allow the defense to call ay witnesses at all that it wishes, including people like Zaid, Adam Schiff, and even the FBI Gang of plotters, assuming they aren’t already facing indictments and trials.

[ShockBand]

First of all ... this service is hosted in the Cayman Islands, behind a Swiss firewall, downstream from a Chinese proxy, routed through a Nigerian router, and tunneled through a wifi access point in a Vietnamese coffee shop which is secured by a multi-factor Israeli-based VPN. COME AND GET ME SUCKERS!!

Second of all ... I AINT GOIN' BACK TO PRISON!

You forgot about the connections in the cave in Afghanistan and the one through the hidden cam in the barracks of Kim Jong-Un's Pleasure Brigade.

[WuDrWu]

Trends for me today: #TheView #BWFWarren (Black Women for Warren for those of you not indoctrinated to the Twitterverse). I'm not advocating they should be shut down. (I don't have an answer to fix). I'm annoyed by NEWS MEDIA using social media as fact and basis for reporting things. And I'm scared about our young people being duped by yet another one side socialists type platform. It's bad enough with public schools. Some of these kids have no chance to see things the right way, the correct way.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Trends for me today: #TheView #BWFWarren (Black Women for Warren for those of you not indoctrinated to the Twitterverse). I'm not advocating they should be shut down. (I don't have an answer to fix). I'm annoyed by NEWS MEDIA using social media as fact and basis for reporting things. And I'm scared about our young people being duped by yet another one side socialists type platform. It's bad enough with public schools. Some of these kids have no chance to see things the right way, the correct way.

So you have control issues?

Also, How do you offset your hatred of public education with your undying love of Wichita State. have you told the players how you feel about their education when you host the dinners you brag about?

These are my trends for the day. Maybe you're just using Twitter wrong and instead of owning it you rather blame someone else for your experience.
Trends for you

Mary Cain
#DEATHSTRANDING

Save mankind from extinction in DEATH STRANDING. Out November 8.
Promoted by PlayStation
Cris Carter
#PixarSoul
#WhatTriggersConservatives

[WstateU]

[wufan]

You need approval in advance to advertise on public platforms, is that what you are saying? Again, are you saying this is part of the underlying law? Or would this be a shockernet specific policy? Because if it's a shockernet specific policy, then what's to prevent someone from saying "my site wide rule is that you must agree with me to post" or whatever it is and then delete various viewpoints. But we're like 5 posts in and you have yet to recognize that you are absolutely increasing hurdles for folks like KW. You are radically transforming the way libel laws work and creating fact questions that will be very difficult to defeat. And you haven't once said what evidence you'd look to. What is the evidence that Twitter deserves to be subjected to libel laws? Because Doc couldn't find some conservative retired military guy?

Yeah, assuming Tulsi Gabbard's allegations are correct, that's bad. The Westboro Baptist Church is bad. Doesn't mean I don't think they're allowed to do what they do, though. I do happen to think that Gabbard probably gains a lot more from the publicity of the lawsuit than she ever will in monetary damages. I also suspect it's a little column A and a little column B (as most things tend to be) when we're talking about why it happened. I also think search is very different from social media sites, and I think Google can and should be addressed in different ways. Google is a monopoly and a near-necessity. I see no reason not to regulate Google the way utilities are regulated. But that's an entirely different subject.

I just think the internet tends to be a young place, for the most part (though, if you only frequent shockernet, you might have a different opinion). And therefore the internet tends to be a fairly liberal place by and large. Sites are always going to have liberal leanings, and liberal posts are going to easily outnumber conservative postings. Conservatives who are internet savvy feel outnumbered and that's a crappy feeling. So they are asking for government intervention in this area. Like, we're talking about people that defend the idea that Hobby Lobby has free speech rights, and these same people are trying to make sure that Facebook and Twitter are subjected to libel laws for what its users say?

Part of the law answers sentence 1 and 2. The rest of paragraph 1 addressing something else that I didn’t say.

No issues with paragraph 2. Fair enough I say.

As to straw man paragraph 3, under my proposed regulations, if you are a platform, you have no free speech. Everything posted is someone else’s speech. If, as a social media website, you wish to express your speech, then you are a publisher and open to libel laws. You are selecting what gets promoted or silenced, and are thereby expressing their speech. Hobby Lobby is likewise subject to libel laws.

[1972Shocker]

Twitter Is Suspending People Who Name The Whistleblower

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/...whistleblower/