Patterico's Pontifications


Google Considers Ranking Sites According to Political Correctness, I Mean, Truthfulness

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:01 am

We all want Web sites to be truthful. But Google is considering trying to impose its version of the truth on the Internet:

In a step that critics worry will inject political bias into search results, a Google research team released a report this month on ranking search results based on how factual websites are. They propose eventually using that to change Google rankings, which are currently based on website popularity.

The Google researchers give, as an example, websites that say President Obama was born in Kenya; such sites would be penalized in Google rankings, whereas sites that correctly say he was born in the U.S. would get a boost in rankings.

That fact is not controversial, but critics worry that this is a first step towards Google playing God and effectively censoring content it does not like. They fear that skeptics of things like climate change or more immigration (both subjects that Google founders have expressed strong feelings about) might find their websites buried if this ranking system were adopted.

“I worry about this issue greatly… My site gets a significant portion of its daily traffic from Google,” Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims, told

“It is a very slippery and dangerous slope because there’s no arguing with a machine,” he added.

This is indeed a very dangerous road. How bad is it? This bad:

The Google researchers base their truth-ratings on a database they compiled called the “Knowledge Vault,” built from sources they deemed relatively trustworthy – such as Wikipedia and Freebase, which are crowd-sourced sites they believe are largely self-correcting, and government websites.

There are currently 2.8 billion Google “facts” in Knowledge Vault, which the researchers used for their ranking system.

Yes. If you contradict Wikipedia, your site is falsehood-filled and worthless. Just to take one example: Wikipedia is the site that continually deleted a description of Brett Kimberlin as “a convicted drug dealer, bomber, and political activist.” Among the “facts” that were once approved about Kimberlin: “Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction…”

You can see why it’s important to keep truths about his bombing away from the public’s eyes, while characterizing any discussion of it as “hounding.” Surely you see that, do you not, comrade? And if not, well, nice page ranking you got there . . .

And, as noted above, any Unapproved Opinions about global warming or immigration are right out.

Better that Google be the one to try this, rather than the federal government. If Google tries it, we can use a different search engine. But if the FCC tries to impose it, we are in a tougher spot, aren’t we?

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.

82 Responses to “Google Considers Ranking Sites According to Political Correctness, I Mean, Truthfulness”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. if fascists wanted truth there’d be a market for it in the american media

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  3. If Google tries it, we can use a different search engine. But if the FCC tries to impose it, we are in a tougher spot, aren’t we?

    No. Google is competent and efficient and the government is not. Google will do a much better job of controlling our information than government could. And we have Ted Cruzes and Mike Lees on the “board of directors” of the government. We don’t have them on the board of directors of Google.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. The Internet was supposed to be the great equalizer for democracy. Finally, the voiceless could have a voice. So I guess it isn’t surprising that the same old bullies are trying to suppress that. They might as well just let the good people at Attack Watch run this initiative.

    JVW (854318)

  5. I suppose that an intermediate approach would be for Google to steer clear of altering its search results in that way, but maybe put an asterisk or something next to search results that contain false information. And if Google is incorrect then a website should be able to sue Google for defamation.

    Andrew (6f1bd9)

  6. I’m torn. Of course, you can always choose a search engine that is not google.

    Just as an example, Drudge regularly links to non-reality-based websites like Alex Jones. So, filtering those out would be good. Over time, wikipedia seems to correct itself.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  7. after google sanitizes the internet maybe they can sanitize hillary clinton’s butt

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  8. Of course, you can always choose a search engine that is not google.

    Such as? Yahoo is Google-based. So is DuckDuckGo. Mozilla exists on Google’s handouts. Bing? It’s got a long way to go. Apple does too (judging from Apple maps), and that one’s from the frying pan into the fire in my view.

    nk (dbc370)


    While GGLE might be restrained by lawsuits, a gov’t would not be so constrained.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  10. re #8: nk, wow are you out of date.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  11. It’s the other way around. Google cannot be restrained by lawsuits. It can publish whatever it wants within the bounds of New York Times vs. Sullivan.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Which search engines do you recommend, seeRpea? I have been looking for an alternative to Google for a couple of years.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. The FCC will rely on it and regulate web content for “truthiness”. Google needs to put the brakes on this, it will help accelerate suppression of speech by the government.

    SarahW (267b14)

  14. nk – Yahoo was google-based maybe 15 years ago?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  15. I don’t know when they plan on putting that idea into effect but I’ve noticed
    that lately Google doesn’t come back with results I would’ve expected for the
    first page of hits.

    Things or topics that would’ve brought certain other sites to the fore in the past
    now bring up stuff I can’t even tell why it was so high in the rankings to make
    the first page.

    It’s a gut feeling since of course I can’t prove it’s happening but I’ve been very
    disappointed about my searches of late and had to refine/revise them to get the
    results I would’ve expected in the past.

    They’re typical libs; they screw around and put themselves out of business or make
    themselves too much trouble to use and they’ll fall in popularity.

    Which is okay by me.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  16. re #12: yahoo is bing based, has been for years. duckduckgo for quite a while uses an amalgamation,
    Mozilla and Ggle partnership ended last year.

    I don’t recommend search engines, it is like keyboards. way too much up to personal taste. I will say I avoid straight Ggle when i can as they are a form of evil.

    My recommendation is to search for a common word (pizza) and see which results you prefer among:
    Bing, duckduckgo, dogpile, StartPage and whatever your browser offers.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  17. ==Just as an example, Drudge regularly links to non-reality-based websites like Alex Jones. So, filtering those out would be good. ==

    Yes, and Drudge also regularly links to other non-reality based websites like the NYT. Many people believe filtering that out would be good, too. Who do you propose should be put in charge of these decisions about “truth”? What criteria or standards should they use and what scholarship or credentials should they have in order to get the job? If google would start by saying they’ll nuke for any later search every article and dribble of it that has been officially retracted by the author or the original site, I’d think they are more sincere about “truth”. (See Jezebel and Daily Beast retraction of last week for example, where it is still possible to link or excerpt from the original articles via google.)

    elissa (d2bc26)

  18. Thank you. I started out with Yahoo (maybe — Webcrawler? Alta Vista?) so it’s sentimental favorite. I’ll give it a try.

    I didn’t know that about Mozilla, either. So that’s why Yahoo is the default engine on my Firefox. I am behind the times.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. re #17: ditto
    re #18: your welcome. I will add that i find that Bing does less figuring out what i’m trying to look for and more just looking for what i entered in. They would side with the textual over intent content of the law argument 🙂

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  20. Hmmm, maybe the Koch brothers or a kick starter campaign ought to start a new effort for a browser.
    As long as there are people involved, there will be bias. The best that can hoped for is that people recognize their bias and are not afraid to show the opposing views.

    That does not describe libs.

    Maybe we should get that Mozilla guy to start a new browser, though I bet he would be harassed by lawfare claiming he was infringing on Mozilla intellectual property.
    And while he was at it, a stable OS and basic document programs that will not change except for minor tweaks, but will communicate with MS version whatever.

    I would pay a subscription for it. I bet a lot of people do.

    Can I patent this idea?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  21. And Yahoo did have a photo of Eve Longoria on its homepage just now, instead of a reminder that it’s Momofuku Ando’s 105th birthday. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  22. While we are at it, a related question came up.
    Is there a way “they” figure out to jack up plane ticket prices if you search too many times without buying them? we’ve been doing a lot of looking for a Caribbean island where son #2 is doing a destination wedding. today the prices were higher than before, but when my wife did the same search on one of my daughters devices for the same ticket she found a significantly cheaper price for the same flight.

    related, the second book of an interesting trilogy called “The Omega Series” just came out (jb simmons, I think is the author). In it the advanced equivalent of a smart phone has become directly connected into your nervous system.
    of course that means someone knows where everyone is and what they are up to, but since the benefits are so great only a few people choose to go “off grid”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  23. altavista was my search engine back in the day, and they just went out of business.

    elissa – fair points. let me think about it.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  24. I think Google’s lawyers will put some brakes on this.
    Suppose I am looking for info on a medical condition. If Google ranks by truthiness* then Google is by default telling me which info is valid. And when someone makes a medical decision based on that, and something goes wrong…Google gets sued.
    That is addition to the defamation lawsuits mentioned earlier.

    *not a typo

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  25. MD..was it the same search engine on both devices? And do you flush your caches and cookies frequently?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  26. A low score would be a badge of honor.

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  27. I want corrected and retracted stories to stay online so we know who makes mistakes. How else will we know who is and isn’t trustworthy? The goal should be transparency, not censorship/filtering.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  28. MD,

    I think kiss is right that it’s reading your cookies.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  29. Kishnevi became kiss. That’s kind of cute.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  30. Chortle.
    You are quite correct in what you said at #27.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  31. Thanks for the idea.
    no, I don’t flush caches and cookies on my wife’s machine often, as last time I did I also erased all of the passwords, even though I thought I told it not to….

    As far as that suing Google thing,
    even if you could prove google somehow caused the death of your spouse and everyone knew it,
    what success do you think you would have suing them if they wanted to fight it?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  32. The goal should be transparency, not censorship/filtering.
    DRJ (e80d46) — 3/6/2015 @ 9:19 am

    That’s a chortle and a roll on the floor laughing for some,
    though I of course agree 100%

    Those of us who really value truth and transparency rarely talk about it, it’s just how we do it.
    Those who like to talk about it, like our president, well…

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  33. MD, it is the exposure…to everyone in the whole wide world. Including Nigeria and other bastions of judicial integrity. Defending against one nuisance suit is not the same level. And every case will be Big Evil Megacorp vs. Poor Liitle Sob Sister Jane

    kishnevi (adea75)

  34. DRJ–when any unscrupulous and partisan site continues to copy the original story or large pieces of it as if it had not been retracted and/or without mentioning a retraction how is that embracing transparency? How does that allow some wronged person to get their reputation back? It’s only “transparency” if readers actually bother to go to a search site and verify the retraction status of each and every linked story on each and every site. Who does that. Nobody. Of course, notice of a public retraction, date and why and who authored it, should be there and searchable. But why should the actual contents of the original retracted factually proven false malicious story still pop up and be available for exploitation into infinity?

    elissa (d2bc26)

  35. The left never sleeps. While this revelation may be harmless or even fade quickly away (and, as noted: there are other search engines) it represents another of the thousand leftist cuts against those who don’t subscribe to their religion.

    Beasts of England (d99a4b)

  36. As far as that suing Google thing,
    even if you could prove google somehow caused the death of your spouse and everyone knew it,
    what success do you think you would have suing them if they wanted to fight it?

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/6/2015 @ 9:29 am

    They’ll buy the judge. They’ll buy the witnesses and the jury. They already own “the truth”.
    And if that don’t work they’ll just stretch it out until you die of old age.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. I am sure there could be a way to encapsulate the original(and erroneous) story inside a border or as a block quote or something:
    Here is the original article including the slanderous errors:
    blah blah blah

    yeah, I guess “slanderous” would need to read a little differently.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  38. Beasts of England (d99a4b) — 3/6/2015 @ 9:51 am

    That’s one of the big problems. People who largely play by the rules stop trying when they are told, “You can’t do that”.
    Others just hear that as a challenge to find another way to cheat.

    There’s something written about serpents and who is more clever/sly in their dealings with others.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  39. I didn’t know that about Mozilla, either. So that’s why Yahoo is the default engine on my Firefox. I am behind the times.

    Google ended their association with Mozilla in response to Mozilla forcing out Brandon Eich for making a political donation in favor of traditional marriage.

    Nah, just kidding. The world sadly doesn’t work that way.

    JVW (854318)

  40. That anyone thinks that Wikipedia self-corrects in the direction of “true” rather than “believed” they are fools who have not even read Wikipedia’s mission statement.

    Wikipedia tries to be verifiable. Not correct, not true, not reality. None of those things are relevant. What the “reliable sources” say is what Wikipedia tries to say.

    Google seems to have finally dropped the “don’t be evil” mask.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  41. it appears “truthfulness” doesn’t mean what it used to mean.

    at least not in #Failifornia, anyway.

    you know you’ve overstepped when even the 9th Circus says you’ve gone too far…

    redc1c4 (6d1848)

  42. Nomiki Konst’s comments are as spooky as we might expect. They can’t shut us up quickly enough.

    AZ_Langer (a65cb5)

  43. It would be nice if all websites issued public corrections when there are mistakes, but they don’t and some of them never will. Authorizing Google or any search company to retract websites that don’t meet certain standards serves the interests of censors, not readers, because then the search companies have a reason to pull results they find objectionable. (Of course, they can still do it and I know they tinker with their browsers to benefit some results over less preferred results, but I don’t want to give them authority to do it.)

    It’s the equivalent of saying I like big government as long as I or someone I like runs it. I don’t like big government because it doesn’t work, and we are all abused when someone we don’t like runs it. That goes ditto for internet search engines. Don’t give them more power by letting them tinker with things more than they already do. Instead of talking about ranking sites, push Google and other search engines to tell us what they do and how they do it.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  44. The answer to an online mistake or lie is to publish why its wrong or a lie, and do everything you can to get that result to show up in a search for that person/lie. Not talking about something doesn’t make it go away.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  45. Didn’t Kimberlin ask the courts to order websites to take down stories about him? At least in the courts there is oversight. I don’t want that power in Google’s hands any more than it already is.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  46. Just as an example, Drudge regularly links to non-reality-based websites like Alex Jones. So, filtering those out would be good. Over time, wikipedia seems to correct itself.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 3/6/2015 @ 7:24 am

    Wikipedia did make the mistake of removing the following truthful info: “[Gloria] Allred was born in Philadelphia, on July 3, 1941 with cloven hooves and horns on her head, as well as the markings of “666” on the crown of her skull…”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. I don’t want to sound unsympathetic to concerns about the damage online stories can do. They hurt everyday people and famous people. Some people have committed suicide over online stories/posts. Other people have lost their jobs and I’m sure there are many examples. But I don’t think the answer to online mistakes or lies is to give companies even more power to decide what we see and read. The goal should always be transparency and the more we remember that, the more likely we will end up with appropriate policies and laws.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  48. In 2013, Edward Snowden exposed how the NSA listened in on our telephone calls. Alex Jones’s website reported in 2012 that an NSA whistleblower claimed the NSA was storing our telephone and email communications, and had the ability to search them for keywords. I’m not saying Jones is always right but he has been right about something big, so why is it right to censor him and not (for example) the Clintons.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  49. “websites that say President Obama was born in Kenya;”

    You mean, like Obama’s bio page at his publisher till 2007?

    The problem isn’t so much that the Google “facts” will lean left — the MSM has been deploying its own leftwing “vault” for decades now — the problem is this is another attempt to define truth. Crowdsourcing might be a step up from fact-checkers, but if “untrue” opinions are popular, who is going to decide that, say, chiropracty or acupuncture is treated like evolution?

    TallDave (8efa5b)

  50. Can websites/individuals adversely affected gin up a class action suit against Google for defamation? I am not a lawyer – but it seems like a plausible issue. It is not a machine applying the rankings, it is the individuals – employees of Google — who are agents of the company who set the rules. An adverse ranking on Google is almost a per se harm. Google is implicitly calling out people as liars. As the ultimate deep pocket entity, this is not necessarily a shrewd move for Google if it in fact exposes them. There are plenty of jurisdictions even on the federal level where Google does not necessarily have an automatic advantage. And discovery alone exposes Google to losing some control over its proprietary algorithms.

    Mark (5c9744)

  51. I think it is wrong thinking to conflate what google is proposing with respect to making judgement calls in managing/weighting its version of the truth or rumors (as described with examples in the thread intro), with my aside about how specific fully and officially retracted articles might be better handled on line to mitigate further damage or harm to the lied about person or group. In the first instance the idea that articles about tea party policies might be weighted by invisible partisan google censors as being generally lesser in value than liberal policies, and placed accordingly in the search results is why that proposal must be fought— because it is censorship. In the second instance, removing a retracted article from general search circulation seems to me to be a case of righting the record as opposed to being any form of censorship. I will give this some more thought and I hope that you will, too, DRJ. Particularly, please consider if it were you or one of your family members that was egregiously lied about and you had fought back hard and succeeded in getting the piece retracted.

    elissa (d2bc26)

  52. Hawaii was not a state when Obama was born. It’s semantics whether or nor he was born in the U.S.

    erp (f8effe)

  53. re ‘prices being gamed by multiple looks’:
    If you are not logged in as a user, best way to avoid ticket inflation in these cases is to use the
    “Private Option” browsing in your browser, then closing the ‘Private’ browser windows before repeating.

    seeRpea (181740)

  54. Obama doesn’t love America this is a fact you stupid googletards so you better rank this page really really high

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  55. erp (f8effe), I believe Obama was born a couple of years after statehood was granted.

    AZ_Langer (a65cb5)

  56. @erp: “Hawaii was not a state when Obama was born. It’s semantics whether or nor he was born in the U.S.”

    No, sorry, that’s just flat wrong. Hawaii was admitted to the union August 21, 1959. Obama was born, wherever he was born, August 4, 1961.

    Cloudbuster (1350a2)

  57. Let’s say Barack was born in Kenya. Narobi downtown with the relatives all in attendance. Got a super8 of him squirting out and one of those plaster of paris casts of his little footsies on the mantle in Grandma’s yert.

    Ann Dunham was still his mother. Frank Davis was still born in Kansas.

    If you press the dude to tell the real story of his father.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  58. Great to learn of the demise of Google. That’s a no win game. And I’ll be sure to avoid the service as much as I can. But it will be their own progressive allies that chew Google up in that game.

    Stan (e36cf1)

  59. The closest he ever got to danger or serving in a “Navy”…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  60. Hope and Change, Col.

    mg (31009b)

  61. seeRpea (181740) — 3/6/2015 @ 11:55 am

    Thanks for that info.

    Can anything really be “retracted” from the internet once it has been put on line? Aren’t the odds in favor of it still being somewhere somehow, ready to reemerge?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  62. Will Google penalize websites that accurately report Obama’s false claim to have been born in Kenya, right up until he ran for president?

    Jim Treacher (a38bd2)

  63. Obama was born, wherever he was born, August 4, 1961.

    point of order: Obola wasn’t born, he was inflicted.

    redc1c4 (589173)

  64. Apologies to John Fogerty…

    Now when I was just a little guy standin’ to my Daddy’s knee
    My Poppa said son don’t let the Man get you and do what he done to me
    ‘Cause he’ll get you ’cause he hates teh Mau Mau

    And I don’t remember the fourth of July, cuz my commie momma dint care
    And I can still hear my old hound dog howlin’, fearin’ that I’d eat him rare
    Fearin’ that I’d eat him rare

    Born in teh Kenya
    Born in teh Kenya
    Born in teh Kenya

    Wish I was back in Malaysia eatin’ that canine cuisine
    Wishin’ I had a big Great Dane they’re kinda chewy, but teh meat is pretty lean

    Born in teh Kenya
    Born in teh Kenya
    Born in teh Kenya

    And I don’t remember the fourth of July, cuz my commie momma dint care
    And I can still hear my old hound dog howlin’, fearin’ that I’d eat him rare
    Fearin’ that I’d eat him rare

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. Google has long had a problem with tilting its results . Years ago, I gave up on Google News when I noticed how many top-ranked stories were from CNS—the official news service of China’s repressive one-party government. Google gave various reasons for how it ranked sources but my hunch was that “controls a large market for our products” was an unstated one.

    At any rate, I quit visiting them altogether when I saw that they were sourcing stories about the Atlanta runaway bride not from Atlanta papers but from their old buddy, CNS—meaning China. That was so hilariously stupid, I decided they weren’t even worth consulting.

    I sure the scheme will have Google pandering in other ways, not the least of which, in the current context, is the Obama administration.

    Michael W. Perry (98518b)

  66. “Hmmm, maybe the Koch brothers or a kick starter campaign ought to start a new effort for a browser.”

    Why a new browser?

    sing (bbbfe8)

  67. elissa:

    Particularly, please consider if it were you or one of your family members that was egregiously lied about and you had fought back hard and succeeded in getting the piece retracted.

    I said above that I’m sympathetic with people who are victimized, but I’m not a fan of making policy based on emotion and that’s essentially what you are asking me to do. If members of my family were the targets, I might decide the best solution is to prohibit everything that attacks or criticizes other people — we could call it my version of the Mohammed Rule — but I don’t think that’s the best policy. That’s also why (unlike some countries) we don’t want the victims or the victim’s family deciding what is the best punishment for a perpetrator. The rule of law is not supposed to be based on emotion.

    Obviously there are going to be problems, risks and even threats with new technology like the internet, but libel isn’t a new concept. I’m comfortable with considering new ways to deal with online libel, but I’m leery of entrusting Google and other providers with even more power to decide what we can and can’t read. I’d much rather have a Wild West internet than that.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  68. re #67: i think it was early in the morning and the OP meant search engine.
    to me, it would be nice if someone could come up with a version of pageRank and then leave it alone. maybe tweak it once a year, letting people know when the tweak is coming and what the tweak is.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  69. re #68: it happened to me, but not in a web article but in a Usenet posting.
    Couldn’t get Ggle to take it out and eradicate it (Ggle owns the Deja Usenet archive)

    so for the past 15 years i’ve kept my privacy guard and protocols way up.

    seeRpea (b6bbec)

  70. sing a/k/a imdw is a troll. Don’t take anything it says seriously.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. obama’s birthplace is not a fact ……. google will give the far left sites the best ratings and the rest downhill from there … the best solution, use a different search engine

    Deserttrek (65eeec)

  72. Jim Treacher —- You be careful out there amongst the heathen.
    They’ll kick your butt for sledding, so I’m told.

    Can’t imagine what they’d do to you for dancing.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  73. Yeah, I’m very leery of google having responsibility for any of that, too. But on-line libel was not what I hoped you’d think about and address, DRJ. Just using a recent example, I don’t think the Jezebel story concerning Gov. Walker that was repeated by Daily Beast and posted both before and after its retraction on dozens of other sites and thousands of facebook pages falls into the category of libel. Yet it clearly affected his campaign on a very sensitive topic. So apparently in your view there’s no relief to be had for Walker and other cases like his? Why did he even bother to get the retraction? If we cannot find some way to sanely address or correct lies about specific, verifiable things that have been printed and hyped before they were actually retracted, then we’re going to see more and more of it. More fun games with sloppy journalism or intentional “oopsies” by unscrupulous actors that when they’re caught can be “fixed” by an apology that almost no one ever sees. I’m not as sanguine about ignoring the Wild West aspects of the Internet as some. Obviously I don’t have an answer or I wouldn’t be bringing it up, but I think we need to start considering ways that we can protect ourselves that do not involve google censors. There must be something.

    elissa (5cae8d)

  74. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/6/2015 @ 3:38 pm
    He did NOT accept your apology.

    And yes, I did mean search engine, not browser.

    But I did also mean OS. Buy a subscription to “Old Faithful” OS for so much a month and it stays the same except for tweaks that improve on it, not whole sale remakes, and it keeps compatibility with MS 2,583 3rd version.

    Like having Windows 98, or XP, that never gets put out to pasture.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  75. UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  76. Don’t forget that huge numbers of Google employees implemented, or at the very least, were knowlwedgeable about, the NSA’s (under Obama) massive domestic spying operation where they basically evesdropped on every single cell phone call and email message in the US–and not one single Google’s employee (or Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) so much as leaked a peep about it. These tech types may talk a great line about openness and freedom, but under that thin veneer lies a strong, Leftist “control the masses” streak.

    FrancisChalk (1e31fd)

  77. i’m pretty sure the quoting of fox news violates their posted copyright laws. While i don’t have any worries about the financial hardship of fox news, you might be a bit more careful-they have plenty of time, lawyers, and money.

    grub (db83fc)

  78. But I like to go to quickly go to wiki for some basic facts!

    Mark (4547af)

  79. The problem with truth ratings is truth can get very subjective, especially when leftists become involved in any ratings. Since most of silicon valley is leftist dominated, I definitely would not want anybody there rating for “truth”. Even sites like Wiki are highly variable in truth quality, since some of their entries get taken over by ideological cabals combined with a biased wiki editor. If the concern is to downgrade things that almost everybody agrees is false you will need ways to ensure ideological balance. One way it might work is to include a wide degree of idealogies onthe truth panel, and only label something false if all agree it is. For example, have panelists approved by Heritage, Reason, Instapundit, Fox, some prominent tea party groups, NPR, CNN, the 3 networks, the NYT, WIKI, etc, but only label something false if all of them agree (or perhaps a set majority, determined by each user). Also make falsity filtering an optional setting (including who must agree to label something false) you must choose, so you only get it if you want it and believe in it.

    richard40 (53f0a0)

  80. Must be some o’ dat nets neutrality dey keeps talkin’ ’bout. Yeah, just try to prove to me logically, based on facts, that that POS barky wasn’t born in Kenya. All his records are sealed, and every birth certificate he’s displayed has been demonstrated to be a forgery within minutes. Hawaii was well known to have sold birth certificates to whomever wanted them, and now there’s a body trail to go with that. I wouldn’t even trust him as far as I could see him. I just presume everything he says is a lie, and haven’t found any exceptions to that so far.

    Mr Evilwrench (a191b3)

  81. Fantastic web site. Lots of useful information here. I’m sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thanks in your effort!

    Dedicated Server (9dfb8f)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1063 secs.