[jbartle1]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.

[Hape2Bhr]

Originally Posted by jbartle1

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate.

[justjim]

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

[jbartle1]

Originally Posted by justjim

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

There you are, "Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind", Amen!!!!

[Ecuadog]

Originally Posted by Hape2Bhr

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate.

I think DuckDuckGo is less biased.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Hape2Bhr

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate.

They do exactly that. Their software analyzes what you search for and what you read and put more weight on those than other selections. So, if you normally go to liberal leaning sites, they show you those, if you normally go to right leaning sites, they show you those. If you normally go to cooking sites they should you those.

They are only interested in making money, and they do that by providing you with links that keep you using them. If you believe they have an agenda, well, there it is money, they want more of it.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Ecuadog

I think DuckDuckGo is less biased.

It is in a sense, that it does not use your browsing history to add weight to the listings it thinks you want to read. Googles only interest in prioritizing listings is to make you happy and so they make more money. Any other suggestions are just another conspiracy.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by justjim

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

So true, both the opinion and the quote.

I ask myself everyday, what if "they" are correct. Sadly for the most part THEY are not. But, sometimes THEY are, and I have some soul searching to do...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.

You should take a look at The Guardian (a bit lefty, but they try to be fair) and BBC. Neither have paywalls yet.
In defense of paywall, these news sites do have to pay their bills. The supported free viewing for a long time but I fully understand why they stopped. Used to pay for a newspaper, now pay to see decent, vetted news online.

[Hape2Bhr]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.

I found similar results with Bing, I've been using Bing for a while now (I like their daily quizzes and changing homepages). However I've noticed that even though FN far outnumbers CNN viewership, I rarely see the FN version listed on the 1st page. And I don't like that FN updates their homepage every minute or so; so I've avoided it if possible. Sometimes Bing only lists 4 or 5 results on the 1st page, which baffles me.

Who/what is "the gateway pundit"?

[TSO/ISPF]

Originally Posted by jdulej

You should take a look at The Guardian (a bit lefty, but they try to be fair) and BBC. Neither have paywalls yet.
In defense of paywall, these news sites do have to pay their bills. The supported free viewing for a long time but I fully understand why they stopped. Used to pay for a newspaper, now pay to see decent, vetted news online.

digital times subscription is 1 dollar a week.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

They do exactly that. Their software analyzes what you search for and what you read and put more weight on those than other selections. So, if you normally go to liberal leaning sites, they show you those, if you normally go to right leaning sites, they show you those. If you normally go to cooking sites they should you those.

They are only interested in making money, and they do that by providing you with links that keep you using them. If you believe they have an agenda, well, there it is money, they want more of it.

There lot of money in in two party system. How else do they get rich running there mouths.

[Topspinmo]

Imo in today’s environment they no actual fact checking. It’s either us or them facts moves the facts to opinions. Actually the only facts are seen by the one observing. Now the problem lies when they tell the story and how that story interpreted. Just cause you read about it or buy book and read it don’t make it true.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Hape2Bhr

I found similar results with Bing, I've been using Bing for a while now (I like their daily quizzes and changing homepages). However I've noticed that even though FN far outnumbers CNN viewership, I rarely see the FN version listed on the 1st page. And I don't like that FN updates their homepage every minute or so; so I've avoided it if possible. Sometimes Bing only lists 4 or 5 results on the 1st page, which baffles me.

Who/what is "the gateway pundit"?

Gateway Pundit is an alt-right extremist conspiracy website that is known to publish complete fiction, and pass it off as news. Sort of like if the Onion wasn't kidding.