[phylt]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

The amount of control these tech companies have over framing your viewpoint is criminal.

google-is-again-trying-to-interfere-

Try DuckDuckGo. I get much better search results, far less censored.

[Topspinmo]

Google in business to make money with information they gather. Same with FB, Wikipedia, and dozens more. If it’s free they are selling your information to other businesses. Do google search on product and you will get adds from other companies almost instantly. Don’t become billionaire’s by offering free service. Nothing free, they underlining profit.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Ah good catch/translation. The spelling and grammar on this board are atrocious.

So are many of the ideas and concepts.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

Companies do what is financially in their best interest.
As far as conspiracy theories, there are facts and falsehoods.
People will believe what they have predetermine to be the truth.
If something does not conform to what they already believe it is a conspiracy.

True that MOST people have closed minds about many or most subjects, but that's not everyone. Some people do NOT fall into 2 major groups of thought and they are capable of changing their minds after researching a subject. In other words, all opinions are NOT fixed in STONE.

[roadrnnr]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I was going along with that post (to be fair) up until the last sentence about CNN NOT being credible. Sorry amigo, but CNN is more credible than Foxie Loxie or all the Russian-initiated so-called NEWS? on those STRANGE far-right channels or wherever they are located.

And Herein lies the problem when half the population believes Main Stream media is credible and Fall for all the Propaganda.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by roadrnnr

And Herein lies the problem when half the population believes Main Stream media is credible and Fall for all the Propaganda.

Very true, objectivity by the media is long gone. Reporters think we really want their point of view. Opinions belong on editorial page nowhere else.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JRcorvette

Google is the worst offender but other search engines like Yahoo do the same. You could switch to a different browser such as Brave or Mozilla and also use Duck Duck Go.

I believe that Google needs to be broken up like they did to AT&T years ago.

If the tax tables were more progressive like in the 1950s we would have no need to break up big corporations or wealthy individuals. Taxes would have done that automatically, but the super-rich weaseled their way into the Federal government and changed the tax tables to favor the rich in about 2000 and around 2010. And now the US is racing toward a Dictatorship of the rich with no middle class.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bridget Eichaker

CNN total garbage, waste of my time

Those who say CNN is garbage must prefer to watch propaganda.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I personally, LOVE to relax my mind by thinking about grasshoppers - Ah, grasshoppers flying in a golden field of milo in Nebraska, as I concentrate my focus on my dogs working to kick up those "waskelly" pheasants.
..........PS.....Don't you mean A.I. standing for artificial intelligence? Not IA standing for........????? idiots in an audience ???????

I am corrected AI it is

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Very true, objectivity by the media is long gone. Reporters think we really want their point of view. Opinions belong on editorial page nowhere else.

Very true. The problem is that today most of the sources are so good at slanting their articles a certain way, by presenting what they present in a certain way, that our opinions are swayed without even being conscious of the fact.

It doesn't have to be written (or spoken) words. Most print articles appearing online these days have a picture next to the headline. Ever wonder why so many of them have the subject of the article pictured in a very unfavorable manner? A headline slanted a certain way accompanied by an unflattering picture next to that headline can solidify the opinion of the reader of the article a certain way before Word One of the article is ever even read. Happens all the time.

Another example: say two articles present precisely the same information, nearly word-for-word. Say that the article concerns a retiring public figure. The first article refers to the subject as a "venerable statesman" while the second might refer to the subject as an "aging politician. Don't know about the rest of you, but to me, "venerable statesman" conjures up the mental of image of, say, Sir Winston Churchill. Aging politician? Teddy Kennedy.

There are many other ways our opinions are swayed. These are two of the most obvious. But don't doubt that swaying one way or the other for a minute. And it is happening to all of us.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Susan1717

Try typing in Newsmax first to get any of their articles. They are all I watch now and I feel tell more of a whole story instead of leaving out impirtants facts.

Wow, so google gives you the articles you ask for, without manipulating the results to give you some spin on your request?

How is that even possible, if google manipulates the results?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Getting tired of the same old ads. Google Victoria's Secrets and for the next several days google will show ladies lingerie.

And that explains exactly what is happening when you do a google search.

On the other hand, you COULD use an ad blocker, and just not see those ads unless "victoria secret ads" are what you're looking for.

In addition - don't be surprised if, within the next week or two, you start seeing ads right here on Talk of the Villages from lingerie companies.

Why? Because those words exist within recent posts. That's how Adsense works. You should look that up, if you don't know what it is.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Frustrating? Yes. But criminal? Hardly. There really hasn't been a time in our history when information presented to Joe Public, at least to a certain extent, HASN'T been sifted or cherry-picked by media to present a certain face. Search "yellow journalism" for just one example of such activity going back to the late 19th century. But that is just one example among many others, and the yellow journalists of that time faced plenty of opposition from news sources printing opposing views.

The issue here however is not so much that a Google search is apt to yield results heavily skewed in a certain direction (that has been known for quite some time) but that a monopoly on disseminated information means that it has become progressively harder and harder to find information on the internet that might contradict the stuff most readily available in a Google search. This seems to be the case most often when it relates to "social" issues. Try searching Google for any information that contradicts the accepted line du jour on just about any social issue and this will become obvious. The problem is that, when you're the only game in town, you can pretty successfully slam the door on any info. that you might not want Joe Public to see.

Google of course is not the "only game in town" when it comes to the availability of information on the internet. But it is far and away the largest. In 2018 Google handled no less than 90.8% of all internet searches (Jeff Desjardins, "This Chart Reveals Google’s True Dominance Over the Web", visualcapitalist dot com, April 20, 2018) and I doubt that that dominance has shrunk in the past five years. Additionally, Google owns and controls the content of Youtube, "the second biggest social media in the world, with over 2.7 billion active users" (demandsage dot com, February 2023 statistics). Finally, Google and FaceBook, the LARGEST social media platform on theplanet, which though ostensibly independent of one another, have formed a "partnership": ("Facebook and Google announced that they will be partnering to bring Facebook's retargeting platform, Facebook Exchange, to Google's Doubleclick." (bigfootprintdigital dot com, Oct. 25, 2022). All this means that Google, through its search engine and control over YouTube alone, controls what is available to nearly 3 BILLION people worldwide and if one adds in its influence over FaceBook, their dominance is huge--AND scary--AND undeniable.

I have begun collecting print books relating to issues, primarily social, that offer more complete pictures of those issues than what is available online. These will go to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren when that time comes. But even this, due to the surging popularity of e-books, is becoming harder and harder to accomplish. And how long will it take for even these books to be deemed "undesirable" and worthy of censure/destruction?

I don't know. Time will tell, I guess, and there seems to be less and less of that all the time.

"censure/destruction" will depend on what happens Nov. 2024.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Google in business to make money with information they gather. Same with FB, Wikipedia, and dozens more. If it’s free they are selling your information to other businesses. Do google search on product and you will get adds from other companies almost instantly. Don’t become billionaire’s by offering free service. Nothing free, they underlining profit.

I don't get ads from anyone on google search, UNLESS I click the "shopping" category. When I do that, it's because I'm actively seeking ads.

If I type in "florida long-neck turtle" I don't get ads for TMNT toys. I get links to Wikipedia, various agriculture and animal websites, some links to pest control websites, and an option to see thousands of images of florida long-neck turtles.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by montysl

People really only need to use their eyes, ears and brains to observe the manipulation. Watch any Congressional hearing and/or session on any source. Now granted, one must be willing to do this WITHOUT your own agenda, but, if you do, THEN pose a question to Google using ANY phrasing, ANY word combination of your choice regarding what you have just seen with your own two eyes and heard with your own two ears and determine for yourself the bias level that exists. Then do the same on several other search engines and check the results! It’s a simple experiment but the differences will likely amaze you! I understand that those that desperately want a certain result will use whatever means necessary to justify the obvious bias but that can’t be helped. TRUTH will out.

That would be a lot of work for a very small knowledge reward. Maybe if I got paid to do something like that?