Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I love how Israel has become a sort of reverse scapegoat

Someone says there are problems in the middle east? They are CLEARLY blaming it all on Israel and Jews!

I mean... it isn't like the Middle East is a region that includes well over ten countries... It is actually split into two territories: Israel and Not Israel.

Iran, a region of Not Israel, only has one major export "Hatred" and its major trading partner is Israel.

Israel, as part of the reverse scapegoat, has become this odd blackhole of impunity because "Not Israel is worse!" as well.

---

So can we start doing that with American Politics?

Trump is a good president because Iran's leader is worse!

[ChairmanPoo]

Who's the president of Iran nowadays anyway?

Must be a singularily uninteresting guy as he hasn't made the news at any point in the last year, unlike Ahma-whatever, who managed to make it to the headlines at least every month

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fellow by the name of Hassan Rouhani, and yes, he somewhat lacks the flamboyancy of Mahmoud "Death To All Americas" Ahmadinejad. It's less that Rouhani is uninteresting and more that he's not an extreme agitator like Ahmadinejad, and it helps that Rouhani is popularly considered to be part of the reformist rather than traditionalist sphere in Iran.

He and Obama have been playing the diplomatic version of a Facebook poking war for a few years now, but what with Orange and his Iran hateboner about to enter the White House who knows how things will go. It'd be some shit for Obama to up and reopen the embassies right before inauguration.

[smjjames]

Who's the president of Iran nowadays anyway?

Must be a singularily uninteresting guy as he hasn't made the news at any point in the last year, unlike Ahma-whatever, who managed to make it to the headlines at least every month

A guy named Hassan Rouhani. Needed to wiki it to check. Anyway, Ahmanehijad was the Iranian version of Trump, at least in terms of rhetoric. So, Rouhani is basically a normal politician.

He has spoken out on occasion about the Iran Nuke deal and other stuff, but he doesn't use the firey rhetoric that Trump does. Plus the whole madness with the election only had attention on any one thing that wasn't about America for a short period of time.

Edit: Ninja'd, but yeah, point is that Ahmadeinejad was an extreme agitator with firey rhetoric, not dissimilar to what Trump has done, where Rouhani isn't. He's more of a normal politician like Obama or either Clinton.

edit2: I don't think Obama would go THAT far.

[TheBiggerFish]

The dawn of the new era of truth-based news reporting has begun: Google Fixes Algorithm to Remove Holocaust-Denying Results and Other 'Non-Authoritative Information'

The company has also corrected the results to “are Jews evil?”—when you search a variety of suggestively hateful questions, it mostly directs to news about the search results scandal. When you search “are Muslims evil?” there isn’t anything Islamophobic until the fourth result. Baby steps.

However, when you google “are black people inferior?” the first result is still racist.

“We’ll continue to change our algorithms over time in order to tackle these challenges,” the Google spokesperson said.

I'm not particularly sure this is the best approach, because, you know, people are probably going to scream 'censorship', and in a way it kind of is, but they're...Trying?

[smjjames]

The dawn of the new era of truth-based news reporting has begun: Google Fixes Algorithm to Remove Holocaust-Denying Results and Other 'Non-Authoritative Information'

The company has also corrected the results to “are Jews evil?”—when you search a variety of suggestively hateful questions, it mostly directs to news about the search results scandal. When you search “are Muslims evil?” there isn’t anything Islamophobic until the fourth result. Baby steps.

However, when you google “are black people inferior?” the first result is still racist.

“We’ll continue to change our algorithms over time in order to tackle these challenges,” the Google spokesperson said.

I'm not particularly sure this is the best approach, because, you know, people are probably going to scream 'censorship', and in a way it kind of is, but they're...Trying?

Seems like they're trying to have fair and objective results come first. Though a slightly better idea might be to randomize what shows up. "did the holocaust happen" almost sounds like something a schoolkid might write, or potentially someone who wants to get clarification.

Also, I think I read somewhere that it was actually Germany that requested or complained about the holocaust bit to Google.

It's hard to have the search find things fairly without having racist stuff appear at the top all the time and at the same time, not look like censorship.

[Baffler]

They're suppressing those results because they don't like their content, so yes, it literally is censorship. The only question is whether or not it's a good thing to do, and I can honestly say that I don't know.

[LoSboccacc]

They're suppressing those results because they don't like their content, so yes, it literally is censorship. The only question is whether or not it's a good thing to do, and I can honestly say that I don't know.

well it's a slippery slope and it always start with seemingly good intention. that's why it's important to react as soon as they start. nothing good will come from the war of fake news. and I thought we were safe after the plan of selling internet control to the un tanked.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Isn't the internet already censored, including this very forum?

[martinuzz]

While I am against censorship of any opinion, I am much less opposed to eliminating content that has the sole purpose of deliberatly spreading lies and bullshit, and possibly wars.
Ideally, this would not be nescessary, with an informed and educated userbase. But with the state of general education having declined to a level that produces whole generations that have not learned the very basics of critical thought, it could very well be the only way to stop misinformation becoming the new truth on a massive scale. I agree though, it's a slippery slope.

[miauw62]

is making the top result for "are jews evil?" "no" instead of "yes" really censorship though? why is "yes" apparently an inherently more "right" answer?

google is already biased against certain types of content, and if your previous searches indicated an islamophobic trend, chances are you'll still see a lot of islamophobic content.

[LoSboccacc]

Isn't the internet already censored, including this very forum?

yes, and it's not illegal to do so, but google acting beyond illegal content is unprecedented and very dangerous because of the scale of it. for a sizeable chunk of the population google = internet (and then there's facebook, with the same scale issue and set on the same foot)

is making the top result for "are jews evil?" "no" instead of "yes" really censorship though? why is "yes" apparently an inherently more "right" answer?

control always start with clear cut cases.

[smjjames]

Would my thought of randomizing the search results work? Though I guess it might have undesired results and would be problematic if someone is attempting to find the same thing you found.

Or maybe give equal value to both ends, but Google as a company does have a PR to maintain.

[Lord Shonus]

Isn't the internet already censored, including this very forum?

No. There is a fundamental difference between a private individual restricting the discussion he is willing to tolerate on his personal property (which is the status of this forum) and a third party setting itself up as an arbiter of what may be allowed. The former is incredibly common, the latter exists (in the US) only in extremely limited circumstances regarding copyright law and child abuse.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Since the internet we communicate through is mostly composed of private property, how is that different from state censorship, beyond the wide disparity of the censorship standards?