Board 8 > Nationalist politics topic 8: Seehofer rises

(+) Yeah! (+)

the like third result for me googling "trump news" is from Fox News

maybe it's further down for you because they know you're in the Netherlands (?) and people there are like never looking for Fox
---

i am in the netherlands, yes.

and yeah, i was thinking that too but then why is CNN the second result? are tons of people here reading CNN articles? maybe.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Vlado posted...

Trump slams goolag for manipulating search results to push fake news over normal media. WILL BE ADDRESSED!

Google search results for Trump News shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of results on Trump News are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034456273306243076
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034456281120206848

the "fake news" is the normal media

people go to CNN more than fucking Zerohedge or whatever you want them to show, so they're the more popular result and Google shows them

it's not a conspiracy

Wrong. Fox surpass CNN by every metric, and they also show up way back in the results, because they only bash Trump occasionally as opposed to all the time. Breitbart don't show on the first couple of pages at all, despite having a really high readership base. Goolag have rigged their algorithms, this much is absolutely clear. They have said so themselves. And it does not even just concern conservative sites (Fox is not really a conservative medium, but yeah, closest to it from mainstream media), I posted an article from the World Socialist site pointing out how goolag shoved them several pages back in the search results.

ALL sources who are anti-war and/or anti-globalism are targeted, it just so happens that most of those are conservative sources.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

in all fairness, i will say that it's curious that when i google "trump news" i only get fox on page 4 and sites that can't possibly be as popular as fox before that. for comparison's sake: CNN is the second result. doesn't mean trump is right as it's not like i don't get fox at all but yeah. (note that i don't live in the US so i have no idea if trump is right about how google in the US works.)

End of second page here. And not a single Breitbart result in the first 8 pages!
---

People are working on replacing HTTP with a more independent, cheaper and more reliable version: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNhFJjGcMPqpuYfxL62VVB9528NXqDNMFXiqN5bgFYiZ1/its-time-for-the-permanent-web.html
---

Vlado posted...

And not a single Breitbart result in the first 8 pages!

Don't see how that's in conflict with Google's goal of providing the most relevant search results to its users
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Vlado posted...

And not a single Breitbart result in the first 8 pages!

Don't see how that's in conflict with Google's goal of providing the most relevant search results to its users

They can sugar-coat it however they want... The fact remains that:

Vlado posted...

ALL sources who are anti-war and/or anti-globalism are targeted, it just so happens that most of those are conservative sources. Ron Paul is also targeted, although he often criticises Trump... He's really anti-war, however.

Let me remind you: goolag are doing full-blown censorship in China for the Chinese government. You would have to be EXTREMELY gullible to believe they wouldn't do something similar outside of China, to silence voices that go against their extremely obvious agenda.

---

breitbart doesn't show up for me at all but i doubt that's because of left-wing bias - they DO show reason.com, which isn't a leftist outlet either. granted, it only shows up on page 11, but i assume that's because the major news outlets are prioritized. they don't show any leftist non-mainstream news outlets on the first page, either.
---

You're basically confirming what I said. The fact is that society does not nearly reflect the nationalist/globalist proportion of the major media. With society, it's, in US's case, about 50/50. With the major media, it's 10/90. Search results are supposed to represent the society proportion, not the major media proportion (mind you, it's even worse in search results, as we've observed that ZERO non-globalist results show up on the first page). Otherwise, by buying media, you can buy and sell political power - that much more amplified by having your media take over search results. (I mean, that much is obvious. But goolag might as well openly admit they are a heavily politicised platform shilling for globalism.)
---

search results are supposed to represent the most popular/searched for sites. as much as you may love breitbart, it's way lesser known than fox. so is "john's super duper leftist blog about politics," for that matter, which is why that doesn't show up either despite being leftist.
---

Breitbart is not as small as you think, it is ranked higher than Washington Post in Alexa rankings for US (check https://smallseotools.com/alexa-rank-checker/), yet it's not even in the top 10 pages of the results, while WP is near the top on page 1.

That's rigging on a massive scale.
---

Doing a brief search for information on how Googles search algorithm works makes this whole ordeal just look like conservatives whining (as usual) about how oppressed they are for their opinions not carrying the same weight as objective facts.

The algorithm weighs a websites relevance to how often its linked to by other websites. Respected and trustworthy media sources like WaPo get higher ratings as a result, because theyre regularly linked to as sources of factual information. Even conservatives link to WaPo when they publish news that conservatives want to hear. Breitbart, meanwhile, is extremely insular. Fewer people are gonna link to Breitbart unless theyre already a conservative website, because Breitbart doesnt provide factual and verifiable information.
---

Even that doesn't warrant a difference between a top 3 result and result not even in the first 10 pages. If Breitbart had been even on the second page, okay, whatever, maybe your explanation would have made sense. But with the difference we're seeing, your explanation is FAR from enough.

What you read is just an excuse for google to rig results however they want by obfuscation.

Here's the case of Fox News vs. CNN:

FOX has the highest ratings and is right leaning. As the most popular news in America, they should have more representation online, yet are somehow not showing up in results.

CNN is one of lowest rated shows - lower than random alien conspiracy theory tv shows; yet shows up in all search results first page.

Web traffic shows CNN slightly higher in rankings than FOX - Country rank 31 for CNN and 33 for FOX. However, stats are significantly different for actual metrics.

FOX

Avg. Visit Duration - 00:06:25

Pages per Visit - 3.08

Bounce Rate - 53.14%

US Visits - 89.86%

Canada Visits - 2.96%

UK Visits - 0.94%

Traffic Sources:

Direct Visits - 63.86%

Referrals - 11.09%

Search - 18.08%

Social Media - 5.68%

CNN

Avg. Visit Duration - 00:03:55

Pages per Visit - 2.42

Bounce Rate - 55.80%

US Visits - 72.00%

Canada Visits - 7.18%

UK Visits - 2.48%

Traffic Sources:

Direct Visits - 62.93%

Referrals - 2.40%

Search - 26.54%

Social Media - 7.05%

Clearly there is some kind of bias against conservative media - not just Trump related news. FOX is the highest rated TV show. They are sourced more often for referral traffic. CNN has virtually no referral traffic. Social media, another censoring platform, is significantly in favour of CNN, despite it being the least popular news source in America. Then, the main claim - search results - CNN has a massive advantage for search results over FOX, the most popular news network in America DESPITE nearly the same internet traffic and country rankings online.

Additionally, FOX dominates CNN in actual reader retention, bounce rates and engagement. FOX is over 6 minutes (!!!) for the average reader. CNN is under 4 minutes. FOX readers view far more pages on average and, based on the durations, actually read the articles posted.

The only difference in traffic is also from foreign sources - CNN has a rather large Canada and UK (relative to both bein American focused news) advantage, likely from search results from these foreign countries looking for American news.

FOX has higher engagement, retention and durations online than CNN. They have more Americans viewing it, is the highest rated American news network, and more referral traffic. Yet CNN dominates social media (proven liberal bias and censorship) and search results (Google dominated and they are proven liberal bias, even working with Obama and Clinton on their campaigns). How? It can't be organic. There's no reason for a bottom of the barrel news network to have such a huge online presence - but only from social media and search engine results.

The only conclusion is tech giant collusion against conservative sites. This is just a FOX vs CNN sample. Conservative pundits, blogs, youtubers, news sites and other personalities are all victim to this same pattern. They can have more direct traffic, viewer engagement, referrals, etc, yet lag behind by ridiculous margins in only 2 major areas - search and social media. It's impossible for the metrics to skew this way naturally.

---

Vlado posted...

There's no reason for a bottom of the barrel news network to have such a huge online presence

Amusingly, Google seems to agree.
---

Please explain, exactly, why this is a case of Google censoring conservative voices and NOT simply a matter of Google filtering out poor sources of information? I mean, why EXACTLY is your response always help, help, were being repressed instead of considering even the possibility that your lies are not equal to facts?
---

Even that doesn't warrant a difference between a top 3 result and result not even in the first 10 pages. If Breitbart had been even on the second page, okay, whatever, maybe your explanation would have made sense. But with the difference we're seeing, your explanation is FAR from enough.

why

on what basis do you decide what the appropriate place to show Brietbart is if it's a bad website with innacurate information
---

The other thing is that Vlado is arguing that straight-up popularity should be the main metric in determining what content is or is not pushed to the top of Google. Conveniently for Conservatives, they only really have one or two major names as far as right-wing news goes, so if thats what youre looking for, you go to Fox or Breitbart. Meanwhile, if youre looking for any news OTHER than right-wing biases, youre spoiled for choice, diminishing the market share for each individual website/publication. So of COURSE on a strict basis of popularity, conservatives sites benefit from a complete lack of competition in their niche.
---

I dont know why I didnt just do this earlier:

Searched Trump News on Google:

Top Stories - Fox News is the 3rd and 7th result.

Twitter - Trumps Twitter is all eight results.

Videos - Fox News is the 3rd, 6th, and 10th result.

Links - Fox News is the 5th and 6th result.

So yeah, the whole censorship claim is bullshit and comes back to conservative snowflakes believing any negative news must be a lie.
---

lmfao, imagine actually believing that Fox appearing at all means no censorship or bias. While all of the rest of the first several pages is anti-Trump results.

Espeon posted...

conservatives sites benefit from a complete lack of competition in their niche.

Because globalists own all the major media, INCLUDING Fox. They won't have their staff write against their own interests.

Anyway, after Trump tweeted against globalist censorship by the major tech companies, a brave whistleblower at facebook has spoken out! Let's see if facebook prove smarter than google who fired that guy with the common sense facts memo, and as a result nobody sane even considers going to work there anymore.

'We have a problem with political diversity': Facebook engineer reveals how colleagues 'attack often in mobs anyone who opposes left-leaning ideology', rip down Trump posters and silence criticism of Islam

Brian Amerige, a Facebook engineer, called out company's 'political intolerance'
In an internal message, he said staff personally attack and threaten anyone who does not conform to a 'left-leaning ideology'
He claims Facebook staff tore down posters welcoming Trump supporters
Said employees regularly propose removing Peter Thiel from the board because he is a Trump supporter
Accused staff of 'being quick suggest firing people who turn out to be misunderstood, and even quicker to conclude our colleagues are bigots'
Amerige added 'We have made 'All Lives Matter' a fireable offense'
He also accused Facbook of 'putting Palmer Luckey through a witch hunt because he paid for anti-Hillary ads'
'We ask HR to investigate those who dare to criticize Islam's human rights record for creating a 'non inclusive environment'' he added
Amerige said company 'deserves' criticism from Trump and Congress for bias

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6109821/Facebook-staff-call-firms-intolerant-liberal-culture.html
---

Since you appear to be missing the point: sites like Brietbart are garbage that spread objectively false information. Brietbart et al not being prominent search results is a feature, not a bug, in a good search algorithm. Prioritizing credible websites over garbage websites is not "bias."
---

And CNN, WP, NYT, etc.'s HEAPS of proven fake news and "anonymous source" stories about Trump aren't garbage? Please. You know quite well this is about political bias, not "credibility."
---

There aren't "HEAPS of fake news stories" from those news orgs. Occasionally they'll get a story wrong, but they have journalistic standards and will correct/retract those stories. Many of the sources you champion either don't rigorously fact check their stories or even purposefully spread false information.
---

Every single day since Trump started his campaign is not "occasionally." Their "standards" begin and end with "shilling for globalism" and "smearing anyone and anything that stands against globalism."
---

Every single day since Trump started his campaign is not "occasionally

show me a fake news story from CNN for every day since Trump started his campaign

please provide me with like 800 links
---

How about no. You can easily find them yourself. :)

Haha, Trump exposes goolag bias in a clever, obvious for everyone way:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034907478566359041
---

Vlado posted...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6109821/Facebook-staff-call-firms-intolerant-liberal-culture.html

ok full throttle
---

Following the docking of the Aquarius in Marseilles, no migrant transport NGO vessels are currently operating in the Mediterranean as some face increasing legal pressure from European countries.

Very nice!

https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/30/mediterranean-free-migrant-transport-ngo-ships-legal-battles-mount/
---

Vlado, maybe just MAYBE websites that literally make up stories (claiming without evidence that not only was a slain DNC staffer the one who leaked DNC emails, but also that Hillary Clinton had him murdered) shouldnt be held up as equally credible to REAL news organizations.
---

Vlado posted...

Very nice!

https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/30/mediterranean-free-migrant-transport-ngo-ships-legal-battles-mount/

as always, lol breitbart
---

More like, lol people who dismiss facts because they don't like the source.
---

Vlado posted...

More like, lol people who dismiss facts because they don't like the source.

Vlado posted...

And CNN, WP, NYT, etc.'s HEAPS of proven fake news and "anonymous source" stories about Trump aren't garbage? Please. You know quite well this is about political bias, not "credibility."

---

Yeah, all those CNN "facts" like Trump's lawyer's lawyer having 100% proof that Trump was colluding with Russia. Something which the man denied, but hey, as long as the wet dreams of globalist fanboys are encouraged, eh?
---

Vlado posted...

Yeah, all those CNN "facts" like Trump's lawyer's lawyer having 100% proof that Trump was colluding with Russia. Something which the man denied, but hey, as long as the wet dreams of globalist fanboys are encouraged, eh?

As you once said when confronted with evidence that your Seth Rich conspiracy was literally made up by conservative news sites:

CNN will be proven right eventually.
---

Espeon posted...

Vlado posted...

More like, lol people who dismiss facts because they don't like the source.

Vlado posted...

And CNN, WP, NYT, etc.'s HEAPS of proven fake news and "anonymous source" stories about Trump aren't garbage? Please. You know quite well this is about political bias, not "credibility."

I think my favorite thing is Vlado makes Vlado look dumb

Espeon posted...

Vlado posted...

Yeah, all those CNN "facts" like Trump's lawyer's lawyer having 100% proof that Trump was colluding with Russia. Something which the man denied, but hey, as long as the wet dreams of globalist fanboys are encouraged, eh?

As you once said when confronted with evidence that your Seth Rich conspiracy was literally made up by conservative news sites:

CNN will be proven right eventually.

Yeah, good luck with that. :)
---

ColZach posted...

I think my favorite thing is Vlado makes Vlado look dumb

Your favorite thing is any post of Vlado's?
---

clinton was hacked by the Chinese, and FBI knew, but covered it up to help her election chances.

WASHINGTON, D.C. Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement today regarding the claim made by the FBI that they have not found any evidence regarding Hillary Clintons serving being breached:

Its not surprising that the FBI has not found any evidence regarding Clintons servers being breached. Like I stated to Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok in the House Judiciary Hearing, it was the Obama-appointed Intelligence Community Inspector General that discovered the breach. It was not the FBI that found it, so their statement was technically correct, but very deceptive in its omission.

When I asked Peter Strzok about this, he said that he remembered being briefed by the ICIG investigator but did not remember what it was about. That is not credible. We know that the FBIs head of counter-intelligence, Mr. Strzok, was doing all he could to help protect Hillary Clinton. So, when the Intel IG investigator came to report to Mr. Strzok that a specific foreign intelligence entity (which was not Russian) was receiving virtually all the emails from Secretary of State Clintons private server in real time, it is not remotely believable that he would not remember the conversation. In fact, if he testified that he remembered the briefing, he would be potentially incriminating himself in a coverup or obstruction role.

One thing has been made acutely clear partisan politics, sadly, are very much at play within some of the leadership at the FBI. Though Strzok and other FBI personnel were briefed on Hillary Clinton's server being hacked, as now reported, they knew this would devastate Hillary Clintons chances of being elected and they were not about to let that happen.

Fortunately, progress is currently being made at the FBI and there are good people there who are making a difference. Unfortunately, the FBIs deceptive omission in its statement reveals that the FBI has not been completely cleansed of the partisanship that so pervasively corrupted it in Washington, DC.

https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398653
---

Vlado posted...

More like, lol people who dismiss facts because they don't like the source.

some sources cannot be trusted. breitbart is absolutely one of them.
---

So...the FBI is biased and partisan, but NOT a conservative congressman who has all the reason in the world to muddy the waters against the Democratic Party.

Ill note that his statement offers exactly ZERO specific details about anything, yet you filled in the gaps by connecting this statement to Trumps bizarre rage tweet about Chinese hacking. Heres a tip, Vlado, and you should already know this, since you use this tactic very often: if a partisan statement is released that offers an ominous story without any real details, its bullshit. Its an easy method of implying something you know is bullshit, and gullible idiots will parrot it without any critical analysis whatsoever, but then when you get called out for lying, you can backpedal and claim that people are putting words in your mouth, since you never said anything concrete.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

More like, lol people who dismiss facts because they don't like the source.

some sources cannot be trusted. breitbart is absolutely one of them.

The source does not matter when it comes to factual information. If we're talking speculations and commentary, sure, but in this case it's a fact that I posted.

Espeon posted...

So...the FBI is biased and partisan, but NOT a conservative congressman who has all the reason in the world to muddy the waters against the Democratic Party.

Ill note that his statement offers exactly ZERO specific details about anything, yet you filled in the gaps by connecting this statement to Trumps bizarre rage tweet about Chinese hacking. Heres a tip, Vlado, and you should already know this, since you use this tactic very often: if a partisan statement is released that offers an ominous story without any real details, its bullshit. Its an easy method of implying something you know is bullshit, and gullible idiots will parrot it without any critical analysis whatsoever, but then when you get called out for lying, you can backpedal and claim that people are putting words in your mouth, since you never said anything concrete.

Maybe if you'd bothered to look it up, you wouldn't have made yourself look so silly. Chinese hacking of clinton's mails was all over the news, it's hardly Trump who first let the world know about it with his tweet. Information about this actually first came out over a month ago. Of course, now fake news media are claiming that didn't happen (citing China's denial, lol. Or FBI, who would otherwise have to admit they concealed the information to help clinton's campaign. top kek), desperately trying to one-up Trump. Once again, they fail. :)

Meanwhile, top German globalist shill media release worried article about women being increasingly drawn to right-wing parties.

https://archive.fo/ChFqS

It makes perfect sense. Women are the ones tasked by nature with the continuation of the family, and respectively the people.
---

Vlado posted...

The source does not matter when it comes to factual information. If we're talking speculations and commentary, sure, but in this case it's a fact that I posted.

then link to a different source than breitbart.
---

For what purpose? If you think Breitbart might be lying about something, it's YOUR problem, so YOU look up extra sources. I'm not supposed to be doing your homework for you.

Although you would be clever to simply trust my judgement.

Meanwhile, US judge is enemy of the people, dismisses charges against literal child rapists and murderers on technicality:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/29/judge-dismisses-all-charges-against-3-extremist-muslim-new-mexico-compound-suspects.html
---

Vlado posted...

For what purpose? If you think Breitbart might be lying about something, it's YOUR problem, so YOU look up extra sources. I'm not supposed to be doing your homework for you.

for the purpose of you convincing me of whatever you're trying to convince me of? if you link to breitbart, i'm immediately going to dismiss what you're saying.
---

Breitbart or not he linked to a source that includes a fact

Breitbart almost certainly distorted said fact and misrepresented it but unless you're denying that it actually happened then prepare a counter to it (if you're going to actually engage Vlado, that is - which you will do because you are fucking addled). I think you should link to more reputable news sources than somewhere like that but you can corroborate or get the other side of said story yourself. This is just childish shit.

How are you losing to Vlado? Just fucking stop.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

For what purpose? If you think Breitbart might be lying about something, it's YOUR problem, so YOU look up extra sources. I'm not supposed to be doing your homework for you.

for the purpose of you convincing me of whatever you're trying to convince me of? if you link to breitbart, i'm immediately going to dismiss what you're saying.

Again, that's your problem.
---

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Many of his employees are so poor, youre paying their welfare benefits. And hes not the only tech billionaire offloading his payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1035334044698009600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
---

So just to be clear...

When liberal (non-biased in reality, but anything that reports factual information is liberal to you) news outlets use anonymous sources, its fake news. Trump even tweeted as much.

But an openly inflammatory publicationthat once made the claim that Anthony Bourdain was assassinated on Hillarys ordersmakes an unverified accusation that Lisa Page claimed China, not Russia, was behind the hacking...and you believe that. Then other conservative outlets run with that false information and suddenly the story is all over the news. Then Trump tweets it because hell push any story that makes him look like a victim, and voila.

Serious question: why are you so willing to believe there is a coordinated effort to spread misinformation via mainstream media sources, yet at the same time think that a selection of right-wing publications without any sort of historical credibility, are incapable of that same thing?
---

Vlado posted...

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Many of his employees are so poor, youre paying their welfare benefits. And hes not the only tech billionaire offloading his payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1035334044698009600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Because most people in America loooove capitalism for some stupid reason and it sucks.
---

Espeon posted...

China, not Russia, was behind the hacking...

For one, these are two separate things. The "Russian hackers" nonsense was invented about the leaks to WikiLeaks, for which the real person who was responsible was murdered. China have to interest whatsoever in leaking to WikiLeaks and thus helping Trump, who made criticism of China a big point in his campaign, win over their preferred candidate clinton.

As for China,

They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that. That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages. Strzok was told that by the Intelligence Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it.

The information is not false - Page's hearing was closed to members of congress, and there are enough nationalist Republicans there. Of course, they can't admit to leaking even when it's in the national interest to have done so.

Jakyl25 posted...

Because most people in America loooove capitalism for some stupid reason and it sucks.

Glad we agree on something. It'd be nice if you admitted that communism is an utter failure, too. A third solution is necessary, and soon enough mankind will build it.
---

Yeah its called Democratic Socialism
---

...

Youre literally quoting an OPINION BLOG as fact.

Seriously, I looked up that quote. Its literally a guy claiming inside information (no actual proof or verification) in a blog post labeled EDITORIAL. How are you this stupid?
---