Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Net Neutrality

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2017, 03:07 PM   #61
TheMalcolmConnection
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 19,218
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
True and you never have that sticky key board problem!
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-17-2020, 02:33 PM   #62
SunnySide
Playmaker
 
SunnySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4,568
Re: Net Neutrality

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation Wednesday to give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage in selective censorship of political speech.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, cosponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would stop such companies from receiving immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith.

The bill would allow users to sue companies for breaching that contractual duty of good faith, and it would make them pay $5,000 plus legal fees to each user who prevails in a case against them.

On a separate track -- reflecting renewed pressure on these companies out of Washington -- the Justice Department is recommending that lawmakers consider new legislation that would hold tech giants liable for content posted online. Any such legislation would roll back legal protections the online platforms have possessed for decades.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...tech-companies

---------------

In August, Paula Bolyard, a supervising editor at the conservative news outlet PJ Media, published a story reporting that 96% of Google search results for Donald Trump prioritized “left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets”.

Bolyard’s results were generated according to her own admittedly unscientific methodology. She searched for “Trump” in Google’s News tab, and then used a highly questionable media chart that separated outlets into “left” and “right” to tabulate the results. She reported that 96 of 100 results returned were from so-called “left-leaning” news outlets, with 21 of those from CNN alone. Despite this dubious methodology, Bolyard’s statistic spread, and her story was picked up by a Fox Business Network show.

A few days later, Donald Trump tweeted that Google results were “RIGGED” against him, citing Bolyard’s figure.

For Francesca Tripodi, professor of sociology at James Madison University, anecdotal evidence of anti-conservative bias spreads as fact through the media in part because of a deep misunderstanding of how bias in search engines and content moderation practices work. “These algorithms are very complex and not at all intuitive,” she says. “They weigh things like how many people are linking to an article, what key words appear in the headline, and what specific phrases people are using in their search.

If you search for Donald Trump and receive mostly negative results, Tripodi explains, it isn’t because Google executives are censoring pro-Trump voices, but because most Google users are seeking or linking to this particular type of news item. “In other words, Google is biased but its bias skews towards the type of results people want to see. Search results are kind of like a public opinion poll about what news matters. The company depends on being good at measuring precisely this. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t keep using their services.”

Tripodi, who published a report on media manipulation for the New York-based research institute Data & Society, also explains that so-called anti-conservative “censorship” on social media can often be explained by random glitches in moderation practices taking place at scale.

This year, the conservative media company PragerU accused YouTube and Facebook of “deliberate censorship of conservative ideas” after a number of their videos were taken down. Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed.

“One of the videos began with a woman saying the word ‘rape’. This might’ve been picked up by some automated system and then sent for review to a third-party moderator in the Philippines. When you only have three seconds to make a decision about content, you’re not questioning whether the video is promoting conservative views,” she says. “You’re mostly worried about the word ‘rape’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ve-bias-claims

----------------


My understanding of Google is that it wants to show the user the best possible sites - based on size, link backs, traffic etc ..

When I search "2A" -- i dont want to be shown a million basement made crap websites and have to sift through them. I want to see the most accurate, largest, most official websites.

Search "current civil rights" -- I dont want to go to some SJW 2 page website that 20 people have visited total.

This just seems like some conservative wag the tail type stuff to try and make it seem like there is some huge nefarious deep state war on conservatives.

Rawr rawr .. theres a war against conservatives .. rawr rawr .. liberal media .. rawr rawr .. media is the enemy .. rawr rawr ...

on top of that ... google is a private company.

I would imagine conservatives would want to limit govt intrusion into the capitalist system.

But no .. crickets from the group that claims they are for less govt, free capitalism, reduce the debt etc ...
__________________
19,937 car accidents a day in the US. Buy a dash camera for everyone you love. Insurance companies are increasingly denying claims.
SunnySide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 02:42 PM   #63
SunnySide
Playmaker
 
SunnySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4,568
Re: Net Neutrality

Allow Google or facebook .. or warpath.net to be liable for comments and posts by the users?

I type some heinous clearly false libel stuff about someone.

Matty gets sued.
__________________
19,937 car accidents a day in the US. Buy a dash camera for everyone you love. Insurance companies are increasingly denying claims.
SunnySide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 02:58 PM   #64
MTK
\m/
 
MTK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NY
Age: 51
Posts: 99,293
Re: Net Neutrality

yeah the moment I'm responsible for the craziness here I'm out of the game
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
MTK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 03:51 PM   #65
Chico23231
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 33,862
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnySide View Post
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation Wednesday to give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage in selective censorship of political speech.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, cosponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would stop such companies from receiving immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith.

The bill would allow users to sue companies for breaching that contractual duty of good faith, and it would make them pay $5,000 plus legal fees to each user who prevails in a case against them.

On a separate track -- reflecting renewed pressure on these companies out of Washington -- the Justice Department is recommending that lawmakers consider new legislation that would hold tech giants liable for content posted online. Any such legislation would roll back legal protections the online platforms have possessed for decades.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...tech-companies

---------------

In August, Paula Bolyard, a supervising editor at the conservative news outlet PJ Media, published a story reporting that 96% of Google search results for Donald Trump prioritized “left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets”.

Bolyard’s results were generated according to her own admittedly unscientific methodology. She searched for “Trump” in Google’s News tab, and then used a highly questionable media chart that separated outlets into “left” and “right” to tabulate the results. She reported that 96 of 100 results returned were from so-called “left-leaning” news outlets, with 21 of those from CNN alone. Despite this dubious methodology, Bolyard’s statistic spread, and her story was picked up by a Fox Business Network show.

A few days later, Donald Trump tweeted that Google results were “RIGGED” against him, citing Bolyard’s figure.

For Francesca Tripodi, professor of sociology at James Madison University, anecdotal evidence of anti-conservative bias spreads as fact through the media in part because of a deep misunderstanding of how bias in search engines and content moderation practices work. “These algorithms are very complex and not at all intuitive,” she says. “They weigh things like how many people are linking to an article, what key words appear in the headline, and what specific phrases people are using in their search.

If you search for Donald Trump and receive mostly negative results, Tripodi explains, it isn’t because Google executives are censoring pro-Trump voices, but because most Google users are seeking or linking to this particular type of news item. “In other words, Google is biased but its bias skews towards the type of results people want to see. Search results are kind of like a public opinion poll about what news matters. The company depends on being good at measuring precisely this. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t keep using their services.”

Tripodi, who published a report on media manipulation for the New York-based research institute Data & Society, also explains that so-called anti-conservative “censorship” on social media can often be explained by random glitches in moderation practices taking place at scale.

This year, the conservative media company PragerU accused YouTube and Facebook of “deliberate censorship of conservative ideas” after a number of their videos were taken down. Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed.

“One of the videos began with a woman saying the word ‘rape’. This might’ve been picked up by some automated system and then sent for review to a third-party moderator in the Philippines. When you only have three seconds to make a decision about content, you’re not questioning whether the video is promoting conservative views,” she says. “You’re mostly worried about the word ‘rape’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ve-bias-claims

----------------


My understanding of Google is that it wants to show the user the best possible sites - based on size, link backs, traffic etc ..

When I search "2A" -- i dont want to be shown a million basement made crap websites and have to sift through them. I want to see the most accurate, largest, most official websites.

Search "current civil rights" -- I dont want to go to some SJW 2 page website that 20 people have visited total.

This just seems like some conservative wag the tail type stuff to try and make it seem like there is some huge nefarious deep state war on conservatives.

Rawr rawr .. theres a war against conservatives .. rawr rawr .. liberal media .. rawr rawr .. media is the enemy .. rawr rawr ...

on top of that ... google is a private company.

I would imagine conservatives would want to limit govt intrusion into the capitalist system.

But no .. crickets from the group that claims they are for less govt, free capitalism, reduce the debt etc ...
Why don’t you actually talk about the horseshit move Google tried and failed to pull yesterday?

Since it’s the mechanism that has caused everything, the context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling.



Net neutrality...was told the internet was over?
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler

He Gets Us
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 03:58 PM   #66
SunnySide
Playmaker
 
SunnySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4,568
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
Why don’t you actually talk about the horseshit move Google tried and failed to pull yesterday?

Since it’s the mechanism that has caused everything, the context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling.



Net neutrality...was told the internet was over?
What did google do yesterday? The "mechanism" seems to have been created before yesterday. But I am ready to read and learn more.

"context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling." -- dude .. relax a bit. If you have articles you think I should consider .. link them, Ill read them.
__________________
19,937 car accidents a day in the US. Buy a dash camera for everyone you love. Insurance companies are increasingly denying claims.
SunnySide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 04:07 PM   #67
BaltimoreSkins
Pro Bowl
 
BaltimoreSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Parkton, MD
Posts: 5,488
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK View Post
yeah the moment I'm responsible for the craziness here I'm out of the game
Perhaps you could sell to Bob and he can drain this liberal cesspool.
BaltimoreSkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 04:37 PM   #68
Chico23231
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 33,862
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnySide View Post
What did google do yesterday? The "mechanism" seems to have been created before yesterday. But I am ready to read and learn more.

"context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling." -- dude .. relax a bit. If you have articles you think I should consider .. link them, Ill read them.
This is why people are talking about DOJ looking into it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...icles-n1231176

Google has banned ZeroHedge, a far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories, from its advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests.

Google also issued a warning on Tuesday to The Federalist over comments on articles related to recent protests.


Google is saying the comments sections of websites is fair game in pulling ad revenue.

The comment section dude, the comment section...
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler

He Gets Us
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 04:47 PM   #69
MTK
\m/
 
MTK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NY
Age: 51
Posts: 99,293
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins View Post
Perhaps you could sell to Bob and he can drain this liberal cesspool.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
MTK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 04:58 PM   #70
mooby
Hug Anne Spyder
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,264
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
This is why people are talking about DOJ looking into it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...icles-n1231176

Google has banned ZeroHedge, a far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories, from its advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests.

Google also issued a warning on Tuesday to The Federalist over comments on articles related to recent protests.


Google is saying the comments sections of websites is fair game in pulling ad revenue.

The comment section dude, the comment section...
Did you read the article you linked?

Quote:
A Google spokesperson said in an email on Monday that it demonetized the websites after determining they violated its policies on content related to race.

“We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race from monetizing," the spokesperson wrote. "When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”

Google's ban comes after the company was notified of research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation. They found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the protests, and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.

ZeroHedge and The Federalist have become well known in recent years for publishing far-right articles on a variety of subjects. On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the research sent to Google.
__________________
Hail to the Football Team
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 05:14 PM   #71
SunnySide
Playmaker
 
SunnySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4,568
Re: Net Neutrality

It sounds like Google doesnt want to do advertisement business with ZeroHedge.

Google advertising is Pay Per Click campaigns and banner stuff. I do PPC with google a few times a year. I pay a certain amount for certain words for a certain area ... and if someone uses that word in the geographic region in a search, my website may get put near the top .. if that someone then clicks on my site, google then deducts money out of my account.

I imagine Matty gets paid a little bit for the banner ads on here. I am not on that side. I pay to have my website promoted.

Google is not banning zerohedge from its search results.

Google just doesnt want to be in an advertising business relationship with them.

Now certain Republicans want to force a private company to accept contracts and do work with them against their will?

Am I missing something here?
__________________
19,937 car accidents a day in the US. Buy a dash camera for everyone you love. Insurance companies are increasingly denying claims.
SunnySide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 07:08 PM   #72
Chico23231
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 33,862
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby View Post
Did you read the article you linked?
Mooby, who owns YouTube?Have you ever been to the comments section in YouTube?

Perhaps google should ban their own ads?

Google needs to sit the fuck down now
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler

He Gets Us
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 07:29 PM   #73
Giantone
Gamebreaker
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,534
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby View Post
Did you read the article you linked?
LOL, you know better.
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 07:45 PM   #74
mooby
Hug Anne Spyder
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,264
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
Mooby, who owns YouTube?Have you ever been to the comments section in YouTube?

Perhaps google should ban their own ads?

Google needs to sit the fuck down now
And here I thought you were all for private companies having the leeway to do whatever they wanted without government oversight.

Where do we go from here Chico?
__________________
Hail to the Football Team
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2020, 08:22 PM   #75
Chico23231
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 33,862
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby View Post
And here I thought you were all for private companies having the leeway to do whatever they wanted without government oversight.

Where do we go from here Chico?
Wut?

I think google shouldn’t worry about the comments section on a website they have nothing to do with and if they want to apply these rules, maybe they should start with their own companies?
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler

He Gets Us
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.23720 seconds with 10 queries