Topic: U.S President Trump: Google ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship. (Read 1856 times)

Look at how I revise your statement.

Google got its seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the well known venture capital arm of the CIA. These companies are not private, impartial, or separate from the government by any means.

Facebook is tracking now, too....

DO NOT BUY FROM google adsense/google advertisements shown on websites. Google ads are the real problems.

Turning off you tracking cookies does not stop google from logging your searches.

https://www.businessinsider.com/even-if-you-cleared-your-history-google-records-your-search-activity-2018-4/?r=AU&IR=T


There is quite a bit on google about it.

You could use duckduckgo which is privacy oriented. There are also plenty of other search engines.

Or use a google account with your "nickname", no friends and no personal email.

I have a facebook, twitter, linkedin and google+ with no friends and maximum privacy settings. All of them are parasitic applications that track, sell your private data and block you from viewing content if you don't have them.

I also use a different computer for online activity than the one I use for work  / exchanges & wallets and contemplating getting another for even more hardened security.

Privacy often is also not taken into account by Government departments and authorities. For instance when making a submission on a law change or certain complaints your name is publicly available. Then there are the databases that we don't have access to.  Or private information about us stored by foreign governments.

It's a common misconception that Google is a private company, so they can do whatever they want. Let's investigate that and see what the facts are. I'll just google the subject....

Anyone see a little problem there?

"Do not track" request is enabled in my chrome browser.

I have Kaspersky anti-virus link on my website and yesterday to check the links I clicked them. Today when I am on other websites I am getting google adsense/ads for Kaspersky.

People who click on Kaspersky from my website and they may buy later, they can click on google ads when they see them on other websites.

I make good money searching with bing.

Why would anyone want to use google?

I think Trump uses yahoo as his search engine.

This is how trump works:

Anything negative about him in the media= fake news/rigged

Anything positive about him= I am smart and you're all dumb.

The audacity of this president I swear to god! haha how can someone that arrogant and just a plain baffoon be allowed to run a country we need a stricter interview process for the president!

Google search showed Indian Prime minister "Narendra Modi" among top 10 criminals in the world. use google.com. How reliable are the tech giants ?

The sad part is that they are tightening copyright and patents rather than relaxing them.

If there were no patents or copyright then they would be forced to share or develop technology in secret.

Most patents never make it to the market or are used badly. https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17222380/apple-virtnetx-patent-troll-litigation-500-million-imessage-facetime-case

If you ban patents and limit and discourage copyright then the business models would change to open source.

A 'somewhat' open source solution doesn't cut it from a security perspective.   All that is good for is to get free labor from the naive pool of the high-IQ population who doesn't receive a pay stub from Big Evil.  Here in corp/gov merged 2018, the primary usefulness of such a solution would be to see what is NOT open-sourced to help narrow down where the back-doors are.

First would be attempting to correctly state the problem and the solutions as we have been doing here. Don't underestimate the importance of this simple requirement. Not saying that this is all 100% perfect construction of the issue...

I mean how do you suggest to actually make it happen. An open source alternative may be better in some ways but that's not a solution, more like a wish. How do we create it and entice people to use it? Government regulation can slap a fine on Google, or ban it, or criminalize its use. Government regulation isn't gonna give you an alternative, let alone a fair one.

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

Probably not crude / amateurish but quite shitty in many other ways. But what do you suggest - force them to open source it, or force some government regulation of "fairness"? These are private companies. Facebook and Twitter are not really essential to anyone so who cares. Google has a near-monopoly position in search and a duopoly in smartphones so there is quite a bit of government pressure on them already, particularly in Europe.

Here is the problem. When experiments and research in various fields such as psychology and medicine are done, blind and double-blind experimental protocols are used. This means for the blind protocol, that the test operators in contact with the subjects do not know what the purpose is. For the double blind those who supervise the test operators do not know.

These are used because the pervasive effects of bias make accurate findings impossible without the strictest of these protocols.

Now I could argue that your analysis is biased and imperfect. But that's not the point. The point is that the protocols used by the likes of Google and Facebook are biased and imperfect. In other words, you would defend with bias, biased protocols that are in turn the natural output product of biased individuals.

Yet these are the very projects which blind and double blind experimentation is well understood to handle.

There can be no in between. There is only a scientific approach or a biased approach.

There is no defense that can be made by Google without providing facts and algorithms, and that they (apparently) will not do.

We know from the history of cryptography that the algorithms held secret are the easiest to break, or to find flaws in. Those which are published and critiqued repeatedly, right out in the open, are the strongest security methods by far.

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

Because Trump is a serving president embroiled in controversy. People close to him  George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates all have been charged / convicted of crimes. Some of those crimes benefited Trump.

Hillary Clinton is no longer in a position of authority. A "has been". Just like people don't write about George W Bush anymore.

The only people that would be interested in Hillary are the people that want to deflect attention from Trump. I doubt that Democrats are googling Hillary. Really - Hillary's computer is old news -  it got boring during the election already. Jared has done almost the same thing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-emails-security-clearances-revoked-democrats-latest-a7986541.html

I've never been to the USA so a lot of American political antics don't affect me but I know he will leave a big mess behind. He breaks relationships with other nations and then expects credit for partly patching it up again.

He might have drained the swamp - but have you ever seen the creatures a freshly drained swamp attracts ?

The attack on the media and now on google I see as an assault onto journalistic speech. That is a worry in any country.

I agree that politicians generally are not to be trusted. It is the only occupation where you can advertise lies and not get shut down by the authorities for false advertising.

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

Thank you. Reading the comments under that story makes me want to apologize to everyone I ever called an idiot on Bitcointalk.