breaking news, trumps kind of a dickish cocksucking asshole...
-
yep....his site was infecting peoples pc's with spy/malware. Them he got pissed st google cause tgey blocked his page with a virus warning......lije they're supposed to. Apparently he said google should have come to him first before they slapped thst warning....apparently not understsnding googles #1 priority is to their customers. So they're gonna send u a notice that ur page is laden with russian spyware. The google AI shuts it down...
So he and the other guy fudged this data because they're critics of google?
So he and the other guy fudged this data because they're critics of google?
It isn't good data...
-
So he and the other guy fudged this data because they're critics of google?
It isn't good data...
It isn't good data...
Well of course not, it isn't from The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live!
WSS
-
It isn't good data...
Well of course not, it isn't from The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live!
WSS
Well of course not, it isn't from The Daily Show or Saturday Night Live!
WSS
No I read the study (or at least the three pages I could). It isn't good data.
If you want to tell me otherwise, go ahead. Tell me how 21 is an accurate sample size. Go on. Show me some statistics.
-
yep....his site was infecting peoples pc's with spy/malware. Them he got pissed st google cause tgey blocked his page with a virus warning......lije they're supposed to. Apparently he said google should have come to him first before they slapped thst warning....apparently not understsnding googles #1 priority is to their customers. So they're gonna send u a notice that ur page is laden with russian spyware. The google AI shuts it down...
So he and the other guy fudged this data because they're critics of google?
So he and the other guy fudged this data because they're critics of google?
theres certainly a conflict of interest with a guy who sued tgem and claimed they ruined his reputation......right?
-
oh boy, now thetes this..
"Epstein himself says Trump was wrong about his findings. Epstein did find "bias" in Google search results, but he says there is no evidence Google "manipulated" the results to favor Clinton."
-
oh boy, now thetes this..
"Epstein himself says Trump was wrong about his findings. Epstein did find "bias" in Google search results, but he says there is no evidence Google "manipulated" the results to favor Clinton."
oh boy, now thetes this..
"Epstein himself says Trump was wrong about his findings. Epstein did find "bias" in Google search results, but he says there is no evidence Google "manipulated" the results to favor Clinton."
The fact that the bias exists should be a little bit of evidence shouldn't it? I mean coverage that is purposely slatted to harm candidate X necessarily helps candidate Y.
WSS
-
oh boy, now thetes this..
"Epstein himself says Trump was wrong about his findings. Epstein did find "bias" in Google search results, but he says there is no evidence Google "manipulated" the results to favor Clinton."
The fact that the bias exists should be a little bit of evidence shouldn't it? I mean coverage that is purposely slatted to harm candidate X necessarily helps candidate Y.
WSS
The fact that the bias exists should be a little bit of evidence shouldn't it? I mean coverage that is purposely slatted to harm candidate X necessarily helps candidate Y.
WSS
Again ... There isn't good data to conclude bias even exists. It seems like a very flawed study.
I know as a moderator you're letting alts and trolls then this board into a cesspool but at least just read that study
-
We need to seize the means of production from those capitalist pig dogs at Google so they don’t do this again!
-
The fact that the bias exists should be a little bit of evidence shouldn't it? I mean coverage that is purposely slatted to harm candidate X necessarily helps candidate Y.
WSS
Again ... There isn't good data to conclude bias even exists. It seems like a very flawed study.
I know as a moderator you're letting alts and trolls then this board into a cesspool but at least just read that study
Again ... There isn't good data to conclude bias even exists. It seems like a very flawed study.
I know as a moderator you're letting alts and trolls then this board into a cesspool but at least just read that study
I don't think there are any alts. If there were, and there are ways for the administration to find that out, I'd be happy to boot them. But not merely because you can't formulate a response to them, okay? Or just because you whine about people not following your own personal political bias. Understand? ( I don't think you believe it either really unless you're just too stupid to realize the difference between Styles, which may well be true. Just more typical Woody.)
And according to your buddy and the post are referred to this Epstein actually said there was bias but just couldn't conclude a Smoking Gun. So you are saying there is no bias? Or what? Which part of that post do you think is bullshit and which part are you on board with?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
We need to seize the means of production from those capitalist pig dogs at Google so they don’t do this again!
We need to seize the means of production from those capitalist pig dogs at Google so they don’t do this again!
I get your point but I don't think you realize the magnitude of the problem and the power of big tech without any oversight:
"The world has never seen anything like Google. The world has never seen anything like Facebook.
When pundits, legislators, and regulators propose interventions to curb the excesses of these companies, they invariably reach back in time for patterns to guide them. They try to compare a mid-20th-century US telephone company like AT&T to a global collection of servers and algorithms that delivers links and advertisements to billions of people who are trying to find driving directions, weather forecasts, or to settle bar bets. They imagine – foolishly – that “data are the new oil” and compare John Rockerfeller’s Standard Oil monopoly of the late 19th century to a social networking service that allows 2.4 billion people to upload text, video, and images about their lives and politics.
Nothing in human history has reached 2.4 billion people, roughly one out of every three living humans, with the regularity and influence of Facebook. The only company close to that influence is Google, which controls YouTube and its nearly 2 billion regular users. Both of these companies have developed advertising platforms that deliver carefully targeted messages more effectively and efficiently than anything else in the world. Alphabet in 2018 generated $136.8bn in revenue. Facebook in 2018 earned nearly $56bnin revenue. Alphabet and Facebook are among the five highest capitalized companies in the history of the world."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/google-facebook-regulation-ftc-settlement
-
-
Build new products and apps. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. Conservative backers could do it but they are too lazy or know fellow conservatives won’t migrate. Simple as that. Create what you want.
-
Build new products and apps. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. Conservative backers could do it but they are too lazy or know fellow conservatives won’t migrate. Simple as that. Create what you want.
Build new products and apps. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. Conservative backers could do it but they are too lazy or know fellow conservatives won’t migrate. Simple as that. Create what you want.
Big tech has gotten so huge it is not as simple as that. New start ups can't compete. Big tech will either buy them out or if they won't sell big tech will clone their products. In the meantime they wield tremendous amounts of power and influence with no oversight. Power and influence the world has never seen before.
-
So he and the other guy fudged this data because they're critics of google?
theres certainly a conflict of interest with a guy who sued tgem and claimed they ruined his reputation......right?
theres certainly a conflict of interest with a guy who sued tgem and claimed they ruined his reputation......right?
Maybe, but the guy claimed in front of Congress he was a lefty that voted for Hillary. If you're going to fudge a study then why make it look like OrangeManBad got screwed? Or is that just part of the nefarious plot? You could dispute the data all you want, but this isn't the rabbit hole I would go down if I were you.
-
theres certainly a conflict of interest with a guy who sued tgem and claimed they ruined his reputation......right?
Maybe, but the guy claimed in front of Congress he was a lefty that voted for Hillary. If you're going to fudge a study then why make it look like OrangeManBad got screwed? Or is that just part of the nefarious plot? You could dispute the data all you want, but this isn't the rabbit hole I would go down if I were you.
Maybe, but the guy claimed in front of Congress he was a lefty that voted for Hillary.
rriiiggghhtttt......thats the perfect disclaimer evidently right hefore u get up and blow it out ur ass to congress
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” -
Again ... There isn't good data to conclude bias even exists. It seems like a very flawed study.
I know as a moderator you're letting alts and trolls then this board into a cesspool but at least just read that study
I don't think there are any alts. If there were, and there are ways for the administration to find that out, I'd be happy to boot them. But not merely because you can't formulate a response to them, okay? Or just because you whine about people not following your own personal political bias. Understand? ( I don't think you believe it either really unless you're just too stupid to realize the difference between Styles, which may well be true. Just more typical Woody.)
And according to your buddy and the post are referred to this Epstein actually said there was bias but just couldn't conclude a Smoking Gun. So you are saying there is no bias? Or what? Which part of that post do you think is bullshit and which part are you on board with?
WSS
I don't think there are any alts. If there were, and there are ways for the administration to find that out, I'd be happy to boot them. But not merely because you can't formulate a response to them, okay? Or just because you whine about people not following your own personal political bias. Understand? ( I don't think you believe it either really unless you're just too stupid to realize the difference between Styles, which may well be true. Just more typical Woody.)
And according to your buddy and the post are referred to this Epstein actually said there was bias but just couldn't conclude a Smoking Gun. So you are saying there is no bias? Or what? Which part of that post do you think is bullshit and which part are you on board with?
WSS
I told you the flaws in the study. Read it yourself and let me know your thoughts.
"Can't formulate a response" and "choose not to" are very different. I'm not the only one calling these posters out.
Just because you agree with what they're saying doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to the obvious.
No one just joins the browns board, never posts about the team, and immediately starts spamming the political board with biased articles and threads.
Come on, this shit is obvious. I'm not saying this because of their political beliefs. I'm saying this because it's just turning this board into an even bigger pile of shit.
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work,
His study isn't nearly that complicated
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
Weird, never once did I see you use this standard throughout the Russian collusion investigation. Interesting. Wax on, wax off.....
If you read the second link I left to his studies, it shows his reasoning for extrapolating out the data in the first link I left. If you're going to call him a hack you should at least check out all his shit first, no?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login