Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    TBH, I am all for Government forcing monopoly sites like google and youtube to not censor/ban/hide stuff. How is it against the freedom of speech I dont get tho (;

    Imagine a situation.
    there is just 1 major private subway corporation in US and it says " we wont serve black people because this and that" ( doesnt matter whether its legal or not, imagine for a second that it is)

    Whats your take on that

    - - - Updated - - -


    "And if you think noone is catering to your agenda anymore, you still have the chance to make a blog to talk about your political views."

    Nobody needs to cater to my agenda lol ( I dont have one on top of that) , I just want major and almost monopolitical giants to remain objective and not benefit one social/political agenda over the other. Is it too much to ask for?

    "And why should you bother about facebook banning "hate speech"? You dont sound like someone who has to utilize hate speech."

    I just dont like censorship of any forms and kinds. My bad I guess.

    - - - Updated - - -




    There was never a pro-hate speech algorithm, they were just showing the most popular ones ( which is normal), now on the contrary the more popular will be on 2nd or 3rd pages because they are hate speech or something. Is it pro free speech or anti, whats your opinion.

    It's pro-free speech for Google. They are exercising their own freedom of speech.

  2. #62
    is my post #60 available to be seen, cause i was cheking the politics thread and it was the last message from #59 .

    if it is then waiting for you guys to respond, gonna afk for hald an hour

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's pro-free speech for Google. They are exercising their own freedom of speech.
    you havent answered my question

    "Imagine a situation.
    there is just 1 major private subway corporation in US and it says " we wont serve black people because this and that" ( doesnt matter whether its legal or not, imagine for a second that it is)

    Whats your take on that"

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    is my post #60 available to be seen, cause i was cheking the politics thread and it was the last message from #59 .

    if it is then waiting for you guys to respond, gonna afk for hald an hour

    - - - Updated - - -



    you havent answered my question

    "Imagine a situation.
    there is just 1 major private subway corporation in US and it says " we wont serve black people because this and that" ( doesnt matter whether its legal or not, imagine for a second that it is)

    Whats your take on that"
    Actually, I did answer. Here is what I said:

    "Like I said, you are authoritarian, pushing to limit freedom of speech, sad!

    There are plenty of viable alternatives to Google. If you don't like them, use Bing. If a private company doesn't want to serve black people, they should be free to do so. I would simply call them out for being the racist asshats that they are. Freedom is fucking awesome. "

  4. #64
    So your answer is yes, its okay to discriminate, good then.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    So your answer is yes, its okay to discriminate, good then.
    Like I said, I support freedom, it's awesome.

    We all discriminate every single day. That's what private entities should be able to do, that's what freedom is all about. I'm consistent on the issue, you should be, as well.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    There was never a pro-hate speech algorithm, they were just showing the most popular ones ( which is normal), now on the contrary the more popular will be on 2nd or 3rd pages because they are hate speech or something. Is it pro free speech or anti, whats your opinion.
    If it was based on popularity I'd say that's a bad way of presenting results. Being popular doesn't mean it's the best result, and it's also a "self-fulfilling prophecy" - if only the popular results are listed as top they are more likely to become even more popular, leaving the less popular results to fall and never gain any traction.

    This is as much "anti-free speech" as the new algorithm, the only thing that has changed is who is being "censored".
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    Being popular doesn't mean it's the best result
    And people in google are gods of wisdom and absolute knowledge and know what you should read and what you shouldnt!

    you guys in sweden...
    Last edited by Dmitro; 2017-08-08 at 12:43 AM.

  8. #68
    Mechagnome Thalassian Bob's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Quel'Thalas/God's Own County
    Posts
    742
    As scummy and corporatocratic as I find Google's endeavour to be, they are a private company and in a free market they can choose to operate their search algorithms as they see fit.

    But, we, as consumers in this market system, are also free to make our opposition to these nefarious, Zeitgeist-manipulating activities felt by choosing to take our business elsewhere. We can use other browsers, different search engines and alternative video hosting sites etc.

    The quickest way to encourage change in a business is to affect its bottom line. Stop giving them money and they soon seek to get it back from you.

    The problem is Google is so deeply entrenched in so many aspects of internet life that it is hard to break away from them. I know I'll struggle to give up all my bookmarks and extensions!

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post

    "this is good for you, and that is not"

    textbook censorship?
    The provided examples, like jihad, aren't about good and bad. It's about finding the most relevant information on a word. That's exactly what those searches are doing.

    But, censorship isn't something that's flatly wrong across the board. There are many things that Google will censor as they should. There are quite a number of things you could type into the search bar and it would be disgusting and/or illegal to actually find the results. Things that even you and everyone else here would agree shouldn't be indexed and shown.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    That's not actually what google should be doing, the results should be based solely on mathematics, not opinion.
    What math? Do you know every detail about their search algorithms?

    What result isn't shown when searching for "jihad" that should be?

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Like I said, you are authoritarian, pushing to limit freedom of speech, sad!

    There are plenty of viable alternatives to Google. If you don't like them, use Bing. If a private company doesn't want to serve black people, they should be free to do so. I would simply call them out for being the racist asshats that they are. Freedom is fucking awesome.
    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611...ode-of-conduct I guess google is actually totalitarian. (just in)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    The provided examples, like jihad, aren't about good and bad. It's about finding the most relevant information on a word. That's exactly what those searches are doing.
    How do you know that its what they are doing, whats most relevant, whos to decide when it comes to controversial ( almost every one in socio-political) topics

    btw

    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611...ode-of-conduct
    ( nice freedom of speech google corporation)

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611...ode-of-conduct I guess google is actually totalitarian. (just in)

    - - - Updated - - -



    How do you know that its what they are doing, whats most relevant, whos to decide when it comes to controversial ( almost every one in socio-political) topics

    btw

    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611...ode-of-conduct
    ( nice freedom of speech google corporation)
    They fired an employee who was being misogynistic? I'm not sure exactly how that's totalitarian. But hey, I guess that means any company that has ever fired any employee for any reason at all is totalitarian.

    That still doesn't do much for your stated stance to use the threat of government force to get them to do what you want them to do. That is far more authoritarian than anything they do.

  12. #72

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611...ode-of-conduct I guess google is actually totalitarian. (just in)

    - - - Updated - - -



    How do you know that its what they are doing, whats most relevant, whos to decide when it comes to controversial ( almost every one in socio-political) topics

    btw

    https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611...ode-of-conduct
    ( nice freedom of speech google corporation)
    I'm not surprised they fired a misogynistic dude.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Mittens View Post
    I'm not surprised they fired a misogynistic dude.
    You've missed the part where they didnt even try to prove him wrong ( he gave lots of proof and statistics to his claim unlike Google that fired him)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They fired an employee who was being misogynistic? I'm not sure exactly how that's totalitarian.
    same.

    Firing people just for their opinion w/o proving their points wrong is quite close-minded

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    Sure, why not?
    youre a quite known local anti-free speech person, at least honest unlike mach and some other guys

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    You've missed the part where they didnt even try to prove him wrong ( he gave lots of proof and statistics to his claim unlike Google that fired him)

    - - - Updated - - -



    same.

    Firing people just for their opinion w/o proving their points wrong is quite close-minded

    - - - Updated - - -



    youre a quite known local anti-free speech person, at least honest unlike mach and some other guys
    People can cherry pick statistics all day long, the message was still misogynistic in nature. The issue was the overall message of his comments. he could have just as easily made it about black people, foreigners, or even Jewish people. At the end of the day, it pissed off his bosses, and they fired his ass. They are under no obligation to provide a reason. That's what freedom of speech is all about. He was free to write what he did, and his company was free to fire him for it.

    The same goes for their stance in regards to how they list articles on their site. They can post things however they like, and you can decide to use a different service. Freedom is awesome.

    I support free speech. You are the one who said you want to use the government to stifle it. If you can cite a single example where I do not, then feel free to point it out.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitro View Post
    youre a quite known local anti-free speech person, at least honest unlike mach and some other guys
    Known by whom? I'm famous? Ohhhh

  17. #77
    Immortal Zandalarian Paladin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Saurfang is the True Horde.
    Posts
    7,936
    Google is not known for their impartiality right now, not after firing someone who made a strongly neutral memo. It's easily available online and if you only bother to read instead of buying into the outrageously stupid shitstorm created by Gizmodo et al, you'll see that it's a gross overreaction that Google decided to go along with.

    So yeah, not surprising and no, we shouldn't, but we'll do as long that we have a capitalist incentive to do so.

    Before I get called as pro-hate or whatever, think about Fox News and tell me that's not the case.
    Google Diversity Memo
    Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA

    Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
    [...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Archmage BloodElf4Life View Post
    Google is not known for their impartiality right now, not after firing someone who made a strongly neutral memo.
    In what world was that thing neutral. Especially given that it had zero sources to back its bull up.

  19. #79
    Immortal Zandalarian Paladin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Saurfang is the True Horde.
    Posts
    7,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    In what world was that thing neutral. Especially given that it had zero sources to back its bull up.
    Gizmodo* had no source. The original document has plenty.

    Also, this:

    I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
    Google Diversity Memo
    Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA

    Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
    [...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..

  20. #80
    Courage to say women are too dumb for tech. Okay.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •