Melvin Butterworth wrote:Everyone's a Nazi that you don't like?
Glenn Beck is a terrible human being, full stop.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Yes, imagine if Trump had won both (fair and square). Charges of a "stolen election" would not abound. The president would have had a mandate. The conspiracy theorizing would have been defused.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Journalists are not supposed to be advocates and content providing "platforms" are sure as shit supposed to be neutral with requests for information processing.
Journalists frequently find themselves advocating for whatever truth they are exposing and against those who are attempting to conceal it. I suppose that one of the primary reasons why Trump is unpopular among the journalists today may be due to his rather brazen disregard for their ethical determination to uncover what he would prefer to obfuscate.
As for "platforms", these are private companies. If you want to argue in favor of regulating the internet as a public utility, then I'm on board. But social media, as it stands, is not a public utility. That can be a problem in many ways that we're seeing, as they've recently been scrambling to control the content that its users share, but the 1st amendment argument falls flat when facing a T&S agreement.
Google's size and influence has been a major issue for privacy advocates for much of the last decade precisely for the way it identifies and "profiles" users in order to tailor results to their (apparent) interests. Google, however, also does a lot of good in terms of archiving internet content. What you, and Epstein, need to show to make the case you're presenting is 1) Google would have an interest to sway an election; and 2) that any halfway-reasonable person could be swayed to switch votes based on Google search results. I'm sure you'll tell me that this info is in the studies you linked, but I'm asking directly. Because, especially by citing that magical number of "3 million", this sounds like more of the same effort as Trump's unverified claim of 3 million illegal voters, a roundabout way to excuse Trump's popular discrepancy. Like the deep state sermonizing, it seems to be hyping fear against something either non-existent or totally ineffective (they almost
stole an election from Trump, despite the correlating approval ratings....). As for cyber-fraud, I'm far more concerned with the coordinated bots which flooded the FCC in support of repealing net neutrality, altering an estimated 99% consensus to keep it into a mandate to repeal it. I wonder if Epstein is similarly concerned about the ways in which these botnets-for-hire consistently game social media results, trends and feeds in ways that are at least equal to the influence of someone's inability to click past page one of a Google search.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Google literally rewrote the definition of the word "fascism" so that it would only stick to conservatives.
Yeah, yeah, bullshit. I see one story here on this
, from Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, which provides very little evidence other than the writer's private conviction that "fascism" was ever defined as a left-wing ideology. Of course, you may be concerned about Wiki
as well, but who knows (cares)? Again, just a garbage information diet, dude.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Again, your source makes NO reference to Epstein, his research, or his organization. LOL.
Sure, and let's ignore the substance of the allegations which directly address Epstein's research - that of Google deliberately skewing search results for political purposes (ie, "flipping votes blue") - which the article addresses and debunks.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:No, it's about your source which makes a shitty argument.
What it illustrates most clearly is how easy it is for someone to take a proposed hypothetical scenario (the possibility of Google rigging the Indian election) and turn it into conspiratorial certainty. After all, this is the kind of sleight-of-tongue that someone like Glenn Beck has made millions from. I can understand why Google is not his friend.