Has google finally overstepped its boundaries?

Has google finally overstepped its boundaries?

How can you divorce yourself completely from this monster? I'm still tied to google drive and gmail for a lot of work related items

Other urls found in this thread:

snopes.com/2017/04/07/google-fact-check-tags/
usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>integrates conclusion of snopes article under snopes search result
>l-l-leftists have gone too far!

ITT: triggered

Why would you need a fact check? Facts, per definition, can't be wrong.

stop using it for anything even remotely polical. (unless you want blue pills, aka ignorance pills)

You're not the least bit worried this might start becoming a trend for any facts? Eventually google will create its own box of information (like it does for word definitions/ formulas) and then it can push its own narrative where it sees fit? Couple this with google tracking search patterns and it can target who gets what narrative

>itt republicans get upset that they can no longer get away with publishing bullshit news

It tells me how (((they))) manipulate filthy goyim.

It's not checking if the facts are true or not, it's checking whether or not the claim is actually a fact or not

Absolutely loving the alt-righter rage coming out because of this.

Facts don't mean anything - Sup Forums

> snopes isn't fake news
WEW LAD

It's clearly only there because snopes.com appeared in the search results. Calm down.

Claim: OP is a faggot

Fact check by Sup Forums.org: true

I chose the uranium search because thats how I saw the snopes article come up.

Apparently the claim is that the Clinton Foundation received something like 20mil from a Russian entity after the uranium was changed hands.

RELIGION OF PEACE

Can you please elaborate on what a false fact is then

kek

How the fuck can you be against this? Unless you have a sinister motive to starve the populace from critical thinking

Did Snopes pay Google for this or are they getting millions in ad revenue without any effort?

There is no such thing. If it is false, then it's not a fact. Fact checkers see if they're actually facts of not, not if the fact is true or false. Really read what I said.

Can you elaborate on why are you such an autist?

>remove all critical thinking from process
>muh critical thinking

were you seriously not paying attention to snopes during the election?

They lost credibility for shit like pic related

theres a dozen or so facts that were written like "well the stats are true, but he shouldn't have said that: false"

Snopes used to be decent until they picked a side.

and i'm not even a fucking trump supporter

So a fact check checks whether something is a fact then
Well thanks for your contribution

snopes.com/2017/04/07/google-fact-check-tags/

>Google is not paying fact-checking organizations for being part of this effort, and a Google spokeswoman said articles tagged with the new fact-check label would not be ranked differently in search results.

I think critical thinking comes from researching the articles and reading from multiple sources...

It's supplying alternative sources, again how can you be against this?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

lmfao

good goy

top kek

> NBC: she did not use a chemical corrosive to wipe her hard drive, trump be lier

No you're fucking retarded. They are pushing the snopes result first along with that conclusion to push their narrative. I need a new search engine

Back to your shithole

Sup Forums

>bleach
>not corrosive

they provide more than just a true or false, they actually justify it

>National Review
>CNBC
>Politifact

(((((((alternative sources)))))))

triggered, autist?

>Sup Forums thinking it's more reliable than snopes

LOL

No, I'm just not a dumb nigger swallowing everything the corporate overlords see fit to consume. Fucking kike

I see you've never taken a humanities course, in which you are taught to find and/or twist evidence to justify literally anything
source: am english major, all we do is bullshit

this

used to be sociology major until it was just too much for my soul to handle

>LOL
>>>>>plebbit

Trump said something like "This year more illegal immigrants entered the US than the previous year"

Politifacts acknowledged that his claim matches the ICE numbers but rated it "Mostly False" because "year" referred to the fiscal year and not the calendar year. So next time a presidential candidate says something like this, they can just show

>Fact checked by Politifacts: false

and all the sheep will fall for it. Brave new world.

yes you are the enlightened one.

I've met so many of you and it all their arguments where based on lack of deep knowledge of a topic

What's wrong with fact checks? Isn't that what we want? Alternative facts don't exist you know...

t. Schlomo

But muh feelings!!!

...

This is literally the memory hole and the constantly editing history to fit their narrative from 1984.

technically it's caustic, not corrosive, as it's a base not an acid.

theres nothing wrong, sites like snopes/politifact are still there.

Theres no reason for google to include them in the search results like this. It opens them up to bias and information manipulation which is a scary precedent going forward.

Technically she didn't do that either. She hired a private firm to go through her servers and gather as many e-mails as possible (the server software had been reinstalled a few times and some e-mails had become detached from it while still existing on the hard drive) and to try to distinguish which ones were government related. Once they came back and told her they had identified all her government e-mails (they were wrong) they asked her what to do with the remaining personal e-mails. At this point she told them to delete the personal e-mails since she didn't think they would ever be useful to her anymore, this is where BleachBit comes into play. She didn't use BleachBit to wipe the e-mails, she didn't even know which e-mails were being wiped with BleachBit nor did she choose the software BleachBit.

This is why the FBI chose not to prosecute. There were things that weren't supposed to be deleted and she should have known not to ask for the personal e-mails to be deleted but she just acted foolishly not criminally. Keep in mind, this is the same chick that got her personal e-mail address hacked by a Sup Forumstard who guessed her secret questions several years ago.

That said, all those who'll complain about Clinton being incompetent with technology, allow me to remind you that Trump doesn't know how to use a computer at all. Instead he either does things through his smartphone or he hires someone else to do them. Anyone complaining about Clinton hiring a private firm to do that sort of thing should know that Trump has done the same thing.

A lie. A false fact is, by definition, a lie.

only one of these people was dealing with classified information

If that claim were true in a useful way (i.e. to draw inferences about immigration) then why would it matter how you divide up the years. It should be true either way. In this case politifacts just pointed out that it isn't useful to draw inferences on that statistic given that it's kind of coincidental based on when you divide the years.

>muh Russian hackers stole the election

no i understand that, i didnt like either party, its just how it was presented.

also, really? i thought that was sarah palin, or maybe it was both, kek

also dont forget john podesta was losing his government phone in cabs all the time.

They're all incompetent, i wasn't using it as "muh trump" but more like just how they presented the information.

lugenpresse thread?

>I'm still tied to google drive and gmail for a lot of work related items
This among many other reasons is why you never mix personal computing and work computing on the same services or devices.

>not acid, it was a Software called bleachbit

Lol

Both were.

Lately Google gave Black Lives Matters around 15 mil - they are basically Soros shills. I want out. What is a decent search engine / email alternative to the beast?

of you unirionically assume that Politifact is an unbiased fact checking source, you're obviously way too dumb to see how google doing this would be a bad thing

>Has google finally overstepped its boundaries?
Yes. And those of us who remember the false-flag "terrorist" attack on September 11th, 2001 and understand that a story that violates basic laws of physics isn't true just because they repeat it time and time on television see where this is going.

I don't know what big event they are planning this time but it's coming. And when it does Google will "fact-check" that every website they show have the approved "facts" and ensure that nobody who tells the truth is heard.

This is censorship, pure and simple. The classic book 1984 is worth a read, this book has some examples of what kind of "fact"-checking we're looking at.

>How can you divorce yourself completely from this monster?
I haven't used their search-engine for years and years but I do use their YouTube product to view some content that is not available elsewhere.

>then it can push its own narrative where it sees fit?
alphabeth inc/google will do this. Remember what happened during the US election to get a clear indicator. Youtube videos supporting Trump got their advertisements removed videos supporting Hillary were fine. Google has a pretty long history of blatant censorship.

It's interesting to note that the way Google has been stripping ad revenue from those who say the wrong things for a long time caused some blow-back. Then we get "news" that big advertisers were pulling their Youtube advertisements because they were afraid that their ads would be shown on the wrong thing. Remember the time-line on this one, first they started stripping people's ad revenue away as a punishment for having the wrong opinion and later they announce that they have to start doing what they were already doing because advertisers demand it.

Snopes is sketchy, it is run by an old troll and his wife, self described liberals living on the west coast with doubtful moral track record.

It's an editorial site with a fact checking format, which is a bigger stinger because they manipulate the outcome of a piece by slapping a graphic on top and every person who put stock in the site when they were quaint nods his head and makes up his mind.

Did you miss the news that the company she hired was caught asking reddit how to forge? email headers

Justifying is not proving.

>also, really? i thought that was sarah palin, or maybe it was both, kek
oh shit, you're right. It was Palin. I'm a retard.

can you point me to a false claim? I'm not that familiar with those websites only read couple of articles.

>Fact checkers see if they're actually facts of not
No, they don't. And there are plenty of examples of this.

>were you seriously not paying attention to snopes during the election?
I know, it's totally obvious that it's about telling you what to think regardless of the truth. Those who defend this kind of "fact-checking" censorship are likely paid shills because it's hard to believe someone who's able to write can be that ignorant.

>the "news"
Post a legitimate news source user.

Was wondering if startpage was a good alternative, they use google, but don't save/sell your searches.

>It's interesting to note that the way Google has been stripping ad revenue from those who say the wrong things for a long time caused some blow-back.

as much as i love supporting the narrative, are we sure this honestly wasn't entirely the advertisers?

Between google being dicks, and "legit" concerns over where ads are placed, i personal believe this new saga is only about a quarter of googles fault.

This is literally why television has become such shit, they have to attempt to appeal to everyone or those giant corporate sponsors could flutter away.

>muh alternative facts

See, now you might understand the problem with "fact checkers". They deliver a counter argument that is - most of the time - not more true than the original statement. It's just another point of view, yet they act like they provide irrefutable facts.

>how dare you factcheck my habitual lying

usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips

Holy fug are you autists seriously arguing about whether or not Snopes does nothing but spew liberal talking points. Someone link this thread to Sup Forums pls

>he's only just now realizing that google doctors search results for political reasons
What's next? Are you gonna tell me the sky's blue or something?

start page is good but since it's still google results they could still skew the narrative however they want. Fortunately the """fact checks""" don't show up though.

It is more true. Just dumbed down.

Without proof, you cannot say it's true. It's the kind of logic that "ancient aliens" experts rely on. Hillary may indeed have been responsible for the sale of the mining company to Russia, and yes, the Clinton Foundation did receive some donations from Russians, but without proof, you have, at best, a hypothesis that requires further investigation.

It's also the exact same logic behind the claim that Trump is a Russian puppet. Yes, Russia likely benefits more from Trump, and there are some people on his campaign team who had acquaintances in Russia. But again, that doesn't mean Russia "rigged" the election, as you're connecting dots that might not have any connections whatsoever. And with the CIA leaks showing that they have the ability to make false flag cyber attacks, the claim that Russia was behind the email leaks deserves even more scrutiny.

Pic related. I find it ironic that the niggers on Sup Forums have a sticky explaining common logical fallacies, yet continue to use logical fallacies as their modus operandi.

>as much as i love supporting the narrative, are we sure this honestly wasn't entirely the advertisers?

A lot of people noticed what they were doing and some decided to do funny experiments. A few made very similar videos where they said almost identical things about Hillary in one video and Trump in another. One was immediately punished and the other was rewarded.

This has nothing to do with advertisers on most cases.

Why would you prefer it mindlessly spit back the propaganda you enter into it?

Sadly, Google is still better at searching arxiv, citeseer, and MSDN better than any of their respective purpose-built search engines.

I have yet to see a single pop-culture or political reference crop up in an academic search.

>as much as i love supporting the narrative, are we sure this honestly wasn't entirely the advertisers?
Any targeting which Google naturally does and have been doing for years implies that some ads are not shown.
The new thing is that Google artificially lowers the cost of viewing ad revenue for those who are undesirable.

If your reality is so devoid of facts, then Google offering inline fact checking is the least of your concerns. You literally live a life of delusion.

Google has definitely gone too far.

KEK

Facebook's (((Independent Fact Checkers)))

I wonder, why would a CEO of a Bloomberg company have anything to do with the fake news fact checking? Isn't the Bloomberg company one of the conventional mainstream media companies in the USA?

...

same people crying about this and are against it are the same ones that cry when news sites remove the comments section. kind of funny.

>&tbs=li:1
that is all

In fact the claim as stated is false. Clinton sold 20% of uranium production to Russia. Literally a worse thing that the original claim.
Even the snopes source says that.
The problem, as usual, is that Google can push a narrative with these resumed fact checks because the average normie will not ever look or read the source of the claims.

Dubs of Truth

And I regret this shit show well. This is when stonetear went to plebbit of all places and openly asked girls to bleachbit info for a VIP.

Lies have the malicious intention of avoid truth. false facts also can be misunderstandings or myths.
For example, a false fact that isn't a lie but is a myth is that that says that Mozart didn't need a piano to compose.
/autism

>Has google finally overstepped its ovaries?

Dont you know that's racist and muh soggy knees user?

>and i'm not even a fucking trump supporter
same, but I always get that fucking look whenever I play devil's advocate in the name of transparency and fairness.

>(((snopes)))

DELETE THIS [spoiler]Google, not you [/spoiler]