Project Veritas again Hidden camera Google

DanishLutheran · Jun 26, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
Have you ever looked into the veracity of his claims or do you just take his word at face value because he makes libs angry?

Nope. It's the other way around.
The claim was made that a journalist was "Lying, breaking the law, deliberately deceptive video editing". It is not up to me to prove these allegations false. It is up to the one making them to prove them true.

Affirmanti incumbit probatio, after all..

iluvatar5150 · Jun 26, 2019

DanishLutheran said:
Nope. It's the other way around.
The claim was made that a journalist was "Lying, breaking the law, deliberately deceptive video editing". It is not up to me to prove these allegations false. It is up to the one making them to prove them true.

Affirmanti incumbit probatio, after all..

Those are not new and/or unproven allegations. Those allegations against him have already been proven true in a number of cases in the past. He's been investigated and he's been found to be dishonest and he's been found to have broken the law.

If you're ignorant of his history with lying, breaking the law, and deliberately deceptive video editing, perhaps you should go do a little bit of reading instead of arguing that we're all being a bunch of whiny leftists. Google still works in Denmark, doesn't it?

DanishLutheran · Jun 26, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
Those are not new and/or unproven allegations. Those allegations against him have already been proven true in a number of cases in the past. He's been investigated and he's been found to be dishonest and he's been found to have broken the law.

If you're ignorant of his history with lying, breaking the law, and deliberately deceptive video editing, perhaps you should go do a little bit of reading instead of arguing that we're all being a bunch of whiny leftists. Google still works in Denmark, doesn't it?

Again: It is not my job to provide backup for your allegations.
That's your job.

Yes, google works in Denmark. That doesn't answer my question, but nice attempt at a jab at my country for no reason at all

You know what also works in Denmark? Society.
Now, this is the last time I'm going to point this out:

Affirmanti incumbit probatio.
Loosely translated: "The burden of proof falls upon the one who makes the claim".

You make claims? You back them up. And no, NYT or MSNBC going "lol orange man bad" aren't credible sources.

iluvatar5150 · Jun 26, 2019

DanishLutheran said:
Again: It is not my job to provide backup for your allegations.
That's your job.

Nobody's asking you to back up our allegations. I am, however, asking you to go read the public record. After all, if you're going to chime in on a subject that's already been settled, you ought to at least do a bit of homework before suggesting your opponents are a bunch of whiny hypocrites.

You can start here:
ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy - Wikipedia

Yes, google works in Denmark. That doesn't answer my question, but nice attempt at a jab at my country for no reason at all

My jab wasn't directed at your country.

But since we've established that your Google works, you can now go do some homework.

Affirmanti incumbit probatio.
Loosely translated: "The burden of proof falls upon the one who makes the claim".

You make claims? You back them up. And no, NYT or MSNBC going "lol orange man bad" aren't credible sources.

Your disingenuousness is showing. Your very first post in this thread quoted another post that linked to two different stories about O'Keefe. I don't know if you didn't read them or what, but you never once asked anybody for any evidence to support the assertions against him; you just took a bunch of silly, ill-informed pot shots at the people who apparently know more about him and have higher standards for "journalists" than you do. You made a bunch of claims about us that you failed to back up.

carlv_52 · Jun 26, 2019

DanishLutheran said:
The job of journalism is to expose the truth, even if that is inconvenient to your narrative. That's what they're doing

O'Keefe has a proven history of lies and misrepresentation.

Why do I get the feeling that you're leaving out vital parts of the story?

Show me the parts I'm leaving out.

So, lying under any circumstance, for any reason, is unethical?
I think there were a lot of resistance fighters and people who hid other people from the nazis during WW2 who would disagree with that claim.

Because poor innercity people are EXACTLY like Hitler and Nazis, eh?

O'Keefe is a partisan hack who breaks the law and misrepresents his stuff. If you think he's going to tell YOU the truth maybe, just maybe you are the one with a "narrative" problem.

Haramis · Jun 26, 2019

The Masonic Temple bit along with throwing around the term "SJW" tells me the person "exposing" this is an Alex Jones acolyte.

I have zero doubt Google is censoring content, and promoting an agenda. However, I'm not convinced it's primarily trained at "conservatives". Trump isn't a conservative. Mike Pence is a conservative. Google doesn't seem to hate Mike Pence. Google hates Trump because he's uncontrollable. They absolutely want to "stop Trump" for the same reason Bill Krystal and George Will do. It's also the very same people who want to stop Mike Gravel or Tulsi Gabbard. They aren't playing the game.

I know of more left-wing creators being removed than I do conservatives. The censor has always been less kind to liberals than conservatives. The censor seeks to maintain the status quo. This aligns far more with conservatism than it does liberalism. The only reason anyone thinks Google is "liberal" is because of wedge issue non-sense like gays and trans. How many gay people have you spoken to for 5 minutes in the last week? That's the impact on the world.

Now how much of your time is being robbed by land lords, and taxation used to fund a military industrial complex, and a medical cartel? Google isn't liberal or conservative, they just want power.

tall73 · Jun 26, 2019

Haramis said:
The Masonic Temple bit along with throwing around the term "SJW" tells me the person "exposing" this is an Alex Jones acolyte.

I have zero doubt Google is censoring content, and promoting an agenda. However, I'm not convinced it's primarily trained at "conservatives". Trump isn't a conservative. Mike Pence is a conservative. Google doesn't seem to hate Mike Pence. Google hates Trump because he's uncontrollable. They absolutely want to "stop Trump" for the same reason Bill Krystal and George Will do. It's also the very same people who want to stop Mike Gravel or Tulsi Gabbard. They aren't playing the game.

I know of more left-wing creators being removed than I do conservatives. The censor has always been less kind to liberals than conservatives. The censor seeks to maintain the status quo. This aligns far more with conservatism than it does liberalism. The only reason anyone thinks Google is "liberal" is because of wedge issue non-sense like gays and trans. How many gay people have you spoken to for 5 minutes in the last week? That's the impact on the world.

Now how much of your time is being robbed by land lords, and taxation used to fund a military industrial complex, and a medical cartel? Google isn't liberal or conservative, they just want power.

Sources on both the left and right are being demonetized, etc. when discussing the military industrial complex.

tall73 · Jun 27, 2019

Based on new information I wanted to clarify that some of the information in my earlier posts is not correct.

In the Senate hearings Ted Cruz and others have been asking Google if they are a neutral publisher under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They indicated they are.

Cruz, etc. have indicated that Google is abusing the liability protection given to it, and is not neutral. Whether they are neutral or not doesn't matter in recent court cases, and the actual text of 230 doesn't seem to require it.

This blog in particular goes through various cases and shows that courts are basically uniformly siding with social media companies in cases involving removal of content, banning, etc. even if there is an argument the company violated its own user agreement.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

So it seems the courts are interpreting the good samaritan rights to remove offending content quite broadly. And even if these companies are removing accounts, removing content, etc. they enjoy liability under the provision.

Now a bill like Hawley's legislation could change that. But under the current bill it would seem the companies may still remove who they want.

Gigimo · Jun 27, 2019

tryphena rose said:
I would argue, that mega corporations with way too much power in their hands are the manipulative ones.

When you routinely dine at the government taxpayer handouts trough why would you want to see that end :scratch:

Gigimo · Jun 27, 2019

Albion said:
So much has come out about Google lately that I am wondering how many people here use some other search engine--to have more privacy, for example. If so, which one?

I'm not sure about how much privacy you get with any search engine but the reason I use others is their searches turn up "more" information than a Google search does. What I mean by this is it turns up other sides of the story not just the one Google wants you to see, it's been that way for quite sometime.

KCfromNC · Jun 27, 2019

tall73 said:
Because it is not just neoNazis. And censorship never stops with just the worst. They are also taking actions against those who discuss anti-war narratives. They are also even taking out channels that simply discuss history, or that are opposed to nazis.

Are the emails in the OP related to any of these claims?

Albion · Jun 27, 2019

Gigimo said:
I'm not sure about how much privacy you get with any search engine but the reason I use others is their searches turn up "more" information than a Google search does. What I mean by this is it turns up other sides of the story not just the one Google wants you to see, it's been that way for quite sometime.

That is the rub, as they say, when it comes to this matter of choosing a search engine, isn't it? I mean, privacy is a concern, but it doesn't solve the problem if you turn instead to another engine that doesn't give you very many sources. So at once we want privacy, adequacy, and an absence of bias in the selections.

tall73 · Jun 27, 2019

KCfromNC said:
Are the emails in the OP related to any of these claims?

The document regarding editorial oversight is.

Project Veritas is a partisan group. They only focus on one side of the situation. But removal of viewpoints is happening on multiple fronts.

Moreover, the removal of historical content, etc. happened as part of an AI adjustment and policy change involving controversy over Crowder, a popular conservative commentator, and Vox, a more left-leaning outlet. Much of the material related to Nazis was impacted, even if it was not promoting, or even if it was arguing against it, because the AI still picked up on it as Nazi oriented.

So yes, it is all related.

Project Veritas again Hidden camera Google

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dancing on Rainbows

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads