United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:12 am

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:31 pm
Posts: 6602
Personally I try to make a conscious effort to not use Google, but then I realize that alternatives like Bing are almost as liberal as Google. So its not like there is a conservative or at the very least, non-ideological search engine out there.

Edit: I will also add that I've noticed that Google search results routinely come up with links to far leftwing sites like Vox, Media Matters, CNN, and Think Progress. And that seems to be the case no matter what I search for. Its almost like Google is trying to drive traffic - but they'd never do that right?

==============================================

Google’s New ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Partisan Garbage
The tech giant is dishonestly manipulating perceptions about conservative sites before people even read them.
January 10, 2018 By David Harsanyi

In the midst of the “fake news” hysteria last year, Google launched a project to help curate reliable information for its readers by identifying articles and sites that need fact-checking. And this may come as a surprise to some of you, but it looks like the tech giant’s truth project is imbued with a tiny bit of ideological and political bias.

Eric Lieberman at The Daily Caller recently found that the fact checks displayed in Google’s search engine results are targeted almost exclusively at conservative publications. You can test it out yourself.

Now, you may believe that conservatives are hopeless liars in need of relentless correcting, so I’ll concede the point for argument’s sake. Even then, you’d have to admit it’s a small miracle that, according to Google’s search engine, not a single prominent liberal or mainstream site in the entire universe has ever uttered a dubious or questionable claim.

Luckily for us, there are methods available to analyze the veracity of Google’s project. One way, for example, is to take a “reviewed claim” made against The Federalist, the site I happen to know best, and contrast it to the coverage of other sites.

Consider the case of a woman named Eileen Wellstone. Out of many thousands of pieces published by The Federalist over the past four years, a single one mentions the name Eileen Wellstone. That article, detailing the sordid history of Bill Clinton, mentions her name exactly once: “Another woman, Eileen Wellstone, claimed Clinton raped her while he was at Oxford University in the late 1960s.”

For some reason, in this “reviewed claim” against The Federalist, Google sends the reader to a Snopes fact-check that argues that Clinton wasn’t expelled from Oxford over this alleged rape — a point I concede sounds completely accurate and is also an assertion that no one has ever made in this publication.

So the question is, does Google tag every article that relays accusations of sexual misconduct or rape as “unproven,” or just the ones against Bill Clinton? Or is the mention of Wellstone specifically worthy of a claim? The Wellstone case has not only been cited in all types of publications (and not in efforts to debunk it, either; 1,2,3,4,5, and so on) but by The Washington Post’s own fact-checker.

In a 2016 article detailing allegations against Bill Clinton that might be brought up by then-candidate Donald Trump, WaPo notes, “Eileen Wellstone says she was assaulted by Clinton when he was a student at Oxford University in 1969.” There is virtually no difference between that statement and the one published in The Federalist. Not that Google search engines users would know this when they search for the influential newspaper.

Or take another purported fact-check regarding climate change, which creates the impression that there’s something inaccurate about a specific arguable claim because the larger notions about the topic happen to be true.

What’s most amusing about this fact-check is that Google sends people who searched for “The Federalist” to an article correcting a claim made by someone on CNN, an outlet that, somehow, even though they apparently feature contributors who make questionable claims about science, is spared from search-engine truth-police grilling.

Moreover, the quote featured in the “reviewed claim” section is not even in The Federalist article. Google’s go-to site, Climate Feedback, an ideologically motivated site itself, argues that “Observed warming since the 1970s is consistent with climate model projections.” This is at the very least an arguable contention. Feel free to use your Google search engine to find thousands of pieces debating the accuracy modeling over the decades. This seems to be a normal, appropriate, and completely scientific debate to be engaged in.

More importantly, the article’s position is that the “alarmist” partisans cherry-pick projections hoping to scaremonger voters into making political decisions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that climate change isn’t happening. Then again, once you begin reading through the fact-check, you’ll quickly notice that it’s not really debunking The Federalist’s assertion at all (The Federalist is once again never even mentioned in the fact-check that allegedly debunks The Federalist); the participants are simply claiming that models, in general, have been correct that it’s getting hotter overall — which does not conflict with anything the article contends.

But if it rings true, it is true, I guess.

In theory, opinion sites will offer more speculation about what events and policy mean. These claims are prone to be challenged, and they should be. That’s part of our discourse. But as Lieberman points out, the Google fact-checking itself is often unconvincing and offered by biased sources.

Take the other “unproven” charge against The Federalist. This one, also by Snopes, claims to debunk an article that argues that vandals burned down a century-old bust of Abraham Lincoln in Chicago in broader protests about Confederate statues. Again, that wasn’t what the article argued. It argued that the vandalism — a term used by an alderman in Chicago, as well — was part of a broader effort to tear down “history” and monuments. Since a number of statues, including the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, had also been vandalized right around the same time, it’s certainly not out of bounds for a columnist to treat these incidents as a trend.

But if this is the standard for corrections and dissuading people from visiting a site, what possible reason could there be for left-wing sites that regularly make arguable or false assertions about economics, history, science, and politics, like Vox and ThinkProgress and many others, to be spared from this fact-checking? It’s one thing for us to read publications through filters. We do it all the time. But it’s another for a search engine to manipulate perceptions about those sites — and only conservative ones — before people even read them.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/goo ... n-garbage/

_________________
"My goal is to destroy the New York Times and CNN... Once our voices are heard, then Democracy will happen."

- Andrew Breitbart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
Liberals are children

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9967
I use google, and keep telling myself I shouldn’t. They are the devil, man.
At my office, we are defaulted to Bing (lots of restrictions & controls on our PCs) and I’m not convinced MS is much better.

Big tech is hard left. Look at Twitter, FB, et al.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 6036
Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. have become such behemoths that they need to be broken up. Teddy Roosevelt would have been on his trust busting bandwagon about them. Certainly as big and in as diverse a collection of businesses that play a part in everyday life as Standard Oil was in its day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9967
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:31 pm
Posts: 6602
Interesting history lesson from the Bell Systems monopoly:

=========================================

Nationwide monopoly

Bell system telephones and related equipment were made by Western Electric, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Co. Member telephone companies paid a fixed fraction of their revenues as a license fee to Bell Labs.

As a result of this vertical monopoly, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves. This allowed Bell to prohibit its customers from connecting phones not made or sold by Bell to the system without paying fees. For example, if a customer desired a type of phone not leased by the local Bell monopoly, he or she had to purchase the phone at cost, give it to the phone company, then pay a 're-wiring' charge and a monthly lease fee in order to use it.

In 1949, the United States Department of Justice alleged in an antitrust lawsuit that AT&T and the Bell System operating companies were using their near-monopoly in telecommunications to attempt to establish unfair advantage in related technologies. The outcome was a 1956 consent decree limiting AT&T to 85% of the United States' national telephone network and certain government contracts, and from continuing to hold interests in Canada and the Caribbean. The Bell System's Canadian operations included the Bell Canada regional operating company and the Northern Electric manufacturing subsidiary of the Bell System's Western Electric equipment manufacturer. Western Electric divested Northern Electric in 1956, but AT&T did not divest itself of Bell Canada until 1975. ITT Corporation, then known as International Telephone & Telegraph Co. purchased the Bell System's Caribbean regional operating companies.

The Bell System also owned various Caribbean regional operating companies, as well as 54% of Japan's NEC and a post-World War II reconstruction relationship with NTT before the 1956 boundaries were emplaced. Before 1956, the Bell System's reach was truly gargantuan. Even during the period from 1956 to 1984, the Bell System's dominant reach into all forms of communications was pervasive within the United States and influential in telecommunication standardization throughout the industrialized world.

The 1984 Bell System divestiture brought an end to the affiliation branded as the Bell System. It resulted from another antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1974, alleging illegal practices by the Bell System companies to stifle competition in the telecommunications industry. The parties settled the suit on January 8, 1982, superseding the former restrictions that AT&T and the DOJ had agreed upon in 1956.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

_________________
"My goal is to destroy the New York Times and CNN... Once our voices are heard, then Democracy will happen."

- Andrew Breitbart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 am
Posts: 5327
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Use DuckDuckGo.

_________________
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!
That's what you got out of the video?

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9967
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!


Whoosh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 5210
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
133743Hokie wrote:
Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. have become such behemoths that they need to be broken up. Teddy Roosevelt would have been on his trust busting bandwagon about them. Certainly as big and in as diverse a collection of businesses that play a part in everyday life as Standard Oil was in its day.




I 1000% agree. I wouldn't stop with those companies though. Telecoms like Comcast, AT&T, and VZW should busted open like piñatas.

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:06 am
Posts: 2616
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Interesting history lesson from the Bell Systems monopoly:

=========================================

Nationwide monopoly

Bell system telephones and related equipment were made by Western Electric, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Co. Member telephone companies paid a fixed fraction of their revenues as a license fee to Bell Labs.

As a result of this vertical monopoly, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves. This allowed Bell to prohibit its customers from connecting phones not made or sold by Bell to the system without paying fees. For example, if a customer desired a type of phone not leased by the local Bell monopoly, he or she had to purchase the phone at cost, give it to the phone company, then pay a 're-wiring' charge and a monthly lease fee in order to use it.

In 1949, the United States Department of Justice alleged in an antitrust lawsuit that AT&T and the Bell System operating companies were using their near-monopoly in telecommunications to attempt to establish unfair advantage in related technologies. The outcome was a 1956 consent decree limiting AT&T to 85% of the United States' national telephone network and certain government contracts, and from continuing to hold interests in Canada and the Caribbean. The Bell System's Canadian operations included the Bell Canada regional operating company and the Northern Electric manufacturing subsidiary of the Bell System's Western Electric equipment manufacturer. Western Electric divested Northern Electric in 1956, but AT&T did not divest itself of Bell Canada until 1975. ITT Corporation, then known as International Telephone & Telegraph Co. purchased the Bell System's Caribbean regional operating companies.

The Bell System also owned various Caribbean regional operating companies, as well as 54% of Japan's NEC and a post-World War II reconstruction relationship with NTT before the 1956 boundaries were emplaced. Before 1956, the Bell System's reach was truly gargantuan. Even during the period from 1956 to 1984, the Bell System's dominant reach into all forms of communications was pervasive within the United States and influential in telecommunication standardization throughout the industrialized world.

The 1984 Bell System divestiture brought an end to the affiliation branded as the Bell System. It resulted from another antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1974, alleging illegal practices by the Bell System companies to stifle competition in the telecommunications industry. The parties settled the suit on January 8, 1982, superseding the former restrictions that AT&T and the DOJ had agreed upon in 1956.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System


This is great stuff. FA(A)NG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netfilx, Google) present a quandry (Netflix seems a little out of place in the group for trust busting). Anti-trust law is set up to go after companies that are bad for the consumer. They look at issues like market share and prices, somewhat formulaic, to determine how the consumer is harmed.

Amazon, this is really tough. They are bringing down prices and making it easier for consumers to get products. It's hard to say consumers are hurt by Amazon. Plenty of competition online and Walmart is making strides. They also allow smaller companies to reach a lot of consumers, something that wasn't as easy before them. This is tough from a competition angle. They buy Wholefoods, reduce prices and start adding online purchasing options. This is difficult under current law.

Google. Where to begin. They provide information for "free". The amount of information you can get by searching on Google, for "free" is unbelievable. People get email for "free" (dropping the quotes), search the web for free, store photos for free. People have more information at their fingertips through Google than at anytime in history. The best path through current legislation would be to follow Europe and go after them for prioritizing ads that benefit Google most. Consumers are better off because of Google. There are other search engines that are pretty good, even if Google is dominant.

Facebook - People can connect with the world, store pictures, and be entertained for "free". There seem to be other social platforms that pop up that take some luster away from Facebook. They are also getting into the production game to compete with Netflix and Amazon and .... They are also working to be a portal to the internet, log into facebook and have the web at your disposal. In some ways that is competing with Google. Let's ignore wasting people's time, how is facebook, which is free, harming the consumer under anti-trust law.

Apple - they have a great ecosystem and once you're in there is a huge switching cost (I don't own apple products and don't like their ecosystem but to each their own). You could make some parallels with Bell their, but that's where it ends. Unlike Bell, you can get phone calls, texts, access the web, without Apple. They certainly aren't a monopoly in the smartphone business or computers. Not sure the angle here.

Netflix - Everyone is in competition. Google (youtube), Amazon, Facebook, HBO, production companies, etc.

So, under the current anti-trust system there isn't much of an angle, unless I'm missing something (what is it?). I think new rules could be adapted that would change the game. Let people have control of their data and let the user sell their information to advertisers and pay Facebook, Google for services. This would put all companies on a more equal footing since data is what is extremely important to these companies and is a very big barrier to entry. If people own their data the barrier to entry is minimized.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
RiverguyVT wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!


Whoosh


OK...what's the point?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Google's new motto:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!
That's what you got out of the video?


Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!
That's what you got out of the video?


Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Google's new motto:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!
That's what you got out of the video?


Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Seems appropriate to just leave this here:


https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Good stuff. Project Veritas has revealed that a SF techie is a liberal and hates Trump. Groundbreaking!
That's what you got out of the video?


Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Google's new motto:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:

Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Google's new motto:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:

Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Here you go. Haynes says they keep all that info, in case they get subpoenaed. And then O'Keefe makes the claim that b/c Haynes would be willing to hand over all Trump's tweets, it is proof of a political bias at the highest levels of Twitter.

You're welcome.

https://youtu.be/jUtr7fNwagg?t=360


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:

Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Go ahead liar. You're completely misrepresenting the video you dumb ass liar. Post the parts where they talk of black banning posts and hiding conservative content. You'd know all of that if you watched it you lying dope.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
[quote="awesome guy"]

Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Here you go. Haynes says they keep all that info, in case they get subpoenaed. And then O'Keefe makes the claim that b/c Haynes would be willing to hand over all Trump's tweets, it is proof of a political bias at the highest levels of Twitter.

You're welcome.

https://youtu.be/jUtr7fNwagg?t=360[/quote]You're one more stupid and dishonest individual.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Google's new motto:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Go ahead liar. You're completely misrepresenting the video you dumb ass liar. Post the parts where they talk of black banning posts and hiding conservative content. You'd know all of that if you watched it you lying dope.


Why don't you post it...because I don't see it in there. I know there are reports about Twitter doing that, from over a year ago at least, but that's not part of this video.

And obviously, the video shows O'Keefe saying Haynes represents the highest levels of Twitter, that's utter nonsense. And Haynes mentioning subpoenas at least twice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 31362
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="HokieFanDC"]
Yes, because that's all the video showed. Twitter isn't going to give anything to the DOJ unless they issue subpoenas for it, and even that isn't certain. The sr. network engineer isn't involved in making decisions about what happens to tweets, and he doesn't make Twitter policy.
You didn't watch it, another blind review. Shameful


Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Go ahead liar. You're completely misrepresenting the video you dumb ass liar. Post the parts where they talk of black banning posts and hiding conservative content. You'd know all of that if you watched it you lying dope.


Why don't you post it...because I don't see it in there. I know there are reports about Twitter doing that, from over a year ago at least, but that's not part of this video.

And obviously, the video shows O'Keefe saying Haynes represents the highest levels of Twitter, that's utter nonsense. And Haynes mentioning subpoenas at least twice.[/quote]It's in the video you dope. It's been posted, they go on and on about silencing conservatives and have 50k words flagged to identify "rednecks". You'd know all of this if you weren't a pathological liar and actually watched the video. Even Nolan couldn't miss it, well maybe.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Google's new motto:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8657
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Go ahead liar. You're completely misrepresenting the video you dumb ass liar. Post the parts where they talk of black banning posts and hiding conservative content. You'd know all of that if you watched it you lying dope.


Why don't you post it...because I don't see it in there. I know there are reports about Twitter doing that, from over a year ago at least, but that's not part of this video.

And obviously, the video shows O'Keefe saying Haynes represents the highest levels of Twitter, that's utter nonsense. And Haynes mentioning subpoenas at least twice.
It's in the video you dope. It's been posted, they go on and on about silencing conservatives and have 50k words flagged to identify "rednecks". You'd know all of this if you weren't a pathological liar and actually watched the video. Even Nolan couldn't miss it, well maybe.



You're talking about a different video, dopey.

This is the video that Riverguy posted, it's about Trump's tweets. You'd know that if you had actually watched it

https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 10206
Location: New York, NY
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="HokieFanDC"]
Yeh, I did. The engineer said they had access to the data, if they get subpoenaed. O'Keefe wants people to believe that Haynes is a senior level employee at Twitter, and that's just not true. O'Keefe calls Haynes someone is "at the highest level of Twitter". That's simply a lie.
You're lying, obviously didn't watch it. Let the back peddling begin.


Are you really this stupid? Do you need me to show you exactly where they said that?


Go ahead liar. You're completely misrepresenting the video you dumb ass liar. Post the parts where they talk of black banning posts and hiding conservative content. You'd know all of that if you watched it you lying dope.


Why don't you post it...because I don't see it in there. I know there are reports about Twitter doing that, from over a year ago at least, but that's not part of this video.

And obviously, the video shows O'Keefe saying Haynes represents the highest levels of Twitter, that's utter nonsense. And Haynes mentioning subpoenas at least twice.
It's in the video you dope. It's been posted, they go on and on about silencing conservatives and have 50k words flagged to identify "rednecks". You'd know all of this if you weren't a pathological liar and actually watched the video. Even Nolan couldn't miss it, well maybe.



You're talking about a different video, dopey.

This is the video that Riverguy posted, it's about Trump's tweets. You'd know that if you had actually watched it

https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/ ... ms-to-doj/[/quote]

He’ll get ‘em next time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: