Tools not content the next liberal media bias?

[davebg 0]

It is one thing to produce content that favors one side or the other, as eventually, a competing viewpoint will make its way to the masses, but what happens when the dominant tools to disseminate said content are owned and operated by groups w/a bias in one direction or the other. What happens when the owners of such technology let their own personal views determine what they will allow the masses to see and hear?

 

On the radio there is Rush and Colter, but there is also Franken and Garafolo.

 

On the tv there is O'Reilly, but there is also Olbermann.

 

But what if the supporters of Rush and Colter owned all of the frequencies on the dial and didn't allow Franken and Garafolo access? What if the supporters of O'Reilly owned all of the cable and satellite providers and kepts the Olbermanns from getting on the air?

 

This is what is starting to happen w/the internet and I find it scary as hell. On of the founding principles of this country and our political process is debate. Well, when there's only one side in the room all you can do is masturbate.

 

Discuss...

If you doubt the Internet is causing a sea change in politics, just ask “independent” Senate candidate Joe Lieberman, who came out on the wrong end of a blogger-fueled campaign for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut.

 

That was no accident.

 

In the waning days of Howard Dean’s abortive presidential campaign, I met many of the talented folks who played a role in turning the Dean Web site into a powerful fundraising tool that propelled an unknown candidate into the national spotlight. At various blogging conferences since, I have had the opportunity to observe many of these bright minds strategizing on how to best leverage the emerging world of blogs and other “social networking” services known as “Web 2.0” to advance their liberal political agenda and win elections.

 

Their common refrain: “We need to own the Internet the way the right owns talk radio.”

 

They got me wondering whether the online “conservative elite” was aware of what the left had in mind and, if so, whether they were concerned. During the past few years, I have had the opportunity to ask this of Internet specialists working on the Bush-Cheney campaign, top officials in the Republican National Committee, communications specialists at the White House and dozens of top conservative bloggers.

 

A-List blogger and talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt’s response was typical: “It doesn’t matter who creates the tools used by bloggers, but what bloggers do with those tools.”

 

When I suggested that ceding control of the major “nodes” in the online world to the left was a huge mistake, they were dismissive. It became clear they could not imagine one day finding themselves boxed out of what is fast becoming the biggest force in electoral politics.

 

Enter Fox News pundit, author and top-rated blogger Michelle Malkin. Last week she received notice from YouTube, the world’s most popular video sharing service, that her video had been deemed “offensive.” The result? Her account was terminated and her videos deleted.

 

YouTube refused to say why her videos were “offensive” and there was no avenue available to challenge the decision. Today, her videos are gone and her voice is suppressed on the most important video “node” on the Internet.

 

Some might note that Malkin can still host her videos elsewhere. Of course she can, but that would fail to understand the powerful forces of “network externalities” at play online. There is no Avis to eBay’s Hertz for good reason: Once an online network is fully catalyzed, there is no reason to join an alternative network. If you want to get the most money for your Beanie Baby collection, you are going to want access to the most potential bidders — and that means eBay.

 

YouTube is poised to become the eBay of video file sharing. If you want the biggest audience for your video, you want access to the most potential viewers — and that means YouTube.

 

Google understands this dynamic, which is why the company announced Monday that it will purchase YouTube — a company that has never made a dime — for $1.65 billion. YouTube fits very well within the Google online media portfolio. The company already owns Blogger.com, the most popular blog hosting site online, and Google News, which in two short years has become one of the top news sites in the world.

 

Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats.

 

But it’s not just Google’s media and financial muscle that benefits the left. Liberals run the leading blog search engine — Technorati. They run the leading blog software manufacturer — Six Apart. They invented two of the most important blogging technologies — Podcasting and RSS. The list goes on and on.

 

It may not matter who manufacturers your radio since all points on the dial are equally accessible and the choice is tiny compared to the number of Web sites, but on the Internet, where popularity is often directly proportional to technological acumen and popularity, once achieved, breeds more popularity, who builds what means everything.

 

Malkin may have been the first casualty in the coming information war but she certainly will not be the last. Yet online conservative elites seem not to care. They fail to realize that voters are increasingly accessing news and information from these new media sources and that these sources are using their editorial discretion to publish and promote a liberal — not conservative — agenda.

 

Still think it doesn’t matter? Just ask Michelle.

http://www.examiner.com/a-339060~Robert_Co...g_Web_2_0_.html

[hoytdwow 202]

What happens when the owners of such technology let their own personal views determine what they will allow the masses to see and hear?

Shockingly, what happens is, people have to think for themselves

 

[tony hardware 0]

But what if the supporters of Rush and Colter owned all of the frequencies on the dial and didn't allow Franken and Garafolo access? What if the supporters of O'Reilly owned all of the cable and satellite providers and kepts the Olbermanns from getting on the air?

 

I've heard of this place. My grandmother refers to it as . . . heaven. I always thought I couldn't kill anyone or look at my neighbor's wife, but you're telling me, all I have to do is look on the internet? WOW. You wouldn't happen to know how to get those 40 virgins do you?

[davebg 0]

Shockingly, what happens is, people have to think for themselves

 

Didn't you watch South Park last night? 25% of the US population is retarded.

 

These people depend upon being bombarded w/competing viewpoints so they can flip a coin before they vote. I mean, what's the point of flipping a coin if you are not aware that there are two sides to the issues? One-sided coin?

[tony hardware 0]

Actually, I agree with you. The most popular views on Youtube are liberal geared Olberman clips or Bush mockumentries. This is where kids are getting their news. Sad.

[hoytdwow 202]

Didn't you watch South Park last night? 25% of the US population is retarded.

I'd rather get stabbed than watch South Park

 

 

 

These people

If people choose to be stupid, fuck 'em.

[davebg 0]

Actually, I agree with you. The most popular views on Youtube are liberal geared Olberman clips or Bush mockumentries. This is where kids are getting their news. Sad.

It's one thing for one side's views to be more popular...it's another when one side's views are removed.

 

Read the article and others like it (I've been reading about this for a couple of days now.)

 

Views that do not jibe w/those of the people who own/run YouTube are being grouped w/objectionable content like sex, drug use and violence...and in some cases they are being removed entirely while the submitter is having their account deactivated.

 

Similar things have been happening on Google for some time. Try doing a search on "liar" in Google. The first result returned is a link to a biography of Tony Blair. Enter a search for "failure" in Google. The first result? A biography of GWB on the White House website. Could you imagine the liberal outrage if entering "drunk" returned a biography of the Kennedy clan or if "carpetbagger" returned a link to Hillary?

[wiffleball 4,652]

Ya know, when I think of all the tragedies in the world, the idea that a Republican led country with a Republican led Senate and Republican led Congress might not have as strong a voice in one particular medium is the least of my worries.

 

A few thoughts:

 

1) The Republican party controls or is strongly supported by, some of the world's largest media companies - "Clear Channel", "Rupert Murdoch" Anybody?

 

2) The internet, by it's nature, is right now the most democratic of mediums. Radio and television have largely been taken over by conservatives. Internet gives voice to the underrepresented.

 

2.5) Any fair analysis of talk radio will tell you that the Right overwhelmingly dominates the medium. Throwing out the occasional "Al Franken" reference is spurious. Is that "censorship"? No, The Right will tell you it's "Democracy in action".

 

3) If indeed the internet is "more liberal", consider the demographics: Television and Talk Radio especially are the preferred medium of choice of older people. The internet is the voice of the young & trendy. Young people have historically skewed liberal.

 

4) This isn't anything different. Whenever the Republicans start to lose, they claim that they're being discriminated against somehow. Yet, when the Left does the same, the Republicans invariably shout "it's a democracy - the people have spoken!" - The Right has to taste some of its own medicine.

 

5) This article lists one example - and doesn't even bother to explain (much less show) the video in question that was rejected. Certainly, some of Anne Coulter's references are HIGHLY objectionable - and shouldn't be allowed either. Basing an entire article on one undefined instance is thoroughly irresponsible.

 

6) The whole article smacks of "The Jews control the media" nonsense we heard for so long. So what if those that created 'net technology are Democrat or Republican?

[davebg 0]

Why is it that squashing opposing viewpoints seems to be more of a lib than a con thing?

 

When libs complained about how their voice wasn't on the radio, cons said, go ahead, create a lib radio station, it's a free country. So, Air America launched and it has been a financial disaster. If it does end up going down the tubes it will only have the libs who apprently didn't support it enough to blame.

 

Meanwhile, I see companies like Google/YouTube restricting or outright banning content solely on the basis that it is a con and not a lib viewpoint...I see Ivy Leaguers (supposedly the cream of the crop ) violently storming the stage to prevent invited guests from speaking their mind.

 

For a group of people who claim to be about protecting our civil liberties, they sure seem to have no problem denying those rights to those who they don't agree with. It's all very Taliban of them, IMO.

[FranksTanks 0]

 

I have news for you, its always been this way on the internet and what has it meant for elections? Jack sh!t. Don't worry about it A-List blogger and talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt’s and top-rated blogger Michelle Malkin will be just fine (no bias in this article either? )!

 

Its funny how he compares Rush, Colter to Franken, Garafolo and O'Reilly to Olbermann, like they are equals yet the right continues to smash those same shows for having failing ratings, being in struggling markets, and they really wish they weren’t even around. 4 years ago those shows didn’t even exist, yet he considers radio and television to be equally biased? What a joke.

[tony hardware 0]

Ya know, when I think of all the tragedies in the world, the idea that a Republican led country with a Republican led Senate and Republican led Congress might not have as strong a voice in one particular medium is the least of my worries.

 

A few thoughts:

 

1) The Republican party controls or is strongly supported by, some of the world's largest media companies - "Clear Channel", "Rupert Murdoch" Anybody?

 

2) The internet, by it's nature, is right now the most democratic of mediums. Radio and television have largely been taken over by conservatives. Internet gives voice to the underrepresented.

 

2.5) Any fair analysis of talk radio will tell you that the Right overwhelmingly dominates the medium. Throwing out the occasional "Al Franken" reference is spurious. Is that "censorship"? No, The Right will tell you it's "Democracy in action".

 

3) If indeed the internet is "more liberal", consider the demographics: Television and Talk Radio especially are the preferred medium of choice of older people. The internet is the voice of the young & trendy. Young people have historically skewed liberal.

 

4) This isn't anything different. Whenever the Republicans start to lose, they claim that they're being discriminated against somehow. Yet, when the Left does the same, the Republicans invariably shout "it's a democracy - the people have spoken!" - The Right has to taste some of its own medicine.

 

 

You're no longer my runningmate.

[hoytdwow 202]

Try doing a search on "liar" in Google. The first result returned is a link to a biography of Tony Blair. Enter a search for "failure" in Google. The first result? A biography of GWB on the White House website.

Tell me about it. Try doing a search for "assfucking shemale hotties" in Google. You get all kinds of liberal media bias.

[supermike80 1,290]

Couple points:

"Top Rated Blogger" What in the fock is this exactly? WHo defines it, what are the criteria? Close to the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Top rated blogger....gawd..even saying it makes it sound stupid.

 

Second: It says this "top rated blogger's" videos were removed but no one has an answer to why. Until we get that answer, I won't judge.

 

But that being said, if the net truly is becoming one sided, this is a problem, but one that I believe is fixable.

 

However, being as non-partisan as I am( I really am) this article sounds like whining to me.

[wiffleball 4,652]

You're no longer my runningmate.

 

 

Damn. I guess I'll have to take solace in the fact taht I speaks the troof - regardless of the damage to my political career.

[parrot 789]

When libs complained about how their voice wasn't on the radio, cons said, go ahead, create a lib radio station, it's a free country.

Couldn't the same be said of, oh I don't know... a search engine... or a video sharing service? Who decided these private enterprises are required to be any more non-partisan than a radio station? And if the righties don't like it, they can just start their own.

 

Maybe a big part of the problem here is that the GOP thinks the internet is "a series of tubes".

[wiffleball 4,652]

Meanwhile, I see companies like Google/YouTube restricting or outright banning content solely on the basis that it is a con and not a lib viewpoint...I see Ivy Leaguers (supposedly the cream of the crop ) violently storming the stage to prevent invited guests from speaking their mind.

 

Give me some solid examples (not just the collective talking points du jour) and I'm willing to be educated. Right now, I'm seeing far more dissenting voices being quashed (through ridicule, derision, claims of treason, etc.) than I am seeing our Republican dominated country struggling to make their voices heard.

[tony hardware 0]

I can't believe we didn't see this coming. Afterall, Al Gore DID invent the internet.

[kpbuckeye 2]

when there's only one side in the room all you can do is masturbate.

 

I happen to like masterbaiting in a room full of people.

[davebg 0]

Its funny how he compares Rush, Colter to Franken, Garafolo and O'Reilly to Olbermann, like they are equals yet the right continues to smash those same shows for having failing ratings, being in struggling markets, and they really wish they weren’t even around. 4 years ago those shows didn’t even exist, yet he considers radio and television to be equally biased? What a joke.

I compared them b/c they are the names that I know of...personally, I don't watch any of them.

 

ETA: And b/c they are all on the air and free to voice their opinions to whomever will tune in and listen.

 

However, your post just goes to underscore my point, while completely ignoring the premise of this thread.

 

You say that four years ago these shows (I'm assuming you were referring to the lib examples I gave) didn't exist, but now they do. The cons, while they may not like the content, did not block them from doing their thing. The cons refer to the ratings, which is to say, they are letting the people vote w/their remotes.

 

That's not what is happening on the internet. The internet is fundamentally different than tv or radio. The internet is such that once there is a dominant force in a particular segment of the marketplace, it is nearly impossible to unseat them (unless the dominant force itself does something to screw things up.)

 

Now, the argument can be made that just as Foxnews can slant their coverage one way, so too can Google slant their coverage another way. One problem w/that argument, Google/YouTube are not news organizations...the very nature of their business precludes them from making their own content. They are designed and marketed as providers of content.

 

Google is the dominant search engine on the internet right now. You should be able to enter search criteria and get appropriate results ordered by relevance...not by which destination site paid Google the most and not by what the political views of the founders of the company are.

 

Give me some solid examples (not just the collective talking points du jour) and I'm willing to be educated. Right now, I'm seeing far more dissenting voices being quashed (through ridicule, derision, claims of treason, etc.) than I am seeing our Republican dominated country struggling to make their voices heard.

You think letting both sides speak and then one "quashing" the other via ridicule, derision, claims of treason, etc is the same as not letting the other side speak at all via physical or technological means?

 

Wow...I really though higher of you than that.

[Chuck Norris 0]

Couldn't the same be said of, oh I don't know... a search engine... or a video sharing service? Who decided these private enterprises are required to be any more non-partisan than a radio station? And if the righties don't like it, they can just start their own.

 

Maybe a big part of the problem here is that the GOP thinks the internet is "a series of tubes".

Fox News Search Engine

 

<search for Mark Foley>

 

Did you mean gay democrat Mark Foley?

[wiffleball 4,652]

That's not what is happening on the internet. The internet is fundamentally different than tv or radio. The internet is such that once there is a dominant force in a particular segment of the marketplace, it is nearly impossible to unseat them (unless the dominant force itself does something to screw things up.)

 

Now, the argument can be made that just as Foxnews can slant their coverage one way, so too can Google slant their coverage another way. One problem w/that argument, Google/YouTube are not news organizations...the very nature of their business precludes them from making their own content. They are designed and marketed as providers of content.

 

Google is the dominant search engine on the internet right now. You should be able to enter search criteria and get appropriate results ordered by relevance...not by which destination site paid Google the most and not by what the political views of the founders of the company are.

 

Again, I'm seeing any legitimate proof of this yet - please edumacate me.

 

1) The "Google" trick isn't something that Google controls. I remember they did a story on something like this a while ago - it has to do with getting a certain number of hits, or somebody paying for it - but it's not like Google hard-codes the order in which things display.

 

2) Out of that whole article that seems to have formed your opinion (instead of forming your own), he only lists ONE example - and AGAIN still doesn't have the (balls?) integrity to at least publish a transcript of the offending video.

 

3) Let's take a look at competing mediums, shall we? When was the last time a show was taken off the air before or shortly after it aired because it was too Conservative? How many times has a show been taken off the air b/c a small group of radical fundamentalists thought it was too "offensive to their taste"? Television on a bad night likely has more hits than most sites on a good day. - That's why advertisers pay more for tv commericals than intenet ads. So really, who's censoring whom? - I haven't gotten any good, verifiable examples from you or the article.

 

I'm willing to blast any solid examples of censorship on either side. I'm just not seeing where the poor Republican party is exactly lacking for a voice in America these days.

[parrot 789]

You think letting both sides speak and then one "quashing" the other via ridicule, derision, claims of treason, etc is the same as not letting the other side speak at all via physical or technological means?

Last I checked Michelle Malkin had a pretty popular website. In fact, when I type "Michelle Malkin" into Google, the first listing is her site. Same thing for Hugh Hewitt. That's a pretty crappy job of censorship they're doing over there at Google. How exactly are they not being allowed to speak?

[wiffleball 4,652]

You think letting both sides speak and then one "quashing" the other via ridicule, derision, claims of treason, etc is the same as not letting the other side speak at all via physical or technological means?

 

Wow...I really though higher of you than that.

 

You haven't proven that's happened yet. In fact, you haven't addressed any of my fairly reasonable requests. If the video in question is so inoffensive, why the heck shouldn't it be readily available on one of at least about 1 Billion websites? - or at least a transcript?

 

Bottom Line

You can easily find examples where ACTUP ads has been barred from the public airwaves. You can easily find examples of television shows that have been cancelled due to the extreme minority right. You can easily find examples of commentators who have been fired b/c of "liberal" views. - If the problem is so pervasive on the Right as it is for the Left, why is it so hard to list several specific & clear examples?

 

In short, I think you've been brainwashed into thinking there's a problem - but those that are selling this case can't support it. Do you honestly, intellectually, rationally, think that the Republican party is facing a crisis wherein it's views cannot be expressed? - 'Cause I'll tell ya: O'Reilly and Toby Keith sure as fock get a lot more air time than Franken and the Dixie Chicks.

[D_House 0]

this sounds like a bunch of whiners whining to me...

[parrot 789]

You haven't proven that's happened yet. In fact, you haven't addressed any of my fairly reasonable requests. If the video in question is so inoffensive, why the heck shouldn't it be readily available on one of at least about 1 Billion websites? - or at least a transcript?

 

Bottom Line

You can easily find examples where ACTUP ads has been barred from the public airwaves. You can easily find examples of television shows that have been cancelled due to the extreme minority right. You can easily find examples of commentators who have been fired b/c of "liberal" views. - If the problem is so pervasive on the Right as it is for the Left, why is it so hard to list several specific & clear examples?

Cuz of all the Google censorship, duh!

[davebg 0]

Again, I'm seeing any legitimate proof of this yet - please edumacate me.

 

1) The "Google" trick isn't something that Google controls. I remember they did a story on something like this a while ago - it has to do with getting a certain number of hits, or somebody paying for it - but it's not like Google hard-codes the order in which things display.

I'm not sure exacly how they determine the order or what displays when you enter certain search criteria. However, I'm pretty sure that the metatags (keywords behind every web page) on GWB's biography on the White House website are set up such that searching on the word "failure" doesn't link to the page in question. In fact, when I go to a competing search engine (like ask.com) and enter "failure" you know what the first entry is? Not GWB's bio, but a BBC.com article that discusses how entering "failure" in Google returns GWB's bio. So this is something unique to Google and clearly something that they have some control over.

 

2) Out of that whole article that seems to have formed your opinion (instead of forming your own), he only lists ONE example - and AGAIN still doesn't have the (balls?) integrity to at least publish a transcript of the offending video.

I'd like to see the offending videos too. I'd also like the folks at Youtube to respond to the questions posed to them, like why the videos were banned.

 

As I said, I've been reading about this for a few days. Apparently, there was a report that the political ad/spoof done by the Scary Movie guy was being flagged by Youtube as offensive too (which means users would have to log in and click a disclaimer to view it.) Although, I have not been able to confirm that myself, as I have (and currently can) view the clip w/out having to log in.

 

3) Let's take a look at competing mediums, shall we? When was the last time a show was taken off the air before or shortly after it aired because it was too Conservative? How many times has a show been taken off the air b/c a small group of radical fundamentalists thought it was too "offensive to their taste"? Television on a bad night likely has more hits than most sites on a good day. - That's why advertisers pay more for tv commericals than intenet ads. So really, who's censoring whom? - I haven't gotten any good, verifiable examples from you or the article.

TV is also regulated by oversight agencies. There are (asinine) laws in place where even a handful of complaints from the same people mandates an inquiry. No such thing exists on the internet.

[FranksTanks 0]

Now, the argument can be made that just as Foxnews can slant their coverage one way, so too can Google slant their coverage another way. One problem w/that argument, Google/YouTube are not news organizations...the very nature of their business precludes them from making their own content. They are designed and marketed as providers of content.

 

So the news should be slanted? Shouldn't it just be news about actual facts and not about someone's slanted opinions on the news?

 

You say that four years ago these shows (I'm assuming you were referring to the lib examples I gave) didn't exist, but now they do. The cons, while they may not like the content, did not block them from doing their thing.

 

Yes, I'm saying these liberal shows only exist to try to make things balanced because before there was only one side. And when AirAmerica came out the right tried everything to discredit the hosts and content.

 

.... they are letting the people vote w/their remotes.

That's not what is happening on the internet. The internet is fundamentally different than tv or radio.

 

People can do the exact thing on the internet too. You have to find information on the internet and if you don't want to hear something or see it, don't click on it or turn it off. And if people have voted on television with their remotes, it looks like they’ve done the same with their mouse, it’s just the ratings have gone the other way and the right doesn’t seem to like it.

[parrot 789]

In fact, when I go to a competing search engine (like ask.com) and enter "failure" you know what the first entry is? Not GWB's bio, but a BBC.com article that discusses how entering "failure" in Google returns GWB's bio. So this is something unique to Google and clearly something that they have some control over.

From that BBC article:

The trick is possible because Google searches more than just the contents of web pages - it also counts how often a site is linked to, and with what words.

Yeah, they apparently have control over it, all they would have to do is completely alter the way their engine works.

[wiffleball 4,652]

IN fact, since I'm not getting much in the way of an education from those those who believe "Google hates rich white people" -

 

I'll educate them

 

This is just a guess from the tech community at the number of factors that go into SEO (Search Engine Optimization). Google has a highly secret and incredibly complex set of factors and determinants that go into their SEO. In fact, there's an almost infinite number of articles trying to explain it

 

No one with even half a brain can honestly think that Google has the time, resources or will to go through, override thier own prized programming and assign "George Bush" "Karl Rove" "Tony Blair" etc. to the top listing of every disparaging term they can think of. Thinking so is just plain stupid - if not paranoid.

 

- Really, just think about what these guys are trying to sell you. Does that make sense?

[DanXIII 8]

Why is it that squashing opposing viewpoints seems to be more of a lib than a con thing?

 

Because you are blinded by your partisanship, that's why.

 

HTH!

[Chronic Husker 85]

Fox News Search Engine

 

<search for Mark Foley>

 

Did you mean gay democrat Mark Foley?

I thought this was funny.

[parrot 789]

I thought this was funny.

[davebg 0]

Well, a lot of replies since I left yesterday...some good, some notsomuch.

 

Unfortunately, this thread (like far too many others) devolved into the typical partisan p|ssing match (and I'm afraid that I am at least partially to blame for falling into it w/the usual suspects.)

 

My intention was to stimulate a discussion on how this marks a severe escalation in the partisan war that the fringe has imposed upon the rest of us. I don't know for sure what the merit is behind these allegations. This is a situation that is fairly fresh, but the consolidation of Google and YouTube has definitely added a bit or urgency to the debate.

 

The internet is still young and evolving. It is up to the people to help it grow in a way that is conducive to the free flow of ideas. The idea that tools like search engines or public submission sites like YouTube, which are publicly owned comapnies, could be covertly allowing the political views of management to influence and possibly stifle competing views is disconcerting, to say the least.

 

We are not talking about a site like Daily KOS, where the political leanings of the people who run the site are the very reason for the creation of said site. We are talking about the very tools that people use to gather information on their own, to make up their minds on their own. If these tools are allowed to be corrupted by the fringe on the left or the right we will be taking significant resources away from the people...resources that are the very means that people use to think for themselves...something the partisan hacks on the far left and the far right desperately want to stop.

[D_House 0]

Well, a lot of replies since I left yesterday...some good, some notsomuch.

 

Unfortunately, this thread (like far too many others) devolved into the typical partisan p|ssing match (and I'm afraid that I am at least partially to blame for falling into it w/the usual suspects.)

 

My intention was to stimulate a discussion on how this marks a severe escalation in the partisan war that the fringe has imposed upon the rest of us. I don't know for sure what the merit is behind these allegations. This is a situation that is fairly fresh, but the consolidation of Google and YouTube has definitely added a bit or urgency to the debate.

 

The internet is still young and evolving. It is up to the people to help it grow in a way that is conducive to the free flow of ideas. The idea that tools like search engines or public submission sites like YouTube, which are publicly owned comapnies, could be covertly allowing the political views of management to influence and possibly stifle competing views is disconcerting, to say the least.

 

We are not talking about a site like Daily KOS, where the political leanings of the people who run the site are the very reason for the creation of said site. We are talking about the very tools that people use to gather information on their own, to make up their minds on their own. If these tools are allowed to be corrupted by the fringe on the left or the right we will be taking significant resources away from the people...resources that are the very means that people use to think for themselves...something the partisan hacks on the far left and the far right desperately want to stop.

I think most people would obviously agree with you if this was a real problem, but that this problem actually exists hasn't been proven. It just sounds like more about the media from the right.

 

I'm more troubled about the known instances where our government has witheld and/or cherry-picked the information that gets publically released.

[davebg 0]

I think most people would obviously agree with you if this was a real problem, but that this problem actually exists hasn't been proven. It just sounds like more about the media from the right.

The problem with waiting until this is a big problem (as opposed to trying to nip it in the bud at the outset) is that this is the internet. Once a site gets significant traction, it is very difficult to compete with it, let alone replace it. The most significant element of the internet is the vast numbers that it can reach. Once a site is established as the market leader it is very difficult to find an alternative b/c people will gravitate to the leader in that category b/c that will allow them to reach the most people/sites/information. There is nobody to regulate the internet, so it falls to the people to do so.

 

I'm more troubled about the known instances where our government has witheld and/or cherry-picked the information that gets publically released.

I agree that this is very troubling as well. However, there are legitimate reasons for government to restrict certain types of information. The key is to make sure that said information is being restricted for the right reasons. At least in government there are some checks and balances...some oversight. This does not exist on the internet. If the people will not challenge these internet companies, then who will ensure that information is restricted for the right reasons (like sexual or violent content), as opposed to the wrong reasons (like the political beliefs of management of a publicly traded company.) An argument could also be made to the possible impact a scandal like this (if these allegations are true) could have on our economy, as we are talking about publicly traded companies.

[DanXIII 8]

Well, a lot of replies since I left yesterday...some good, some notsomuch.

 

Unfortunately, this thread (like far too many others) devolved into the typical partisan p|ssing match (and I'm afraid that I am at least partially to blame for falling into it w/the usual suspects.)

 

What is this "falling into it" nonsense? You started it with the gd thread title!

 

My intention was to stimulate a discussion on how this marks a severe escalation in the partisan war that the fringe has imposed upon the rest of us. I don't know for sure what the merit is behind these allegations. This is a situation that is fairly fresh, but the consolidation of Google and YouTube has definitely added a bit or urgency to the debate.

 

Your intentions may have been precisely as you claim. I cannot speak to that with any degree of certainty because I flunked Mind Reading 470 in college. However, I can say confidently that you came across in your usual accusatory, "poor me and the cons because the libs mistreat us so" attitude that we've seen before. You are clearly more intelligent than many of the RWN trolls that hallow these halls. Act like it.

 

 

The internet is still young and evolving. It is up to the people to help it grow in a way that is conducive to the free flow of ideas. The idea that tools like search engines or public submission sites like YouTube, which are publicly owned comapnies, could be covertly allowing the political views of management to influence and possibly stifle competing views is disconcerting, to say the least.

 

Fair point, but in my humble opinion we should concern ourselves more with the overt bias that "news" outlets demonstrate (all the while marketing themselves as "fair" and "balanced") than with some tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about how things "might" be. Again, just my opinion.

 

We are not talking about a site like Daily KOS, where the political leanings of the people who run the site are the very reason for the creation of said site. We are talking about the very tools that people use to gather information on their own, to make up their minds on their own. If these tools are allowed to be corrupted by the fringe on the left or the right we will be taking significant resources away from the people...resources that are the very means that people use to think for themselves...something the partisan hacks on the far left and the far right desperately want to stop.

 

Until you can demonstrate that there is some systemic, pervasive "bias" in these tools then this is all much ado about nothing. Picking out one or two examples and then applying those to the entire population does nothing to further your cause I'm afraid.

[Chronic Husker 85]

What is this "falling into it" nonsense? You started it with the gd thread title!

[davebg 0]

What is this "falling into it" nonsense? You started it with the gd thread title!

Yeah...I kind of debated whether or not I should have left "liberal" out of the title and just gone w/"media bias." The reason I stuck w/what I put there was b/c when it comes to IT there is a very pronounced discrepancy between the number of libs vs. cons. I think I read somewhere that around 95% of the political contributions made by the Google millionaires went to the left.

 

Fair point, but in my humble opinion we should concern ourselves more with the overt bias that "news" outlets demonstrate (all the while marketing themselves as "fair" and "balanced") than with some tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about how things "might" be. Again, just my opinion.

Ah, but there is the heart of my argument.

 

I don't watch those news programs. I know they are biased and just after ratings, so I don't rely upon them to form my opinions. (Now, if some jackass althelete crashes his plane into a building, I'll tune in to watch, but that's neither here nor there.)

 

Instead, I'd rather go online and do some research myself to make up my own mind. What happens, however, when the very tools that are available to find information, whether it leans ot the left or the right, are being influenced by the political leanings of management?

[DanXIII 8]

What happens, however, when the very tools that are available to find information, whether it leans ot the left or the right, are being influenced by the political leanings of management?

 

Then you do the same thing you say that you do when you see it on the telly: you change the channel.

 

Google is the most popular search engine, but it is by no means the only search engine out there. You and I are under no obligation to use it if we feel that it is mismanaged, exploits its workers, pollutes the atmosphere, dumps toxic waste into our rivers, makes small children cry, is 'liberally biased' or whatever else they may do with which we do not agree. While Google is a 'publicly traded company' it is still a private enterprise. You and I may not like it but they are free to do whatever they want within legal boundaries.

 

If you truly feel that Google has a liberal bias, then don't use it. Let your money do your talking for you, so to speak.

[parrot 789]

Well, a lot of replies since I left yesterday...some good, some notsomuch.

 

Unfortunately, this thread (like far too many others) devolved into the typical partisan p|ssing match (and I'm afraid that I am at least partially to blame for falling into it w/the usual suspects.)

Yes, you were so cleverly duped into posting

Why is it that squashing opposing viewpoints seems to be more of a lib than a con thing?

 

Maybe if you made a better case for the vast liberal conspiracy than Michelle Focking Malkin getting a video taken down or a few pranksters exploiting how google works, you might generate more serious discussion.

 

You're right about one thing, the internet is a vastly different animal from tv or radio. It's different in that just about anyone can gain access to it. Anyone with a few dollars for a server and/or a service and a minimum of knowhow can get their views on it and there is very little control over that, by anyone. You're going to have to make a lot stronger case than this to get people to take seriously the idea that views are being quashed on the internet.

 

But let's just go with your "nip it in the bud" approach. What exactly are your proposing should happen here? Should the government come in and tell these private entities what they should host, or how their results should display?