Trump did a study and found out Hillary had more negative terms than him? Are you meandering?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"New York Times public editor: Why we were wrong" (on election)
- Thread starter Gotcha
- Start date
Trump did a study and found out Hillary had more negative terms than him? Are you meandering?
Earlier you said that google is just a search engine and that he meant news.google.com. Now you are saying there is a study but you don't know what is a "negative term."
What's with all this Obama hatred? I am not American and never understood it.
In other words, you answered your own question.
I took me some time to get into your brain to understand what exactly you guys are trying to pick on since I never heard him saying that. But now the more I study it the more I'm convinced that he might be right.Earlier you said that google is just a search engine and that he meant news.google.com. Now you are saying there is a study but you don't know what is a "negative term."
I took me some time to get into your brain to understand what exactly you guys are trying to pick on since I never heard him saying that. But now the more I study it the more I'm convinced that he might be right.
You blindly asserted he meant one thing despite saying another. Then you blindly asserted there was media bias. Now you have done all these studies.
Good critical thinking.
With regards to this auto complete thing (shame I can't find my original source), the issue was that when you used google and started typing in something like "trump is ...", the auto complete from google would come up with something totally different than 2 other search engines they used. The rationale is that given millions of searches, people who use google, bing, or something else, all more than likely search for the same things in equal proportions. Perhaps you can make the case that if swing left or right you might prefer to use something not by google, but this is a stretch.
This auto complete had vastly different results. Suppose you started with the search phrase "why is the sky color ..." We would all assume that the next word that should come up for the auto complete is "blue" if this is what most people searched for in the past, which I would assume to be accurate. If one search engine actually suggests "black" as the next word, this would mean that users searched for this phrase the most, higher than those that searched for "blue". You'd really have to wonder why.
So bringing this back to Trump and Clinton, if in reference to Trump and a couple of letters, google suggests words that are negative, whereas other search engines come up with different words, all because of what people have searched for in the past, supposedly, there would need to be a clear explanation why. It just doesn't make sense that most people would use google to search for "trump is a wanker" and on other search engines they would search for "trump is a wonderful man".
The reference where I first learned about this was a video that showed in real time how the auto complete worked on the various search engines. The only conclusion is that goggle is/was in fact using their power to be very suggestive about their political views. So in light of this recent article I mentioned, its obvious that all the media outlets, be they print or online, are doing this very same thing. They aren't reporting the news, they are making the news, and their owners are using their great wealth to steer people in the direction that they want.
This auto complete had vastly different results. Suppose you started with the search phrase "why is the sky color ..." We would all assume that the next word that should come up for the auto complete is "blue" if this is what most people searched for in the past, which I would assume to be accurate. If one search engine actually suggests "black" as the next word, this would mean that users searched for this phrase the most, higher than those that searched for "blue". You'd really have to wonder why.
So bringing this back to Trump and Clinton, if in reference to Trump and a couple of letters, google suggests words that are negative, whereas other search engines come up with different words, all because of what people have searched for in the past, supposedly, there would need to be a clear explanation why. It just doesn't make sense that most people would use google to search for "trump is a wanker" and on other search engines they would search for "trump is a wonderful man".
The reference where I first learned about this was a video that showed in real time how the auto complete worked on the various search engines. The only conclusion is that goggle is/was in fact using their power to be very suggestive about their political views. So in light of this recent article I mentioned, its obvious that all the media outlets, be they print or online, are doing this very same thing. They aren't reporting the news, they are making the news, and their owners are using their great wealth to steer people in the direction that they want.
That's probably one of the dumbest and actually most incoherent way to shut someone up just because he disagrees with you. Care to truly explain? You and your kind has not performed character assassinations before Trump entered the political world. Why is Obama one of the worst Satan all of a sudden?
In other words, you answered your own question.
Then you don't understand how vastly different AI engines are and how different the results can be. Microsoft had to take off an AI assistant several times because it was gamed. Each engine is vastly different. I am not claiming that for sure Google does not somehow build in its political bias. I am saying just because you get different auto complete suggestions in a search does not mean one has political bias and the other not.
With regards to this auto complete thing (shame I can't find my original source), the issue was that when you used google and started typing in something like "trump is ...", the auto complete from google would come up with something totally different than 2 other search engines they used. The rationale is that given millions of searches, people who use google, bing, or something else, all more than likely search for the same things in equal proportions. Perhaps you can make the case that if swing left or right you might prefer to use something not by google, but this is a stretch.
This auto complete had vastly different results. Suppose you started with the search phrase "why is the sky color ..." We would all assume that the next word that should come up for the auto complete is "blue" if this is what most people searched for in the past, which I would assume to be accurate. If one search engine actually suggests "black" as the next word, this would mean that users searched for this phrase the most, higher than those that searched for "blue". You'd really have to wonder why.
So bringing this back to Trump and Clinton, if in reference to Trump and a couple of letters, google suggests words that are negative, whereas other search engines come up with different words, all because of what people have searched for in the past, supposedly, there would need to be a clear explanation why. It just doesn't make sense that most people would use google to search for "trump is a wanker" and on other search engines they would search for "trump is a wonderful man".
The reference where I first learned about this was a video that showed in real time how the auto complete worked on the various search engines. The only conclusion is that goggle is/was in fact using their power to be very suggestive about their political views. So in light of this recent article I mentioned, its obvious that all the media outlets, be they print or online, are doing this very same thing. They aren't reporting the news, they are making the news, and their owners are using their great wealth to steer people in the direction that they want.
That's probably one of the dumbest and actually most incoherent way to shut someone up just because he disagrees with you. Care to truly explain? You and your kind has not performed character assassinations before Trump entered the political world. Why is Obama one of the worst Satan all of a sudden?
"dumbest" "incoherent" "You and your kind" "assassinations" "worst Satan"...
Nah, I think I'll let you stew in your own "incoherence".
You just love to listen to your own linguistic masturbation and think you are above others who express themselves in less eloquent terms. Bottom line is this: someone asked the simple question why there is so much hatred towards Obama going around. Your insinuation was one has to belong to a certain race or culture to understand which is utter nonsense. Appreciate your answer Herr Kommissar, but I prefer to wait for slightly more intelligent suggestions.
"dumbest" "incoherent" "You and your kind" "assassinations" "worst Satan"...
Nah, I think I'll let you stew in your own "incoherence".