The great thing about falsifying information is that it can come from anywhere.
The idea that it's fine for a bunch of snot-nosed purple haired leftist activists (sorry, I meant wise and scholarly even-handed moderators) to censor the de-facto public knowledge search infrastructure is ridiculous.
I love finding out that my hypothesis is falsified -- no matter where the data comes from. It means I'm about to learn something that I didn't expect. The best moments of my day.
Maybe that comes from being a programmer for 40 years. After being surprisingly wrong tens of times a day, you start to look forward to it.
Perhaps the self-proclaimed overlords of society's collective knowledge need to ... learn to learn, before putting the brakes on all that unruly and uncomfortable data?
Google made a business decision that may (or may not) align with the values of their organization. You are welcome to criticize the business decision. You are welcome to criticize the values of the organization. Yet making unsubstantiated claims is only contributing to the problem.
The thing is, Google has decided not to accept money from people who are promoting a particular political agenda. It's their right to do so. Perhaps they should have gone a bit further and said that they were not going to accept money from people promoting the opposite agenda since advertising is not the place for scholarly discourse, but that wasn't the decision they made and it's their right to make that decision as a private entity.
>There is a big difference between Scientists and Political Activists with science degrees.
Not to Google there isn’t.
I don’t want to ever been seen as defending Alex Jones, but everyone should have seen this coming.
When it was OK for FAANG to deplatform a person for legal but annoying things, when it was OK to shadow ban things you just don’t like, not only OK but rewarded to repeat intelligence community lies by saying things inconvenient truths are just “Russian Disinformation”, when someone felt the need to fact-check and obituary of a woman that died of the Covid vaccine, I mean… how many times do we need to slide down it to see call a low traction ramp what it is?
I hate that I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but is it really a conspiracy if they admit to it? This can not continue, I don’t think.
The plan appears to me to push it as far as they can and welcome in regulation as a capture scheme. I have no other explanations.
The idea that it's fine for a bunch of snot-nosed purple haired leftist activists (sorry, I meant wise and scholarly even-handed moderators) to censor the de-facto public knowledge search infrastructure is ridiculous.
I love finding out that my hypothesis is falsified -- no matter where the data comes from. It means I'm about to learn something that I didn't expect. The best moments of my day.
Maybe that comes from being a programmer for 40 years. After being surprisingly wrong tens of times a day, you start to look forward to it.
Perhaps the self-proclaimed overlords of society's collective knowledge need to ... learn to learn, before putting the brakes on all that unruly and uncomfortable data?