But oddly enough, Google's mobile recommendations for me are utterly dominated by the Guardian. They push Guardian stories on me multiple times per day. Know which site never appears? Breitbart. It's clearly blacklisted.
I don't find them to vary in quality or "hateyness", at least for the British editions. The Guardian hates white men, Breitbart pushes a lot of stories about illegal immigration and variants (e.g. asylum seekers lying about their age and origin). They both have their pet hates and slanted views.
But Google only thinks I should be reading the article that pushes globalism, the EU, unlimited migration, Clinton and social justice politics.
Unbiased, hah. To believe that you'd have to be blind.
For my uses, I read 'RealClearPolitics' daily. It contains outrageous headlines from left and right-- the reader is left to sort out which to read, and what to believe.
And I'm sure there are a lot of people on the right who would claim that fact checkers are very much not unbiased. (Not in the "blatant falsehood" sense of things, but in the "this is iffy but we'll give benefit of the doubt to people on the left but not the right" sense) An example of this would be the recent "did Trump call Meghan Markle nasty" series - if you give Trump the benefit of the doubt then it's easy to argue that he called Markle's comments nasty, but you're not going to see that on politifact .
Everything is relative, nothing is absolute. (And I really wish that fact checking sites were more charitable towards everyone)
Taken in context, the sheer volume of his falsehoods weighs against his credibility in terms of giving him the benefit of the doubt.
And since when are 'facts' dependent on the person who said them? Perhaps if they do depend on such, those 'facts' shouldn't be included in the purview of a fact-checking org.
>What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.
From the two comments above, I guessed it was something like this
The NYTimes obviously has a left-wing bias but they are still considered reputable.
If you search for "google leaked tgif" on YouTube or Google you will have plenty of articles and videos about that ;-) "Google after the election" is just not specific enough and can match a lot of different subjects.
Then we must consider the possibility of bias in this case too.
Activists certainly claim that personal bias will influence algorithmic bias when it comes to gender and race. I take their point. Why should political bias be exempt from that, especially in light of the highly emotional and polarizing political climate.
I actually think the various independent creators on Youtube played a huge part in helping Trump win. The question is whether the de-platforming has anything to do with that. The algorithm itself just lets you binge on more of what you're looking for, and a large group of those that binge Youtube the most are drawn to right-wing views.
So search results must be evaluated and changed - by people with personal feelings - and an internal process gets started to change the search results - by people with personal feelings, to correct things.
So there is no need whatsoever for there to be anything underhanded.
I hate how people reason about this. Just because there is no conspiracy things are assumed to be working well and non-politically, perfectly and neutrally enforcing the rules. Well, good luck with that.
I just tried and literally 9 of the top 10 videos are either the video you are referencing or videos talking about that video.
If this was a way to trick people to look up this video on Youtube, then well played.
And "black man becoming president ceremony" doesn't give any news stories about Obama's election. Ah....the game is afoot.
Or, you know, YouTube search isn't nearly as "fuzzy" as Google Search proper. "Google after the election" and even "the Google leadership meeting which happened after the election" both show the video- even with a nice little embedded thumbnail, on mobile.
None the less, if you search directly on YouTube your suggested terms returns results for the more recent videos about the Indian election but if you search "Google after Trump election" or "Google after US election" the top results are videos discussing the subject you claim is being censored.
If anything you've discovered that YouTube's search algorithm prioritizes recent events over a user's location where as Google seems to take into account the locale the user is searching from to a greater degree over recency.
I'm sure this little trick pulls the wool over a lot of people's eyes who want to believe that there is a YouTube conspiracy against their political ideology.
If there is a clandestine operation to remove those videos, it's not going very well.
For example, if 97% of the worlds leading authorities on climate science have consensus, wouldn’t you agree it is better to rank such consensus higher? The right wing perceives this as an attack because they think their view on climate science deserves equal ranking.
But that’s so, how far do we take it? Is flat earther articles deserving of equal ranking?
Victim mentality breeds conspiracies around search tampering. The more fringe the beliefs, the more victimizAtion is roled out.
Let me give you a tip. The people who don’t trust climate science aren’t going to give a shit if climate scientists agree on something. It’s like saying “97% of numerologists believe in numerology”.
That’s an appeal to authority. Even ignoring the fallacy, it has even less power when it’s that very authority that’s being distrusted.
Anyone can measure Carbonic Acid concentrations in water to see ocean acidification for example.
What we have is people in denial of reality for ideological reasons, because they don’t like the unpleasant fact that it represents a market failure that may require collective action to fix.
When you refuse to accept reality because of ideology, you are essentially acting on faith, not reason.
It's also not an appeal to authority fallacy to say that the only people who bothered to check something have a certain opinion.
How do you know what's in the box? Well I looked in it and you still haven't.
Perhaps you meant “climate change”?
Google rewards whichever ad purchaser pays them.
I just can't believe that all right-leaning articles are false and all left-leaning articles are reputable.
Your first paragraph sounds as if it's intended as a callout of some specific bit of sloppy reporting, but you haven't said what. Would you care to?