Google's Fact-Check Feature Targets Conservative Sites

The largest search engine in the world is now relying on hyper-partisan "fact checking" organizations such as Snopes and Politifact to provide disclaimers on articles primarily from conservative websites.

asd

The Daily Caller's Eric Lieberman notes: 

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”


In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

 

asd

Google's new fact-checking sidebar "helpers" come two weeks after Facebook abandoned their fact checking program after it backfired a little over a year since inception - pointing to the fact that people were actually drawn to the "fake news" stories over articles without the designation

Disputed flags could sometimes backfire: We learned that dispelling misinformation is challenging. Just because something is marked as “false” or “disputed” doesn’t necessarily mean we will be able to change someone’s opinion about its accuracy. In fact, some research suggests that strong language or visualizations (like a bright red flag) can backfire and further entrench someone’s beliefs. -Facebook

Meanwhile, the fact-checkers themselves happen to be incredibly biased. Snopes - which is reportedly run by a degenerate, was dressed down by the Daily Caller in a December 2016 Exposé which contains clear examples of the organization's liberal bias, flat out lies, and the individual opinions of the militantly liberal fact checkers who love insulting conservatives

Meanwhile, Politifact is riddled with propaganda and known for several instances of bias. They're also funded by a Clinton Foundation donor

The Daily Caller points to an instance in which Google's third-party "fact-checking" organization was flat wrong. 

 

asd

The Robert Mueller fact check (pictured above) is a case in point for Google’s new feature.

Ostensibly trying to sum up the crux of the post, the third-party “fact-checking” organization says the “claim” in a DC article that special Counsel Robert Mueller is hiring people that “are all Hillary Clinton supporters” is misleading, if not false.

The problem is that TheDC’s article makes no such claim. Their cited language doesn’t even appear in the article. Worse yet, there was no language trying to make it seem that the investigation into the Trump administration and Russia is entirely comprised of Clinton donors. The story simply contained the news: Mueller hired a Hillary Clinton donor to aid the investigation into President Donald Trump.

Still, the Washington Post gave the claim, which came from Trump himself, its official “Three Pinocchios” rating. The method applies to several other checks. Claims concocted or adulterated by someone outside the TheDC are attributed to TheDC, in what appears to be a feature that only applies to conservative sites. -Daily Caller

Liberally-biased Snopes gives the Daily Caller a "mixture" of truth rating after claiming the outlet reported that "a transgender woman raped a young girl in a women's bathroom because bills were passed..." when in fact the article in question makes no mention of a bill or any form of legislation - and in fact simply makes a straightforward report of a disturbing incident originally reported elsewhere. 

With conservative outlets under attack by questionable "fact-checking" organizations while liberal websites remain "unjudged," one has to wonder how long it will be before lawsuits begin to fly.

Comments

Walking Turtle IH8OBAMA Jan 10, 2018 7:45 PM Permalink

Or lne may wish to try Qwant (dotcom) - THAT one finds things that neither Google nor DDGo (which sucks most if not indeed all its results off the Big Google Tit but, avowedly at least, does not track one) will give up.

Example:  I tried punching-up the long-suppressed "Tainted Nightmare" report by Jim Stone on Qwant.  The result popped right up to the top of the column with NO problem - and Google censors Jim like no tomorow.

But Qwant does not.  So that is all.  0{;-)o[

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

greenskeeper carl peddling-fiction Jan 10, 2018 8:22 PM Permalink

Im surprised no one has mentioned their modifications of search algo's right before the election. There were a couple posts on here about it. Short version, when you type in 'hillary clinton i" on google, it would auto complete the word starting with 'I' with 'indiana' and other such things. Google was called out, and admitted that, no, 'Hillary Clinton indiana' isn't the most common search. Every single other search engine would finish the word as 'indicted' followed by things like indictment, illegal, illegal emails, etc.

In reply to by peddling-fiction

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 dilligaff Jan 10, 2018 6:56 PM Permalink

Smart peope don't use it. I use Duck Duck Go.

Proton e-mail is another option.

Colin Flaherty had all of his Utube vidoes banned for so-called hate speech. For telling the truth about black mob violence? About black supremacists? About blacks that get away with murder and are not held to account for their criminal behavior because they are colored? Flaherty never had anything close to hate speech. But there are plenty of coloreds that advocate for the hatred of white people. Are those sites banned for hate speech? No.

A strong voice was silenced this week. God help us.

What will you do when no one comes to speak on your behalf? When you allow your neighbor to be taken to a camp? When you allow apparatchiks at the VA or HS to imprison your neighbor or your family?

In reply to by dilligaff

Sir Edge RAT005 Jan 10, 2018 9:32 PM Permalink

To... @Rand & Muffin & RATOO5...

When using Duck Duck Go or StartPage... Don't forget that to get specific you sometimes need to put...

a "+" in front of a word when you want the Search Engine to be EXTRA specific and include that key word in ALL Searches

and sometimes you add a "-" minus sign in FRONT of a word when you want to EXCLUDE it from your searches...

So as example..

If i wanted to buy some rope online and make sure that neither amazon or ebay came up in the search results i would type this...

Buy +Rope online -amazon -ebay

The search results for this are saying every search MUST have the word rope in the text and NOT have any searches return text with any amazon or ebay words in the text... there is more than these but these are major shortcuts.

.
Edgey

 

In reply to by RAT005

serotonindumptruck LetThemEatRand Jan 10, 2018 7:20 PM Permalink

I can recall the Ron Paul political signs that were conspicuously placed in numerous residential front yards back in 2008 and 2012.

It actually gave me a momentary feeling of hope that perhaps the future wasn't as bleak as I had feared.

I lost all faith in the beneficial future of humanity after he withdrew his candidacy in 2012, and I fully recognized the terminal decline towards a second Civil War in the USA, which would likely coincide with a massive economic collapse and possible World War.

 

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

peddling-fiction balz Jan 10, 2018 6:37 PM Permalink

I have dropped all their products except three.

1) Their search algorithm is still the best. Compare a search to Bing, or Duckduckgo.com and find out for yourself.

2) Google Maps is still the best, but some countries have better local solutions.

3) Gmail. In the process of dropping. Have Protonmail.ch + Yandex.com

In reply to by balz

peddling-fiction Radioactive Ideas Jan 10, 2018 6:49 PM Permalink

I do not use Google for news.

I use it to search for hard to find conspiracy facts.

The main problem is that competitors are not able to create a similar index.

Gog(G)El also has eNeSgAy infrastructure and storage capability others can only dream of. This also aids in their indexing capability (size and periodicity).

Also their country servers and CDN infrastructure is unparalleled, and makes them the better performing solution; yet it also is used for worldwide espionage.

Search for: Tailored Access Quantum Attacks NSA Wikipedia, to understand their capability better. Snowden pissed-off these folks.

In reply to by Radioactive Ideas

Expendable Container Sudden Debt Jan 10, 2018 7:05 PM Permalink

Someone did research  and found the best was DuckDuckGo. Google was the worst they said as it censored those that were not aligned with the official narrative so preventing us looking outside the box. Google's head did say they eventually want only one answer (their version of the 'correct' one) for everything. So Orwellian. That's exactly what disillusioned communist George Orwell was trying to warn us about in his book "1984". There are 2 movies done on it over the years.

In reply to by Sudden Debt

JuliaS Sudden Debt Jan 10, 2018 8:13 PM Permalink

There is no replacement for majority of google products, aside from search engine. Once self-driving cars hit the road, automakers are going to be renting telemetry data from them in order to allow cars to navigate and communicate. They'll be embedded even deeper.

They're too big to trust and nobody is lifting a finger. Microsoft got grilled for lousy Internet Explorer bundled with Windows 95 for crying out loud! That was the definition of a "monopoly". Google? Nope! No monopolies there! The biggest data aggregator in the world, and nobody sees a problem with all eggs being kept in one giant basket.

In reply to by Sudden Debt

Yen Cross Jan 10, 2018 6:30 PM Permalink

   Hyper-Partisan, is "jib" for Goolag taking it's spare cash and consolidating it's market hold in tax advantageous ways?   {now I get it}

  P*s* > Thanks for fixing "spelcheck" Tyler. Works rather nicely :- D

LetThemEatRand Jan 10, 2018 6:31 PM Permalink

Given FacialRecognitionBook's experience with having fake-news-tagged articles get more interest even from the lemmings who get their news there, you'd think these companies would learn.  I suppose it's a good thing.  The more blatantly partisan they are about how they define and identify "fake news," the more obvious it will be to anyone who is even kind of paying attention.

overbet Jan 10, 2018 6:32 PM Permalink

Regardless of how inconvenient, you must starve the beast. It's the only way. Ive switched away from everything Google, Apple, Amazon. I still have one old gmail for a garbage account, trials and such. That goes next.