We’ve talked before about how Google is actively suppressing climate skeptics, including yours truly.
The business motto for Google used to be:“Don’t be evil.”, seen below as archived by the Wayback Machine on April 21, 2018:
“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.
“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.
Then, in a stunning turnaround, they removed the phrase from their website, giving themselves a license to follow the dark side.
By now you may have heard about the in-house “private” Google video (created right after the 2016 presidential election) leaked to Breitbart. It was never intended that the public see it. Fortunately, we have. After Trump won the election the video shows the Google management team doing group hugs, tears, and wailing about how Trump won and how Hillary was wronged.
It’s quite revealing. In the video we have the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, two Vice Presidents and the two men who founded Google in 1998; Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
The opinions expressed in that video were in my opinion, outrageous. Basically the Google execs saw American voters who voted for Trump as irrational, xenophobic, lazy, and stupid. Brin suggests that Trump voters were acting out of “boredom”, which he says has in the past have been one of the factors giving rise to fascism and communism.
Google has since issued a rebuttal saying this was just some employees and executives expressing their own personal opinion, saying “For 20 years, everyone at Google has been able to freely express their opinions at these meetings”
In their rebuttal, Google claims that nothing those executives said in that video suggests any political bias in their products.
I don’t buy it, not one bit.
The Google CFO in that video, Ruth Porat, is a perfect example She gets highly emotional, to the point of tears and talks about the moment she realized the election was “…going the wrong way”, and then the first moment she realized “WE were going to lose. It was like a “ton of bricks”.
Later in the video, the Google co-founder, Sergey Brin, asks what they can do to ensure a “better quality of governance and decision-making.”
Newsflash: Google HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING. For Brin to suggest they need ensure a “better quality” is a tacit admission of their intent to bias in a way they see fit.
Here’s excerpts from the Breitbart story:
THE GOOGLE TAPE: Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin ‘Deeply Offended’ by Trump’s Election
Allum Bokhari, Breitbart
Sergey Brin, co-founder of one of the most influential companies in the world:
““As an immigrant and a refugee, I certainly find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too.”
Walker says that Google should fight to ensure the populist movement – not just in the U.S. but around the world – is merely a “blip” and a “hiccup” in a historical arc that “bends toward progress.”
CEO Sundar Pichai states that the company will develop machine learning and A.I. to combat what an employee described as “misinformation” shared by “low-information voters.”
Here’s another story, from the Powerline Blog
Powerline: It’s Official, Google Is a Democratic Party Front
All of the speakers express grief over Donald Trump’s election. All of the speakers assume that every Google employee is a Democrat and is stunned and horrified that Hillary Clinton–the worst and most corrupt presidential candidate in modern history–lost. There is much discussion about what Google can do to reverse the benighted world-wide tide exemplified by Brexit and Trump’s election. The insane doctrine of “white privilege” rears its head.
You really have to see it to believe it. Having suffered through the hour-long cri de cœur–OK, to be fair, there is a huge element of schadenfreude, too, and you will relish much of it–you probably will have several reactions:
1) These people may have certain valuable technical skills, but they aren’t very bright and are unusually lacking in self-awareness.
2) It is remarkable that they can achieve such an extraordinary monoculture in an organization with thousands of employees. It must require vigorous enforcement of right-think.
3) It is easy to see how these uniformly left-wing robots/people seamlessly transitioned into Resisting the duly elected Trump administration.
The video:
So, what can you do?
Dump Google. Dump Gmail and searching via Google
When searching, I recommend DuckDuckGo, and Mojeek. Of the two, Mojeek is the better tool in my opinion, becuase it doesn’t make use of a Google oriented indexing library.
UPDATE:
An email obtained exclusively by ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ reveals that a senior Google employee deployed the company’s resources to increase voter turnout in ways she believed would help Clinton win the election.
Something else we can do: Press the powers that be to back efforts to break the company up.
“break the company up.”
Just because they hate half of their users? How many big corps now have liberal higher ups who recruit same minded people who hate at least half of the customers? (Or almost of them, as seen in Gamergate.)
While clearly unethical on the part of Google, I file this in the No Big Deal box. Yeah. While I wish that they’d be more fair in their thinking, this is what I expect for certain elements of humanity when the Republican side has won an election. There are a lot of unethical, but expected behaviors when the Democrats win, too.
“There are a lot of unethical, but expected behaviors when the Democrats win, too.”
Please provide examples.
‘Google’. ‘Goebbels’.
I get it now. It’s just the Americanized form of the name – sorta like how ‘Schneider’ became ‘Snider’.
Now it makes sense.
The real danger is people like Brin. They think that if you don’t agree with their world-view, then you are stupid or evil. You are not allowed to have a contrary opinion. And to them, the only solution is to put them in charge of everything, because they are obviously much smarter than the rest of us.
And now Google wants to get rid of URL, the basis of hyperlinks on the Web!!!!
Who do they think they are?
All URL’s point to Google, all roads lead to Rome. Nothing new under the Sun.
What would happen if someone stood up in their meetings and told the arrogant big hats they voted Republican ? Career altering ?
The administrations charged with protection of workers’ health would require Google to fire the persons who suggested that a Republican isn’t evil. The academics would write essays justifying the need to fire any persons who challenge the views of liberals.
Maybe even sue them for “reckless something something” and “causing damages that could be predictable” in term of disturbance, fear (whatever the DSM can concoct as “diagnosis”) because:
“freedom to X isn’t freedom from consequences” (which is codename for your freedoms stop when law academics and “defenders of civil rights” don’t like you)
simple-touriste-
How does your scenario jibe with the fact that the speakers specifically addressed this issue, urging respect for other (conservative/Republican/Trumpist) people and their points of view? Employees had come to managers expressing their discomfort as political minorities, and that was the response.
Many of the speakers talked about listening to the Other and building bridges across partisan lines. They explicitly acknowledged that it was a concern that conservatives felt disenfranchised and marginalized, and something needed to be done about it.
Apparently you didn’t watch the video.
Apparently you believe the worst of liberals. How is that any different from liberals believing the worst of conservatives? You are simply stooping to the same level.
well, kristi, let me name that game.
when a person says ‘i’m not saying you’re an a-hole, but…’ it is the way they say ‘you are an a-hole!’ but leave a way to deny they did it.
i’m sure you understand that thin veil is not really covering up anything.
in fact, it’s a prime example of the ‘mascara moustache’ principle.
it doesn’t make them look fair and impartial.
it only exposes their desire to pretend they are what they are not.
sort of like elizabeth warren does… or maybe rachel donegal – you know, posture children of the progressive ‘wishing makes it so’ sesame street graduates.
gnomish,
“it doesn’t make them look fair and impartial.”
Well, neither does your comment, so why should anyone pretend you are a good judge?
“it only exposes their desire to pretend they are what they are not.”
I don’t know what you think they are pretending.
They are not hiding the fact that they are liberals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are unfair. To counteract bias, one must first be aware of it and its effects on the way one sees things. You are biased. Do you make any effort to understand liberals or their values – I mean really understand them, not just assume you know what they are? Do you talk to liberals and their values in a respectful conversation, with curiosity and openness? People don’t have to agree with each other to understand each other.
I have learned a lot about conservative values in the last several years, and that has led me to respect them more, even when I don’t agree with them. I’m tired of the animosity and assumptions on both sides. It’s not healthy for the country.
yes, kristi.
i hail from socal, mostly marin co.
so yeah, i know liberals inside out.
i’ve eaten, drunk and slept with them.
but they didn’t try to lie to my face because somehow they know they can’t.
you can’t either but if it’s a habit, you won’t be able to do otherwise.
when you can define the standard of values – then you can begin to make moral evaluations correctly.
as long as you see values as some arbitrary tribal determination, you will miss the boat.
it’s like asking for rights- if you think you have to ask for them, you don’t get the idea.
first define the standard of values for humans.
that will require that you first define human.
can you do that?
because until you are able to do that we really are not on a level playing field and i’m constrained to taunting you for wearing your mom’s high heels
gnomish,
“when you can define the standard of values – then you can begin to make moral evaluations correctly.”
I don’t know what you mean by “standard of values.” Values are different from morals.
” your tribal bonds don’t allow you the presence of mind or self possession to think objectively”
No one thinks objectively.
Your comments about values, morals and tribes are intriguing, but since you are going to get your amusement from mocking me, there’s no point in discussing anything with you.
What are these liberal values?
simple-touriste,
“What are these liberal values?”
Good question. According to Moral Foundation Theory as described by Jonathan Haidt and colleagues, there are 5 main types of “virtues”:
“1. Harm/care: basic concerns for the suffering of others,
including virtues of caring and compassion.
2. Fairness/reciprocity: concerns about unfair treatment,
inequality, and more abstract notions of justice.
3. Ingroup/loyalty: concerns related to obligations of
group membership, such as loyalty, self-sacrifice
and vigilance against betrayal.
4. Authority/respect: concerns related to social order
and the obligations of hierarchical relationships,
such as obedience, respect, and proper role fulfillment.
5. Purity/sanctity: concerns about physical and spiritual
contagion, including virtues of chastity, wholesomeness
and control of desires.”
Based on 100s of 1000s of respondents worldwide, liberals value the first two more highly than conservative and the last three less. Conservatives tend to value them all more or less equally. Furthermore, conservative see “fairness” differently: they value equal opportunity, while liberals value equality of outcome more (thus the “socialist” tendency of many liberals today – especially millenials – though I personally think that term is used pretty loosely.)
In general, it seems to me that liberals are more open to diversity – ethnic, religious, gender identity, etc. They care about minorities and fight for the underdog. I’ve seen research suggesting they are more open to novelty and change, while conservatives are more traditional (no surprise!). Then, of course, there’s big vs. small government and reliance on the free market to achieve social goals. In my experience, it seems that conservatives are more likely to blame social inequality on individual and group characteristics rather than systemic problems – which is one reason equality of opportunity is favored over outcome. (In my opinion, equality of opportunity would be fine if it were realistic, but it’s not. It’s based on an ideal that can’t possibly be met in a capitalist society where wealth is passed from generation to generation, especially one that is prejudiced and highly financially and ethnically segregated.)
From my impression of the video (which is pretty much all I know about the company), the values of Google, though, are not simply liberal. They value providing access to information and ideas, and take pride in the fact that the internet has help alleviate poverty around the world. I never got the impression that they favored *access* to liberal ideas. (This wasn’t discussed, but their experiment with a fact-checking app was ended in response to complaints from conservatives, for example – they recognized it was faulty.) Again and again they talked about the need for liberals and conservatives to converse and better understand each other, and how bad for the country is the partisan divide (one reason so many liberals dislike Trump). One of the main problems is that so many people felt they weren’t being heard. “It’s important to reach out and talk to each other.” They talked about the need to “do better” in this respect. They talked about people being afraid of their visa status under Trump, and even wondered about the possibility of being transferred to Canada.
My impression is that their political work (contributions to candidates, for example) was a separate issue from their product.
I want to add that their comments about boredom were based on research, not opinion.
Well, that’s a start. I want to add that I think liberals have a lot to learn from conservative values. It helps no one but politicians to continue to vilify each other. And it doesn’t help to demonize academia, since that affects what children in conservative families will do. We desperately need more conservatives to attend college and become professors themselves. The intelligentsia are among the first victims under totalitarian regimes; we can’t continue to have the same imbalance, fear and animosity repeated in America.
I love my country. I’m proud of it. We need a new direction built on understanding, cooperation and compromise. Neither socialism nor unregulated free market capitalism are good long-term solutions, in my opinion.
Kristi Silber
To the contrary. NO liberal has EVER criticized, much less fought AGAINST the socialistic governments of Russia-Soviet Union, China, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Czech, Slovenia, Armenia, Mongolia, North Korea, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia who have murdered more than 120 millions of their own citizens the past century. Who have supported without shame the 62 million US taxpayers killed for convenience since 1973, who have fought the terrors of Africa tribal warfare.
No. to the contrary, liberals “claim” to celebrate diversity, but tolerate NO THOUGHTS, NO FEELINGS, no religion, no “reality” other than the ones they approve of; while persecuting without shame anyone who does not think like they demand. Liberals look no further than skin color, than claimed sex, than claimed “acceptable” religions – but claim to celebrate only one direction of “deworsity”. Sorry. I despise them for their hypocrisy.
“urging respect for other (conservative/Republican/Trumpist) people and their points of view”
Not sure what they mean by “respect”.
“Apparently you didn’t watch the video.”
I did not. Why would I? Does it prove that Google tolerates diversity of opinion?
If Google did, they would treat leftist “fact checkers” as the mudslingers they are.
Sergey Brin at 25:58 or so: “Groupthink can be a huge risk.” Yes it can. I watched the whole video, and there you have it.
“boredom”, which he says has in the past have been one of the factors giving rise” to Mai 68, when bored French leftist philosophy and sociology students tried (and utterly failed) to make a united front with the working class against the elites and the backward thinking establishment of that time.
What I hear repeatedly in this video is a desire to listen, learn, and build bridges between people who don’t agree. I hear pride in the way the internet supplies information, thereby helping millions out of poverty. I hear that it was a fair election, and though there is disappointment at the results, there is a recognition that democracy is valuable, and it was working (with the notable exception of Russian influence on the elections). I hear recognition that there are a lot of people (i.e., populist conservatives) who were disenfranchised and felt that they had not been heard, and that this is a problem. I hear about having respect for others, even those who don’t share’s one’s opinions. I hear recognition of the potential for groupthink and confirmation bias to become problems within Google. I hear “We are committed to a free and open internet.”
Ideas like the need for respect, understanding and bridge-building I have heard repeatedly from liberals (individuals and groups), and NEVER from conservatives. Why is this? Why is even liberal virtue disdained as “virtue signaling”? Why is it so impossible to believe that liberals can genuinely desire to do good and be good people? The answer doesn’t depend on what one’s idea of “good” is – that’s a different question. I don’t agree with some conservative values, but I can still recognize that there is reason behind them, and that they reflect a desire for good – there is an ethical and moral basis to them. I believe that it is a fundamental lack of understanding of the basis of other people’s values that is fueling the hatred that is tearing our country apart. It is the denial that the Other could even have values that makes discussion so difficult. The media are partly to blame. So are the leaders of our country who vilify the Other in order to appease supporters and get elected. Hatred is a very powerful force. It is not just a means to an end, though – it has become an end in itself. That is not good for democracy; it can lead to authoritarianism if one side gains too much power.
Certainly, there is bias at Google. Corporation-level bias is hardly surprising these days, especially in Silicon Valley. But bemoaning partisan bias on a site like this one is pretty ironic. For Breitbart to complain about bias in the provision of information is outright laughable. It’s not as if one can’t find conservative views on Google.
Using AI to search for misinformation concerning political candidates is not a cut-and-dried question of freedom of speech when we know that foreign powers are intentionally trying to influence elections. In theory AI is unbiased, but since every site that is found by AI is then vetted by humans, there is the potential for corporate bias in companies like Google and Facebook to be a significant problem. They seem to be aware of this, and to want to focus on real problems for national security.
I have no idea what “conspiracy” there is here. I think people are reading a lot into it that isn’t there. Even the implication that “misinformation” is synonymous with “conservative views” is revealing. Do you all think that lies are solely a conservative strategy? Or is it that you think Russian meddling in the elections was OK? I don’t understand.
I think it’s simply that people see a lot of liberals talking about their values, and the hatred of liberals is so strong that people want to find evil intent there. The title of the post steers you in that direction. I bet a lot of people who commented haven’t even watched the whole video.
Until not that long ago I regarded myself as an almost permanent Democrat supporter so, gritting my teeth, I was able to watch almost all of it. Except for the tearful group hugs, and the bit when that moron at the end stood up to ask a question prefaced with him directly addressing white men and their privilege. I started cringing.
Overall, I would say that the most senior employees at the front did have one or two sensible things to say about things such as their own group-think in a bubble, even going to far as to acknowledge that there were Republican-voting employees who were not “comfortable” admitting it. (I don’t know if this was before James Damore was summarily fired for expressing some scientific opinions that have been uncontested in their fields for many decades, but I would imagine that that resulted in Republican-voting employees feeling a lot worse than just uncomfortable.)
The root problem is that many of the employees (and Hillary voters in general) actually believed too many of the exaggerations, misrepresentations, fake news, and outright lies that have been told about Trump, to the point that they are letting their neuroses frighten them, and their more senior colleagues are having to play agony-aunt and brain care specialist. Ironically, as an information-providing company, Google has contributed to making this problem worse. Never believe your own propaganda is still good advice.
Finally, the people who really should be frightened are the company’s stockholders and investors. I observed a hall full of people who have all forgotten that they officially work for a company, not a charity, church, or political party. At the moment Google has reached that happy position where they can do almost nothing and the money still keeps rolling in, but that is not going to last forever.
They have sown the seeds of their own destruction because every single person in that room does not regard Google as a company that needs to sell products for a profit. They regard Google as a tool to help them achieve their own personal political goals and fantasies. As such they appear to be like a large bunch of wealthy trust-fund students deciding how they are going to fix the world’s problems by sitting around talking about their “values” and giving themselves group hugs. In the Anglo-Saxon vernacular I believe the term is “circle jerk”.
Michael,
“They have sown the seeds of their own destruction because every single person in that room does not regard Google as a company that needs to sell products for a profit. ”
This is your assumption and generalization. In my opinion it’s highly dubious.
” They regard Google as a tool to help them achieve their own personal political goals and fantasies. ”
This isn’t the impression I got at all. I think it’s a good thing when a corporation has values like decreasing poverty and providing materials (laptops) to help educate, rather than just filling the pockets of their shareholders.
As far as political goals, it’s a little ridiculous to single out Google when so many companies contribute to election campaigns.
“The root problem is that many of the employees (and Hillary voters in general) actually believed too many of the exaggerations, misrepresentations, fake news, and outright lies that have been told about Trump” I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but one could argue that Trump’s words and actions speak for themselves.
“Trump’s words and actions speak for themselves”
You don’t like Trump’s words or Trump’s actions?
Virtue signal is when you defend a cause that is zero cost and accomplishes nothing.
When you “defend” LGBTQI in Calif, when at the same time you do NOT take a position on Islamic teachings and Islamic countries.
When you are against rape and patriarchy and so called rape culture in the universities but dismiss the rape explosion in Sweden as the effect of redefinition of rape, or the attacks in Germany by comparing these to what happened during and after WWII (which one French “feminist” and allegedly a rape victim actually did).
When you are a medical doctor and take a stand against homeopathy but say nothing against vaccines, that’s virtual signaling.
At least say the right thing. Get banned from pretty much every non climate skeptic and non conservative forum on the Internet. Again and again. [Yes, I reserve the absolute right to use a different ID to re-register myself on any forum on a website that is run by a state controlled, tax payer financed entity; that includes any of the (extremely subsidized) French newspapers. I don’t allow these taxpayers financed propagandist the right to ban me for life out of their comment sections, which would be another attack on my free speech rights which do not stop on a “private” corporation that’s subsidized bigly.]
Unfortunately, there are TWO problems and both are real. There were about 1000 employees are the Internet Research Agency in Leningrad preparing Russian propaganda to be spread over the Internet. I’ve personally encountered some of it researching a story about a police raid on the Clinton’s house in Chappaqua disclosed by Trey Gowdy with the exact story title at more than 50 websites, four videos (allegedly 100,000 views) narrated by a computer voice (presumably to hide their Russian accent), and hits from citations by commenters at many of the big conservative website. And I’m sure many remember Podesta’s infamous child sex ring at the Cosmic Pong-Pong Pizzeria. And that Russians organized rallies for Trump and against Hillary that were attended by many and paid for many thousands of Facebook and Twitter ads. Russia Today (RT) posts far more English language videos than any US-based new organization. Russian propaganda reached far more US voters than the two stories (Yahoo News and Mother Jones) based on the Steele Dossier published before the 2016 election. This is all real.
The second problem is that all of the Internet platforms are already censoring in response. They are using the major Internet fact-checker (PolitFact, etc) and Wikipedia to determine what the “truth” is and make it less likely that you will receive “false information”. However, all of the Internet fact checking sites are run by representatives from the liberal press and journalism schools. Europe has passed laws requiring the Internet platforms to censor dubious material. And we certainly know the political biases of the liberal fruits and nut who run Silicon Valley.
Frank,
Why would it matter whether fact-checkers were run by liberals? You seem to be implying that conservatives are more likely to post false information.
I don’t understand how the censoring would rely on fact-checking sites and Wikipedia. The mechanism is primarily through algorithms and AI; presumably they look for particular words and strings of words. Humans then check the results, but I imagine the vast majority of them are pretty straightforward, not requiring a fact-checker.
Truth is not liberal or conservative, so why are you worried?
uh… because they can’t manage to decide which bathroom to use?
cuz they want to tell people what to think, do or say?
cuz you are here to present yourself as the holotype of that subspecies?
gnomish,
“uh… because they can’t manage to decide which bathroom to use?” What’s the relevance here?
“cuz they want to tell people what to think, do or say?”
“Google Video Leak Proves They are Evil” – This whole post is about telling people what to think about this hour-long video.
“cuz you are here to present yourself as the holotype of that subspecies?”
No, I’m not, but that’s not relevant, anyway.
disingenuous, thy name be kristi
because those who reject reality are unfit for survival much less directing the lives of others.
and you know it
but your tribal bonds don’t allow you the presence of mind or self possession to think objectively.
and that’s your pathology, which is, of course, your personal choice and not my problem.
i just like to mock you over it for my own amusement- i have no hopes or expectations beyond that. i really don’t think you can change.
i’ve seen what is required for a liberal apostasy.
perhaps you should watch the Dan Pearl beheading and learn what i know about this.
Kristi asks: “Why would it matter whether fact-checkers were run by liberals? You seem to be implying that conservatives are more likely to post false information.”
There are several reasons to be concerned. The English language can be ambiguous. There are often two or multiple sides to any controversy. When your fact checker is a liberal, that person will instinctively accept the liberal side of the story. All humans are subject to confirmation bias, and it is easy to select a subset of information that supports our preconceived beliefs.
Take statements about climate change, for example. Every liberal recognizes the IPCC’s summaries for policymakers as a definitive scientific source of information. They don’t know that the IPCC was founded by a group of alarmist scientists and that those founders picked their own like-minded successors. So the key scientists who will draft the SPMs for AR6 are at the end product of a self-perpetuating viewpoint stretching back to AR1. They won’t know that these scientists are not writing a “scientific” summary for policymakers with all of the needed caveats that accompany real science – particularly the weaknesses and tune-ability of their AOGCMs. They won’t know that these scientists have chosen to present an artificial consensus that will encourage policymakers to implement reductions on CO2 emissions. These fact-checkers won’t know or bother to learn that every word in the SPM needs to be unanimously agreed upon by a diplomatic representative from every government (behind closed doors, so the press can’t report on the process). meaning that NO controversial subject will ever appear in an SPM.
The psychologist Johnathan Haidt asserts (correctly IMO) that it is almost impossible for us to learn things contradictory to what we already deeply believe. Reading someone else’s arguments isn’t good enough – only a full and open debate is likely to force one to recognize a truth which contradicts a deeply-held belief. To correctly fact-check controversial subject, you need to hear from both sides. The end result of fact-checking almost certainly will represent the liberal biases of the fact-checkers themselves.
(The traditional scientific method begins with a hypothesis or theory that many scientists devise experiments intended to DISPROVE that idea. In theory, this tradition means that science, in theory, has a greater chance of uncovering the truth. Climate “science” on the other hand doesn’t encourage debate between skeptics and supporters of the consensus. With control of the IPCC, the consensus controls what the bulk of the media perceives as truth.)
Then those liberal biases will be used to rank the hits from a Google search about the controversy. Websites that liberal fact-checkers find more reliable on the average will show up in the first 20 hits and websites that liberal fact-checkers find less reliable will show up 10 screens later.
Worst of all, even if the fact checkers get things right far more often than the get things wrong, glaring politically motivated mistakes – which won’t be corrected – are going to be widely publicized by conservatives and conspiracy theorists. The process of fact-checking needs to be as bipartisan as possible to be accepted. I think that it is likely that we will see within five years a search engine for conservatives funded by the Koch Brothers and an alternative to Youtube for posting videos, just like we have Fox News to bring TV News to conservatives.
Frank,
“Every liberal recognizes the IPCC’s summaries for policymakers as a definitive scientific source of information. ”
This is a generalization that is patently untrue. I’m a liberal, and I don’t hold the IPCC as the definitive scientific source of information.
The whole partisan divide over this issue is significant. Liberals trust the general scientific community, conservatives believe most climate scientists have ulterior motives and don’t pursue the truth, even though there is little evidence to support such an assumption (believe me, I’m familiar with the arguments otherwise!).
“They don’t know that the IPCC was founded by a group of alarmist scientists ”
Well, that’s true, speaking only for myself. What group of “alarmist scientists” do you mean?
You make an awful lot of assumptions and generalizations here that simply reflect your own bias.
” To correctly fact-check controversial subject, you need to hear from both sides. ”
But this isn’t about controversial subjects, it’s about misinformation. Lies. Like the lie that the Holocaust didn’t happen, and HRC was running a pedophile ring.
“The traditional scientific method begins with a hypothesis or theory that many scientists devise experiments intended to DISPROVE that idea. In theory, this tradition means that science, in theory, has a greater chance of uncovering the truth. Climate “science” on the other hand doesn’t encourage debate between skeptics and supporters of the consensus. ”
Experiments are not the only way of conducting science. That’s a common fallacy, and my guess is that you aren’t a scientist yourself.
Scientific debate happens all the time, but it happens in the accepted scientific realm of peer-reviewed publications. These allow the debaters opportunity to plumb the literature for arguments (for and against) and offer new evidence. Public debate is usually just theater put on for the public in order to gain political support, since the public can’t be expected to understand the complex arguments that are involved in real scientific debate. They are often interpreted by the public in whatever way is most comfortable to them. The Happer/Karoly debate and Andy May’s interpretation is a case in point.
“To correctly fact-check controversial subject, you need to hear from both sides. The end result of fact-checking almost certainly will represent the liberal biases of the fact-checkers themselves.”
This is your assumption. As Jonathan Haidt knows, the first step to counteracting bias is to be aware of it. You assume that fact-checkers are necessarily going to let their biases decide an argument. I don’t agree. There is ample evidence of fact-checkers deciding liberal statements are wrong – just look up “Obama” on Politifact – over a quarter of the statements there are false, mostly false, or pants-on-fire. I don’t know how it’s determined that Politifact is a liberal organization, or that there is bias in its determinations – do you?
One can have deeply-held beliefs and still be able to do research into what is fact, and what isn’t.
“Then those liberal biases will be used to rank the hits from a Google search about the controversy. Websites that liberal fact-checkers find more reliable on the average will show up in the first 20 hits and websites that liberal fact-checkers find less reliable will show up 10 screens later.”
This isn’t true if the parameters used to determine the reliability of a site are independent of their bias, such as the number of reporters employed (which would favor CNN over Breitbart), or whether a site is a blog (e.g. Real Climate) versus a news organization (Fox News).
Personally, I don’t see any evidence of this, but maybe that’s because I look at both liberal and conservative sites.
“The process of fact-checking needs to be as bipartisan as possible to be accepted.”
I agree completely!
“I think that it is likely that we will see within five years a search engine for conservatives funded by the Koch Brothers and an alternative to Youtube for posting videos, just like we have Fox News to bring TV News to conservatives.”
I hope not! This would just result in further political division, decreased understanding, and a less informed public. Far better would be search engines and news media owned and operated through collaborations between right and left. Something arising from the Heterodox Academy, for instance. The bias in news media is absolutely terrible for our country. I’m appalled by CNN, those very rare times I watch it. I hate TV.
I see no evidence that YouTube is partisan, judging by what shows up on my screen. It takes what I’ve looked at recently into account, and often conservative videos are among them.
Kristi: Thanks for the reply and forcing me to express my thoughts more carefully. Here is the first link without Trump’s name that I randomly chose when searching “fact checking climate change”:
“The most recent survey of climate scientists said about 57 percent don’t agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2,” [Santorum] said.
“Santorum’s numbers are not made up, but his claim commits “two orders of mischaracterization,” an expert said. He uses a blog’s flawed analysis of a survey (and misquotes what it’s allegedly disapproving). The survey actually supports the idea of scientific consensus on climate change, its lead author told us.”
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/03/fact-checking-claims-climate-change/
Notice that the journalist doesn’t bother to personally look up and cite the survey itself to see if the blog (and Santorum) quoted the survey correctly. He/she instinctively trusts the lead author’s general statement about “a” scientific consensus and uses it to falsify a different specific claim.
In truth, of course, the 95% statement is totally incorrect. Few, if any, real climate scientists should believe that 95% of climate change is caused by CO2. The minor GHGs contribute about 1/3 of the WMGHG forcing and negative aerosol forcing cancels from 1/4 to 3/4 of the positive forcing from WMGHGs. If 43% of those surveyed think CO2 is responsible for 95% of warming, this wasn’t a survey of knowledgeable climate scientists.
This fact checker didn’t bother to fact check. He/She found one authoritative source who didn’t directly address the controversy. Everyone “knows” that Republican politicians and skeptical blogs lie about climate change. One piece of contradictory evidence – no matter how poor or misleading – is enough to confirm what one already believes. This is classic confirmation bias. As Haidt points out, the only way to combat confirmation bias is to HEAR to the best arguments from both sides.
The second claim allegedly fact checked involves a claim that “that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is man-made”. There is a huge difference between saying an unspecified fraction of climate change is caused by man, the IPCC’s claim that least 50% is caused by man (when 50% will keep warming below 2 degC) and essentially all climate change is caused by man. The fact checker obviously never bothered to contact Professor Tol, the lead author of a chapter on calculating a social cost for carbon, and did not bothered to read his paper criticizing Cook et al’s claim of a 97% consensus.
If fact checkers do not permits mistakes like this to be challenged and settled by listening to arguments from both sides, it isn’t absurd to think their will be a rival Google and YouTube in a few years. There is no doubt that censorship will take place. Many European countries have much weaker protection for freedom of speech than the US and Internet providers are already being held legally liable for false information (on Nazis, for example) spread via their platforms. The first drafts of software tools for censorship already exist. And the uber-liberals in Silicon Valley have already permitted their technology to be used for evil: Russian propaganda, conservative Fake News, and arguably the election of Trump. Public opinion surveys show that the last generation of college students believe that “Do No Evil” is more important than “Freedom of Speech”.
Almost all “fact checking” about serious stuff ends up being “we asked that scientist [insert activist name] and he told us that conservatives are wrong”.
There is simply no checking and no added value. It’s the exact same garbage we already get in the fakestream news.
(Although sometimes the source is not cited and we get un-sourced garbage.)
Kristie: Thanks for the reply and forcing me to improve my rational. I ran a google search for fact check climate change and selected a random entry without Trump’s name:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/01/rick-santorum/santorum-cites-flawed-climate-change-figure-and-mi/?_ga=1.142037493.65749262.1441221651
A typical fact-checking mess: Santorum says: “”There was a survey done of 1,800 scientists, and 57 percent said they don’t buy off on the idea that CO2 is the knob that’s turning the climate.”
Since Santorum cited the same number of scientists surveyed as in the PBL survey, they have identified the correct survey.
When only 4% of the respondents fail to answer a qualitative question about the principal cause of climate change and 22% fail to answer a quantitative question about about the principle cause of climate change, the missing 18% certainly – or at least arguably – belong in the group who are uncertain how to quantify the contribution to climate change. The fact checker consulted to parties from one side of the issue, no one from the other, and failed to understand the skeptical argument.
Second, the fact checkers and those they consulted substituted the IPCC’s claims about GHGs for Santorum’s claim about CO2. Since only about 2/3 of the forcing from rising GHGs is due to CO2, CO2 is less likely to be the dominant driving force for climate change that all anthropogenic GHGs. This makes Santorum’s claim much more likely to be right AS ACTUALLY STATED than as the fact checker ALLOWED IT TO BE RESTATED by Santorum’s political opponents.
More misdirection: “Second, Kummer only counts scientists who were 95 percent or more confident that greenhouse gases drive climate change, when the actual IPCC statement reports a 90 percent certainty”
What can’t Kummer talk about scientists who are 95% or more confident while AR4 was talking about a 90% confidence intervals AND AR5 was talking about a 95% confidence intervals for MODEL OUTPUT. The IPCCs quantitative statements about the dominant driver of climate changes were derived from the output of AOGCMs. AR4 acknowledged that the IPCC’s models were an “ensemble of opportunity” that didn’t systematically sample all of the parameter space that could have been used to tune AOGCMs. It was improper of the IPCC to abstract confidence intervals from such data in the first place without strong caveats about sampling. About half of scientists – arguably – DO appear to have less confidence than the IPCC’s authors, which does mean that they disagree.
AR5 says that the best estimate for the human component to observed warming is 100%. Given estimates of cooling by aerosols, the GHG contribution should be much greater than 100%; 133% if aerosols only negate 25% of GHG forcing. That could range up to 400% higher if aerosols negate 75% of GHG forcing. On the PBL survey, only about 50% of the respondents said GHGs were responsible for more than 100% of warming OR 75-100% of warming. Looked at from this perspective – maybe this is the wrong perspective – a lot of scientists appear to disagree with the IPCC. However, with ambiguity and poorly worded questions, it is difficult to know the truth.
The fact checker provided a link to the survey itself – hurrah. They provided a link to the blog of a consensus supporter, but not to the blog of a skeptic, which she probably never visited. Instead, she reported after having heard only one side of the story.
If someone is not disturbed by the images related to that Comet ping pong story, I’m disturbed by that person. And if someone thinks that the emails relating to Comet ping pong are not coded language…
If someone think the alleged Buk photo published by Paris Match is legit, he or she or zhe should get his eyes checked.
There are blatant absurdities in many official stories; that is no ideation, that’s fact.
Any true journalist would question officials over those on every single occasion.
This leads to the discussion of press freedom.
_________________________________________________
.
1. Every newspaper may and should represent an opinion – that is freedom of the press. However, this opinion should also be made openly clear.
2. Any other newspaper may and should uphold its own principles – the ideal case of building enlightened free public opinion.
3. Any attempt to manipulate the reader must be rejected, in some cases even sanctioned.
_________________________________________________
In MY opinion.
The difference between freedom of expression and sedition:
– I can express my opinion publicly at any time.
– The limit is exceeded when this statement is combined with a call to action: YOU SHOULD, YOU MUST. ..
sedation aka “Volksverhetzung”.
by the way:
very impressive the community spirit of the US in times of need and danger.
You will handle “Florence” too.