Google to "automatically fact-check" search queries

File: 7f1a168c4458577fa5ff5632c474501a3c831bb7efe41e8353907d373ca2bbdb.jpg (168KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1536x1024px

>>59781708
>2017
>google is kill

>current year
>expecting (((google))) to be unbiased in their searches

inb4

>(((Google))) / Jewgle
>cuck
>SJW

File: 1485897739681.jpg (164KB, 1200x515px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1200x515px

>>59781731
>(you)

>>59781708

hahahaha snopes and politifact

weeeeeeeeeeew

>>59781747
Yeah, because none of that stuff was at all mixed to begin with.

who fact-checks the fact checkers?

>>59781851
be a good goy and stop asking questions

>>59781851
fact checkers of the fact checkers of the fact checkers.

>>59781851
you just triggered the independent thought alarm

At this point, is it possible to make an actual alternative to Google?

inb4 Fuck Fuck No. Startpage is also pretty garbage.

>>59781868
It's possible to make it but who's gonna do it?

>>59781871
What are the prerequisites? How much money and resources are we talking here? Bare with me, I'm just a lowly 2nd year Comp Sci fizzbuzzer.

>>59781868
Yes you can, but will it ever be as good? lmao no

>>59781708
Google's the most evil company today. A lot of nerds still haven't realized that. It's fucking sad.

>>59781851
FUCKING
SHUT
HIM
DOWN

>>59781851
DELET

>>59781890
If everyone reading this post donated $1 million we wouldn't need Google anymore.

>>59781851
DELET THIS

File: Shadilay.jpg (27KB, 336x320px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 336x320px

>>59781868
What do you mean ? I use DuckDuckGo/Startpage and even if it's sometimes lacking (now that you mention it I had to use google for "illegal" or specific things such as cracked apps or games) it gets the job done

File: 1485293615299.jpg (153KB, 912x632px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 912x632px

>implying anyone trusts (((snopes))) or (((politifact)))

(((google))) is just digging their hole deeper and deeper when they expose themselves as intelligence agency and left wing agents like this

use qwant instead of google search

>>59781851
B-BAKANA !!

>>59781708
>politifact
politifact is full of bullshit, lies, and bias

what's so bad about it? Doesn't it fit your worldview?

>>59781708
Snopes is a fucking joke. Don't really know about Politifact.

I don't care anymore.

>>59782338
Exactly. A search engine shouldn't enforce any particular worldview, and should be usable for people with any worldviews.

File: 2D735A6A00000578-4082154-image-a-1_1483377723918.jpg (39KB, 634x423px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 634x423px

>>59781851
shut up you're gonna get us on even more lists

>>59782482
You can always not use google ya big doof

File: TtLRFof-1.jpg (646KB, 1665x1192px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1665x1192px

>>59782333
>>59782347
>>59781708

>>59781851
Delete this right now you fucking goyim

>>59781851
Delet this.

>>59781851
CEASE YOUR INVESTIGATION

>>59782517
>wage gap is 77 cents to a dollar
"There is litterally only one case of that being true, so we're giving it the 'Mostly true
' label."

What the fuck is this shit?

File: 2bc.jpg (17KB, 399x388px)

17KB, 399x388px

>>59781851
DLETE

Havent they been manipulating search results for a long time though?
I looked up apartheid linux once and for the next 3 months every one in my family got search suggestions about why apartheid was bad

File: 1460684113123.jpg (96KB, 698x667px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 698x667px

>>59781851
shut it down

>>59781851
ד this

>>59781851
delet

>>59781708
wweeeeeweeeewww

>>59781851
Do you question (((them)))?

>>59781851
Shhhhhhhhh you'll make the Jew angry

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

>Our ruling

>Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

>Our ruling

>Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent.

>The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim.

>Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to our question about where the candidate got his 59 percent figure. But it appears likely it comes from a computation of all 16- to 24-year-old blacks who aren’t working and may not even want a job, including high school and college students.

>Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.

>We rate his statement Mostly False.

PolitiAlternativeFact

File: mfw americans.jpg (40KB, 453x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 453x500px

>>59784127

>>59781851
Ohh sweet summer goyim

daily reminder that all of the cringey "replies to ebin post xD" to >>59781851 are from redditors who joined /pol/ since the_donald, the fappening and gamergate.

fuck off reddit back to your containment board.

>>59785353
God i fucking hate the donald. They ruin pol

>>59781851
oy vey we've been found out

>>59781747
>im 14 and this is deep

>>59785408
/pol/ ruined /pol/
The entire idea of a closed up political discussions board that ignores outside opinions out of reflex was a mistake. See Tumblr, if you need proof.

>>59783242
>What the fuck is this shit?

CIA misinformation for the masses.

>>59785659
No pol is or better was a real important site. There is literally no place where you can disuss soccially unaccebtable themes. Real discussion only takes place if every thought is allowed ,and pol (it might be99% shitpostin) is often closer to real truth then most people might think

>>59785738
This. A petty that /sg/ fags and shariablue are ruining it. When you try to talk to them they only answer muh Zionists. They've become the thing they hate more, SJWs.

File: 1474157430348.png (48KB, 763x250px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 763x250px

>>59783242

>>59786083
>muh right wing sjw

KYS T_D

>>59785738
How about talking about "socially unacceptable themes" in public? It's not illegal, you won't be arrested. If you get attacked that just proves you right.

/pol/ is a place for people with moronic easily disprovable ideologies to blabber about their bullshit without fear of being embarrassed. People with "socially unacceptable" ideas are usually very quickly able to turn the tide if their ideas have any merit. Twenty years ago, the idea of a proud and self-confessed socialist winning a primary would have been a joke. Today the DNC has to result to corruption to stop such an event from happening.

Most discussions on /pol/ start by identifying a true problem in the world today (such as money in politics), and then offer some insane terrible idea as a solution (let’s vote a reality TV star for president). Too many people incorrectly assume that since /pol/ could correctly identify the problem, they must also have correctly identified the solution too. Unfortunately, to a lesser extent this is also seen in the mainstream.

I do agree that an open and anonymous place for political discussion is valuable but /pol/ has developed a culture of ignoring opinions simply for being popular. You will be disregarded as a ‘normie’ or shill simply for having an opinion that is backed by a sizeable part of the public. They don’t think for a second that maybe there is a reason as to why their arguments are laughed at while others have public backing. Because of this, /pol/ ends up exclusively supporting almost entirely unfounded ideas (such as anarcho-capitalism, which can be proved unfit for use in a few sentences) simply because they aren’t discussed frequently. Again, discussing these ideas is important but believing them is something entirely different.

I just wish people would keep /pol/ in /pol/. The Jews dont need to be mentioned in a /g/ thread.

It's fake news if it doesn't agree with my ideology, that's the thing.

>>59786439
i get arrested. Holocaust discussion or "hate speech" gets you arrested in germany

>>59786509
I'm sorry about that. Hopefuly whoever replaces Merkel will have the sense to have those laws removed, they really are cancerous.

>>59786439
i agree that pol posters need to stick to pol. I thin mentioning jews is fine though nothing too pol i think. Where i see you are wrong though is your analysis of pol. It inst simple contrarianism ,only because u dont like the Ideas and solutions pol offers doesnt mean they are wrong ,for example Racism. Racism on pol is often based in verifiable facts (biggest example would be cross adoption studies ,Iq tests ,crime analysis). Many things are just so frowned upon ,that you are not able to find the truth ,so even if we disagree on the worth of pol ,but we could find common ground in the need for its existence

>>59781747
lmao that's fucking stupid

>>59786231
Not an argument putin shill

>>59786614
so you admit to have come here from reddit?

>>59786439
>‘normie’ or shill simply for having an opinion that is backed by a sizeable part of the public

Isn't that what a normie is, by definition?

And, given that 99.99% of people don't have any idea of what's really happing in the world because we aren't politicians with privileged information and we're busy with our ordinary lives then the political opinion of the typical human is the product of school and media, in other words manufactured lies and indoctrination. There's no wisdom in crowds, no consilience, because their beliefs are not statistically independent, on the contrary, all comes from the same official place.

Very few people, for example, bother to read really old books and see how different things were then, or at least how different the propaganda was.

So /pol/ may be an asylum of lunatic autists, but at least exposes you to some different points of view. Take it as the benefit of random mutations in the evolution of ideas to avoid getting trapped in some local extrema.

>>59786439
Censorship is one of the signs of a tyrannical government

Jews need to be brought to the mainstream

>>59786439
#ImWithHer
#NotMyPresident
#WeAreAllMuslim

>politifact
Literally on record as giving the same statement different factual ratings depending who said it

>>59786675
>>59786688
That's why I’d never argue for /pol/ to be removed. It may be unpleasant having to deal with it being on this site, but it's a necessary evil. Resorting to censorship is a 100% sure-fire way of telling the whole world that you're an idiot and that you're wrong.

>>59781851
A lot of people on /pol/, but they're terrible at it.

File: diversity.png (13KB, 313x339px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 313x339px

>>59781747

>>59786472
But news entirely relies on ideology. What we justify as 'news' is based 100% on bias. Otherwise we'd have 24/7 news channels throwing absolutely everything at us and we would have to select what we focus on (which is nearly impossible a task both for news channels and viewers).

So this entire argument is nonsensical really in that you can't so generally apply this rule that people call news they dislike as fake news. There's a lot of actual bullshit out there that gets spewed. Just take one glance at /pol/ for instance on a lot of fear-mongering BS that gets taken as 100% true. Just take one look at various news sources and see what they purposely misrepresent or just flat out don't talk about.

And for the most part people get upset on the conservative side, because they're low hanging fruit. They buy into BS facebook memes so damn easily. However, the other sides buy into nonsense just as easily, it's just not as overt. Instead of buying into memes or /pol/ posts, they're disregarding entire sources for not being PC enough (as an example of what they do) which causes this intense bubble (take a look at socmedia commies and their inability to debate with anyone).

So it's a very real problem but effectively it will never be solved because humans in general are extremely malleable.

>>59786738
Is #WeAreAllMuslim a thing? What does that even mean?

>>59781851
me

>>59786777
>/pol/ is the global boogeyman
nice try goldberg winestein

>>59786791
all of us drive trucks into crowds sometimes

>>59786806
Jesus, I said a lot of people on /pol/. Not everyone on /pol/. Not /pol/ itself. No need to be triggered so hard.

>>59781708
although i do prefer other search engines as DDG i will play devil's advocate here and say that Google does give the most popular seaches top billing when it comes to searching for something.

>>59786820
We all know that feeling of killing 14 people in a big rig.

>>59786836
Relying on Politifact in particular is a problem though because Politifact has proven (objectively, ie rating the same statement differently because a republican said it) partisan bias.

>>59786439
>>59785738
How about talking about "socially unacceptable themes" in public? It's not illegal, you won't be arrested. If you get attacked that just proves you right.

/pol/ is a place for people with moronic easily disprovable ideologies to blabber about their bullshit without fear of being embarrassed. People with "socially unacceptable" ideas are usually very quickly able to turn the tide if their ideas have any merit. Twenty years ago, the idea of a proud and self-confessed socialist winning a primary would have been a joke. Today the DNC has to result to corruption to stop such an event from happening.

Most discussions on /pol/ start by identifying a true problem in the world today (such as money in politics), and then offer some insane terrible idea as a solution (let’s vote a reality TV star for president). Too many people incorrectly assume that since /pol/ could correctly identify the problem, they must also have correctly identified the solution too. Unfortunately, to a lesser extent this is also seen in the mainstream.

I do agree that an open and anonymous place for political discussion is valuable but /pol/ has developed a culture of ignoring opinions simply for being popular. You will be disregarded as a ‘normie’ or shill simply for having an opinion that is backed by a sizeable part of the public. They don’t think for a second that maybe there is a reason as to why their arguments are laughed at while others have public backing. Because of this, /pol/ ends up exclusively supporting almost entirely unfounded ideas (such as anarcho-capitalism, which can be proved unfit for use in a few sentences) simply because they aren’t discussed frequently. Again, discussing these ideas is important but believing them is something entirely different.

I just wish people would keep /pol/ in /pol/. The Jews dont need to be mentioned in a /g/ thread.

>>59786970
What did he mean by this?

>>59786854
It would be nice if it was a plethora of independent 'fact checkers' that would also be checking each other's assessments. Cuts down on a lot of the bias.

There's just a lot of really bad misinformation out there and unfortunately due to how search engines work, you could 100% fuck with millions/billions of people by getting your misinformation into the first page of all search engines.

File: wat.jpg (39KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x340px

>>59781708

Apparently people are too damn gullible, nowadays.

File: 1491456121551.jpg (62KB, 630x470px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 630x470px

>>59781708
>you'll never get rid of us, just listen and obey

>>59786170
giving trump a true, i mean are you crazy

I thought snopes was right-leaning? Why shouldn't I use it?

File: 1491452415847.jpg (96KB, 640x619px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x619px

>>59787109
>I thought snopes was right-leaning?

>>59786170
>half true
>it's completely true
lmao

>>59787023
Kill yourself, you dumb fucking shit stain.

>>59786790
>Just take one look at various news sources and see what they purposely misrepresent or just flat out don't talk about.
this is the big problem, you can cherry pick facts to fit your narrative without actually saying anything false

>>59781708
>google search: "trump is a decent human"
>showing results for: "trump is literally hitler"

>>59781851
Your mom

>>59781868
>What is DuckDuckGo?
Yeah, it still needs to mature a bit. But, considering how far they've come, it has a lot of promise.

>>59787678
something that uses google search to give you results and thus will also be affected by this.

>>59786600
These laws precede Merkel and are pretty much the foundation of the German state. Yes they are stupid but it takes a special kind of retard to break them, so it's not like they are a big deal.

File: delet_this.jpg (32KB, 480x666px)

32KB, 480x666px

>>59781851

>>59786790
You idea is not inherently true: you can state facts of events that are happening, have happened, or are staged to occur without polluting them with a hidden agenda or otherwise corrupting bias. You remove speculation, period. Suddenly you have an unbiased news outlet. People need to exercise discretion and form actual individual opinions on things, the bias in the media as it stands is precisely one of the reasons that we're in the mess that we are. And both sides are equally overt in their agendas while remaining equally inconspicuous as well.

>>59787942
>traditional media gets assraped by the internet
>turns into ratings whoring infotainment
>gets assraped by the internet again
good riddance