Has google finally overstepped its boundaries? How can you

>>59827382
>integrates conclusion of snopes article under snopes search result
>l-l-leftists have gone too far!

ITT: triggered

Why would you need a fact check? Facts, per definition, can't be wrong.

>>59827382
stop using it for anything even remotely polical. (unless you want blue pills, aka ignorance pills)

>>59827412
>>59827406
You're not the least bit worried this might start becoming a trend for any facts? Eventually google will create its own box of information (like it does for word definitions/ formulas) and then it can push its own narrative where it sees fit? Couple this with google tracking search patterns and it can target who gets what narrative

>itt republicans get upset that they can no longer get away with publishing bullshit news

It tells me how (((they))) manipulate filthy goyim.

>>59827428
It's not checking if the facts are true or not, it's checking whether or not the claim is actually a fact or not

Absolutely loving the alt-righter rage coming out because of this.

Facts don't mean anything - /pol/

>>59827448
> snopes isn't fake news
WEW LAD

>>59827437
It's clearly only there because snopes.com appeared in the search results. Calm down.

Claim: OP is a faggot

Fact check by 4chan.org: true

>>59827456
>>59827448

I chose the uranium search because thats how I saw the snopes article come up.

Apparently the claim is that the Clinton Foundation received something like 20mil from a Russian entity after the uranium was changed hands.

>>59827428
>>59827456
RELIGION OF PEACE

>>59827454
Can you please elaborate on what a false fact is then

>>59827469
kek

How the fuck can you be against this? Unless you have a sinister motive to starve the populace from critical thinking

Did Snopes pay Google for this or are they getting millions in ad revenue without any effort?

>>59827488
There is no such thing. If it is false, then it's not a fact. Fact checkers see if they're actually facts of not, not if the fact is true or false. Really read what I said.

>>59827488
Can you elaborate on why are you such an autist?

>>59827494
>remove all critical thinking from process
>muh critical thinking

File: cover32.jpg (27KB, 780x440px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 780x440px

>>59827406
were you seriously not paying attention to snopes during the election?

They lost credibility for shit like pic related

theres a dozen or so facts that were written like "well the stats are true, but he shouldn't have said that: false"

Snopes used to be decent until they picked a side.

and i'm not even a fucking trump supporter

>>59827503
So a fact check checks whether something is a fact then
Well thanks for your contribution

>>59827501
http://www.snopes.com/2017/04/07/google-fact-check-tags/

>Google is not paying fact-checking organizations for being part of this effort, and a Google spokeswoman said articles tagged with the new fact-check label would not be ranked differently in search results.

>>59827494

I think critical thinking comes from researching the articles and reading from multiple sources...

>>59827517
It's supplying alternative sources, again how can you be against this?

>>59827406

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

>>59827469
lmfao

>>59827531
good goy

>>59827519
top kek

> NBC: she did not use a chemical corrosive to wipe her hard drive, trump be lier

>>59827406
>>59827465
No you're fucking retarded. They are pushing the snopes result first along with that conclusion to push their narrative. I need a new search engine

>>59827545
Back to your shithole >>>/pol/

>>59827539
4chan

>>59827519
>bleach
>not corrosive

>>59827539

they provide more than just a true or false, they actually justify it

>>59827554
>National Review
>CNBC
>Politifact

(((((((alternative sources)))))))

>>59827574
triggered, autist?

>/pol/ thinking it's more reliable than snopes

LOL

>>59827582
No, I'm just not a dumb nigger swallowing everything the corporate overlords see fit to consume. Fucking kike

>>59827570
I see you've never taken a humanities course, in which you are taught to find and/or twist evidence to justify literally anything
source: am english major, all we do is bullshit

>>59827605
this

used to be sociology major until it was just too much for my soul to handle

>>59827594
>LOL
>>>>>plebbit

>>59827531
Trump said something like "This year more illegal immigrants entered the US than the previous year"

Politifacts acknowledged that his claim matches the ICE numbers but rated it "Mostly False" because "year" referred to the fiscal year and not the calendar year. So next time a presidential candidate says something like this, they can just show

>Fact checked by Politifacts: false

and all the sheep will fall for it. Brave new world.

>>59827596

yes you are the enlightened one.

I've met so many of you and it all their arguments where based on lack of deep knowledge of a topic

What's wrong with fact checks? Isn't that what we want? Alternative facts don't exist you know...

>>59827645
t. Schlomo

>>59827651

But muh feelings!!!

File: IMG_0591.jpg (143KB, 1095x1200px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1095x1200px

>>59827651

>>59827406
This is literally the memory hole and the constantly editing history to fit their narrative from 1984.

>>59827567
technically it's caustic, not corrosive, as it's a base not an acid.

File: BULK.png (965KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 1440x900px

>>59827651
theres nothing wrong, sites like snopes/politifact are still there.

Theres no reason for google to include them in the search results like this. It opens them up to bias and information manipulation which is a scary precedent going forward.

>>59827519
Technically she didn't do that either. She hired a private firm to go through her servers and gather as many e-mails as possible (the server software had been reinstalled a few times and some e-mails had become detached from it while still existing on the hard drive) and to try to distinguish which ones were government related. Once they came back and told her they had identified all her government e-mails (they were wrong) they asked her what to do with the remaining personal e-mails. At this point she told them to delete the personal e-mails since she didn't think they would ever be useful to her anymore, this is where BleachBit comes into play. She didn't use BleachBit to wipe the e-mails, she didn't even know which e-mails were being wiped with BleachBit nor did she choose the software BleachBit.

This is why the FBI chose not to prosecute. There were things that weren't supposed to be deleted and she should have known not to ask for the personal e-mails to be deleted but she just acted foolishly not criminally. Keep in mind, this is the same chick that got her personal e-mail address hacked by a /b/tard who guessed her secret questions several years ago.

That said, all those who'll complain about Clinton being incompetent with technology, allow me to remind you that Trump doesn't know how to use a computer at all. Instead he either does things through his smartphone or he hires someone else to do them. Anyone complaining about Clinton hiring a private firm to do that sort of thing should know that Trump has done the same thing.

>>59827488
A lie. A false fact is, by definition, a lie.

>>59827698
only one of these people was dealing with classified information

>>59827617
If that claim were true in a useful way (i.e. to draw inferences about immigration) then why would it matter how you divide up the years. It should be true either way. In this case politifacts just pointed out that it isn't useful to draw inferences on that statistic given that it's kind of coincidental based on when you divide the years.

>>59827705
>muh Russian hackers stole the election

>>59827698
no i understand that, i didnt like either party, its just how it was presented.

also, really? i thought that was sarah palin, or maybe it was both, kek

also dont forget john podesta was losing his government phone in cabs all the time.

They're all incompetent, i wasn't using it as "muh trump" but more like just how they presented the information.

File: salon2.png (581KB, 2968x2096px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 2968x2096px

lugenpresse thread?

>>59827382
>I'm still tied to google drive and gmail for a lot of work related items
This among many other reasons is why you never mix personal computing and work computing on the same services or devices.

>>59827519
>not acid, it was a Software called bleachbit

Lol

>>59827719
Both were.

Lately Google gave Black Lives Matters around 15 mil - they are basically Soros shills. I want out. What is a decent search engine / email alternative to the beast?

>>59827733
of you unirionically assume that Politifact is an unbiased fact checking source, you're obviously way too dumb to see how google doing this would be a bad thing

>>59827382
>Has google finally overstepped its boundaries?
Yes. And those of us who remember the false-flag "terrorist" attack on September 11th, 2001 and understand that a story that violates basic laws of physics isn't true just because they repeat it time and time on television see where this is going.

I don't know what big event they are planning this time but it's coming. And when it does Google will "fact-check" that every website they show have the approved "facts" and ensure that nobody who tells the truth is heard.

This is censorship, pure and simple. The classic book 1984 is worth a read, this book has some examples of what kind of "fact"-checking we're looking at.

>>59827382
>How can you divorce yourself completely from this monster?
I haven't used their search-engine for years and years but I do use their YouTube product to view some content that is not available elsewhere.

>>59827437
>then it can push its own narrative where it sees fit?
alphabeth inc/google will do this. Remember what happened during the US election to get a clear indicator. Youtube videos supporting Trump got their advertisements removed videos supporting Hillary were fine. Google has a pretty long history of blatant censorship.

It's interesting to note that the way Google has been stripping ad revenue from those who say the wrong things for a long time caused some blow-back. Then we get "news" that big advertisers were pulling their Youtube advertisements because they were afraid that their ads would be shown on the wrong thing. Remember the time-line on this one, first they started stripping people's ad revenue away as a punishment for having the wrong opinion and later they announce that they have to start doing what they were already doing because advertisers demand it.

>>59827651
Snopes is sketchy, it is run by an old troll and his wife, self described liberals living on the west coast with doubtful moral track record.

It's an editorial site with a fact checking format, which is a bigger stinger because they manipulate the outcome of a piece by slapping a graphic on top and every person who put stock in the site when they were quaint nods his head and makes up his mind.

>>59827698
Did you miss the news that the company she hired was caught asking reddit how to forge? email headers

>>59827570
Justifying is not proving.

>>59827739
>also, really? i thought that was sarah palin, or maybe it was both, kek
oh shit, you're right. It was Palin. I'm a retard.

>>59827780

can you point me to a false claim? I'm not that familiar with those websites only read couple of articles.

>>59827503
>Fact checkers see if they're actually facts of not
No, they don't. And there are plenty of examples of this.

>>59827519
>were you seriously not paying attention to snopes during the election?
I know, it's totally obvious that it's about telling you what to think regardless of the truth. Those who defend this kind of "fact-checking" censorship are likely paid shills because it's hard to believe someone who's able to write can be that ignorant.

>>59827778
>the "news"
Post a legitimate news source anon.

>>59827755
Was wondering if startpage was a good alternative, they use google, but don't save/sell your searches.

>>59827766
>It's interesting to note that the way Google has been stripping ad revenue from those who say the wrong things for a long time caused some blow-back.

as much as i love supporting the narrative, are we sure this honestly wasn't entirely the advertisers?

Between google being dicks, and "legit" concerns over where ads are placed, i personal believe this new saga is only about a quarter of googles fault.

This is literally why television has become such shit, they have to attempt to appeal to everyone or those giant corporate sponsors could flutter away.

>>59827808
>muh alternative facts

>>59827733
See, now you might understand the problem with "fact checkers". They deliver a counter argument that is - most of the time - not more true than the original statement. It's just another point of view, yet they act like they provide irrefutable facts.

File: drrrrrrrmpf.jpg (21KB, 708x370px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 708x370px

>>59827382
>how dare you factcheck my habitual lying

>>59827822
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips

Holy fug are you autists seriously arguing about whether or not Snopes does nothing but spew liberal talking points. Someone link this thread to /pol/ pls

File: 1491027888224.png (477KB, 560x500px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 560x500px

>>59827382
>he's only just now realizing that google doctors search results for political reasons
What's next? Are you gonna tell me the sky's blue or something?

>>59827832
start page is good but since it's still google results they could still skew the narrative however they want. Fortunately the """fact checks""" don't show up though.

>>59827861
It is more true. Just dumbed down.

File: burden of proof guilt.jpg (118KB, 432x480px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 432x480px

Without proof, you cannot say it's true. It's the kind of logic that "ancient aliens" experts rely on. Hillary may indeed have been responsible for the sale of the mining company to Russia, and yes, the Clinton Foundation did receive some donations from Russians, but without proof, you have, at best, a hypothesis that requires further investigation.

It's also the exact same logic behind the claim that Trump is a Russian puppet. Yes, Russia likely benefits more from Trump, and there are some people on his campaign team who had acquaintances in Russia. But again, that doesn't mean Russia "rigged" the election, as you're connecting dots that might not have any connections whatsoever. And with the CIA leaks showing that they have the ability to make false flag cyber attacks, the claim that Russia was behind the email leaks deserves even more scrutiny.

Pic related. I find it ironic that the niggers on /pol/ have a sticky explaining common logical fallacies, yet continue to use logical fallacies as their modus operandi.

>>59827842
>as much as i love supporting the narrative, are we sure this honestly wasn't entirely the advertisers?

A lot of people noticed what they were doing and some decided to do funny experiments. A few made very similar videos where they said almost identical things about Hillary in one video and Trump in another. One was immediately punished and the other was rewarded.

This has nothing to do with advertisers on most cases.

>>59827437
Why would you prefer it mindlessly spit back the propaganda you enter into it?

>>59827382

Sadly, Google is still better at searching arxiv, citeseer, and MSDN better than any of their respective purpose-built search engines.

I have yet to see a single pop-culture or political reference crop up in an academic search.

>>59827842
>as much as i love supporting the narrative, are we sure this honestly wasn't entirely the advertisers?
Any targeting which Google naturally does and have been doing for years implies that some ads are not shown.
The new thing is that Google artificially lowers the cost of viewing ad revenue for those who are undesirable.

>>59827382
If your reality is so devoid of facts, then Google offering inline fact checking is the least of your concerns. You literally live a life of delusion.

File: traps.png (53KB, 840x744px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 840x744px

Google has definitely gone too far.

>>59828205
KEK

Facebook's (((Independent Fact Checkers)))

I wonder, why would a CEO of a Bloomberg company have anything to do with the fake news fact checking? Isn't the Bloomberg company one of the conventional mainstream media companies in the USA?

File: independentfacecheckers.jpg (238KB, 870x1363px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 870x1363px

>>59828468

>>59827531
same people crying about this and are against it are the same ones that cry when news sites remove the comments section. kind of funny.

>&tbs=li:1
that is all

>>59827406
In fact the claim as stated is false. Clinton sold 20% of uranium production to Russia. Literally a worse thing that the original claim.
Even the snopes source says that.
The problem, as usual, is that Google can push a narrative with these resumed fact checks because the average normie will not ever look or read the source of the claims.

File: 1479613368320.jpg (106KB, 468x700px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 468x700px

>>59827877
Dubs of Truth

And I regret this shit show well. This is when stonetear went to plebbit of all places and openly asked girls to bleachbit info for a VIP.

>>59827705
Lies have the malicious intention of avoid truth. false facts also can be misunderstandings or myths.
For example, a false fact that isn't a lie but is a myth is that that says that Mozart didn't need a piano to compose.
/autism

File: flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg (124KB, 800x796px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x796px

>>59827382
>Has google finally overstepped its ovaries?

Dont you know that's racist and muh soggy knees anon?

>>59827519
>and i'm not even a fucking trump supporter
same, but I always get that fucking look whenever I play devil's advocate in the name of transparency and fairness.

>>59827382
>(((snopes)))

>>59828205
DELETE THIS [spoiler]Google, not you [/spoiler]

>>59827877
>https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips
As soon as I read Paul Combetta I thought to myself, hmmm there's the problem, they went cheap, and didn't have a Jew in charge of the servers.

>>59828541
>In fact the claim as stated is false. Clinton sold 20% of uranium production to Russia.
Considering the amount of access to Uranium Russia has, I bet the price was well below the cost of production as well.

Fuck off back to /pol/, because it's clear you're too incompetent to understand what's happening here.

Google simply displayed the result of the Snopes article underneath the link. It's the same shit as the quick answers you get from Wikipedia or definitions google grabs from other dictionary sites. It's not censorship or "brainwashing" in any way.

>>59828915
I don't use /pol/, it's a haven for newfags and redditors.
I wasn't commenting on the google results in the OP I was responding to him talking about Snopes during the election.
check yourself fool.

>>59828915
so why are they only including one source that has the "fact results" underneath it? Don't you see how this opens google up to bias

>>59828500
I was wrong, here is an half-assed """"""solution""""""
>in b4 safezone

// ==UserScript==
// @name        snope this
// @namespace   none
// @description no more snoping around
// @include     https://www.google.com/search?*
// @version     1
// @grant       none
// ==/UserScript==

var results = document.body.getElementsByTagName("div");

for (var i = results.length- 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
    var result= results[i];

    if (! result.getAttribute("data-ved"))
        continue;
    
    var links = result.getElementsByTagName("cite");
    if ((! links) || (links.length < 1))
        continue;

    for (var j = 0; j < links.length; j++)
    {
        var link = links[j];

        if (link.textContent.indexOf("www.snopes.com") < 0)
            continue;

        result.parentElement.removeChild(result);
        break;
    }
}

>>59828946
They're not saying that the claim is true or false, they're simply summarizing the Snopes article underneath and saying that it is false according to them.
If you don't like it then use startpage.

>>59828959
Level pajeet.

>>59827382
>fact checked by snopes.com
lal

>>59828982
but the implications

>>59827549
Use Yandex, Russia won't do jack shit about anything you search.

Shouldn't be hard for "Russian hackers" to take snopes offline right?

>>59828994
im well aware, but im not wasting more than 5 minutes on it (the elements classes and ids are somewhat randomized so...).
feel free to make a better safezone solution :^)

>>59828959
nice virus retard

>>59827800
It's not about the claim itself but about the summary (false/somewhat/true) and how those sites underreport information to get the beneficial angle of view.

http://www.politifactbias.com/ Specifically, go to PolitiFact itself and see how small a reason for saying "Pants on fire" about Trump is and how large the tolerance for saying "True" for Clinton/Obama/whatever is.

See OP pic for a fine example: of course Clinton did not sell uranium (because she did not own it), the claim was about that she approved the deal but fact-checker are checking facts so they took the claim literally and of course found it to be false.

I used to be subscribed to CNN on YouTube, as I always thought they were a neutral news agenca, so I could keep up on American affairs. But during the American elections almost all their videos were one big smear campaign against Trump.

I literally unsubscribed to them due to fake news. Which makes it a bit ironic they now complain about fake news.

>>59829231
CNN was a key part of the "Iraq has WMDs and they're going to nuke us all" lie that manufactured public consent for an Iraq invasion.

And it's happening again with Syria, as it happened with Libya before that.

If you ever thought CNN were neutral you were blind then.

File: 1489638493539.gif (72KB, 269x200px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 269x200px

>>59828959
DELETE THIS PAJEET

>>59829224
>so they took the claim literally
That is an issue both ways though. People will see it (e.g. clickbait titles) and believe (and state) this is literally what happened. Only when called out will the more complex truth be brought forth.

>>59827382
why would you use that shit called "fact check" in first place?

>>59829231
there is no such thing as a neutral news agency, they are all beholden to the corporations that own them. it's gotten worse in the past decade because their main source of revenue is view based advertising since nobody wants to pay for subscriptions anymore.

>>59829301
To control the public opinion. They believe people are unable to think critically, which can lead to undesirable situations, so now we can have Kotaku think for us.

Fact check by 4chan.org: true

>>59829301
Facts are important.

>>59827465
google made a deal with snopes to fact check their search results.

File: 1490920087775.jpg (23KB, 250x243px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 250x243px

>>59827454
nice

>>59827382
Yes and no.

Fact Checking itself isn't bad, but who checks the fact checkers is a major issue. Snopes is a shit fact checking source due to how they higher, as with the other firm they contracted, they just aren't as bad as snopes.

"Fact-checking" is nothing more than making a partisan interruption because unvarnished facts would paint an unflattering picture of your side.

>>59829368
Fact check by Snopes.com: false

>>59829368
Literally all it would take for google to shut up the critics right now is to establish a plethora of independent fact checkers to check each other before establishing a conclusion. Basically, what Wikipedia does but on a larger scale and with more weight since Goog can afford to pay these fact checkers.

>>59829396
Post check by Anon: keked

>>59829411
All I want Google to do is present me PageRanked search results. For fuck's sake.

I started running a searx session on my machine.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 2.27.04 PM.png (158KB, 737x771px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 737x771px

Good thing I just switched to StartPage

>>59829456
Not him, but my website is a top result in Bing. But I end up on the fifth page in Google.
I'd say 90% of my traffic comes from Yahoo and Bing.

Google does not need fact checkers to remove someone from the known internet. They can just put you a few pages down the search results.

File: 1321560251671.png (91KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 200x200px

>mfw the "fact checking" on Hillary bragging about building a fence is termed "half-true" in a desperate attempt to word-play to downplay her retardation

There's no such things as half-truths just as there are no such things as half-lies.
There's truth or lie, and nothing in-between.
These people are a fucking disgrace to themselves, the institutions that educated them, as well as their families.

Op is fucking pathetic

>>59829520
Hahaha yes there is you fuckin retard
It means there's basis for the rumour but the truth isn't exactly that. Idiot

>>59829520
>There's no such things as half-truths
Hahaha what? Do you know what a lie by omission is? Let's say you ask me to get something out of your car, and I say (truthfully) that I couldn't find it.

What I didn't tell you is that I couldn't find it because a pack of wild niggers were hanging around the car and bashing it up trying to break in.

My statement was completely factual. But important context was omitted. Half truths are a thing - but Factcheck and Politifact have no business being the arbiters of that label, as shown by the bias in >>59828869

>>59829561
The truth is exactly that though, especially since she was filmed saying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yMmG5p0Ll8

You are beating around the bush to downplay shit like a butthurt faggot.

>>59829590
I don't give a fuck what she did, dude
I'm calling you a retard for acting like half truths aren't a thing, nothing more

>>59829602
They aren't a thing faggot.
The intent is always absolute no matter how you try to sprinkle it.
The intent is the block Mexicans from coming in, whether by fence or by wall or whatever wordplay is irrelevant.
The thing is absolute truth.

>>59829622
>still bringing up political points
That's great but half truths are a thing whether you like them or not

>>59829644
Nah. Half-truths are short for "damage control".

>>59829655
Okay buddy

switched to duckduckgo 1.5 years ago, never looked back
still use google reverse image for porn though

just so you know you dan't have to put up with this kind of shit

>>59827428
Are you retarded? Facts can be true or false. Opinions can't be wrong.

How can people be this fucking stupid?

>>59828869
>Bernie is going to tax you 90%

But that is a lie.

File: wew.jpg (205KB, 878x917px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 878x917px

>>59829520
You think that is bad, they are trying to do mental gymnastics around DOMA not being anti-equality.

>>59829275
>That is an issue both ways though.
Of course it is. The problem is that fact warping sites do not treat different political sayings equally.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gun-laws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/ - see, they did not say anything about that gun deaths in pro-gun states are because of people defending themselves, they just said "mostly true". Taking saying literally is not interesting analysis. Fact warpers are free at selecting something what's looks good when taken literally from one side's sayings and select the sayings looking worst when taken literally by opposing side.

Additionally, Politifact is free at selection of sayings: they may not check obvious bullshit by Obama/Clinton for example. It means that you'll rarely see positive reviews about opposite side of politics just because PolitiFact does not review verifiable sayings as frequently. Selection is a very powerful tool (Texas sharpshooter fallacy).

>>59829752
Hillary was caught on video lying about that too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vczoazK1mxU

Apparently fact checking doesn't include recorded mediums that are indisputable facts.

The very fact that Hillary is untrustworthy in that she doesn't stay true to a political stance, disproves that fact check as questionable at the very least.

>>59827382
Wtf? I love google now!

>>59827842
It isn't entirely the advertisers, speaking of the current youtube ad ban, some companies have tried to specifically advertise on particular channels, even lefty channels, but youtube wouldn't let them, leading to some people theorizing about a blacklist of independent news in general. Allegedly youtube simply wont allow certain channels any monetization, even if the advertisers know and want what they'd be getting into.

>>59827382
I love how most of this thread doesn't even understand what that "Fact check" actually is.
They are simply displaying the result of the article beneath the search result. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looks like /g/ needs its own fact checking.

>>59830143
Fact check by Snopes.com: false

>>59827382
>.com
>repuatble

>>59827832
I started using startpage today, it's pretty nice

>>59829411
wikipedia is better just because it's a dedicated network of extreme autists

>>59830143
..as the #1 result for the query, artificially.

>>59829411
what google seems to be doing is giveing a priority result to the fact checkers sites if the have already checked the fact, its the least biased way they could do it, but the fact checkers themselves have no recurring fact checking tests to see if they themselves have biases.

Im sure as this rolls out it will either get canned altogether, or they will take criticism and get more fact checkers to fact check the facts.

It could also go down the heavy liberal bias route, but google isn't retarded and knows that would paint them fucking bad to be so transparent with a bias.

>>59827382
You can use gdrive and Gmail purely as infrastructure pieces and operate them through unaffiliated third party applications.

You're here mucking in the shit instead of googling your problem like a normal fucking human being.

>tfw google locks you out of your own account

>>59829585
I know what you're trying to say, but that's called prevaricating and most people would considering it lying, not a "half-truth".

>>59830403
>facts
>biases
there is no bias in objective truths

>>59829585
If you're doing the same stuff you're criticizing others for, you're being a hypocrite. Just compare 8th from top (about Bernie Sanders) with 3rd from bottom (about crime statistics).
It's the same fucking thing: taking quotes out of context. Except once it's done by politifact and once it's done by "reality".

File: politifactoids.jpg (114KB, 604x832px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 604x832px

(((fact checking)))

>>59827463

>everything is fake news

better stick our heads in the sand then

>>59827977

/thead

can we shut down /pol/ now, it needs to be quarantined and sterilized.

>>59827406
this, what the fuck OP?

>>59827437
they already do that

ITT: Slippery slopes
Google does many bad things, but this is good, or at least neutral IMO

>>59827382
That seems pretty useful. I block all fakenews domains anyway, as you should if you use an ad blocker. So I don't really care about this.

File: 1490248424428.jpg (166KB, 580x565px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 580x565px

>>59831485
>a board so bad that /mlpol/ actually made it better

If you're worried about it then stop using google. Use bing for search and outlook.com for email.

File: 1490566194076.png (173KB, 1162x1117px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1162x1117px

>>59828869
This is the integrity of the "fact checkers" they're using as an authoritative source for people to trust.

What a fucking joke. This is literally going soviet russia tier where literally everyone but the most deluded know everything in the media is a blatant lie.

>>59830403

>heavy liberal bias route

explain

>finally
Nigga did you not see how blatantly they were putting Clinton ahead of everybody before she even had the nomination in 2016?
They went full goy a long time ago

File: 1420225131008.jpg (9KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 228x221px

>>59827382
I switched to cuck cuck go because of this. I liked Google but this was the final straw.

File: 1491188514748.gif (897KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 800x430px

>Hillary didn't give Russia 20% of the US's uranium stockpile
>she gave them 20% of the US's uranium production
>that's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more you fucking drumpftard

God the left is stupid.

>>59827382
>>59827406
>Free speech has become an unpopular topic associated with 'racist sexists'
>Media-backed fact checkers are uncritically taken as gospel even when they skew answers and pick sides
>Every online service has become more and more invasive, demanding real world personal info
>Social justice witch hunts are encouraged for the smallest spoken blunder, but the well-connected mega rich and their government and media friends must never EVER be questioned
>Meritocracy is considered bigotry now because it doesn't give women and minorities special treatment
>NSA surveillance is accepted as perfectly normal

We live in an actual dystopia and left wing faggots can't wait to wrap their lips around the same government they were protesting when occupy wall street was trendy.

>>59831974
That's not even true though. Not a single atom of american uranium is in russia.

>>59830811
Do you think robots fact check?

you get an extreme liberal, they fact check all their positions as right, and when a conservative position is correct, they drag their ass on fact checking it if they fact check it at all so it appears to be a lie not worth debunking.

>>59832240
Why do you say things so blatantly wrong that can be so easily fact checked via primary sources? Are you lazy, or just retarded?

>>59827406
in this case Snopes is misleading at best and lying at worst

yes they really have gone too far

>>59829701
>Opinions can't be wrong
wrong

>>59832271
You are the one who made the claim. Can you provide one bit of proof that any US uranium has left the country and made it's way to russia?

I'd be happy to post proof that it never happened.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/17/14649980/trump-clinton-russia-uranium
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-give-russia-uranium-1792446097

>>59832240 >>59832316
Not sure if trolling or shitposting. Hillary approved selling USA uranium mines in KZ.

>>59832316
>Can you provide one bit of proof that any US uranium has left the country and made it's way to russia?
But we're not talking about how much uranium went to russia, we're talking about hillary selling US production to russia. Which she factually did.

File: ops.trump_.vt_.jpg (761KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 1200x900px

>>59832373
>>59832371

What the fuck are you talking about you dilutional assholes?

Between 2009 and 2013, Russia's atomic energy agency, Rosatom, purchased a majority stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One.

Nowhere does it state that russia has ANY control over uranium mines in the US. Nor does it state that any US uranium is going directly to Russia.

And I thought you trumpers were all buddy buddy with the ruskies? Why would you all of a sudden be mad about that even if it weren't categorically false.

>>59832371
Assertions are not evidence, let alone proof.

When will asian moot add fact checking to posts here on four chan?

>>59827406
fpbp

>>59827382
I really don't see the problem with this. 90% of internet content these days is (usually political) clickbait, and people use google to access it. The fact that they're integrating work done to verify or discredit clickbait into search results discussing that clickbait isn't wrong or overstepping any boundaries. They already give "smart cards", answers, and other integrated information for other queries like asking who the current president is.

>>59827488
Hahah, you are retarded.

>>59827617
You sound like a fucking snowflake. Politicians lie and they need to be called out on it. I dont care if they are dems, repubs, right wing, left wing, whatever. We finally have the technology to effectively highlight and verify everything that comes out of a politicians mouth. If you are scared of this then move the fuck out to a third world dictator run shit hole

>>59832435
>And I thought you trumpers were all buddy buddy with the ruskies?
Strawman.
>Nowhere does it state that russia has ANY control over uranium mines in the US.
Mines not being located in USA does not mean that USA was not owning them.
>>59832439
What do you want proof of? There is an important strategic asset: uranium resources, Clinton should not have approved selling them. She doing it because of personal cash benefits is a cherry topping the cake.

>>59833457
>Mines not being located in USA does not mean that USA was not owning them.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Is english even your first language? I bet you're a fucking ruskie too.

Would you care to provide a single fact to back any of your post up? Uranium One is a canadian company.

>>59833524
Hillary is a crypto-Canadian, you cuck.

>>59833524
>I bet you're a fucking ruskie too.
Aaaand you win + I am sleepy.
>Would you care to provide a single fact to back any of your post up? Uranium One is a canadian company.
I must have spoke some bullshit because it was long since I read sources on this topic. Judge yourself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html
http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/

>>59828869
>Who the fuck is Wayne Allen Root (a name which screams redneck-who-molests-boys) and why should we trust his word on anything
>of the Lolbertarian (Nutty) Party - Kay E Kay
>Poll was obviously not by CNN, CNN just wrote about it
>Any old retard knows the "Mexican Government" arent sending people, smelly mexishits opt to illegally enter the US of their own volition

There, that's just the first few. It's obvious to anyone but the most brainwashed trumptard that Politifact were reasonable