http://archive.is/Mc2Xf
>Motherboard has not viewed the full document, but a screenshot we reviewed shows it's titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." Descriptions of its contents were tweeted publicly by Google employees, and it was described in detail to me by a Google employee, who requested anonymity because of the company's notoriously strict confidentiality agreement. (A lawsuit against the company was filed in a San Francisco court last year over the company's "spying program" to prevent leaks.)
pic semi-related
>>136267404
Bumping with good feels from Palmer Luckey
>>136267404
From the "no shit" files.
They reviewed our government media companies and found the greens were the second biggest party. They're a fringe of the left in reality. SD has zero representation and was about 12% of the population then, and is about 20% or more now.
They kvetched a lot about these studies because they were real and impartial ones they couldn't discredit, so they just ignored them instead. This is an organization that takes pains to say it needs to represent the people it serves, and therefore needs more women and blacks.
But somehow simultaneously it doesn't need to reflect the multitude of opinion in the country accurately. Not even a token SD representative. Not even token parity between left and right blocks.
If a state owned company can act like this without consequence, why the fuck can't a private company that makes money hand over fist have an ideological skewing? The US doesn't even pretend to have legislation to prevent this.
>>136267404
anyone has seen the manifesto?