Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008


Michelle

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Do you deny that Google has manipulated search algorithms during elections to favor certain information over other?  In other words obviously has not happened.

Search “ Claims made about Trump that were false” in Google. Report results.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
15 minutes ago, WVK said:

Search “ Claims made about Trump that were false” in Google. Report results.

There you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2024 at 5:30 PM, OverSword said:

There is one large MSM entity in the USA which is right (Fox)

Fox is so far right , they only got one arm.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

:whistle: I don't reply to some people.  Sorry.  I reply to people that answer questions once in a while when asked.

Slander kid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Razman said:

Fox is so far right , they only got one arm.

Correct, as CNN, MSNBC and most others are the same but to the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Myles said:

Correct, as CNN, MSNBC and most others are the same but to the left.

One left arm?:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i think the left/right dynamic is obsolete anyway. the neo-cons managed to co-opt the democrat party in the US under Obama's term which created a one-party system with two apparent parties. when Trump won the nomination in 2016 it sealed the deal. the republicans became a confused mixture of old blue collar democrats, populists, non-neo-con conservatives and others. many classical liberal types were left homeless and are uncommitted.

the lines that most should be looking at are the establishment/anti-establishment dynamics. this is what the populists, classical liberals and libertarians generally rally around. it's why the libertarians have their own consistent party, the classical liberals prefer rfk jr. and the populists prefer trump. the populists are generally opportunists and not as ideological. the libertarians are almost completely ideological and the classical liberals are compromisingly ideological sometimes to the point of appearing utilitarian. the populists largely have roots in left-aligned spaces because of the old democrat contingencies that merged labor with progressive social views. the libertarians are left of many democrats on many issues- too much for comfort sometimes, but also further to the right of traditional conservatives in some areas. classical liberals are the long-standing democrats and moderate republicans of old, the left-center and right-center of the old dynamic. all together these are significant political blocks that do not fit neatly into right/left. but they all find themselves opposed to the current construct of our government-corporate soft-fascist system. the incentives of the corp-gov alliance is to oppose anything that weakens their advantage and so they have narratives and anti-narratives and subsequent strategies for each.

i think if we talk about bias and institutional failure along the lines of an establishment view vs. heterodox view we can begin to understand the core of the matter. to be sure, the most readily available data doesn't always support this but that's because the establishment tends to control the data and/or its availability or otherwise uses fringe labels to discredit countering data. i know this seems convenient to claim. but it's my honest assessment and if you at least assume that i'm being genuine, you will understand the mechanisms by which this might work.

government grows in size and scope and thus creates dependencies upon it. educational, health care and scientific institutions come to depend on it. corporations can disproportionately influence the government and the government is the only thing capable of taking corporations down. a partnership becomes the best thing for both. for instance, tech companies are too unregulated and must be investigated for the good of the people. soon you see a shift in the way those tech companies operate. to an establishment view this might look like a responsible government working as it should, keeping a corporation in check. but if you begin to notice that the tech companies disproportionately enforce an establishment view, if they actively collaborate with government actors, you might wonder if this is a self-reinforcement of their alliance more than a reinforcement of what is best for the citizens. all of the corporations require workers and leaders and those come from educational institutions ultimately controlled via funding (directly or indirectly) from the government. if the government wanted to instill a culture within the future population of government workers, corporate actors, our health and science institutions it could weed out individuals on average with anti-establishment views. this creates an obvious bias. and then once you have that bias, why would it not be self-reinforcing? is the nature of biases to keep themselves in check?

among the many advantages of the establishment view is that they are probably correct 80% of the time (making up a number for example). and heterodox views of all kinds are wrong 99% of the time (because there are so many crazy views out there). yet the key to a better society might very well (in fact, most likely) reside in that 1% heterodox view. if the corp-gov alliance has incentive to maintain itself, then maintenance over time becomes a priority. as the alliance strays away from the best options in favor of self-preservation, it becomes less and less correct. and as it becomes less correct, it increases the number of heterodox actors by default, people who see it becoming less and less correct. the alliance needs to improve. but it must embrace some heterodox views in order to improve. some of those heterodox views it just rejected. it can't pivot back so quickly. and as long as it can maintain its status without compromising it will. and thus a dynamic is forged by which the alliance grows in power as it becomes less realistic and the heterodox become greater in numbers and more reasonable on average. as the heterodox become more reasonable they attract an anti-establishment movement. that's where we are now. people of all different ideologies are beginning to form an anti-establishment movement. their goal is simply to deconstruct the extreme growth of the government, to limit corporate influence on government and to free institutions to focus on their primary goals, free from pressure to support an establishment narrative or to produce a type of leader/worker who can continue the work. a health care company can focus on health outcomes alone and not whether their staff is diverse enough. a scientific institution can earn grants on a wider range of endeavors without the same level of incentives for certain findings. a corporation can focus on its efficiency and profitability in order to improve products/services for the people. and the government can go back to trying to regain all the control it once had and start the cycle all over again.

Edited by DayoOlabisi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the big issues is there is no controls to what politicians do.  They are all scoundrels and it is allowed.  If you look at their net worth before getting elected to their net worth after, it is scary.  This money is not obtained in moral or even ethical means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.