Posted on 05/10/2016 11:58:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So the guy that they granted immunity to can't find any emails, not a single email, Pagliano, whatever his name is, the guy they granted immunity, Hillary's IT guy, no doubt sent emails back and forth to her for four years. Yeah, they can't find any. And anybody that's still surprised over this, you need to be committed. Anybody that thought this was ever gonna amount to anything, the evidence every day is that nothing's gonna happen to Mrs. Clinton on this email stuff.
"What about the rule of law?"
There is no rule of law when the left is running things, folks. All it is is their agenda.
Greetings. Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program. The email address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
It's like this thing, the stuff that we're learning about Fakebook. You know, Fakebook is out there is, "No, no, no, none of these allegations are true." But of course they are. Fakebook has been deceiving every Fakebook user all of these years. The newsfeed on Fakebook is called the newsfeed. I was asking yesterday what's the newsfeed on Fakebook called. Turns out it's called the newsfeed.
And it also turns out that your average Fakebook user has been convinced, has been persuaded that whatever shows up on the Fakebook page as trending in the newsfeed is the result of popularity. An algorithm is determining which of the stories are the most read, the most passed around, the most forwarded, whatever you do with things on Fakebook, and therefore the only stories that mattered were those stories that advanced the Democrat Party or the leftist agenda.
Well, of all people, of all places, Gizmodo exposes the fact that there weren't any algorithms being used. That in fact it was a bunch of Ivy League 20-something Millennials who were nothing but a bunch of young, average liberals who were actually choosing the news. They are making it all up, not the news, they were making the list up. There was no algorithm being used. They simply decided amongst themselves what they wanted to appear as the most-read news story. A classic illustration is Black Lives Matter.
It turns out that Black Lives Matter is exactly, it's a replica of Occupy Wall Street. It's not real. Black Lives Matter is made to look as massive and big as it is because of fake news construction on places like Fakebook and the Drive-By Media. You know, Occupy Wall Street was not organic. Occupy Wall Street was not happening until the Tea Party came along. The Tea Party was organic. The Tea Party was genuine. It was actual Americans fed up and ticked off, and they began to organize, and many of them had never been involved politically at all beyond voting.
They found a way to organize. It was leaderless. There wasn't one person you could focus on to destroy or impugn and thus destroy the whole movement. And so the left didn't know what to do with it. They couldn't censor it. They couldn't stop it because they couldn't control it and there wasn't one person that was in charge that they could destroy and thus destroy the movement.
So they did what they always do. They created their own response to it called Occupy Wall Street. It was like Wag the Dog. Wag the Dog happened on TV but it never really happened. The movie about a fake war that some political consultant arranged to make it look like it was actually happening on TV to help this candidate when there was no war.
Well, there was no Occupy Wall Street. You had some people, you had some ragamuffins, you had some protesters, and they pitched tents in various places, but it was all bought and paid for. It looks like Black Lives Matter is the same thing. It never did have the massive popular support that Fakebook and other leftist organizations wanted people to think that it was or had, and that is the case with so much of popular culture liberalism.
Now, while all that's going on, conservatism is being censored, actively censored, not by virtue of algorithms, not because Fakebook users are not reading conservative things, but because these 20-something Ivy Leaguers hired as news curators at Fakebook were simply eliminating anything that had anything to do with conservatism except things that portrayed it in a negative light.
Your average Fakebook user has no idea, thinks that all of this is the result of popularity, all of this is the result of trending by actual Fakebook users creating these trends, when in fact it wasn't. Grab sound bite number two. This is Michael Nuñez. This is Jake Tapper last night, CNN. Nuñez is the Gizmodo tech editor and he ran the story about what was happening at Fakebook, suppressing conservative stories.
And Jake Tapper said, "Why might Facebook executives or officials want to keep stories about people like Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz or Chris Kyle, American Sniper, why would they want to keep those stories off the trending list and inject others into --" (laughing) Well, why do you do it at CNN, Jake? Not Jake personally, but why does who whoever arranges the news, whoever decides what's gonna be the news at CNN, why do you do it?
It's the same thing. It's no different. That's the point. Fakebook has editors, Fakebook has curators, Fakebook has people selecting the news, and also selecting what isn't news. We've talked I don't know how many times about something as important as deciding what is news is deciding what isn't news, what people never hear about.
By the way, that explains the success of conservative media. Whenever conservative media is allowed to be heard, it triumphs, it wins big time. That's why the left has to suppress it. That's why the left has to censor it. They're scared to death of it. When they can't control it, look it, of all the news organizations that the Drive-By Media controls, what are they focused on? Fox News and this program, they've got to shut us down. They've got to shut this show down, they've gotta shut down Fox News, even though they own 90% of mainstream news. And it's not news. It's another thing. It isn't news. It's the Democrat agenda.
So, anyway, Jake Tapper is asking this guy from Gizmodo why would Fakebook want to purposely keep conservative stories off -- (laughing) Jake can answer the question himself. But it's Fakebook and it's Gizmodo reporting so it's going to the source from Gizmodo, that's Michael Nuñez. Here's his answer.
Nuñez: They have just basically tried to wash the existence of these curators from the face of the planet. For the last two years they've been saying an algorithm is doing this sorting. We have found that actually, a small group of 20 journalists that are recent graduates from East Coast private schools -- and often Ivy League schools -- are the ones that are actually activating a "trend" so that it can show up in your 'feed, or blacklisting it. So, you know, it's not that Facebook has any bias here. It's that these young journalists are the ones choosing what trends and what doesn't. And the question then becomes whether you trust recent graduates to determine what the most important news of the day is.
RUSH: It's the same thing that happens in the Drive-Bys. It's not an actual conspiracy, meaning they don't get together and collaborate on what they're gonna report, what they're gonna leave out. It's just what they do. I mean, they're liberals, and they believe everything liberals believe, and at the top of the list is that conservatism is insignificant. It's corrupt. It's way the hell over there on the extreme right. It's abnormal. It's whatever. So they're not even interested in it. They don't have to collaborate. That's the point about liberalism.
Lois Lerner. I make the point about her. Everybody says, "Well, where's the smoking gun from Obama? We need the smoking gun that shows that Lois Lerner was instructed to do what she did with the Tea Party groups." She didn't need a memo. Lois Lerner did what she was hired to do. Lois Lerner was there for the express purpose of denying tax except status to conservative Tea Party groups. Nobody had to tell her not to do it. That's why she was there. The left doesn't have to send reminder memos. That's just what they do. They censor.
Look at precedence. They censor anything and anyone that says something that threatens them, something they disagree with. But folks, it's a bigger story than you're gonna see reported on the Drive-Bys, and that is the evidence of how big it is. It's basically a one-time shot. They report it, and then they move on. The reason it's so big is because, sadly, but it's the reality. Fakebook has quickly become the primary news source for a whole lot of Americans, because they trust it.
They actually think that the newsfeed is the result of an algorithm determining most-read, most-liked, most-agreed-with, most-popular, or what have you. So they buy into the scam, and as such, everybody in the news -- the Drive-Bys -- are threatened by it. I mean, everybody that is in the, quote/unquote "news business" is threatened by it because that's where most Americans now get their first taste of the news every day is at the Fakebook newsfeed.
Now, Fakebook is denying that they did any of this. Fakebook is... Fakebook is denying that they have anything do with this. But it's silly to deny it because it's eminently and totally believable. But it's big because this is how... The same thing with pop culture. It's how most people find out what's going on. You know people are followers. If something's hot and popular, they want to be in on it, and they want people to think they agree with it and see it the same way.
So it's pretty hideous. And once again, all it does is confirm -- amplify -- that the left really has to censor its opposition because it cannot compete. Greg Gutfeld. Grab sound bite number one. Gutfeld, he says this pretty well. This was on The Five yesterday on the Fox News Channel, and Kimberly Guilfoyle was asking the group there on the show, "Why wouldn't [Fakebook] want those messages there? Because they have an agenda?"
GUTFELD: The reason why they don't want it there is because it always wins. Wherever restrictions are removed, conservative thought takes over. If you think about talk radio in 1987 when all of a sudden those restrictions were gone, Rush Limbaugh took over. When the internet became a thing, what was the biggest site? Drudge Report. Cable news, CNN for a little while; then all of a sudden, boom! Fox News comes in; becomes number one. Wherever restrictions are pulled, conservative thought takes over because it's thought.
RUSH: And it does win, and it triumphs, and the left can't deal with it, and the left can't legitimately debate or fight, so they choose not to. They just censor it. That's what political correctness is: Censor it or eliminate it, or stigmatize it or attack it, and criticize leaders of movements that they perceive to exist and discredit them to discredit all the followers and discredit the thoughts and the beliefs. Anyway, nothing new here that you haven't heard before, other than the left has found a way to corrupt yet another what turns out to be sizable element of major, big time media.
END TRANSCRIPT
|
Popular Keywords
|
...were subtly "tweaked" to favor anything PORNO.
Do you want Search or Safe Search?
Madison Avenue makes FORTUNES from doing this!
Just wait...
Somehow, people have to make decisions as to what to count and that is subjective. There are more stories about "Trump" than there are about "Trump choosing a VP," etc. Somebody is choosing and defining "topics" for any measurement. And, machine's can't do that. Subjective human beings choose those topics and human beings determine how specific each topic should be before they can be counted.
Anyone who thinks about this problem for more than a few minutes has to realize that it is impossible to create the machine that some people claim Facebook was somehow promising. There is not going to be any such machine. Humans are always going to be involved in determining what it is that computers should count.
Rush is wrong about that. How has he forgotten JournoList so soon?
See this old FR post: JournoList - 157 Names Confirmed
Here's one of many links on that page, and the one that's always made my blood boil the most:
When McCain Picked Palin, Liberal Journalists Coordinated the Best Line of Attack
When they were worried that such an authentic, genuine human being such as Sarah being chosen for VP might put in danger the Overarching Mission of electing B.O., one of these 157 Nationwide News-Shapers/Spinners mentioned that her decision at age 45 to have a Downs baby instead of aborting would resonate with many voters.
For one thing, it proved she Walked the Walk when it came to Pro-Life beliefs, and wasn't your average talk-out-of-both-sides-of-the-mouth politician.
And the countermeasure chosen for this was, "OK, let's spin that as what an awful mother she is to have a career while having a newborn to take care of."
!!!! What the HELL?!?!? HYPOCRITES!!
These are the same liberals who get outraged when anyone criticizes the First Pillar of Feminism - namely that any woman can "have it all," when it comes to having both a fulltime career and being a fulltime mother simultaneously.
Doesn’t some human being have to “choose” that weather is too broad a topic so that weather is not always trending?
You may find this website useful...
http://wordhoard.northwestern.edu/userman/analysis-trackwordovertime.html
This is why I mentioned word count and phrase count earlier.
This is why I mentioned word count and phrase count earlier.
640 K ought to be enough for anybody.
Often attributed to Gates in 1981. Gates considered the IBM PC's 640 KB program memory a significant breakthrough over 8-bit systems that were typically limited to 64 KB, but he has denied making this remark.
I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time … I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640 K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again.
“640 K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates”
Clearly a falsehood...
What he really said was, “Windows floats the bloat...”
If FB is based on a political agenda why wouldn’t a truly popular issue based criteria make more money?
I just find it hard to believe that there are people so unimaginative as to find it shocking that there is a website being operated by humans with biases. "Well, no wonder my life is all screwed up; there's a biased website out there!" ;-)
(And, then they post about it on FR.) ;-)
Nah.
Content doesn't need to 'mean' anything.
Count everything; post the top twenty makes NO distinction about content.
You could do that, but you'd probably get 20 stories with the word weather in it (or some other very general term). It would be a worthless list.
We still need humans for some things. People shouldn't worry about other people controlling their thoughts Healthy people still need to think for themselves, I'm afraid.
Why?
It would be an ACCURATE indicator of what people are talking about.
If their conversations are vapid; it ain't the data takers fault.
And non-healthy ones don't.
And they vote; too!
Yes, they (people) have to "choose" what they want their machines to count. It's clear to me that you do understand the need for human involvement. You just need to fully accept the fact that you understand it.
If there were people who pretended to believe that machines were performing this task without guidance and direction by humans, they were only fooling themselves. More importantly, the fact that there is bias in all human communication does not mean that people have lost control of their ability to think for themselves. People should try to accept responsibility for their own thoughts. ;-)
And the operative word was ALL of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
