GOOGLE's Anti-Conservative Agenda

RightMarch ^ | 5-3-05 | Bill Greene

[Sloth]

Apparently all of you post without reading the article.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Bump.

[CyberAnt]

I sue Yahoo = I use Yahoo


I guess you were brilliant enough to figure that out.

[longtermmemmory]

You would think a competitor like Yahoo would jump all over this.

"Are you only getting 1/2 of the world? Do you feel someone is keeping secrets from you?

Google censors their search results, we let you see the whole world..."

[Larry Lucido]

Lexis-Nexis, but it'll cost ya.

[longtermmemmory]

It is plauged by leftist poop.

[Larry Lucido]

its about like that Wikepeka (?) encyclopedia, anyone can login and rewite history there

How does that work? Does whether the holocaust or moon landing actually happened depend on what day you look it up and who got in the last update?

[CyberAnt]

Well .. we don't know what's going on behind the scenes now do we ..?

I think Yahoo is pretty savey - so competition being what it is .. I'm hoping Yahoo will surprise us and open up that race to be first - and start including conservatives - WHO JUST HAPPEN TO USE THE INTERNET MORE THAN LIBERALS.

YoooHooo .. YAHOO .. are you paying attention ..??

[sure_fine]

Does whether the holocaust or moon landing actually happened depend on what day you look it up and who got in the last update?

in my opinion, yep, that about sums it up, also pay attention to where they attribute their findings

[HitmanLV]

Mike Medved dedicated the third hour of his show today on Google.com not accepting conservative ads.

[Larry Lucido]

Cool. I'm gonna go back and change the 1992 elections. I think Pat Buchanan made a fine president.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I've been wondering about google. Certain searches didn't seem to add up in some ways. Maybe Drudge's search engine is better?

[asgromo]

The "Wiki" system that Wikipedia (the largest-scale example) uses allows people with permission (in the case of Wikipedia, everyone has permission) to edit articles as they see fit. It archives older versions of articles as well, so that articles that are screwed with maliciously can be repaired instantly. The idea is that everyone fixes each other's mistakes and can write articles that focus even on the most obscure topics... There are 300,000 entries in Wikipedia for this reason. There is certainly nothing suspicious about Wikipedia, but it's true that people with a bias or prejudice may write Wiki articles as such. That, of course, is why anyone can fix this mistake. You're expected to write professionally.

[sure_fine]

it suits the liberals, that is all its good for

[asgromo]

I'm not sure I know what you mean... Why don't you elaborate on that?

[Larry Lucido]

snopes.com is another growing anti-conservative site taking advantage of the built up users

BTW, that's an urban legend. I looked it up on snopes.

[Nowhere Man]

snopes.com is another growing anti-conservative site taking advantage of the built up users

Another site with a lefty bias is www.nndb.com, a database for famous people and movies. It's still useful as long as you go in knowing that, but it seems they are close to www.rotten.com with links to their pages too.

http://www.nndb.com/

[potlatch]

Google's bias is showing!

[ThirstyMan]

Ha ha!
It certainly appears so!
This was a paid for ad that was removed by Google.
This has nothing to do with "frequency of hits" as far as I can tell.

[dmartin]

Prior to going public there was a Wired article on the founders of Google. If I recall correctly, all you will ever need to know about their worldview was in the article. Particularly interesting was how they bend over for the Chinese government so that they will not be banned in China. If the comutards don;t like it, it will die a quick death on the Chinese version of Google.