TakeYouToTasker Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Yes, but the real line here is talking about it and doing it. Talking about starting Nate Peterman in game 2 : Bad Starting Nate Peterman in game 2 = disaster. I've talked with people over beers about the things they would do with their guns given a clean shot at [insert name du juor]. What is our reaction supposed to be to people who talk about doing bad (not illegal even) things? To approach them, and their stated intentions, with tremendous skepticism proceeding forward, questioning both their motives and morality; and resisting putting them in places of power where their secret desires might easily be actualized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: Conservatives started a "news" network. Start a search engine and social media machine if you think it's so biased. Sounds like Trump is bringing in the big government regulators to try to break them up. Will see what Sessions comes up with. That's one way to do it. The other is to see if they've violated any federal or securities laws with their actions to shape search 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 minute ago, GG said: That's one way to do it. The other is to see if they've violated any federal or securities laws with their actions to shape search That will certainly be a groundbreaking case to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 minute ago, GG said: That's one way to do it. The other is to see if they've violated any federal or securities laws with their actions to shape search A third would be, if after referring to your second, finding that they have not violated any federal or securities laws (of which I am unsure), to pass new laws making whatever past behaviors were problematic illegal going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, GG said: That's one way to do it. The other is to see if they've violated any federal or securities laws with their actions to shape search are there laws that qualify internet searches by a privately owned company? Edited September 21, 2018 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: To approach them, and their stated intentions, with tremendous skepticism proceeding forward, questioning both their motives and morality; and resisting putting them in places of power where their secret desires might easily be actualized. That's the lesson from *this*? Who didn't know that Google or any Tech startup out of the SV is liberal? I work in a field that Google single-handedly flipped on its head through lobbying and then an administrative appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Conservatives started a "news" network. Start a search engine and social media machine if you think it's so biased. GoDuckGo is right there for you. Sounds like Trump is bringing in the big government regulators to try to break them up. Will see what Sessions comes up with. I do use duckduckgo. It stunk when I first started using it, but it has come a long way. The search algorithm is much truer than google (more in line with what semrush or ahrefs show search results "should" be and not based on my past searches), so I have hope it gets even better in the years to come. The argument that Google and Facebook should not be broken us would be valid if not for something called Ma Bell. Now I know party-lines existed and people could snoop, but can you imagine if the telephone company had decided - based on politics - that your phone should not ring or you should not receive calls? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Foxx said: are there laws that qualify internet searches by a privately owned company? This is what I'm thinking and why I would call Sessions's approach groundbreaking. He will probably try to shoehorn Google in as a media outlet or maybe a telecom company, where there is precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 (edited) Oh, and I am not a conservative. I definitely believe in free speech. ? edited --- that sounded wrong. I believe in free speech. I am also not what anyone would consider a conservative. Edited September 21, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: That's the lesson from *this*? Who didn't know that Google or any Tech startup out of the SV is liberal? The overwhelming majority of individuals whom are apolitical. I work in a field that Google single-handedly flipped on its head through lobbying and then an administrative appointment. Relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I do use duckduckgo. It stunk when I first started using it, but it has come a long way. The search algorithm is much truer than google (more in line with what semrush or ahrefs show search results "should" be and not based on my past searches), so I have hope it gets even better in the years to come. The argument that Google and Facebook should not be broken us would be valid if not for something called Ma Bell. Now I know party-lines existed and people could snoop, but can you imagine if the telephone company had decided - based on politics - that your phone should not ring or you should not receive calls? Didn't you just tell me there is a Google alternative? Anyone can use it or Bing, both of which offer comparable or better results to Google. So what happened to Bell doesn't ring (!) true as a good analogy and that's my point. No one HAS to use Google or especially Facebook. Sessions won't be able to push an antitrust case, is my guess. HE might work other angles with them as media companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 Just now, BeginnersMind said: Didn't you just tell me there is a Google alternative? Anyone can use it or Bing, both of which offer comparable or better results to Google. So what happened to Bell doesn't ring (!) true as a good analogy and that's my point. No one HAS to use Google or especially Facebook. Sessions won't be able to push an antitrust case, is my guess. HE might work other angles with them as media companies. My own family doesn't talk to me...because I'm not on Facebook, and communicating with me outside Facebook is too onerous for them. Do not underestimate how pervasive social media is in every day life away from the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: are there laws that qualify internet searches by a privately owned company? There is no direct regulation regarding search results in the US, unlike the spanking Google received in EU for prioritizing its websites over others. But I certainly could see the FTC reopening its investigation in whether Google is guilty of restraining commerce if the search result is intentionally shaped to lead to an outcome that may benefit its purposes over providing an unbiased search (which is what the company claims in its legal and financial statement filings). This would be a far easier case than AT&T, IBM and Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 Just now, BeginnersMind said: Didn't you just tell me there is a Google alternative? Anyone can use it or Bing, both of which offer comparable or better results to Google. So what happened to Bell doesn't ring (!) true as a good analogy and that's my point. No one HAS to use Google or especially Facebook. Sessions won't be able to push an antitrust case, is my guess. HE might work other angles with them as media companies. You may want to read why I have issues with Google here . The ad network is what makes it even more problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, GG said: There is no direct regulation regarding search results in the US, unlike the spanking Google received in EU for prioritizing its websites over others. But I certainly could see the FTC reopening its investigation in whether Google is guilty of restraining commerce if the search result is intentionally shaped to lead to an outcome that may benefit its purposes over providing an unbiased search (which is what the company claims in its legal and financial statement filings). This would be a far easier case than AT&T, IBM and Microsoft. yeah, i dunno. seems to me that under the premise you have outlined here, they would be opening a whole can of worms. there certainly is no precedent that i can think of with regard but, i am not well schooled in things of this nature. Edited September 21, 2018 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, Foxx said: yeah, i dunno. seems to me that under the premise you have outlined here, they would be opening a whole can of worms. there certainly is no precedent that i can think of with regard but, i am not well schooled in things of this nature. If I really wanted to comically hit Google below the belt, I'd go for violating Net Neutrality for shaping search results through Google Fiber. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, GG said: If I really wanted to comically hit Google below the belt, I'd go for violating Net Neutrality for shaping search results through Google Fiber. ummm... perhaps i am living in an alternate reality, but here... Net Neutrality was repealed. ETA: oh comically... i get it after a re-read. Edited September 21, 2018 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 27 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I do use duckduckgo. It stunk when I first started using it, but it has come a long way. The search algorithm is much truer than google (more in line with what semrush or ahrefs show search results "should" be and not based on my past searches), so I have hope it gets even better in the years to come. The argument that Google and Facebook should not be broken us would be valid if not for something called Ma Bell. Now I know party-lines existed and people could snoop, but can you imagine if the telephone company had decided - based on politics - that your phone should not ring or you should not receive calls? I wanted to thank people that recommended duckduckgo. Seeing as I abandoned IE and Chrome for Firefox, now that I've paired it with duckduckgo, I'm feeling a lot better about not supporting those **** companies. Next step? Move full time to linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: I wanted to thank people that recommended duckduckgo. Seeing as I abandoned IE and Chrome for Firefox, now that I've paired it with duckduckgo, I'm feeling a lot better about not supporting those **** companies. Next step? Move full time to linux. 3 My husband has said the same. He's yet to do it, but it is simply a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: My husband has said the same. He's yet to do it, but it is simply a matter of time. Windows is cancer. Especially windows 10. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts