Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Blue Anon (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter knowledge dropper
- Start date
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
According to Wikipedia anyway. I’ve also heard Tweety referred to as “he” in the actual shorts themselves.
Coach Morris Buttermaker
Footballguy
Well, google won't show any Blue Anon search results (compare to duckduckgo) and Urban Dictionary has removed it.
What a bunch of snowflakes.
What a bunch of snowflakes.
GoBirds
Footballguy
We need a special conservative search engine. Just like we have Conservapedia instead of Wikipedia, Parler instead of Facebook, and Fox News instead of news
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
My biggest gripe with Google isn't about their anti-conservstice bias, it is their corporate bias that provides results based on who pays. I used to love the old days, when you could piece together some good key words and you could find exactly what you were looking no matter how obscure. Now you are flooded with corporate results which related to any connection to any of your key words. The results are based on who pays Google the most and then you have the liberal filter on top of that which makes it even worse. It is now a search engine for corporate sponsors and left-leaning corporate news.
My understanding is that the top spot or two in the search results are labeled as sponsored (though the label is inconspicuous and some might miss it). After those spots, payments to Google do not influence search results at all (though payments to consultants can help recommend the right keywords in the metadata, etc, to improve placement).
Also, there is no liberal filter.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not talking about the handful of one's labeled sponsored. All the results are the major corporate sites. I modify my keywords and I still basically get the same results. I use to be able to locate very obscure results from websites regardless of their popularity. News results are limited to mainstream sources with those being disproportionately liberal. Washington Post and New York Times stories are far more likely to show up first even if stories from lesser sources are better matches. And non-mainstream source rarely appear no matter how deep you go. Amazon and Wal-mart dominates all search results when you key on a product. There is a much bigger internet out there than Google gives you access to.
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
Search Engine Optimization is an entire industry.
It does completely suck you cannot simply search for things anymore.
It does completely suck you cannot simply search for things anymore.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Why did this term trigger so many people?
I mean urban dictionary censored that???
I mean urban dictionary censored that???
Quite surprised to see people defend Google here. Anyone that thinks that it's the only two paid advertisements at top that gets manipulated doesnt understand how the internet works.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Lot of people taking Big Tech at their word.
PEOPLE! You're being led like sheep! Think about what's happening with those that control the flow of information - they're leading you by censoring and omitting non-orthodoxy opinions.
Just remember Harry Reid when he eliminated the filibuster. While you may agree with what's going on because it currently aligns with you, at some point it won't.
Just like the filibuster.
PEOPLE! You're being led like sheep! Think about what's happening with those that control the flow of information - they're leading you by censoring and omitting non-orthodoxy opinions.
Just remember Harry Reid when he eliminated the filibuster. While you may agree with what's going on because it currently aligns with you, at some point it won't.
Just like the filibuster.
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Listen, you can be led all you want if you like it. Just understand you're being led to a specific outcome determined by your tech masters.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Where do you get your information from? I hear lots of statements like this. “Think for yourself” and complaining about the “source police.” Lots of “big tech” boogeyman. Lots of “msm” boogeyman. Very little linking of the sources they put their trust in. The thing that gets me is how sure you (and others) are that their information is infallible and that the reason no one else is reporting it is because they’re all part of some big conspiracy. Complaining about the “censorship of non orthodoxy opinions” such as what? Who has been censored exactly?
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Safe to say Blue Anon outnumbers QAnon members 100,000:1?
GoBirds
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Pro Tip: if you are one of the people that camped out in the Russia thread for 3+ years you might want to consider the possibility you were being led to a conclusion of someone’s making.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Why is that safe to say? Care to back that up with anything credible? (or is that a trick question because nobody credible is talking about blue anon?)
BladeRunner
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Ahh...so another deflection to Russia rather than a real answer to the question...thats cool. Others can play that game too.
Like, if you are the people that have believed and supported Donald Trump for 5+ years, you might want to consider the possibility you were being led to a conclusion of someone's making. That you were conned...lied to...and yet still believe him.
See how that works? Anyone can make such claims.
But it still doesn't answer the premise of the post you replied to at all.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I didn't read the whole thing, but point me out where it found collusion between Trump and Russia, Pee tapes, and hookers. TIA!
So, you've proved my point that you were led to a specific outcome. It's what the media/Big Tech do - they aren't about truth and justice - they are about agenda's and leading people to a specific outcome.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
No...it seems answering his post this is the right thread.
But the wrong one to bring up Russia for sure.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
False. The point is to compare how widespread the Blue Anon followers are as compared to the fringe QAnon. Russia is obviously one of the key tenets of Blue Anon.
sho nuff
Footballguy
There is no real blue anon....its a made up thing to deflect from the other. That seems clear.
Fringe...yet it invaded the capitol both illegally on January 6th, and legally in the form of Qanon believing GOPers being elected. Not so fringe...no matter how hard you want to pretend.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
“Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide “official documents and information” to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of email chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.”
They couldn’t establish burden of proof that they acted “willfully,” meaning that what they were doing was illegal and they knew it, and also couldn’t put a value on the information obtained, therefore no charges were filed. If they had, collusion wouldn’t be one because that isn’t an actual charge.
I don’t think Trump was aware of the hack, but when they showed up with “dirt in Hillary” he happily accepted.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
Your friend's statement, unlike the statement about Google, lacks inherent credibility.
Your friend's statement, for example, is far too general. Pretty much everything is biased in numerous ways. (That's different, of course, from saying that pretty much everything has a liberal filter.) Also, humans and the institutions they are part of (such as CNN) are especially prone to subconscious ideological bias, way more than computer algorithms are.
It is literally impossible to report news without any bias.
It is not at all impossible to produce a search algorithm without a liberal filter.
Last edited by a moderator:
dozer
Footballguy
jon's statement was that "the results are based on who pays Google the most."
Apart from the sponsored results at the top, that's false, isn't it?
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
Was tongue in cheek but yes you are correct. Should have known better than reply smart-### to you lol.
If we believe the algorithms are not being changed (which I don't know I do)...the results of what people are searching are pretty sad.
Unrelated, if BlueAnon doesn't take hold...how about LGBTQS2+Anon. Rolls off the tongue.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
You guys know you can google “blue anon” right? You’ll find some ski goggles and down a little bit from that you start finding the conservative sites. It’s not hidden by “big tech” at all, it just isn’t popular.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
For product searches, it's all paid results.
When it was released in 2002, Google Shopping was called Froogle. The service simply indexed product data based on certain search terms. In 2012, the service shifted to a paid advertising model where retailers had to pay to be featured in the Google Shopping search results.
For other searches, the sites popularity, blacklisting, some secret sauce called Rank Brain, mobile friendliness and site speed all play a role in what shows up on Google search and their key word ranking. When it was started, Google would provide results based on what was on the webpage. There is way more AI involved today where results are sanitized and mostly contain just mainstream sites. That is why I think the results suck compared to the old days.
If you don’t think the search is tailored to you, including what you might purchase, I don’t know what to tell you. Google is a business, they track you and sell your data. It’s not a complementary scouring of the web.
Last edited by a moderator:
