Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Blue Anon


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The NYT are not just “all over” the Cuomo story; they’re the ones that broke it. 

After years of looking the other way regarding his treatment of women.  After almost a year of putting sick people in nursing homes?  

LOL, the Times broke (part of) the nursing home story, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

Biologically?

According to Wikipedia anyway. I’ve also heard Tweety referred to as “he” in the actual shorts themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

This is BS. They had the story over a year ago and they did nothing. They only brought it to the public's attention after the election.

They did it for their own self-serving interests to try and get Trump out of office. The prevailing line the last four years was was to make Trump look bad and cover for any Democrats.

:goodposting:

Exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Coach Morris Buttermaker said:

Well, google won't show any Blue Anon search results (compare to duckduckgo) and Urban Dictionary has removed it.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

Google has been a worthless search engine for over a decade.  

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 3:33 AM, jon_mx said:

Google has been a worthless search engine for over a decade.  

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

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, massraider said:

Search Engine Optimization is an entire industry. 

It does completely suck you cannot simply search for things anymore. 

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. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, joffer said:

so now google is no good.  ok.

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.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

Surprised these are some that still don’t understand how this works. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

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?

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

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.  

Did you read the mueller report or did you read Bill Barr’s interpretation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

Safe to say Blue Anon outnumbers QAnon members 100,000:1?

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?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sho nuff said:

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?)

:lol:

"Nobody I say is credible is talking about blue anon". 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

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.  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Did you read the mueller report or did you read Bill Barr’s interpretation? 

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.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

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.

Wrong thread.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

No...it seems answering his post this is the right thread.

But the wrong one to bring up Russia for sure.

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, knowledge dropper said:

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.  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

So what's the solution? Government take over search engines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

“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. 

Edited by Snorkelson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

My friend at CNN assures me they report the news without bias also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, djmich said:

My friend at CNN assures me they report the news without bias also.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

“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. 

Collusion in your face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tonydead said:

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. 

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, djmich said:

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.  

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. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
18 hours ago, tonydead said:

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. 

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?

Jon also said that he wasn't talking about the sponsored results at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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?

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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?

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.   

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tonydead said:

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.   

Are you saying that search result rankings are based on who pays Google the most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...