“If you are not worried about the power of Google to shape debate and elections according to its leftist political bias, you're not paying attention.  I congratulate Breitbart.com for the scoop, and I urge everyone – I am looking at you, President Trump and Congress – to read and ponder the fate of the Republic unless this company is defanged, most likely by antitrust action, but possibly also via civil courts.  Breitbart is mum about how it came to possess the memo, but I do recall that Google is being sued over its dismissal of James Damore for insufficient adherence to its own ideology, and the discovery process in that lawsuit is almost certainly underway.

You can download and read the entire memo here.”

So what, you don't like the free market now? Advocating for more government involvement in private enterprises? 

If you are not worried about the power of Google to shape debate and elections according to its leftist political bias, you're not paying attention.

I'm glad when I type in "baby pics" in Google (my four year old loves looking at smiling babies) I'm not bombarded with child pornography. Thank you Google. I'm also glad that when I type in a request for a definition it gives me the standard dictionary.com definition, not some conservative rant on what some right wing pundit thinks "socialism" means. Thank you Google.

Now if I go looking for conservative content and ask for "conservative debate on socialism" I get over 17 million hits starting with mostly conservative opinion websites. Thanks Google.

Now if I went looking for content like trying to follow certain Islam websites that have be-headings or a video of some conservative ranting about wanting to kill gays, I'm glad Google at least attempts to monitor and block such content. They can't block it all, but I appreciate that they're trying.

When it says "The 85-page briefing, titled "The Good Censor," admits that Google and other tech platforms now "control the majority of online conversations" and have undertaken a "shift towards censorship" in response to unwelcome political events around the world." I don't find that in the least bit suspicious or frightening. They aren't saying "Mwahahahah! We now control the majority of online conversations! Mwahahahaha!", they are saying their platform is being used by the vast majority of people for their social media and communications, not that they are intentionally manipulating the conversations surreptitiously. They're saying that while their intentions for a "Utopian narrative" of unfettered free speech has been abused and misused by bad actors like North Korea, China, Russia and even some conservative morons like Alex Jones trying to use their platform to push viscous hate speech aimed at grieving parents of murdered children.

"The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the "unmediated marketplace of ideas" vs. "well-ordered spaces for safety and civility."

That doesn't sound like the sky is falling for conservatives, that sounds very reasoned and respectful of all points of view while also accepting that there must be some codes of conduct that include limiting certain types of hate speech that is intended to incite violence.

The only kind of hate speech intended to cause violence is coming from key and leading Democrat politicians and is targeting Republicans.  As to Facebook and google, as soon as our alternatives come on line, we will be gone from them and they will become the liberal echo chambers they desire to be.  

What would really be nice is if we could actually see the full expose of google as leaked from there to Breitbart.  Way to go Breitbart journalism in getting this hard news expose.  We love you Breitbart!  

Who cares? Use a different browser and stop your fucking whining. 

Thank God for Breitbart News.  One of the best news sources on the internet. They scored well on this issue as well as getting elected members of congress to write articles for them.    Like when Real Clear Politics carries a Breitbart article on Kavanaugh by a Senator from Louisiana.  

Thank God for Breitbart News.

Breitbart is great, if you like to be fed a steady diet of biased claims.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits  one or more  of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the  deliberate attempt  to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category  may  be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list  are not  considered  fake news  unless specifically written in the notes section for that source.  See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks

History

Breitbart News is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). He was a conservative commentator and entrepreneur “a former liberal from Los Angeles who became a conservative” wrote Jonah Engel Bromwich of the NY Times. Breitbart News under his leadership generated news coverage that was praised by the right for its populist, anti-establishment voice, on the left however, he was also accused of being a provocateur and misleading.

Breitbart is a legitimate news and opinion source.  It is simply being attacked because it was and is a favorite news source for Trump supporters and nothing more.  Conservative sources are fighting these bigots who call themselves Fact Checkers. Sites that aren’t yet rated badly by the jackal Dave Van Zandt and the like are taking articles from writers from those sites and publishing them under their own name as original articles and taking articles from those sites and being an alternative source for them. The so called questionable sites are getting mainstream conservative Republican elected leaders to write articles directly for them that then get to Real Clear Politics and other mainstream sources and then openly dare internet sites to censor an elected official whose article appears in say Breitbart or CNS.  The all out war against the internet censors has only just begun.  

“Breitbart is great”                                   There, fixed it for you.  

Facts are not something that Breitbart cares about. Its about GOP and their alt-right beliefs.

snopes

[deleted]

It’s time to break up Google via the anti trust act. They are an abusive monopoly.  

They are no such thing.  They're a search engine.  Google it.  LOL!

They're not a monopoly.   

It’s time to break up Google via the anti trust act. They are an abusive monopoly.  

Except that they aren't a monopoly. But yeah, good luck with that court case. 

Stunning 85-Page Google Memo...

This is available without a Breitbart watermark from a number of sources. It’s actually a good read, touching on quite a few topics/problems facing these providers. It's a Power Point you can read in 20 minutes. The hair on fire comments by conservative reviewers are just pablum for the base, who will likely not read the original presentation. I bothered to re-read the actual doc pages referenced by the Breitbart “Key points”; nothing inflammatory or even surprising, nothing-burgers is a good conservative term applicable here.

What should have been obvious to these reviewers is that this presents Google in a very good light. It contains a lot of good information about the problems facing social media providers and it has a title crafted to set off conservatives. You guys have been had — I think this is a pro-mo piece that was ‘leaked’. It may actually result in some of the ignorati learning something, which is likely its purpose.

The memo I found is from July 2017.  Eventually Google fired the author based on workplace discrimination for his views about women.

He filed a lawsuit against Google in February of 2018 after the NLRB declined his petition for relief.

Mr. Damore and his lawyer withdrew his labor complaint about a week after the memo was published in January. Earlier in January, Mr. Damore sued Google for workplace discrimination , claiming that Google is biased against white men with conservative views . The suit, filed along with another former Google employee, also claims that the company uses illegal quotas to hire women and minorities. nytimes

ie., this is old news, not current events and as you have pointed out, available from multiple sources other than Breitbart or American Thinker.

Are you sure you're referring to the same power point? The Breitbart one is dated March 2018 and does reference events into 2018. But, this doesn't change the truth of your post, it is old news. I would still recommend going through the slides, the author(s) have collected a lot of info and distilled it down into short points with a good flow.

I was more incensed when Ford internal documents were released concerning cost/benefit studies about the fuel tank issues.

   In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be “cheaper” for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.

Google, et al having growing pains and grappling with hiring practices and on line morality in a social media setting, not so much.

[Deleted]

It's fun to see free market capitalists complain about a big bad google. 

Goes to show that they really don't mean what they say. 

It's fun to see free market capitalists complain about a big bad google

i agree -- they are all about capitalism until a company runs a way that they don't like... then they are all about government regulations, clogging up the courts etc..

Funny coming from people against net-neutrality too. 

True, very true. 

I am totally opposed to so called net neutrality.  It was designed to set up these offending bigot sites with the protection of their monopolies in exchange for progressive federal regulations.  The Sherman antitrust act is all we need with no additional regulations.  Google, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter are upset with conservatives for stopping their protected monopolies with the killing of net neutrality and are now lashing out at conservatives.  

I am totally opposed to so called net neutrality.  It was designed to set up these offending bigot sites with the protection of their monopolies in exchange for progressive federal regulations.  The Sherman antitrust act is all we need with no additional regulations.  Google, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter are upset with conservatives for stopping their protected monopolies with the killing of net neutrality and are now lashing out at conservatives.  

It is obvious that you don't know what net neutrality is because your right wing sources have lied to you about that issue as well.  Net neutrality benefits the consumer because our internet access is not controlled by what the ISP wants us to see or to be able to access.

Network neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services—is a principle that must be upheld to protect the future of our open Internet. It's a principle that's faced many threats over the years, such as ISPs forging packets to tamper with certain kinds of traffic or slowing down or even outright blocking protocols or applications.

Net neutrality was a wet blanket on the development of new internet delivery technology.  As soon as it was lifted all sorts of providers announced new 5G services that weren’t coming soon with it. 

Net neutrality was a wet blanket on the development of new internet delivery technology.  As soon as it was lifted all sorts of providers announced new 5G services that weren’t coming soon with it. 

Where do you get this alternate reality? Did Kellyanne Conjob tell you this at her weekly briefng of alternate facts?

There is no technology needed for net neutrality because we have had net neutrality until trump repealed it. You need new technology to filter which web sites the consumer can access at full speed and which sites are throttled or blocked.

5G only applies to mobile broadband. 5G has been in the pipeline for years. It didn't need Trump to lift net neutrality to make it viable.

History so far in a nutshell

In 2012 the International Telecommunications Union launched an activity addressing an International Mobile System beyond 2020 .

In 2012 the UK Government announced the setting up of a 5G Innovation Centre at the University of Surrey – the world’s first research centre set up specifically for 5G mobile research.The centerpiece is a $60m TestBed to allow 5G ideas to be tested, standards to be verified and vendor inter-operability testing.

In 2013 the European Commission set aside up to $960 million in public funding to develop the next generation of ubiquitous 5G communication systems during its seven-year  Horizon 2020  programme.

In 2014 there were announcements coming out of China, Korea and Japan in 2014 for investments into 5G in the $3-4 billion ballpark over the next 5 years.

In 2014 (Dec) the Next Generation Mobile Networks Alliance finalize an Executive Version of the NGMN 5G White Paper , the first articulation of what a significant number of leading mobile network operators want from 5G technology. This was a significant step as the mobile network operators are the customers for 5G networks.

March 2015 the NGNM White Paper on 5G was published with the vision: “5G is an end-to-end ecosystem to enable a fully mobile and connected society. It foresees 4G and its evolution as a component part of the 5G revolution.

September 2015 – The global (3G PP) standards RAN Workshop took the first step in narrowing down a long list of use cases to three that would provide the focus for standardisation including the all important enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB)

November 2015 –  The outcome of the world radio conference (WRC-15) in Geneva proved a disappointment for the mobile industry looking for a globally harmonised band at 28 GHz. The global consensus by 2015 has almost reached the stage where 5G had become synonymous with 10 Gb/s data speeds to a spot point using 28 GHz. This led to a perception that European Administrations had knocked their own continent out of the 5G race by precluding use of 28 GHz.

Sometimes I am convinced that if you wouldn't be wrong you would have nothing to say.

I am totally opposed to so called net neutrality.

Shock.  Anything that benefits the people over corps is anathema to conservatives these days. If conservatives are against it they are against it blindly. 

What you and the rest of Americans should be pissed about is that we have slower access than south Korea.  

I retract my rebuttal as outdated.  It is an issue I haven't kept up with recently.  It appears that 5G makes it obsolete.  Time will tell. 

I agree about 5G.  

The internet was also founded on utopian principles of free
speech...

No, the internet was founded as a means of improving communications between different schools and businesses with each other.  Free speech came out of the founding of the internet, because it was completely unregulated and was not common until after dial-up Internet Service Providers, like AOL, formed to give nearly everyone access to the internet.  Before that, it was limited between the military, universities, and businesses.  Which is part of the reason IPV4 only uses 32 bit addresses.  No one thought we would run out of addresses with 32 bit addresses which go from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255; but we have essentially run out of IP addresses, which is why IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses.

There is a definite connection between free speech and a lack of regulations and regulations and a lack of free speech.  

If you are not worried about the power of Google to shape debate and elections

Nope, I can always use another browser. Problem solved.