Google & Youtube Targets Above Top Secret? (and other conspiracy sites)

The writing was on the wall when, I think it was the WAPO who came out with the FAKE NEWS moniker. Then they put in this phony anti-MSM clown Trump so now they own the opposition on both sides.

Trump is a psychological black operation on the world to go along with their assault on decent Alt-media, the opposite of people like Alex Jones.

It’s no coincidence that Jones, Rense, Red ice creations and many more have all come out at the same time of the Trump rise to be absolute racists and bigots coming out of the alt-media.

originally posted by: Aazadan
RT broadcasts in terms of Russias national interest.

This surely seems to be the case from what I've seen, but remembering that while watching helps give a different view which is helpful.

originally posted by: saint4God
A very good question. Truth above all, with honesty and integrity. I do my best to choose my words carefully and accurately. If I don't know, I'm sure to say so and will used words like "according to what I've read...", "many scientists believe that...", and "I personally believe that...". The problem with trying to force anyone (child included) into any belief is that it is shallow until they discover it for themselves. I'd not want to mislead anyone and lose their trust, but rather guide them to discover the truth for themselves. It pleasantly surprised me that my daughter came to a saving faith in God, but I can guarentee she didn't get vegetarianism from anyone in my house.

Even then though, you can really only confirm if the information seems to have been derived using some degree of reasoning and compare how it aligns to your own beliefs, just as your child can do with the facts you hang onto. I think something that people often miss, is that logic is rarely irrefutable. Once someone determines a series of beliefs to have been logically derived they tune out competing information. Logic however is much more malleable than that, and many different conclusions can be drawn from the same set of facts. I think that's where a lot of disagreement on issues (especially highly partisian ones) comes from.

By definition of verification, I don't think it can.

I think you're wrong. So does Google. This happens to be a problem that I would love to just sit and be a researcher on a team for a year. If I ever go to grad school I might try for it, I don't think this will be solved in the next 10 years. From my understanding of quantum computer algorithms, this is something we could probably solve quickly, but that's still 25 years away. Problems like this are described as NP, if you can come up with a general algorithm for them, you would become the richest being on earth over night. This is our centuries Problem of Longitude.

I actually have an idea for the problem based on a dream I had, and being ATS this seems like a place to discuss it. I was watching the result play out, and how it works was explained to me. That was 4 years ago though, and despite some time spent on it, I'm still stuck on step one. My hunch is that we can solve these problems by graphing them (but I can't seem to figure out what the graph axis is).

I've heard of people who are able to have faith this strongly and I admire it if it's the truth. I never had so I would not expect anyone else to either.

Perhaps my religious metaphor went a little to deep here. Lets step back and look at email. I send you an email, and you look at it. How do you know it's from me or not? Email addresses can and are faked all the time. Also, what if someone had access to my email and wrote it? Can you determine that email is legitimate from just the contents of it? We've tried to do this using various authentication systems, but every such system comes back to the initial exchange and it gets rather circular. We can create a protocol to build a code system into our communications to ensure authenticity. But then how do you prove that it was you and not the attacker who came up with the code? All of the data has at least a small chance of being fake and that's a big deal if it's trusted information.

The current solution is to go outside the digital realm and physically meet the person to exchange the code. Which is basically the third party authenticator.

How do we do this on an internet where anonymity is desired? Trustworthy information, without the ability to evaluate the source beyond the penname. It's a hard problem. Especially if half of it is true, and governments are actively working to change the information they publish.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Good points here, just don't think it's necessarily pretty good if the situation ever arises where one company/individual/country obtains complete control of information as in the case of other locales like China.

That would be bad, but in a competition based system there's an inherent defense against that. When other independent search engines give wildly different results (content, not content providers) using different technologies... then you know you have an issue. Until that happens though, it suggests the consensus based system hasn't been overthrown.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: worldstarcountry

RT broadcasts in terms of Russias national interest. They are by definition propaganda. Our own domestic media has it's issues but they don't take marching orders from the White House, or anyone in government.

So BBC should be omitted from Google searches? Or does not BBC broadcast in terms of UK national interest?

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: saint4God

..."(and other conspiracy sites)"

ATS is no longer a conspiracy theory website, its just a place where people copy paste from drudge report and other equally suspicious news sources. Then, everybody trolls.

I have to agree with you here, this place used to be a conspiracy site, now it is more like a news regurgitation site .

originally posted by: Aazadan
Even then though, you can really only confirm if the information seems to have been derived using some degree of reasoning and compare how it aligns to your own beliefs, just as your child can do with the facts you hang onto. I think something that people often miss, is that

Here comes something I think is awesome in particular:

logic is rarely irrefutable.

I'd like to frame that and put it on the wall.

Once someone determines a series of beliefs to have been logically derived they tune out competing information. Logic however is much more malleable than that, and many different conclusions can be drawn from the same set of facts. I think that's where a lot of disagreement on issues (especially highly partisian ones) comes from.

Early on in information gathering, and on the whole I'd agree. I think if there are enough facts there can be enough to draw an accurate conclusion. This however, doesn't mean that other conclusions are valueless. It shows a path and maybe even possibilities that would otherwise be missed. Additionally, I think it is important for a person to be aware of their bias. I've been known to announce it before statements as well. "I'm biased here because..." or "I don't think I want to say until everyone else does because of my bias."

By definition of verification, I don't think it can.

I think you're wrong. So does Google. This happens to be a problem that I would love to just sit and be a researcher on a team for a year. If I ever go to grad school I might try for it, I don't think this will be solved in the next 10 years. From my understanding of quantum computer algorithms, this is something we could probably solve quickly, but that's still 25 years away. Problems like this are described as NP, if you can come up with a general algorithm for them, you would become the richest being on earth over night. This is our centuries Problem of Longitude.

I actually have an idea for the problem based on a dream I had, and being ATS this seems like a place to discuss it. I was watching the result play out, and how it works was explained to me. That was 4 years ago though, and despite some time spent on it, I'm still stuck on step one. My hunch is that we can solve these problems by graphing them (but I can't seem to figure out what the graph axis is).

I'd like to be wrong, because one true answer is ideal for my absolutist affinity, I just don't think it is achieveable by us people (per the nature of humanity). If there were only one right answer, I'd like to see the wrong ones too even if labelled as incorrect.

Perhaps my religious metaphor went a little to deep here. Lets step back and look at email. I send you an email, and you look at it. How do you know it's from me or not? Email addresses can and are faked all the time. Also, what if someone had access to my email and wrote it?

I'd be seeking points of validation or if those aren't available, clues.

Can you determine that email is legitimate from just the contents of it?

The contents can provide clues. For example, if you ask for me to wire you money because you're a prince of a small country, that would raise suspicion. If you wanted to let me know there's a sales going on a Khol's this weekend, that'd seem legit.

We've tried to do this using various authentication systems, but every such system comes back to the initial exchange and it gets rather circular. We can create a protocol to build a code system into our communications to ensure authenticity. But then how do you prove that it was you and not the attacker who came up with the code? All of the data has at least a small chance of being fake and that's a big deal if it's trusted information.

The current solution is to go outside the digital realm and physically meet the person to exchange the code. Which is basically the third party authenticator.

I think I grasp the basics here but no doubt the details would make my head spin without the proper knowledge & experience.

How do we do this on an internet where anonymity is desired? Trustworthy information, without the ability to evaluate the source beyond the penname. It's a hard problem.

I hope no one accepts any single source from people for information whether they claim it is validated or not.

Especially if half of it is true, and governments are actively working to change the information they publish.

That's the concerning part.

Good points here, just don't think it's necessarily pretty good if the situation ever arises where one company/individual/country obtains complete control of information as in the case of other locales like China.

That would be bad, but in a competition based system there's an inherent defense against that. When other independent search engines give wildly different results (content, not content providers) using different technologies... then you know you have an issue. Until that happens though, it suggests the consensus based system hasn't been overthrown.

I agree with competition being a good defense...which is why I'm glad we have choices in this country. I hope it never comes down to a sole person/company provider for anything.

The only targeting is data collection whether for agenda means, advertising or other. Either from collecting from threads in general(being public info and all) or having sending those out who ask for it.

originally posted by: Snarl
What Google doesn't seem to understand is that they are making themselves less and less relevant.

Everyday someone else turns away from Google ... permanently.

The day their search engine is not the default found in a Sheople's web browser, is the day they accelerate themselves into oblivion.

The US Army's default search engine is no longer Google. It's been switched over to Bing.

Except this is not true and Google gets more users everyday.

This is an example of you making sh1t up to fit your agenda without doing any research. It's pathetic.

a reply to: SudoNim

Hard core privacy fanatics (like me) do not use cloud services at all - that is where Google gains new users - and until now they used Google search engine with large spoon of salt.

If I can not find what I'm looking for through Google (or it will be buried on page XXII), I'll resort to other engine with better results. So this step will lead to decline in number of Google search users. On other hand users of other engines will probably not flock to Google if its search engine masks out substantial part of (for me) valid results.

This reasoning applies not only for privacy fans.

a reply to: saint4God

Without ATS

There would be no sanity...

If that's what they want,

Then that's what they'll get.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: SudoNim

Hard core privacy fanatics (like me) do not use cloud services at all - that is where Google gains new users - and until now they used Google search engine with large spoon of salt.

If I can not find what I'm looking for through Google (or it will be buried on page XXII), I'll resort to other engine with better results. So this step will lead to decline in number of Google search users. On other hand users of other engines will probably not flock to Google if its search engine masks out substantial part of (for me) valid results.

This reasoning applies not only for privacy fans.

Thats great for you.

However

So this step will lead to decline in number of Google search users

isn't quite true is it... because more people start using google each day than those that are turned away.

Your thinking is... "well I stopped using it, my friend stopped using it... therefore they must be in decline". It doesn't work like that champ.

So despite how you "feel" google is doing or how you assume you can speak for all "hardcore privacy fantatics" ... it's not and you don't. Stats don't lie google gets more users each year.

General question: There are situations where multiple answers for a question are valid. For example crash of computer program may be rooted in various domains from HW problems to bad coding.

In other words validity of answer is relative to context of question. In ideal condition user would construct (relatively) precise question like: "definition of mass in Newtonian mechanics" or "definition of psychosis in that or that psycho school". But usually we ask only "definition of psychosis". How will Google decide which psycho schools are fringe and which are "normal" science? There is nothing like settled view in principle of science, quite contrary: Science is destruction of (especially scientific) settled views.

a reply to: SudoNim

If somebody quits using something, actual set of users is smaller, then it could be, no matter how many new arrivals came. Other search engines have also new users, so this step will lead to decline in googles relative position on the "market".

Or do you suppose that users of other engines will migrate to Google because it hides some of views on some subject?

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

If one person quits but two people join, the user set is larger. Googles user base increases every day.

I don't need to speculate on where its users come from.

a reply to: introvert

Was going to say,maybe about 10 years ago,nothing earth shaking in here other then a Slayer thread,most are liberal threads,this place has been taken over from a mom's basement,too many dreamers,too much doom porn

a reply to: saint4God

Silly google, have they not heard of a little thing called a bookmark?

I've memorized my favorite sites so there is no need to google them, and besides you can always reach ATS via carrier pigeon sites so it would be pointless anyway.

BTW I just googled Middle theory and it was the top result, I think the secret is having a creative and unique name for your site so you can nullify this 'search result bias.'

a reply to: mOjOm

I mean just because you have a blog site and an internet connection doesn't make you a journalist or beacon of truth. None of them have access to anything nobody else also has access to themselves. They don't leave their house most of the time even or get exclusive access to anything. They just collect reports from any source that fits their agenda and string together theories.

That's exactly what they are taught to do by the online "you can get rich" gurus who sell 'lessons' or 'courses' - they teach you how to be rated on page one of Google, how to use keywords, how to present yourself as an expert, and how to present a 'call to action'.

It's a huge industry in and of itself.

And yes, any old person can do it. It's easy, it's cheap, and if you want to buy coaching, it can be effective.
dot com

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: worldstarcountry

RT broadcasts in terms of Russias national interest. They are by definition propaganda. Our own domestic media has it's issues but they don't take marching orders from the White House, or anyone in government.

But they kinda do. e.g. Fox

Predictive Crime Technology
“The hope is the holy grail of law enforcement — preventing crime before it happens,”

www.washingtonpost.com... 17/525a6649-0472-440a-aae1-b283aa8e5de8_story.html

We talked a bit about Google believing there is only one true answer and all others are "bugs" as well as majority consensus dictating truth, but this one struck a very odd chord for me. It's like yesterday's science fiction has come to light as a wanted reality. I get the basic idea of using past trends to bolster security, but how far can this go? Even more ominously, how far will it go?

"In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes, an officer from that unit is himself accused of a future murder. " (Minority Report, www.imdb.com...)