The truth, according to Google

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Can you refute me with sources,please?

You are stating your position first so it's your job to provide evidence for it first.

How is anyone going to provide anything to oppose your claim when you haven't even made it clear yourself yet???

Just saying "Google is in bed with Obama" doesn't mean anything. You need to validate and explain what you're saying.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Bummer. I guess we're all screwed then.

Hail Google. Our Lord and Master. May the Google be with you.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes you are right, I found this on their site,

Network neutrality -- the concept that the Internet should remain free and open to all comers -- has been a major public policy priority for Google over the last two years. But anyone who has followed the debate closely knows that one of the challenges raised by our opponents has been defining what exactly the term means. The fact is, net neutrality can mean different things to different people.

I actually agree with the definition that can be used for net neutrality, it can be a good thing but also it can be censorship.

What kind of behavior is okay?
There are a lot of misconceptions about which market practices Google and other net neutrality advocates consider "discriminatory," and therefore should be subject to regulation by the FCC. There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:
•Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
•Managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service (DOS) attacks, viruses or worms;

•Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private network backbone links;
•Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV); and

•Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity broadband service.

The key point here is that these activities do not rely on the carrier's unilateral control over the last-mile connections to consumers, and also do not involve discriminatory intent.

googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com...

This was what they were working on back in 2007

They have become a monster now in the net, with more power than most can imagine.

Now the Huff Post wrote an article about how Google net neutrality was undermining their own Fiber terms of services, in 2013

Meaning that Google has grown soo big that they are as close as the big servers that they fought for net neutrality.

Google's server policy for Fiber more closely resembles those of Comcast and AT&T, telecommunications giants that Google once fought in the battle for Net Neutrality. When Kansas Fiber user Douglas McClendon complained to the FCC about the server ban, Google's lawyer Darah Smith Franklin admitted as much, responding, "Google Fiber’s server policy is consistent with policies of many major providers in the industry."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The irony

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

According to what I read about ixQuick it doesn't use google. ixQuick developed Startpage and Startpage does use google but ixQuick doesn't.

Ixquick is the main search engine from the company that runs Startpage. Unlike Startpage, Ixquick pulls results from a variety of sources instead of only Google – this can be a good or a bad thing, depending on how much you like Google’s search results. Ixquick and Startpage have essentially the same design. Ixquick includes the same privacy features Startpage does, including the Ixquick proxy links in the search results.

a reply to: Merinda

Seems neutral to me.

a reply to: FalcoFan

Can you refute me with sources,please?

LOL!! It doesn't work like that.

YOU made a claim. It's up to you to provide evidence for it.
I've done a fair amount of research and reading about Google, from its very beginnings.
Ken Auletta's book "Googled" to start with, and from there I explored more.

I have not found any evidence that Google is in bed with the NWO or Obama or Hitler or Marx or Stalin or Kissinger or Putin or Castro or the DOD or anyone else. They are, to the best of my knowledge, running a business, and doing very well.

As for what's-his-mask-face's allegations that they're behind Net Neutrality - do you guys really not know what it means?

It has to do with whether YOU get as fast an internet speed as business-customers. If it hadn't passed, you'd be back in dail-up gear in no time, but "biz" sites would have super-sonic speed because they PAY MORE. Maybe you all are too young to remember how the phone companies' consortium/monopoly fell apart.

Sheesh.

Please, provide me links to verifiable sources that indicate evidence of this nefarious "deal" between the White House, the U.N., the KKK, Iran, the Bilderbergers, or whoever you think is pulling the strings at Google, to the guys at Google.

If you can't do that, then my claim stands as it is. I'm more than happy to learn whatever I can.....
so - lay it on me, but don't just make crap up and expect me to buy it.

Thanks ever so much.

a reply to: stosh64

Ixquick.com

They are developing something called startmail for email....but you have to pay....and there is no guarantee that its as private or secure as they say...

as far as the search engine...its ok. You need to use more than one but its a good go to search engine

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oopsie.

Forgot to add "IMO".

a reply to: FalcoFan

Sorry-I missed the edit window.

Meant to add "IMO".

Not meaning to "NITPICK".

a reply to: mOjOm

Thanks mOjOm, I will try that.

a reply to: mOjOm

That`s cool, I didn`t know that...ixQuick can be an alternative.

I use Startpage, which is a proxy for a Google search. That is, Google will not know that I searched for whatever.

I don't trust Google.

I searched "April 19" and saw that Lexington and Concord didn't even make the first page.

Nothing of more importance has happened on April 19th in the history of the world.

a reply to: Merinda

Google already does this for China...

They throw public hissy fits about it, but they still do it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Can you refute me with sources,please?

You are stating your position first so it's your job to provide evidence for it first.

How is anyone going to provide anything to oppose your claim when you haven't even made it clear yourself yet???

Just saying "Google is in bed with Obama" doesn't mean anything. You need to validate and explain what you're saying.

The NSA is part of the executive branch, no? I could be wrong, but I think it is. They are in bed with the NSA by giving them access to our search history, Gmail accounts, and more. It's pretty common knowledge.

Google is a scam anyway.
Type some word, let's say "bean". It pretends there are 310 000 000 results but it will only show you some 62 chosen pages which is just a few hundreds.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Merinda


Familiarize yourself with search engines like Bing and Yahoo. There are others, but exercise some caution.

Well, they all have the same goal: making money.
So they are not different, google is just the biggest of them

a reply to: Merinda

It's just another Google Labs experiment. Google modifies its search algorithms daily now. The CNN article you quoted is using outdated references; Google no longer hands out PageRank, and they have seriously de-emphasized PageRank as a scoring mechanism, and moved strongly forward with something called Relevance.

Bing and Yahoo search's do pretty much the same thing, and most mainstream search engines make money with paid advertisement. I don't really want to get into a back-and-forth on search engine preference, but I assure you Google owns most of the search engine market because of the relevance of the information returned.

Ultimately, it is an algorithm, so it will not be perfect, which is, again, why Google updates it daily.

Google does use AdWords, and if you don't know what you're doing or why, you could waste a lot of money very fast. Typically, a business SEO approach would use Pay Per Click (PPC) for about 6 months, which is roughly the time required to move up the rankings with a quality SEO / Content Marketing campaign.

As far as trust, I absolutely 100% guarantee you that any search engine provider that makes money off of ad sales is farming your information and selling it to whomever can pay for it. The statistics are, for the most part, generic, mostly demographic, but I could buy it right now, quite legally.

I use startpage, but I am a tech moron. Any other recommendations?

Try duckduckgo.com

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
Google is a scam anyway.
Type some word, let's say "bean". It pretends there are 310 000 000 results but it will only show you some 62 chosen pages which is just a few hundreds.

That is just the general search. They are counting images, maps, shopping, apps, video's, etc.

I honestly dont see this making any noticeable difference...that is if such a screwball idea even goes anywhere beyond think tank/drawing board stage. You would think that Google would want to spare itself from making outlandish plans public if they arent surely going to deliver so it must be far along enough that a process has been developed so maybe someone less lazy than i can find info regarding the "how" and clue us in. But the very idea seems absurd IMHYMVTAECISSO (in my humble yet more valid than anyone else's cuz I say so opinion).

1. So little of the internet consists of webpages dedicated to anything that even can be measured vis a vis truth and misinformation. Is Chevrolet's website giving contact information, vehicle specs, and MSRPs "true?" How about Walmart and its online shopping site, is it "true" a Black and Decker blender is indeed available through either the avenue of in store or shop n ship? What about pharmaceutical websites like Latisse which promotes a drug to increase eyelash volume up to 30% if you are willing to chance a few trivial side-effects like blindness or cardiac arrest (I gotta see the person with such whimpy lashes theyll chance going blind). Keep going through websites in your mind though really. Banks, investment firms, law offices, fart noise libraries, YouTube...in all reality the only applicable sites would be pure reference sites and we can already assume tge big names arent gonna be egfected, Webster basically GIVES us the current status of English and I doubt World Book or Britanica or Rogetts would be at risk of being deemed "lacking veracity." So we are left with Wikipedia and news outlets and Im sorry but the popularity of Wikipedia is such that people just want it and though it is a candidate for misinformation, I dont see Google frustrating the generation that did away with card catalogues and Dewey decimal and tangible books made of paper which use alphabetical order and guide words by burying Wikipedia any deeper than page 1 of results. And same goes for the news outlets, their audience is decided by factors that create large groups that Google will tailor to them all meaning yes, NY Times or WS Journal readers deserve easy search results just as do those who need a more pop culture twist and go for sites like Huffington Post or TMZ which give the same news, albeit with more frequent errors, but not as dry with a bit of entertainment in their presentation. In fact, CNN is probably the worst at getting it right,,,or Yahoo...and I doubt Google is gonna bury CNN (Yahoo may be the exception we actually notice disappear I mean, who writes that crap?! -And no offense to my personal friend and ex-coworker and lunchroom buddy Katie Couric who is going the way of Yahoo, I still think youre wonderful-Whoo hoo! I never had a chance to be one of those pathetic name droppers but that was kinda fun...I can feel all you guys' admiration awe and jealousy just traveling through your PCs). So yea first point is just that, what the heck sites can they actually apply this to and still take themselves seriously?
2. Most other internet usage is doing just what we are now, networking and giving our two cents to each other. How can they take forums which SHOULD be full of editorializing and measure true n false? Or forums of anecdotes or uberreligious women who blog about knitting sweaters for animals because were a filthy society in their eyes letting animals run about naked (no offense i myself am uuuuberreligious i just make sure to try to remember theres religion and theres judging others which are black and white but sadly the same to some).
3. Finally what do they define as being truth or veracity? Cuz truth is in the eye of the beholder i mean heck if this is some good deed theyre doing for us to provide a fact friendly internet why spend millions on this new system and technology? Cuz the only true "false" that nobody could argue would be a typo, mistranslation, or a news story reporting the wrong info and Google could have some fact checkers and editors who browse the net and send a simple email to a webmaster to fiz something untrue. Then its done taken care of. No, methinx if a noticeable change does take place in the ease of accessing the same pages we do now that theres a deeper reason behind this plan and perhaps a sinister one (im not crazy yes i also agree it could be a benign one or it could be just what they say in which case i just need the how and what sites question answered). To end on a positive i think theres one thing we can agree on ALL OF US...And thats the fact that its gonna be so much more stimulating looking up naughty waughty chicka chicka bow wow sites since google is checking for veracity so never again will we click on "hot grandma gettin busy" and not see a HOT grandma cuz far too often u know it SAYS hot grandma or hot donkey action but im left looking at something disturbing in the end, not hot not fun so kudos for fixing that google!

a reply to: FalcoFan

Cornell University Library

From Google Inc.

Xin Luna Dong, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Kevin Murphy, Van Dang, Wilko Horn, Camillo Lugaresi, Shaohua Sun, Wei Zhang


Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources

arxiv.org...


As stated in the cited paper the Google Knowledge Vault operates on inference.

Inference is an iterative process, since we believe a source is accurate if its facts are correct, and we believe the facts are correct if they are extracted from an accurate source

The paper submitted to Cornell used an example of President Obama, which ATSrs may find interesting.

Informally, we define the trustworthiness or accuracy of a we source as the probability that it contains the correct value for a fact (such as Barack Obama's nationality), assuming that it mentions any value for that fact. (

The fact extraction process we use is based on the Knowledge Vault (KV) project [10].

An example of such a triple is (Barack Obama, nationality, USA)

This is worth keeping an eye on.......