Corruption
- Thread starter bkingUK
- Start date
I didn't articulate well enough, but it seems like even if it IS ratified that it isn't a huge departure from the already existing NAFTA. Its not just blowing up NAFTA was my main point, as Canada won't agree to that within a month.
Back to your initial question, I don't think this is near impeachment level activities unless I'm completely misinformed.
I was being sarcastic about the impeachment. A revised trade deal is a good thing for the country. And it won't get a whole lot of steam in the media unless it could lead to Trump's impeachment.
Stocks aren’t my bag, but I’d think positive response to new deal is more in response to removing uncertainty with the the actual deal. I haven’t heard of anything with the agreement that would change the fundamentals of NAFTA, as Global Havok is saying, I think.
Laughing dont mind me being completely oblivious to sarcasm. We need a sarcasm font already.
Who gives a damn about fundamentals? This is about taking credit and stroking egos. Trump takes credit, changes the name and gets an ego boost.
he does deserve credit if it all works out though.
Very fair and probably a large portion of the rise. I was just poking fun at Global a bit.
Pizzagate guy? Yeah, he is credible.
I think people forget that NAFTA was a Reagan idea and he actually completed the Mexican part of the deal while in office. H.W. then negotiated the Canandian part and tried to fast track it through congress before he was beaten by Clinton in the election.
Republican came up with the idea and the agreements were signed by Republicans. Clinton merely signed the deal after it passed both the house and senate in a bipartisan vote.
Automation has replaced at least triple the amount of jobs that trade deal affected.
Which is why it is so clear that the dems oppose Trump's renegotiation of the deal simply because he is Trump.
If I am not mistaken, union members are mostly democratic. Unions hate NAFTA and I himself haven’t heard much flack about changing it. I think most noise comes from industry leaders who get materials or have items they sell assembled in Mexico or Canada.
If dems are upset about this, I agree it’s just trump. I have no clue what changed, but it probably isn’t much.
Reagan recognized the growth of globalism. I just with he would have invested in an overhaul of the education system as we have fallen woefully behind trying to recapture those factory jobs.
If there are any laws / regulations put in place around search results, it’s a declaration of war on the internet and would probably be the worst piece of legislation since the internet started. Almost definitely infringement on freedom of speech.
But I think that's the current argument right or wrong. There is now evidence coming out that conservatives are being banned, shadow banned, limited in terms of their outreach on the internet by some of the larger social media companies. I don't think they should be doing anything like censorship outside of clear crimes. It's when they get into this "hate speech" nonsense that it gets murky. A great example is that NY Times new writer. She posted some really vile shit about white people. Nothing happened to hear. Candice Owens, a black female conservative, replicated the Times writer's tweets and was banned for a period of time. Nothing happened to the Times writer. There are multiple examples of things just like this. The hard part, in my opinion, is deciding to jump in a regulate everything or completely stay out of the fray. Don't know what the right answer is.
If you give any weight to Trump's tantrum this morning, it seems he wants to censor google results to only show him in a positive light.
The algorithm was probably set up to identify things such as the word “black” and then to look at the content. I doubt the word “white” was in there due to the algorithm designed to search out hate speech. I guess white folks have a reason to be included, (I’m white and it felt weird typing that), but I think it’s just a simple thing like that and not targeted at “conservative” speech.
It's a market with a low barrier to entry. There are other social media companies up and running. They're not as successful, sure, but that's not the issue. Everyone has access, but not everyone has access on the social media platform of their choosing. There is no legal hook to force private companies to host content, and the lack of a legal way to do it pales in comparison to the logistical hurdles like:
- What criteria to select which privately held companies the government will force to host content?
- Who determines what content those companies have to host? Some type of advisory board? Who is on the board?
- What content do they have to host? Everything legal? If not, what is the legal hook to ban certain legal content and not other legal content?
- What happens if/when advertisers leave those platforms? Do taxpayers bail out those social media companies? How about the shareholders of those companies?
Yep. On mobile so I can't link the tweet, but apparently computer algorithms hate conservatives.
Twitter also apologized and removed the temporary ban. So in response to an issue, conservatives got angry, let Twitter know, and got the result reversed. Why the hell would anyone want to have the government forcing companies to host content when there are much better capitalistic solutions?
Most aligned with a party will go along with whatever the head of the party decides. My biggest beef with groups and the ability for those kinds to not be able to think and decide on their own.
When NAFTA became a reality, the Republicans were up in arms... Odd human nature. As a country, we're starting to jump the shark. I have no confidence in our political system now.
He thinks Google is out to get him now. Wants to regulate their searches.
Trump wants to be a dictator and only have news that is favorable for him.
I don't agree. By and large, they're interested in the truth. And ratings, so they prioritize the sensational. Almost everything President Trump does is a huge spectacle, so they're going to cover it.
First, I've worked with Google on various projects. The company is massive and the left hand usually doesn't know what the right hand is doing. They have various services and departments that span and specialize in just about every piece of content in any industry that is searchable.
So, with news, the reality is much closer to this: Google news dept. reached out to the biggest media companies when Google news started rolling years ago. Largest media companies begin automating news feeds & indexing their stories so they become Google searchable. Other companies see value in being found by Google and go to Google to incorporate their feeds / sitemaps / indexes (as to drive traffic). Google happily obliges companies that want to add to it's corpus of search results.
Google's technology, at it's core, is really twp pieces: 1. The indexers / crawlers Google uses to scrape data from sites across the internet. 2. The technology behind the searches which return accurate results fast. "Accurate" is the keyword there. Traditional searches matched on wildcard text searches and incorporated some linguistic operations, Google took predictive and semantic searching to a whole new level.
Then we get to Trump. Trump generates negative news, by his nature, and the media trends liberal. Google is just reflecting the stories fed to them.
But my thing is this: If Google is restricting search results to only promote anarcho-communists, then that's Google's prerogative. This would give opportunity to competition to present search engines that only return "conservative" results (whatever that means.) But if Google was a small company, this would not be a debate. Google is not a public utility. Like all the other Silicon Valley titans, they started as a start-up and blew away the competition with superior technology.. What kind of precedent does that set if a company, that is arguably one of the most successful in the world, is then penalized because an over-sensitive President can't handle dissent? Then what effect does that have on innovation, freedom of enterprise, freedom of speech?
The USSC would likely destroy such legislation, but just the fact it's being suggested by a President is horrifying. It's not hard to see why there is negative news.
They are interested in what they want to be the truth. Some of these "bombshells" are rushed on air within hours of them having the stories. How many times have they had to go back and "clarify" or even retract their reports all together throughout the course of this investigation? Like Cohen's lawyer for instance. He now admits that he was the unnamed source for cnn's fake bombshell story of Trump knowing about the infamous Trump tower meeting. It's all by design.
There are so many news worthy stories out there that don't get the attention that they would if not for making Trump look like he is doing a good job. And I don't even want to get into whether or not we believe he IS doing a good job. Just that the media, overall, only focuses on things that make him look bad or anything that has the possibility of leading to impeachment.
They certainly don't have any interest in the truth behind the FISA warrants or the weaponization of the FBI to spy on a political opponent.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Those topics were covered. I don't think that the fact they came to a different conclusion than you did mean that the MSM (however you define it) "certainly don't have any interest in the truth" of those topics.
Those issues are ongoing. And they do not receive anywhere near the coverage the other end of the investigation gets. And it is not their job to come to conclusions. It is their job to report the news.
Nice post! I've also worked with Google a couple times. I even created my own search engine for SEC sports, when I had a fan site long ago.
The indexers have become quite complicated as well and supporting cross tables with their complex indices. The relevance as well as the predictive (you mentioned), not to mention the $$ worthiness of information to Google.
All of their seo technology is being tweeked all the time.
Any president that endangers the 1st amendment and has a personal problem with it, is not good for America. The old saying "if you can't stand the heat" applies to Trump.
I don't agree. There are corrections b/c of the rush to beat the other guy. They wouldn't correct themselves at all if their original story was just evidence of their wanting to create some new truth.
Who decides what's a newsworthy story?
Which shows that there is no journalistic integrity left in the industry. Which means they can't be trusted.
I am not saying that they are creating truth. Or that they don't believe what they are reporting is true. Just that they want it to be true to the point that it influences how they do their job.
They do obviously. How many polls show that more Americans care about the economy than they do about Russia? Which gets more coverage?
I think fake news has always existed. The prevalence of it however exploded thanks to the 24 hour news cycle. One had to be able to judge the news in its merits however. If the President possibly broke campaign finance laws, that seems pretty important compared to someone getting their twitter feed locked temporarily.
Ron Burgandy is to blame and to be honest, makes fun of those who can’t filter the BS from the news worthy.
CNN is selling ad time. If they only reported what was news worthy, they would likely only be on an hour each day. Don’t like what they say, don’t watch. Same goes for Fox.
This is pretty accurate. Its going to be tough for any news outlet to move back to the middle b/c of the distrust that was born out of biased reporting. The angle became more important than the actual story. The fake news has taken on a life of its own....and some of it is unfounded---but outlets opened the door by not self policing to a degree.
If any outlet can find a way to report news in a universally unbiased way---I think it could make a major impact on viewers and how people view america as a whole.
The speed needed to scoop the other guy just means less attention to detail, more risks, more mistakes. Corrections demonstrate integrity.
At any rate, the perception of integrity matters more than actual integrity, as it depends on our trust to validate it.
Similar threads
