"Second Source" Confirms Project Veritas Report on YouTube Meddling in Irish Abortion

OMM 0000

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/26/second-source-confirms-project-veritas-report-on-youtube-meddling-in-irish-abortion-referendum-searches/

Another source at Google has corroborated a report from Project Veritas that appears to show that YouTube manually interfered in search results related to the referendum to decriminalize abortion in Ireland, which was won by the pro-abortion side.

The source, a former software engineer at Google, confirmed to Breitbart News that YouTube manually intervened in search results related to the referendum at least one week before the vote in Ireland.

Put politics and abortion aside for a moment, I find this stuff quite worrying. If it's true, US tech companies are attempting to interfere in Irish referendum results.

Boom_Bap

You should look at your own sources OP for the sources of the second source.

Walter Bishop

It's also quite worrying that people would use Breitbart for their news, or believe anything from Project Veritas, who are proven liars and proponents of attempts to 'entrap' people.

OMM 0000

Walter Bishop wrote: »

It's also quite worrying that people would use Breitbart for their news, or believe anything from Project Veritas, who are proven liars and proponents of attempts to 'entrap' people.

I think it's important to read all sorts of news sources. There is so much misinformation by everyone, you have to read it all and come to your own conclusions.

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

Actually, yes. It would set a terrifying precedent and bring down all sorts of bad press upon Google. Might even catalyse international, coordinated action and all for influencing a referendum result?

I wouldn't trust a nasty publication like Breitbart on this. I'll wait for independent verification.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I think it's important to read all sorts of news sources. There is so much misinformation by everyone, you have to read it all and come to your own conclusions.

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

Sure but reading too much of the extremist nonsense is never a good idea. I'd apply the same logic to far lefty outlets as well. Surely, the Telegraph, Spectator, Sun and Daily Mail would be suitable for Conservatives?

Diceicle

The Googler in the Video, Jen, is it just me or does she sound Irish?
Quite disturbing to think the way Google want to shape the world on their terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9pIfGqo_Xo

Walter Bishop

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I think it's important to read all sorts of news sources. There is so much misinformation by everyone, you have to read it all and come to your own conclusions.

Do you find it hard to believe Google could try to influence search results?

I do find that fairly hard to believe actually. Why would they? If the answer is 'it's part of the MSM liberal elite agenda' then get out of here.


What definitely isn't remotely convincing is the preferred 'news' outlet of the alt-right saying that another alt-right organisation has discovered 'proof' of something that they and their followers would love to be true.

Walter Bishop

Diceicle wrote: »

The Googler in the Video, Jen, is it just me or does she sound Irish?
Quite disturbing to think the way Google want to shape the world on their terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9pIfGqo_Xo

Thankfully Breitbart and Project Veritas would never try to shape the world on their terms...

Diceicle

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Thankfully Breitbart and Project Veritas would never try to shape the world on their terms...

The difference being Google has the ways and means to actually do it. Veritas and the likes of Breitbart, their influence is miniscule compared to the big tech companies.

Boom_Bap

But but but it's no secret, and I'm talking about since the dawn of google, that results can be manipulated.



Why is it such a big deal now?

OMM 0000

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I do find that fairly hard to believe actually. Why would they?

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Thankfully Breitbart and Project Veritas would never try to shape the world on their terms...

So you think Google wouldn't, but Breitbart and Project Veritas would.

Interesting...

Diceicle

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I do find that fairly hard to believe actually. Why would they? If the answer is 'it's part of the MSM liberal elite agenda' then get out of here.


What definitely isn't remotely convincing is the preferred 'news' outlet of the alt-right saying that another alt-right organisation has discovered 'proof' of something that they and their followers would love to be true.

You don't believe there to be an anti-conservative / pro-liberal bias in the likes of Twitter, FB, Pinterest, Google?

notobtuse

The leaked documents of censorship involved a discussion thread from within Google that included a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland... that were blacklisted. The leaked documents from a Google employee was provided to Breitbart. It only makes sense that Breitbart would be the media entity first to report on it.

Walter Bishop

OMM 0000 wrote: »

So you think Google wouldn't, but Breitbart and Project Veritas would.

Interesting...

I didn't say Google wouldn't, but that there is no credible proof that they have.



Breitbart and Project Veritas do have form for false claims and biased reporting.


If you want to read more sources, find some more balanced mainstream ones, rather than reading all the extremists (right or left) and trying to make up your mind amongst them.

OMM 0000

Many of the "mainstream" sources are just as extreme.

I'd call them all a mixed bag.

They all have an agenda.

For example, CNN and MSNBC are still full-time on the conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent. FOX still won't stop obsessing about Hilllary Clinton.

Boom_Bap

notobtuse wrote: »

The leaked documents of censorship involved a discussion thread from within Google that included a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland... that were blacklisted. The leaked documents from a Google employee was provided to Breitbart. It only makes sense that Breitbart would be the media entity first to report on it.

are you sure that these things are being 'censored' to not try to influence?

mad muffin

The left and right. Battling a cyber Cold War for our very souls.

notobtuse

Boom_Bap wrote: »

are you sure that these things are being 'censored' to not try to influence?

If the report is true, by not including pro-life results (until pages later - usually after most would stop looking) in a person's search, Google is preforming a form of censorship.

Boom_Bap

notobtuse wrote: »

If the report is true, by not including pro-life results (until pages later - usually after most would stop looking) in a person's search, Google is preforming a form of censorship.

But how is it supposed to sort results? There has to be some sort of sort happen.

notobtuse

mad muffin wrote: »

The left and right. Battling a cyber Cold War for our very souls.

The left maybe, but most of the right just wants to present viewpoints the media chooses to ignore so the readers can make an informed decision.

gctest50

notobtuse wrote: »

If the report is true, by not including pro-life results (until pages later - usually after most would stop looking) in a person's search, Google is preforming a form of censorship.

Some "Pro-Life" scum set up fake abortion website :




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/hse-complains-to-google-over-myoptions-ie-website-1.3782115

" Yesterday the top return on a Google search for “My Options” was for a site called myoptions.website, not operated by the HSE, but run by an anti-abortion group.

The site contains a mobile number and an email address, promises a free ultrasound and has a video claiming links between abortion and cancer. "

jimgoose

The Message always takes on some attributes of the Messenger, which is why he was historically shot. Good enough for the bastard.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

but most of the right just wants to present viewpoints the media chooses to ignore so the readers can make an informed decision.

That's every bit as much a delusion as if somebody said it about left-leaning media.


Take the video in the OP, for example - you don't think the makers of that video have a particular position which they want the viewer to arrive at?

notobtuse

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But how is it supposed to sort results? There has to be some sort of sort happen.

I'd say sort the results by what people searching think happens... That the resulting sources that people click on from similar searches would appear at the top.

notobtuse

osarusan wrote: »

That's every bit as much a delusion as if somebody said it about left-leaning media.


Take the video in the OP, for example - you don't think the makers of that video have a particular position which they want the viewer to arrive at?

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about everyday people.

But sure, PV does. The main guy is conservative and goes after stories that help his cause. The MSM does it also. He doesn't have a massive operation. They target something/somebody they feel is doing something illegal, immoral or shady. And they'll report on the results of the investigation. Something widely reported on by the MSM won't get investigated, and why should such a small organization go after something everyone else is reporting on? And since the MSM usually ignores (until they can't ignore something any longer) most subjects that would hurt liberal/progressive ideals and values, it leaves PV a big swath of targets to go after. Why is it that only right leaning media entities are evil? Since we know almost all media reporting is biased, wouldn't anybody want to read both viewpoints on a subject matter in order to develop their own conclusions?

ILoveYourVibes

OMM 0000 wrote: »

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/26/second-source-confirms-project-veritas-report-on-youtube-meddling-in-irish-abortion-referendum-searches/



Put politics and abortion aside for a moment, I find this stuff quite worrying. If it's true, US tech companies are attempting to interfere in Irish referendum results.

I believe you but its puzzling. We are tiny I wouldn't have thought we mattered at all!?

notobtuse

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I believe you but its puzzling. We are tiny I wouldn't have thought we mattered at all!?

Every soul collected by Google is important. They help pay their bills and attitudes.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

Se we know almost all media reporting is biased, wouldn't anybody want to read both viewpoints on a subject matter in order to develop their own conclusions?

I don't disagree with this, but it clearly contradicts what you said earlier that most right-leaning media organisations just want to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

Offering a right-leaning slant to counteract a left-leaning slant isn't necessarily going to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

They may have more stuff in their head, but that doesn't mean they'll be any more informed.

Boom_Bap

notobtuse wrote: »

I'd say sort the results by what people searching think happens... That the resulting sources that people click on from similar searches would appear at the top.

But do you not see how that can be manipulated?


Get 10 people to hit a link from a search, get 100 people to do it.....and there you have it, that result jumps up the search results.


There has to be logic behind the results, and logic behind the sort order.

OMM 0000

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I believe you but its puzzling. We are tiny I wouldn't have thought we mattered at all!?

It's bizarre alright.

If it's true, the only conclusion I can come to is either a) they're doing this for all sorts of things or b) there's an Irish person working there who has some influence. For example, perhaps the head of search is Irish or something.

I know they've a big office in Dublin. Do the people working there have any influence over the search algorithms?

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Many of the "mainstream" sources are just as extreme.

I'd call them all a mixed bag.

They all have an agenda.

For example, CNN and MSNBC are still full-time on the conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent. FOX still won't stop obsessing about Hilllary Clinton.

Could you supply a quote from CNN where they state that Trump is a "Russian agent"?

notobtuse

osarusan wrote: »

I don't disagree with this, but it clearly contradicts what you said earlier that most right-leaning media organisations just want to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

Offering a right-leaning slant to counteract a left-leaning slant isn't necessarily going to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

They may have more stuff in their head, but that doesn't mean they'll be any more informed.

I think that's the difference between left leaning and right leaning. The left wants to shut down the right so people don't get the chance to even see it. The right just wants to add their viewpoints and investigation of the subjects into the mix.

notobtuse

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But do you not see how that can be manipulated?


Get 10 people to hit a link from a search, get 100 people to do it.....and there you have it, that result jumps up the search results.


There has to be logic behind the results, and logic behind the sort order.

Sure it can be manipulated. But censorship based on Google's biases isn't the answer. Clicks are better than censorship, IMO.

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you supply a quote from CNN where they state that Trump is a "Russian agent"?

Go to YouTube and search for "CNN Trump Russian agent". Literally tons of results, from the official CNN account, saying just that.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Why is it that only right leaning media entities are evil?

Nobody's saying that other than trolls and gobsh!tes. There are plenty of decent rightwing publications out there that are of high journalistic quality like the Telegraph in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the US. Their journalism is top notch and they have a solid reputation for accuracy when it comes to journalistic output. That's not to be confused with their editorial content but since we're all smart people here, that shouldn't need to be explained.

Breitbart on the other hand is incredibly lax when it comes to their "journalistic" output. In fact, the distinction between journalism editorial is really unclear and they've even veered into straight-up misinformation as you can see by all of their Seth Rich conspiracy articles. That's Alex Jones's and Craig Murray's territory that they're encroaching on.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Well McMoustache, Seth Rich was murdered by Democrats because he leaked DNC internal information to wikileaks". That's exactly the sort of thing that reading breitbart does to a person. That's the whole point.

You might think that you're getting "both sides" as if there are multiple sides to a fact but that's just faulty thinking. It's like adding arsenic to your cornflakes for a balanced diet. That's just not how it works.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

I think that's the difference between left leaning and right leaning. The left wants to shut down the right so people don't get the chance to even see it. The right just wants to add their viewpoints and investigation of the subjects into the mix.

I don't think it is as simple as that at all.

In 2017, The Economist commissioned a survey from YouGov asking democrats, independents, and republicans, if they favoured fining or shutting down media outlets which published biased or inaccurate stories. Republicans were higher in both categories, with 45% in favour of shutting down media outlets, compared to 18% of democrats.

See the right side of the image.

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nobody's saying that other than trolls and gobsh!tes. There are plenty of decent rightwing publications out there that are of high journalistic quality like the Telegraph in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the US. Their journalism is top notch and they have a solid reputation for accuracy when it comes to journalistic output. That's not to be confused with their editorial content but since we're all smart people here, that shouldn't need to be explained.

Breitbart on the other hand is incredibly lax when it comes to their "journalistic" output. In fact, the distinction between journalism editorial is really unclear and they've even veered into straight-up misinformation as you can see by all of their Seth Rich conspiracy articles. That's Alex Jones's and Craig Murray's territory that they're encroaching on.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Well McMoustache, Seth Rich was murdered by Democrats because he leaked DNC internal information to wikileaks". That's exactly the sort of thing that reading breitbart does to a person. That's the whole point.

You might think that you're getting "both sides" as if there are multiple sides to a fact but that's just faulty thinking. It's like adding arsenic to your cornflakes for a balanced diet. That's just not how it works.

CNN's and MSNBC's main story for the past two years was a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent.

That's mental.

At least Breitbart doesn't pretend to be unbiased. You know what you're getting with them - very biased pro-Trump news.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nobody's saying that other than trolls and gobsh!tes. There are plenty of decent rightwing publications out there that are of high journalistic quality like the Telegraph in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the US. Their journalism is top notch and they have a solid reputation for accuracy when it comes to journalistic output. That's not to be confused with their editorial content but since we're all smart people here, that shouldn't need to be explained.

Breitbart on the other hand is incredibly lax when it comes to their "journalistic" output. In fact, the distinction between journalism editorial is really unclear and they've even veered into straight-up misinformation as you can see by all of their Seth Rich conspiracy articles. That's Alex Jones's and Craig Murray's territory that they're encroaching on.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Well McMoustache, Seth Rich was murdered by Democrats because he leaked DNC internal information to wikileaks". That's exactly the sort of thing that reading breitbart does to a person. That's the whole point.

You might think that you're getting "both sides" as if there are multiple sides to a fact but that's just faulty thinking. It's like adding arsenic to your cornflakes for a balanced diet. That's just not how it works.

Sure seems like most posters here are.

And there was a time when outlets news reporting was vastly different from their opinions. Those lines have become way to blurred these days.

I don't we'll ever know the full truth about to Seth Rich. I've read both sides of the story. There are a lot of questions left unanswered. But there is not enough evidence from any publication or either side to lead me to a concrete conclusion. The balance of the reporting from both sides has led me to determine much more information is needed in order to develop a conclusion. See... it works?

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Go to YouTube and search for "CNN Trump Russian agent". Literally tons of results, from the official CNN account, saying just that.

There's some reason you can't supply a quote.....?

CNN's and MSNBC's main story for the past two years was a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent.

Then you should be able to provide quotes, not suggestions to root through videos on you tube.

ILoveYourVibes

notobtuse wrote: »

Every soul collected by Google is important. They help pay their bills and attitudes.

**** me! :eek:

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

There's some reason you can't supply a quote.....?

Should I also clean your bedroom for you?

I don't care if you see the quote or not.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Should I also clean your bedroom for you?

I don't care if you see the quote or not.

So you can't back your assertion that CNN and MSNBC have - "for the past two years" - called Trump a russian agent........

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

So you can't back your assertion that CNN and MSNBC have - "for the past two years" - called Trump a russian agent........

I told you how to find it.

You're too lazy to do a simple YouTube search.

So, whatever.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I told you how to find it.

You're too lazy to do a simple YouTube search.

So, whatever.

Why should I have to wade through hours of video footage? You made the assertion and all I want is a quote, from an article, that backs up what you say. Seeing as - according to you at least - two large news organisations have been calling him a "russian agent" for a period of two years, I can't imagine why you couldn't or won't supply a quote.


Unless of course they haven't been doing that at all.

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

Why should I have to wade through hours of video footage?

Then don't. Who cares? I don't.

I'm not going to continue this odd conversation with you.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Then don't. Who cares? I don't.

I'm not going to continue this odd conversation with you.

So you admit making the thing up then?

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

So you admit making the thing up then?

No I just think it's extremely weird you expect someone to find quotes for you, and you have a problem they won't do that. That's really, really weird, so I strongly suspect I should stop talking to you.

So this is my last response on this matter.

Walter Bishop

If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove it or back it up, saying 'CNN say Trump is a Russian agent!!', and then telling people to trawl through YouTube or Google if they don't believe you is the laziest 'debating' style possible.

We're not here to make your points for you.

dudara

notobtuse wrote: »

I think that's the difference between left leaning and right leaning. The left wants to shut down the right so people don't get the chance to even see it. The right just wants to add their viewpoints and investigation of the subjects into the mix.

In so much as I consider myself more “left” than “right”, I don’t want to see any proper journalistic source shut down. The big issue I have is that journalism standards have slipped across the board. And many people have come to accept cr*ppy websites as sources of information. As mcmoustache said, there are many credible right-leaning journalistic sources out there.

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

CNN's and MSNBC's main story for the past two years was a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent.

That's mental.

You're going to have to provide some evidence of this and telling me to go on youtube and do your research for you won't fly.

American news networks wondering why Trump would act subservient to Putin and lie about Russian contacts between his campaign and people working for Russian intelligence. These were fair questions.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

At least Breitbart doesn't pretend to be unbiased. You know what you're getting with them - very biased pro-Trump news.

That's like saying that a bottle of arsenic at least has a skull shaped label on it so that you know where you stand when you consume it. It's not very clever.

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's like saying that a bottle of arsenic at least has a skull shaped label on it so that you know where you stand when you consume it. It's not very clever.

I wasn't trying to be clever.

CNN pretends to be unbiased but it's extremely biased - you could almost call it a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. I have an issue with that.

At least FOX doesn't pretend to be unbiased - it's very clear it's a news channel for conservatives.

Breitbart are even more open about their bias, so no one who goes to Breitbart is going to think they're getting unbiased journalism. I can't say the same about CNN.

Do you agree at least that news channels have a bias? And some are more extreme when it comes to their bias?