Google says ‘Christian’ unacceptable keyword — ‘Muslim’ okay

[Ricordo]

https://www.oann.com/google-says-christian-unacceptable-keyword-muslim-okay/

 

Avoid Google like the plague. For searches, use https://start.duckduckgo.com/

[pipedreams]

I think most here are already using duckduckgo for similar reasons.

[Historian]

I am at the point where that company needs to be held accountable.

[gwalchmai]

I use DDG and startpage.com for search.

 

[Huaco Kid]

News has to be put into words,  not just a video,  or I'll never see it.

[Ricordo]

1 hour ago, Huaco Kid said:

News has to be put into words,  not just a video,  or I'll never see it.

Here's a synopsis.

"YouTube denied an ad from a faith-based veterans charity over the keyword “Christian,” the charity’s founder said — and he said when he tried the same ad using the keyword “Muslim,” the ad raised no red flags with the Google-owned video giant.

Chad Robichaux — founder of the Mighty Oaks Foundation and a U.S. Marine — on Tuesday tweeted about what he said occurred and offered a screenshot of “Christian” deemed “unacceptable content as keyword”:

“This is the first time we’d seen this,” Robichaux told Faithwire. “We called the [Google] helpline and they said that Google’s new criteria prohibited that word, ‘Christian.'”

He added to the outlet that his marketing team tried to publish the ad Saturday for an episode of the “Mighty Oaks Show,” which often features interviews with veterans and contains content specifically for the veteran community.

“How do we reach the people we’re called to reach? We’re not a political organization; we’re a ministry that’s called to serve the brokenhearted, and that’s what we’re trying to do,” Robichaux also told Faithwire. “How do we operate as a Christian organization if we can’t use the word ‘Christian?'”  https://grandmageri422.me/2019/07/25/youtube-ad-denied-for-using-one-word-christian-but-muslim-is-acceptable/comment-page-1/

[Bish1309]

Looks like Firefox (unless there's liberalism taking over that medium) and perhaps experimentation time with Edge?

 

This is totally unacceptable.

[willie-pete]

.   .   .   and they horse they rode in on.

[janice6]

8 hours ago, Ricordo said:

https://www.oann.com/google-says-christian-unacceptable-keyword-muslim-okay/

 

Avoid Google like the plague. For searches, use https://start.duckduckgo.com/

I do already, because of a search that produced the desired result, and then later that same  result didn't exist, according to google.  The search was for a socially controversial environmental study paper.  F'em.

[janice6]

5 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

.   .   .   and they horse they rode in on.

Regulate!

[janice6]

3 hours ago, Ricordo said:

Here's a synopsis.

"YouTube denied an ad from a faith-based veterans charity over the keyword “Christian,” the charity’s founder said — and he said when he tried the same ad using the keyword “Muslim,” the ad raised no red flags with the Google-owned video giant.

Chad Robichaux — founder of the Mighty Oaks Foundation and a U.S. Marine — on Tuesday tweeted about what he said occurred and offered a screenshot of “Christian” deemed “unacceptable content as keyword”:

“This is the first time we’d seen this,” Robichaux told Faithwire. “We called the [Google] helpline and they said that Google’s new criteria prohibited that word, ‘Christian.'”

He added to the outlet that his marketing team tried to publish the ad Saturday for an episode of the “Mighty Oaks Show,” which often features interviews with veterans and contains content specifically for the veteran community.

“How do we reach the people we’re called to reach? We’re not a political organization; we’re a ministry that’s called to serve the brokenhearted, and that’s what we’re trying to do,” Robichaux also told Faithwire. “How do we operate as a Christian organization if we can’t use the word ‘Christian?'”  https://grandmageri422.me/2019/07/25/youtube-ad-denied-for-using-one-word-christian-but-muslim-is-acceptable/comment-page-1/

Religious censorship.  It's not that they are against religion in general, it's that they are blatantly stating "favorites".  The courts will punish other public businesses for favoring one religion over another, why not punish google for doing the same thing!

[Ricordo]

I do not know what to do about it.

The facts are there. Algorithms are used by a publisher to promote discrimination based on political and religious grounds. And other types of discrimination according to the flavor of the month.

The Libertarian in me leans towards letting the market work its magic. Like with CNN today which has become the laughing stock of the industry. Or NY newspapers that are  close to ceasing operations.

The conservative in me, or as they prefer to phobicularize it---fascist, would like to see them implode sooner rather than later. Timing is everything with these matters.

Yes, perhaps some regulation that prohibits them from discriminating for political reasons is the solution. Problem is that it cannot overreach or underreach. Each would present its own set of unique problems, legal and otherwise. For example, the fine recently imposed on Facebook had the effect of increasing the value of its shares. Sort of like, "if $5 billion is the best that can be imposed, we're good". 

Anti-trust legislation could be a solution. break them up. Do a Teddy on them. Limit their reach, curtail their expansion, enforce a prohibition of discriminatory practices.  Sort of like "equal time" for political ideology. And expand the definition of political ideology to include sociological issues.

Still, would prefer the rise of a competitor that will divide the market. But if you call yourself Republican, you have to be gratified that success is attained even when better than 95% of the social media and news market is openly and  overtly against you and your principles. That's nothing to sneeze at, and it drives them crazy.

 

[janice6]

Well, the government proved they could handle Ma Bell, so maybe the way is to simply do the same to the "googles" in this country.  Make them pay for their competitors to use their assets and infrastructure.

Ma Bell has been replaced by a multitude of service businesses utilizing Bell company's hardware. 

I really don't know what is appropriate, just that letting a very big business control public opinion and information content is a direct means to control a nation.

[railfancwb]

Conservatives act as though liberalism is a ripple in a small pond, washing back and forth a bit then subsiding.

In reality liberalism is like a wave in the ocean when the tide is coming in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[railfancwb]

Well, the government proved they could handle Ma Bell, so maybe the way is to simply do the same to the "googles" in this country.  Make them pay for their competitors to use their assets and infrastructure.
Ma Bell has been replaced by a multitude of service businesses utilizing Bell company's hardware. 
I really don't know what is appropriate, just that letting a very big business control public opinion and information content is a direct means to control a nation.

Ma Bell largely reassembled itself, then added satellite TV and cable TV and cell services.

Standard Oil from Teddy’s time did about the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pima Pants]

I changed to DuckDuckGo today. I'll see how it goes.

[Silentpoet]

5 hours ago, Ricordo said:

I do not know what to do about it.

The facts are there. Algorithms are used by a publisher to promote discrimination based on political and religious grounds. And other types of discrimination according to the flavor of the month.

The Libertarian in me leans towards letting the market work its magic. Like with CNN today which has become the laughing stock of the industry. Or NY newspapers that are  close to ceasing operations.

The conservative in me, or as they prefer to phobicularize it---fascist, would like to see them implode sooner rather than later. Timing is everything with these matters.

Yes, perhaps some regulation that prohibits them from discriminating for political reasons is the solution. Problem is that it cannot overreach or underreach. Each would present its own set of unique problems, legal and otherwise. For example, the fine recently imposed on Facebook had the effect of increasing the value of its shares. Sort of like, "if $5 billion is the best that can be imposed, we're good". 

Anti-trust legislation could be a solution. break them up. Do a Teddy on them. Limit their reach, curtail their expansion, enforce a prohibition of discriminatory practices.  Sort of like "equal time" for political ideology. And expand the definition of political ideology to include sociological issues.

Still, would prefer the rise of a competitor that will divide the market. But if you call yourself Republican, you have to be gratified that success is attained even when better than 95% of the social media and news market is openly and  overtly against you and your principles. That's nothing to sneeze at, and it drives them crazy.

 

I want to see the liberal ******* at these companies in jail getting bubba loving as a result of any new laws.  But then again they probably would like that.

[janice6]

2 hours ago, railfancwb said:

Ma Bell largely reassembled itself, then added satellite TV and cable TV and cell services.

Standard Oil from Teddy’s time did about the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they don't dominate the communications market like they did in days of old.

Nothing wrong with them starting over.

[Ricordo]

Kindly consider the following with regards to anti-trust issues with Alphabet, Inc. (Google).

Here's a partial list of the mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet, Inc. ;   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet

Now split that up without protecting inefficient competitors.

???

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Ricordo
It's above my pay grade.

[Ricordo]

The other problem.

Why should the government limit the freedom of expression of a company? If it should, where does it stop?

???

Edited July 28, 2019 by Ricordo
This one right below my pay grade.

[holyjohnson]

18 hours ago, Historian said:

I am at the point where that company needs to be held accountable.

Fingers crossed.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/31/justice-department-launch-antitrust-google/

 

According to recent reports, the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to launch an antitrust investigation into Alphabet Inc.’s Google.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to begin an antitrust investigation into Google that could see the tech giant come under a new wave of scrutiny from regulators. According to people familiar with the matter, the antitrust division of the Justice Department has been gathering information and preparing for the investigation for weeks.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shares antitrust authority with the Justice Department, has previously conducted antitrust investigations into Google on a broader scale but closed the investigation in 2013 with no action taken. Google did, however, make some voluntary changes to some of its business practices as a result of the investigation.

The FTC and Justice Department have been discussing which group will oversee further antitrust investigations of Google, with the FTC agreeing to give the Justice Department full jurisdiction over Google. Now that an understanding has been reached between the two government bodies, the Justice Department is preparing to conduct an in-depth investigation into Google. It has yet to be revealed if the Justice Department has contacted Google in relation to the investigation.

Those familiar with the matter stated that the Justice Department has been in contact with third-party groups that have been critical of Google in the past. The Wall Street Journal reached out to the Justice Department and Google for comment on the matter but did not receive a reply. The FTC declined to comment on the issue.

Breitbart News reported in March of this year that Silicon Valley giant Google has been fined $1.7 billion by the European Union for the company’s third breach of E.U. antitrust laws in three years. The latest fine against the company relates to Google’s AdSense advertising service and “illegal practices in search advertising brokering to cement its dominant market position,” according to European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

Vestager and her team concluded that third-party websites that sued Google to power their search and advertising features had “restrictive clauses in contracts” preventing them from hosting ads from rival search engines. In a press release, Vestager stated:

Today the Commission has fined Google €1.49 billion for illegal misuse of its dominant position in the market for the brokering of online search adverts. Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anti-competitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules. The misconduct lasted over 10 years and denied other companies the possibility to compete on the merits and to innovate – and consumers the benefits of competition.

The European Commission reviewed hundreds of contracts dating back to 2006 that included these restrictive clauses. Google alleged that the company phased these exclusivity arrangements out in 2009, replacing them with “premium placement” clauses that guaranteed the most profitable spaces in search results were given to Google ads. In 2009, Google also added clauses to their contract requiring that websites ask Google for approval to change how rival ads are displayed, including the size and color of the ads.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com.

 

[janice6]

17 hours ago, Ricordo said:

Kindly consider the following with regards to anti-trust issues with Alphabet, Inc. (Google).

Here's a partial list of the mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet, Inc. ;   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet

Now split that up without protecting inefficient competitors.

???

 

I don't believe that any "inefficient" company should be protected.  Business performance is a function of management, and poor management is destined to fail if they cannot survive in the market.  No business with "poor" management should be protected from failure.  The market will decide who lives and who dies on their value to the public.

The first obligation of our society should be to protect the public from businesses that are dominating the information and technology markets so greatly, that they dictate what information is made available to the public, or what technology the public is going to get, irrespective of what the public wants and needs.

[Ricordo]

I agree that something needs to be done. The problem, the way I see it,  is what.

Too many legal issues at every step of the way. And clearly, imposing fines for misconduct is not an efficient way of regulating big tech. One basic principle of administrative law is that when imposing fines you don't want to bankrupt the transgressor. But you don't want the fines to be merely a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps the solution is providing a cause of action for the persons affected to be able to take their complaint to Court. You don't see that now. For instance, allow triple damages and fees and costs.

Yet again, I don't really know. In my mind now it's all maybe and perhaps.

[holyjohnson]

4 hours ago, Ricordo said:

I agree that something needs to be done. The problem, the way I see it,  is what.

Too many legal issues at every step of the way. And clearly, imposing fines for misconduct is not an efficient way of regulating big tech. One basic principle of administrative law is that when imposing fines you don't want to bankrupt the transgressor. But you don't want the fines to be merely a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps the solution is providing a cause of action for the persons affected to be able to take their complaint to Court. You don't see that now. For instance, allow triple damages and fees and costs.

Yet again, I don't really know. In my mind now it's all maybe and perhaps.

a combination between the breakup of standard Oil into seven separate and independent companies and Microsoft not being allowed to even communicate between hardware and software makers would work,split them into completely separate entities that can`t have an interest in each other or the same president or chairman in common.

i`m not for the .Gov jumping in and taking companies apart,but in this case i`d say it is warranted to at least consider if Google is as big as Standard Oil or at&t.

its not so much forcing a Political ideology but more removing one persons ideology from restricting information en mass.

[Maser]

Google's Leftist views have zero effect on my browsing habits.