Google is great for many things; not so great for many others.

I was reminded today of reports claiming that stories appealing to conservatives were being suppressed on Google. Only a few nights ago, it was reported on TV news that Google was “interfering” with information. Censoring, in other words.

In the U.S. 80% of political information is sourced from Google (and Facebook, which is also on the nose). It's fairly safe to presume that the same would apply in Australia. Note the OLO posters who can barely put two words of their own together who are always regaling us with Google references (and from their ABC,which we know isn't keen on the truth or anything else that their Leftist hierarchy and can't-get-a-job-anywhere-else employees do not favour.)

As for the U.S. …. well look no further than Google to see how the ferals formed their opinions of Donald Trump. And conservative, Christian, capitalist presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, was an early victim of Google.

The really daft thing is, even if the Google devotees don't get all their ideas from Google, they are not going to cite references that don't support their opinions. So, they have nothing to gain. In fairness, I have to say that not all Google Gooses are on the Left.

Another oddity. Google is banned in China but, given Google's now openly discussed Leftist and totalitarian-like censoring, Google should be just the thing for a Communist country wanting to control what people have access too. Google would be only too happy to cut out the bits the dictators didn't like.

Hi ttbn, yes I myself make little use of posting links, my own opinion is far my valuable than anything Mr Google can put up.
You, yourself is only an occasional poster of links, which I would much prefer to read your crazy opinions, as a counter to my own crazy opinion than googly stuff.

Just as a side did you see that my favourite off the planet polly The Mad Katter stuck to his word and voted no on the SSM legislation. I don't agree with Bob but good to see a polly sticking to his convictions, no matter how crazy they may be. Can't say much for the few including Abbott who abstained from voting, what a cop out, that's not what we pay them to do. Agree my friend?

//well look no further than Google to see how the ferals formed their opinions of Donald Trump.//

No, to see how 'ferals' formed their opinions of Trump, you need look no further than Trump himself. The man does far more damage to his own credibility than all the political blogs in the universe put together.

Paul,

I wasn't aware that Abbott abstained. The damage was done, and it was pretty clear that the bill would go through with the help of most politicians whose interest in SSM was only a how many votes are in it for me sort of thing: nothing do with right or wrong, just them. Abbott seems to have turned into a Cinderella afraid of the very Ugly Sister.

There are quotes of unconfirmed rumours that someone said they heard that Google is a fake NBN virus.

It pretends to scam by using logos of Liberals , facebook and ABC
organised Left Thugs.
Kristina Keneally advises Sam Dastyari... - Liberal Party of Australia
Video for liberal party dastyari▶ 0:31
https://www.facebook.com/LiberalPartyAustralia/.../101557902320...
Kristina Keneally advises Sam Dastyari to avoid the truth. We can't trust him. Can we trust her?

In today's Australia it is mostly accepted that
gay people are people too. Although they are
still a threatening presence for some members
of our community. There are members who for
religious and other reasons are defending orthodoxy.
To them the
notion of "normality" is - white, Christian,
patriarchal and heterosexual.

Therefore anything which suggests otherwise is
a heresy.

As for Google searches?

Google is a search engine on the world wide web.
It is one of the most popular search engines.

Search engines are the work horses of the world-wide web
returning billions of responses to billions of queries every
day. Apart from Google - the other major search engines
are Yahoo, Bing, and Ask.

Most people use search engines purely for research
purposes.

They are generally looking for answers, or
data, to find a site to fulfill a specific purpose.

Not all searches are successful. It does take a
certain amount of expertise and knowledge to be able
to perform effective searches. However,
there are tips available
in conducting a more effective search.

Search engines simply provide us with data and
information. It is then up to us to weigh up the
information found, and make up our own judgements,
decision, and opinions, on what we have in front of us.
Data and facts do help in this regard. We are all
entitled to our opinions - but it does also help to
get hold of the facts as well, to be more credible.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add and clarify that search
engines are the electronic libraries of today -
providing information in today's
technological world. They are the electronic
equivalent of libraries providing us with information.
Those that have access to computers prefer to use
the search engines. Those that are unable to access
the search engines for whatever reason can still find
information at their local libraries

Paul,

Not many posters (hardly any) are interested enough in the subjects I'm interested in – or I've been sent to Coventry. You slipped in SSM, which had nothing to do with the topic, so let's change that

Ten politicians abstained. Have they discharged the duties they are very well paid to discharge? I don't think they have. The options were YES or NO, which even politicians should get that. 'I don't have the guts to vote' was not an option. The 10, including Abbott, should get out and give someone else a go, in my opinion.

Change again. I glad that the “Manchurian Candidate” has resigned, even though he should have left long ago.

Oh dear ttbn,

You've (ably abetted by Paul) utterly misunderstood the nature of Google (by which I assume you mean Google search).

People don't "regaling us with Google references". There is no such thing. People might insert references to things that they found by using Google but they aren't Google references at all. Google search is merely a way to find information on one of the billion gazillion servers that is the web.

If I go to the local library and refer to a book I found by using their database, it'd be insane call that reference a 'local library' reference or a Dewey decimal system reference. Similarly what you find using Google isn't a Google reference.

Now it very true that Google probably skews their search results toward the references they like, but that's a very different thing to what you seem to imagine. Again, imagine that the left leaning local library puts all the leftist books at the front of the shelves. That's what Google (sometimes) does. But you just have to look a bit harder.

Similar with Google. Don't just check the first few things it offers in a search but look at things on page two or three.

Or don't use Google. I use Duckduckgo which to my thinking offers a less skewed search result.

Unfortunately, by making this error about Google, you end up sounding like someone who just doesn't like the way others find data you don't like and have decided that all that data must be suspect because of Google.

The Australian National Library carries a copy of the Communist Manifesto. That doesn't make the library's entire contents suspect.

That Library would be the worst and in Canberra to boot.
" Australian censors described their role as a "bulwark for Anglo-Saxon standards". The task is complicated by the fact that police and post office involvement in censorship was extensive but is not systematically traceable. - Moore is working on a database, with 4099 titles at last count.. Moore believes copies were sent out to give the clerks at wharves and airports an idea of what to confiscate.

It wasn't just sex - sedition laws kept out The Communist Manifesto, while concern about inciting crime kept out Special Detective, Dime Mystery Magazine, horror stories and westerns.

"If this legislation were active in the same way today," Moore says, "we'd have no CSI, no psychic forensics, no Law and Order on our TVs."

You seem to be right about that dude. If these big sites aren't neutral then they should be banned, like if you go to one of them, it says '404 could not be found', or something like that.

Too right , newspapers should be banned . Printing presses. Optometrists. Schools.

Bands should be band

People who can't see what's going on are weak minded victims of the same media conditioning.

Google is the great equalizer.
Why do medicine for 7 years when you can go out and party instead.
Got a problem?...Google it.
Why be tied to conventional practices and disciplines when you can move to the front by Googling it
No one knows that the first few pages on any search are so full of tripe that you have to go to the fourth or fifth page to get any real information, so between Google and Facebook