S
- Status
B
Balto1
Guest
Conservatives should vote with their wallets and stop using Google sites.
S
silentwitness
Guest
When the time comes, that absolutely will happen.
Hopefully Christians also.
Hopefully Christians also.
They should also speak out, as Tucker has done, and call out the tech giants for their obvious bias
T
toabb
Guest
What about the bias on Tucker’s own show? Or he’s granted the exception…
Tucker is quite honest about his bias, unlike DNC shills like George Stephanopoulos and the like.
Further, Tucker regularly has opposite views on his show, and has done absolutely nothing to limit the speech of others, unlike what progressives do.
Last edited:
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
We have been experiencing this over the weekend. We often have youtube music videos playing in our house. Over the weekend we are constantly having to be exposed to Youtubes pro-BLM type advertisements.
T
toabb
Guest
that must have changed? last time I tried to stomach it, he tramples over those with opposing views, cuts to breaks, etc. But I understand. it’s his own show and he can make the rules. Ironic for a station that bills itself as ‘fair and balanced’
I don’t mind them having their divisive ads. It is just flatly un-American to To be open to allowing opposing ads. Can they go if? Absolutely. That doesn’t change the facts.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
I am generally against government intrusion into business, but when the media is so pervasive in our lives (mainstream media, google, youtube, FB, twitter, etc), and the information they allow is so one-sided…then it makes me start thinking there is a need to force them to open up.
And yes, I would feel the same way if they only allowed right-wing information.
And yes, I would feel the same way if they only allowed right-wing information.
He has them on all the time. I’ve heard them try to filibuster, Trying to avoid questions. Maybe that’s what you saw, Tucker trying to prevent such tactics.
He’s on for one hour, which is more than conservative views get on the DNC cable networks like CNN and MSNBC, or networks like ABC, NBC and CBS
P
ProVobis
Guest
Why Tucker so much on CFA then? I’m still waiting for one Rachel Maddow thread.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
A key piece of information relevant to Tucker’s story is that advertisers (the source of the money) pull ads when their ads are paired with controversial content and have demanded to Google that such pairing not occur if they are to continue advertising. This places a crucial role in what we are seeing here.
But Google kept certain terms on a block list for getting reviews (not only religious). Part of the reason is these answers are pulled from third party sources on the internet. If the source is updated the reply from the Google Nest changes accordingly. The change is then attributed to Google.
As an example of this, some time ago if you asked a Google Nest device about the California Republican Party you would get back a response about Nazis. This happened because so.eone edited the Wikipedia page from which the Google device was pulling a response.
Some other smaller companies do something similar; where much respected or even controversial topics are blocked from “trending” or search results.
Alternatively there is a YouTube subscription level where a person gets no ads.
This appears to be old. If you present a Google Nest with this question now you will get a reply.
But Google kept certain terms on a block list for getting reviews (not only religious). Part of the reason is these answers are pulled from third party sources on the internet. If the source is updated the reply from the Google Nest changes accordingly. The change is then attributed to Google.
As an example of this, some time ago if you asked a Google Nest device about the California Republican Party you would get back a response about Nazis. This happened because so.eone edited the Wikipedia page from which the Google device was pulling a response.
Some other smaller companies do something similar; where much respected or even controversial topics are blocked from “trending” or search results.
Visibility is the product that YouTube sells. An advertiser can identify an audience and sell visibility to them. It may be worth considering who the advertisers are to get an understanding of why you might be seeing them.
Alternatively there is a YouTube subscription level where a person gets no ads.
Who is stopping it?Boatswain2PA:
Why Tucker so much on CFA then? I’m still waiting for one Rachel Maddow thread.
Assuming YouTube wants to allow the ad to run.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Alphabet’s biggest advertisers last year included Samsung, Apple, Geico, Target, Shell, and Ford. Between them and the advertisers that participated in other waves of boycotts for Alphabet’s ad network I get the impression that the entities bringing in the most revenue don’t have much issue with ads being rejected (I admit this is speculation on my part). These don’t appear to be advertisers that would make ads that raise much controversy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The flagging mechanism for one thing. But this goes both ways. Tucker seems to do alright, though. I have myself OP’d him once or twice.
The flagging mechanism stinks. Some people on both sides use it in a way to silence others.
That’s wrong. The last time I flagged someone was on the old system when we had issues with spam.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
The people using Google sites and accounts have no power, and no clout in these matters. We are the product.
Google, like Facebook, is at its core an advertising company. Their search engine, their email service, their cloud applications, YouTube, all exist to drive ad revenue to Google.
Therefore, to hurt Google you would need to boycott their advertisers. Find out who they are, and stop patronizing them. Google is one of the largest advertisers on the face of the planet, with many huge accounts, so good luck with your widespread advertiser boycott, but that’s the way to do it. Not using Google’s sites will have no effect whatsoever on their bottom line.
- Status