Are Jews Evil?
 

This topic here is not Jewish people. The title question comes up like this: the author of the Guardian piece below typed "are jews" into Google. Google auto-search algorithms immediately provided 'completions' of the query. These were "Are Jews white," "Are Jews a race," "Are Jews Christian," and "Are Jews evil."

The author pressed enter, and 9 out of 10 of the results that came up were answering "Are Jews evil" in the affirmative. What is going on is the big alt right propaganda players got very good at gaming the Google search algorithms. Ditto facebook. Ditto YouTube (a part of Google, of course).

Were you wondering why blatant Hillary-bashing items were coming up everywhere on YouTube?

Let me clarify--the big problem here isn't just alt-right-wing propaganda. The problem is that the web of right-wing influence, and indeed control of information, grew up without much notice, based on the functioning and machine-driven editorial policies of a few internet giants. These giants, notably Google and Facebook, are unregulated and their policies are unrevealed, but they and others are editing the very DNA of thought.

The future is an information ecology adapted to you (and every user)--influencing what you know, and controlling what you think, using the emotional triggers you have--to serve the purposes of whoever gains control of it.

Read this whole article it is very important: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...earch-facebook

BTW, since this piece came out, Google has tweaked what you get when you type "are jews." The "are jews evil" completion is gone, and the results are different now. Google tweaks things a lot, when it wants to, and doesn't say anything to anyone about what or how.

No I wasn't, but my data plan is too expensive to search YouTube for accurate reporting on things that matter.

How nice for you. Have you read the Guardian piece? Do you intend to? It's free, except for your time, which I assure you will be well-spent.

It's a genuine paradigm-shifter. Seriously.

It became apparent by the turn of the century what the Internet was becoming with regard to obtaining good information and I'm fully aware of the importance of knowing who the source of information is.

And I'll take quarters over paradigms any day of the week.

I love the internet.

Whatever opinion I may have, I can go on the net and find validation for it. :D

Whoop!:)

There it is! :D

But on the New Internet, you will find nothing but validation for it. And such elaborations as seem useful....

You're missing the real story here. Hint: it's about who controls things, and how well they can do it.

The internet reflects long standing bias from written and oral history. Jews suffer that huge negative before the internet; tweaking will not change much.

Which means it's a continuation of the same old story.

This thread is not about the Jews. That's just one example.

Blacks are evil too. But Hitler, oddly enough, is good, in 7 out of ten initial links, unless they've gotten around to tweaking that too. Can't blame long-standing bias for that!

Within certain groups Hitler being good is a long-standing bias.

Nailer, just so you know, I have you on ignore, and I'd be well-pleased if you just stopped adorning my posts, in the future, with your endless wise-ass nay-saying replies. Will not respond further.

As I already remarked somewhere else in this forum:

The internet makes intelligent people more knowing and stupid people more stupid.

Mass stupidity triggered by the internet has become epidemic.

Please don't. :)

Having worked with inventors, there are moments when insightful people see common elements between traditionally orthogonal thoughts. For example they see things in common between arts, sciences, and religions.

It would be interesting to get the few people that think at that level and see what they disagree about and how they solve their disagreements. The closest that I have read about such a situation is genetics experts trying to agree on a self-governing document. At their first attempt they took a break and smoked weed together.

With regard to the OP's question, I have heard of Jews being referred to as devil worshipers, but never evil. I ask myself what is the difference between devil worship and evil?

As best I can tell the Jewish faith says that it is enough to have enough. There is no "heaven" in having more than enough, and that the devil resides in having more than enough. If that is true then the devil is a more accurate guiding force than heaven. Ergo, devil worship.

I dunno. Just thinking out loud. Interesting thread.

How did Facebook, You Tube and Google end up on the alt-right? I'm pretty sure that would be news to big time Dem donors like Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt. Hell, Schmidt personally worked on Obama's election campaign. Or are you saying that they allowed these "alt-right" folks to infiltrate their products?

Didn't read the article. ^

Probably not. But even if he did, he's perfectly likely to say something like that. Whell's position on everything is the right is always right and the left is always wrong. This is fixed and utterly immobile. Then he fills in the best 'sounding' argument he can come up with or get from somewhere. If it's a lousy argument, that's just the breaks, doesn't really matter, press on to the next thing.

Good article and unintended consequences from a wide open internet.
If certain groups can game the SEO algorithm to their benefit, very little can be done.

Smart people with ulterior motives are always trying to game systems and in this case it's Google, etc. responsibility to police their domains. Being sizable corporations these entities will probably only respond when this type of activity is reported by responsible media. The age of Internet driven mass disinformation has only just begun.

Google et al are more interested in retaining the history of all your searches and then selling that information for profit. As for Fakebook and Twitter I studiously avoid the anti-social media.

Actually, I was asking for clarification about a point that Don made about the article he posted, not the article itself. The article didn't say anything about the "alt-right".

Sheesh. You guys are in pure attack mode of late. Post-election shock syndrome? :rolleyes:

Honor to whom honor is due, whell... ;)