Google is officially a threat to democracy. Executives exposed admitting the company is trying to ''prevent another 2016''

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Are there media without bias anymore? Or minimal?

This is a good argument to not trust any news, rather than to pick one side or the other.

People will be able to lie and fabricate stories if it totes the party line or endorses a polarized identity. Which means they will always have people to defend them and ensure that they are protected from criticism. It's just better to work with stories that are covered by mutiple sides of the spectrum to ensure that there is at least some basis of the facts to discuss.

I would ask the same to Spartan, but essentially, what are our goals in discussing the issues? Are we interested in coming to a consensus on a base so that we can talk things out, or are we simply interested in posting things to take a stab at the other side.

I would argue the latter does more disservice to the effectiveness of arguments and prevents coherent discussion (which applies to literally everyone). It's your freedom to post what you want (and perhaps you write to inform readers that browse TWC), but I think we should change our approach so that we have better grounds of discussion. I think it will help in the long run goal of coming closer to a consensus.

[Basil II the B.S]

Most media can be read keeping in mind what their bias is. Someone who's well-read and intellectually honest can distinguish what's partisanship and what's a fact.

Topic related, the issue is bigger. Who gains the most, straight away, from Google pushing for specific media content instead of others? Well, the liberal media themselves. So it's not just ideological, it's economic as well. Veritas can be accused of being biased and being out to get journalists and tech with sting operations. Fine. Does that mean that testimonies of Google employees are false? Or that secret recordings are false? No it does not. Especially when a) there's no contrary evidence, b) the company doesn't even dare to deny c) the people recorded go into hiding.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1248099002

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...twitter-google

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/med...ump/index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...-look-at-polls

You should know that human beings engage in motivated reasoning, so you pointing out reasons why that source is valid will likely be ineffective at shifting opinion. You have to do better.

Here are some "liberal" sources that engage with the issue. Some support your position (like the CNN and USA Today articles) and others engage with the issue enough to create a basis of discussion. In addition, you can use them to make "liberal" appeals for addressing big tech and come up with good arguments for breaking them up or regulating then that won't trigger motivated reasoning. It's just a better way at drawing attention to an issue, while also facilitating a discussion where we can acknowledge the different things that are concerning about large tech companies. Framing this as an us vs tech companies is so much better than a liberals vs conservatives issue in terms of actually accomplishing support for your position.

[Basil II the B.S]

First one is an opinion by... Brad Parscale, who's Trump campaign's manager.
The second one is exclusively negative coverage. The third uses Breitbart as main source (so Breitbart is a valid source now?). The 4th is mixed.

So it seems that when liberal media have to talk about it reasonably, they have to open up to conservative sources.

Meanwhile Google did this:


For context, someone who runs an organization for Christian veterans tried to run ads on hiw website. The problem? Christian is not allowed. Muslim is. This is the usual anti-Western, anti-Christian bs that runs in certain environments of the left.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

No, the point is that no liberal media is ever going to report this kind of things, nor can even be trusted by whistle blowers for it.

I'm posting this quote because I want to make a point (that was apparently missed in my last post.... I apologise, that is on me).

Whether "liberal" sources are using conservative sources or not, they are still exposing their readers to other ideas. They are still providing a basis for us to talk about the issue. Which, in turn, makes it easier for people that are on the opposition to engage with your position. CNN sourcing Breitbart indicates that they seemed it worth their readers time and perhaps this is an issue that should be looked at. Breitbart doesn't have a reputation for reliable or truthful coverage, but this doesn't mean that everything they post is to be dismissed without investigation of what is being provided.

Anyways, the even larger picture is a reflection on the effectiveness of your goal to combat big tech. If you use multiple sources with varying opinions on the issue, it makes it difficult for people to dismiss an important issue that we should ALL be concerned about. There are "liberal" arguments for breaking up big tech, and to engage in a conservative vs liberal frame is just going to create psychological barriers that will prevent people from realizing it.

You have a good issue here that we should all care about. It should be an us vs the tech companies frame, however, if you actually want to get support for your position. Would you rather engage in a politicized "dialogue of the deaf" (which I grabbed from "Track 2 Diplomacy and Regional Security in the Middle East") or try to work on gaining support for a general position?

[Basil II the B.S]

I get your point so mine should be at least corrected and rephrased. Do (mainstream) liberal media present it as a legitimate issue? The CNN one does. The rest... not so much. In favour of your point one can argue that many independent liberal journalists have denounced it as well; I could name Tim Pool, Adam Johnson, Max Blumenthal... pretty much the no-war left that is also getting censored, though less noticeably.

Noteworthy to mention, if Breitbart leaked video is considered legit (and it is), then I don't see why the Project Veritas shouldn't be? Which is something that has been consistently brought up in this thread? The demand to verify is legit, the one to dismiss it before verifying is not.

Which leads to my final point and an asnwer to yours: as the original video showed, Google also vehemently opposes Elizabeth Warren plans, despite liking her personally. So, if liberals want to legitimate join the fight against tech monopolies and censorship, great, I'm all for it. If they prefer to deny there's an issue, then we'll go by ourselves.

Edit: Greg Coppola placed on ''administrative leave'' by Google.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/te...administrative