Google’s new search protocol is restricting access to 13 leading socialist and anti-war web sites

[dufus]

New data compiled by the World Socialist Web Site, with the assistance of other Internet-based news outlets and search technology experts, proves that a massive loss of readership observed by socialist, anti-war and progressive web sites over the past three months has been caused by a cumulative 45 percent decrease in traffic from Google searches.

The drop followed the implementation of changes in Google’s search evaluation protocols. In a statement issued on April 25, Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive” sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content.”

The World Socialist Web Site has obtained statistical data from SEMrush estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows:

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
* theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

Of the 13 web sites on the list, the World Socialist Web Site has been the most heavily affected. Its traffic from Google searches has fallen by two thirds.

The new statistics demonstrate that the WSWS is a central target of Google’s censorship campaign. In the twelve months preceding the implementation of the new Google protocols, the WSWS had experienced a substantial increase in readership. A significant component of this increase was the product of Google search results. The rapid rise in search traffic reflected the well-documented growth in popular interest in socialist politics during 2016. The rate of growth accelerated following the November election, which led to large protests against the election of Trump.

Search traffic to the WSWS peaked in April 2017, precisely at the point when Google began the implementation of its censorship protocols.

Another site affected by Google’s action has provided information that confirms the findings of the WSWS.

“In late May, changes to Google’s algorithm negatively impacted the volume of traffic to the Common Dreams website from organic Google searches,” said Aaron Kaufman, director of development at progressive news outlet Common Dreams. “Since May, traffic from Google Search as a percentage of total traffic to the Common Dreams website has decreased nearly 50 percent.”

The extent and impact of Google’s actions prove that a combination of techniques is being employed to block access to targeted sites. These involve the direct flagging and blackballing of the WSWS and the other 12 sites listed above by Google evaluators. These sites are assigned a highly negative rating that assures that their articles will be either demoted or entirely bypassed. In addition, new programming technology teaches the computers to think like the evaluators, that is, to emulate their preferences and prejudices.

Finally, the precision of this operation strongly suggests that there is an additional range of exclusion techniques involving the selection of terms, words, phrases and topics that are associated with socialist and left-wing websites.

This would explain why the World Socialist Web Site, which focuses on issues such as war, geopolitics, social inequality and working class struggles has experienced such a dramatic fall in Google-generated searches on these very topics. We have seen that the very terms and phrases that would under normal circumstances be most likely to generate the highest level of hits—such as “socialism,” “Marxism” and “Trotskyism”—produce the lowest results.

This is an ongoing process in which one can expect that Google evaluators are continuously adding suspect terms to make their algorithm ever more precise, with the eventual goal of eliminating traffic to the WSWS and other targeted sites.

The information that has been gathered and published by the WSWS during the past week exposes that Google is at the center of a corporate-state conspiracy to drastically curtail democratic rights. The attack on free speech and uncensored access to information is aimed at crippling popular opposition to social inequality, war and authoritarianism.

The central and sinister role of Google in this process demonstrates that freedom of speech and thought is incompatible with corporate control of the Internet.

As we continue our exposure of Google’s assault on democratic rights, we demand that it immediately and unequivocally halt and revoke its censorship program.

It is critical that a coordinated campaign be organized within the United States and internationally against Google’s censorship of the Internet. We intend to do everything in our power to develop and contribute to a counter-offensive against its efforts to suppress freedom of speech and thought.

The fight against corporate-state censorship of the Internet is central to the defense of democratic rights, and there must be a broad-based collaboration among socialist, left and progressive websites to alert the public and the widest sections of the working class.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/02/pers-a02.html

http://www.govtslaves.com/googles-new-search-protocol-is-restricting-access-to-13-leading-socialist-progressive-and-anti-war-web-sites/

[Sylence]

R.I.P freedom. 

[vitorio]

This practice is against the liberty of information.

[steven36]

1 hour ago, vitorio said:

This practice is against the liberty of information.

good place to listen too the news https://beta.tunein.com/radio/News-c57922/

[dMog]

h

 

it is a web search engine.... you say goodby freedom.... what about the countries that do not allow freedom of speech.freedom of political  expression thought or actions .freedom of movement freedom of religous belief just to name  a few freedoms curtailed by leaders of some  countries....oh yea... you live in oneof those places

[Sylence]

18 hours ago, dMog said:

it is a web search engine.... you say goodby freedom.... what about the countries that do not allow freedom of speech.freedom of political  expression thought or actions .freedom of movement freedom of religous belief just to name  a few freedoms curtailed by leaders of some  countries....oh yea... you live in oneof those places

 

don't say bullshit. thank you

[luisam]

On 2/8/2017 at 10:17 AM, dufus said:

The World Socialist Web Site has obtained statistical data from SEMrush estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows:

 

I made a test. Selected a front-page text from wsws.org about "plan to cut legal immigration" (with quotes) and made a google search on it. I got 33,800  returns about selected theme. The exposition by wsws.org appeard in position 20! Not bad at all considering the large number of returns!

Then selected from alternet.org "Truth About Border Wall" without qutes. got 26.600.000 returns! The text I seached for appeared in position 24. Impressive. You can't say that this webpage is "blacklisted"!

So if their traffic fell 69% is not due to Google not showing search results and not even for not being well placed!

I made some other tests with more or less similar results. It would be rather tiresome continue discussing this issue, considering that neither me nor most nsane users are probably too deeply interested about opinions published in these pages. Fact is, that if you really are interested, you should have no problem to find information about the themes they carry and increase their traffic.You have the freedom to do it and the opportunity.

Maybe simply people are less interested in so called "socialist" or "leftist" opnions?

[dMog]

1 hour ago, saeed_dc said:

 

don't say bullshit. thank you

I didn't

[steven36]

Quote

 

How Americans get their news

 

1. Pathways to news

 

In 2016, Americans express a clear preference for getting their news on a screen – though which screen that is varies. TV remains the dominant screen, followed by digital. Still, TV news use is dramatically lower among younger adults, suggesting further shake-ups to come.

    As of early 2016, just two-in-ten U.S. adults often get news from print newspapers. This has fallen from 27% in 2013.
    This decrease occurred across all age groups, though the age differences are still stark: Only 5% of 18- to 29-year-olds often get news from a print newspaper, whereas about half (48%) of those 65 and older do.
    Compared with print, nearly twice as many adults (38%) often get news online, either from news websites/apps (28%), on social media (18%) or both. (81% of adults ever get news on these online platforms.)

    Still, TV continues to be the most widely used news platform; 57% of U.S. adults often get TV-based news, either from local TV (46%), cable (31%), network (30%) or some combination of the three. This same pattern emerges when people are asked which platform they prefer – TV sits at the top, followed by the web, with radio and print trailing behind.

    But demographics speak to the fragility behind those TV numbers. While solid majorities of both those ages 50-64 (72%) and those 65+ (85%) often get news on TV, far smaller shares of younger adults do so (45% of those 30-49 and 27% of those 18-29). Alternatively, the two younger groups of adults are much more likely than older adults to turn to online platforms for news – 50% of 18- to 29-year-olds and 49% of those ages 30-49 often do so.

TV’s staying power over print is buttressed by the fact that Americans who prefer to watch news still choose TV, while most of those who prefer to read the news have migrated online.

    The greatest portion of U.S. adults, 46%, prefer to watch news rather than read it (35%) or listen to it (17%).

    When paired with the platforms people prefer, the data reveal that as of now, the web has largely pulled in “readers” rather than “watchers.” While those who prefer watching news predominantly opt for TV and listeners turn to radio, most of those who prefer reading news now opt to get news online rather than in print (59%, compared with 26% of news readers who opt for print).

Within the digital realm, mobile news consumption is rising rapidly. The portion of Americans who ever get news on a mobile device has gone up from 54% in 2013 to 72% today.

    Two-thirds, 66%, of adults get news on both types of digital devices, while 13% get news only on a desktop/laptop and 5% only do so on a mobile device (15% do not get news on any digital device).
    But, among those who get news on both, more prefer mobile (56% to 42% who prefer desktop).

    One of the most prominent distinctions between those oriented towards mobile devices for their digital news and those oriented towards desktops is age. Fully seven-in-ten of those ages 18-29 either prefer or only use mobile for getting their digital news, compared with 53% of those 30-49, 29% of those 50-64 and just 16% of those 65+. When it comes to news attitudes and habits, the two groups are quite similar. This includes loyalty to news sources, trust in information from news organizations, discussion of news with others and level of engagement with news on social media.

Personal contacts are also a common source of news and can play an amplified role online. But Americans see clear distinctions between news organizations, friends and family, and more distant individuals.

    About two-thirds (63%) of Americans say family and friends are an important way they get news, whether online or offline; 10% see them as the most important.
    Still, online news organizations play the larger role: 36% of online news consumers often get news from news organizations, compared with about half as many who do so from people with whom they are close (15%). Even fewer (6%) say they often get news from people they’re not close with.

    But those who get news from these sources are as likely to say the news from close friends and family is relevant as they are to say this of news organizations; 15% of those who get online news from close personal contacts say those updates are very near to their interests, compared with 11% who get news from news organizations and 4% of those who get news from more distant contacts.

    The less newsy are more likely to say friends and family are important pathways to news: 69% of those who follow news less often say friends and family are important, compared with 57% of those who follow news all or most of the time. Additionally, women are more likely than men to say friends and family are important, young adults are more likely than older adults, and blacks are more likely than whites to say this.

 

2. Trust and accuracy

 

Few have a lot of confidence in the information they get from professional outlets or friends and family, but large majorities have at least some trust in both; social media gets substantially lower trust scores.

    Only about two-in-ten Americans (22%) trust the information they get from local news organizations a lot, whether online or offline, and 18% say the same of national organizations, slightly higher than the 14% who say this of the information they get from their friends and family. While the portion saying they have a lot of trust in each group is low, large majorities have at least some trust.

    Social media, on the other hand, is trusted by a slim minority – only 4% of web-using adults have a lot of trust in the information they find on social media. And that rises to only 7% among those who get news on these sites.

    When those who get news online from each source type were asked specifically about each’s accuracy, news organizations again sit at the top; 15% of those who get news from news organizations online find them very accurate, compared with 7% who say the same about people they are close with and just 2% for people they are not particularly close with.

    Democrats are more likely than others to have “a lot” of trust in the information from national news organizations: 27% do, compared with 15% of Republicans and 13% of Independents. Those ages 50+ (22%) are also more likely than those ages 18-29 (10%) and those 30-49 (16%) to trust information from national news organizations a lot.

U.S. adults see the news media as performing its watchdog function – but overwhelmingly say that news organizations are biased.

    Three-quarters of Americans think that news organizations keep political leaders in check – preventing them from doing things that they shouldn’t be doing.
    But about the same portion (74%) say that news organizations tend to favor one side – including 75% of those who say the media prevents leaders from doing things they shouldn’t.
    Political differences emerge here with conservative Republicans most likely to think that news organizations are one-sided.

    This ideological difference is reinforced by earlier research that asked about trust of individual news organizations. Of the 36 sources asked about in our 2014 survey, 28 of them were trusted more than distrusted by respondents who expressed consistently liberal political views across a range of questions about political values; 24 of them were distrusted more than trusted by consistent conservatives.

Americans are more evenly divided on whether online news they get from friends and family is one-sided – but many would prefer that it were not.

    35% of online news consumers say the news they get from their friends and family online is one-sided; 31% say that it represents more than one side.

    Most, 69%, of those who say that the news from friends and family online is one-sided would prefer that they post or send things that represent a greater mix of views. Three-in-ten are OK with the one-sidedness.

    Conservative Republicans that say the news they get from friends and family is fairly one-sided are much more likely than others to say that this is OK (51%, compared with about a third or less of other political groups).

 

3. Loyalty and source attention

Attitudinally, Americans are split on whether they feel loyal to their news sources – but behaviorally, they tend to stick to the same sources anyway.

    About half (51%) of Americans say that they are loyal to their news sources, while 48% say they are not particularly loyal.
    At the same time though, 76% of Americans say they usually turn to the same sources for news.

    Taken together, nearly half (46%) of Americans both describe themselves as loyal and also go to the same sources repeatedly (the “very loyal”). Just 18% are neither attitudinally nor behaviorally loyal (the “non-loyal”).

    Older adults are more likely to be in this group: 58% of those ages 65+ are “very loyal,” whereas only 28% of those ages 18-29 are. And women are more likely to be very loyal (49%) than men (43%).

The “very loyal” news consumer tends to be a news cheerleader.

    The very loyal follow news at much higher rates than others: 67% follow it all or most of the time, compared with 45% of the somewhat loyal and 32% of the non-loyal.
    The very loyal are also more likely to trust national and local news organizations and think they do a good job informing people.

    And they are also heavily reliant on TV; 54% of very loyal news consumers prefer to get news from TV. No other platform comes close. Among the non-loyal, however, there is a much wider mix of preferred platforms including more weight towards digital sources when compared with the very loyal.

 
There are also signs that people pay attention to the sources of news online, though less so among the “non-loyal” news consumers.

    A follow-up survey asked about the news consumers may have gotten online in the past two hours. Panelists who completed the January wave on the web and reported that they get news online were asked to participate. Survey invitations were sent at different times each day, and responses were accepted for two hours after the invitations were sent. Respondents were asked if they’d gotten news in the past two hours about various topics, where they’d gotten news from and what they’d done with the news, if anything.

    When asked if they remembered the source of an article they arrived at from a link, about 4-in-10 (38%) remembered every time; only 15% never remembered.
    This is particularly true among the very loyal and the somewhat loyal. Of those who got news from links, 39% of the very loyal and 41% of the somewhat loyal remembered every time, compared with 28% of the non-loyal.

 

 

 

 

http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/

Quote

 

More than half online users get news from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter: study

ONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Social media has emerged as a leading source of news among online users who increasingly access it on their smartphones, a thinktank said on Wednesday, warning that the embrace of free news was becoming a challenge for publishers of quality news.

More than half of online users get their news from Facebook and other social media platforms, refusing to pay for news and using ad-blocking, which hurts publishers' revenue, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) said.

But although free news distributed through social platforms creates an opportunity to reach more readers, it also makes it more difficult for publishers to get recognized and connect with their audience, the RISJ said in its annual Digital News Report.

"These things are happening because of us," Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Reuters Institute director of research, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a phone interview.

"We prefer news in the digital form because it's convenient but you get what you pay for. It takes money to do professional journalism."

Facebook is playing an increasingly significant role in the distribution of online news, with 44 percent of people using it as their source of news, followed by 19 percent of people using YouTube and 10 percent using Twitter, the report said.

Nielsen said that in developing countries, where access to independent and reliable news was limited, there were even more people who relied on social media for news.

"Many people in Asian and African countries are using mobile phones to get their online news and in those regions social media is even more important as source of news," he said.

Thirty-six percent of people preferred news to be selected for them by algorithms compared with 30 percent who relied on editors or journalists, although some feared missing key information or challenging viewpoints, the report said.

For the first time social media has overtaken television as the main source of news for 18 to 24-year-olds, with 28 percent of them citing social media as their main source of news compared with 24 percent who said they watched news on television.

More than half of the respondents said they were using smartphones to access news, with highest levels in Sweden (69 percent), Korea (66 percent) and Switzerland (61 percent), the study said.

In Britain and the United States the use of smartphones to access the news has for the first time overtaken computers and laptops.

The survey was carried out online in 26 countries in Europe, Asia, North America and South America.
 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-socialmedia-news-idUSKCN0Z02UB

Most people that get there news on the internet get it from  Facebook , YouTube ,  Twitter , Reddit  etc not Google only people who would give 2 shits are people who post the news on different sites too start debates like these  . I'm a pirate  i'm use too Google censoring sites i visit that's why my bookmarks list are a mile long  if you dont like the news Google post ( by the way I cant stand there new News UI  it sucks big time) just book mark the sites you like, or use a different search engine, or you could use a feed reader.   .. 

[Pequi]

21 hours ago, dMog said:

it is a web search engine.... you say goodby freedom.... what about the countries that do not allow freedom of speech.freedom of political  expression thought or actions .freedom of movement freedom of religous belief just to name  a few freedoms curtailed by leaders of some  countries....oh yea... you live in oneof those places

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. During our dictatorship in the 60's newspapers were not allowed to print what was really happening. So a lot of white spaces or food recipes on the front pages of newspapers, and everyone KNEW something was being censored and hidden.

 

Now in our new dictatorship we have TV programs, newspapers, magazines even search engines all working together hiding the real news and replacing it with complete and utter lies. But the problem is that they all agree with each other, so we have no references, no second opinions. It's got to the point that online newspapers here are re-writing old articles, a la 1984, and if you don't keep a hard copy you can easily be deceived.

 

Better no news at all than fakenews. Better a search engine that says "We can't let you research that" than one that tries to shape the way you think by hiding the real facts on the twentieth page.

 

[dMog]

22 minutes ago, Pequi said:

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. During our dictatorship in the 60's newspapers were not allowed to print what was really happening. So a lot of white spaces or food recipes on the front pages of newspapers, and everyone KNEW something was being censored and hidden.

 

Now in our new dictatorship we have TV programs, newspapers, magazines even search engines all working together hiding the real news and replacing it with complete and utter lies. But the problem is that they all agree with each other, so we have no references, no second opinions. It's got to the point that online newspapers here are re-writing old articles, a la 1984, and if you don't keep a hard copy you can easily be deceived.

 

Better no news at all than fakenews. Better a search engine that says "We can't let you research that" than one that tries to shape the way you think by hiding the real facts on the twentieth page.

 

So you can stand on the. Street and say your government. Or religious leaders are wrong if you think so and you are free to worship any religion or can leave your country at any time on a moments notice for any reason whithout impedance of your army or police or your government....somehow I do bot think you will properly respond. To this one either

4 hours ago, saeed_dc said:

 

don't say bullshit. thank you

I didn't

[dufus]

Our latest quality improvements for Search

Search can always be improved. We knew it when I started working on Search in 1999, and it’s still true today. Back then, the Internet was expanding at an incredible rate. We had to make sense of this explosion of information, organize it, and present it in a way so that people could find what they were looking for, right on the Google results page. The work then was around PageRank, the core algorithm used to measure the importance of webpages so they could be ranked in results. In addition to trying to organize information, our algorithms have always had to grapple with individuals or systems seeking to “game” our systems in order to appear higher in search results—using low-quality “content farms,” hidden text and other deceptive practices. We've tackled these problems, and others over the years, by making regular updates to our algorithms and introducing other features that prevent people from gaming the system.

Today, in a world where tens of thousands of pages are coming online every minute of every day, there are new ways that people try to game the system. The most high profile of these issues is the phenomenon of “fake news,” where content on the web has contributed to the spread of blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information. While this problem is different from issues in the past, our goal remains the same—to provide people with access to relevant information from the most reliable sources available. And while we may not always get it right, we’re making good progress in tackling the problem. But in order to have long-term and impactful changes, more structural changes in Search are needed.

With that longer-term effort in mind, today we’re taking the next step toward continuing to surface more high-quality content from the web. This includes improvements in Search ranking, easier ways for people to provide direct feedback, and greater transparency around how Search works.

Search ranking

Our algorithms help identify reliable sources from the hundreds of billions of pages in our index. However, it’s become very apparent that a small set of queries in our daily traffic (around 0.25 percent), have been returning offensive or clearly misleading content, which is not what people are looking for. To help prevent the spread of such content for this subset of queries, we’ve improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content.

 

• New Search Quality Rater guidelines: Developing changes to Search involves a process of experimentation. As part of that process, we have evaluators—real people who assess the quality of Google’s search results—give us feedback on our experiments. These ratings don’t determine individual page rankings, but are used to help us gather data on the quality of our results and identify areas where we need to improve. Last month, we updated our Search Quality Rater Guidelines to provide more detailed examples of low-quality webpages for raters to appropriately flag, which can include misleading information, unexpected offensive results, hoaxes and unsupported conspiracy theories. These guidelines will begin to help our algorithms in demoting such low-quality content and help us to make additional improvements over time.
• Ranking changes: We combine hundreds of signals to determine which results we show for a given query—from the freshness of the content, to the number of times your search queries appear on the page. We’ve adjusted our signals to help surface more authoritative pages and demote low-quality content, so that issues similar to the Holocaust denial results that we saw back in December are less likely to appear.

 

Direct feedback tools

When you visit Google, we aim to speed up your experience with features like Autocomplete, which helps predict the searches you might be typing to quickly get to the info you need, and Featured Snippets, which shows a highlight of the information relevant to what you’re looking for at the top of your search results. The content that appears in these features is generated algorithmically and is a reflection of what people are searching for and what’s available on the web. This can sometimes lead to results that are unexpected, inaccurate or offensive. Starting today, we’re making it much easier for people to directly flag content that appears in both Autocomplete predictions and Featured Snippets. These new feedback mechanisms include clearly labeled categories so you can inform us directly if you find sensitive or unhelpful content. We plan to use this feedback to help improve our algorithms.

 

Updated feedback link for Featured Snippets

Greater transparency about our products

Over the last few months, we’ve been asked tough questions about why shocking or offensive predictions were appearing in Autocomplete. Based on this, we evaluated where we can improve our content policies and updated them appropriately. Now we’re publishing this policy to the Help Center so anyone can learn more about Autocomplete and our approach to removals.  

For those looking to delve a little deeper, we recently updated our How Search Works site to provide more information to users and website owners about the technology behind Search. The site includes a description of how Google ranking systems sort through hundreds of billions of pages to return your results, as well as an overview of our user testing process.  

There are trillions of searches on Google every year. In fact, 15 percent of searches we see every day are new—which means there’s always more work for us to do to present people with the best answers to their queries from a wide variety of legitimate sources. While our search results will never be perfect, we’re as committed as always to preserving your trust and to ensuring our products continue to be useful for everyone.

https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-improvements-search/

 

RT America 

Silicon Valley Censorship July 26, 2017 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10722/google-perspective-censorship

A Beginner’s Guide to Google Analytics 

https://blog.kissmetrics.com/google-analytics-5/

[Sylence]

7 hours ago, dMog said:

I didn't

 

Yes you do, full of bullshit. so ridiculous you with your all brainwashing news and media and then you accuse me and my country for not having freedom. gtfo

[dMog]

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/iran?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtpDMBRC4ARIsADhz5O7nVyttJMwA2zFYD2aVprm4Mg76d2qwLXVFvRNYm84KBQ0F4HFbTfkaAlVQEALw_wcB#.UuF_FW0o6Uk

[dufus]

1 hour ago, dMog said:

/freedomhouse.org/

Freedom House is a U.S.-based^[4]501(c)(3) U.S. Government-funded non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights

Funding

• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
  • Between 2001 and 2010, Freedom House received more than $3 million from the conservative Bradley Foundation^[7].
• Byrne Foundation
• Carthage Foundation
• Scaife Foundations
• Eurasia Foundation
• Ford Foundation
• The Freedom Forum
• Grace Foundation, Inc.
• Lilly Endowment, Inc.
• LWH Family Foundation
• National Endowment for Democracy provides about 80% of FHI's budget ^[2]
• Pew Charitable Trusts
• Sarah Scaife Foundation (Scaife Foundations)
• Schloss Family Foundation
• Smith Richardson Foundation, Inc.
• Soros Foundations
• Tinker Foundation
• Unilever United States Foundation, Inc.
• US Agency for International Development
• US Information Agency

 

good choice

[Sylence]

9 hours ago, dMog said:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/iran?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtpDMBRC4ARIsADhz5O7nVyttJMwA2zFYD2aVprm4Mg76d2qwLXVFvRNYm84KBQ0F4HFbTfkaAlVQEALw_wcB#.UuF_FW0o6Uk

 

Thanks for showing me the source to your bullshits and twisted truth, now I can feel the depth of your brain.

 

Lol a murican based website classifies Iran as not having freedom. ahahah

[Pequi]

21 hours ago, dMog said:

So you can stand on the. Street and say your government. Or religious leaders are wrong if you think so and you are free to worship any religion or can leave your country at any time on a moments notice for any reason whithout impedance of your army or police or your government....somehow I do not think you will properly respond. To this one either

 

Well, I'm talking about Brazil. Very few people with enough money in offshore accounts to "leave the country at any time" would want to.

They ARE the government, and probably financed the coup.

 

The poorer 99% that are not "in charge" keep quiet, or they disappear. And they are very unlikely to do anything if they don't have reliable information from the media and search engines.

[Pequi]

2 minutes ago, 0bin said:

In your opinion what will happen in Venezuela? Thx.

Dicussing politics is frowned upon here in the forum. I was discussing how software engines can alter peoples opinions, and sell lies.

 

If you search Venezuela on Google, you have to feel sorry for the poor s*&^*&^ds. Famine, unemployment, people being killed all over the place, no clothes in the shops. Not a roll of toilet paper in a hundred miles. Millions stepping over each other trying to flee the country. A nightmare.

 

And yet a quick check on the HDI, which measures a citizens access to health, education, employment, in short, well being:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

 

...shows that the only two countries in South America with a plummeting standard of living are Brazil and Argentina.

 

Google them ... Brazil and Argentina are doing fantastically well .... acording to Google.....

[WALLONN7]

28 minutes ago, 0bin said:

I don't think Brazil is doing good, at all.

 

18 minutes ago, 0bin said:

I saw some videos of Brazil, I really don't think is so good, I saw there are people going with armored vehicles inside favelas to not risk their life.

And many poor people in favelas, I don't think at all is good.

 

It's true we aren't as bad as Venezuela and we don't live in the country we'd like to live in...
The difference between Brazil and Venezuela in the context here is that the former live under "Democracy" while the other is under "Socialism"... But in both cases it's mere propaganda!!!
Once we have nothing of interest to the great Western powers, Brazil ills are acceptable... What makes everything interesting is that the same scourges from here are reprehensible in the said neighboring country... Why will oil it be?!... Period.

[WALLONN7]

1 hour ago, 0bin said:

In your opinion what will happen in Venezuela? Thx.

 

North Korea, Cuba = G6 sanctions... sanctions... sanctions...

Venezuela's next...

[tao]

23 hours ago, Pequi said:

... During our dictatorship in the 60's newspapers were not allowed to print what was really happening. So a lot of white spaces or food recipes on the front pages of newspapers, and everyone KNEW something was being censored and hidden...

Better to know that there is no freedom than to feel there is freedom when there is not.  The latter is more dangerous. 

 

An Arabian Proverb on not knowing and knowing:

 

"He that knows not, and knows not that he knows not
        is a fool.
            Shun him

 

He that knows not, and knows  that he knows not
        is a pupil.
            Teach him.

 

He that knows, and knows not that he knows
        is asleep
            Wake him.

 

He that knows, and knows that he knows
        is a teacher.
            Follow him."    

 

 

[solitario]

google...