07-29-2024, 04:25 PM
During the initial media nova over the failed assassination attempt on candidate, former President Trump, I heard a some instances of curious utterances by media sources that stated "We shouldn't talk about that." The contexts of the statement related to the political 'moment' and not wishing to aggrandize Trump or encourage attention to the event.
I hope I wasn't alone in registering the comments, because that is what this thread is speaking to...
From a "Fox" treatment of the story...
Google feature omits search results for failed Trump assassination; Big Tech accused of election manipulation
and
Elon Musk blasts Google over omission of Trump assassination search suggestions
The long and short of it is that if you use Google, and search for "assassination attempt on" The autocomplete feature does not return an obvious entry....
![[Image: Google.jpg]](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.com/content/uploads/2024/07/720/405/Google.jpg)
And of course, that seems like fodder for curiosity about why is the Trump attempt missing...
The first Fox article closes with a reminder that...
Big Tech companies have been accused by conservatives in the past of silencing conservative voices and omitting search results harmful to Democratic figures.
Fox then revisits the story by sourcing an Elon Musk post...
Billionaire Elon Musk suggested that Google's omission of search functions for the assassination attempt against former President Trump may be improper.
Musk took to social media to highlight that Google Search's autocomplete feature omitted results relating to the July 13 shooting. Google has denied taking any action to limit the results.
"Wow, Google has a search ban on President Donald Trump." Musk wrote. "Election interference?"
"They’re getting themselves into a lot of trouble if they interfere with the election," he wrote in a follow-up post.
As someone who pays attention to such things...
- Musk never used the word "improper."
- An "autofill" is not a "result" although many people now imply that it is.
- Musk's statement about "ban" requires evidence.
- "Election interference?" is not a statement, it's a question. (legally inert.)
- and ANYONE would be in a lot of trouble if 'election interference' could be "proved." If not... NO ONE gets in trouble (for proof, visit the past.)
In a perfect legal counter, "Meta" offered...
"Our systems have protections against Autocomplete predictions associated with political violence, which were working as intended prior to this horrific event occurring," the spokesperson wrote. "We’re working on improvements to ensure our systems are more up to date."
In other words, "There are no records of any person 'banning' the topic, so you have no case. And our algorithms that prevent hurt feelings and unpleasant things are fully automated." (As if they were a magical 'black box' that no one is accountable for.)
It would take a lawyer and logician to unpack the algorithms... and that will probably never happen.
I am wondering if the almost glossed over statement about not "making a fuss" over the assassination attempt were mere distant echoes of our political parties direction to control the narrative? And who better to comply than Big Tech algorithms... (which in another sub-market are referred to as "AI?")
I hope I wasn't alone in registering the comments, because that is what this thread is speaking to...
From a "Fox" treatment of the story...
Google feature omits search results for failed Trump assassination; Big Tech accused of election manipulation
and
Elon Musk blasts Google over omission of Trump assassination search suggestions
The long and short of it is that if you use Google, and search for "assassination attempt on" The autocomplete feature does not return an obvious entry....
And of course, that seems like fodder for curiosity about why is the Trump attempt missing...
The first Fox article closes with a reminder that...
Big Tech companies have been accused by conservatives in the past of silencing conservative voices and omitting search results harmful to Democratic figures.
Fox then revisits the story by sourcing an Elon Musk post...
Billionaire Elon Musk suggested that Google's omission of search functions for the assassination attempt against former President Trump may be improper.
Musk took to social media to highlight that Google Search's autocomplete feature omitted results relating to the July 13 shooting. Google has denied taking any action to limit the results.
"Wow, Google has a search ban on President Donald Trump." Musk wrote. "Election interference?"
"They’re getting themselves into a lot of trouble if they interfere with the election," he wrote in a follow-up post.
As someone who pays attention to such things...
- Musk never used the word "improper."
- An "autofill" is not a "result" although many people now imply that it is.
- Musk's statement about "ban" requires evidence.
- "Election interference?" is not a statement, it's a question. (legally inert.)
- and ANYONE would be in a lot of trouble if 'election interference' could be "proved." If not... NO ONE gets in trouble (for proof, visit the past.)
In a perfect legal counter, "Meta" offered...
"Our systems have protections against Autocomplete predictions associated with political violence, which were working as intended prior to this horrific event occurring," the spokesperson wrote. "We’re working on improvements to ensure our systems are more up to date."
In other words, "There are no records of any person 'banning' the topic, so you have no case. And our algorithms that prevent hurt feelings and unpleasant things are fully automated." (As if they were a magical 'black box' that no one is accountable for.)
It would take a lawyer and logician to unpack the algorithms... and that will probably never happen.
I am wondering if the almost glossed over statement about not "making a fuss" over the assassination attempt were mere distant echoes of our political parties direction to control the narrative? And who better to comply than Big Tech algorithms... (which in another sub-market are referred to as "AI?")
