Tuesday, February 18, 2014

YOU'RE GONNA TAKE A WALK IN THE RAIN AND YOU'RE GONNA GET WET -- I PREDICT!

Heritage apparatchik Mike Gonzalez has a long yap at The Federalist about how New Media will lead to conservative triumph, hooray. I don't know whether it's the billionth iteration of that story I've seen, or the ka-billionth; but it does distinguish itself by offering what I take as a hint of the next Conservative Victimization Theme:

Gonzalez notes a Brookings paper suggesting "digital firms should be encouraged to add criteria to their search engines that highlight information quality as opposed to mere popularity" -- that is, "high-quality coverage or providing diverse points of view." Dream on, dorks! But though a "Google official" (the one assigned to angry nuts, one imagines) assures Gonzalez they're not planning to do anything like that -- cat videos forever! -- Gonzalez seems unconvinced, and lays out an ominous scenario:
It would be dangerous if Google, Facebook or the other major players were to follow [Brookings'] advice, or if they’re already giving undue weight to liberal opinion... Both Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt are well-known liberals who support President Obama’s key policy initiatives. If they were to let their political proclivities dictate what’s promoted on their platforms we could start slipping back the age of Uncle Walter.
In Soviet Obamaland, cat videos you!

Now, other conservatives have asked similarly paranoid questions before -- for example, "Does Google Filter Out Controversial Conservatives From Search Suggestions?" ("Here's a video put together by my brother Tim Carney demonstrating the Google Suggest anti-Buchanan phenomenon. Full disclosure: I worked for Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1996.") But as The Federalist is full of hungry outcast wingnuts looking to make a big splash, I predict that the next time a story conservatives think should be a big deal fails to become one -- like the 26th or 27th rerun of #Benghazi -- you'll see this idea hauled out. Because the failure of the American People to adopt their current top storylines -- for example, that Barack Obama is a dictator -- needs a better excuse than plain ol' media bias anymore. And "because our ideas are batshit crazy" won't do!

(Title inspiration here.)

UPDATE. "So," says JennOfArk in comments, "what they want is a Fairness Doctrine for internet search engines?" Now, now. I bet these guys would really get pissed if someone tried to tinker with pop-up ads for Goldline.

148 comments:

  1. Because the failure of the American People to adopt their current top storylines -- for example, that Barack Obama is a dictator -- needs a better excuse than plain ol' media bias anymore. And "because our ideas are batshit crazy" won't do!



    Pretty lousy dictator if'n you ask me. Where's the public exsanguinations?


    Whoops, new Heritage headline - OBAMA'S FAILED DICTATORSHIP, MORE PROOF LIBERALS ARE INCAPABLE OF GOVERNMENT, "WE COULD HAVE HAD ROMNEY" SAYS ROVE

    ReplyDelete
  2. coozledad11:29 AM

    Sparks must be writing an opera about Gonzalez:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgakpSoHEiE

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not sure what that was other than awesome....

    ReplyDelete
  4. coozledad11:37 AM

    Those guys are nearly always awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. trizzlor11:47 AM

    Yer tellin' me those hippies at Google can prioritize some lame-stream media web-site over the "Food-stamps President" blog my buddy at the gun-club hosts on geocities?! I knew somethin' was up when their 9/11 Doodle featured some librul city skyline instead of an animated Hilary Clinton devouring the Benghazi consulate like Saturn eating his young. Time to start workin' on ConservaGoogle...

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...well-known liberals who support President Obama’s key policy initiatives

    What, like cutting Social Security and getting the TPP passed?

    "The God-damned Obama is throwing us into the briar patch!"
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonathan Harker11:50 AM

    I think the public exsangunations are mainly in Pakistan and, to some extent, Yemen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. M. Krebs12:10 PM

    I thought maybe it was this.
    http://youtu.be/LpkOs8xPS_8

    ReplyDelete
  9. tinheart12:14 PM

    My response to the conservative implication that the reason no one's reading their crap is because teh Googlez must somehow conspiring to hide the diamonds in the feces pile: "Free market, hippies!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. tinheart12:16 PM

    Here an idea: the conservatives can start their own search engine. I'm sure it will be a rousing success, like Conservapedia or Pajamas Media.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, I saw that. "Behind closed doors."

    That's telling them!
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  12. M. Krebs12:24 PM

    I've got a name for it: Bajo Vista.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JennOfArk12:34 PM

    So what they want is a Fairness Doctrine for internet search engines?


    If you'll recall, "Obama wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine" was a conservative hysteria not all that long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think of it more as an extension of the old "Conservatism can only be failed" saw. Our websites aren't as popular as we'd predicted? People don't cotton to our ideas? Cleary, the internet itself is conspiring against us. There can be no other explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Spaghetti Lee12:52 PM

    "digital firms should be encouraged to add criteria to their search
    engines that highlight information quality as opposed to mere
    popularity"



    The horror! Quality information! A company that people primarily use to find information making sure that information isn't bullshit! Why, this is just as bad as science classes teaching science, or health insurance companies providing health insurance! Don't they know that conservatism only works if people are forcibly kept stupid and irrational?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Okay, so I listened to and watched the youtube explanation video, and I get the "--I predict" part, but I still think you've got a typo in the first line. Or is this all too meta for me?

    ReplyDelete
  17. redoubtagain1:22 PM

    The New Contras: Understanding The Left's Grip On Media
    I was going to ask, "So when does the Right start selling drugs, defying Congress by obtaining weapons, and committing human rights violations?" when I realized they haven't stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Last year I reviewed 59 top results in G News for "immigration". Well over half were biased towards amnesty:

    http://24ahead.com/n/11921



    If you search G News enough you'll see them occasionally promoting out-of-the-way sources, things like a "Snoquamish County Farmer's Chronicle", but you won't find them promoting a site like mine or others' that shows those source wrong.


    For a tangible example, I just searched G News for an immig. poll that was released yesterday. The six results in the top block all help mislead about what the poll actually asked. I discussed how the poll is being used to mislead at my site, but that's not in the G News results.


    Obviously, things like that suit some people just fine. They don't want to know how they're being misled and/or they don't want others to know.

    ReplyDelete
  19. it's a shame, too, because your site's hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  20. j_bird1:39 PM

    ConservaGoogle


    Seriously, though. If they think they can beat out Google, let them try. Where's their spirit of free competition?

    ReplyDelete
  21. j_bird1:39 PM

    It's not always worth it to get out of the boat, but this one has some beauties.

    He lauds the way modern technology has changed reporting:

    One tragic, very well-known example is that of the citizen journalists in Tehran who recorded the murder of the young female demonstrator named Neda at the hands of state security agents, a crime which revealed to many the brutal nature of the Iranian government.

    I'm anxiously awaiting a string of links to great scoops by conservative bloggers. Finally, near the end, he refers to "the muck-raking journalism of James O’Keefe and Breitbart."

    I think he's got the rakers confused with the creators of said muck. More projection:

    It must bother the President no end that he has to contend with the likes of FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Breitbart News, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, The Weekly Standard, National Review Online, James O’Keefe and thousands of independent bloggers too numerous to name. [. . .] Thus the President's evident petulance.

    Ooh, James O'Keefe. I bet Obama reads O'Keefe's wikipedia page when he needs a good chuckle. I know I do.

    I'm also entertained by this bit:

    These trends have commoditized raw news, the end of the business that is as undifferentiated as copper traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. This part of the business now sells at a price that is set by the market, with low margins. The business that now commands a premium is commentary, the differentiated part. When CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf says that Obamacare will “disincentivize work” that is undifferentiated news transmission; when Avik Roy writes on Forbes.com, “Bored with your job? No worries—now you can quit, thanks to the generosity of other taxpayers,” that is differentiated commentary; Roy has added value by interpreting the news event.

    Avik Roy's bit of mendacity is Added Value. Andrew Sullivan, we later hear, is a "deep-thinking innovator". But Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! "can only be described as neo-Marxist apologists for Chavez, Castro and the Sandinistas." Spin for me but not for thee!

    ReplyDelete
  22. You might have a point. Why, when I searched for "best living writer," my site didn't turn up in the search results at all! Clearly, bias is the only explanation - it can't be that search engine algorithms determine a site's authority by using easily calculable factors like inbound links and high-quality traffic. Tosh, says I! They're out for us personally.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Red_cted1:46 PM

    Perhaps you don't realize that Google tailors its results to what it determines YOU are interested in. Google results differ from user to user. Evidently even you are not that much interested in your own site.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Matt Jones1:49 PM

    Turns out, if you base your search engine on "facts", it winds up with a liberal bias. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. M. Krebs1:57 PM

    Hi,
    Hope you are well, I was surfing through your website www.24ahead.com and realized that despite having a good design; it was not ranking on any of the search engines for most of the keywords pertaining to your domain. We can do higher search result on major search engines and serve 100% customer satisfaction services to our clients. We are entitled to provide best Search Engine Optimization services at very affordable rates comparing the market. Let me know if you are interested we will send you our company details if you find this information interesting to your business.


    I look forward to your mail.


    Kind Regards
    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  26. JennOfArk1:57 PM

    Until I went to the link, I thought the title was inspired by Christopher Walken's "Trivial Psychic" bit on SNL. "You're going to get a cup of coffee that's too hot. It's going to burn your tongue."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Halloween_Jack2:08 PM

    If geniuses are often doomed to labor in obscurity, then you must be quite smart indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Halloween_Jack2:09 PM

    "Does Google Filter Out Controversial Conservatives From Search Suggestions?"


    If only. I'd consider having children for the sole purpose of sacrificing them to Sergey Brin to make that day happen.


    (j/k, although kittens? Hey...)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kids these days have forgotten that liberal journalist Walter Cronkite single-handedly** lost the Vietnam War for us, thereby dooming the entire Pacific Rim to communist control, by stabbing LBJ in the back. And boy, could we ever use a man like Lyndon Johnson again. Minus the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty, of course.


    **Jane Fonda and John Kerry also each single-handedly lost Vietnam. Liberal perfidy contains multitudes ... which add up to several thousand percent at the very least.

    ReplyDelete
  30. liberalrob2:20 PM

    What typo? Conservative genius Mike Gonzalez has apparently just discovered the idea that companies might conceivably use their control over their products to advance their own agendas. Horrors!

    ReplyDelete
  31. whetstone2:21 PM

    I'll just leave this right here, featuring one of Bob Dylan's funniest lines, as I have so many times before.

    Well, I wus sittin’ home alone an’ started to sweat

    Figured they wus in my T.V. set

    Peeked behind the picture frame

    Got a shock from my feet, hittin’ right up in the brain

    Them Reds caused it!

    [snip]

    Now Eisenhower, he’s a Russian spy

    Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy

    To my knowledge there’s just one man

    That’s really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell

    I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus

    ReplyDelete
  32. liberalrob2:23 PM

    I wonder who determines what the "quality" level is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. smut clyde2:24 PM

    criteria to their search engines that highlight information quality


    So the equation of "information quality" with "liberal opinion" is Gonzale' own? OK.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Its not an explanation so much as it is simply a new front in an old war. And its not a war for popular opinion--which you would win by having your ideas be actually popular--its a war to control the images and ideas and issues that the public gets to see and consider. Their goal is frequency of quotation and use, not popularity per se.

    ReplyDelete
  35. glennisw2:49 PM

    What, so now QUALITY as well as FACTS have a liberal bias?

    ReplyDelete
  36. tigrismus2:55 PM

    "Does Google Filter Out Controversial Conservatives From Search Suggestions?"



    NO. The good stuff is beamed directly to your fillings.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John Griffone2:57 PM

    Oh Roy, these youngsters have no memory. Johnny Carson, Bob Hope, Walter Cronkite... Once household names, now mere rumors of days gone by.

    ReplyDelete
  38. synykyl2:58 PM

    What's wrong with Google or Facebook promoting a liberal agenda? Isn't it their Rand given right to do whatever they want?

    ReplyDelete
  39. smut clyde2:59 PM

    the likes of FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Breitbart News,
    Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, The Weekly
    Standard, National Review Online, James O’Keefe



    So a long list of overtly rightwing advocates proves that those perfidious liberals are planning to politicise the internet? Yes, I can see an element of projection there.


    Gonzalez seems to have grasped the key perspective of rightwing rhetoric, the mixture of chest-thumping triumphalism and abject paranoia, in which his side is simultaneously winning the battle against liberalism and under an existential threat. Does he go on to solicit donations from his readership?

    ReplyDelete
  40. glennisw2:59 PM

    Thus the President's evident petulance

    You mean petulant like this:

    They love this idea, don't they, that little pissants like them affect him, when I'm sure he doesn't give a damn. Frankly, I am quite sure GWB didn't pay any attention to the liberal pundits, either.

    ReplyDelete
  41. smut clyde3:03 PM

    Checking my own blog outlet, I see that it leads the results list for "vat-grown godmeat", so I for one am perfectly content with the Goofle search algorithms.

    ReplyDelete
  42. j_bird3:04 PM

    his side is simultaneously winning the battle against liberalism and under an existential threat
    Precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  43. smut clyde3:06 PM

    If you want saltpeter you have to dig through a lot of dungheaps.

    ReplyDelete
  44. i am placing this comment in the center of my conspiracy bulletin board.

    ReplyDelete
  45. M. Krebs3:18 PM

    The Algorithms is out to get them.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Don't forget to quote me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. M. Krebs3:28 PM

    It's true!

    ReplyDelete
  48. William Miller3:39 PM

    Ouch. Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you really want to know what "controversial conservatives" are saying, why use Google at all?


    Media Matters is bound to have what you're looking for.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yahoo News tends to slant to the Right.


    Maybe they can become the "ConservaGoogle."

    ReplyDelete
  51. smut clyde3:51 PM

    Don't forget to quote Aimai but credit it to Churchill.

    ReplyDelete
  52. William Miller3:57 PM

    I'm sure it does bother the President that he has to put up with the likes of Fox News; why else would he have done the Super Bowl interview with Bill O'Reilly? What he probably wound up thinking, though, is something along the lines of, "Why in the fuck can't I punch this arrogant douchebag in his fucking mouth like all laws of decency and deference would advise and allow?" The fact that O'Reilly got away with being an ass to the President of the United States speaks volumes to what the right wing thinks of the man, and to that man's ability to restrain himself in the face of gross insult.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't know what you mean. Whenever I search for backwater right-wing fumaroles with weak argumentation "GivesHead24Seven.com" is always in the top results.

    ReplyDelete
  54. BigHank533:59 PM

    Churchill? Everyone knows Bill Ayers wrote that.

    ReplyDelete
  55. BigHank534:04 PM

    I am willing to bet that Obama has fantasies of the interviews he'll be able to give once he stops being President: "Actually, Bill, I knew I might have to explain this topic to a guy who doesn't even understand how the tides work, so I brought my crayons. And some short words. Are you good with that, you loofah diddler?"

    ReplyDelete
  56. BigHank534:09 PM

    Upvoting just for "backwater right-wing fumaroles".

    ReplyDelete
  57. BigHank534:12 PM

    For a group that likes to wank triumphant over the so-called "marketplace of ideas", they sure do want to move those goalposts around a lot, don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Now I'm confused; do you mean "Gooſle"?

    ReplyDelete
  59. redoubtagain4:13 PM

    Heck, why should he? Fox News flat-out lied about him repeatedly during 2008 ("Baby Mama", anyone? "Terrorist Fist-Jab?").
    They gots nothing, he knows it, they know it, and there's no Ken Starr to save them (Thanks, Newt!)

    ReplyDelete
  60. What's most beautiful is that, more specifically, it is the post wherein you complain about McGravitas' blog outstripping you in Google result for same. The weirdness arc of the universe is long, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Formerly_Nom_De_Plume4:22 PM

    If they were to let their political proclivities dictate what’s promoted on their platforms

    then we'd have to think of an appropriate term for such tyranny. Something like, oh I dunno, "free market". But if the wingnut owner of a pizza chain does it, shut the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  62. To get wonky for a minute: The term "quality" in search analytics means something a little different. Generally speaking, content is considered "high quality" if it is a) understandable by a human (complete sentences and the like); b) comprised primarily of original content; and c) was not generated by an automated process. You see, since SEO became a thing, there have been ongoing attempts to manipulate automated algorithms using junk articles that were never meant to be read by human eyes. As a result, the signal:noise ratio over the entire internet has dropped to shit over the last few years. Google claims to have a handle on it, but all that really means is that the spammers and hucksters are getting smarter. I'll go check the Brookings thing, but my suspicion is that they were talking about efforts to reduce noise, rather than any attempt to remove content that's considered crap.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thanks for explaining that.

    ReplyDelete
  64. GlockPalin4:40 PM

    If twitchy is any indication, the attempt should be...entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'm not sure it counts as "obscurity" when Mr. Ahead continues to stop by every blog on the Internet at intervals to provide links to himself. He's been doing this for years; if no one's reading the blog, it's not because they've never been made aware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq.4:57 PM

    Hi,
    didn't you use to spread your brand of crazy and disinformation at liberal sites as Lonely Conservative a decade ago? What happened to you? Loony bin? Prison? FEMA camp? Anyway I look forward to having your property confiscated, your citizenship revoked and you being exchanged for a mexican, mwuhahah!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mooser5:08 PM

    Not Hope of course, it's internal to the human beast.

    ReplyDelete
  68. TGuerrant5:20 PM

    It's the .de version.

    ReplyDelete
  69. raw news


    I think the more common term for that is "rumor."

    ReplyDelete
  70. montag25:29 PM

    Zuckerberg and Schmidt are liberals? Google is now officially evil, and Zuckerberg has been lending credence to a lot of right-wing claptrap on education, the 1%, etc. And, IIRC, Zuckerberg threw a fundraiser for Mr. Bridge Troll himself, Chris Christie.


    I'm loathing the arrival of the day when some snake-handling yahoo at The Daily Cholera or some such declares David Koch a liberal because he gives money to the ballet. It will be the definitive sign that, as a nation, we've slipped, fallen and can't get up again.

    ReplyDelete
  71. TGuerrant5:30 PM

    I don't get it. Whenever I google "Santorum" it works perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  72. M. Krebs5:39 PM

    No one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

    ReplyDelete
  73. montag25:48 PM

    I kinda like Fapster.

    ReplyDelete
  74. ZotsTheBat5:55 PM

    Thanks, Roy. I LOL at the "…cat videos you" line. Needed it. Always like your columns and posts.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Au contraire", as the man said, in the Bay of Biscay, when asked whether he had dined.

    ReplyDelete
  76. satch6:08 PM

    Dear Mr. Amit:


    When you're done optimizing the aforementioned website, I'd very much appreciate some assistance in finding a Russian mail order bride, and you sound like just the tech savvy webster to help. Criteria; 5'4" to 5'6", full figured but not obese, natural blonde. Thanks in advance.



    Sincerely,



    Satch

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Highlight information quality as opposed to mere popularity?" Wouldn't that do in Jenny McCarthy's anti vaxx business as well as Sex and Religion Tips from the Duck Dynasty Pere?

    ReplyDelete
  78. M. Krebs6:11 PM

    As a blog whore, he can't hold a candle to jurassicpork.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Alternatively, and probably more correctly, they are losing the battle against liberalism and not under an existential threat. But I guess that would just make them feel sad, if they knew.

    ReplyDelete
  80. M. Krebs6:12 PM

    It makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
  81. You're surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  82. This should be said in the voice of Mr. Kholi from Bride and Prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  83. smut clyde6:17 PM

    Who is this Manny Cheism whom I keep hearing about?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dear Right Wing WhingeBaggers,

    Is New! Media not carrying the freight for you and your “facts.”? Is New! Media cupping your balls with frigid digits instead of a warm washcloth? Is
    New! Media having trouble disseminating the right wing Facts ReSorter from prominent conservative thinkers, linkers, shakers and bowel movers? Is New! Media an enemy and not a friend?

    I, keta, have a wonderful suggestion on how you flip that chasm into an orgasm. How you can turn that frown upside down. How you can
    ensure New! Media heralds all the bestest and the brightless of stalwart conservative ideas and ideologies. Yes, I, keta, can help you overcome the liberal bias in all forms of Media, especially the New! Media floating on innertubes down the infomation superseaway.

    This is a goal worth pursuing! What price would you pay to see it
    happen? How many times would you frack your sister to learn how to conquer New! Media? How many times would you open your fundament in an effort to be the fundamental voice of New! Media? How
    much, I ask, how much! to become the most overstuffed, filled-to-bursting teeny car in the New! Media Big Tent?

    Contact me, keta, for details on this wonderful opportunity to learn from me, keta, how to tug the gleaming shaft of New! Media to a decidedly
    right-leaning direction. For a nominal fee I, keta, can help ensure this primed pump spurts the frothiest, most delectable conservative triumph-swimmers the modern world has ever seen in New! Media.

    Don’t delay! For more information contact me, keta, for helping put New! Media dominance where it should be – in the pants of every Bog-fearing conservative male in the United States of America.

    Bog Bless America (and nobody else.)

    ReplyDelete
  85. davdoodles6:30 PM

    The Brethren don't really think ahead do they?
    I'd have though that the last thing they'd want is for more of their gibberese ravings having a broader public spotlight shone upon them.
    Did they learn nothing from their "tea party" nonsense? Sure it must have felt nice for a while, but ultimately they were basking in the warming glow of their own house on fire, while the American people stared, mouths agape, at their grotesque, bone-deep weirdness.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  86. Dear Right Wing WhingeBaggers

    Is New! Media not carrying the freight for you and your “facts.”? Is New! Media cupping your balls with frigid digits instead of a warm washcloth? Is
    New! Media having trouble disseminating the right wing Facts ReSorter from prominent conservative thinkers, linkers, shakers and bowel movers? Is New! Media an enemy and not a friend?

    I, keta, have a wonderful suggestion on how you flip that chasm into an orgasm. How you can turn that frown upside down. How you can
    ensure New! Media heralds all the bestest and the brightless of stalwart conservative ideas and ideologies. Yes, I, keta, can help you overcome the liberal bias in all forms of Media, especially the New! Media floating on innertubes down the infomation superseaway.

    This is a goal worth pursuing! What price would you pay to see it happen? How many times would you frack your sister to learn how to conquer New! Media? How many times would you open your fundament in an effort to be the fundamental voice of New! Media? How much, I ask, how much to become the most overstuffed, filled-to-bursting teeny car in the New! Media Big Tent?

    Contact me, keta, for details on this wonderful opportunity to learn from me, keta, how to tug the gleaming shaft of New! Media to a decidedly right-leaning direction. For a nominal fee I, keta, can help ensure this primed pump spurts the frothiest, most delectable conservative triumph-swimmers the modern world has ever seen in New! Media.

    Don’t delay! For more information contact me, keta, for helping put New! Media dominance where it should be – in the pants of every Bog-fearing conservative man in the United States of America.

    Bog Bless America (and nobody else.)

    ReplyDelete
  87. ADHDJ6:43 PM

    Hey, genius, like most blog/commenting software these days Disqus automatically adds rel=nofollow to any links you post on here. I imagine you think that posting these whiny screeds are helping your google rankings because they link back to your site. They are not.

    You also clearly have no fucking clue how "G News" works. HINT: there aren't a bunch of people sitting there deciding what appears on the front page. There's no "they're" there.

    It's a computer algorithm. If you think a computer algorithm can have a political bias against "immig reform" you're a fucking loon. Given how difficult natural language processing is, your word salad writing style is surely not doing you any favors in the content analysis department.


    Exactly what fucking edition of Google News were you expecting to end up on, anyway? Since you don't write in grammatically correct English, and there isn't a "Teabonics" edition of "G News", what the hell were you expecting?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Mooser6:43 PM

    "we've slipped, fallen and can't get up again."

    Right on our own front lawn, but the neighbors are too afraid of the grouchy old man with all the guns, to ever tread on that fiercely guarded patch of cynodon dactylon.

    ReplyDelete
  89. davdoodles6:43 PM

    "It must bother the President no end that he has to contend with the likes of... [some rightwing arseholes on the internet]"

    He's the President of the United States of America. Why would he be bothered at all, let alone "no end".
    .
    "A GNAT settled on the horn of a Bull, and sat there a long time. Just as he was about to fly off, he made a buzzing noise, and inquired of the Bull if he would like him to go. The Bull replied, "I did not know you had come, and I shall not miss you when you go away." -Aesop

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jay B.6:48 PM

    That's an excellent point - Lincoln to Grant, Appomattox, 1954

    ReplyDelete
  91. davdoodles6:49 PM

    Vista Del Nada

    ReplyDelete
  92. Duncan6:54 PM

    But when we get behind ... closed ... doors ....
    And he lets the drones ... rain ... down ...
    Then he makes me glad I'm American...

    ReplyDelete
  93. Jay B.6:55 PM

    Shit, I actually thought they meant Walter Duranty, which would at least have the essence of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  94. M. Krebs7:04 PM

    DUNCAN!

    ReplyDelete
  95. M. Krebs7:05 PM

    Was it during the aftermath of the '08 election when they thought that Twitter was going to let them rule the intertoobs and hence the entire universe?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Malkin, at least, must have made a bundle from Twitchy by selling it before anyone realized it couldn't be monetized.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Their unskewed polls were so great back in 2012, can you imagine how great their unskewed search engines would be?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Or Duck Hunting tips from the Sex Pistols or Bad Religion.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I didn't think you guys were for affirmative action.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Conservapedia fills that niche < ahref="http://www.conservapedia.com/Overrated_Sports_Stars"> quite nicely. It's my go-to site when I need a good belly laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  101. TGuerrant7:21 PM

    I am so sorrily to inform you Mister Amit has died amid my country of Nigeria. But I have for you the good newses that I am representing his estate at the passionate request of his esteemed widow who has desperate needs for transferring $12 million in U.S. dollars to an American bank this week or poverty will infest all of her children. She has written me a homely letter of your love for Mister Amit and your many fine deeds upon her heart you have worked with your character. Given your high reputation for total Christianity, may I count on you please to assist in this transferring of family asserts knowing you will not ask for more than a $50,000 fee for your many toils in the day we designate?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Meanwhile, I have to content myself with "unapologetic ass man"... SIGH!

    ReplyDelete
  103. It must bother the President to no end that he has

    ...the option of turning off the cable and getting a sneak preview of someone's chestal region.

    ReplyDelete
  104. It's a pity they took down the "Pacific Northwest tree octopus" entry.

    ReplyDelete
  105. His ass never apologizes.


    He is the baldest man in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  106. TGuerrant7:27 PM

    Looks like they took down the Edroso entry, too. People probably didn't find it believable.

    ReplyDelete
  107. flip that chasm into an orgasm.



    Ummm. You are a perfect human being. Srsly.

    ReplyDelete
  108. M. Krebs7:34 PM

    Oh man, I had not considered how awesome John Lydon could be on American TV. Sell out all you want, Johnny Rotten!

    ReplyDelete
  109. M. Krebs7:43 PM

    ( I feel I should credit the real Amit, wherever he may be, or not be. That stuff was cutted&pasted from an actual email. I changed only the web address. In other words, I'm not that fucking clever. )

    ReplyDelete
  110. Algor...


    Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete
  111. tigrismus7:47 PM

    He DID invent the intertewbs.

    ReplyDelete
  112. M. Krebs7:52 PM

    Holy shit! Al Gore is
    Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī! He's a time traveller!

    ReplyDelete
  113. M. Krebs7:53 PM

    Fapster it is!

    ReplyDelete
  114. The real problem conservatives have with the internet is that it is "bottom up", with users determining what is most commonly seen. There is no equivalent (yet) of a Clear Channel ensuring dominance (in how many markets is Rush Limbaugh on multiple stations?). Conservatives don't like to acknowledge that they dominate a "top down" media solely by virtue of a stacked deck- even their political relevance is due solely to a stacked deck. Acknowledging that they are a movement consisting of a mere 27% of the population would destroy them.

    ReplyDelete
  115. triumph-swimmers

    Night-Sea Journey?

    ReplyDelete
  116. smut clyde8:04 PM

    When a Jung man's fancy turns to thoughts of love.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I could totally go for Duck Hunting tips from the sex pistols.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It's strange how the Right see themselves.


    Sometimes they DO seem to acknowledge that they are a mere 27%. I've heard Rush whine about being outnumbered, and we all know how the Right like to feel persecuted, beset on all sides by multiculturalism, a Liberal media, and foreign influences. The Christian Right has a special reason to feel persecuted, because Jesus said that they will always be.


    On the other hand, these same people on the Right will turn around and claim that we live in some kind of a Center-Right country, and that most people believe the way they do, even if those people don't want to admit it.


    The Right must simultaneously believe that they are the Persecuted Few, AND the Moral Majority.


    That's quite a trick. I'm glad I don't have to perform those kind of mental gymnastics to preserve MY identity.

    ReplyDelete
  119. In the kingdom of the bald, the man with no eyebrows is king.

    ReplyDelete
  120. He's been doing the same shit for way longer than 10 years. I know I remember him from earlier blogs, maybe even from Usenet-- the name would change from time to time but it always had the same spelled-out "DotCom" at the end, and the style is instantly recognizable.

    But for some reason he never developed a large audience who would boost his visibility by linking to him. That reason being, of course, GOOGLE CONSPIRACY.

    ReplyDelete
  121. For Bob Casale (R.I.P.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  122. JennOfArk10:13 PM

    The search term that brings the most people to my pretty much defunct shitty little blog has to do with sisters sucking toes. Given that there's not one single post on the blog in which sisters suck toes, I think it's clear that Google is trying to smear me.

    ReplyDelete
  123. On the contrary, I think Google is trying to tell you something. Something…wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  124. smut clyde11:19 PM

    In the kingdom of the bald, the man with no eyebrows is king needs to practice the proper technique for lighting his barbeque.

    ReplyDelete
  125. AGoodQuestion11:21 PM

    I've noticed that. It hosts columns by Brent Bozell, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen, etc and that crowd makes up the bulk of its opinion section.


    It's also something of an eyesore, and not just because of them.

    ReplyDelete
  126. AGoodQuestion11:24 PM

    Shaft!


    Yo' damn right.

    ReplyDelete
  127. AGoodQuestion11:38 PM

    Damn, paleotectonics. You sure know how to get me to follow a link. Do you think Mr. 24ahead.com could afford your services?

    ReplyDelete
  128. smut clyde11:46 PM

    Not for the first time, I find myself wondering whether the originators of Yahoo were aware of the Swiftian associations.

    ReplyDelete
  129. AGoodQuestion11:51 PM

    Ah, so that's what happens to all those cute kittens once the YouTube videos have been posted.

    ReplyDelete
  130. AGoodQuestion11:54 PM

    MLK also single-handedly lost Vietnam, but since he became a conservative 25 years or so after he died, all is forgiven.

    ReplyDelete
  131. MikeJ2:59 AM

    Yes, Yang and Filo have publicly stated that's where they got it.

    ReplyDelete
  132. j_bird7:17 AM

    It always seems sensationalistic and clickbaity to me. I didn't even realize it had an opinion section.

    ReplyDelete
  133. One of my conservative co-workers will sometimes come in with some Rightwing talking point, and I've asked, "Did you hear that on the talk radio?"


    He says, "No, I didn't hear it; I READ it on my Yahoo page."

    ReplyDelete
  134. That never occurred to me!

    It's been awhile since I've read Gulliver's Travels, and I forgot all about the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Smarter than Your Average Bear9:31 AM

    If they got their wish their sites would drop off Google search altogether . :)

    ReplyDelete
  136. My comment was about Google News. That uses a different algorithm than regular G searching.


    You also aren't smart enough to realize the difference between facts and opinion.


    If all you did was search G News for the Gallup poll and then click on the Politico piece, you would have been misled. G News isn't offering sources that show how Politico is misleading about that poll.


    Apparently that's the way you like it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. My comment was about Google News. That uses a different algorithm than regular G searching.

    I'm also quite familiar with how regular G works, and besides being admitted to G News there's nothing I can do to get into it.

    Are all Ray's readers as dumb as "Red_cted" and "D Johnston"?

    ReplyDelete
  138. How so exactly? Name some specific thing I've written that you object to, and then present a valid, logical argument either here or on Twitter.


    If you can't do that, then...

    ReplyDelete
  139. Can you name some specific thing I've written that you object to, and then present a valid, logical argument either here or on Twitter?

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I don't run a "blog".

    Are personal smears all you got? Can you name some specific thing I've written that you object to, and then present a valid, logical argument either here or on Twitter?

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  141. 1. I know how Disqus works, and I've written about it.

    2. Some things in various G searches are hand-edited (i.e., not just coming from code G wrote).

    3. The algorithm G News uses favors sources that tend to mislead about immig. and push their own agenda. For instance, an NYT article that misleads about immig. would tend to appear higher in G News than whatever few dissenting voices they've allowed into G News. I search G News for immig. daily, and I don't think I've ever seen a vDare link in the main results for "immig". vDare (and I) tend to show NYT pieces wrong, but the average G News user will never find out how those NYT pieces are wrong. Imagine that an Obamacare G News search returned only Fox results.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Indeed. I'm all those hobgoblins in your wee mind.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Smears"? What are you talking about? I don't know a thing about you personally; all I know is that you've had a habit for a very long time of promoting your [website/blog/whatever you want to call it] by randomly posting links in the comments of other people's sites that you otherwise make no contribution to in any way. You don't engage with what anyone else is saying— unless, like now, it's about you. You've given no one any reason to take you seriously, but if they do feel like discussing your writing, they can certainly do it on your site.

    ReplyDelete
  144. JennOfArk2:45 PM

    They should have no need for saltpeter, what with all those bags of salted dicks sitting around.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Red_cted6:40 PM

    Apparantly Google just doesn't consider your sucky blog to be news. Sorry Bevis.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Red_cted6:45 PM

    Dex said "hilarious" not "objectionable."

    ReplyDelete
  147. Smarter than Your Average Bear7:57 PM

    If one were silly enough to quiz Obama on any of these people/sites he'd no doubt answer ... who?


    Their ultra-inflated sense of self-importance is a source of constant amusement. To those in power they are either disposable nameless red ensigns or complete unknowns.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Smarter than Your Average Bear7:58 PM

    Mr. 24ahead.com would likely have to cut back on his Koch sucking to do so

    ReplyDelete