They're even using a -gate suffix
How stereotypically evil/dumb can they be?
Mueller was Director of the FBI when Bush was president, though considering the shitting on McCain, guess it doesn't matter what you did before if you go against Trump.
Trump called it Spygate to sound more sinister. It's not even a -gate at all, except in his stupid baby mind.
Just more gaslighting of the American people. The disgusting thing is that it's working.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-war-of-attrition-against-mueller-bears-fruit-among-republicans/2018/05/26/9e759738-603b-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html
Like every single person in the DOJ that is investigating Trump is a Republican; many of Mueller's team have made past contributions to Democrats and Trump yells about that, but he claims it's all a Democrat plot against him, despite Rosenstein, Mueller, Sessions (who recused himself but allows the probe to continue), and Comey all being lifelong Repubs.
At least Cohen knew when to keep his trap shut, Trump. Why in the world would you get a mouthy lawyer?
Also, isn't this essentially a straight up admission that Trump is obstructing justice?
The theory that Giuliani is a Democratic plant to completely blow Trump's conspiracy apart gains evidence by the day.
I keep hearing dumbfucks say "if they got prrof they should show it already" while conviently ignoring all the shit they DO tell the public.
Well, the problem is that the Internet is increasingly being engineered to filter away anything it thinks you don't want to see, and reality bubbles are forming.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/05/25/how-googling-it-can-send-conservatives-down-secret-rabbit-holes-of-alternative-facts/
TL;DR google search results can send nominally-sane, moderate Republicans into a rabbit hole of crazy propaganda because it doesn't separate fact from bullshit in its index and propaganda clickbait trends high in the index in conservative areas/topics.
And that's not even counting the effects of social media and intentionally jamming social media with propaganda, like the Russian propaganda ad campaigns on FB/etc.
My poor grandmother has been watching a bunch of Youtube videos slamming Democrats and bolstering Trump conspiracies that are narrated by text-to-speech. It's gotten to the point that she even got a recommendation for "proof" that "reptillians" were at the royal wedding.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/242634/993c2a31-cad1-462e-8a49-3a49fc2a55ab/citalopram.png
It doesn't surprise me at all. I Google an antidepressant to learn about it and Google decides that I want to know how to get high.
Giuliani is the best thing to happen to this illegitimate administration. He's gonna make it implode all on its own.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this basically supposed to be tacit admission of guilt? Why aren't people actually doing something now that this became news?
The people capable of doing something are Republican congresspeople, and Republican congresspeople seem to be completely devoid of merit at this point in time.
Yeah, but the "Trump is a Democrat plant to sabotage the GOP primaries so Hillary gets an easy win" theory seemed pretty plausible two years ago. Let's maybe not assume there's some secret master plan going on, without actual evidence this is anything more than the standard incompetence we've always seen.
I mean that was true though. They actually were pushing Trump as a way to fuck over the GOP by splitting votes and causing turmoil within the party. It just backfired on them horribly.
Man, that article somehow misses the point it's making pretty hard. They say that a conservative would see that the redpill subreddit pop up first, but then they immediately say "we did this in an incognito tab and it was first", immediately displaying that regardless of whether you're a conservative or not that'll pop up.
In fact, mine is the exact same.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/249570/1b431c7f-9043-445a-94ca-03c825e72065/image.png
Google sways your search results to show more of what it thinks that you'll want, but it's typically only for very specific things that you've repeatedly searched for a subset of information on.
Incognito alone does not protect you from biased results.
Incognito, on my own home network:
https://reel.geel.tf/z6o96nfxa34hqv10kel6.png
Incognito, on a VPN:
https://reel.geel.tf/zq3gxe5urjpjlnphlea2.png
I get different results despite being on a fresh Incognito session for both searches.
You can see that the link to my Steam profile is #5 when searching from my own IP, but is #8 when searching from a VPN.
Is your VPN in the same region that you are?
No, but that should be irrelevant if incognito is supposed to give you a "fresh slate" for search results.
What this shows is that ip address is used to customize your search results as well. You might claim it's limited solely to geoip, but I see no reason they'd limit it to solely that data.
It does give you a fresh slate, based off of the information that it does have about you, which is your region.
There's a super good reason to limit it to that. Having a lookup table for regions is super fast to the point of being nearly free, but cataloguing every single user by IP would be an absolute ton of recorded browsing trends that probably wouldn't mean anything, due to dynamic IPs and most IP addresses being shared by multiple people even when static.
If you repeat your example while connected to two different modems in the same building, I can guarantee you that you will get the same results.
Neither of which change with an Incognito session, and your browser is likely sending enough data to Google when making a request that will allow it to be uniquely identified.
Google indexes and caches the entirety of the internet, and can search through it in less than a second, but storing 32-bit IP addresses is too much data for them to handle?
IP addresses are not nearly as dynamic as you think. The vast majority of IPv4 consumer Internet connections in America will see their IP change very infrequently.
If the IP addresses are shared, they're usually shared within a family or household, which still seriously limits the possible people that IP address points to.
Not too much for them to handle, but it would literally be pointless to do so and it would massively increase the amount of user data that they have to keep track of. An IP address does not resolve to an individual, and as such the extra cost would effectively be pointless.
It seriously depends on your ISP, and whether or not you're on a mobile device or not. Mobile devices cycle out their IP address all the time, and they make up a gigantic segment of users as a whole.
Your browser does not send enough data to identify you while in incognito mode, that's the point. A user agent and IP address is just going to tell you which browser, OS, and city the individual is in, but it's absolutely not enough to actually figure out who you are.
It would not at all "massively increase" the amount of user data they have to keep track of. Do you have any idea the scale of Google's data storage? Adding a few 32-bit integers per user is not going to make a dent. They are already recording every page you visit; recording the IP you used to visit that page is inconsequential.
Mobile devices are a fair point but home internet connections are still not going to be passing out new IPs very frequently at all. Sure, some ISPs will, but we're already rationing IPv4 addresses; they are not being handed out like they used to be. I know this because I run websites, and most of our users don't have more than ~5-10 IPs associated with their account over years of logging into our service.
You really should read up on browser fingerprinting.
Give this a try. (May need to disable an adblocker for this page to work)
Yeah, but that's not what they'd be adding. This would be creating an individually tracked google user with all of the data required to track user interest for a bunch of IP addresses that probably don't even point to individuals. Google gets hit up by nearly every device that's internet-connected, so it makes sense that they wouldn't store information on every single IP address's habits that fly through the service.
On the IP point; Yes, but my point is that it still changes enough to not be able to resolve it to a single person.
I did forget how accurate browser fingerprinting is, so they could theoretically be linking your incognito and non incognito windows, but they clearly aren't; this can be readily seen by the fact that your results change when you switch it on.. at least, for topics you research frequently. I can't imagine why google would have a system that still yanks your profile while in incognito, but that doesn't actually use the whole thing.
You forget that Google already has a vested interest in identifying who you are even without being logged in so they can serve targeted advertisements.
Extending that to search would be extremely trivial for them. They're already tracking you as much as they can.
Regardless, I'm done arguing with you about this in a thread about Rudy Giuliani.
Did the channel happen to be "the event is coming" by any chance? :V
Don't ask how I know, you look up some weird shit when drunk with your friends.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
