Donald Trump

Trump Doesn't Like What People See When They Search 'Trump News'

Threatened regulations on "fake news" would be an attack on press freedom

|

Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom

Early this morning, President Donald Trump tweeted his discontent with the Google results that appear when you search for news about the president. "Google search results for "Trump News" shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD." Google and other companies, he tweeted in a follow up, "are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see." He finished by suggesting that this might be an area where the government should step in: "This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!"

It may be tempting to dismiss these pre-dawn tweets as nothing more than the restless ramblings of a tech-illiterate old man. (Trump uses Twitter on smartphones, but not email, and has little experience with desktop computers.) They also serve as a form of guidance from the president of the United States. And Trump's staff is, at least for the moment, allowing for the possibility that the Trump administration will pursue internet search regulation as a policy.

Asked this morning whether Google's results should be regulated by the government, Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, responded, "We're taking a look at it." This is not a formal policy commitment, but Kudlow does not simply dismiss the possibility of federal regulation. Even if, as seems most likely, nothing ultimately comes of it, his response underscores the potential consequences that could arise from Trump's Twitter obsessions.

Arguably the biggest of the obsessions is media coverage of Trump himself. One certainly can—and should—view Trump's tweets as part of a growing chorus of calls for Washington to regulate tech and social media, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote this morning. But they are also part of a pattern of self-obsessed press criticism from the president, in which he threatens to take legal action against media outlets he views as critical of him. On multiple occasions since the start of his campaign, Trump has raised the possibility of changing laws in response to unfavorable coverage from newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Among his most consistent refrains is "Fake News," which more often than not refers to news that is entirely true but unflattering to the president.

Trump's tweets about Google this morning fall squarely into the same category: He is complaining that Google highlights reputable mainstream news sources rather than partisan outlets more favorable to the president. And although his threats may be hollow, he is nonetheless raising the possibility that the power of the federal government will be brought to bear in response. Trump's tweets are yet another attack by the president on the idea of press freedom.

Of course, they are also the ramblings of a tech-illiterate old man—so it is hardly surprising that they appear to have backfired.

Google's search results are the result of a complex algorithm which the company says doesn't rely on political ideology. And, anecdotally, when I tried the search myself this morning, hours after his tweets, the top results were a Fox News article about Tiger Woods saying that people should respect the office of the president—and CNN and Washington Post articles offering critical analysis of Trump's tweets from this morning. By tweeting his disdain for the coverage that often appears at the top of Google's search results, Trump seems to have succeeded, at least momentarily, in drawing even more attention to coverage that portrays him in a negative light.

NEXT: 5 Cops Were 'Justified' in Brutal Beating of Unarmed Black Man, Investigators Say

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Clearly, Trump is totally unAmerican and a traitor for questioning the integrity of news and the internet.

    As opposed to progressives, who may disagree, but will fight to the death for your 1A rights.

    1. It’s like I’m reading TeleSUR. Surreal.

      1. Quite to the contrary, all patriotic Americans should be thankful that we have a strong government in place that has finally decided to do something about the fake news being disseminated by certain criminal elements trying to block the Wall. Indeed, a most troubling rumor has been going around Washington that some of these traitors have concocted a ruse, the end result of which would be to actually deport our great national leader and his entire cabinet, under the color of various secret regulations enacted by the deep state. By virtue of its obvious impropriety, to say nothing of the danger it poses to public safety, the distribution of false information of the sort is no more protected by the so-called “First Amendment” than a failed parody, or a parody that nobody likes, or that isn’t clear and humorous enough. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  2. Trump could fix the rigged fake search industry by adopting the chinese system.

    1. You mean the Sarah Jeong system?

    2. You mean, the system Facebook is currently rolling out covertly, with the social credit ratings?

  3. If 96 percent of the news on Facebook is anti-Trump, it’s because 96 percent of the news is anti-Trump.

    1. Before or after the riggers are done rigging it? Trump just wants to stop the rigging so that all of the glorious positive Trump news has its chance in the marketplace of thoughtful ideas and debate. Is that too much to ask?

    2. The core problem is that nearly all mainstream news regarding any political/economic/social story is designed around an increasingly progressive agenda. So much so that any real token sense of balance or objectivity has been discarded like rotten garbage.

      Something does need to be done about this, albeit without the solution becoming the same or a bigger problem. Especially as there appears to be no end in sight to how low these progressive propagandists (they are in no way news people) will sink. I’m sure they will get far worse. Especially if the mid terms go badly for them.

      Which will be interesting. Since Trump is already ‘literally Hitler’ in some of their reporting, I’m not sure where they can go from there. Maybe Super Hitler who is like Hitler, but is a foot taller and rides a flying motorcycle

      1. @Last of the Shitlords Do you even know what a libertarian is? Do you think you are one?

  4. Run Suderman, Run. That last tweet came from inside the house.

    1. +1 Have you checked the children?

  5. Act like a publisher, get regulated like a publisher – – – – – – – –

    1. Be a provider or user of an interactive computer service and not be treated as a publisher or speaker of someone else’s words. Period.

      1. Unless you exercise editorial control…. then publisher.

        1. No, that’s not how the statute works…

    2. The problem is they don’t.

      Internet companies were given a special legal carve out, with the legal privileges of publishers to control content but only the liability of a common carrier that must take all comers.

      Cruz has suggested that *acting* as a common carrier was a requirement of the carve out, and so that there is a regulatory fix instead of a need to repeal the existing law, but I haven’t seen anyone ever substantiate that.

      1. > Cruz has suggested that *acting* as a common carrier was a requirement of the carve out, and so that there is a regulatory fix instead of a need to repeal the existing law, but I haven’t seen anyone ever substantiate that.

        Lol, there’s no substantiation of that because the actual law includes exactly diddly-squat about “acting like a common carrier”. He must have found that provision in one of those “penumbras and emanations” that conservatives have loved so much over the years.

  6. And yet somehow, the adoption of an overwhelmingly Progressive policy (speech suppression/content regulation) will appeal to his base and cause outrage among the Left.

    1. Trump is the progressive ideal of governance, taken to its logical conclusion, and handed to their ideological alter-ego.

      1. Yep, I voted for President Trump for exactly that reason. He’s both a progressive and a conservative at the same time. We can’t lose with someone this great! Man, this President is great and a shining beacon to my daughter on how men should treat women. Why I show her videos every day on how Trump treats the women in his beauty pageants. There’s only one word for that: impeccably.

        1. You have kids? I can’t imagine how much they’re going to wind up spending on psychiatry.

          1. So, you’re saying I should show her 2 of Trump’s cheesy pageants per night instead of just one? Don’t you think that’s a little too much?

    2. These sort of threats are designed to get them to correct their behavior “voluntarily” to prevent regulation. I don’t think anything will come of it.

    3. Perhaps it is because censorship is not inherently leftwing nor rightwing, but instead authoritarian.

      1. So left wing.

        1. You’re correct, there has NEVER been a rightwing authoritarian before.

          1. Technically correct, is the best kind of correct!

            1. Which this is not.

            2. That was sarcasm. Unfortunately you have to do that these days.

              1. *…clarify that these days

            3. +1 groening point

  7. What is the point of owning an outfit like Google if you can’t rig it to your liking? Or censor search results for that matter.

  8. Reason you fucking cucks. De-platforming is an attack on the free press you god damn shills. Your support against online censorship has been mocking at best and wicked at worst.

    But please rush to the fucking aid of dying legacy media who advocate for the de-platforming of their competitors.

    1. A free press means a press which is free to censor or suppress any information they deem fit. If you think that the information they put in front of us isn’t amenable to the white supremest cause, then start your own. You’re free to do so.

      1. Freedom of the press (yes it gets the name from the printing press) is literally just freedom of speech but for the written word.

        So if Reason gives a flying fuck about freedom of speech — which I have my doubts — then they must endorse freedom of the press with equal vigor. Which they clearly don’t.

        The difference for Reason being that it ain’t so bad when competitors for online clicks and eyeballs get disappeared… Sellouts and cucks.

        1. Freedom of the press doesn’t entitle you to using someone else’s platform.

          1. Y’all are confusing ‘can’ with ‘should’. ‘Can’ they deplatform, yes — though monopoly and anti-trust laws were created for businesses with less power than the handful of corporations who control the entire global internet from the outskirts of San Francisco — ‘Should’ they deplatform, no. And that is the stance that Reason should take, that is what they should advocate.

            There’s two libertarian paths you could take here; they went with the one that has the money.

            1. This article isn’t even about deplatforming, it’s Trump complaining that there isn’t enough positive news showing up in his search results.

              1. Trumpety Trumpin’ Trump a dump. There we’ve discussed the article.

                I branched off to what I believe to be a fair connection, i.e., the same companies that manually alter their news feeds now also deplatform at an accelerated rate. The two acts are completely interwoven and foreshadow Silicon Valley’s intention — which has far reaching consequences for the entire world given their unprecedented sphere of influence and power.

                1. As chemjeff pointed out below – how is this different from progressive complaints that talk radio was unbalanced and that this necessitated the Fairness Doctrine?

                  1. Fairness Doctrine was based on the limited spectrum of radio waves.

                    1. So limited bandwith makes it the same.

                    2. No. All media types of limited in some sense, but we know that a medium/large newspaper, which is a bit harder to start than a basic website, was not a limited-enough medium to allow Fairness-Doctrine-style laws to apply. So trying to argue that “limited bandwidth” is somehow limited enough to apply that gloriously-dead legal logic? Yeah, that’s not going anywhere.

                  2. Talk radio was an exception to pre-existing liberal dominance. AM radio was a ghetto the left didn’t bother taking over, because the signal quality sucked, and they already had FM. Then talk radio boomed because it allowed a way around the left’s media monopoly, and the left got upset that people had a source of information the left didn’t control.

                    It’s like, “How is Standard Oil complaining that some wildcatter is pumping oil without their permission different from people complaining about Standard Oil being a monopoly?”

                    Aside from being opposites, they’re the same…

                2. The two acts are completely interwoven and foreshadow Silicon Valley’s intention — which has far reaching consequences for the entire world given their unprecedented sphere of influence and power.

                  Power?

                  They have guns and the authority to force you to comply?

                  Corporations don’t have any power. I can freely buy elsewhere. Only government has power. And when you limit the government’s power to pick winners and losers, the corporations will stop petitioning them to eliminate their competition.

                  The moral difference between limiting government and corporations is that corporations are people and have rights. Government has no rights, only powers. Therefore, the moral solution is to limit the government’s ability to prop up their supporters and leave the corporations to the will of the market.

            2. Or how about – Reason isn’t about to lecture a business on how best it should be operated?

              Google is a profit-making company. It is not some ethereal free speech debate forum.

              1. Or how about – Reason isn’t about to lecture a business on how best it should be operated?

                They do this all the time.

          2. Freedom of the press doesn’t entitle you to using someone else’s platform.

        2. Start your own, you fucking crybaby faggot.

          You should’ve deleted your Facebook ten years ago anyway.

          1. Start my own what? Internet conglomerate?

            If I have opinions about NFL rule changes should I start my own league rather than opine?

            Maybe get off your knees and wipe your mouth, you can see more clearly when you’re not sucking dick.

            1. Wahhh!! The marketplace won’t support my ideas! Government needs to regulate, for Freedom!

              1. If Kaepernick doesn’t like the rules, he can start his own league.

                1. Employee vs customer.

                  1. Sucks when the rules hurt people you support, doesn’t it?

                  2. And Kaepernick’s not employed by the NFL, he was employed by the 49ers, and had at least two chances to join a team–one of which was submarined by his radical Islamist/black nationalist thot.

    2. Bake that cake!

      1. Exactly! The Lefties wanted to force people to bake cakes and now they want to force people to view news about Trump.

      2. Media wants to make money. They target their market. The anti-Trump market is somewhat bigger than the pro-Trump market. Fox News targets the pro-Trump market.

        Plus what comes out of Trump’s mouth usually makes him look bad – except to the Fox News market.

        1. No, you’ve missed the change in the media market: In today’s media market companies take their “profit” in manipulating public opinion to advance your ideological goals, at the expense of actual money.

          It’s a consequence of the fact that management at these companies now agree on political ideology, instead of having a normal distribution of conflicting ideologies. Advancing ideology at the expense of normal profit becomes a way for management to divert the company’s cash flow to their own uses, without having it appear as income they have to pay taxes on.

          As long as they take this loot in the form of “in kind” contributions to causes and candidates they like, using company resources, they can effectively increase their own compensation enormously, with no tax consequences.

          I mean, suppose your employer said to you, “I can pay you $10k more per year, or just donate $10 million dollars of the company product to your favorite cause; Which is it to be?” If you were already comfortable, you’d be tempted by the offer, no?

          That’s what is going on. Management is spending company resources promoting their favorite causes at the expense of the bottom line, because management at these companies now agree about what causes should be advanced at the expense of the stockholders.

          That in the case of some of these companies, (Facebook, Google, Twitter) the major stockholders share the same ideology, just makes it easier to pull off.

    3. Free press means free from government censorship.

      Free press does not mean they are required to give a platform to all voices.

      1. It only took 30 years, but the right has come full circle to where the left was: free press must mean some type of
        “Fairness Doctrine” now

        1. Google is “the press” now?

          1. No Google isn’t the printing press but they are the owner of their printing press.

        2. The right is exactly where it always has been.

          Stop censoring. No algorithms, no propriety boards, no diversity watchdogs, no balance coordinators. NONE of it.

          Why is it so hard for the left to keep it’s god damned feet off our fucking necks?

          Stop trying to control people.

      2. You might want to read up on Anti-Trust law.

        Its not about forcing companies to give platform to all voices but it is designed to prevent a few companies from colluding to set prices, business practices, and other monopolistic behavior.

        Companies are not people. The Constitution specifically give the government to regulate companies in interstate commerce.

        Lefties made most of these regulatory laws that will used against them. Lefties die on their own sword or they support dismantling the federal regulatory power structure. Its a win-win-win.

        1. designed to prevent a few companies from colluding to set prices, business practices, and other monopolistic behavior.

          Let’s take the prime example of Info Wars. The 6 or so major tech firms who control and oversee, what, 60-80% of all daily internet traffic via their websites all decided to deplatform a user within 18 hours of each other. They colluded like Ayn Rand villains behind closed doors and acted as group.

          This might not bother you; but you can’t tell me you don’t understand where allegations of collusion or why anti-trust laws have been brought up with regards these current events.

          1. Herd action is not collusion.
            If everyone wants to do an action, but doesn’t want to be first, that is the pattern. A time of them all looking at each other, then one company takes the plunge, then the rest.

            1. It is when you coordinate it.

        2. You might want to read up on Anti-Trust law.

          Is hyphenating and capitalizing antitrust a backwater thing, an anti-expertise thing, or a faux libertarian thing?

          1. Not actually reading it or understanding it is a Boomer progressive thing.

      3. What if the press and government officials are colluding to the point where you can reasonably accuse them of being the same entity? There should be a stance on that from the sides of Libertarians. Reason only seems to want the separation of Corp and State when their argument suits them.

        1. No mention of Google’s 500ish meetings at the white house and revolving door of employees between the two during the Obama administration…

  9. “Early this morning, President Donald Trump tweeted his discontent with the Google results ”

    What happened to lowering and raising flags?

    1. That’s so yesterday.

  10. Maybe he should have searched Fox instead of Google?

  11. Reputable mainstream news outlets like CNN using Lanny Davis as an anonymous source about the trump tower meeting while denying (read lying) that he was the source? The same CNN who still “stand by” their story after davis admitted he lied?

    That sort of reputable?

    1. Nakedly partisan, in the way Suderman prefers, means reputable.

    2. After Davis claimed he lied, you mean.

      1. “After Davis claimed he lied, you mean.”

        Yeah! Cathy’s got a great point there. Did it ever occur to you that Lanny Davis might be lying about lying? Didn’t think of that one did you? /sarcasm

  12. A president who spends all his time tweeting about how aggrieved he is at his poor treatment by the media instead of acting like a grown-ass man, and he gets negative Googles? Must be a conspiracy.

    1. Actually Tony the President doesn’t look the slightest bit silly for this tweet AT ALL. AT ALL. AT ALL.

      Haha own the libs TDS

    2. Speaking of conspiracies… How many now has Trump been laughed at for tweeting about that are now known to be true?

      1. I’m gonna go with zero and risk the shame of being off by 1 or 2.

        1. Well yeah, you’re an uninformed idiot.

          1. Hard to meet your criteria when everything Trump shit-tweets is automatically true by virtue of his supreme fatness tweeting it.

            1. So Tony, should your communist brethren fail to make any gains in the upcoming midterms, how extreme will be our apoplexy?

              Rioting in the street? Joining up with Antifa?

        2. He got laughed at for claiming his campaign had been wiretapped. That one’s looking pretty solid, despite the quibbles about the absence of alligator clips.

          1. Actually he claimed it was his wires that were tapped. Which is only true in the small* percentage of calls he had with other people whose phones were tapped.

            * I can’t think of anyone other than Carter Page who was under this kind of surveillance, and I assume he was not Trump’s main contact.

  13. And now if Google changes in the face of this threat, is it still “hey, they are a private company and nobody in government ordered them to”? Do threats from Cuomo in NY count also?

    1. Yes they are still a private company either way.

      But let’s play it your way instead. What do you propose? That if anyone in a position of power says anything critical of any tech or media company, then that speech constitutes an implied form of impermissible censorship? So it would be illegal for Trump to say anything bad about Google, or for Schumer to say anything bad about Fox News?

  14. Google’s search results are the result of a complex algorithm which the company says doesn’t rely on political ideology.

    Of course, I believe them.

    ============
    By typing “Hillary Clinton cri” into Google’s search bar, the top auto-complete results are “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” “Hillary Clinton crime reform 1994,” and “Hillary Clinton crisis.”

    By contrast, the top auto-complete options when searching for the same thing in Yahoo and Bing results in “Hillary Clinton criminal charges,” “Hillary Clinton crimes,” and “Hillary Clinton criminal.”

    As The Wall Street Journal’s Tim Hanrahan has pointed out, discrepancies between the search engines abound.

    This Google vs. Bing autocomplete “Hillary Clinton ind?” discrepancy is weird. https://t.co/Ah9nAildLw @sourcfed pic.twitter.com/OnV8wDGuhN? Tim Hanrahan (@TimJHanrahan) June 10, 2016

    “Bill Clinton aff..” autocompletes in Bing as: affairs, affairs and girlfriends. Google? affordable health care pic.twitter.com/3vzauNNbCD? Tim Hanrahan (@TimJHanrahan) June 10, 2016

    “The intention is clear: Google is burying potential searches for terms that could’ve hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site,” SourceFeed’s narrator said.
    =============

    1. There have already been studies of how this kind of filtering (and ordering) can swing elections. I don’t know if it is willful blindness on the part of many libertarians or something else that prevents them from being able to see it.

      1. Wait, what? Google is Russian?

    2. Yeah, but Russia bought ads on Facebook. Why aren’t you paying more attention to the Russian hackers and bots?

    3. “Trump Aff” search on Google results in the following autocomplete:
      … affirmative action
      … affordable care act
      … effect

      “Trump Aff” search in DuckDuckGo results in:
      … affairs
      … affairs in white house
      … affair with McDougal

    4. Paranoid much?

  15. “What a clinically insane whiny bitch,” everyone here would say if he had a (D) after his name.

    You rightwing fucknuts sound pathetic when you whimper “Bbbut Gorsuch…” Congratulations on your graduation to naked utilitarianism. This wasn’t exactly the prepared curriculum, but as long as you get there, I suppose.

    1. Trump isn’t wrong though — this only thing stand on the principle of Truth; Trump is meaningless beyond being the instigator.

      If anyone gives a shit about the truth you can look at wikileaks or project veritas, which has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt via undercover footage with ranking employees, that all the major tech sites manually manipulate their webpages. To think they do otherwise is willfully absurd.

      You sling a lot of shit at right-wingers but you’re such equally dogmatic zealot that I don’t think you’ll give a scrap of credence to the obvious fact that they do manipulate their online news coverage.

      1. They manipulate it to screen out rightwing lies? Good. Contrary to certain assertions of late, there is still such a thing as truth. See you just capitalized it.

    2. Whereas progressives are well-known for their quiet, manly stoicism, accepting life as it is, in quiet contentment.

    3. But Tony you don’t understand

      something something gradually surrendering my freedom to the gub’mint is OK this time bcuz I love Trump #MAGA #QAnon #TheGreatAwakening #WWG1WGA

      1. #WWG1WGA

        Okay, not familiar with this one. Do I really want to know what this means?

        1. IIRC it means Where We Go One We Go All and it’s some sort of QAnon motto.

          1. Oh I see. Sort of like “no enemies on the Right”.

            Not. A. Cult.

          2. Where are they going? Is it dangerous?

            1. They are going to a local Domino’s to shoot it up and save the children in the basement from being eaten by cannibalistic liberal pedophiles.

              1. So many questions for these heroes.

                Are the children served on pizza?

                Are these pedophiles in the sense of oenophiles–they consume what they like? If so, they don’t get nearly the same attention as the other kind.

                1. I think, according to the Valiant Defenders of American Values, that “cheese pizza” is a secret code word for “child pornography”, or possibly “actual child sex-slaves”. So the kids are kept at pizza parlors to provide a centralized location for “spirit cooking”, which is apparently a ritualistic event where the children are molested and then consumed. Sometimes, especially powerful pedophiles can effectively order takeout, which is referred to as having a “pizza party”.

                  Source: An unemployed guy working on getting a 25+ year old hatchback running.

                  1. Damn that Call Me by Your Name for making it acceptable to eat what you fuck.

                  2. In Britain in the 60’s or so, there were overruled people who controlled the equivalent of orphanages. This was before computer databases were a thing, so they would pick out the ines who wouldn’t be missed by anyone and use them for their perversions. There is also evidence that many of these children and young adolescents were subsequently disposed of.

                    It isn’t impossible that the Podestas were involved in such things. John Poedsta is a real weirde, amd his emails deinitely show he was talking in code at times. Don’t know if he fucks children though. Of course he and his Clintoniam master BillClimton both like hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein, who kept a stable of very young teen sex slaves for the use of himself and his friends.

                    1. Yeah, basically there’s a difference between this sort of allegation being false in a particular instance, and categorically false. Dennis Hastert really was guilty, and yet somehow not exposed until he left office. Numerous politicians flew on the “Lolita Express”. Rotherham really happened.

                      Yeah, that particular conspiracy theory happened to be wrong. But it wasn’t implausible, given what’s known on the topic.

                2. Tony, you’re not high enough up in the progtard caste system to get your own cheese pizzas from Podesta.

  16. As I staunch supporter of the President I say down with the suppression of free speech from the fascist government entities at Google. AND DON’T FORGET ABOUT TWITTER TOO!!!

    1. While I agree with your methods, your target is misplaced.

      Journalists are the only profession called out for expressive freedom in the constitution. As such, we must create a licensing board for journalists, certifying the professional responsibilities that go along with those rights in modern society.

      Furthermore, we should focus speech and press during elections around such licensed journalists, so as to prevent monies interests fake news to spread like rumors and undermine our democracy. This was the start of Citizens United, and it shouldn’t have been the end, but for those meddling SCROTUSes and their invalid interpretation of the 1A.

      I’m all for free speech and a free press, but we can’t let it subvert our democracy.

      1. Even here, there are probably a number of folks who won’t see through your satire, and will agree with your descriptions and prescriptions.

        1. Satire?

  17. It’s nice to see that the worries about Trump’s statements on Google’s search results have been downgraded by Reason from a “crime”.

    The problem with crying “wolf” is that sometimes there really is a wolf–and after people have heard the alarm so many times over nothing, they stop paying attention.

    I oppose regulation of Google search results on the grounds that it’s preposterous–in addition to all the standard libertarian arguments. I won’t be disappointed if nothing comes of this, but anybody who read ENB this morning might be disappointed with anything short of a Waco style raid of Google headquarters by Trump’s FBI.

    Fear is the Mind-Killer.

    1. Like say….bump stocks…it feels like we’re getting saved by Trump’s ADHD-y lack of focus more than anything. The guy seems to fantasize about ruling by decree before breakfast before shrugging and heading out to the golf course.

      Accidental Laissez-faire beats the alternative, I suppose

      1. I keep quoting the same statement by Gillespie from over the weekend, “Trump’s supporters take him seriously without taking him literally. Trump’s detractors take him literally without taking him seriously”.

        . . . that was paraphrased from memory.

        In normal conversation, not everything that people say is meant to be taken seriously, and, certainly, not everything they say is meant to be taken literally. We used to have five or so honest to God linguists here in the peanut gallery. They’d tell us that semantics (or the meaning of language) is a hell of a lot more than the literal interpretation of the words.

        For the journalists out there who are all looking for a gotcha moment, they want to treat every one of Trump’s tweets like it’s an exclusive interview–meant to mean whatever terrible thing will generate a headline. They’re just destroying their own credibility and the credibility of the news services where they work.

        Trump talks to the American people on Twitter like he’s talking to a bunch of strangers sitting around watching the news in a bar. No one expects you to live by every word across the next four years or consider the implications of what you say on foreign policy, the Constitution, and whatever other pearls some lefty journalist wants to clutch. Certainly, just because journalists take every word of every tweet literally doesn’t mean that’s the way it was intended–or that’s the way it’s received by average people.

        1. Don’t know who originated the truism, but it certainly wasn’t Gillespie and is roughly 2 years old.
          “Trump supporters don’t take him literally, but do take him seriously. Trump opponents take him literally, but not seriously.”
          It’s an apt statement, but not thought up by Gillespie.

          I like your bar analogy for Trumps tweets. Also apt.

        2. I now a liberal bartender that believes every word in the Access Hollywood recording should be taken literally. But she has zero problem with all of Bill Clinton’s rapes, or Joe Biden’s hands behavior.

  18. Again, Suderman (and Reason) demonstrates the difference betweeen classical liberalism and libertarianism. The former recognized that private persons and organizations, especially when monopolies or acting in concert, could cause as much an injury to our freedoms as governments can. The latter? Not so much.

    Reason! Internet monopolies and collusion, as is the same in banking, are a danger to our basic freedoms. They are “deplatforming” (such a Orwellian word) even mainstream voices on the right. Only those who have a big enough cross-media loudspeaker are sometimes able to the duck for a bit. There are many great things about the Internet, however, the tendency toward centralization is not one of them. A mono- and oligo-poly focused law such that they may no longer engage in viewpoint discrimination will be an advancement to our collective freedoms. Alternatively, Internet services may offer legitimate interoperability so that competing and freer services can filter through their apps and interfaces.

    Banking has a related problem, as much a result of the government intervention as a tendency for natural monopolies the Internet has shown. But the Visa/Mastercard duopoly has already demonstrated using their iron grip on credit card processing to prevent certain voices from being able to fund their operations.

    Do you all really want the SPLC determining what you see on the Internet, or alternatively, who can be allowed to make money on the Internet?

    1. classical liberalism […] recognized that private persons and organizations, especially when monopolies or acting in concert, could cause as much an injury to our freedoms as governments can

      Um…no. Not remotely true. That’s a purely Progressive pov. There’s nothing about classical liberalism that substantiates monopoly threat.

    2. No, I don’t. Do you really want the government determining what you see on the Internet, or alternatively, who can be allowed to make money on the Internet?

      1. I’m not sure that I want a bunch of pasty-faced millennials deciding what I see on the internet either.

    3. Alternatively, Internet services may offer legitimate interoperability so that competing and freer services can filter through their apps and interfaces.

      So, kinda like Net Neutrality?

    4. Rigelsen, your ideas were already tried in the 70s with something called the “fairness doctrine”. It was correctly dispatched by the Supreme Court as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

      Who exactly do you think would be in charge of determining when viewpoint discrimination has occurred?

      1. Oops, I’m wrong about the Supreme Court. It never did rule against the fairness doctrine.

    5. Its a conundrum.
      You’d think libertarians could have some sort of insightful discussion about possible solutions.
      Instead, it’s just a dogmatic circle-jerk.
      I am not entertained.

      Personally, I think it bad if the government regulates. I also think it bad if transnational, monopolistic corporations collude and control access to information. We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Maybe that’s why dogmatic repetition and virtue bitching is so popular around here.

  19. In the vein of “everything Trump touches, dies” I present criticism of press bias.

    For decades, the mainstream press has had a liberal/progressive bias. It was there long before Trump. Mind you, not editorials, but supposedly hard news stories are the problem. They regularly have contained postive-connotation words for liberals, but neutral or negative words for cons and libertarians. The profiles of new laws are uncritical and only focus on the supposed positive effects and rarely the costs or trade offs. Those proposing limited government are always portrayed as obstructionists/villains/clueless. It goes on and on.

    It should probably be called a pro-government bias rather than liberal. But it’s there. And now, if you try to engage in serious criticism of this bias, you are branded as a knuckle-dragging Trump groupie. Principled criticism of the press is dead because of Trump.

    1. Not sure how this comment has anything to do with Trump’s tweet.

      Focus people…the word “illegal” has a rather substantial weight to it.

      1. Well, it’s just that everyone focuses on Trump’s self-obsessed blathering and a real issue worthy of rational discussion gets lost in the noise.

        And I don’t much worry about his blatherings. The fairness doctrine was long ago squashed by the Supremes and the current court is pretty good on the 1st Amendment.

        1. I’m wrong about the Supreme Court here. They did not rule against the fairness doctrine.

    2. Is the reason Republicans haven’t accomplished anything positive in half a century because they were stymied by the meanie press the whole time?

      1. Your comment has nothing to do with the issue I brought up.

        I don’t give two shits about the TEAMS.

        1. You ought to. One or the other controls everything.

  20. My Google search showed nothing of the sort — with pro-Trump outlets highlighted at the top. Biing’s results were almost identical, except they don’t highlight so many at the top. And I see the whole flap traces to pjmedia, one of the absolute wackiest conspiracy sites. The (OMG) Lou Dobbs.

    Best to recall that Trump’s core base is almost entirely the same Birthers who won him the GOP nomination — with only 37% of the primary vote.. So he feeds them a new conspiracy every month, to outshout all his failed campaign promises — which they don’t even recall. Newspeak.

    1. That’s total bullshit dude just you wait until John gets here buddy he’s gonna set u straight, QANON IS REAL!!!!

    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s got his cheeseboard out again.

  21. It may be tempting to dismiss these pre-dawn tweets as nothing more than the restless ramblings of a tech-illiterate old man.

    As opposed to the restless ramblings of tech-literate young people.

  22. “Trump’s tweets about Google this morning fall squarely into the same category: He is complaining that Google highlights reputable mainstream news sources rather than partisan outlets more favorable to the president.”

    So, outlets hostile to Trump are “mainstream”, outlets that are friendly to him are “partisan”; CNN, for instance, isn’t the slightest bit partisan.

    Look, the media are largely biased against Trump, Google doesn’t have to spike the bit that does like him.

    1. If Google sent in IT people to alter algorithms to be anti-Trump then Google would be biasing their publishing platform against Trump.

      I dont think it was done by Google and Lefties just hit their favorite Lefty news outlet for their daily dose of TDS.

      Trump is likely just making a deal about this so media focuses on this instead of McCain.

      At this point, the media has plastic checkers pieces falling out of their mouths.

    2. CNN has on air guests who have signed non-disparagement contracts with the Trump campaign.
      Trump got more free airtime from CNN than any other station during the election. He wouldn’t have been more than a Carson sized blip if it wasn’t for CNN.

      1. Exaggeration, it you do make a good point. These shrill media morons basically elected him in spite of themselves.

        1. Yes, they didn’t have enough of a grasp of public opinion outside their own echo chamber to understand that they were helping him; They though his positions were so outrageous that just publicizing them would kill him politically.

          After a while they wised up, and stopped covering his policy proposals, to the point where many left-wingers will tell you he didn’t have any. By then it was too late.

  23. He is complaining that Google highlights reputable mainstream news sources rather than partisan outlets more favorable to the president. And although his threats may be hollow, he is nonetheless raising the possibility that the power of the federal government will be brought to bear in response. Trump’s tweets are yet another attack by the president on the idea of press freedom.

    He is complaining that Google, a search engine, is using methods other than popularity and user settings to show results. This is something they don’t tell you they are doing. Something they’re not supposed to do. Viewpoint editing or censorship is PUBLISHING. And Google, a search engine, is not playing by the same rules as a publisher.

    He is raising the possibility that the power of the federal government might be used to get Google to abide by the rules they agreed to and that it may be used to remove the self-appointed gatekeepers who’ve decided that they get to limit your access to information to what they think is best.

    And, in so doing, restore freedom to the currently chained and (privately)censored press.

    There was a time when Reason defended freedom of expression–‘free minds’ used to actually mean something.

    1. Something they’re not supposed to do.

      Says who?

    2. >He is raising the possibility that the power of the federal government might be used to get Google to abide by the rules they agreed to

      This is so fucking Libertarian that it gave me an erection shaped like Ayn Rand

      1. Funny!! But eewwwww

    3. Viewpoint editing or censorship is PUBLISHING. And Google, a search engine, is not playing by the same rules as a publisher.

      I love that this has become a new talking point of “libertarians,” as if libertarians think publishers should have to play by the state’s Mickey Mouse-fellating rules anyway.

      1. If they actually read the damn statute, as opposed to simply barking off talking points, they’d know that the statute explicitly allows an “interactive computer service” to engage in censorship of all sorts of things. Yes, the statute extends a tremendous amount of immunity to an “interactive computer service” which it does not extend to a “publisher”, but anyone who actually could be arsed to read the statute would know that an “interactive computer service” does NOT automatically convert into a publisher when it begins to censor content.

        1. Weird how you didn’t cite anything to prove me wrong, huh?

          Guess it was an oversight.

        2. “they’d know that the statute explicitly allows an “interactive computer service” to engage in censorship of all sorts of things.”

          Indeed it does, and if you’ve read the statute, you’d be aware that it provides a helpful list of what sort of things, none of which are anything like political ideology.

          “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, right wing ideology”; One of these things is not like the others.

    4. What exact “rules” are you referring to wrt publishers?

  24. There is obviously something wrong with the market right now with these near internet monopolies. Trump should focus on where that distortion is coming from and correct it, not try to fix the symptom.

    Google, Twitter, Facebook and the DNC have some sort of fascist shit going on right now that is plain as day to see. It is not natural. Reason should spend some time trying to figure that out rather than just bitching constantly about Trump and everything else.

    1. Agreed. Libertarians are used to thinking of government force as the greatest threat to liberty, and it may be under most circumstances, but it isn’t the only threat to liberty. And information monopolies are starting to look like the next big threat after government.

  25. I use DuckDuckGo as my search engine so I don’t sully my computer with the google search engine, but just to see how far the nefarious Obama agents at Google have fallen in love heir craven attempts to destroy the greatest President since Abraham Lincoln I typed in http://www.google.com and carefully typed in “Trump news” You know what the first article that came up? It was about Tiger Woods. {whistles} Wow.

  26. That’s right Cheeto! Give ’em the ‘ol meat hook!

  27. Well, I was going to mention duckduckgo, except the sockpuppet beat me to it. Oh well, it is an alternative.

    Also if you don’t want to go full vpn, you can use the Opera browser which can automatically create proxies for you so your location is spoofed when you surf.

  28. Well, I was all set to make a comment about how absurd supporting Rule By Whim and “in the public interest” was, but then I typed “Donald Trump news” into my search engine and there was the Fake News in all its glory – the first few results were links to news stories from the Guardian, WaPo, Politico and CNN on this very story, and then there was a link to Donald J. Trump’s Twitter account. Can’t get much more biased than that.

    But I do now understand where people are coming from when they claim Walmart is a monopoly that comes into town, drives all of the mom and pop places out of business, destroys communities and therefore should be regulated as if they were a public utility. I don’t agree with the sentiment, but I can see where there’s a libertarian case to be made for government regulation in the name of fairness and equal access and that sort of thing for Walmart just as for Google and Facebook and Twitter. And let’s look at fast food – how is it fair that fast food places are so overwhelmingly into burgers and pizza and chicken and tacos? Where is a place for those of us who prefer Mozambique barbecued beetle larva? I look forward to the day when Trump creates rules demanding equal access for everybody to everything.

    1. Is the barbecue ?Mozambican or the beetles?

    2. How dare they point people to Trumps twitter account? The source of all Trump news! It’s an outrage! A link to this story? How crazy accurate is that? If you discount most media as fake, it’s no wonder you and other Trumpers are upset.

      “I look forward to the day when Trump creates rules demanding equal access for everybody to everything.”

      OK, cool. So when president Bernie or some other lefty is in charge, you’ll be happy with him regulating the ‘equal’ access to everything too? Is that really different than state controlled media? All the news that our leader says is fit to print?
      It’s just another way to show that Trump, and all his GOP supporters, don’t really believe in the constitution or the founding fathers anymore.

  29. Just another example of why libertarians have no business supporting trump.

  30. GOD!!!… LANNY DAVIS WAS MICHAEL COHEN’S SOURCE ON HIS ASSERTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT TO THE TRUMP TOWER TO TALK TO SOME RUSSIAN WEIRDOES ABOUT CLINTON’S EMALZ. THAT MEANS EVERY BAD THING SAID ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A LIE!!! DON’t YOU FUCKING GET IT, LIBS? FUCK, MAN!!!

  31. The bias of internet companies is a result of existing regulation.

    Internet companies were given a special legal carve out, with the legal privileges of publishers to control content but only the liability of a common carrier that must take all comers.

    Remove that, and twitter and facebook will behave like common carriers the next day.

    It’s more complicated with Google, as search is inherently editorial, while social media need not be.

    1. What liability are they supposed to have? Intentional infliction of emotional distress on Donald Trump?

      1. They have violated the 100% Constitutional principle of L?se-majest?, and have sullied the eyes of God-fearing Americans by openly linking them to CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

        1. I think we’d all take Trump more seriously if he dressed like Louis XIV.

  32. ABC News reporter Tara Palmeri, who also covers the White House, further explained that Trump sometimes reads on an iPad, which he refers to as “the flat one.”

  33. So go start “conservative Google”.

  34. Google is left partisan. Their Google doodle choices confirm this.
    I’m glad Trump called attention to this. But the US govt should do nothing about it. It is none of the govt business what Google puts on their search engine.

  35. Yah, its a giant conspiracy by online media to make Trumplnumnutz look like a jackass.

  36. Google’s algorithm is clearly tilted toward an intended viewpoint and is not ‘unbiased’ or a purely neutral search of information. I use google extensively to find references in my work and one learns the tricks necessary to spoof the algorithm a bit. But…there are some things that are next to impossible to find via google, that can be found via other engines.
    Its not clear why google tilts things, or what bias is inherent…. but it clearly leans toward mainstream group-think.

    Trump is right and wrong on this, but it is a good point regardless. At some point, google’s power and influence will disrupt the free flow of information to the detriment of a free society. Some would say they already are at that point. Doing nothing about it is anarchocapitalism, not libertarianism.

  37. I use the google news app all the time, it gives me articles from multiple random sites I would not usually go directly to, as well as the usual MSM suspects: the majority of them CNN (known lefty) and Fox news (known righty) articles. Haven’t noticed anything significant in search results.

    Use BING or maybe revive askJeeves and tailor that for the whiny snowflakes who can’t bear to see “Trump shits his pants in front of everyone again” after he inevitably shits his pants in front of everyone.

  38. New headline:

    “Bully with Immense Power is Upset and threatens to use his powers to punish (or cause to be punished) people that re-post and/or opine on the crude, boorish and foolish things things that he voluntarily posts on Twitter and says into Microphones”

    Subheadline: 36% of Americans fail to see the problem with this.

  39. The complaints are based on believing that for every Reuters, AP or New York Times link you should have an “equivalent” link to “Infowars” or “Drudge Report” (Fox is already in the results).

    Google’s algorithm is based on number of links. There just aren’t as many people linking to the conspiracy theory sites as there are the NYT or WP. If Trump wants more favorable results from Google, he’s better get more cronies to create more web sites and link them to Fox and Infowars etc..

  40. MCM Patricia Visetos Leather Chain Crossbody Bag In White

    Shop http://www.mcmbackpacksoutletonline.com Cheap MCM Backpacks Outlet Store and Buy MCM Patricia Visetos Leather Chain Crossbody Bag In White, Save Big Discount, Fast Delivery and Free Shipping…

    http://www.mcmbackpacksoutleto…..white.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.