Do you think that the media/search engines are so far, that they know your biases and are trying to just confirm/manipulate them?
For example: You are a Canadian right wing activist. Google only offers you news, but they are slightly changed to point a bit light on China and thus confirming your bias.
>>70249027
They clearly are.
>changed
Not the news themselves, but the news website if you are asking that. And Google doesn't do it, Facebook on the other hand...
>>70249027
I don't get your reference.What do you mean by China?
>>70249306
Thought that right wing Canadians hate china. At least thatch what the German/US/British media tells me.
>>70249027
They do not know your bias. However the way you type a question will result in answers that are "self serving biased"
A normal question
Google "what is the shape of the earth"
A biased statement
Google "proof that the earth is flat"
okay but let's be more realistic here
A normal unbiased question
Google "Do Syrian refugees pose a physical threat to Europeans"
A biased statement
Google "Syrian Refugees pose a threat to Europeans"
I'm not saying all biases are wrong, but most people are too fucking stupid to realize they have them, and subconsciously only seek out self serving information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
>>70249656
oh, well maybe in BC because thats where china does most of its business and its citizens immigrate to. I live in eastern canada.
>>70249736
>A normal unbiased question
>Google "Do Syrian refugees pose a physical threat to Europeans"
>A biased statement
>Google "Syrian Refugees pose a threat to Europeans"
Those are only different by DO and PHYSICAL Do's often omitted or it takes you to yahoo answers.
You're previous example was better. Using different words that are conclusions as keywords.
>>70249656
why would a country hate itself
>>70249736
You only see what your owners allow you to see.
>>70249027
why is this even a question?
its a known fucking fact.
