Stupid World

[george formby]

It's been interesting noticing (without any specific intention or action on my part) how much Google appears to manipulate content from certain websites. In this case, Russian websites.

I have been using "Google Translate" as an online function to translate content in other languages for several years. Danish, Dutch, Japanese, Chinese as well as Russian. Not only to access and read content in other languages, but also to keep in contact with various people around the world.

More recently, I've been accessing a higher number of Russian websites, simply to read their content and to see what the Russians had to say on various topics.

While the "hit rate' (in terms of returning a Russian translation) has always been high, I'd noticed an increasing number of instances of Google Translate either:

(i) returning no content for certain websites (the request would just "hang")
or
(ii) returning some content for those websites, but an explicit "could not translate this webpage" response for certain webpages within a website.

For no obvious reason.

This was starting to become a little frustrating, as the link to an article was often posted by other users (bloggers) and was of interest to me.

So recently, I decided to install the Russian Yandex web browser on my PC as well - simply to see if I could access and read the content on those Russian websites / webpages that appeared to have been affected.

What do you know ?

Using Yandex:
The usual western news websites that I regularly frequent could be displayed just fine. No problems.

But:

In (i) above, the previously affected Russian website was now accessible and its content could be displayed just fine.

In (ii) above, the previously affected Russian webpage could be accessed, and its content could be displayed just fine.

As a test, I tried to access the "affected website" or "affected webpage" first using Google Translate - and then (as quickly as possible) tried to access the same resource using Yandex - just to see if this (mis-)behaviour was consistent over a number of days. Which it was.

So why was Google Translate having a problem with either providing access to, or providing a Russian translation in some instances ?

And then I noticed another behaviour that I found a little more unsettling.

In certain Russian websites that showed a time-based list of article headlines (i.e. newest to oldest, for the past 24 hours) - where you could select on and then read the linked article:

(iii) certain headlines that were shown in the list by the Yandex browser would not be shown (simply omitted) using Google Translate.

Often not just one article headline, but multiple.

It seems that they had simply been filtered out by Google Translate (or by the underlying Google search and retrieval software).

So I couldn't always rely on Google Translate to either reliably access certain websites, or to reliably provide me with a translation.

I watch with interest to see if the same (mis-)behaviour starts to occur for some Chinese websites in the not-too-distant future.

Sorry to quote the whole lot, sheer laziness.

Any reason why it would not be Russian websites hampering Google access?

[Viking01]

That’s been happening for at least ten years Viking... google is the cia/nsa so it kinda makes sense.
I’ve noticed last few months on fakebook if your clicking through to a story that is perhaps anti the mainstream narrative you get this little window saying “website slow loading” with two options basically encouraging you to abandon your attempt. All the while you’ve watch the blue professor bar and it’s nigh on nery instsntmy loaded anyway.
Real blatant attempt at soft censirship.

Evening.
I was just surprised to see such obvious suppression of certain entries. I wasn't actively looking for it, but just happened to compare the results presented for the same webpage using the two search engines.

As you said, some of the behaviours of Google are well recognised, and have been mentioned within various articles posted over the years (e.g. the following two articles from 2019):

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019...r-results.html
https://www.rt.com/usa/465000-google...lower-veritas/

The more common examples that I've noted over the years have been:

1.Relative Ranking (Bias)

(a) Paid Advertising content [Obviously Promoted - Can Ignore]

(b) Ranking of articles produced by various western news media outlets or think-tanks automatically appearing within the first 1-2 pages of Google' search results [Promoted], while those from "less well-regarded" sources are either downgraded [Are returned, but appear well down the Results tree] or seem to have been filtered out completely [Do not appear at all in the Results tree - first 10 pages of search results]

Examples: Topic Area = 911, Trump, Covid. Website = RT or Sputnik (Russian)

2.Filtered Out or Suppressed

(a) Trying to access an online article whose hyperlink has been included in another recently posted article (say the last 24 hours), only to find that the referenced article can no longer be found and retrieved via Google. [ But can been found by going to the source website, and searching locally]

(b) Cut-and-paste either a "part title" or "full title" from an existing online article and use as an explicit search term within Google, yet that article still will not appear within Google's search results.

Possibly not indexed, but I find it doubtful as an excuse where the same article can easily be found using alternative search engines having less comprehensive website indexing (e.g. Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yandex, Qwant).

[Viking01]

Sorry to quote the whole lot, sheer laziness.

Any reason why it would not be Russian websites hampering Google access?

Evening.

Good question. But I couldn't see any justification in that behaviour by the Russians.

The entries that did not appear under Google related to items the Russians would have likely wanted clarified, and their view to be seen and read. Whereas various western news outlets might have not wanted to either acknowledge the items, or discuss them e.g.

(i) Supposed impact of reduced wheat shipments upon global food supply
(ii) Supposed effectiveness of western sanctions upon Russia (and sanctions blow-back upon Europe and the US)
(iii) Ukrainian casualties

Cheers, Viking

[george formby]

Evening.

Good question. But I couldn't see any justification in that behaviour by the Russians.

The entries that did not appear under Google related to items the Russians would have likely wanted clarified, and their view to be seen and read. Whereas various western news outlets might have not wanted to either acknowledge the items, or discuss them e.g.

(i) Supposed impact of reduced wheat shipments upon global food supply
(ii) Supposed effectiveness of western sanctions upon Russia (and sanctions blow-back upon Europe and the US)
(iii) Ukrainian casualties

Cheers, Viking

Thanks for answering, you have me intrigued. Again.

[pritch]

Apropos of the sites where Google translate didn't work, have you tried using the camera on your phone and the Google translate app to view the Russian on the screen? Be intersting to see if that worked.

[Viking01]

Apropos of the sites where Google translate didn't work, have you tried using the camera on your phone and the Google translate app to view the Russian on the screen? Be interesting to see if that worked.

Morning.

Yes, I have used the Google Translate app on my phone - and yes, it does work. But it's damned fiddly, and you have to keep a steady hand.
Much easier to use the PC version, or to use the Yandex browser.

Cheers, Viking

[mashman]

It's been interesting noticing (without any specific intention or action on my part) how much Google appears to manipulate content from certain websites. In this case, Russian websites................

Censorship and manipulation of information in 2022, Shirley not. When it was all paper based, the papers could easily be hidden and one could lie entire countries into conflicts over resources that one wanted and blame someone else for it. By deception do war.

[husaberg]

Censorship and manipulation of information in 2022, Shirley not. When it was all paper based, the papers could easily be hidden and one could lie entire countries into conflicts over resources that one wanted and blame someone else for it. By deception do war.

So what about people like you, that willfully spread false information like fake covid cures?

And that has what to do with the fact that that is where the guide can be found?... you know, the one discussing the use of Ivermectin by those who have successfully used the drugs to treat Covid?

Shooting the messenger only works if the messenger is saying something that hasn't been proven to work, or in this day and age, something that can be twisted to suit the purpose of allowing the messenger to be effectively shot without anyone really noticing... you know, like posting a critique of a group of medical professionals v's a list of their personal preferences in order to deny them their medical status. And they're called beyond lunatic fringe by whom? The fucking pathetic?

The 'vaccine' you allude to would be Ivermectin et al applied according to the algorithm of treatment that Peter McCullough et al developed n response to people dying before their eyes. The treatment costs cents and is merely the 'off-label' use of a drug that has worked. That an algorithm was developed in August 2020 and still works no matter the variant. Hard to get, though not impossible, I'd rather it was recognised and so could be prescribed according to an algorithm that isn't overly easy to follow.

heh... tends to happen when one believes that one has gone as far as one can go in terms of what one is certain of.

Proof is proof. Posting again just coz it seems that some people are still under the delusion that there's no proof of tried, tested and well documented treatments out there. Can't handle it and feel the need to batter away at your keyboard showing me who you really are by trying to tell me what or who you think I Am, snigger, then you've missed the point. Some science can't be denied... but it can be ignored and sold to gullible morons as worthy of mandating something completely unncessary and unfit for purpose... but hey, that's scence v's human opinion for ya. The government said it's ok

He has offered his evidence to anyone who wants it (obviously medical confidentionality limits to whom). He was successfully treating Covid with these drugs before the jab, because he was a part of a collective of doctors who didn't sit there and do nothing. Yet you find it hard to believe that front-line doctors are capable of such things? Moreover you think they're lying because of their position on the jab? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... They had their findings i.e. people cured with the evidence to prove tt, ready to present in August 2020, and yet no one has wanted to see it. The Mccullough et al paper from 2020 outlining the collective findings at the time is still waiting to be peer reviewed 18 months later i.e. it hasn't even been looked at yet despite the claims it was making at the time, and despite the fact that the jab is a bust.
.

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial - An investigation for the BMJ.... might explain a few things with regards to testing v's outcomes in reality reality.

.”"

Exactly. Pfizers results are available and ya'll still have yer heads up yer arses that sees people continue to be murdered. Can't accept that exceptionally well evidenced fact from the producers of the snake oil? = Wilful ignorance.

They're dying from complications associated with a virus that had a scientifically proven cure available in Aug 2020. They're also dying from an injection that doesn't work according to the products own safety data.

[Viking01]

Thanks for answering, you have me intrigued. Again.

Afternoon.

The basic point I was making is that there are always two sides to every coin.

While the western media is well and truly dominant (in terms of media chains and news outlets, think-tank opinion and commentary by western leaders) - to the point of flooding the bandwidth , they carry little or no comment by Russian leaders or media.

In addition, a number of European countries have forced the closure of Russian news outlets such as RT and Sputnik (in the name of controlling the spread of "propaganda").

So, unless you go and actively look for commentary on the "other side of the fence", you're not going to get an alternative perspective.

You don't have to (i) believe what you read (ii) like what you read, but perhaps there might be a few grains of truth present (facts) as well as a valid alternative perspective (view point). You be your own judge.

In respect to the three points I listed earlier:

A. Wheat exports
B. Western sanctions
C. Ukrainian casualties

I'll address just the first two at this time, and provide a few links below.

I'm not going to get into a debate whether the content - or viewpoint - is right or wrong. Honest or dishonest.

Some of the links require Google Translate to access and dynamically translate the Russian website source, so some may take a few seconds to load and convert . A little patience may be required. [ Why using the Yandex web browser is so much easier and quicker ]

Note:
You may be prompted whether you want to access and open the article when you click on those links (just so you know). Some of the Russian expression may also be a little stilted English language-wise, but the basic kernel of the idea should still be evident.

A. Wheat Exports

The basic points the Russians are making are:

1. That a global food shortage in some areas) has been looming for several years (not just since the start of the Russian LME).

2. That the Ukrainian wheat supply is only a small proportion of grain available for export globally, and what they do export is more likely going to the West to help pay down debt (incurred for weapons shipments) rather than needy third world countries.

That mining of harbours might be viewed and interpreted in more than one way.

3. That Russia would be able to meet a large proportion of third world grain needs, had the West not chosen to (i) sanction their wheat sales (ii) sanction their delivery vessels / ability to moor in western harbours (iii) refuse shipping insurance cover (iv) sanction Russian banks , thus preventing payment for grain sales by Russia.

4. That the wheat "shortage" is also dependent upon other concurrent factors such as (i) China buying up large (ii) India restricting exports (iii) failure of crops in certain countries during 2021.

https://sputniknews.com/20220603/put...095979831.html

https://vz-ru.translate.goog/world/2..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://vz-ru.translate.goog/economy..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://vz-ru.translate.goog/news/20..._x_tr_pto=wapp

B. Western Sanctions

This is a very large topic to try and cover (so I won't try).

Other than to say that (i) sanctions affect all aspects of daily life, (ii) Europe, the UK and the US will not be immune from the effects of the sanctions they have imposed themselves, and (iii) Russia has been preparing for a western sanctions program since Maidan 2014, and so has had time to prepare for the possibility.

Again, I have provided a few Russian articles (links below). I have interspersed a number of western media articles, not only to try and show some balance, but also suggest that the Russians may have been correct in some of their assertions. Again, you be your own judge.

The basic points that the Russians are making are:

1. Sanctions affect a wide range of products and their use in daily living and manufacturing (e.g. oil and gas, certain metals and speciality gases, minerals, wood, glass, just to name a few).

2. The western sanctions are more likely to affect their own economies, not only causing increased inflation, but also the slowdown (and the stoppage) of certain important manufacturing operations (e.g. fertilisers, glass making, vehicles).

They question both the "sense" and "value" of the imposition of further sanctions, as well as the "honesty" of European politicians in continuing to promote their use.

3. The Europeans have reduced not only their own energy physical stocks (and certainty of supply), but also driven up energy prices dramatically through their own actions (e.g. decision to cease fixed contracts and shift to spot pricing; gas futures rising dramatically on the back of supply uncertainty; force Russian response and decision to shift to payment in rubles).

4. The tight integration of oil and gas supply between Russia and Europe will not be easily unwound, and nowhere near as quickly as European politicians suggest.

This is affected by (i) insufficient availability of various fuels derived from crude oil (e.g. diesel, aviation fuel) (ii) the need to re-configure - and the difficulty of reconfiguring - European refineries to process non-Russian crude oil supplies (iii) lack of certain blend ingredients.

5. Energy supply and certainty is not limited just to oil and gas supply. Nuclear power (specifically supply of nuclear fuel materials) is important to continuity of supply of energy to homes and industries. Not to forget (i) planned European phase-out of nuclear power (ii) age of existing European nuclear power plants (past due retirement date) (iii) maintenance outages constraining electricity generation.

6. The US will not be able to save Europe by supplying LNG (even if it wanted to). This applies to (i) limitations upon its own ability to supply LNG (ii) need to meet internal US demand for LNG (iii) world wide LNG shortage (iv) need for the deployment of new LNG re-gasification infrastructure within Europe.

7. The US will not be able to rely on its traditional Middle Eastern allies to "step up their production and fill the energy supply gap" - for political, economic and resource extraction reasons. Nor will it be able to strong-arm other parties such as Iran and Venezuela to do so.

https://sputniknews.com/20220604/eur...096010958.html

https://www.rt.com/russia/556377-bel...-pause-impact/

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022...-the-foot.html

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/0...cide.html#more

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/in...e-unaffordable

https://eadaily-com.translate.goog/r..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www.rt.com/business/556016-e...crunch-winter/

https://ria-ru.translate.goog/202206..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Edit 14.06.2022]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/mark...13-p5at78.html

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...r-will-end-us/

https://www.rt.com/business/557139-r...ow-to-germany/

[Edit 15.06.2022]

https://eadaily-com.translate.goog/r..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://sputniknews.com/20220615/san...096326921.html

[Edit 16.06.2022]

https://aftershock-news.translate.go..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Edit 24.06.2022]

https://sputniknews.com/20220623/mic...096595394.html

[george formby]

2.Filtered Out or Suppressed

(a) Trying to access an online article whose hyperlink has been included in another recently posted article (say the last 24 hours), only to find that the referenced article can no longer be found and retrieved via Google. [ But can been found by going to the source website, and searching locally]

(b) Cut-and-paste either a "part title" or "full title" from an existing online article and use as an explicit search term within Google, yet that article still will not appear within Google's search results.

Possibly not indexed, but I find it doubtful as an excuse where the same article can easily be found using alternative search engines having less comprehensive website indexing (e.g. Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yandex, Qwant).

Aah, now this is something I have come across often enough to make me ponder. Funnily enough it's been articles in the British press which have vanished. As you say, within 24 hours and not just the Google search but the actual site where I read it.
IIRC the last one that vanished was about an incident involving a Russian submarine off the coast of Ireland. Poof, gone.

[Viking01]

Aah, now this is something I have come across often enough to make me ponder. Funnily enough it's been articles in the British press which have vanished. As you say, within 24 hours and not just the Google search but the actual site where I read it.
IIRC the last one that vanished was about an incident involving a Russian submarine off the coast of Ireland. Poof, gone.

What submarine ? Did it wave a Russian flag ? Was it budget appropriation time for the local Defence department ?

[TheDemonLord]

Afternoon.

The basic point I was making is that there are always two sides to every coin.

You mean the radical notion that each person is a Judge in the court of their Opinion and should be entrusted to weigh the evidence given to them, to sort Truth from Lies?!?

This might be crazy enough to work....

[TheDemonLord]

Aah, now this is something I have come across often enough to make me ponder. Funnily enough it's been articles in the British press which have vanished. As you say, within 24 hours and not just the Google search but the actual site where I read it.
IIRC the last one that vanished was about an incident involving a Russian submarine off the coast of Ireland. Poof, gone.

Sadly, this is a common occurrence.

I'm in favor of publishing corrections, issuing retractions - so long as the original is maintained - creating an Audit trail if you will.

However the silent and unseen process of banning/deleting/hiding content is a regular thing. Now, I can agree on illegal content being deleted - perhaps the most famous example would be the mass deletion of the Chch Massacre livestream - but for things that aren't illegal (even if reprehensible) - then it should be accessible.

[Viking01]

You mean the radical notion that each person is a Judge in the court of their Opinion and should be entrusted to weigh the evidence given to them, to sort Truth from Lies?!?

This might be crazy enough to work....

Afternoon.

In response to the comment about "two sides to every coin". Short answer to your question: No.

The four sentences that followed it (at the start of post #12024) outlined what I was thinking / had intended.

In some cases, one must actively go looking for "alternative" opinion - rather than just rely on a single narrative that is readily given. Mr Murdoch might disagree.

[george formby]

What submarine ? Did it wave a Russian flag ? Was it budget appropriation time for the local Defence department ?

Budget appropriation time? Interesting thought.

The article - IIRC - was about Royal Navy ships being tailed whilst on exercise.