"Sponsored Content" banner at the top of this post?
The original google post about this, which makes it clear that mobile friendly sites get a higher ranking when you search on mobile devices . This change will affect mobile searches. Mobile. Not desktop. So if you're searching from a mobile device then results that are more mobile friendly will be ranked higher, on the assumption that people searching from mobile devices would prefer mobile content.
By that reasoning, you must think Mitt Romney is God.
Diane Feinstein believes that every American who isn't a cop or politician is a violent criminal who hasn't been caught yet, and thus believes that only cops and politicians such as herself should own firearms... I don't see any conservatives standing up to defend her...
I think what you really meant to say there was "why do conservatives always defend the rights of people I decide not to like?" The answer to which being, they don't, but that's the perception you choose to have based on your particular, subjective view of reality.
So where does ruining a persons life because you saw a video of them doing something legal that you don't like (say, for example, holding an unpopular opinion) fit into your concept of a 'free' society?
FYI, trying to reason your position with an individual who has already decided that they are "right" is as effective as screaming at a brick wall.
Our only hope is that someday these SJWs will become victim to their own practices, and hopefully realize the error of their selfish ways.
So when people are being recorded they should pretend to think some other way?
That's retarded. Maybe instead more folks should put their big girl panties on and realize that other people being opinionated assholes is NOT worth starting a federal case over.
Physically assaulting someone is a crime, deserving of punishment.
Verbalizing your distaste for another person and/or their attitude is not.
This new mentality of "everything I disagree with should be illegal" isn't just part of the problem, its the whole goddamned thing.
Many would consider taking actions that negatively affect another person simply because you've decided you don't like an options they hold to be a real asshole move within itself. So wouldn't that behavior warrant some shaming of its own? Or is hypocrisy allowable now?
If you had your career destroyed by groupthink I bet you'd hold a different opinion on the matter.
Except that the end result wasn't a nicer person, it was that said person lost everything she spent a lifetime working for, because one (very likely out-of-context) statement was surveilled.
So, really, the whole concept is pure bullshit on its face.
In pretty much every single other business, what Uber calls "surge pricing" is referred to as "price gouging," and is illegal.
What's the difference between what Uber is doing today and what a handful of gas stations tried to pull on 9\11\2001? The fact Uber is getting away with it?
Movie-Plot Threat Contest entries.
as have Canadians.
Spreading false information isn't trolling, it's slander and/or libel. And if someone is committing a crime that hurts another person, they should rightly and justly be punished by law, not some phpBB plugin.