YouTube censors Reality

Google censors the truth

Remember when Google censored the Great Barrington Declaration?

Another example of Big Tech censorship being weaponized in a manner that was incredibly harmful to society.

The Great Barrington Declaration scientists have been proven completely correct.

Lockdown was an outrage.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 26, 2022

Google collects your location data and then hands it all to the police.

  Just in case you wondered, your Google Maps app will go directly to the cops if they ask for it.

BIG TECH IS EVIL

 You might think the most powerful man in the world is the President of the United States. But you would be wrong.

Because as this past week has shown, the Big Tech companies have power over even him. No one in human history has had the kind of reach and influence now wielded by a small group of men on the west coast of America....

Despite Google’s famous early slogan, what they and other Big Tech companies have done throughout their history really is distinctly, deeply, evil.

Twitter, for instance, has become one of the most powerful companies in the world – accumulating vast sums of money for a tiny number of people.

The business model is simple. Every time some great controversy occurs, it enriches Twitter, which makes money from advertising, data harvesting and much more. (Yet it relies on others – you, me, people across the planet – to point out errors and correct what it publishes for free.)...

And as they have come to dominate, the way they have used their power has become increasingly outrageous. Before the November election in the US, a major corruption scandal emerged about the family of Joe Biden. The story was broken over successive days by the New York Post – America’s oldest and most venerable paper.

How did the tech platforms react? In the most egregious way imaginable. They censored the story.

Facebook and Twitter suspended the New York Post’s social media accounts. What is more, they prevented any and all other users from ‘sharing’ this story. So ahead of an election they decided what the American people could or could not know about one of their candidates. They did it because they wanted Joe Biden to win....

YouTube has a long history of simply lying about its own behaviour. Because it will get away with it. Because Big Tech always does.

But this week the companies made their biggest move yet, with Facebook and Twitter banning Trump. Twitter also suspended his National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Federal Prosecutor Sidney Powell, both Trump loyalists.

Blaming, or pointing fingers are Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple is wrong.  A company is a curtain behind which actual people act.  In this case, actual people with actual names are committing unimaginable evil acts.  

The Curtain must be raised and these people exposed for the global criminals they are.

The National Pulse Publishes List of Google's Top 100 Pseudoconservative "Influencers" Who Rush to Defend Google Whenever Google Needs Them to Spin

Via Ace of Spades

White knights for Google.

Or is it... Green Knights? There are suspicions that many or even most of these people are "Google grantees" -- people paid grant money by Google....

They will be the last the crocodile eats. The crocodile has promised them that, and while the crocodile is a liar, he has no reason to break that promise: the Establishment Republicans are virtually liberals who join the left in almost all important controversies.

The Federalist is as far from "establishment Republican" as you can be (outside of us, of course), and in fact has been one of the only major sites warning, correctly, that the left had no intention of ever stopping its aggressive war on conservatives and traditionalists.

Now, Jonah Goldberg National Review, David French, The Bulwark, etc., have long insisted that claims the left would become more aggressive and violent in their determination to dehumanize conservatives and strip them of all incidents of citiizenship were mere "fear-mongering" by the "paranoid quarters" of the "far right."

But that's not The Federalist. (And, I assume based on general reputation, that's not Zero Hedge either).

I was one of the people sounding the alarm about Robert Spencer.

I agree with his sentiment that if only the establishment pseudo right had once told its very good leftwing friends that this unceasing campaign of aggression would not be tolerated, maybe they would have stopped advancing.

But the establishment pseudo right never did.

Here's the list via National Pulse.

Google can and will swing millions of votes by the way it modifies its searches and prompts releases to Google customers.

The home run statement of Dr. Epstein, who admitted he was a Democrat, is that the rock bottom lowest effect of Google in a US election is 2.5 million votes if it uses its available tools to influence users in voter choices, with the upper effect in a range of more than 10 million votes.

Then it got very interesting as Senator Cruz questioned a Google rep on the company’s assertion that it is fair and impartial and would not attempt to influence political activities. Of course, that is a joke; everybody knows it is a joke and that Google execs are hair-on-fire leftists who would never consider voting for a Republican, and that’s just the beginning.

When confronted with Project Veritas tapes of Google exec commitment to the Democrat party success and willingness to organize an effort to make sure Trump was not re-elected, the Google representative was just short of speechless, claiming the position she took in the beginning of the examination, that she represented a company that was not in the business of influencing and manipulating the public.

"... that intellectually debilitating article of libertarian faith, namely that “the government” poses the only real threat to liberty"

I'm paraphrasing, but it's generally true: "Libertarians seem to be OK with Google, or Facebook, or Twitter rigging the next election, as long as they are not "The Government."

To grasp the affinities between administrative governance and algorithmic governance, one must first get over that intellectually debilitating article of libertarian faith, namely that “the government” poses the only real threat to liberty. For what does Silicon Valley represent, if not a locus of quasi-governmental power untouched by either the democratic process or by those hard-won procedural liberties that are meant to secure us against abuses by the (actual, elected) government? If the governmental quality of rule by algo­rithms remains obscure to us, that is because we actively welcome it into our own lives under the rubric of convenience, the myth of free services, and ersatz forms of human connection—the new opiates of the masses.

To characterize this as the operation of “the free market” (as its spokespersons do) requires a display of intellectual agility that might be admirable if otherwise employed. The reality is that what has emerged is a new form of monopoly power made possible by the “network effect” of those platforms through which everyone must pass to conduct the business of life. These firms sit at informational bottlenecks, collecting data and then renting it out, whether for the purpose of targeted ads or for modeling the electoral success of a political platform. Mark Zuckerberg has said frankly that “In a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company. . . . We have this large community of people, and more than other technology companies we’re really setting policies.”

When you are able to influence what people think and how they think, what is allowed and what is out-of-bounds you have the mechanism of tyranny, no matter if the influencers are government employees or private citizens.  And these citizens are totally unaccountable via the ballot.

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results

Is lying to Congress a federal offense or not?

Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11 of last year. Democratic California Rep. Zoe Lofgren asked why a search for the term “idiot” returned a photo of President Trump. In response, Pichai said, “This is working at scale, we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result.”

A memo about the deceptive news blacklist was also obtained by the Caller, showing its last edit as Dec. 3, 2018, a week before Pichai’s congressional testimony. This document, which describes the process by which a site can be blacklisted for deceptive news, clearly shows that there is a manual component ...
The document indicates that there is, among other things, a “manual review tool” involved in maintaining the blacklist.

On the blacklist are a number of conservative sites, including Gateway Pundit, Matt Walsh’s blog, Gary North’s blog “teapartyeconomist.com,” Caroline Glick’s website, Conservative Tribune, a property of The Western Journal and the website of the American Spectator.

Brazil’s Top Election Court Catches Google Manipulating Search Results to Point to Negative Entries on Bolsonaro …Just Like They Do with Conservatives in America

If you thought that Google was manipulating search results for political purposes and they told you that you were crazy, they were gaslighting you.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSA), Brazil’s top election court, fined Fernando Haddad (President Jair Bolsonaro’s leftist opponent) for having a contract with Google to manipulate search results during the election.

Luiz Edson Fachin, of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), ruled that the PT candidate for the presidency, Fernando Haddad, paid Google to highlight negative content and manipulated searches to point to a website with negative coverage of Bolsonaro.

Google wasn’t fined because they claimed that as soon as they were notified by the court of the irregularities they dishonored the contract.

This is a common practice by Google in the United States.

Google manipulates search results for conservatives and conservative publishers to point to negative articles and hit pieces.

So does Google allow people or companies to pay them in order to manipulate search results or only if they are far left/socialist/communist websites?

Google claims their search results are driven by some sacred algorithm. Then how is it possible that they offered such a service to Socialists?

In the U.S. Google does it for free.

EU regulators hit Google with $1.7 billion fine for blocking ad rivals

It's a good start.  Now break them up.

Former Google boss launches scathing Silicon Valley attack urging tech giants to end the delusion that it's making the world a better place

She said: ‘You can’t go about telling your advertisers that you can target users down to the tiniest pixel, but then throw your hands up in front of the politicians and say your machines can’t figure out if bad actors are using your platform.’

She said: ‘On the surface, things seemed really important and exciting. We were doing big things! Bringing the internet to the developing world! But also, on some level, it all felt a bit off, like when you go on vacation and find yourself wondering when it’s going to feel like the Instagram pics other people have posted.’

Miss Powell also levelled criticism at Amazon and Facebook.

I hope this is a trend.

Google is Evil

GOOGLE LISTED “NAZISM” AS THE IDEOLOGY OF THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

Trump hates Amazon, not Facebook

When you take one side in the culture war, expect to get hit.  Facebook is getting the headlines but Google and Amazon are also in the data mining business.

Google refers to Republican senator David Perdue as 'lying, unscrupulous politician'

Google referred to Sen. David Perdue on Tuesday as a “lying, unscrupulous politician” when the Republican senator’s name was searched.

The “knowledge graph” on the right side of the search page said “David Alfred Perdue Jr. is an American businessman and lying, unscrupulous politician. He is a junior United States Senator from Georgia, having been elected in 2014 to the seat previously held by Saxby Chambliss, who retired.”

 

I don't think it's wise to do this.

Google needs a new CEO, but dumping Sundar Pichai is not enough

When a gigantic corporation that controls our data and knows us intimately takes a controversial political stance, it ought to make us worry.

Yes.

Google’s New ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Partisan Garbage

Consider the case of a woman named Eileen Wellstone. Out of many thousands of pieces published by The Federalist over the past four years, a single one mentions the name Eileen Wellstone. That article, detailing the sordid history of Bill Clinton, mentions her name exactly once: “Another woman, Eileen Wellstone, claimed Clinton raped her while he was at Oxford University in the late 1960s.”

For some reason, in this “reviewed claim” against The Federalist, Google sends the reader to a Snopes fact-check that argues that Clinton wasn’t expelled from Oxford over this alleged rape — a point I concede sounds completely accurate and is also an assertion that no one has ever made in this publication.

So the question is, does Google tag every article that relays accusations of sexual misconduct or rape as “unproven,” or just the ones against Bill Clinton? Or is the mention of Wellstone specifically worthy of a claim? The Wellstone case has not only been cited in all types of publications (and not in efforts to debunk it, either; 1,2,3,4,5, and so on) but by The Washington Post’s own fact-checker.

In a 2016 article detailing allegations against Bill Clinton that might be brought up by then-candidate Donald Trump, WaPo notes, “Eileen Wellstone says she was assaulted by Clinton when he was a student at Oxford University in 1969.” There is virtually no difference between that statement and the one published in The Federalist. Not that Google search engines users would know this when they search for the influential newspaper.

Or take another purported fact-check regarding climate change, which creates the impression that there’s something inaccurate about a specific arguable claim because the larger notions about the topic happen to be true.

What’s most amusing about this fact-check is that Google sends people who searched for “The Federalist” to an article correcting a claim made by someone on CNN, an outlet that, somehow, even though they apparently feature contributors who make questionable claims about science, is spared from search-engine truth-police grilling.

Moreover, the quote featured in the “reviewed claim” section is not even in The Federalist article. Google’s go-to site, Climate Feedback, an ideologically motivated site itself, argues that “Observed warming since the 1970s is consistent with climate model projections.” This is at the very least an arguable contention. Feel free to use your Google search engine to find thousands of pieces debating the accuracy modeling over the decades. This seems to be a normal, appropriate, and completely scientific debate to be engaged in.

Shock: Google's New "Fact-Check" Feature... Only Fact-Checks Conservative Sites, and No Left-Leaning Ones

Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.

No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.

And not only is Google's fact-checking highly partisan -- perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders -- it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made "claims" they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled "Reviewed Claims."

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a "Topics they write about" section appears, but there are no "Reviewed Claims."

In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are "vetted," while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

Google is so trustworthy  because it hires only the best people.

James Damore's lawsuit against Google has a lot of interesting material from inside the company:
164 replies2,035 retweets4,369 likes

Tucker Carlson‏Verified account @TuckerCarlson

Page 27, Footnote 3: "For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as 'a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin' and 'an expansive ornate building' presented a talk entitled 'Living as a Plural Being' at an internal company event."

4:40 PM - 8 Jan 2018

From Ace of Spades:

Maybe Google can "fact"-check one of their own employees' claim, made in a public talk presumably authorized by Google, that xhe was a "yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin" and also "an expansive ornate building."

Now, if you're saying to yourself, "Look, sister, I can buy the yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin identity, and even the expansive ornate building identity, but not both at the same time, see, that's because this Google employee (who is totally sane and can be trusted not to dig into your personal information) is a "Plural Being."

You dummies. I bet you didn't even know you could be a Plural Being.

Are you worried yet?

Google is coming after critics in academia and journalism. It’s time to stop them.

It is time to call out Google for what it is: a monopolist in search, video, maps and browser, and a thin-skinned tyrant when it comes to ideas.

The imperial overreach of Google in trying to shut down a group of five researchers proves the point that the initial release from Open Markets was trying to make: When companies get too much power, they become a threat to democratic free speech and to the liberty of citizens at large.

In 1948, in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Columbia Steel Co., Justice William O. Douglas explained that the traditional philosophy of American antitrust law is that “all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy … should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men.”

Google is forming into a government of itself, and it seems incapable of even seeing its own overreach. We, as citizens, must respond in two ways. First, support the brave researchers and journalists who stand up to overreaching power; and second, support traditional antimonopoly laws that will allow us to have great, innovative companies — but not allow them to govern us.

Google’s actions forced the Open Markets team to leave New America. But, thankfully, it did not succeed in silencing them entirely. Open Markets will continue on as a separate organization, which I will chair. Their work exposing corporate monopolies and advocating for regulation is more important than ever. Google shows us why.

NPR: Women at Google were so upset over memo citing biological differences they skipped work

Women are delicate hot-house flowers.?!

Plenty have noted that by firing James Damore over a memo in which he criticized Google as “an ideological echo chamber,” the company just proved him right.

In fact, plenty of people who seem to think they’re defending Google are doing just the opposite. NPR, for example, talked to a former Google software engineer who claimed that some women stayed home from work Monday because they were so upset over the memo.

A former Google software engineer says some women at the company skipped work today, upset by the leaked memo. http://n.pr/2hF4y0G

If you wonder how you can get fired by Google for questioning liberal bias ...

A software engineer’s 10-page screed against Google’s diversity initiatives is going viral inside the company, being shared on an internal meme network and Google+. The document’s existence was first reported by Motherboard, and Gizmodo has obtained it in full.

In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes, going on to argue that Google’s educational programs for young women may be misguided.

The post comes as Google battles a wage discrimination investigation by the US Department of Labor, which has found that Google routinely pays women less than men in comparable roles.

Gizmodo has reached out to Google for comment on the memo and how the company is addressing employee concerns regarding its content. We will update this article if we hear back.

The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.