Google Going Into Politics?

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Bride Of Sea Of Tunes
Posts: 17562
Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 14:10
Location: The Nether World

Google Going Into Politics?

Postby Bride Of Sea Of Tunes » 12 Aug 2017, 13:12

I guess so, and if I'm right, it's quite a disturbing move; please look up the following links:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/09 ... ive-sites/

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08 ... g-a08.html

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08 ... s-a02.html

The third link has a list with sites 'thrown into 3rd rank', when it comes to searching for them:

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
* theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

As I visit 8 of these on a regular basis, simply because they're good, I think 'disturbing' is too mellow a word. Perhaps only if you equate 'social' with 'offensive', you'd be inclined to think Google is right.
The invisible and the non-existing very much look alike.

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44896
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Google Going Into Politics?

Postby The Prof » 12 Aug 2017, 17:53

What the hell in "anti-fake-news" ? The truth?

User avatar
Bride Of Sea Of Tunes
Posts: 17562
Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 14:10
Location: The Nether World

Re: Google Going Into Politics?

Postby Bride Of Sea Of Tunes » 12 Aug 2017, 18:13

The Prof wrote:What the hell in "anti-fake-news" ? The truth?


:lol:

(I read the articles very fast - and this wonderful new term had escaped me, thanks for pointing this out.)

Apparently 'social-democratic opinion'' = 'fake news' = 'offensive'.

In the world according to Google, that is.

It's not censorship in the literal sense, but it is highly manipulative, and misleading. And it may be only a first step.

(Perhaps Zuckerberg will put Trump's own TV promo-channel at the very top in the future, no matter what the search query was.)
The invisible and the non-existing very much look alike.

User avatar
The Modernist
Posts: 9616
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Google Going Into Politics?

Postby The Modernist » 13 Aug 2017, 00:46

'I'll look into your links later Frank, but Google has always been political. They're defining 21century capitalism. They're Californian wankers basically, but the message hasnt yet dropped about how they should be resisted.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 13854
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Google Going Into Politics?

Postby Jimbo » 13 Aug 2017, 05:04

Paul Craig Roberts

This is an update to my earlier posting this morning: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08 ... ever-look/

The Google engineer, a Harvard Ph.D., who raised questions about the non-fact-based ideological culture within the Google organization has been identified and fired.

Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO, said that the employee in expressing his views had violated Google’s code of conduct and had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” The employee, James Damore, confirms that he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes” by expressing his views.

Having fired Damore or permitted Google’s Thought Control Czar, Danielle Brown, to fire Damore, Sundar Pichai delivered a caricature of hypocrisy. Sundar addressed Damore’s “co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace, especially those with a minority viewpoint. They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent.”

In the face of firing Damore for expressing his opinion, Sundar affirmed: “we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves.” Sundar says that “many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their (sic) views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.” https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611069 ... of-conduct

However, Googlers must not question feminist ideology.

We should not be surprised that google is opposed to free expression. According to reports, Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere and to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression.

For example, on July 31, the World Socialist Web Site reported that “Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes, many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches. The World Socialist Web Site has seen, within just one month, a 70 percent drop in traffic from Google.” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/0 ... g-j31.html

Writing in Global Research, Graham Vanbergen lists 13 websites arbitrarily branded by Google as fake news or conspiracy sites whose readership Google has managed to reduce between 19 and 67 percent:

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

It is completely obvious that none of these sites are fake news or conspiracy sites. These sites are under Google censorship because they question the official lies that are used to control the explanations given to the people. With the print and TV media and NPR under its control, the ruling oligarchy is now moving to shut down all Internet explanation that differs from the official lies that are used to keep people firmly locked in The Matrix.

Google is a monopoly. Before monopolists turned US anti-trust legislation such as the Sherman Act into dead-letter laws, Google would have been broken up. Today Google is protected not only by the demise of anti-trust laws, but also by its usefulness to the US Police State. Without Google’s active cooperation, it would not be possible for the NSA to complete its total spy network, a network that serves not national defense but suppression of dissent from the agendas of the ruling oligarchy.

Google abuses its power in many ways. For example, Wikileaks reports that among the Podesta email leaks, there is one from Google’s Eric Schmidt to Cheryl Mills offering Google’s ability to spy on Americans to help the Democrats win the presidential election. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-0 ... n-election

Apparently, Google has chosen to be a monster committed to upholding lies and ideologies in the place of truth. Unless another country with the courage to stand up to Washington creates a rival search engine, truth will disappear from the face of the earth. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08 ... ee-speech/
persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom

User avatar
Bride Of Sea Of Tunes
Posts: 17562
Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 14:10
Location: The Nether World

Re: Google Going Into Politics?

Postby Bride Of Sea Of Tunes » 13 Aug 2017, 09:29

Thanks to Modernist and Jimbo -

I've been very busy with my own work in neuroscience and therefore this type of information escaped me for a big part. So I was quite surprised to see some of my sources being branded as 'fake news'.

Which is a blatant lie, if there ever was one. Noam Chomsky, Henry A. Giroux, Philip Pilkington, George Monbiot: it makes me very angry that these writers now are being labeled as 'offensive touters with fake news'.
The invisible and the non-existing very much look alike.