Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 58
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,637
    Post Likes

    Big Tech Co Spying & Censorship

    This is a series of articles about big tech "service providers" who store and mine our data and private information.

    Google Is Not What It Seems
    by Julian Assange
    2014

    In this extract from his new book When Google Met Wikileaks, WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange describes the special relationship between Google, Hillary Clinton and the State Department -- and what that means for the future of the internet.

    ...

    I began to think of Schmidt as a brilliant but politically hapless Californian tech billionaire who had been exploited by the very US foreign-policy types he had collected to act as translators between himself and official Washington—a West Coast–East Coast illustration of the principal-agent dilemma.

    I was wrong.

    * * *

    Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, DC, where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury. He attended high school in Arlington, Virginia, before graduating with a degree in engineering from Princeton. In 1979 Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his PhD before joining Stanford/Berkley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983. By the time he left Sun, sixteen years later, he had become part of its executive leadership.

    Sun had significant contracts with the US government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch. By the start of 2001 over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000. By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question.

    It was also in 1999 that Schmidt joined the board of a Washington, DC–based group: the New America Foundation, a merger of well-connected centrist forces (in DC terms). The foundation and its 100 staff serves as an influence mill, using its network of approved national security, foreign policy, and technology pundits to place hundreds of articles and op-eds per year. By 2008 Schmidt had become chairman of its board of directors. As of 2013 the New America Foundation’s principal funders (each contributing over $1 million) are listed as Eric and Wendy Schmidt, the US State Department, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Secondary funders include Google, USAID, and Radio Free Asia.

    Schmidt’s involvement in the New America Foundation places him firmly in the Washington establishment nexus. The foundation’s other board members, seven of whom also list themselves as members of the Council on Foreign Relations, include Francis Fukuyama, one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement; Rita Hauser, who served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under both Bush and Obama; Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros; Walter Russell Mead, a US security strategist and editor of the American Interest; Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Unit, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the White House Fellows program, and Bono’s ONE Campaign; and Daniel Yergin, oil geostrategist, former chair of the US Department of Energy’s Task Force on Strategic Energy Research, and author of The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power.

    The chief executive of the foundation, appointed in 2013, is Jared Cohen’s former boss at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton law and international relations wonk with an eye for revolving doors. She is everywhere at the time of writing, issuing calls for Obama to respond to the Ukraine crisis not only by deploying covert US forces into the country but also by dropping bombs on Syria—on the basis that this will send a message to Russia and China. Along with Schmidt, she is a 2013 attendee of the Bilderberg conference and sits on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

    There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast. But that is not the sort of person who attends the Bilderberg conference four years running, who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Schmidt’s emergence as Google’s “foreign minister”—making pomp and ceremony state visits across geopolitical fault lines—had not come out of nowhere; it had been presaged by years of assimilation within US establishment networks of reputation and influence.

    On a personal level, Schmidt and Cohen are perfectly likable people. But Google's chairman is a classic “head of industry” player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role. Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal, and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life. By all appearances, Google's bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the “benevolent superpower.” They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of “don’t be evil.” They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem.

    * * *

    Google is "different". Google is "visionary". Google is "the future". Google is "more than just a company". Google "gives back to the community". Google is "a force for good".

    Even when Google airs its corporate ambivalence publicly, it does little to dislodge these items of faith. The company’s reputation is seemingly unassailable. Google’s colorful, playful logo is imprinted on human retinas just under six billion times each day, 2.1 trillion times a year—an opportunity for respondent conditioning enjoyed by no other company in history. Caught red-handed last year making petabytes of personal data available to the US intelligence community through the PRISM program, Google nevertheless continues to coast on the goodwill generated by its “don’t be evil” doublespeak. A few symbolic open letters to the White House later and it seems all is forgiven. Even anti-surveillance campaigners cannot help themselves, at once condemning government spying but trying to alter Google’s invasive surveillance practices using appeasement strategies.

    Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of US power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community.

    In 2003 the US National Security Agency (NSA) had already started systematically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under its director General Michael Hayden. These were the days of the “Total Information Awareness” program. Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.” During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge.

    In 2004, after taking over Keyhole, a mapping tech startup cofunded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the CIA, Google developed the technology into Google Maps, an enterprise version of which it has since shopped to the Pentagon and associated federal and state agencies on multimillion-dollar contracts. In 2008, Google helped launch an NGA spy satellite, the GeoEye-1, into space. Google shares the photographs from the satellite with the US military and intelligence communities. In 2010, NGA awarded Google a $27 million contract for “geospatial visualization services.”

    In 2010, after the Chinese government was accused of hacking Google, the company entered into a “formal information-sharing” relationship with the NSA, which was said to allow NSA analysts to “evaluate vulnerabilities” in Google’s hardware and software. Although the exact contours of the deal have never been disclosed, the NSA brought in other government agencies to help, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

    Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the “Enduring Security Framework” (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies “at network speed.” Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF. Reportage on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: “General Keith . . . so great to see you . . . !” Schmidt wrote. But most reports overlooked a crucial detail. “Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” Alexander wrote to Brin, “are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have measurable impact.”

    The Department of Homeland Security defines the Defense Industrial Base as “the worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements [emphasis added].”

    The Defense Industrial Base provides “products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.” Does it include regular commercial services purchased by the US military? No. The definition specifically excludes the purchase of regular commercial services. Whatever makes Google a “key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” it is not recruitment campaigns pushed out through Google AdWords or soldiers checking their Gmail.

    In 2012, Google arrived on the list of top-spending Washington, DC, lobbyists—a list typically stalked exclusively by the US Chamber of Commerce, military contractors, and the petrocarbon leviathans. Google entered the rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012 to Lockheed’s $15.3 million. Boeing, the military contractor that absorbed McDonnell Douglas in 1997, also came below Google, at $15.6 million spent, as did Northrop Grumman at $17.5 million.

    In Autumn 2013 the Obama administration was trying to drum up support for US airstrikes against Syria. Despite setbacks, the administration continued to press for military action well into September with speeches and public announcements by both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. On September 10, Google lent its front page—the most popular on the internet—to the war effort, inserting a line below the search box reading “Live! Secretary Kerry answers questions on Syria. Today via Hangout at 2pm ET.”

    As the self-described “radical centrist” New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote in 1999, sometimes it is not enough to leave the global dominance of American tech corporations to something as mercurial as “the free market”:

    The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

    If anything has changed since those words were written, it is that Silicon Valley has grown restless with that passive role, aspiring instead to adorn the "hidden fist" like a velvet glove. Writing in 2013, Schmidt and Cohen stated,

    What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first.

    This was one of many bold assertions made by Schmidt and Cohen in their book, which was eventually published in April 2013. Gone was the working title, “The Empire of the Mind”, replaced with "The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business". By the time it came out, I had formally sought and received political asylum from the government of Ecuador, and taken refuge in its embassy in London. At that point I had already spent nearly a year in the embassy under police surveillance, blocked from safe passage out of the UK. Online I noticed the press hum excitedly about Schmidt and Cohen’s book, giddily ignoring the explicit digital imperialism of the title and the conspicuous string of pre-publication endorsements from famous warmongers like Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Bill Hayden and Madeleine Albright on the back.

    Billed as a visionary forecast of global technological change, the book failed to deliver—failed even to imagine a future, good or bad, substantially different to the present. The book was a simplistic fusion of Fukuyama “end of history” ideology—out of vogue since the 1990s—and faster mobile phones. It was padded out with DC shibboleths, State Department orthodoxies, and fawning grabs from Henry Kissinger. The scholarship was poor—even degenerate. It did not seem to fit the profile of Schmidt, that sharp, quiet man in my living room. But reading on I began to see that the book was not a serious attempt at future history. It was a love song from Google to official Washington. Google, a burgeoning digital superstate, was offering to be Washington’s geopolitical visionary.

    One way of looking at it is that it’s just business. For an American internet services monopoly to ensure global market dominance it cannot simply keep doing what it is doing, and let politics take care of itself. American strategic and economic hegemony becomes a vital pillar of its market dominance. What’s a megacorp to do? If it wants to straddle the world, it must become part of the original “don’t be evil” empire.

    But part of the resilient image of Google as “more than just a company” comes from the perception that it does not act like a big, bad corporation. Its penchant for luring people into its services trap with gigabytes of “free storage” produces the perception that Google is giving it away for free, acting directly contrary to the corporate profit motive. Google is perceived as an essentially philanthropic enterprise—a magical engine presided over by otherworldly visionaries—for creating a utopian future. The company has at times appeared anxious to cultivate this image, pouring funding into “corporate responsibility” initiatives to produce “social change”—exemplified by Google Ideas. But as Google Ideas shows, the company’s “philanthropic” efforts, too, bring it uncomfortably close to the imperial side of US influence. If Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi was running a program like Google Ideas, it would draw intense critical scrutiny. But somehow Google gets a free pass.

    Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history.

    If the future of the internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union, and even in Europe—for whom the internet embodies the promise of an alternative to US cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.

    See the rest of the excerpt and the pictures and the extra info in the footnotes:
    https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/


    Inside a Google data center

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZmGGAbHqa0
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  2. Likes ga-hvac-tech, DavidDeBord liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,637
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others

    • Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
    • Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

    • Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks

    The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

    The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

    The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.

    Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

    Read the rest:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...iants-nsa-data


    U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program

    The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

    The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

    Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

    London’s Guardian newspaper reported Friday that GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent of the NSA, also has been secretly gathering intelligence from the same internet companies....

    Read the rest:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.324b69d4bd95


    PRISM (surveillance program)

    PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies. The program is also known by the SIGAD US-984XN. PRISM collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms. The NSA can use these PRISM requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier, and to get data that is easier to handle, among other things.

    PRISM began in 2007 in the wake of the passage of the Protect America Act....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_...nce_program%29


    A Few PRISM Slides:

    Operations and PRISM Collection Details
    https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...%20Details.pdf

    Go PRISMFAA

    http://florence20.typepad.com/renais...-prismfaa.html


    Dates When PRISM Collection Began

    https://www.startpage.com/graphics/prism-program.jpg

    So MS and Yahoo connected with PRISM during the Bush admin.
    Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple
    (in that order) were added during the Obama admin.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  4. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,637
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    PRISM Videos
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...llance+program


    When Did Google Become the Internet Police?
    And why aren't more people upset about it?
    By John C. Dvorak May 6, 2013

    Last week my website and the No Agenda podcast listener support page were both blacklisted for malware. In some instances I am still waiting for the blacklisting to be lifted. Peachy.

    It's funny how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?

    The curious thing is that this was browser-level blacklisting by both Firefox and Chrome. It was not some Net Nanny blacklisting or localized blacklisting like that used by corporations or governments. This blacklist is orchestrated by Google. Since when is it OK for a huge company like Google, which dominates Internet search and phone operating systems, to assume the role of the Internet police?

    And since when did any of this happen at the browser level rather than at the ISP or subnet level? I see this as a tremendous conflict of interest. What happens when Google puts Microsoft Bing on the blacklist? While Internet Explorer does not appear to be a subscriber to these blacklisting services, why isn't Microsoft complaining about this development?

    Read the rest:
    https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418583,00.asp


    The New Censorship
    How did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?
    June 22, 2016

    Google, Inc., isn't just the world's biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world's biggest censor.

    The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.

    When Google's employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.

    If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people's lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don't let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn't let Google do so either.

    Let's start with the most trivial blacklist and work our way up. I'll save the biggest and baddest – one the public knows virtually nothing about but that gives Google an almost obscene amount of power over our economic well-being – until last.

    1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google's search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type....

    2. The Google Maps blacklist. This list is a little more creepy, and if you are concerned about your privacy, it might be a good list to be on. The cameras of Google Earth and Google Maps have photographed your home for all to see. If you don't like that, "just move," Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt said. Google also maintains a list of properties it either blacks out or blurs out in its images. Some are probably military installations, some the residences of wealthy people, and some – well, who knows? Martian pre-invasion enclaves? Google doesn't say.

    3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company's strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube....

    4. The Google account blacklist. A couple of years ago, Google consolidated a number of its products – Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, YouTube, Google Wallet and others – so you can access all of them through your one Google account. If you somehow violate Google's vague and intimidating terms of service agreement, you will join the ever-growing list of people who are shut out of their accounts....

    5. The Google News blacklist. If a librarian were caught trashing all the liberal newspapers before people could read them, he or she might get in a heap o' trouble. What happens when most of the librarians in the world have been replaced by a single company? Google is now the largest news aggregator in the world, tracking tens of thousands of news sources in more than thirty languages and recently adding thousands of small, local news sources to its inventory. It also selectively bans news sources as it pleases. In 2006, Google was accused of excluding....

    6. The Google AdWords blacklist. Now things get creepier. More than 70 percent of Google's $80 billion in annual revenue comes from its AdWords advertising service, which it implemented in 2000 by infringing on a similar system...
    The problem here is that if a Google executive decides your business or industry doesn't meet its moral standards, it bans you from AdWords; these days, with Google's reach so large, that can quickly put you out of business....

    7. The Google AdSense blacklist. If your website has been approved by AdWords, you are eligible to sign up for Google AdSense, a system in which Google places ads for various products...
    In April 2014 ... someone claiming to be a former Google employee working in their AdSense department alleged the department engaged in a regular practice of dumping AdSense customers just before Google was scheduled to pay them. To this day, no one knows whether the person behind the posts was legit, but one thing is clear: Since that time, real lawsuits filed by real companies have, according to WebProNews, been "piling up" against Google, alleging the companies were unaccountably dumped at the last minute by AdSense just before large payments were due, in some cases payments as high as $500,000.

    8. The search engine blacklist. Google's ubiquitous search engine has indeed become the gateway to virtually all information, handling 90 percent of search in most countries. It dominates search because its index is so large: Google indexes more than 45 billion web pages; its next-biggest competitor, Microsoft's Bing, indexes a mere 14 billion, which helps to explain the poor quality of Bing's search results.

    Google's dominance in search is why businesses large and small live in constant "fear of Google," as Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, the largest publishing conglomerate in Europe, put it in an open letter to Eric Schmidt in 2014. According to Dopfner, when Google made one of its frequent adjustments to its search algorithm, one of his company's subsidiaries dropped dramatically in the search rankings and lost 70 percent of its traffic within a few days. Even worse than the vagaries of the adjustments, however, are the dire consequences that follow when Google employees somehow conclude....

    9. The quarantine list...
    [Y]ou are probably unaware that on Jan. 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet. And, as if not to be outdone by [the 1951 film "The Day the Earth Stood Still,"] it did so for 40 minutes.

    Impossible, you say. Why would do-no-evil Google do such an apocalyptic thing, and, for that matter, how, technically, could a single company block access to more than 100 million websites?

    The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software....
    ...
    Google somehow blocks people from accessing websites directly through multiple browsers. How on earth could it do that? How could Google block you when you are trying to access a website using Safari, an Apple product, or Firefox, a browser maintained by Mozilla, the self-proclaimed "nonprofit defender of the free and open internet"?

    The key here is browsers. No browser maker wants to send you to a malicious website, and because Google has the best blacklist, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox – and Chrome, of course, Google's own browser, as well as browsers that load through Android, Google's mobile operating system – check Google's quarantine list before they send you to a website. (In November 2014, Mozilla announced it will no longer list Google as its default search engine, but it also disclosed that it will continue to rely on Google's quarantine list to screen users' search requests.)

    If the site has been quarantined by Google, you see one of those big, scary images that say things like "Get me out of here!" or "Reported attack site!" At this point, given the default security settings on most browsers, most people will find it impossible to visit the site – but who would want to? If the site is not on Google's quarantine list, you are sent on your way.

    OK, that explains how Google blocks you even when you're using a non-Google browser, but why do they block you? In other words, how does blocking you feed the ravenous advertising machine – the sine qua non of Google's existence?

    Have you figured it out yet? The scam is as simple as it is brilliant: When a browser queries Google's quarantine list, it has just shared information with Google. With Chrome and Android, you are always giving up information to Google, but you are also doing so even if you are using non-Google browsers. That is where the money is – more information about search activity kindly provided by competing browser companies. How much information is shared will depend on the particular deal the browser company has with Google. In a maximum information deal, Google will learn the identity of the user; in a minimum information deal, Google will still learn which websites people want to visit – valuable data when one is in the business of ranking websites. Google can also charge fees for access to its quarantine list, of course, but that's not where the real gold is.

    Chrome, Android, Firefox and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the U.S. – 74 percent worldwide – and these numbers are increasing. As of this writing, that means Google is regularly collecting information through its quarantine list from more than 2.5 billion people. Given the recent pact between Microsoft and Google, in coming months we might learn that Microsoft – both to save money and to improve its services – has also started using Google's quarantine list in place of its own much smaller list; this would further increase the volume of information Google is receiving.

    To put this another way, Google has grown, and is still growing, on the backs of some of its competitors, with end users oblivious to Google's antics – as usual. It is yet another example of what I have called "Google's Dance" – the remarkable way in which Google puts a false and friendly public face on activities that serve only one purpose for the company: increasing profit. On the surface, Google's quarantine list is yet another way Google helps us, free of charge, breeze through our day safe and well-informed. Beneath the surface, that list is yet another way Google accumulates more information about us to sell to advertisers.

    You may disagree, but in my view Google's blacklisting practices put the company into the role of thuggish internet cop – a role that was never authorized by any government, nonprofit organization or industry association. It is as if the biggest bully in town suddenly put on a badge and started patrolling, shuttering businesses as it pleased, while also secretly peeping into windows, taking photos and selling them to the highest bidder.

    Consider: Heading into the holiday season in late 2013, an online handbag business suffered a 50 percent drop in business because of blacklisting. In 2009, it took an eco-friendly pest control company 60 days to leap the hurdles required to remove Google's warnings, long enough to nearly go broke. And sometimes the blacklisting process appears to be personal: In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered "When Did Google Become the Internet Police?" after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: "It's funny," he wrote, "how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?"

    Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google "blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google's founders" – Eric Schmidt – "in a story about growing privacy concerns." The company declined to comment on CNN's story.

    Google's mysterious and self-serving practice of blacklisting is one of many reasons Google should be regulated, just as phone companies and credit bureaus are. The E.U.'s recent antitrust actions against Google, the recently leaked FTC staff report about Google's biased search rankings, President Obama's call for regulating internet service providers – all have merit, but they overlook another danger. No one company, which is accountable to its shareholders but not to the general public, should have the power to instantly put another company out of business or block access to any website in the world. How frequently Google acts irresponsibly is beside the point; it has the ability to do so, which means that in a matter of seconds any of Google's 37,000 employees with the right passwords or skills could laser a business or political candidate into oblivion or even freeze much of the world's economy.

    Some degree of censorship and blacklisting is probably necessary; I am not disputing that. But the suppression of information on the internet needs to be managed by, or at least subject to the regulations of, responsible public officials, with every aspect of their operations transparent to all.

    Updated on June 23, 2016: Readers have called my attention to a 10th Google blacklist, which the company applies to its shopping service. In 2012, the shopping service banned the sale of weapons-related items, including some items that could still be sold through AdWords. Google's shopping blacklisting policy, while reasonably banning the sale of counterfeit and copyrighted goods, also includes a catch-all category: Google can ban the sale of any product or service its employees deem to be "offensive or inappropriate." No means of recourse is stated.

    Robert Epstein, Contributor

    Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) is Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

    Read the rest:
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...t-be-regulated
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  6. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  7. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,637
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Oracle Funds Anti-Google Effort that Outs Hillary, Obama
    21 Aug 2016

    The Oracle Corporation is using its deep financial resources to fund the “Google Transparency Project,” which has set up headquarters in Washington, D.C. with a mission to “out” Google’s dicey lobbying practices and expose crony relationships with President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

    With Google demonstrating its political clout by essentially writing the “Net Neutrality” regulatory language, Oracle and others are stepping up funding for a Silicon Valley attack dog to level the playing field.

    Silicon Valley has earned the nickname “Valley of the Democrats” from the TechCrunch blog because of its symbiotic business relationship with Washington. But as Breitbart News reported last year, Google’s $16,830,000 in lobbying expenditure dominated the $139.5 million spent by both the computer and Internet industries.

    In the twelve weeks proceeding the “Net Neutrality” vote, Google’s Chairman Eric Schmidt functioned as one of the 11 members on the “Democratic Victory Task Force,” according to a document leaked by the Naked Capitalism blog. Schmidt helped craft the “National Narrative Project” to serve as the key strategy for the Democratic Party to “fight to reclaim state houses, win governorships, take back the House and Senate and protect the White House.” He is also a leading force behind ‘FWD.US,’ a Silicon Valley tech community effort to push open-borders immigration reform.

    As a demonstration of just how powerful Google’s relationship with Washington had become....

    https://www.breitbart.com/california...llary-clinton/


    Why Is YouTube Censoring 21 Educational Videos From PragerU?
    October 12, 2016

    YouTube is apparently censoring Prager University’s videos for reasons that don’t quite add up. The conservative, nonprofit educational organization that also goes by PragerU produces short, educational videos. It released a statement Tuesday decrying YouTube’s decision to put 21 of its videos on “restricted mode.”

    “There is no excuse for Google and YouTube censoring and restricting any PragerU videos, which are produced with the sole intent of educating people of all ages about America’s founding values,” the statement reads.

    Schools and parents often set their YouTube accounts to restricted mode to steer children away from inappropriate or obscene content, but none of PragerU’s videos contain adult material. The videos are intentionally G-rated in an effort to educate and engage all audiences.

    A complete list of all 21 videos that have been placed on restricted mode can be found here. A few include: “Are The Police Racist?” “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” and “Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?”

    Google has since doubled down on its decision to make PragerU’s videos inaccessible to many of its users.

    “We don’t censor anyone,” a Google employee told Prager U, although the company said it does “take into consideration what the intent of the video is” and “what the focus of the video is.”

    The aforementioned statement doesn’t give a concrete answer about why the videos are being censored. It seems a small group of Internet overlords can put one’s content on the naughty list — thus making it unwatchable for many people — at whim, which makes it vulnerable to being restricted based on political disagreements. In that statement, Google basically says: “We don’t need to give you a reason. We can do whatever we want, so sit down and shut up.”

    It seems YouTube has taken after other platforms’ tendencies (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to target content from conservative outlets and quickly block and ban content coming from conservative users.

    Read the rest:
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/12/...ideos-prageru/


    YouTube Censoring 21 Prager U Videos
    "We don't censor anyone."
    10.12.2016

    From Prager University's press release today:

    Prager University (PragerU), a conservative online video production site, launched a petition today to draw attention to the fact that YouTube is censoring 21 of its videos.

    YouTube is censoring these videos by placing them under "restricted mode." Many families and schools enable restricted mode in order to keep inappropriate language, and explicit adult and sexual content away from children--not to prevent them from watching animated, age-appropriate, educational videos on topics ranging from economics and history to happiness and philosophy.

    In response to an official complaint PragerU filed, Google specialists defended their restriction of our videos, and said, "We don't censor anyone", although they do "take into consideration what the intent of the video is" and "what the focus of the video is."

    There is no excuse for Google and YouTube censoring and restricting any PragerU videos, which are produced with the sole intent of educating people of all ages about America's founding values.
    ...
    Here is a list of the 21 videos currently being censored by PragerU:

    Are The Police Racist?
    Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?
    Why Did America Fight the Korean War?
    Who's More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?
    What ISIS Wants
    Why Are There Still Palestinian Refugees?
    Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?
    Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do
    Did Bush Lie About Iraq?
    Who NOT to Vote For
    Men and the Power of the Visual
    Is America Racist?
    Israel: The World's Most Moral Army
    Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology
    The Most Important Question About Abortion
    Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?
    Don't Judge Blacks Differently
    What is the University Diversity Scam?
    He Wants You
    Israel's Legal Founding
    Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?

    https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/you...rager-u-videos


    YouTube censoring videos from conservative group
    October 12, 2016

    In the latest example of bias against conservatives, YouTube is censoring videos from conservative group PragerU by placing them on "restricted mode."

    The category, which is applied to videos that may contain "potentially objectionable content," was applied to 21 PragerU videos, the group announced on its Facebook page on Tuesday.

    The group has created a petition to get YouTube to stop the censorship, and has already received more than 20,000 signatures. The 21 videos account for 10 percent of PragerU's video collection, and include videos asking: "Are the Police Racist?" "Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?" and "Is America Racist?"

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/y...rticle/2604384


    Podesta Linked Up Google’s Executive Chairman and Cheryl Mills, Robby Mook
    Google was accused of manipulating search results for Hillary
    October 14, 2016

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta facilitated meetings between Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, and key Clinton players Robby Mook and Cheryl Mills in 2014, according to hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.

    Schmidt also quietly funds a data company that provides services to the Clinton campaign.

    Podesta wrote to Schmidt on April 3, 2014, saying he would like him to speak with Robby Mook, now Clinton’s campaign manager, and Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton aide.

    "Robby is in Australia. Back the 23rd. We could arrange a call before or wait and do a meeting shortly after return," Podesta said. "Cheryl Mills is in town and I think it would be good for you two to talk. Her office is in Bethesda but probably could come down this afternoon. Up for that?"

    "thank you !!! i’ll plan to see robby when he is back in dc," Schmidt responded (sic throughout). "Cheryl would be great to see; I have a meeting with President from 11 to 1145 and free after that all afternoon any time in the afternoon that is convenient for her is good for me." Schmidt then provided Podesta with his phone number.

    Earlier this year, Schmidt found himself under fire after Google’s search engine was accused of manipulating searches in favor Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump.

    The allegations stemmed from a video released in June by SourceFed, a news website and YouTube channel. The group showcased how Google’s autocomplete features differed from other major search engines and was altering searches to paint Clinton in a more favorable light.

    SourceFed discovered that when the phrase "Hillary Clinton Cri" was typed into Google’s search engine, it would autocomplete to "Hillary Clinton Crime Reform," "Hillary Clinton Crisis," and "Hillary Clinton Crime Bill 1994."

    When the same phrase was typed into Bing and Yahoo, Google’s competitors, the autocomplete showed "Hillary Clinton criminal charges," "Hillary Clinton crimes," Hillary Clinton criminal."
    ...
    Schmidt responded to the allegations by claiming he does not support any candidate for president. "We have not taken a position on the American election and nor do I expect us to," Schmidt said.

    Despite Schmidt’s publicly neutral stance on the election, he has provided funding to The Groundwork, a data startup that provides services to Clinton’s campaign.

    Michael Slaby, the former chief integration and innovation officer for Obama’s campaign, is the cofounder of Timshel, the company that developed The Groundwork. The Groundwork’s website does not provide any information on its data services and only displays a logo.

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign has paid The Groundwork almost $600,000 for "technology services" since the campaign’s inception, filings show. Hillary for America appears to be the only committee that pays The Groundwork this election cycle.

    Read the rest:
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/podes...ls-robby-mook/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  8. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  9. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,637
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Google/YouTube vs. Conservative Speech
    By Dennis Prager October 25, 2016

    Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to our universities?

    Last week, the Wall Street Journal wrote the following editorial about YouTube restricting access to 16 videos — down from 21 — created and posted online by my non-profit educational organization, Prager University: “YouTube thinks Dennis Prager’s videos may be dangerous.”

    Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. . . .

    Dennis Prager’s “PragerU” puts out free short videos on subjects “important to understanding American values” — ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State. The channel has more than 130 million views. . . . As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content.

    But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube. . . . This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering — say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” . . .

    PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed.

    “YouTube is free to set its own standards,” the editorial concluded, “but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for ‘free expression.’”

    It is a good sign that Google/YouTube’s censorship of respectful, utterly non-violent and non-sexual videos made it to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is very bad sign that it had to.

    And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, but not the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.

    To understand what Google/YouTube has done....

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...deos-censored/


    Another Prager U Video Censored by YouTube — Ironically, About Censorship
    Liberals continue the silencing of the Right.

    The Dark Art of Political Intimidation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXocwzYjcBc

    Another Prager University video has been censored by YouTube. Oddly enough, it’s one about censorship and the political intimidation tactics of the Left.

    As TruthRevolt previously reported, twenty-one of Dennis Prager’s short video seminars have been placed in “restricted mode,” a setting usually reserved for parents and teachers to keep inappropriate material from being viewed by children. Of course, as Prager explained, his videos are “animated, age-appropriate, educational videos.”

    Now, one more has been added to the list: “The Dark Art of Political Intimidation.” This one features Wall Street Journal columnist and author of The Intimidation Game Kimberly Strassel. Her video explains how "the Democratic Party and their allies among the progressive left" use intimidation, harassment, and blackmail to shut down their political enemies. What a coincidence!

    https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ano...out-censorship


    George Carlin's 'Big Club' Proven Real By Email Between Hillary & Tech Tycoon

    Caution: LANGUAGE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2At1jOTyWw8


    The Left Silences Debate
    By Ben Voth February 17, 2017

    This week the nation’s top debate coaches released their recognition of the top collegiate policy debate teams. This exceptional group of sixteen teams receives pre-bids to the National Debate Tournament at the end of March and will have strong potential toward winning the national title in debate at the tournament to be held at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Two of the nation’s top teams that made this elite selection are from Berkeley, a campus recently racked by violent demands for the suppression of free speech. Incredibly, Berkeley’s teams and one other team from California who made the cut, will not attend the National Debate Tournament. That is because the state of California has banned all university related personnel from traveling to four states around the nation: Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi, on the specious grounds that these states have all passed “anti-LGBT legislation.” All debate teams from California state schools are practically banned from attending the national debate tournaments being held in the state of Kansas in March.

    As California continues upon a path of ideological ricochet that in many quarters seeks complete separation from the nation, the prospects for freedom of speech have declined....

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ng_debate.html


    The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives

    Student demands for censorship get a lot of coverage. Spiked Online’s Free Speech University Rankings, now in its third annual edition, argues that there is a “crisis of free speech on campus”.

    By analysing the censorious policies and actions that have taken place on British campuses, Spiked concluded that 63.5 per cent of universities actively censor speech and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. You can barely go a few days without encountering a new op-ed covering censorship on campus.

    Maajid Nawaz describes the students demanding censorship as members of the “regressive left”. Milo Yiannopoulos calls them “snowflakes”.

    With all of this book-burning and platform-denying madness sweeping up much of the media’s interest in campus culture, the gradual rise of another group of students has gone under-reported. British and American millennials and post-millennials – also known as ‘Gen Z’ – are warming to conservatism.

    To understand why this is happening, it is important to consider the vast changes that have taken place in Western student politics over the last fifty years.

    Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech....

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...conservatives/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  10. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  11. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Hamersville, Ohio
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Likes
    You just might find this interesting Space:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2...ign=pockethits
    Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you may be no priest to me. Because you have forgotten your God’s law, I will also forget your children.


    "You've got to Stand for Something or You'll fall for anything" (A. Tippin)


    Mat_15:24 But he answered, “I wasn’t sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

  12. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridgeton, MO, 'burb of St. Louis, Mo
    Posts
    7,547
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Racer View Post
    Google/YouTube vs. Conservative Speech
    By Dennis Prager October 25, 2016

    Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to our universities?

    Last week, the Wall Street Journal wrote the following editorial about YouTube restricting access to 16 videos — down from 21 — created and posted online by my non-profit educational organization, Prager University: “YouTube thinks Dennis Prager’s videos may be dangerous.”

    Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. . . .

    Dennis Prager’s “PragerU” puts out free short videos on subjects “important to understanding American values” — ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State. The channel has more than 130 million views. . . . As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content.

    But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube. . . . This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering — say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” . . .

    PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed.

    “YouTube is free to set its own standards,” the editorial concluded, “but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for ‘free expression.’”

    It is a good sign that Google/YouTube’s censorship of respectful, utterly non-violent and non-sexual videos made it to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is very bad sign that it had to.

    And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, but not the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.

    To understand what Google/YouTube has done....

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...deos-censored/


    Another Prager U Video Censored by YouTube — Ironically, About Censorship
    Liberals continue the silencing of the Right.

    The Dark Art of Political Intimidation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXocwzYjcBc

    Another Prager University video has been censored by YouTube. Oddly enough, it’s one about censorship and the political intimidation tactics of the Left.

    As TruthRevolt previously reported, twenty-one of Dennis Prager’s short video seminars have been placed in “restricted mode,” a setting usually reserved for parents and teachers to keep inappropriate material from being viewed by children. Of course, as Prager explained, his videos are “animated, age-appropriate, educational videos.”

    Now, one more has been added to the list: “The Dark Art of Political Intimidation.” This one features Wall Street Journal columnist and author of The Intimidation Game Kimberly Strassel. Her video explains how "the Democratic Party and their allies among the progressive left" use intimidation, harassment, and blackmail to shut down their political enemies. What a coincidence!

    https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ano...out-censorship


    George Carlin's 'Big Club' Proven Real By Email Between Hillary & Tech Tycoon

    Caution: LANGUAGE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2At1jOTyWw8


    The Left Silences Debate
    By Ben Voth February 17, 2017

    This week the nation’s top debate coaches released their recognition of the top collegiate policy debate teams. This exceptional group of sixteen teams receives pre-bids to the National Debate Tournament at the end of March and will have strong potential toward winning the national title in debate at the tournament to be held at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Two of the nation’s top teams that made this elite selection are from Berkeley, a campus recently racked by violent demands for the suppression of free speech. Incredibly, Berkeley’s teams and one other team from California who made the cut, will not attend the National Debate Tournament. That is because the state of California has banned all university related personnel from traveling to four states around the nation: Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi, on the specious grounds that these states have all passed “anti-LGBT legislation.” All debate teams from California state schools are practically banned from attending the national debate tournaments being held in the state of Kansas in March.

    As California continues upon a path of ideological ricochet that in many quarters seeks complete separation from the nation, the prospects for freedom of speech have declined....

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ng_debate.html


    The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives

    Student demands for censorship get a lot of coverage. Spiked Online’s Free Speech University Rankings, now in its third annual edition, argues that there is a “crisis of free speech on campus”.

    By analysing the censorious policies and actions that have taken place on British campuses, Spiked concluded that 63.5 per cent of universities actively censor speech and 30.5 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation. You can barely go a few days without encountering a new op-ed covering censorship on campus.

    Maajid Nawaz describes the students demanding censorship as members of the “regressive left”. Milo Yiannopoulos calls them “snowflakes”.

    With all of this book-burning and platform-denying madness sweeping up much of the media’s interest in campus culture, the gradual rise of another group of students has gone under-reported. British and American millennials and post-millennials – also known as ‘Gen Z’ – are warming to conservatism.

    To understand why this is happening, it is important to consider the vast changes that have taken place in Western student politics over the last fifty years.

    Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech....

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...conservatives/
    I bet if davida sees your post all he will see is:


















































































































    ! It does not fit his programming... ..


    If thinking was easy,
    everyone would do it!


    Regarding Russian Roulette; five out of six players think it is a safe, enjoyable game!

    "And I've been banned twice. What of it? If you aren't getting banned once every 3 years, you aren't trying." Brian8383

    "it's actually 90 right now in this shaded area of satan's butthole." - HVAC_marc

    “Don't believe signature quotes.” - George Washington

  13. Likes ga-hvac-tech, DavidDeBord liked this post
  14. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,994
    Post Likes
    How difficult is the concept that Youtube and Facebook are two different companies to comprehend??

  15. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  16. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    41,925
    Post Likes
    How difficult is the concept of corporate honesty...
    Or we do not do business with you...

    To understand???
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Your comfort, Your way, Everyday!

  17. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,994
    Post Likes
    corporate integrity = oxymoron

    but that’s a whole different subject...

    I bothered to research FB censorship because although it’s a minor portion of their product, I do know people who get their news via FB. I know youtube has a news section, but don’t know anyone who uses it... and personally view YT as an entertainment site. So therefore think they can cater their product to maximize their profits as they see fit. You know, free market?

    I don’t know if YT has an anti conservative bias or not, but I also don’t care.

  18. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,994
    Post Likes
    Kind of like how some car companies are biased against tall people... but I don’t complain on the internet or sue them. I just buy a different car.

  19. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridgeton, MO, 'burb of St. Louis, Mo
    Posts
    7,547
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by davidadavis View Post
    How difficult is the concept that Youtube and Facebook are two different companies to comprehend??
    Why do you keep arguing with yourself about that? I never posited that, I just related my experience with FB editing. And FB and YT are free to control their content anyway they choose, we were expressing our distaste that they both, individually, topple to the left!

    If I said the sky is blue, you would insist that the grass needed to be cut. smh


    If thinking was easy,
    everyone would do it!


    Regarding Russian Roulette; five out of six players think it is a safe, enjoyable game!

    "And I've been banned twice. What of it? If you aren't getting banned once every 3 years, you aren't trying." Brian8383

    "it's actually 90 right now in this shaded area of satan's butthole." - HVAC_marc

    “Don't believe signature quotes.” - George Washington

  20. Likes coolwhip, ga-hvac-tech, BNME8EZ liked this post
  21. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,994
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by rcstl View Post
    Why do you keep arguing with yourself about that? I never posited that, I just related my experience with FB editing. And FB and YT are free to control their content anyway they choose, we were expressing our distaste that they both, individually, topple to the left!

    If I said the sky is blue, you would insist that the grass needed to be cut. smh
    You used my name buddy

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •