Category Archives: GOOGLE

Project Veritas’s latest Facebook exposé and Scott Adams’s Slaughtermeter

Project Veritas’s new exposé by political bias at Facebook reminded me that Scott Adams said a year ago that Big Tech would make a Trump loss a 100% certainty.

Last year, Scott Adams created something called the “Slaughtermeter,” which was his mental tally of how badly Trump would be slaughtered in the upcoming 2020 election. It’s a straight-line meter that looks at events on a given day and, using that day as a metric, determines where Trump is on a sliding scale of election success. A zero on the Slaughtermeter would mean that Trump’s chances of winning in 2020 are zero, while a one-hundred would mean he is certain to win.

On May 24, 2020, Adams was very pessimistic about Trump’s chances of winning the election. His pessimism was because social media and other tech companies, all of which are leftist from the top down, were already showing that they were determined to use their massive power to prevent Trump from winning again.

I have downgraded the slaughter meter from a hundred and forty percent, where I said to myself the competition for presidency is so weak that I couldn’t imagine any situation other than Trump dominating the election. I’ve reset that to zero. My current thinking is that the president has no chance of reelection now.

Adams’s starting point was the way in which YouTube routinely blocks entirely or demonetizes videos that say things that support Trump or challenge his opponents:

There is a topic that I can’t mention that is removed from YouTube whenever an individual is mentioned in the positive. I can’t even say the name of the person because these videos will be removed from the internet. Now I don’t have much interest in that actual topic, I don’t even have an opinion on it and I’m not really informed, but it is true that we now live in the world in which a major platform can completely stop a topic and it’s okay. . . it’s okay. It’s legal apparently you can make an entire topic leave the news and it’s okay. Now in what world can you ever expect a fair election where the social media people do not put their finger on the thumb? Well, I would say that’s pretty unusual, we see people like Dave Rubin being demonetized . . . I’d say a hundred of my videos were demonetized, if I ask the reasons for it — and I haven’t — I’m sure there would be some reason that didn’t sound very convincing to me, but the things demonetized coincidentally are the same things that would be the most damaging to the Democrats. Might be a coincidence but I don’t know.

Adams explained that the shield behind which the social media giants operate is so impenetrable that even he, with his fame, wealth, and connections, cannot prove if he’s being deliberately censored. All he can do is suspect that something’s going on.

As an example of the way in which YouTube puts its thumb on the scale, Adams discussed what was then a hot topic: The video of Pelosi slurring her words, and therefore appearing drunk or demented, which YouTube removed because it was “doctored.” Adams pointed out the innumerable other doctored videos that stay on the platform. Also, there there are readily available examples of the original video so that people can draw their own conclusions about whether Pelosi was actually slurring or not. YouTube’s/Google’s problem with the video, obviously, wasn’t the doctoring; it was that it made Nancy Pelosi look bad.

To step away from Adams’s 2019 discussion for a moment, think back just a few days. Carpe Donktum created a funny little video pointing out CNN’s massive bias. The starting point was an adorable viral video showing a black toddler and a white toddler hugging each other on the street, at which point, as part of their play, the black child ran down the street with the white child in happy pursuit. Carpe Donktum clipped just the running portion and imagined a fake CNN chyron that would claim a racist toddler was terrorizing a terrified black toddler. The Carpe Donktum video then resets to reveals the original video. Only a moron, or a Twitter content controller, would be incapable of understanding that this is a satirical political commentary.

President Trump retweeted the video — and Twitter responded by pulling the video on the ground that it was “manipulated.” This power to pull manipulated videos is ideally intended to protect the public from true, Stalin-esque propaganda that erases true images to replace them with skillful and indistinguishable fakes. (A good example of Deep Fake, Stalin-esque propaganda is the way the mainstream media promulgated the “fine people” hoax to make it appear that Trump was praising white supremacists.) Twitter’s attack on Carpe Donktum’s obvious political satire has nothing to do with protecting the public from deep fakes. It’s pure political censorship.

It was only thanks to serious pushback resulting from Trump’s and Carpe Donktum’s high profiles that Twitter reinstated the video:

But back to Adams’s 2019 disquisition about the social media giants and the upcoming election. After explaining that he routinely finds himself shadowbanned or demonetized, Adams got to the point about Big Tech’s ultimate goal, which is to prevent Trump’s re-election (starting at 12:39 in the above video; emphasis mine):

So, if you go back to pre-2016 the social media companies didn’t see what was happening. In other words, they may have been trying to you know put their finger on the scale a little bit. But the thing that these social media companies didn’t see coming is what I call the “Island of Misfit Toys” Trump supporters. All over were this weird collection of . . . I’ve just weirdos yeah and oddballs, and I would put myself squarely in the center of that population because nobody really saw me coming, right? No, nobody really saw that a cartoonist would start spending all this time talking about Trump’s persuasion abilities which would probably change thousands of votes.

[snip]

Now, multiply me by all of the other misfits — and I say this with love because I’m putting myself in this category — there was this weird spontaneous outgrowth of misfits who were unusually effective. The thing about all the misfits — and, again, I’m including myself in this group — is that many of the misfits were super influential.

[snip]

I think it caught everybody by surprise. Everybody thought Hillary would, you know, just waltz into the office. But that surprise factor doesn’t exist for this next election. Consider, if you will, Silicon Valley. They’re all about a/b testing, and releasing the new version, and continuous improvement. Do you think that they’re gonna get caught off guard again? There isn’t any way that the platform owners will be caught off guard again. They won’t be caught off guard again this time. They’re going to be prepared and they’ve had a lot of time to prepare. Four years of the smartest people in the world trying to figure out how to hide behavior. Then, nobody can find you. Keep in mind it’s not too hard to hide because there’s no access. Even I, with a tremendous amount of pull and resources — I have no visibility on whether my social media traffic is real or manipulated.

[snip]

So, here’s the bottom line: I’ve moved the Slaughtermeter to zero because the current situation is that the social media platforms do absolutely have enough influence to change an election. Is there anybody who doesn’t think that’s true? Is there anybody who doesn’t think social media can determine the election if they were determined to do so? I don’t think anybody believes that, right? It’s clear what they want to happen, which is Trump losing. It’s clear they’ve had four years to fix their systems so that there are less obvious, more subtle, more effective. . . . Four years of technical development, the smartest people in the world. Do you think they’re gonna lose this time? Maybe. I mean, anything’s possible.

Well, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I think you give the smartest people in the world, who are super motivated. . . . How motivated are the social media platforms? Not a little bit motivated. Super, super motivated. Smartest people in the world, [they] know exactly the problem, they know exactly the levers to move. Four years to figure it out.

You think you’re gonna beat that? You’re not, so the current situation is the social media has the levers. We can’t see them. They can push them. It’s clear which way they’re going to pull the lever.

No chance of the president winning this election under the current conditions. So, a lot of things would have to change for him to have be really any shot because the whole democratic process is broken down.

When Scott Adams made the above statements, he was assuming, based upon what little evidence he had available, that things were happening behind the scenes at social media outlets to game the election.

Today, Project Veritas released a whistleblower video showing that, at least within Facebook, Adams’s suspicions were correct. Between biased algorithms and fanatic anti-Trump employees (all of whom quite obviously graduated within the last decade or so from America’s entirely Marxist colleges and universities), Facebook is deliberately and systematically censoring pro-Trump, anti-Democrat content, while promoting anti-Trump, pro-Democrat content:

(And yes, it’s ironic that I’m using YouTube’s platform to link the video. I was unable to find an embed code for the video on Project Veritas’s website. However, if YouTube yanks this video, you can find it here.)

The Department of Justice recently announced that it intends to interpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to allow the social media giants (which were little babies, not big monsters, when the act was passed) to be sued for anti-trust violations. The DOJ is also opening the way to suits for defamation and libel. Currently, tech giants cannot be subject to civil actions because, in 1996, Congress assumed these sites were bulletin boards, and therefore not responsible for content. Twenty-four years later, though, to the extent they’re controlling almost all conversation in America, they’ve become publishers and should not be able to hide behind the Communications Decency Act.

I’m worried that the DOJ’s action is too little, too late. Unless Attorney General Barr has antitrust cases already in the pipeline, this is just a future threat. My sense is that a future threat is meaningless to the Big Tech/Social Medica companies. Indeed, if anything, it will cause them to double down on getting Biden elected because that will protect them completely. And if their gamble fails . . . well, they’ve already committed past antitrust violations, so future conduct won’t change their risk.

We are at a very dangerous time in American history, with the threat of a totalitarian technocracy working to support a fascist American government. And I use the word “fascist” deliberate. The leftists who’ve been spat out of academia for the last 50 years don’t intend to give up their money and do not want a communist-style takeover of the means of production. Instead, they want a purely fascist situation, which envisions government and big business working together to control the American population — and to make sure that Americans buy products from those crony businesses. Obamacare, which forced Americans to buy insurance from private companies, was a trial run, and Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court gave that kind of unconstitutional government force a complete pass.

In November, vote as if your life and freedom depend on it because they do. This election isn’t about “a little bit left of center versus a little bit right of center.” This election is truly about a constitutional, small government/individual liberty America versus true fascism.

As an added incentive for taking the election seriously consider that, while the current batch of American fascists aren’t interested in world domination, as Hitler was, they’re certainly race-obsessed. That should frighten us too. And any minorities who think, “Well, serves those white people right,” should think again. World War II ended almost as badly for the race persecutors as it did for the persecuted races.

Project Veritas proves Google uses Orwellian content engineering

With the 2020 election in sight, Google is doing more than censoring content; it’s trying to change how people think to alter permanently how they vote.

Legislation is too slow — and potentially too dangerous, given the power it hands to government — to affect this problem in time to protect the election in 2020. Moreover, it’s never going to happen with Democrats in control of the House. However, I’ve proposed an alternative, which the Trump administration can do through the Attorney General’s office. I know other have proposed other remedies that can be effected more quickly. Something certainly needs to be done, not the least of which is sharing this video so it gets as many views as possible. (And I really like the irony of it being viewed as much as possible on Google’s YouTube.)

(By the way, as I am writing this, the Project Veritas site is down. Perhaps it got overwhelmed by the number of people trying to view it. Or perhaps something else happened….)

The post Project Veritas proves Google uses Orwellian content engineering appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Jack Phillips, Public Accommodation, Monopolies, and Social Media

Thinking about Jack Phillips’ martyrdom at the hands of the QueerBorg leads me to a proposal for ending Leftist social media and search engine monopolies.

Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, is rapidly being forced into martyrdom thanks to rabid Leftists intent upon making him an example of the need to bow down before the LGBTQIYKWIMAITYD+ monolith that has, in merely eleven years, come to dominate America’s politics. Indeed, for those of you familiar with Star Trek : The Next Generation, the LGBTQWYSIWUG+ monolith is the Borg: It’s a collectivist hive that has as its motto “We are the QueerBorg. Lower your shields and surrender your rights. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”

To me, it’s patently clear that Phillips, one of many bakers in his community, has a First Amendment right to exercise his religion freely and to choose those with whom he wants to associate. Anyone is welcome to come into his store and buy his products without discrimination. The Colorado government, though, is trying to coerce him into hanging with people whose values are antithetical to his (and that’s true even if we’re not talking about religious values) and to force him to use his artistic talents in the service of those same people.

The QueerBorg, to advance its demand that all surrender before it, is trying to frame its battle as a civil rights battle and to liken Phillips’ refusal to bake a cake to the closed doors a black man would face in the Jim Crow South when he tried to rent a room for the night or dine in a restaurant. The way in which Congress broke that monopoly of closed doors was through the notion of “public accommodation,” something it enshrined in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The relevant language states as follows:

(a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (42 U.S.C. § 2000a.)

The most obvious distinction between the LGBYOB+ and African-American situations, of course, is that the statute is directed at “race, color, religion, or national origin.” That’s why there’s such a big push on the Left to enact The Equality Act, which would raise sexual orientation and claims about gender to the same legal level of protection afforded race, color, religion, or national origin. The Equality Act, though, is another post entirely, and not a subject I wish to explore here. Instead, I’m interested in the monopoly of closed doors.

Keep in mind that, as I noted in passing above, the Civil Rights Act did not arise in a vacuum. It was a direct response to a very specific problem: The fact that Jim Crow laws in the South, backed by the personal preferences of bigoted people all over America, meant that places ostensibly held open for walk-in customers could arbitrarily refuse customers based upon the customers’ race (or color, or religion, or national origin). Under this all-encompassing regime, blacks theoretically could travel throughout the South without ever being able to obtain either food or lodging. (As the recent movie Green Book shows, blacks responded to this monopolistic denial of service by identifying hotels, restaurants, and other “open to the public” establishments that would serve them, but it was an imperfect solution and one that was both deeply offensive to human dignity and antithetical to the promise of our Declaration of Independence.)

In other words, that portion of the Civil Rights Act relating to Public Accommodations was intended to break a monopoly that was driven by culture and backed by legislation. The legislation, of course, was the real kicker. As Milton Friedman famously noted, had Jim Crow not been legislated, it likely would have died away as hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the owners of entertainment establishments ended up competing for the only color that mattered: the lovely green of dollar bills. However, legislation, backed by societal prejudice, created an insupportable hurdle to free market sources, and created a monolithic wall that blacks could not breach.

Jack Phillips clearly does not fall into the category of a monolithic monopoly on all institutions open to the public. First, no one can deny that he held his doors open to all customers who walked into his store and sought to buy any of the products on display. He reserved only the right to withhold his services from specific ceremonies (not customers, but ceremonies) that offended his religious sensibilities. Second, Phillips was/is anything but a monopoly. The LGBTQLMAO+ community in Colorado has a lot of choices when it comes to custom baked goods prepared for QueerBorg ceremonies.

While Jack Phillips’ little bakery is manifestly not comparable to the type of public accommodation contemplated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once I started thinking about public accommodations, the principles driving the legislation fit today’s social media giants. Within a very short time, these giants have come to monopolize the way in which Americans communicate with each other. They have become the tech equivalent of the old time public square. If you want to get a message out today. You don’t stand in the forum in ancient Rome.  You don’t go to the Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. You don’t stand on a platform on the Boston Commons. You don’t pin a notice to the board outside the General Store.

Instead, in the modern marketplace of ideas, unless you’re a media outlet yourself with control over the means of information dissemination, you place your message on Facebook, on Twitter, and even on Pinterest. In 2019, it should not be open to question that these outlets have a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of information and ideas.

And if people want to find you or your message, they don’t look in the Yellow Pages. They don’t go and gaze on the notice board at the general store. They don’t step over the sleeping homeless people in and around the public library to check dusty volumes and arcane publications. Instead, they conduct their search on Google or Bing or Yahoo. These outlets have a virtual monopoly on locating information and ideas.

That there are several different entities in the world of social media and search engines — Facebook, Twitter, Bing, Google, etc. — does not change their monopolistic nature, because they all pull in the same harness. They are guided by and employ people who have identical cultural and political values, among which is the belief that all ideas that do not harmonize with theirs must be stifled. They are ideological bigots, every bit as hate-filled and narrow-minded as the old-time Jim Crow Southerners who closed their businesses to people because of their skin color.

Think of it this way: Today’s censorious tech giants, rather than being in the business of selling food or lodging, are in the business of selling and re-selling ideas. If they close their doors to classes of people, their monopolistic status means that the targeted class is out in the ideological cold.

The Constitution did not talk about sodas and beds, or movies and bars, although its underlying promises and premises were enough to make legitimate legislation ensuring that all Americans had equal access to sodas and beds, movies and bars. Instead, it was obsessed with the world of ideas. After all, that’s what the First — the very first — Amendment is all about: Ideas. Let me remind you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps the most basic premise of the United States is that the free exchange of ideas is essential to a free country. If the government can break up monopolies in oil, in transport, in lodging, and in dining, it’s inconceivable that it cannot break up a monopoly on the most important thing that matters: the free exchange of ideas and information.

Indeed, I would go further and argue that there is no need to create special legislation, as was necessary to break Jim Crow. Because the Constitution is about the spread of ideas, and because the tech giants are impairing the 21st century method of spreading ideas, their behavior is a prima facie violation of the Constitution that can be barred without any legislative acts.

The post Jack Phillips, Public Accommodation, Monopolies, and Social Media appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

THE CARE AND CLEANING OF THE TWITTER ACCOUNT

Vassar Bushmills

The Grand Game

Almost everyone has a opinion about Twitter and Facebook. Conservatives consider them capricious in the way they handle “political speech” on their sites, rewarding Leftist views while punishing flag-waving Love-America attitudes.

Both are hostile to American-style democracy and values.

But as long as the American political class, including Republicans, is in the grip of elitists who want to permanently disenfranchise Americans who are below their standard for full citizenship, (approximately 92%), we simply have to learn to make-do with this circumstance until we can show these people the door. That’s already a work in progress.

Either way, there will be an eventual reckoning.

Along with Google, I believe Facebook to be a world-class malevolence on a totally different level than Twitter. G&F engage in the dark arts of blending mass mind-control and subliminal messaging with the general idea that humankind can be molded into any living, breathing shape they would want us to be.

Heavy stuff.

World thinkers began seeing the dark possibilities of this futuristic world as early as the 1920s, even before movies had become talkies. By the 1950s television had hypnotized America’s children, proving the power of free commercial advertising to sell sugar-coated cereal to kids who hadn’t two dimes in their pockets. Vance Packard called these “hidden persuaders”, pointing his finger at Madison Avenue in our golden age of mass media in the 1950s. But in the 1930s it was called “propaganda” when the only tools the state could employ were radio and the superman film imagery of Leni Riefenstahl. Leave it to American admen to transform those tools to a free market.

It was only a matter of time before newer and more subtle technologies would get out in front of this desire to manipulate and control the masses for both profit and control.

As for the skin ordinary Americans have in this game of thrones, Individual Liberty is a very recent insertion into human history. And since it was so commonplace in America, Americans generally lost sight of just how precious jewel it is. So, we stopped teaching this to our children 1-2 generations ago. The absence of that teaching partly explains the kinds of people we see today on Twitter.

The general idea has been than with the magic of technology super-men can control other men without the jack-boot thuggery once required to subjugate them. Just watch people walk around like Zombies today, looking at their cell phones while tripping over sidewalks and, if old enough, you will be reminded of children being sold Lucky Charms on Saturday morning TV.

In this state leftists believe they can avoid having to send all but the religious off to re-education camps.

It’s believed that once we lose this taste for individual liberty it will be lost forever, since there is already  diminishing knowledge as to how human freedom came into being in the first place. And no known academic discipline to inquire how or when it might arise again[…]

Continue Reading

The post THE CARE AND CLEANING OF THE TWITTER ACCOUNT appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.