In August 2017, Netflix (NFLX) offered for sale illegal marijuana all over the United States to promote another of its junk junkies-centered shows.
The offer was placed as an editorial article (an advertorial, in the professional slang) in multiple publications, including Variety (“Netflix made the point in its press materials that it’s not profiting off the sales of the product, which are for promotional purposes” — they should tell that to a judge), Mashable, Rolling Stone, and on Twitter. Continue reading Netflix is an illegal drugs dealer→
Obama administration has passed mandatory net neutrality rules that force all internet users to pay for the Netflix internet traffic, whether they watch Netflix or not. This subsidy transfers at least $15B of citizens’ money into the Netflix pockets each year. The capitalized value of it exceeds $200B, which is higher than the NFLX market value. In exchange, Netflix made a $50M+ production deal with Obama.
Who said “corruption”? For the Demonrats, it is business as usual.
An axis of the Democrat Attorneys General, far left groups, and various opportunists filed a bunch of lawsuits, challenging the repeal of Obamanet and mandatory net neutrality. These challenges have been consolidated into the case 18-70506, pending before the 9th Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco (ouch!).
I filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of the FCC and the United States of America. The Motion states that Obamanet and mandatory net neutrality violate my rights, as well as the rights of almost every other American, under the Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, and the I, IV, IX, and X Amendments. Continue reading Motion to Intervene in Support of Obamanet Repeal→
Update. The controlling legal precedent seems to be the following quote from the Supreme Court Decision:
“To determine whether an actor’s conduct possesses “sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” the Supreme Court has asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.””
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)).
When Google eliminates climate realist or conservative websites from its top search results, the “message” is certainly not understood by those who view it. Further, this is the main purpose of this conduct – to suppress speech without other people understanding that. Google also flatly denies that it conveys any message in its search results. It claims impartiality and attempts to provide “the most useful and relevant” search results. Thus, intentional distortion of the search results by Google does not even bring the First Amendment into play. It is really fraud, not speech.
Google Search is a commercial service that Google provides to its users. Google must provide this service in good faith and in accordance with other applicable laws. Google search is service, not “speech.” Continue reading Google Search Fraud→
I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much. Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy. For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them. I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft (GFTM) and other companies that started as platforms or service providers and became content vendors are American companies subject to all U.S laws. Their directors and executives are American citizens and residents, and owe loyalty to the U.S. That stands true even if they derive most of their income from abroad.Continue reading US Tech Companies Must Remain Loyal→
In 2015, in a vote along partisan lines, the FCC reclassified the Internet to be a telecommunication service subject to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act (the infamous FCC-15-24 Obamanet order). This was done under the pretext of net neutrality, but had nothing to do with net neutrality. Google participated in the preparation of this order, was fully aware of it, did not object. Rumor has it that Eric Schmidt personally wrote parts of the order, and broadened it. Then Google took full advantage of this reclassification and ignored its obligations stemming from it. Continue reading Google Liability under Title II→
“Two and a half years ago, I said that net neutrality was ‘Obamacare for the Internet.’ At the time, the Obama administration, in its typically deceptive manner, had conflated net neutrality — a worthy idea, as originally defined, to protect an open internet — with reclassifying the internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, a burdensome, behemoth of a law that gives all sorts of authority to the government …” – Senator Ted Cruz, May 1, 2017
A Google search for Holocaust happened (and also for did Holocaust happen) returns the Wikipedia article Holocaust denial. This article entices readers to doubt the Holocaust and provides helpful reference information to Holocaust deniers. It is almost a dissertation in Holocaust denial that spreads over 45 pages showcasing multiple Holocaust denial theories while generously linking the profiles and books of many deniers.
In the battle for fake net neutrality, there are also non-political motives behind this disguised attempt to take away our freedom. These ideas were best expressed by George Takei, an actor and activist, in a 2014 interview with WaPo that touched on the subject of net neutrality (2):
“Brian Fung, WaPo: Would you be open to paying a toll — or would AARP be open to paying a toll — to Internet providers to reach your audience?
George Takei: Well, this audience was built not by them, but by our efforts, by our creativity. And once we have that audience built, they want to charge us for it? … a policy has to be created to deal with the fact that access to large numbers of people was built by us, using platform.”
Following the well-accepted paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Application in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse (WUWT, 09/08/2017), I checked the evolution of the intentional Google bias back to early 2015. The intentional Google anti-conservative bias in news & opinion has not noticeably changed since then. The intentional Google pro-alarmist bias in the climate debate has not noticeably changed since early to mid 2016. I could not get earlier data. The very low correlation between PGSTN and the popularity of the news & opinion domains in 2016 and 2015 confirms the validity of the PGSTN methodology.
Artificial Google bias, persisting over the long time, has been causing a vicious spiral: less traffic from Google search to demoted domains caused less sharing on social and traditional media and less traffic from other sources. That led even lower Google rankings, and so on. These effects further decreased Google ranking of the site, and so on. Finally, news & opinion websites artificially demoted by Google were not considered by many individuals as legitimate sources. This social component of the vicious spiral probably had a destructive social effect and significantly contributed to the political polarization of recent years. Continue reading Google anti-Conservative Bias Unchanged since 2015→
Artificial bias has been found to be intentionally introduced by the Google team in addition to the natural bias caused by the media dominance of the Left and the influence foreign political entity websites.
“Does it make sense, for example, that someone researching “Republican platform” should be presented only the official text of the platform and seven left-leaning results highly critical of that platform, with zero results supporting it?”
“… we would expect top ranked search results to have more external links compared to lower ranked search results. Instead, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. Pages with a right-leaning slant needed significantly more links to make it into the top results.”
“According to recent Google findings, online search is the resource that 87% of the population turns to first when a question arises. Online search plays a particularly prominent role in the democratic process during election season. During the 2012 election cycle, a survey of persuadable voters revealed that 49% get their news about campaigns and the election online, largely through search engines like Google, and that these voters generally trust the information they find online. Top search results are broadly perceived as being the most accurate and authoritative by members of the public with the first five search results accounting for an estimated 67% of all clicks and the first three results alone accounting for over 55% of all clicks. In their 2015 study, Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson concluded that the order of search results can have a big impact on voter behavior — and in the event of a close election, this effect could even be profound enough to determine the outcome of the election.”
Washington Post: “Breaking from tech giants, Democrats consider becoming an antimonopoly party” (1).
Quotes with comments:
“The Democrats’ anti-monopolists have been winning the argument inside the party. During the Obama years, they’d been routed, as Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, strongly supported the president, and the Federal Trade Commission abandoned an antitrust case against the company.” – Who is not crooked in the Democrat Party? Continue reading The Scorpion and the Frog: Dems to Sting Silicon Valley→
The leftist echo-chamber became so detached from reality partly because of an accidentally unleashed artificial intelligence system that had come into existence through interaction between Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft Bing, Wikipedia, Reddit etc.
The complaint [by NLRB] alleges that [Google’s] Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices [referencing “workplace diversity and social justice initiatives”].
Google’s Senior Vice President Urs Holze is also a Vice Chair and Board Member of the World Wildlife Fund (1, 2). The World Wildlife Fund was alleged to manage a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization in a civil RICO lawsuit (5:16-cv-211-C, Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al., dismissed in June 2017).
According to WWF, “Hölzle manages many of Google’s other green initiatives, including the company’s purchases of renewable energy for its operations,” which is another fraud awaiting investigation.
Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news. Facebook denies that but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.
Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years→
The main organization behind the malicious smear campaign that fraudulently uses the phrase “net neutrality” is Free Press, a revolutionary Marxist group. Robert W. McChesney, a founder of Free Press, sounds like Lenin. From his 2014 article Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement (emphasis is mine):
“In subsequent years the U.S. media reform movement blossomed, led primarily by a group I co-founded, Free Press. On a number of major issues … Free Press led the charge in Washington, DC. The thinking behind the group and the movement was to have one foot in the battles of the day as they were being fought in the capital, while having another foot doing organizing in the field, with the idea of expanding popular awareness and involvement in the movement. We realized that for most people the range of media policy outcomes then countenanced in Washington seemed abstract or inconsequential. We needed to capture their imagination with bold and radical proposals. The strategy was to create an army for structural media reform …” Continue reading You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”→
Charlie Munger (Warren Buffet’s #2) on Al Gore: “not very smart,” “an idiot,” “obsessed with global warming.” Despite that, he was making hundreds of millions of dollars annually by investing in companies that (in Gore’s mind) were not emitting CO2. Continue reading ‘Climate Deniers’ Pop up Everywhere→
In September 2015, Amazon.com, controlled by Jeff Bezos, added to its Amazon Prime package free subscription(*) to the The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos (1). Thus, The Washington Post officially became an integral part of Amazon. This kind of arrangement between a national newspaper and a monopoly in multiple retail segments is unprecedented.
The Washington Post is one of the most rabid fakestream media outlets. Amazon is one of The Dirty 129, having served as a “witness” in a lawsuit, filed by the corrupt Washington State Attorney General Ferguson against the Executive Order No. 13769. Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
Even before the elections, Donald Trump hinted that Amazon was a monopoly, and later The Washington Post assigned a special reporter’s team to dig dirt on him.
(*) Free subscription for 6 months and 60% discount for unlimited time after that.
This is a summary of When Silicon Valley Went Off the Cliff focusing on connections and parallels between the short lived “ban alarmism” and climate alarmism. From January 28 through February 8, a number of Silicon Valley and Washington state corporate executives participated in an attempt to topple President Trump, orchestrated by the Left after President Trump signed the original order, Executive Order No. 13769 Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States on January 27. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson, one of the Attorneys General United for Clean Power, filed a stinky lawsuit against President Trump and succeeded to halt implementation of the Executive order. 129 corporations, who hold monopolies in internet search, “social media,” TV and movie streaming, as well as other markets for speech and press, filed an Amici Brief supporting the rogue attorney general against the president. Their reaction to the Executive order was so out of proportion that an analogy with climate alarmism immediately sprung to mind. Here, I do not recite the original Executive order because I expect that readers did not trust to the fake stream media reporting about it.
The fake news networks (FNN) widely reported a demonstration of about 150 alleged tech workers against President Trump in connection to the immigration order. The photos from the demonstration show massive presence of UNITE HERE! – an extremist union whose captive membership consists mostly of unqualified workers.
I appreciate the sacrifice of these tech workers (if there are any; see the fake scientists demonstration) for the sake of profits of their employers who advocate unrestricted immigration from low-wage countries that replace American tech workers.
There are countless other reports of manipulation of conservative sites and blogs. With Google’s longstanding policy of favoring inbound links from .edu and .gov blogs, they’ve effectively created their own hard-Left political search engine. Continue reading Google: A Hard-Left Search Engine?→