Category Archives: Big Tech

also Silicon Valley

Google Business Model is IP Theft

Big Tech, google, L0,

Many wonder how Big Tech became so powerful, wealthy, and leftist. As someone with a technical and C-level management background in the tech business, I can explain. One of the sources of its wealth is wholesale theft of intellectual property by Google and Microsoft’s Bing. Here, the focus is on text-based, non-promotional content produced by “knowledge industries.” The term includes all sorts of publishing from news and commentary to scientific publications.

The main roles in publishing are AUTHOR, PUBLISHER (including editors), DISTRIBUTOR (from wholesalers to local bookstores or paper stands), and USER (buyer and reader).

Google Steals

Let us focus on Google. Google copies all web content that it can reach, then acts as a DISTRIBUTOR of that content, totally ignoring the copyright laws. In response to search words, Google provides links to Google-selected content. Typically, these links are topped by ads, for which Google is paid. Then come sources that Google owns or has business relationships with, such as YouTube, Twitter, or the fake news media. Then there are organic results (“the ten blue links”), also chosen by Google. Google promises its users it will deliver content that is the most useful, relevant, and helpful for them, but does not abide by this promise. However, this is off topic here. Continue reading Google Business Model is IP Theft →

Social Media Censorship is not Speech

anti-social media, Big Tech,

My Amicus Brief in 5th Court of Appeals Docket #: 21-51178 NetChoice v. Paxton (Appeal by TX AG Paxton of preliminary injunction against Texas anti-social medial censorship bill H.B.20) is delivered to the Court.

Amicus-Brief–NetChoice-v-Paxton-unofficial.PDF

Amicus-Motion–NetChoice-v-Paxton-unofficial.PDF

Social media platforms are not media, but platforms used by the users to communication and to create media.  Platforms themselves are not media companies, but telecommunications services providers. The Platforms have never marketed themselves as media, press, or publishers.

Platforms operate under their contracts (which are to be constructed by courts in each separate case; their terms of service are illegal and invalid) with the users and consumer protection laws.

Platforms are state actors, and must respect the First Amendment rights of their users. Most of the censorship by the Platforms lacks necessary communicative elements to even claim the First Amendment protection. Continue reading Social Media Censorship is not Speech →

Google Plunders the Web

Big Tech, google,

Google and other Big Tech companies were mostly honest, value-creating enterprises until around 2008. The main factor behind Big Tech’s wealth, and the collapse of honest journalism and civil society, was Google and Microsoft’s plundering of content from millions of websites with impunity. Here, I am focused on text-based content, like news, commentary, scholarly and scientific works—in other words, the works that contain or create human knowledge. Continue reading Google Plunders the Web →

“Doctor Google” vs IVM and Licensed Physicians

Big Tech, google,

October 29: added a YouTube screenshot, falsely and harmfully claiming that the FDA is a ‘national health authority‘ (the bottom of the article).

July 24 was celebrated by COVID-19 treating physicians, scientists, and their supporters as Ivermectin Day. For Google, it was another “no cure for COVID-19” day. It returned results denying effectiveness of Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.

Google markets its search for medical information as a medical advice (simultaneously denying that) on the most frequently searched topics, which include COVID-19. It claims to offer information on symptoms, treatment, prevention, and safety, which is refined by its doctors (rather than received from third parties).

As an additional fee for its medical advice, Google also stores and uses the customer’s (patient’s?) medical searches information. Of course, it also shows ads.

Continue reading “Doctor Google” vs IVM and Licensed Physicians →

Big Tech vs Medicine

Big Tech, healthcare, L0,

This article was first published in TrialSiteNews behind a paywall.

The root cause of many of the disastrous responses to this pandemic is the global echo-chamber created and sustained by Big Tech. Big Tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple – in that order) systematically endorse false information and harmful governmental decisions, reject effective treatments, and collude among themselves to eliminate any dissenting views.

For example, no matter how many doctors and even politicians become convinced that Ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, Big Tech maintains its anti-Ivermectin position. The narrative that “Ivermectin as a treatment against COVID-19 is disinformation” is ingrained in the brains of Big Tech’s low- and middle rank censors, encoded in its databases and AI, and even in its business relationships. It is highly unlikely that any of Big Tech’s high-level executives would step in to change this narrative. Initiating such a change would almost an admission of guilt, acknowledging that their company imperiled millions of people who would have greatly benefited from the treatment.

Big Tech is much more powerful than Big Pharma. Big Tech is also accustomed to impunity, unlike Big Pharma. During this pandemic, Big Tech has added to its valuation >$3 Trillion (yes, with T), much more than Big Pharma can dream of. Continue reading Big Tech vs Medicine →

Google Spies on .gov Sites

18 USC Ch. 115, Big Tech, google, ,

Shockingly most US government and military websites contain Google Analytics, which sends information about every visitor, on every page, back to Google. Google combines this data with the information it has on that visitor, collected on other websites and in other Google products, and uses it across its products. By itself, the data sent by these websites to Google might be of little value, but Google identifies the visitor via his/her IP address and/or cookies, and adds this data to the user’s ever-growing profile. All of this is done without the knowledge or permission of the user.

Google and its subsidiary YouTube use this information for many purposes, the most benign of which is ad targeting. For example, one might target audiences who were interested in the information on a certain government website. Some Google insiders have direct access to this information.

Theoretically, Google employees can correlate visits to the FBI Tips website with other web activities by the same person, and to aid the persons of interest. Also theoretically, Google can use data from visits to courts’ websites to forecast litigation against it and its partners.

These are  grave violations of our Constitutional rights, especially under the Fourth Amendment. This is also another way in which Google assumes the role of a state actor, which is still subject to all Constitutional restrictions on  government powers. Continue reading Google Spies on .gov Sites →

Constitutional Violations in C19-vaxx Campaign

Big Tech, dems, healthcare, L0, ,

The current campaign to mass-vaccinate young people and children against COVID-19 has no scientific or medical justification. It seems to be driven by the arbitrary goal set by Joe Robinette Biden to vaccinate 70% of the adult US population by the 4th of July. The mass-vaccination machine has rolled over the children by inertia.

To achieve their goals, federal government officials lie to doctors and the general population; prevent the use of effective prophylaxis and treatment; silence the opposition through Big Tech bans, deplatforming, and illegal surveillance. In this case, Big Tech companies are state actors, bound by the same constitutional restrictions as the government.

The COVID-19 vaccination of children and young people is sponsored or even fully conducted by the government. Government-sponsored medical procedures can be performed only with the patient’s informed consent. This requirement derives from the Due Process Clause(s) of the Constitution and cannot be bypassed by issuing an EUA or any other document. This was established by the court ruling In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 796 – Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1995 and cited by higher courts later on. For patients who are minors, parents’ informed consent is required.

The decision mentioned above also states that government officials cannot assert qualified immunity for this kind of human rights violations. They can be sued and charged in an individual capacity. Continue reading Constitutional Violations in C19-vaxx Campaign →

Big Tech are State Actors by Obamanet

Big Tech, dems, L0, Obamanet,

2021-05-18 update: Biden revoked Trump’s executive order, intended to minimize government protections to the online censorship by Big Tech. Now Big Tech are officially state actors for the purpose of the First Amendment.

Once again: Big Tech are state actors. They became state actors when FCC Net Neutrality regulations (Obamanet) forced Internet users to pay for delivery of Big Tech content and traffic, without giving anyone a choice. Continue reading Big Tech are State Actors by Obamanet →

COVID-19 No-Treatment Panel

Big Tech, corrupt academia, healthcare, L1,

2021-05-05 update is related to Ivermectin, but goes beyond it. Since the Panel purports to speak on behalf of the National Institutes of Health, even when it expresses a neutral stance toward a medication has a negative meaning.

“We must remind the Panel that in the absence of even a weak recommendation, the vast majority of the nation’s health care providers will be unwilling to prescribe ivermectin despite it being far safer than medicines such as aspirin or acetaminophen.” – from FLCCC Alliance Response to the N.I.H. Guideline Committee Recommendation on Ivermectin use in COVID-19, February 11, 2021. Continue reading COVID-19 No-Treatment Panel →

Big Tech vs Trump – the Beginning

Big Tech, L1,

Foreign influences on Big Tech explain its sudden anti-Trump derangement, starting at the beginning of Trump’s term.

Most of Big Tech have international headquarters in Ireland to avoid taxation. This is how they keep their effective corporate tax rate below 15%, on average, while simultaneously advocating for increased taxation of the middle and upper-middle classes. Thus, Ireland effectively regulates Big Tech, on behalf of the European Union.

Ireland was and still is extremely opposed to England leaving the EU (Brexit). The Obama administration also opposed Brexit. Thus, Trump was probably perceived by the Irish government as an adversary. Due to Ireland’s enormous influence on Big Tech, it is hard to believe that it did not pressure Big Tech to take an anti-Trump stance. Continue reading Big Tech vs Trump – the Beginning →

Google still Misinforms Us about COVID-19 Treatment

Big Tech, first hand evidence, google, healthcare, L0,

2021-04-13 update. Google has a special factcheck tool, which it uses to misinform the public, decision makers, and journalists on all kinds of topics, including the use of  Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin against COVID-19.

India has been successfully using HCQ for treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 almost from the beginning. This is why it has so low COVID-19 mortality (124 deaths per Million, 14x lower than the US, despite much higher population density in India). But Google found an obscure website there, which correctly states that W.H.O. did not approve HCQ for COVID-19, then it proceeds to deny its effectiveness. Google flatly denies effectiveness of HCQ and IVM against COVID-19, even admitting that their effectiveness was asserted by doctors. This article is the first result in Google’s “Fact Check Explorer”. Continue reading Google still Misinforms Us about COVID-19 Treatment →

Google and Twitter services are not First Amendment speech 

anti-social media, Big Tech, google, L0,

Twitter recently filed an arrogant lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, claiming to be a publisher making editorial decisions, as if Twitter’s 70 million US users submitted to Twitter’s policy on all topics discussed on twitter. Before this lawsuit, Twitter had called itself a communication utility or channel. This article does not discuss the legal fallacies and factual errors in the complaint. However, one thing that caught my attention is that Twitter cited the influential case Zhang v. Baidu (Federal District Court for SDNY, 2014), in which the court ruled in favor of Baidu. This decision brings us to a stealthy PR campaign, which Google ran in 2011-2014.  Continue reading Google and Twitter services are not First Amendment speech  →