2019-02-15 Update. Breitbart: This Is What ‘Election Interference’ Actually Looks Like (2018-08-20)
“The purge of the right on social media was once a slow trickle, with high-profile bans happening only occasionally, and then subsiding. With just three months until the midterm elections, the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley have turned online censorship into a cascade.” Continue reading “Masters of the Universe” ban Alex Jones and other Dissidents
In Dec. 30, 2016 – Jan. 2, 2017, Mark Maunder, CEO of the security company Wordfence, was among many vocal critics of the wrong and incompetent FBI-DHS report GRIZZLY STEPPE, which purported to provide technical indications of “Russian hacking.” A month and a half later, he was afraid to criticize the new version of the same report, citing the political nature of this issue, ostensibly because he feared the repercussions of such criticisms. The danger was coming from Big Tech, which, triggered by the travel ban, joined the “resistance” and had zero tolerance for anybody and anything not opposing President Trump.
Dec. 30, 2016. “US Govt Data Shows ‘Russia’ Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware”
Mark Maunder suggested that ‘Russia’ be put in quotes in his next post on the subject.
Continue reading Climate of Fear in Cyber-Security – More Evidence
Google’s suppression of “undesirable” speech went beyond conservative, Republican, and scientific opinions. Google also muzzled opinions in order to promote its products, eliminate potential competition, and manipulate (inflate) its stock price, including the suppression of
In its attempts to suppress conservative and Republican speech, as well as scientific, cyber-security, and medical research and information, Google went far beyond banning, de-ranking, and demonetizing content in its own search results, YouTube, and other platforms. Google also
- Developed and deployed an ad blocker, designed to selectively block ads on pro-Trump political websites. The targeted websites include Breitbart, American Thinker, and DailyCaller, and the scientific website WattsUpWithThat. The move was so insidious that even its victims missed the motive behind such an illogical and self-harming act by a company that depends on ads for almost all of its revenues.
- Persecuted conservative employees for their political views, in violation of California laws, resulting in a chilling effect on the speech of other Google employees and the employees of its actual and potential partners and vendors. Google managers compiled and disseminated lists of conservative employees. See James Damore lawsuit against Google.
Contrary to popular assumptions, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are likely not protected by Section 230 for hiding, de-ranking, and banning conservative, pro-Trump, climate realism and other “adversary” content. Section 230 provides protection to them only for: Continue reading Google Ad Blocker and Suppression of Non-Political Speech
The funniest part of the Google CEO Sundar Pichai testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was when Representative Lieu (D-CA) said that Google and other for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights—after Democrats were denying, protesting, and suppressing such rights for decades and had a derangement syndrome over Citizens United. Soon, they might figure out that bakers refusing to make cakes for a “gay marriage” ritual have First Amendments rights too.
Google does have First Amendment rights and exercise them on its corporate blogs, by speaking to the media, placing ads on the sites of third parties and its own site, and in many other ways. But Google Search, YouTube, and most other resources are services, not speech. They are not different from auto repair or accounting. This is how Google has been marketing them, and this is how users understand them. Continue reading Democrats Claim Suppression of Conservatives is Google’s Right
Few articles caught my eye:
15 Things We Learned From the Tech Giants at the Senate Hearings
The Atlantic, Nov 2, 2017
“Most Russian advertising on Facebook was used to build up pages, which then distributed their content “organically.”
The $100,000 of advertising that has been a big focus of Congressional interest was used primarily to build audiences for a variety of Russian-linked pages. In other words, they paid to buy likes and build the distribution channels through which they would pump disinformation.” Continue reading Even The Atlantic Questioned Loyalty of Big Tech
In response to repeal of the Obamanet by the new FCC, Democratic Attorneys General and other opponents of freedom sued FCC and the United States of America. I filed an intervention, siding with FCC and the United States of America. Continue reading My Brief in the Obamanet Repeal Lawsuit
More examples was added after the first publication on 2018-10-05. The last update was on 2018-10-10.
Google regularly deletes YouTube videos linked to and from conservative and libertarian websites. It deleted a Fox News video in which Pete Hoekstra was debunking Clapper claims about the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment. This video was referred to from Fox News opinion piece Was Friday’s declassified report claiming Russian hacking of the 2016 election rigged? by former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz (2017-01-08). Fred Fleitz and Pete Hoekstra debunked this so-called Intelligence Community Assessment, leaked to the media by Clapper and released (in a redacted form) few hours before Congress certified Trump as the next President of the United States. Continue reading Google Deletes Conservative Clips on Youtube, Creates Alternative Reality
The enlightened Silicon Valley has apparently created a totalitarian dystopia. Here, the term Silicon Valley includes Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Apple (“GFTMA”), even as Microsoft is headquartered in Washington state.
GFTMA have developed tools for nearly total speech control and deployed them against conservatives and other opponents of the Left. They tied themselves to the Left under the Obama administration. The political censorship and discrimination against the “right of left” authors and readers is well documented. This article focuses on the scientific and technical human potential of this country, a large part of which is computer and network engineers, scientists, businessmen, and other specialists affected by Silicon Valley. Continue reading Silicon Valley Totalitarian Dystopia
Corrected on 2018-08-26: 70,000 is the number of total deaths from drug overdose. Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids account for 40% of them.
There were more than 70,000 deaths from drug overdose in the U.S. in 2017. About 30,000 of them involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids many times stronger than heroin. Most illegally purchased synthetic opiods are manufactured in China. Online shops in China used to receive payments from Americans through Mastercard and Visa to ship these deadly drugs by mail. The number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids skyrocketed 10x since 2013: Continue reading Mastercard, Jihad, and Fentanyl
GFT censors not only conservatives, but other dissidents from the EU left and anti-Trump narratives, as well as their own adversaries.
Twitter subjected to Quality Filter Discrimination (QFD shadowban) not only expected targets, such as @cernovich, but also Trump Republicans, a walking away liberal Brandon Straka (@usminority), and even Adam Carter (@with_integrity). Adam Carter is one of the leading researchers who refuted Hillary’s conspiracy theory that Russia had been behind the leaks of the 2016 election campaign. This conspiracy theory has been built on false claims by CrowdStrike, in which Google is a major investor. The QFD shadowbans were observed on Twitter from July 23 to 24. Continue reading Censorship by GOOG,FB, TWTR is Alive and Well
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.
The suppression of conservative websites in Google organic search results has been documented many times. Continue reading Google and Twitter Censor non-Leftist Views Under Pretext of “Extremist Propaganda”
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
On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission chaired by courageous Ajit Pai voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Contrary and opposite to the fake news media’s claims, the Obamanet order weakened or eliminated net neutrality, which had been established as FCC regulatory policy in 2005 by the Bush administration. Continue reading Repeal of Fake Net Neutrality aka Obamanet
Updated on 10/13/2017 and 10/15/2017
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.
To be clear, the Wikipedia’s Holocaust denial article (WHDA) does not explicitly deny that the Holocaust happened. It even criticizes Holocaust deniers and argues with them, but does that in such a way as to cast a strong doubt about the Holocaust. Continue reading Google is Still in the Holocaust Denial Business
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.”
Apparently, some in Hollywood regard us as property they have built and own. They want the government to protect their “ownership rights.” Continue reading We Pay ISPs to Use the Internet, NOT to be Used or “Reached”
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
Papers Measuring Google Intentional Bias
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.
Leo Goldstein, Google’s search bias against conservative news sites has been quantified (Sep 2017) – my latest paper. The full title is A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Applications in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse. Continue reading Recent Research into Google Search Bias
My new research paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Applications in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse is published in WUWT. Most people observe that Google search results on political topics are left leaning. But, it was hard to determine whether such leaning was a simple reflection of the left/liberal cultural dominance on the web or if the Google search team intentionally (or “artificially”) biased rankings. This paper demonstrates and even quantifies such intentional or artificial bias.
After publication, I found a 2016 study that also shows that Google results are artificially biased in favor of liberal ideology and Democratic Party candidates: Google bias in search results; 40% lean left or liberal (Matt Bentley / CanIRank.com). From the Matt Bentley study:
“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
I noticed that the Amazon logo had disappeared from the “Battle for the Net” participants wall (1). The battle has been waged by the Free Press and other hard Left groups, and supported by the seditious Internet giants to keep intact the order FCC-15-24 that was passed by Obama’s FCC in 2015. That order purported to place the U.S. internet under the Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act in violation of the First Amendment and other Constitutional provisions.
Continue reading Amazon Attempts to Hide Collusion with Hard Left
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.
A new paper explains how the morons view the world through The Matrix.
After Google fired its prodigy software engineer James Damore for writing an internal memo acknowledging differences between sexes, Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari started a series of articles about the internal Google culture of recent years. From Rebels of Google: ‘Senior Leaders Focus on Diversity First and Technology Second’:
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
14 Reasons why Silicon Valley embraced Climate Alarmism was published in WUWT on February 15, 2017. Additional points:
- Silicon Valley consists from a large number of individuals with very similar professional backgrounds and a small pool of knowledge. Communication in such groups tends to reinforce their preconceived notions. Another place with this social phenomenon is Hollywood. Continue reading Published in WUWT: Why Silicon Valley Embraced Climatism
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”