Author Topic: Goolag, FB, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter, Gov censorship/propaganda via Tech Octopus  (Read 178280 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
The Goolag: DeGoogle and DeMonetize Google, re: Dr Roy Spencer
« Reply #851 on: January 14, 2022, 01:45:18 PM »
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"Unreliable and harmful claims, th8is website has been demonetized by Google"

I'm reading that on a Brave browser with a duckduckgo search engine.

Read the qualifications and awards won by Dr Roy Spencer, Climatologist, University of Alabama Huntsville.  He publishes actual temperature data.  He is considered a 'luke warmer' for his belief in warming but not in the crazy, inaccurate models.  He argues with warmers deniers everyday on his site.

This is the year I will complete my own deGoogle process. 

I don't have any business to take away from Facebook, but wouldn't it be smart for people to boycott them every election year until they turn neutral?

Enough!  Stop funding the enemy.
--------------------------------------
“Unreliable and harmful claims”: This website has been demonetized by Google
January 7th, 2022
DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for “unreliable and harmful claims”. This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.

From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.

I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.

Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:

I believe the climate system has warmed
I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.

From the information provided by Google about my violations, in terms of the number of ads served, by far the most frequented web pages here at drroyspencer.com with “unreliable and harmful claims” are our (UAH) monthly global temperature update pages. This is obviously because some activists employed by Google (who are probably weren’t even born when John Christy and I received both NASA and American Meteorological Society awards for our work) don’t like the answer our 43-year long satellite dataset gives. Nevermind that our dataset remains one of the central global temperature datasets used by mainstream climate researchers in their work.

For now I don’t plan on appealing the decision, because it’s not worth the aggravation. If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means) Google has already said you are targeted for termination from their Adsense program. I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.


« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 01:54:06 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Goolag forcing Australian MPs to self censor
« Reply #852 on: January 21, 2022, 05:44:54 PM »
Big Tech Forcing MPs to Self-Censor in Australian Parliament: Craig Kelly MP
By Daniel Y. Teng January 19, 2022 Updated: January 19, 2022biggersmaller Print
Australian members of Parliament are curating their speeches to avoid triggering censorship from Big Tech platforms like YouTube and Facebook, according to United Australia Party (UAP) leader Craig Kelly MP.

In a wide-ranging interview with Emeritus Law Professor David Flint, Kelly, who last year resigned from the Liberal Party to join the UAP, said Big Tech companies had become the “de facto Hansard” in reference to the official transcript of Parliamentary debates used across Commonwealth countries.

“On the floor of Parliament, I have to think, ‘If I say these words, will YouTube delete this?’” he told Flint in an episode of Australia Calling, which can be viewed on The Epoch Times website, as well as Rumble and YouTube.

“I think we need to enshrine ‘freedom of speech,’ especially in the age of these large tech giants who have so much control of what goes into the media,” he said. “People talk about the Murdoch media having so much control, they have nothing on the control that Facebook and YouTube do.”

“It’s also controlling other groups like Sky News Australia and other independent media commentators who use YouTube and Facebook to post their interviews and content,” he added. “They know in certain areas if they talk about something which is contrary to the economic interests of those (Big Tech) companies, they will have their platforms taken down.”

Epoch Times Photo
Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese and Prime Minister Scott Morrison during Question Time in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia on May 13, 2021. (Sam Mooy/Getty Images)
Kelly called on the platforms to be recognised as publishers saying they could not have it “both ways.”

“Facebook and YouTube today have taken the role of the ‘Old Town Square.’ They’ve got the right to say who goes into the Town Square, who’s allowed to stand up on the soapbox, and who’s allowed to speak and who is not allowed to speak,” he said.


Big Tech’s moderation of content has become an increasingly contentious issue with concerns platforms are not doing enough to curb online bullying, while at the same time, warnings or suspensions have been handed out in response to discussion on politics or COVID-19.

For example, Prof. Nikolai Petrovsky, lead researcher at Vaxine which is behind Spikogen (or COVAX-19)—now being rolled out in Iran—had his LinkedIn account restricted over “multiple violations” of the user agreement.

According to an email from LinkedIn posted online by Petrovsky, the social media company took action against the researcher when he wrote comments questioning the efficacy of vaccines, the use of mandates, and the manufacturing safeguards behind the drugs.

“Which media channels to trust and have integrity? Does anyone find these comments offensive?” the professor wrote.

Part 3 of the interview with Craig Kelly MP coming Thursday, Jan. 27.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
I would never own FB outright
but come to think of it I might have some in one retirement fund

 :-o

other then shareholders or Zuck
no one is crying

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Twitter bans account highlighting liberal hypocrisy
« Reply #859 on: February 16, 2022, 08:39:53 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
The key phrase therein:

"“It’s that integration of the government and big tech companies to police speech that I think is troubling and very evocative of the coming totalitarianism,” Frederick said on EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program. She calls it a “symbiosis between the government and tech companies.”"

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
"It’s that integration of the government and big tech companies to police speech that I think is troubling and very evocative of the coming totalitarianism,”

We are giving away everything to the 'tech companies' right while advocating that they essentially merge with government.

What.could.go.wrong.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Funny how hard it is to find this story online
« Reply #865 on: February 21, 2022, 01:05:11 PM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: DuckDuckGo goes Goolag
« Reply #871 on: March 11, 2022, 07:01:34 AM »
Way to damage a brand!
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/10/not-the-way-to-go-bro-duck-duck-go-ceo-blasted-for-bragging-about-how-theyre-now-manipulating-search-results/?bcid=153d44ed73be9b41740d4ea4ef6b0e524f2e2942d66fc8a2b0d8f8922416875d&utm_campaign=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twtydaily

Very disappointing.  I noticed the were sponsoring on liberal radio and thought this is great; it is not only conservatives who should value privacy.

But I've also noticed that their search results look to me to have liberal bias, just like Google.  For example, I look up some kind of basic conservative principle x and instead the first three results are myth of x.  I couldn't tell if they manipulate results themselves or just copy results from someone like Google who does that.  Either way, I'm very often not impressed.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Alternative?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
WSJ: Hunter's Laptop and America's Crisis of Accountability
« Reply #874 on: March 22, 2022, 03:43:55 AM »
Hunter Biden’s Laptop and America’s Crisis of Accountability
The New York Times now admits the story was real. News and social-media companies will pay no price for suppressing vital information in 2020.

By Gerard Baker
Follow
March 21, 2022 1:40 pm ET


In close elections, a fraction of the total vote distributed in the right places can swing an outcome, and we can never be sure what effect late news stories can have.

If it hadn’t been for a suspiciously well-timed report of a decades-old driving-under-the-influence arrest in the final days of the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush might not have needed 35 days and the judgment of the Supreme Court to deliver him the White House.

Harold Wilson, the British Labour prime minister in 1970, is said to have claimed for years afterward that England’s shock defeat by West Germany in the soccer World Cup quarterfinal that year so depressed the national mood—and turnout—that it produced his surprise ejection from 10 Downing Street in the general election days later.

We’ll never know what effect the “October Surprise” of 2020, the New York Post’s reporting of the discovery of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden containing all sorts of embarrassing emails, might have had on the election that year if it had received wider circulation. Perhaps in a campaign dominated by Covid and characterized by chaos, it would have been another snowflake in the blizzard of news voters were being hit with.


But the allegations in the reporting—that the son of the man favored to become the next president had been selling his high-level family political connections to foreigners, including suggestions of a possible cut for his father—were worth pursuing. But enough influential people in and out of government—in the foreign-policy-intelligence complex, in the media, and in the big tech firms—were so alarmed that it would affect the outcome that they pulled off one of the greatest disappearing tricks since Harry Houdini made that elephant vanish from a New York stage.

It took its time, but last week the New York Times slipped the acknowledgment of the story’s accuracy deep in a report about Hunter Biden’s mounting legal problems. The Times, along with most other mass-circulation news organizations, had essentially ignored the story in the days when it might have made a difference, but it now says it has “authenticated” the laptop’s contents.

The concession from the paper, which serves as a sort of unofficial licensing authority for reporting by most of the rest of the media, prompted a predictable rush to self-vindication by those who had also trashed the story at the time. The Washington Post insisted its original decision not to touch it was justified because of uncertainty about its provenance.

Normally, when there is doubt about the provenance of an explosive story, news organizations consider it their job to ascertain the truth. Normally, it takes them less than 17 months to do so. But normally they don’t have the cover provided by technology companies that prevented people from reading the original story.


The media and tech companies that colluded in concealing this potentially critical information didn’t need any excuse to do so. But it surely helped that they were given validation for their actions by an august-sounding committee of concerned letter-writers who moved quickly to discredit the story.

In that famous letter, more than 50 former national-security and intelligence officials polished their gleaming credentials and alleged that the New York Post was guilty of peddling a story that had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

The principal rationale for this, the letter laid out, was that the story might be helpful to Donald Trump. Russia wanted Mr. Trump to win. The story helped Mr. Trump. Ergo, it was the work of Russia.

That’s quite a syllogism. Using that same logic, you might conclude that Russia was also responsible for any unexpectedly good economic data that helped the incumbent, or that Vladimir Putin was behind the crime wave that had gripped Democrat-run cities.

Now we can guess why so much U.S. intelligence has been so faulty all these years. Either these 50 or so grandmasters of international espionage are completely unable to distinguish Russian disinformation from real information, or they prostituted their credentials in a naked act of political hackery. I don’t have their experience or deductive skills, but I’m ready to go with the latter.

The deeper shame here is the lack of accountability across American institutions. No one who colluded in this conspiracy against truth has even been inconvenienced by it.

Contacted by the Post last week, not one of the letter’s signatories expressed regret or contrition. The reporters and editors at news organizations and the employees and executives of tech companies who participated in the suppression continue to be lionized for their work.

This is what is so corrosive of trust and, in the end, of the system itself. The one way in which real accountability is supposed to work in a democracy is at the ballot box. But how can that even work when the people we want to hold accountable decide what information the voters are allowed to see?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Schmidt
« Reply #878 on: April 01, 2022, 04:50:17 PM »
https://www.axios.com/eric-schmidt-china-alarm-tech-competition-f74f896c-9024-4463-b912-5d316022dd1b.html

it has been thanks to him and others in big that have helped put is in this situation

plus they had no problem making billions with ties to China

helped the Dem Party 

and NOW he talks about the China threat

now he is trying to stay relevant

how infuriating



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Rein in Big Tech or Cease to Be a Free People
« Reply #880 on: April 04, 2022, 05:38:47 AM »
second

Hunter Laptop Story Confirms: Rein in Big Tech or Cease to Be a Free People
Josh Hammer
Josh Hammer
 April 3, 2022 Updated: April 3, 2022biggersmaller Print
Commentary

On the precipice of the regime-defining 2020 presidential election, Facebook and Twitter committed their “Pearl Harbor attack” against the incumbent president, Donald Trump, and in dutiful favor of the regnant regime’s favored candidate, Joe Biden.

In an October move that would presage the collapse of the “public”-”private” distinction during the Biden presidency—as seen in press secretary Jen Psaki’s open bragging last summer of collusion with Mark Zuckerberg to censor COVID “misinformation,” and Eric Schmidt’s recently revealed role helping shape administration science policy—Big Tech oligarchs dropped the hammer on the New York Post, a high-circulation newspaper, for its reporting on Hunter Biden’s now-infamous “laptop from hell.” The laptop’s files demonstrated the notoriously troubled Hunter’s venality, abuses of power, and general sketchiness of his foreign dealings. He and some of his cronies remain under federal investigation for possible tax and money laundering violations.

In response to the Post’s reportage, Twitter locked the paper out of its own account for over two weeks. Both Facebook and Twitter, moreover, heavily limited or outright-blocked disseminating the Post’s URL for the laptop story. Crucially, the entirety of this sordid affair transpired less than a month away from a momentous Election Day. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) correctly demanded that the Federal Election Commission investigate whether Facebook and Twitter illegally issued in-kind contributions to the Biden campaign; he was rebuffed.

There are myriad problems with this picture. Most notable, perhaps, was the undoubted nature of the laptop’s authenticity; no one, not even anyone in the Biden clan, denied at the time that Hunter’s computer was genuine. One might normally deem such a detail important. But the Big Tech powers, uninterested in something as mundane as “truth,” immediately grasped the greater imperative—to discredit the story in, and even to memory-hole it from, the collective public conscience.

The entire saga was eye-opening. Purportedly “private” companies worked hand in hand with their favored presidential candidate, evincing the lie of the “public”-”private” distinction and exposing the sprawling, pan-institutional nature of America’s Ruling Class. The Ruling Class’ ends sought were clear: Elect Joe Biden to be president of the United States. The means were then retrofitted after the ends were established.

Big Tech knew its role, and it executed its role flawlessly. Never mind that, if such shenanigans were to recur in 2024, with Biden as sitting president, such collusion would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s 1973 admonition in Norwood v. Harrison that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

Over the past few weeks, both The New York Times and The Washington Post, America’s two leading amplifiers of homogenous Ruling Class thought, corroborated and acknowledged the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop. “A day late and a dollar short” doesn’t quite cut it here; “a year and a half late and trillions of dollars (in national indebtedness) short” is more like it. Given the exceedingly close nature of the 2020 presidential election, Big Tech’s protection of the Biden family likely cost Trump a second term. (Which also means Big Tech cost Ukraine a Russian invasion; no sane person thinks Vladimir Putin would have invaded under Trump’s watch.)

Uh, can we “deplorables” get a redo?

A look back at L’Affaire Hunter, with the clarity of both hindsight and the Times’ and Washington Post’s recent self-serving admissions, ought to provide a clarion wake-up call. There are few more pressing imperatives in American political life in the year 2022 than to rein in the Big Tech oligarchs and to reclaim “We the People”-rooted democracy from Silicon Valley technocracy. The Big Tech debate is often aired in the rhetoric and phraseology of “censorship” and “speech,” but the better way to view the debate is through the lens of sovereignty and republican self-governance. When it comes to the Big Tech wars, the most fundamental question is a version of “who decides?”: Who, that is, will watch the watchmen?

The collapse of the “public”-”private” distinction, at least in the context of the Big Tech robber barons, resolves the question. We the People must decide; We the People must watch the watchmen. The rules by which the 21st-century public square operates cannot be written in private by shadowy Birkenstock-wearing computer science Ph.D. dweebs. The underlying issues here are far too fundamental to our republic and our way of life. We must write the rules; we must reclaim our sovereignty from the woke titans of industry champing at the bit to impose an American social credit system.

If Big Tech can sway an election and ban a president of the United States, there is nothing it cannot do. All policy options must remain on the table to put Big Tech in its place once and for all.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Musk and Twitter
« Reply #881 on: April 04, 2022, 04:25:50 PM »
This could be a super BFD!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Musk and Twitter
« Reply #882 on: April 06, 2022, 11:02:45 AM »
This could be a super BFD!

Yes.

I don't know if he is conservative but he sure doesn't buy the whole woke agenda.








ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
"Musk under DOJ SEC investigations."

lawyerlisters immediately pounce back.....


 :wink:

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Dorsey on Musk
« Reply #891 on: April 16, 2022, 03:18:16 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Taylor Lorenz Memory-Holed from Way Back Machine
« Reply #893 on: April 20, 2022, 04:02:48 PM »
https://twitter.com/ShimshockAndAwe/status/1516859398282526720

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 01:45:20 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Memory-Holed
« Reply #894 on: April 21, 2022, 09:35:22 AM »
https://twitter.com/ShimshockAndAwe/status/1516859398282526720

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Sounds like nonsense - until you watch them do it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Wiki Memory-Holes Seneca Partners story
« Reply #895 on: April 24, 2022, 07:26:52 AM »
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 09:23:33 AM by Crafty_Dog »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Left melting down over Twitter sale
« Reply #897 on: April 26, 2022, 10:11:23 AM »