General Welcome to 1984: Big Brother Google now watching your every political move

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

stielar

Posting Machine
Dec 30, 2015
2,014
4,004


Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.

The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."

Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=XeIIpLqsOe4


"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."

Really?

Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.

For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.

Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.

That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right.

'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."


Read full article at RT



I have stopped using google for sometime now. I'm on Bing and it's great so far. Perhaps they also store all my information, perhaps they are also going to go all antifa and shut down everything not left, but for the time being I'm giving them the "innocent-until-proven-guilty" benefit.

Another video worth watching is Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
 

RaginCajun

The Reigning Undisputed Monsters Tournament Champ
Oct 25, 2015
37,199
93,855
Oh no, how will the little guys from the right like the Koch brothers ever be heard.:D
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588


Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.

The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."

Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=XeIIpLqsOe4


"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."

Really?

Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.

For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.

Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.

That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right.

'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."


Read full article at RT



I have stopped using google for sometime now. I'm on Bing and it's great so far. Perhaps they also store all my information, perhaps they are also going to go all antifa and shut down everything not left, but for the time being I'm giving them the "innocent-until-proven-guilty" benefit.

Another video worth watching is Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
I agree, I dont want Google to assume it knows what I want to see or read.

I would rather have to spend a few more minutes searching out information than have my only info based off what Google decided is correct.

I assume this is the goal behind those little boxes of info that show up on the right side of your screen after a Google search. Googles attempt at providing you what they think the correct factual info needed is.

For those that do use Google, Have you ever looked at your Google ad profile?

Same shit with Facebook, I dont use it in my personal life but I have to maintain a page for work. Interesting to see what it assumes you want to look at, especially when its basing it off your work computer's search history and cookies.



Bing sucks, Firefox is where it's at.







Jordan Peterson is always an informative listen.

Often, I have to listen to his shit multiple times as it is so information packed.

He (JP) did a recent episode of the JRE.

James Damore was also on a recent JRE podcast.
 

stielar

Posting Machine
Dec 30, 2015
2,014
4,004
He did a recent episode of the JRE.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=126s


This was quite possibly the best podcast Joe Rogan ever did. And this is because both of his guests were very intelligent and eloquent, and Rogan was wise enough for once to remain silent for a long time and let those two carry the podcast.

Peterson and Weinstein's discussion is one everyone should listen to, very informative and thought provoking.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=126s


This was quite possibly the best podcast Joe Rogan ever did. And this is because both of his guests were very intelligent and eloquent, and Rogan was wise enough for once to remain silent for a long time and let those two carry the podcast.

Peterson and Weinstein's discussion is one everyone should listen to, very informative and thought provoking.

I agree, when Rogan would chime in, he sounded levels below his guest.

I hadnt listened to Weinstein previous to this podcast but the man is very intelligent, he is on my list to follow up on.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,117
I agree, I dont want Google to assume it knows what I want to see or read.

I would rather have to spend a few more minutes searching out information than have my only info based off what Google decided is correct.

I assume this is the goal behind those little boxes of info that show up on the right side of your screen after a Google search. Googles attempt at providing you what they think the correct factual info needed is.

For those that do use Google, Have you ever looked at your Google ad profile?

Same shit with Facebook, I dont use it in my personal life but I have to maintain a page for work. Interesting to see what it assumes you want to look at, especially when its basing it off your work computer's search history and cookies.



Bing sucks, Firefox is where it's at.







Jordan Peterson is always an informative listen.

Often, I have to listen to his shit multiple times as it is so information packed.

He (JP) did a recent episode of the JRE.

James Damore was also on a recent JRE podcast.
When you make sense, you actually make sense do you? ;)
 

Qat

QoQ
Nov 3, 2015
16,385
22,482
It's always dangerous to give corporations that much power, as they will always strive to influence politics in one way or another.

Kinda ironic that the conservatives are the ones who want less government and less regulations to let em run wild.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
22,915


Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.

The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."

Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=XeIIpLqsOe4


"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."

Really?

Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.

For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.

Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.

That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right.

'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."


Read full article at RT



I have stopped using google for sometime now. I'm on Bing and it's great so far. Perhaps they also store all my information, perhaps they are also going to go all antifa and shut down everything not left, but for the time being I'm giving them the "innocent-until-proven-guilty" benefit.

Another video worth watching is Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Good stuff, but lol at using Bing.

Try Duckduckgo, Brave or Dolphin.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,117
It's always dangerous to give corporations that much power, as they will always strive to influence politics in one way or another.

Kinda ironic that the conservatives are the ones who want less government and less regulations to let em run wild.
Well, less government, less power they end up with right?
 

Ted Williams' head

It's freezing in here!
Sep 23, 2015
11,283
19,071
It's funny that this didn't come by force, it came under the guise of convenience. We handed it over willingly!
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,117
I'd say that is wrong.
Maybe I misunderstand.

When you take Government out of everything, how can they gain power?

Now, I am not for doing away with regulation, because then private companies take that power and do exactly the same, abuse that power. And private companies are accounatble in a lesser way since we can't vote them out. I agree one hundred percent that is dangerous, but there needs to be a balance.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,117
It's funny that this didn't come by force, it came under the guise of convenience. We handed it over willingly!
Freedom is taken away by exchanging it by comfort. Do you feel unsafe? Let us take care of you by gathering all your data so we can catch the bad guys. The so called Patriot act, made us feel safer while we're not. But the exchange went at the cost of our freedom, inthis case our right of privacy. That is gone now. Keep using Onstar, GPS, Google, Facebook, Iphones, etc. All convinience for the exchange of your freedom. Alexa? is that you?
 

Enock-O-Lypse Now!

Underneath Denver International Airport
Jun 19, 2016
12,110
20,081
But no Chrome right?
lol, hope you don't use Chrome or Gmail.

Lot of other options out there.

Also lot of youtube channels complaining about Youtube demonetization of their channels due to content and what not ...

Well to be honest its an easy fix, build your own site and host your videos on your own site/server. It's strange how many people have become so reliant on these big Social Media sites and are locked into the belief that these outlets are the only way to connect with others.

Open your mind little grasshoppers and start using your imagination and be creative!
 

Enock-O-Lypse Now!

Underneath Denver International Airport
Jun 19, 2016
12,110
20,081
Freedom is taken away by exchanging it by comfort. Do you feel unsafe? Let us take care of you by gathering all your data so we can catch the bad guys. The so called Patriot act, made us feel safer while we're not. But the exchange went at the cost of our freedom, inthis case our right of privacy. That is gone now. Keep using Onstar, GPS, Google, Facebook, Iphones, etc. All convinience for the exchange of your freedom. Alexa? is that you?

Agreed, Patriot Act never would have been passed had it been presented prior to 9/11, with 9/11 the Gov used the event to push through some pretty scary shit ...it has since changed the World ever since and they are not finished ...the Militarization of the Local Police forces are currently going on as we speak ...soon they will have you locked up in your homes with curfews ...why? ...you know....to keep you safe from the boogeyman.

As for technology llike GPS, Google, Facebook, iPhones, Alexa,ect....those are all services the user has chosen to use, the user has the option to not use theses services ..so in my opinion the blame is entirely on the user who chooses to skip past the "Terms of Service" agreement and clicks "ok" to allow these services to intrude on their privacy.
 

Qat

QoQ
Nov 3, 2015
16,385
22,482
Maybe I misunderstand.

When you take Government out of everything, how can they gain power?

Now, I am not for doing away with regulation, because then private companies take that power and do exactly the same, abuse that power. And private companies are accounatble in a lesser way since we can't vote them out. I agree one hundred percent that is dangerous, but there needs to be a balance.
That is pretty much what I meant. If big government, they will have influence, but at least a government has many influences and is subject to change every couple years. Can be bad change too of course, but can be good change.

But if totally deregulated, they can easily just take that power uninhibited and run with it. And then it becomes very hard to change those circumstances.

Sure there has to be a balance.

That being said, everybody has a different morality, companies and people in it too. I'm sure nobody has a problem that Google is blocking some things. It's just a question of what and why.
If a company says it doesn't sell to gay people or promote such values in any way, TS here would be all up to the task to defend their right to do so.

And that article is meh anyway. Oh no, Google tries to find good answers. Well of course it is, it's their freaking job to get the best answer possible. No problem imo to have that demand of yourself, if that is your job. You gotta have a big goals in a company like that for a couple of reasons, so you say you want to find the perfect answer, or right answer. And in a lot of instances, this can be possible.

To derive a will to rewrite history from this and base such an article on it.. reaching. There are actual iffy things going on there for sure. Focus on those.

The power of every single one of those data-kraken is frightening. And afaik it's much less regulated in the US as opposed to over here.

Open your mind little grasshoppers and start using your imagination and be creative!
Kinda ironic coming from someone who is a selfmade slave to a lord and his supposed teachings.
 

stielar

Posting Machine
Dec 30, 2015
2,014
4,004
That is pretty much what I meant. If big government, they will have influence, but at least a government has many influences and is subject to change every couple years. Can be bad change too of course, but can be good change.

But if totally deregulated, they can easily just take that power uninhibited and run with it. And then it becomes very hard to change those circumstances.

Sure there has to be a balance.

That being said, everybody has a different morality, companies and people in it too. I'm sure nobody has a problem that Google is blocking some things. It's just a question of what and why.
If a company says it doesn't sell to gay people or promote such values in any way, TS here would be all up to the task to defend their right to do so.

And that article is meh anyway. Oh no, Google tries to find good answers. Well of course it is, it's their freaking job to get the best answer possible. No problem imo to have that demand of yourself, if that is your job. You gotta have a big goals in a company like that for a couple of reasons, so you say you want to find the perfect answer, or right answer. And in a lot of instances, this can be possible.

To derive a will to rewrite history from this and base such an article on it.. reaching. There are actual iffy things going on there for sure. Focus on those.

The power of every single one of those data-kraken is frightening. And afaik it's much less regulated in the US as opposed to over here.


Kinda ironic coming from someone who is a selfmade slave to a lord and his supposed teachings.
You're so pissed off all the time. I hope you are different in real life and you just use this place here to vent or something.