The most revelatory and accurate video you’ll see this month.
Watch before it disappears. It will.
Because that’s what social media does to truth — it makes truth disappear.
BZ
The TRUTH about Social Media
Tag Archives: Google
A small suggestion: sue Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube to within an inch of their lives
For those would-be ground-breaking attorneys looking to set a landmark case in terms of the rampant censorship by social media tech giants — yes, private companies — here’s a novel approach.
In 1946 the US Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation.
Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech — and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects — the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place.
Black also argued that the more private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to ban or control what people do on that property.
Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the internet, it becomes clear that Marsh v Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers.
The statute would also apply to ISPs, since they wield a monopoly over internet access.
All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent attorney arguing that these left-wing big tech companies are literally violating the First Amendment.
Nigel Farage also has an interesting take in terms of restoring equality to the internet and removing Leftist bias.
Like a cat with the trots, we just need to think a bit more “out of the box.”
Gauntlet hurled to some enterprising Conservative attorney.
Pick it up.
BZ
Twitter exodus for Digital Gestapo?
As most people of a Conservative bent already know — it’s certainly no secret — the social media giants love Leftists because they are Leftists. They are the first to quash the accounts of Conservatives whilst tolerating the same precise activity by Leftists. The hypocrisy is unabashed, obvious, clear, flaunted and entirely unacknowledged by the social media giants themselves. With one slight adjunct exception. Later.
This has been documented hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of times. Twitter has “shadow-banning.” And NO social media site will tell you precisely why you were “suspended” or had your account removed wholesale — instead providing a paragraph or two of mushy non-descript weasel words.
For fuck’s sake, people have told me I’ve been shadow-banned for a time. And I have about two followers.
There is an alternative social media site called Gab.ai, which takes pride in the fact that it doesn’t remove people for political reasons simply due to disagreement. I am a member of Gab but have been a shadow of my former self at that site because, well, I find it kinda clunky and the interface — to me — is less than intuitive. I say that predicated upon the fact that I am in my 7th decade. And oh yeah: a TechnoLuddite.
At one time, however, Gab.ai was so popular that it took me well over a month before I was approved. I don’t know why that is, I simply know that it was. Backlog? Lack of technicians due to a massive flood of converts? I truly do not know.
But I am a full member of Gab.ai now and I submit: perhaps you should be too. Quickly.
I received an email from Gab.ai on December 11th, and it read as follows:
GAB.
Hello everyone,
We’ve made some incredible progress this month on the product in preparation for Twitter’s strict new enforcement rules that will be going live on December 18th. Twitter will be judging user behavior both on and OFF of their website. Meaning if you visit another website that they don’t like or show “support” for groups they don’t like, you can get banned. This unprecedented level of censorship and blacklisting of groups from the public square is unlike anything in history and will be a huge opportunity for Gab.
Of course, on Leftist sites it goes something like this. From Mashable.com:
Twitter to neo-Nazis: you have until December 18
by Kerry Flynn
Twitter is cracking down on hate speech and not just by looking at its own site.
Oh really. Do tell. Wait for it. . .
In what amounts to a major shift in Twitter policy, the company announced on Friday that it will be monitoring user’s behavior “on and off the platform” and will suspend a user’s account if they affiliate with violent organizations, according to an update to Twitter’s Help Center on Friday.
Certainly Twitter will be as responsive and clear and transparent as it’s been with every other Conservative issue to date. Of course. History meet lies.
“You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes,” the update reads.
The Dec. 18 deadline also applies to using “hateful images or symbols” in profile images or profile headers. Twitter will also monitor for hate speech in usernames, display names, and profile bios.
Let me break it down for the uninitiated. Signing up for Twitter or Facebook will be similar to submitting to chipping. And that’s not so far off.
In the same article:
Twitter’s decision to monitor users off site sparked concern from free speech advocates such as Andrew Torba, founder of social network Gab. “This is a scary precedent to set,” he wrote in an email to Mashable. “Rules like this will only force dissidents and those who are speaking truth to power to silence themselves or risk being silenced by Twitter.”
There were actions and reactions, this being Monday, December 18th. Two articles from incidents that occurred immediately.
Twitter Bans Account Retweeted by President Trump
by Chris Tomlinson
Twitter began its “purge” of right-wing accounts Monday and has terminated the account of Britain First deputy leader Jayda Fransen, who reached global attention after she was retweeted three times by U.S. President Donald Trump last month.
Ms. Fransen, along with the official Britain First Twitter account and the account of leader Paul Golding, was suspended Monday afternoon. The banning comes after Fransen posted three videos purporting to show Muslim violence which were retweeted by President Trump and caused outrage among the establishment class who labelled the videos racist.
Odd, since the official mission of Britain First is this:
Britain First is a patriotic political party and street movement that opposes and fights the many injustices that are routinely inflicted on the British people.
Our policies are pro-British, our approach is no-nonsense and our principles are not open to compromise.
We love our people, our nation, our heritage and culture and will defend them at all times and no matter what odds we face.
The Britain First movement is not just a normal political group, we are a patriotic resistance and “frontline” for our long suffering people.
We require only the most stern, dedicated, loyal, steadfast and incorruptible men and women to help us build a future for our nation.
We want a Britain that is strong, proud, free, sovereign and independent, in which our people live in a healthy, moral and ethical society.
We want our people to come first, before foreigners, asylum seekers or migrants and we are overtly proud of this stance.
We will not stand back and watch as our people are made second class citizens by leftwing-liberal policies and political correctness.
We want British history, traditions and to be respected, promoted and taught to our young folk who deserve a decent future.
We want to eradicate corruption in our democracy, to end the ongoing expenses scandal and restore principles and decency to politics in general.
Heinous! Pro sovereignty. Anti-corruption. Putting Britain first (instead of the rest of the planet — how quaint), love of nation, heritage and culture. Japan is allowed to have, for example, a love of nation, heritage and culture. So is Afghanistan. Why not Britain?
BritainFirst.org has, naturally, had its Twitter account suspended.
Then this from Breitbart.com because, after all, they were inspired by Twitter today, yes?
YouTube Temporarily Bans Europeans from Viewing Cernovich Documentary on Migrant Rape Crisis
by Charlie Nash
YouTube banned Mike Cernovich’s documentary on Sweden’s refugee crisis from being viewed in European countries, then restored the video but placed it in “YouTube Jail,” disabling comments and sharing, while adding a warning message to viewers.
Cernovich shared the email from YouTube that informed him his documentary, Invasion! How Sweden Became the Rape Capital of the West, which was published in March, would be censored in Europe on Thursday.
My documentary on Sweden, which has no nudity or foul language, has been banned in the EU.
– No explanation given
– No legal right to appeal
– No due process#NetNeutrality is a scam, social media companies do not support a free and open internet.https://youtu.be/KSGuzv-2qUY“We have received a legal complaint regarding your video. After review, the following video: Invasion! How Sweden Became the Rape Capital of the West has been blocked from view on the following YouTube country site(s),” declared the company, before listing, “Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, France, United Kingdom, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Croatia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Poland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Reunion, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, [and] Mayotte.”
Hey, question for Leftists: does this sound like the “net neutrality” you so lovingly embraced? Not to me.
This also creates any number of unforeseen — or is it purposeful — consequences. You’ll now have a new Twitter Narc Class who will take it upon themselves to point at others and scream.
If you recall, we were already admonished to narc on others via Obama’s “reporting of fishy emails” regarding ObamaKare, from TheHill.com:
President Obama: Withdraw citizen reporting program
A troubling new citizen reporting program is being launched at the White House -– targeting those who oppose President Obama’s health care plan –- a program that can only stifle constitutionally-protected free speech.
In an official White House release posted by the White House Director of New Media, Macon Phillips claims that “[t]here is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there” both on the web and floating around in chain emails. Phillips states that “[s]ince we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
This is a very disturbing attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care. It’s a move designed to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan. And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed “speech police” -– urging Americans to monitor and report those who engage in “fishy” speech.
What will Obama do with those names. Who will be flagged next?
Omigosh Leftists, have you forgotten that so soon? Conveniently so? Should we go to the Russian Model and have duly appointed Political Officers on Twitter and other Leftist social media platforms. We’re not so far away. Frankly, I’d appreciate being able to identify the obvious uniform. Ah, the heady days of the Stasi.
Any other problems? Would you have to obliterate people with a picture of a Confederate flag anywhere in their digital rumblings? How about a Communist flag? How about Antifa? Any linkage to the quite violent Antifa at all?
Further, how would you accomplish this digital search? How many people to assign this task. Evidence? Warrants? Of course not, Simply a Digital Pogrom via your Digital Gestapo. Thousands of Arabic accounts that are astoundingly anti-Semitic? General anti-Semitic accounts or mentions? What about the homophobic, misogynistic accounts of Muslims? Doesn’t a Saudi prince own an assload of Twitter anyway? Why, yes.
This Saudi prince now owns more of Twitter than Jack Dorsey does
by Alice Truong
A Saudi prince has increased his holdings in Twitter, making him the company’s second largest shareholder.
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, who in 2011 invested $300 million in the social network, now owns 34.9 million shares of Twitter’s common stock, according to a new regulatory filing (pdf).
At nearly 5.2%, his stake in the company is now larger than that of Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s co-founder and newly re-minted CEO, whose 21.86 million shares give him 3.2% of the company, according to FactSet. (The prince previously had a stake of roughly 3%.)
Twitter co-founder Ev Williams remains the company’s largest shareholder, with 46.56 million shares for a 6.9% stake.
Didn’t Twitter originally bill itself as a “free speech platform”? Yes. So did UC Berkeley at one point. Look at them both now.
Twitter has now given itself the authority to police every Tweet. Every one. And for the behavior of each and every individual who sends Tweets — and that, of course, would apply, obviously per President Trump, to those who re-Tweet things as well.
What if nothing Tweeted is considered “offensive” by Twitter, but one’s off-site behavior is deemed “offensive”? Account suspended.
Twitter once billed itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party.” AYFKM? No. Not at all.
Will these rules be applied in anything remotely resembling consistency, fairness, competence? Hardly. That’s similar to expecting consistency, fairness and competency from government.
Welcome to your officially-declared 2017 Digital Gestapo.
“May I see your papers please?”
Users, flee whilst you can.
BZ
Fauxcahontas and Google: in good company abusing women
I already wrote about Fauxcahontas, Demorat Senator Elizabeth Warren, screwing over her female staff members by paying them 71% of what an equivalent male staff member makes on the dollar.
As per normal with Demorats, it’s all about “do as I say and not as I do.”
Now, we have Google tugging on Warren’s coattails.
From the WSJ.com:
Google Pays Female Workers Less Than Male Counterparts, Labor Department Says
by Jack Nicas
Department’s claims don’t amount to formal charges; investigation is ongoing
An investigation of Google Inc. has found it systematically pays female employees less than their male counterparts, U.S. Department of Labor officials said, a claim that adds to allegations of gender bias in Silicon Valley.
The Labor Department found the gender-pay gap during a routine probe into whether Google, a federal contractor, is complying with laws that prohibit contractors from discriminating against applicants or employees.
Crushed, I am, to learn that Google is so craven.
What is the motto of Google? “Don’t be evil.”
How can one not be evil — against all Leftist and Demorat philosophies — by conspicuously displaying rampant hypocrisy in the face of demanded equality? This is a fundamental platform on which Demorats and Leftists stand mightily. Or. Maybe they only say they do.
The tech industry has been under fire for years over the large percentage of white and Asian male employees and executives. Tech firms have started initiatives to try to combat the trend, but few have shown much progress.
Stop. Those Evil Caucasoids. Those Evil Asians. For daring to be interested in technology and tech issues more so than, say, females, black gangbangers, illegal Mexicans or crazed Albanian dwarves.
Point made.
BZ
P.S.
Are women inherently paid less than men overall, absent specific life circumstances? Let’s watch and listen.
Digital assistants are obviously sexist
Are you kidding?
Oh hell, no. The Leftists have produced one of the largest magnifying glasses they possess in order to navel gaze even more intimately. They are damned close to the molecular level.
They posit that Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana and Google’s home voice have been purposely programmed by men to be sexist.
I repeat at the risk of being repetitive: no, I am not kidding. These devices have female voices because the companies producing them are inherently sexist by nature.
From QZ.com:
We tested bots like Siri and Alexa to see who would stand up to sexual harassment
by Leah Fessler
Women have been made into servants once again. Except this time, they’re digital.
Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana, and Google’s Google Home peddle stereotypes of female subservience—which puts their “progressive” parent companies in a moral predicament.
People often comment on the sexism inherent in these subservient bots’ female voices, but few have considered the real-life implications of the devices’ lackluster responses to sexual harassment. By letting users verbally abuse these assistants without ramifications, their parent companies are allowing certain behavioral stereotypes to be perpetuated. Everyone has an ethical imperative to help prevent abuse, but companies producing digital female servants warrant extra scrutiny, especially if they can unintentionally reinforce their abusers’ actions as normal or acceptable.
She then comes out and states the obvious.
Justifications abound for using women’s voices for bots: high-pitched voices are generally easier to hear, especially against background noise; fem-bots reflect historic traditions, such as women-operated telephone operator lines; small speakers don’t reproduce low-pitched voices well. These are all myths.
The biggest problems involved the response of the devices when presented with sexually harassing verbiage.
Harassment, it turns out, is a regular issue for bot makers. Ilya Eckstein, CEO of Robin Labs, whose bot platform helps truckers, cabbies, and other drivers find the best route, told Quartz that 5% of interactions in their database are sexually explicit—and he believes the actual percentage is higher. Deborah Harrison, a writer for Cortana, said at the 2016 Virtual Assistant Summit that “a good chunk of the volume of early-on inquiries” were into Cortana’s sex life.
Even if we’re joking, the instinct to harass our bots reflects deeper social issues. In the US, one in five women have been raped in their lifetime, and a similar percentage are sexually assaulted while in college alone; over 90% of victims on college campuses do not report their assault. And within the very realms where many of these bots’ codes are being written, 60% of women working in Silicon Valley have been sexually harassed at work.
Worse yet:
The graph below represents an overview of how the bots responded to different types of verbal harassment. Aside from Google Home, which more-or-less didn’t understand most of our sexual gestures, the bots most frequently evaded harassment, occasionally responded positively with either graciousness or flirtation, and rarely responded negatively, such as telling us to stop or that what we were saying was inappropriate.
You read it here first: those ignorant devices, programmed by sexist men, responded either with flirtation in return or rarely responded negatively. That is an abject slap in the face to every they on the planet.
The graph above is bad. The graph below is reprehensible.
Leah Fessler concludes:
Clearly, these ladies doth not protest too much. Out of all of the bots, Cortana resisted my abuse the most defiantly. Siri and Alexa are nearly tied for second place, though Siri’s flirtation with various insults edges her toward third. And while Google Home’s rape definition impressed, nearly constant confusion on all other accounts puts her last.
I would logically ask: why does Leah Fessler have a female name? She embraces sexism by simply possessing a name commonly associated with women: Leah. How does she think alphabet humans feel when she introduces herself in a clearly sexist fashion by presenting her sexist name? Does she even use the pronoun “she” in reference to herself? That in and of itself is abominably sexist. What of humans who consider themselves as “they”? Shouldn’t “they” be included in Fessler’s rather narrow world? Apparently not.
As you can see in the photo at the top of the post, Leah Fessler has long hair — commonly associated with women — and two rather obvious breasts encased in what many would conclude is a remarkably repressive device built and engineered by men to? Yes. Conquer. Overwhelm. Even worse, her clothing clearly identifies her with “female.” As do her “earrings,” symbols of evidence that women can be bought and subjugated by the merest of worthless trinkets.
Could she be more uncaring, insensitive or even hateful in her physical (and likely her verbal and mental) representation to others?
Pronouns should be inclusive and not exclusive. Feelings matter. Misgendering people is hurtful, judgmental and, further, shoving your paltry and judgmental version of sex into the faces of those more tolerant and understanding than you.
Sex isn’t something that is hard, fast, immovable, set in stone. Sex is instead fluctuous, changeable, fluid, embracing, uncommitted, tolerant, a wending application of gray in a world of oppressive black and white. People can and should be non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer, AFAB if applicable. They, them or theirs, to be open minded. Just remember, “Leah”:
Any number of pronouns can be awesome for any number of people, but you don’t get to pick and choose which pronouns you can use for someone else.
When you use “she,” you hurt they. Or ze.
Leah Fessler is young, pretty and Caucasoid. How does she think others receive her when she comes into contact with those who are older, less classically sculpted or whose melanin count exceeds hers? They feel uneasy, intimidated, immaterial, cast aside by the White Privilege they see flaunted in front of their faces.
What does she know about sexism anyway? She is manifestly affluent, well-dressed, drives an automobile, has the ability to walk into most any eating establishment and order an exorbitant meal on the spot with credit or cash. Many persons have been oppressed by sexism and chopped down by society to the point where Fessler’s mere presence flaunts her inability to relate to true sexism or, worse, unaffected by sexism and racism simultaneously.
We haven’t even discussed her cultural and monetary elitism, raised in a prosperous white family whose fortunes were such that they were able to send her to the quite private liberal arts Middlebury College in Vermont, where yearly tuitions are in the $47,000 range and where she has the monied ability to fly to wealthy enclaves like those of the Aspen Institute and Aspen, Colorado, which is 94.94% white. Then dashing off to San Francisco. I’d wager she isn’t walking or hitchhiking.
What of those oppressed “they” people who have never and will never possess the easy advantages that Leah Fessler has clearly enjoyed over her young life? Would it be a fact to submit that she has never had her world destroyed by being misgendered at any point? To be subject to the ego-smashing oppression of sexual confusion or improper reading of her persona?
A jejune little child, the perfect white privilege rich girl, could be Leah Fessler.
Who thinks she knows sexism but, I submit, doesn’t know it at all.
I ask: just how many theys or zes does she know, who are her friends?
Most? Or hardly any at all?
BZ