From their sprawling headquarters in California's Silicon Valley, companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter are displaying a propensity and willingness to discriminate, which we would ordinarily associate with the totalitarian regimes of the Islamic nations and communism.
Google has become the defacto gateway to information for virtually the entire world. It wields the power to make and break people, politicians, and companies. It is not shy about using that power for evil. Arguably, its most insidious behavior is often hidden in plain sight. Namely, this is its discriminatory autocomplete feature. Type "lies told" into a browser and the first two autocomplete results are "by Trump" and "about Obama". Perhaps the sheer number of "lies told" results for "about Trump" searches and "by Hillary" broke Google's algorithms, or maybe it is just suppression of conservative views. Google's top ten autocomplete suggestions for "lies told" include "in the Bible", "on Fox News", "by President Trump", "by Donald Trump", "by Sarah Huckabee Sanders", and "by Brett Kavanaugh". An overwhelming 80% of the results have a leftist, pro-Democrat, and anti-Republican bias.
The results of Google's search engine are not random. They are carefully curated using the company's human-engineered algorithms. In short, Google proactively suppresses diversity of thought, in favor of showcasing opinions which align with its own politics.
Google's left-wing, anti-American bias was on full display when employees refused to continue working on the Pentagon's Artificial Intelligence project. Such an A.I. system could well be the differentiator between winning and losing future conflicts. In contrast, not a single person at the company seems to have struggled with his conscience when Google later set up shop in China to provide the Chinese government with the very same A.I. functionality, in order to suppress Chinese political dissent and free speech.
Of course, in helping China's autocratic regime implement the world's most far-reaching repression through technology, Google is simply going by its own precedent. Just ninety Google employees had protested its project to help the Chinese government develop a governmentally censored search engine. Dubbed Dragonfly, it is a weaponized technology that will allow the Chinese government to reinforce what Amnesty International calls a "dystopian alternative" by categorically hiding criticism of the Chinese regime. There is a stark contrast between Google's immediate abandonment of a critical military project for the United States, in the face of employee protests, and its laissez-faire attitude towards the communist regime's systemic repression of human rights and even political murders.
Any unprejudiced person ought to quickly see that Google is pushing a left-wing agenda onto the world. Even its most dedicated fans had to concede this fact when a video was leaked of a company meeting that was immediately held after the November 2016 presidential election. Co-founder Sergey Brin told the audience that the Trump administration "conflicts with many of [Google's] 'values'." C.F.O. Ruth Porat insisted that Google would "use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance" the values that they felt were important. C.E.O. Sunder Pichai chimed-in with a comment about the "misinformation" and "fake news" that was purportedly shared by "low-information voters". It was eerily similar to Hilary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" statement. Brin compared Trump voters to "extremists", drawing a parallel between their economic backgrounds and that of voters who support extremist movements.
Brin and Pichai might be surprised (or maybe not) to learn that left-wing mass murderers like Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub shooter and Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter both leaned Democrat. Mateen's father was even placed conspicuously just behind Hilary Clinton at her rally, which was only 22 miles from the site of his son's terroristic attack, and it was only two months after his son had slaughtered 49 people.
A leaked e-mail exchange revealed that after Trump's victory, Google employees were chafing at the bit to use their weapon of choice, advertising revenue, to silence the conservative news outlet, Breitbart. The e-mails show that Google's employees were not actually responding to evidence of wrongdoing, but they were instead on a quest to link what they classified as "fake news" and "hate speech" to Breitbart, so they could justify acting against it punitively. In other words, Breitbart had to be punished for Trump's victory. Later, Google welcomed Emily Garber from its AdSense division into the discussion. She gushed in her eagerness with, "I promise you that Breitbart is very much on our radar and our Trust and Safety team is evaluating the site to determine its policy compliance." Google and AdSense were never seeking truth. Their post-election witch hunt harkened to the political discrimination, harassment, and vindictive financial strangulation of Tea Party conservatives by the I.R.S. under the Obama and Clinton presidencies.
This newly established pattern of prejudice and hate would have been unacceptable on both sides of the aisle not long ago. Today, the power that Google wields has made discrimination acceptable, so long as it deems their targets deserve it. Yet, the technology giant does not take criticism of itself well, as James Damore found out the hard way. Damore was an engineer with Google, who attended its diversity program in July of 2017. In response to the organizers' solicitation for feedback, he wrote an internal memo that described "Google's ideological echo chamber". The document has become popularly known as simply "The Google Memo". In it, the young engineer politely expressed serious reservations that Google's policies of willful discrimination against individuals of a particular race (white) or sex (male) would yield positive results in the long term. The repercussions were swift and severe. On August 7th, 2018, Damore found himself unemployed and blacklisted in Silicon Valley. He is now suing Google for discrimination against males, Caucasians, and conservatives. If this is the manner in which one of the world's largest companies responds to honest concerns about discrimination from a single employee, it is cause for alarm indeed.
Three years to-the-day after the World Trade Center attack, U.S. Airman, Brian Kolfage, lost both of his legs and his right hand to a rocket attack in Iraq. In any other era, he would be honored and seen as a shining example of patriotism personified. Instead, American Big Tech is stealing from this triple amputee, because his political views lean patriotically right. Brian was the former administrator of Right Wing News, a Facebook page with 3 million followers. That was, until two weeks before the 2018 midterms. After taking $300,000 of Kolfage's money, for a Facebook advertising campaign, which was earmarked to promote a website that he had invested thousands of hours to produce, Facebook deleted his page and the campaign. Also deleted was Military Grade Coffee, his coffee company, which donates 10% of its profits to veteran's organizations. That page was completely apolitical. Kolfage, the father of two young children, was left reeling, but Facebook was far from done.
One week before the midterms, Facebook's selective policies of intolerance zeroed-in on gay conservatives Milo Yiannopoulos and Jacob Engels, as well as the Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes. The vague, convoluted excuse for the company's censorship was that its victims had been somehow "promoting violence". Meanwhile, Antifa and its members are still openly calling for violence on the streets of America against any and all bystanders, but they are yet to be held to Facebook's arbitrarily applied standards.
Twenty-four hours before the U.S. midterm elections, Facebook summarily silenced 1.5 million voices by shutting down or limiting access to Addison Riddleberger's network of pages. Riddleberger found that her personal Facebook account, as well as "Standing for Americans", "Freedom Catalog", and "Patriotic Folks" had been either disabled or removed completely. She too had invested thousands of dollars on Facebook advertising, and more importantly, thousands of hours into her Facebook pages.
Mark Zuckerberg's multi-billion dollar company, which purports to be a platform for all reasonable voices, had no qualms about executing a policy that involved destroying political discourse and livelihoods. It is not just the de-platforming itself that should give any fair-minded individual cause for concern: it is the timing of the moves. The 2018 midterms were perhaps more important than any other in living memory, in terms of what they meant for the direction of the country. Facebook's voter suppression and fascistic assaults on free speech through carefully orchestrated and timed schemes demonstrate that it simply cannot be trusted.
Like its brethren inside Silicon Valley's echo chamber, Twitter publicly disavows any political bias. Its true nature was exposed through the efforts of the brave journalists at Project Veritas, who were able to trick Twitter employees into confessing the company's policies. "Twitter does not shadowban accounts", Twitter unabashedly proclaimed to Breitbart news after Project Veritas released its undercover recordings publicly. The rest of Twitter's official response was to impune Veritas for revealing the shenanigans that the technology giant had previously managed to camouflage. Unfortunately for Twitter's public relations department, its employees, including Mohammed Norai, Pranay Sing, and Clay Hanes directly and boldly contradicted its statements to an undercover Veritas reporter. They were among the eight employees who were caught on hidden camera freely admitting that shadowbanning is just one of the nefarious tactics that the organization employs to drown out conservative voices.
Abhinov Vadrevu, a former Twitter software engineer explained how Twitter has used the practice, "One strategy is to shadowban, so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadowban is that you ban someone, but they don't know they've been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content, so they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it".
Mohammed explained to the undercover reporter, "If they said this is pro-Trump, I don't want it because it offends me, and I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, Oh you know what? I don't like it too. You know what? Mo's right, let's go, let's carry on, what's next?"
Pranay Sing revealed that he would likely flag as "bots" any account that expressed positive feelings about, "god, guns, and America".
"The individuals depicted in these videos were speaking in a personal capacity and do not represent or speak for Twitter", insisted a Twitter spokesperson via e-mail. Of course, they do not. However, they are performing heinous acts of censorship to suffocate any balance in public discourse. There was no public humiliation or firings, as is the case whenever a conservative employee 'steps out of line'.
If Twitter C.E.O., Jack Dorsey, were serious about combating prejudice within his company, then he would have taken measures to counter such unethical practices. He has not and will not.
Meanwhile, the senior staff at Twitter are in the game. Olinda Hassan, a policy manager for Twitter's Trust and Safety Team, was caught in the sting saying, "We're trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It's a product thing we're working on." Dorsey's claim of these employees not representing Twitter is true only in the most shallow sense. Otherwise, they are a perfect representation of how insidious and pervasive the culture of selective censorship in Big Tech really is.
Despite its fraudulent claim to be against racism, 'hate speech', and anti-Semitism, Twitter has internally concluded that hate spews are entirely desirable whenever they originate from the vicious bigots of the political left. Perhaps the most unpalatable case-in-point involves Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, in his comparison of Jews to termites, in October of 2018.
Twitter announced a prohibition against "dehumanizing speech" at the end of September in 2018. It specifically addressed "content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target". Despite the new policy, Farrakhan's video is apparently still considered acceptable by the Twitter standards.
In stark contrast stands the treatment meted out to Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo was permanently banned from Twitter in July of 2016. His Twitter crime was mocking the actress, Leslie Jones, after the "Ghostbusters" movie bombed at the box office. You read that correctly: Milo did not send out even a single message to Leslie Jones personally. Leslie bemoaned abuse from other Twitter users (that is, other than Milo) after Milo ridiculed the disastrous all-female reboot of Ghostbusters. Jack Dorsey listened. Milo was banned, and the excuse given was that he had violated Twitter's Hateful Conduct Standards. The document reads, "You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease". In his typically blunt fashion, Milo responded, "With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives". The more puzzling issue is why Leslie Jones still has her Twitter account. On Feb 8th, 2015, she tweeted from her verified handle, @Lesdoggg, "Lord have mercy...white people shit".
Milo has been smeared as a racist, because even though he is a homosexual with a propensity to mention his "black husband", his views on immigration and political correctness diverge from that of the rabid left-wing. Twitter simply pandered to its mollycoddled mob of perpetually outraged leftists who are blinded by their hate of anything that does not cultishly conform to their ever-narrowing worldview. This is why a person can be blamed and banned from Twitter for independent parties having made a mockery of a black actress, while she remains, despite having made blatantly racist posts herself.
Owned by Google since 2006, YouTube is emerging as its most odious weapon in the war against conservative opinions. The extent of the company's partisanship is truly horrifying. During the Obama administration, YouTube was stealthily silencing voices of dissent against the administration. Now, with a Republican in the White House, they have taken the diametrically opposite track. YouTube is actively pursuing a campaign of compartmentalization and isolation against the voices of reason by employing a dual program of censorship and economic warfare. Channels like Prager University, Ashamed Millennial, Gavin McInnes, Steven Crowder, Campus Reform, Breitbart News, Diamond and Silk, and the WalkAway Campaign are under sustained attack by a hawkish "administrative" department that uses the playbook of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984.
Even if a video does not contravene any of its other official policies, YouTube can still allege that a video contains "controversial religious or supremacist content". It will then make the video "restricted". This totally subjective and arbitrary categorization places videos into a limbo, where they will not be monetized (receive advertising) or appear in any of the site's recommended lists. Users will not be able to 'like' the video or comment on it. Worse still is that people who are underage or who are simply not signed into a Youtube account will not be able to even find the video, as if it never existed. For all practical purposes, it eliminates about 85% of the people who would have otherwise seen the video. Furthermore, numerous people have reported that channels with "restricted" videos (eg. conservative channels) undergo automated mass-unsubscribes, whereby fans are prevented from being notified of future videos. Both conservative channels and viewers can attest to seeing 'likes' disappear over time, while their subscribers are mysteriously slashed in swathes.
Youtube's tactics are disturbingly reminiscent of Twitter's shadowbans. Not being entirely content with the blatant censorship of individuals and channels that offer logical and cogent arguments against the lunacy of the left, the platform has jumped on board the financial strangulation train, too. Its agenda now includes demonetization (blocking advertising) of videos that stray right of center. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has described these carefully orchestrated attacks on free speech as "economic censorship".
While closing off financial routes for conservatives, YouTube itself is fattening up. It keeps an incredible 45% of the revenue that its users generate via their own content. Apparently bursting with too much cash, its parent company, Google, has become the biggest-spending lobbyist in Washington, D.C.
YouTube is also aggressively investing in the cultivation of left-leaning content creators to drown-out the right by quantity, since they cannot win on quality. Its social justice driven push for user-generated content from its traditional base of left-wingers is at the expense of the genuinely organic material from everyone else.
YouTube's public relations team is throwing strawman arguments left, right, and center to throw perceptive observers off the scent. Their shrill defense is faux ignorance of the fact that the purge and punishment regime is grotesquely skewed against conservative voices. As with the other technology companies, the Google subsidiary resorts to trotting out its standard "inappropriate content" excuse, which is only applied to those of a particular political persuasion. As with all of its brother platforms in the world of Big Tech, the application of standards is neither consistent nor logical. The bottom line is the same: keep the public uninformed of facts and push an artificially molded narrative. Perhaps the most important goals of the suppression campaigns are to prevent young people from learning real history and suppress the great ideals of the Enlightenment, to make young people receptive to a communistic ideology.
Billionaire leftists like George Soros wield their financial muscle against whole countries. The globalist left understands its power, and it is keen to smother any conservative who makes his living through honest punditry. They have escalated the attacks sharply of late.
In August of 2018, Patreon cut its payment services for Robert Spencer, a renowned anti-jihad specialist and author who has advised law enforcement agencies. "I've been axed from Patreon, without explanation, warning or notice - no doubt as part of the ongoing efforts of the Left to deny all platforms to those who reject its agenda", Robert tweeted.
In 2017, Patreon similarly de-platformed illegal immigration activist, Lauren Southern. Lauren is a tenacious opponent of the human trafficking to which too many women fall victim every day. The irony must be lost on Patreon.
Gab was established as an alternative to Twitter in the wake of what its founder, Andrew Torba, described as "the entirely left-leaning Big Social monopoly". The campaign against Gab began the moment that it was launched. Mainstream media outlets had a collective knee-jerk reaction to Gab, immediately branding it the "Nazi Twitter" and the "Twitter of hate"; revealing the legacy media's abounding love for Twitter's fascistic censorship. The left accurately saw Gab as a threat to its dominion over public discourse, and its first impulse was to attack. Their campaign quickly went beyond hyperbole and rhetoric.
After the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting, the legacy media pointed to the perpetrator's anti-Semitic posts on Gab as irrefutable evidence that the website was somehow complicit in the murders, whilst ignoring how other similar killers had used other platforms in the past and been given carte-blanch treatment by the same media outlets, and despite the fact that Gab had fully cooperated with law enforcement from the very beginning. Alas, what mattered was: they saw blood in the water, so it was time to encircle Gab. PayPal jumped on the bandwagon and immediately blacklisted the site, as the first of the financial attacks. They were quickly followed by Stripe, another payment processor. Would they ever likewise act against YouTube, which still refuses to remove pro-terrorist, Islamic propaganda? In fact, a superficial foray into the murky regions of Youtube reveals the depiction and celebration of terrorism, murder, rape, slavery, and pedophilia unabated, while Christians and patriots are increasingly finding their media "restricted".
The revelation that MasterCard and Visa are either pursuing a leftist agenda themselves or becoming pawns of the rabid left emerged when these companies blocked payments to the [link]David Horowitz Freedom Center, in August of 2018. The radical move was done at the behest of the militantly leftist and George Soros-funded, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their cunning use of the word "poverty" reveals nothing of the organization's real motivations or goals.
MasterCard, though, seems to be wading purposefully into political waters. Its C.E.O., Ajay Banga, was appointed by Obama to the President's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. It was MasterCard that pushed Patreon to ban Robert Spencer. The ubiquity of MasterCard and Visa as financial service providers, not simply gateway platforms like Patreon, makes their involvement particularly dangerous to freedom of speech. The tentacles of their influence pervade virtually every aspect of monetary transactions, and they have demonstrated that they are ready, willing, and eager to use them as nooses.
Can you imagine the size of Trump's 2016 victory or that of the Republicans in the 2018 midterms, had Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other Silicon Valley companies allowed for fair and balanced coverage? What if they had let diversity of opinion and true democracy guide their 'algorithms'? What actually happened is that reputable news organizations and independent journalists had their sites hidden from view.
Unlike the rabid leftists, who seek to demonize anyone with an unapproved opinion with epithets like "Nazi" and "white supremacist", the rest of America is slowly coming to realize what is happening around us. Rational Americans understand that there are elements within society between the extremes of the political and thought spectrum. This sizeable section of America is what our opponents see as the prize, for they are the rainmakers when it comes to elections, and there is no manipulation too despicable in the acquisition of that power.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster", reads a quote from German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche.
Perhaps some of the increasingly extreme behaviors of the technology aristocracy began with honorable intentions. However, their sincerity and integrity have been lost along the way. Google began with its famed "Don't be evil" motto, but in its battle against what it decided was unsuitable for the masses, its lofty ideals have become an afterthought. The world's largest technology companies are using their online clout to project a facade of good intentions, but human rights are taking a back seat. By systematically drowning out the voices of reason in favor of shrill professional protestors, they are causing untold, irreversible damage to society itself.
|I used to be so staunchly liberal that Bill Clinton's shenanigans actually endeared him to me. Then, I was sentenced to life in prison. In the 8 years it took to clear my name, I learned that I had been a pawn my entire life. The words I write are what I would want my younger self to have heard, read, and applied.|
Opening the Google AI China Center, Google Blog
Google Must Not Capitulate to China's Censorship Demands, Amnesty International