patrick.net

Patrick says

Yes, it was also advertising for gab.ai, but they have a valid point: Our democracy is being corrupted daily by our largest tech companies. They interfere with what we are allowed to find and read, for explicitly political reasons.

They have become a far greater threat to our country than Russia.

so you are ok with the totally unaccountable billions in dark money spent by the ultra rich libertarians for the last 50 years to successfully gain control of all three branches of government? Along with the giant propaganda machine (fox, sinclair, am radio, college endowments, etc., etc. ,etc.) they have bought and paid for. Ok with the giant russian disinformation machine that is so successful that many on the right wing (including a good number of patnetters) are pretty much quoting putin's cabel of approved russian political writers word for word. The real irony being that putins writers are taking their ideas and writings from schmidt the nazi propagandist.

None of that is a corruption of democracy. It's social media that is the threat because they won't help spread the unhinged rantings of lunatics like alex jones any more. What a joke. The mindless sheeple ideologues are going to find what they want to believe in. Look at all the postings every day right here from the fringe and not so fringe sites spewing the fake meaningless outrage of the day. Like your claim that 9 year old jewish boy named soros was a member of the waffenn SS confiscating property from the jews and sending them off to camps. No thinking required.

They are monipolies right now.

Tim Aurora says

These companies are NOT biased.

Oh man, going to laugh for days about that one. I live here, I know this shit. They are as biased as it is possible to be. Off the freaking charts. Like intergalactic-level biased both within the company and in what they display to the public.

If you think that tech companies in the Silicon Valley are not off the rails biased, you are blind, disingenuous, or you haven’t spent enough time here.

Patrick says

Oh man, going to laugh for days about that one. I live here, I know this shit. They are as biased as it is possible to be. Off the freaking charts. Like intergalactic-level biased both within the company and in what they display to the public.

Want to back that up with something other than it's true because I say it's true.

Patrick says

I live here, I know this shit.

Sounds like life in the bubble. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. May be time to come up for some air. Reality is very different for the 99.99% of the population that lives outside of the bay area is the center of the universe reality distortion field.

Tim Aurora says

putting party, race and religion over the country and joining force with the enemy.

That is precisely what Democrats did in 2016 by nominating Hillary Clinton, whose long service to her Saudi clients at American expense showed what KSA had bought with their investment in her and her family and their foundation. Hillary's War in Libya, which she expanded into Syria, drove millions of Sunnis into NATO, and she campaigned on making Americans pay to import many thousands more to the USA. Facebook reportedly collaborated with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to put FB users on death row for blasphemy against Islam, because the hapless FB users had identified themselves as atheist (thus denying Islam) on FB. Saudis own more of Twitter than founding CEO Jack Dorsey, and use TWTR to prosecute blasphemers. Eric Schmidt and Google finance the "New America" which is apparently intended to be Islamic, denouncing blasphemers so that they can appear on Islamic State kill lists. Democrats had an opportunity to nominate an independent candidate, Bernie Sanders, who polled #1 and had probably the best chance of winning in 2016. Instead, Democrats put party, Sunni Muslims, and Islam over the country, and joined forces with the Saudi enemy, which is an accessory before and after the fact of 9/11, and Islam, which hates us. Enforcing the laws against treason would be appropriate.

Tim Aurora says

incomprehensible

Tim Aurora says

blabbering

blabber = "talk foolishly, mindlessly, or excessively."

Your comment reminds me of a recent Colbert episode. Someone had made a valid point criticizing Christine Blasey Ford; Colbert responded with a string of ad hominem invective, and his audience cheered. In this thread, users (including me) have made valid points about FB, GOOG, and TWTR. Some of us have supported those points with links. You reply calling these comments incomprehensible blabber. I suspect something about partisanship and TDS causes some people to become completely unable to comprehend opposing facts and arguments. Where the evidence shows one or more valid points, the partisan sees only incomprehensible blabber and responds with a counter-attack that has no substance.

That does not bode well for democratic debate. Each side loves their own lies, and hates the lies of the other side. In particular, FB, GOOG, and TWTR are enabling the Islamic execution of blasphemers, but partisans fail even to see that fact. It isn't only that they fail to acknowledge the fact: they fail even to see it. Instead, they hallucinate that there is only incomprehensible blabber, and reassure each other in that mass hallucination.

curious2 says

Where the evidence show

ROFLOL. Funniest post yet. "Evidence" isn't a bunch of random unrelated stream of conscientious my dad's uncles nephews girlfriends ex husbands cousin said this moments flung at the wall like a plate of spaghetti. HaHaHaHaHa. Got to love when someone links their opinion back to their own opinion as "evidence". Really you can't make this shit up.

bob2356 says

"Evidence" isn't a bunch of random unrelated stream of conscientious my dad's uncles nephews girlfriends ex husbands cousin said this moments flung at the wall like a plate of spaghetti. HaHaHaHaHa. Got to love when someone links their opinion back to their own opinion as "evidence".

Tim Aurora says

Your links are to your owns posts ( or guy with pro Republican posts). That is called circular logic

Tim Aurora says

You were taking about Hillary issues and that is "Whataboutism" and "Blabbering". As I said this is not related to the current debate.

That's really interesting. Anyone who looks at my comment can see that I linked to the London Review of Books (specifically Sy Hersh, who won a Pulitzer Prize), the Guardian, and the Independent. Also, I addressed all three companies that are the subject of this thread. I linked also to PatNet threads on related topics, which in turn link to Human Rights Watch among other sources. And yet, these are the replies I get: either hallucinations or lies or both. I would really like to know, are you honestly incapable of seeing where the links go? Do you believe that I personally write the London Review of Books and the Guardian and the Independent and that I am also Human Rights Watch and Sy Hersh? I would be really flattered if you thought me capable of doing all those things at the same time, but I can't believe you would think that. Instead, I think something has triggered you to hallucinate. The name Hillary, perhaps? If I type "Hillary", do you then fail to see everything else on the page? Or is citing a thread by a user you consider "pro Republican" consorting with the devil, such that you fail to see anything else, or even to consider the sources linked in that thread, and whether they are accurate? Are you literally incapable of seeing that someone who disagrees with you might have a valid point?

Patrick says

Oh man, going to laugh for days about that one. I live here, I know this shit. They are as biased as it is possible to be. Off the freaking charts. Like intergalactic-level biased both within the company and in what they display to the public.

Jesus, we have memos and even video of the Google Founders talking about how they could have done more to stop Trump, complete with executives tearing up.

http://fortune.com/2018/09/13/google-leaked-video-trump/

At this point, to maintain that Social Media isn't biased, is laughable.

ThreeBays says

For example one says that FB complied with the law to remove content they requested which was blasphemous. Is this enabling execution?

It says more than that:

curious2 says

"Pakistan Sentences Man To Death For 'Blasphemy' On [Facebook]
***
The death sentence comes as the government pushes a campaign against blasphemy on social media.
***
Saroop Ijaz, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch in Pakistan, told the Guardian that "the casual manner in which death sentences are handed in blasphemy cases coupled with the lack of orientation of Pakistani courts with technology makes this a very dangerous situation."

In March, according to The Washington Post, the government "asked Twitter and Facebook to report potentially troublesome posts to authorities.""

ThreeBays says

document anti-Muslim activities in America https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/anti-muslim-activity/. This according you you ties into enabling Islam nut-jobs to build their kill-lists.

Yes, the "anti-Muslim activities" included criticizing Islam, i.e. blasphemy, which is the usual inclusion criterion for Islamic State kill lists.

ThreeBays says

TWTR and FB platforms were used by people to send messages by anti-blasphemers. Is having a social platform that people post on, enabling in your view?

Perhaps you didn't read the linked article, which was only one example of KSA using TWTR to prosecute blasphemers:

"Hamza Kashgari, a young Saudi journalist who has just been deported from Malaysia to face trial on charges of blasphemy, is one that should frighten and disgust anyone who cares about freedom of speech or religion.

His supposed offence was to have tweeted part of an imaginary conversation with the prophet Muhammad."

It is also true that large numbers of Muslims go bonkers over blasphemy, for example exploding into lethal violence over cartoons.

I am trying to understand the process of partisan hallucination. Do you get triggered by something you can disagree with, and then fail to see everything else?

ThreeBays says

exec invested in Islamic terrorism

That is your phrase, not mine. Please quote. Did you hallucinate that phrase somewhere, as if you had seen it?

BTW, he was the CEO, and many GOOG employees were also involved in other aspects of the "resistance" including especially the fight to bring more Muslims into the USA: "Google employees debated ways to alter search results to direct users to pro-immigration organizations and to contact lawmakers and government agencies after President Donald Trump's immigration travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries."

As for irrational conspiracy theories, Pakistan is a terrorist state and is proudly leading dozens of Muslim countries in a "Muslim world plan against blasphemous content," as per Islam. KSA leads its own global war on terrorism, and defines terrorism to include atheism. You can call Islam irrational if you want to, but the Islamic terrorist conspiracy against western liberalism happens in plain sight and is widely reported. It includes using Petrodollars to capture sources that western liberals trust, and paying politicians and the people around them.

ThreeBays says

"FB, GOOG, and TWTR are enabling the Islamic execution of blasphemers"

They are doing that, as I have shown above. That differs from what you said before.

ThreeBays says

your conspiracy theory about the tech companies?

Again, please quote. Where are you seeing that phrase? Are you literally hallucinating, or deliberately making up stuff? Tech companies have reportedly conspired, for example to suppress salaries, but I had not mentioned that fact here.

curious2 says

"Google employees debated ways to alter search results to direct users to pro-immigration organizations and to contact lawmakers and government agencies after President Donald Trump's immigration travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries."

ThreeBays says

Any half decent person or company opposed it.

Polls showed majority support. So, you are saying that most Americans are not even "half decent" because they supported the President's effort to defend against a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government. I agree the plan was only "half baked," because the ban should have included all the Muslim countries that have sent terrorists to the USA. Is President Carter, who banned Iranians, not even half decent?

Tim Aurora says

I saw the article. Nowhere it says that the google product should be made biased.

Not only does it reveal the product should be biased, it reveals the deep and strong bigotry Google Personnel have towards Native Born Americans, Whites, Males, the Working Class, etc.

(00:00:00 – 00:01:12) Google co-founder Sergey Brin states that the weekly meeting is “probably not the most joyous we’ve had” and that “most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad.”
(00:00:24) Brin contrasts the disappointment of Trump’s election with his excitement at the legalization of cannabis in California, triggering laughs and applause from the audience of Google employees.
(00:01:12) Returning to seriousness, Brin says he is “deeply offen[ded]” by the election of Trump, and that the election “conflicts with many of [Google’s] values.”
(00:09:10) Trying to explain the motivations of Trump supporters, Senior VP for Global Affairs, Kent Walker concludes: “fear, not just in the United States, but around the world is fueling concerns, xenophobia, hatred, and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”
(00:09:35) Walker goes on to describe the Trump phenomenon as a sign of “tribalism that’s self-destructive [in] the long-term.”
(00:09:55) Striking an optimistic tone, Walker assures Google employees that despite the election, “history is on our side” and that the “moral arc of history bends towards progress.”
(00:10:45) Walker approvingly quotes former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s comparison between “the world of the wall” with its “isolation and defensiveness” and the “world of the square, the piazza, the marketplace, where people come together into a community and enrich each other’s lives.”
(00:13:10) CFO Ruth Porat appears to break down in tears when discussing the election result.
(00:15:20) Porat promises that Google will “use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values.”
(00:16:50) Stating “we all need a hug,” she then instructs the audience of Google employees to hug the person closest to them.
(00:20:24) Eileen Naughton, VP of People Operations, promises that Google’s policy team in DC is “all over” the immigration issue and that the company will “keep a close watch on it.”
(00:21:26) Naughton jokes about Google employees asking, ‘Can I move to Canada?’ after the election. She goes on to seriously discuss the options available to Google employees who wish to leave the country.
(00:23:12) Naughton does acknowledge “diversity of opinion and political persuasion” and notes that she has heard from conservative Google employees who say they “haven’t felt entirely comfortable revealing who [they] are.” and urged “tolerance.” (Several months later, the company would fire James Damore allegedly for disagreeing with progressive narratives.)
(00:27:00) Responding to a question about “filter bubbles,” Sundar Pichai promises to work towards “correcting” Google’s role in them
(00:27:30) Sergey Brin praises an audience member’s suggestion of increasing matched Google employee donations to progressive groups.
(00:34:40) Brin compares Trump voters to “extremists,” arguing for a correlation between the economic background of Trump supporters and the kinds of voters who back extremist movements. Brin says that “voting is not a rational act” and that not all of Trump’s support can be attributed to “income disparity.” He suggests that Trump voters might have been motivated by boredom rather than legitimate concerns.
(00:49:10) An employee asks if Google is willing to “invest in grassroots, hyper-local efforts to bring tools and services and understanding of Google products and knowledge” so that people can “make informed decisions that are best for themselves.” Pichai’s response: Google will ensure its “educational products” reach “segments of the population [they] are not [currently] fully reaching.”
(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem.
(Pichai is the CEO of Google)
(00:56:12) Responding to an audience member, Walker says Google must ensure the rise of populism doesn’t turn into “a world war or something catastrophic … and instead is a blip, a hiccup.”
(00:58:22) Brin compares Trump voters to supporters of fascism and communism, linking the former movement to “boredom,” which Brin previously linked to Trump voters. “It sort of sneaks up sometimes, really bad things” says Brin.
(01:01:15) A Google employee states: “speaking to white men, there’s an opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege” and urges employees to “go through the bias-busting training, read about privilege, read about the real history of oppression in our country.” He urges employees to “discuss the issues you are passionate about during Thanksgiving dinner and don’t back down and laugh it off when you hear the voice of oppression speak through metaphors.” Every executive on stage – the CEO, CFO, two VPs and the two Co-founders – applaud the employee.
(01:01:57) An audience member asks if the executives see “anything positive from this election result.” The audience of Google employees, and the executives on stage, burst into laughter. “Boy, that’s a really tough one right now” says Brin.

https://t.co/jlbSgMMrLT

Pichai is basically promising to improve Search and AI tools to redirect users to the Elite-Approved Narrative, esp. on Immigration.

Tim Aurora says

These companies are NOT biased.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Are you a paid troll for one of them? No. That WAS a serious question. Because only a completely clueless idiot or a paid troll would have typed that.

Imagine if Public Libraries worked like Google.

"Mike Lansing wants to search for Communism. Based on our datamining, we know him to be a small business owner who runs a car detailing business with his Wife. Both are church going Evangelicals who gave $1,329 to First Church of Christ. Their children attend the Classics Academy of Beaufort. Re-arrange the Dewey Decimal system so books by Susan Sontag, Derrida, Marx, Engles, Bob Avakian come up first. Place all Horowitz, D'Souza, and Hayek books at the end of the card file."

Don't forget the Commies.



May George Soros head grace the point of a pike.