Google Censoring Conservative Speech

[Fukataka]

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/08/22/google-doubles-purging-conservative-speech/

Has Big Brother of 1984 arrived on the internet? Will conservatives be kicked out of internet by the lobbying of webhosters by the likes of ADL, SPLC for supposed Neo-Nazi speech?

How long before common people get targeted and banned on the internet because of muh feelings? If they went for Daily Stormer, it wont be long before other places with conservative opinions get shut down, even if they are not actual Neo-Nazis

[Caecus]

7 minutes ago, Fukataka said:

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/08/22/google-doubles-purging-conservative-speech/

Has Big Brother of 1984 arrived on the internet? Will conservatives be kicked out of internet by the lobbying of webhosters by the likes of ADL, SPLC for supposed Neo-Nazi speech?

How long before common people get targeted and banned on the internet because of muh feelings? If they went for Daily Stormer, it wont be long before other places with conservative opinions get shut down, even if they are not actual Neo-Nazis

Big Brother of 1984 has already arrived on the internet, just with a huge boner for making money. Ads on social media and websites are based off of a collection of user data gathered by your internet provider and sold to data miners and processors to get to know what you are willing to burn your money on. Hell, even your preferences for porn is already recorded somewhere in a vast network of information collection and processing. Noticing that BDSM add everytime you open up your favorite porn site? That's why. 

But I'm getting off topic here. You are right, this is rather troubling. The greatness of our nation is that we can fight genocidal dipshits two generations ago and have those same dipshits walking in our streets shouting more stupid shit 60 years later without getting shot. Dissent and differing opinion was naturally built into the republic as a matter of democratic discourse. Of course, the question becomes when media (as a form of external medium to influence the common idiots who can't find an original thought in their own heads) presents information that is against the ideals of the republic, propagated by enemies of the republic (Yes, Nazis are enemies of the state). One must be fearful of the slippery slope when the Gracchi brothers were declared "enemies of the state" or when Sulla proscribed names "to safeguard the republic." 

As for your "muh feelings," I'm almost certain that censorship of conservative media on the scale of some dystopian hellscape is rather a costly and poor alternative to making a shit ton of money off of knowing what your media diet and sexually explicit positions are and selling them to relevant commercial companies. 

[August]

7 hours ago, Fukataka said:

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/08/22/google-doubles-purging-conservative-speech/

Has Big Brother of 1984 arrived on the internet? Will conservatives be kicked out of internet by the lobbying of webhosters by the likes of ADL, SPLC for supposed Neo-Nazi speech?

How long before common people get targeted and banned on the internet because of muh feelings? If they went for Daily Stormer, it wont be long before other places with conservative opinions get shut down, even if they are not actual Neo-Nazis

I can't really agree at you at this one. Google is a private company and is not under the jurisdiction of the second amendment. If revisions are made to include the internet in the second amendment I could agree with you since its the US government who created the internet in the first place. It would also show the hypocrisy of Google being for Net Neutrality at the same time doing corporate censorship. Anyway that's not my focus.

Also cracking down hate speech on the internet won't do anything to stop let us say the far right. It would make them as martyrs and would reinforce their anti semitic conspiracy theories (Joos controlled the world, (((Google))), etc).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/how-a-ban-on-hate-speech-helped-the-nazis/news-story/cb199a0aae4d42a54164f3c9463745f9?nk=cd8140ad1d5d5051cf2710891a10a138-1503491570

BTW

[Caecus]

2 hours ago, August said:

I can't really agree at you at this one. Google is a private company and is not under the jurisdiction of the second amendment. If revisions are made to include the internet in the second amendment I could agree with you since its the US government who created the internet in the first place. It would also show the hypocrisy of Google being for Net Neutrality at the same time doing corporate censorship. Anyway that's not my focus.

Also cracking down hate speech on the internet won't do anything to stop let us say the far right. It would make them as martyrs and would reinforce their anti semitic conspiracy theories (Joos controlled the world, (((Google))), etc).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/how-a-ban-on-hate-speech-helped-the-nazis/news-story/cb199a0aae4d42a54164f3c9463745f9?nk=cd8140ad1d5d5051cf2710891a10a138-1503491570

BTW

First amendment, but you do make a point. To some extent, the 15th has applied to businesses, but the supreme court has already struck down companies as a medium to exercise 1st amendment powers. 

I'm pretty sure there is a court case somewhere out there about companies necessitated by the government to protect employees/users first amendment rights of some sort, but seeing as how things are today, I suppose that case failed somewhere along the way. 

7 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Google and YouTube went ahead and banned people with actual Nazi views well before the 'adpocalypse'. The whole rabbit hole runs much deeper than 'banning Nazis' as it were. The whole reason this started was because of two organisations, Eric Feinberg and big business. 

Eric Feinberg is the creator of a patent that helps rid content creation sites of 'objectionable' content, and in order to push the sale of his patent he would look up racist search terms on YouTube videos and check for monetisation, from which he would send to popular media outlets in order to smear the reputation of Google's advertising platform. This is all evident in the PewDiePieIsOverParty fiasco a few months ago when the Wall Street Journal reported that the most popular YouTuber, PewDiePie was slinging around racist words and making edgy jokes. Of course, PewDiePie's videos were monetised and thus businesses threatened to pull their ads from videos that were not considered advertiser friendly. The whole reason the Wall Street Journal was able to crop up all this information was from a source who would track all these videos with monetisation and sent WSJ a hot tip about objectionable content on videos which had advertisements on them. Who was this source? Eric Feinberg. 

Of course, Google can't go about dealing with this objectionable content and appease the advertisers without Feinberg's patent, so they bought it and now Feinberg is swimming in cash, and YouTube is now even more of a worthless business for people with 'objectionable content', which can easily be summarised as wrongthink. Alternative media has been hit the worst, with organisations such as InfoWars, theRebelMedia and other independent content creators like NoBullShit, with other contemporary commentators being practically zeroed out in terms of their content because what they say challenges the status quo, and have been flagged by Google for hate speech and whatever else.

That's not all though, oh no. Companies know that they can use this controversy to their advantage as well, with the biggest YouTube advertisers - AT&T and Verizon - pulling practically all their ads which made up the equivalent of 3.5 billion dollars combined on the site. The story goes that these companies are using the narrative that YouTube houses objectionable content in order to have an excuse to pull their ads from the site and further help the mass media frenzy, and they know that the smear will make more advertisements seem unappealing as a whole to other advertisers. By shrouding YouTube and Google in controversy, they know that advertisers will want to place their ads on a more 'respectable' platform, and that platform comes in the package of traditional media outlets which are spearheading the controversy which forced Google to change its policy on advertising. Take AT&T for instance, which owns CNN, HBO, TBS and WB entertainment and happen to be the largest pay-tv company in America. How's that for coincidence. These outlets have competition in, you guessed it, alternative media that just got completely demonetised by Google. This is the elimination of competition at the simplest level. Verizon is no different, they have everything to gain by continuing to pose that Google is a haven for racists and whatnot because they own Google's largest competitor, Yahoo. If Google is losing money on advertisers, then those advertisers are back on the market for AT&T and Verizon's platforms to gain from. 

Simply, Feinberg sends objectionable content to journalists in the U.S and U.K, writers write about the content and stir up controversy, businesses see this as an opportunity to take from Google's mountains of advertising money. Google can do all it likes about beefing up artificial security and machine learning, but it can't do it to an effective level without violating Feinberg's patent. Traditional media and business just weren't aware of the seismic shift in how information and ideas travel through the internet until the previous election cycle, where practically everyone's opinions were shaped, or at the very least influenced by some of these alternative media platforms that were present on YouTube. This is even exacerbated by the abysmally low ratings and viewership of platforms in traditional media which have had to resort to some of the lowest of lows in journalism in order to stay relevent, and not the good kind of relevent. "Trump afraid of stairs?" comes to mind. It is only natural that these old forms of media which have been in decline ever since the internet age would conspire to take down the giant that is Google, and what better way to do that than to make one of their most popular platforms seem like nothing more than a circle of hate.

This was an interesting read, you seem very well informed on these issues. 

I'll still be using google and google chrome over all the other bullshit out there, racist or not. 

[ComradeMilton]

It's impressive that conservatives basically control all three federal branches of power and still try to pull the victim card.

[WISD0MTREE]

11 hours ago, August said:

Google is a private company and is not under the jurisdiction of the second amendment.

Google is hiring Class G security guards. They do have second amendment rights. 

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Google is hiring Class G security guards. They do have second amendment rights. 

lol, smartass. 

 

So we can all agree that restricting freedom of speech (even if the speech in itself kills brain cells) is un-American right? Outside of the 14th and 15th amendments, it is to my understanding that companies are not obligated to service everyone so long as the reasoning is not related to race, gender, age, etc. 

 

On the other hand, here is something interesting that the federal government is currently doing right now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/15/a-closer-look-at-dojs-warrant-to-collect-website-records/?utm_term=.83bb92c9446d

https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DH-Search-Warrant.pdf

 

We should all be outraged by this act of overreach by the federal government. 

[ComradeMilton]

I've just assumed they were doing that since the first NSA room was photographed in an AT&T network facility.

[Doktor Avalanche]

4 hours ago, Caecus said:

On the other hand, here is something interesting that the federal government is currently doing right now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/15/a-closer-look-at-dojs-warrant-to-collect-website-records/?utm_term=.83bb92c9446d

https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DH-Search-Warrant.pdf

 

We should all be outraged by this act of overreach by the federal government. 

Yeah, that is crappy.

[August]

20 hours ago, Caecus said:

First amendment, but you do make a point. To some extent, the 15th has applied to businesses, but the supreme court has already struck down companies as a medium to exercise 1st amendment powers. 

I'm pretty sure there is a court case somewhere out there about companies necessitated by the government to protect employees/users first amendment rights of some sort, but seeing as how things are today, I suppose that case failed somewhere along the way. 

This was an interesting read, you seem very well informed on these issues. 

I'll still be using google and google chrome over all the other bullshit out there, racist or not. 

Yeah I confused gun rights to freedom of speech lmao.

[ComradeMilton]

16 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Yeah, that is crappy.

Supposedly reasonably soon they're going to be forcing collection of biometric data for any passenger wishing to board an airline. Just retinal scans at the moment. The NSA has testified they are violating the laws governing them to Congress and news and presumably the president and it being illegal doesn't seem to matter to most people.

[Ogaden]

First they came for Daily Stormer and I didn't care because I'm not a nazi

Then they came for Brietbart.com and I didn't care because I like factual information

Then they came for Fox News and I didn't care because I'm under 70 years of age

Then they came for Milo and there was noone left to speak for him because he said he likes 14 year olds or something

[WISD0MTREE]

20 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

First they came for Daily Stormer and I didn't care because I'm not a nazi

Then they came for Brietbart.com and I didn't care because I like factual information

Then they came for Fox News and I didn't care because I'm under 70 years of age

Then they came for Milo and there was noone left to speak for him because he said he likes 14 year olds or something

Then they came after black white supremacists holding signs that say "Black Lives Do Matter," and Nazis holding "Say No to GMOs." 

 

[Ogaden]

Was Clayton Bigsby there too?  There's a true civil rights hero, not like these fake friends.

[WISD0MTREE]

55 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

Was Clayton Bigsby there too?  There's a true civil rights hero, not like these fake friends.

Yeah, I'm sure Bigsby would wave a sign saying "Black Lives Do Matter." Oh, is he the one with the anti-GMO sign on the right at 0:39? 

Edited August 26, 2017 by WISD0MTREE

[ComradeMilton]

Do people honestly think trying to let people remain alive is a negative thing?

[Rozalia]

2 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Then they came after black white supremacists holding signs that say "Black Lives Do Matter," and Nazis holding "Say No to GMOs." 

It is quite something how they will ridicule and attack (often in a racist manner) any black person that isn't playing their game. Like that guy recently who was black and in the crowd for Trump so he got singled out... for being black. Doesn't shock me. I've been pointing to the attacks on minorities not part of the main groups (on here largely Liberal Muslims/Apostates/Ahmadis) and these people just don't care.

[ComradeMilton]

You're not American and not a voter. Why would people take the time to read your opinions, let alone act of them?

[Rozalia]

If you cared to even register my threads on the issue (Muslims being bad? Doing something about it? Crap. Delete from brain) you'd know the ones I have pointed out were cases in Britain, though it is an issue in America also from what I've seen.

Also, I'm the Roz. A visionary. The Sagacious one. The ever victorious. You're a fool who thinks governments should censor talk of terrorism to protect the liddle Muslims, who thinks anti-terror money should all be spent on road accident prevention (!?), and numerous more insane prattle. You are also someone so cowardly you will not even say what you are politically. Who cares what you think exactly? No one. As no one should. Whatever you might be though, may it be a Communist, an Anarchist, both, or some other thing... I can say with certainty... You shame them.

[Caecus]

49 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Also, I'm the Roz. A visionary. The Sagacious one. The ever victorious. You're a fool who thinks governments should censor talk of terrorism to protect the liddle Muslims, who thinks anti-terror money should all be spent on road accident prevention (!?), and numerous more insane prattle. You are also someone so cowardly you will not even say what you are politically. Who cares what you think exactly? No one. As no one should. Whatever you might be though, may it be a Communist, an Anarchist, both, or some other thing... I can say with certainty... You shame them.

Channel that inner Steve Bannon. 

I bet you are really good at yoga. 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

IAlso, I'm the Roz. A visionary. The Sagacious one. The ever victorious. You're a fool who thinks governments should censor talk of terrorism to protect the liddle Muslims (I've never said that if that matters to you)., who thinks anti-terror money should all be spent on road accident prevention, cancer research and heart disease since between the three we're basically having a 9/11 number of deaths from those three things daily, and numerous more insane prattle. You are also someone so cowardly you will not even say what you are politically. I didn't think you'd care. You usually just call me whatever politically you think is annoying or something.  Who cares what you think exactly? Candidates. As an American I can vote here and matter. No one. As no one should. Whatever you might be though, may it be a Communist, an Anarchist, both, or some other thing... I can say with certainty... You shame them. You're funny.

 

[Rozalia]

51 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Channel that inner Steve Bannon. 

I bet you are really good at yoga. 

In 4 months Caecus you'll see the truth. The Roz cannot be beat. 

As for Milton he is doing that thing where he acts like a right-winger and doesn't realise it. Cuts, total cuts in this case you have put forward have consequences. This is not pluses and minuses here. Cutting something does not mean a negative effect doesn't occur as a result that is then more costly then what you were putting in. If anti-terror wasn't as strict and advanced as it has become then big time attacks would be happening much more regularly you damn fool. People would get terrorised like never before and we'd start seeing Muslim heads on pikes which no-one but the most extreme out there wants. Well, whatever, you were saying that crap when terrorist attacks were popping off all over the place so you are simply completely possessed by your lunacy. 

I'm sorry what? Me not caring is why you are too cowardly to state what you are now? Do you base how you act on just what the Roz-senpai thinks of you? I'd say I'm honoured but I'd be lying which the Roz does not do. You disgust me. This reminds of Ibrahim when he would run whenever someone asked him to specifically show support for ISIS. If people ask you to state what you are politically you'll run? Really? Let me guess, it's because you really are a Communist. Whatever you are it has to horrible though considering you're too ashamed to state it. 

[ComradeMilton]

10 hours ago, Rozalia said:

In 4 months Caecus you'll see the truth. The Roz cannot be beat. How do you square that against all the times you've left for months at a time pouting?

As for Milton he is doing that thing where he acts like a right-winger(This is a good example of you telling me my political affiliation) and doesn't realise it. You don't need to believe in something to be able to entertain its ideas and include them in debates. Cuts, total cuts in this case you have put forward have consequences. This is not pluses and minuses here. Cutting something does not mean a negative effect doesn't occur as a result that is then more costly then what you were putting in. If anti-terror wasn't as strict and advanced as it has become then big time attacks would be happening much more regularly you damn fool. No, it wouldn't. Pretty much every terrorism plot since 9/11 included undercover agents from the FBI radicalizing Muslims that were having issues, giving them equipment (fake, but still), descriptions and maps of their target, often to the point where a reasonable person would wonder if any of the foiled plots would've even come close to occurring without the FBI instigating it. People would get terrorised like never before (How, exactly? Every terrorism-related charge is already a criminal offense we could just be enforcing rather than frightening people as if there's a realistic chance they'd ever come into contact with a real terrorist?) and we'd start seeing Muslim heads on pikes (No, we wouldn't.) which no-one but the most extreme out there wants. Well, whatever, you were saying that crap when terrorist attacks were popping off all over the place so you are simply completely possessed by your lunacy. Having a different opinion than some narcissistic British guy is not lunacy.

I'm sorry what? Me not caring is why you are too cowardly to state what you are now? I didn't say anything about cowardice, more your penchant to assign me (sometimes in the same post of being a member of at least two competing political ideologies and didn't seem interested in actually finding out when you could just sit back and make up what you liked.  Do you base how you act on just what the Roz-senpai thinks of you? No. There's just no one interesting to mock when you're not here. I'd say I'm honoured but I'd be lying which the Roz does not do. You disgust me. Likewise, probably more so if anything. This reminds of Ibrahim when he would run whenever someone asked him to specifically show support for ISIS. If people ask you to state what you are politically you'll run? Nope, never mentioned running or anything similar (I believed in your ability to fabricate quotations and then argue against them. You're truly freed entirely from those kidnappers. Really? Let me guess, it's because you really are a Communist. Nope. NWhatever you are it has to horrible though considering you're too ashamed to state it. Who am I to state my political beliefs? That's been your project for months. You just decided I was first a lunatic for disagreeing with your opinion and now appear to be saying I'm a communist (it's not a proper noun so you don't need to capitalize it)

 

6 hours ago, Gabranth said:

This is such terrible thinking and I see it everywhere from people who have no argument. You can't have an opinion on abortion if you're not a woman, You can have one. I'm pro-choice and against abortion, but I'm not going to tell a woman what she should do with her body or the parasite growing inside.; until the fetus  you can't have an opinion on affirmative action if you're not a minority, Sure you can. Where are you even getting these ideas? you can't have an opinion on anything that doesn't directly affect you. It's utterly ridiculous. And not done, so easy fix. The fact that you don't even listen to people's opinions simply because they do not fit into your personal preconceived notions about qualifications pertaining to the subject. What are you basing my inattention to alternate opinions on? You know, you just might learn something from listening to someone from the outside. It's possible, though very unlikely. But, I suppose that Google fired a guy for making a paper on "ideological echo chambers". Sound familiar at all? Echo chambers don't exist, I'm not Google, so no, doesn't sound familiar at all.

 

[WISD0MTREE]

8 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Sure you can. Where are you even getting these ideas?

He's referencing several common leftist positions. There are almost always "No uterus, no opinion" signs at pro-choice rallies. Hell, they even sell shot glasses with the slogan on it. 

[ComradeMilton]

On 8/26/2017 at 10:47 PM, WISD0MTREE said:

He's referencing several common leftist positions. There are almost always "No uterus, no opinion" signs at pro-choice rallies. Hell, they even sell shot glasses with the slogan on it. 

Naturally. It's someone else trying to decide what they do with their own bodies. I'd imagine virtually anyone would be just as opposed to having their body decided by others just as offensive and hateful.