Author Topic: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus  (Read 57330 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
Goolag's "Selfish Ledger" concept
« Reply #451 on: December 21, 2019, 06:59:18 AM »
Apparently well at work in China now, even as Goolag refuses to work on contracts for our military , , ,  :x

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12962
    • View Profile
Inside the Goolag, Google, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, Do no evil?
« Reply #453 on: January 04, 2020, 06:44:45 AM »
First hand account inside Google - China

https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relations-here-s-why-i-left-49313d23065

"" complicit in human rights violations"

". I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price."

" Some will say that Google was always a bad corporate actor, with less than transparent privacy practices. But there is a significant difference between serving ads based on a Google search and working with the Chinese government on artificial intelligence or hosting the applications of the Saudi government, including Absher, an application that allows men to track and control the movement of their female family members."

" what are the implications for all of us when that once-great American company controls so much data about billions of users across the globe?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 07:08:20 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
FB exec debunks Hillary/Dem claims on 2019 election
« Reply #455 on: January 08, 2020, 07:16:26 AM »
Clinton Backer at Facebook Debunks Clinton Claims
Plus, Chelsea shows Hunter that you don’t have to fly to Ukraine to get rich.

By James Freeman
Jan. 7, 2020 5:49 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
232

Hillary Clinton attends a campaign rally in Pittsburgh, Oct. 22, 2016. PHOTO: CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and politicians like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) may cling to the discredited belief that Donald Trump and Russia used social media to rig the 2016 election. But liberals in a position to know still aren’t buying it.

The New York Times reports that it has obtained a recent internal memorandum from senior Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth. According to the text of the memo published by the Times, Mr. Bosworth throws cold water on a favorite conspiracy theory of the political left:

So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.
Cambridge Analytica was a political consulting firm and Trump campaign vendor which was accused of using personal data about Facebook users without their knowledge. The Federal Trade Commission recently settled a case with some of those involved, who agreed to destroy the data they collected and be honest with users in the future about data collection. The memo from Facebook’s Mr. Bosworth continues:

To be clear, I’m no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary. After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that I’m told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me (I regret that post and deleted shortly after).
But [Trump campaign digital media chief Brad Parscale ] and Trump just did unbelievable work. They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes. They weren’t microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion.
“Creative” is a noun in the marketing world, used to describe the particular advertisements designed to deliver messages. Mr. Bosworth fears that Team Trump is still really good at creating them and therefore he fears that Mr. Trump may win again. “As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result. So what stays my hand?,” asks Mr. Bosworth. He writes, “I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment. Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her. As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.”

This column is skeptical that Facebook decides the outcomes of U.S. elections, but applauds Mr. Bosworth’s effort to encourage his Silicon Valley colleagues to act with integrity. Also encouraging is that he’s just the latest Valley resident to attempt to provide a reality check to anti-Trump partisans.

Readers may recall Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s December, 2018 visit to the House Judiciary committee. That’s when Chairman Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) asked if Google knew “the full extent to which its online platforms were exploited by Russian actors in the election two years ago”.

Mr. Pichai reported that after a thorough investigation his company had discovered “two main ad accounts linked to Russia” which had spent on Google advertising a grand total of... $4,700. This amounted to roughly 1/234,000th of what Mrs. Clinton spent on advertising during the 2016 campaign.

Meanwhile over at Facebook, the number seems to have been larger but still tiny in comparison to overall political advertising. Writes Mr. Bosworth:

$100,000 in ads on Facebook can be a powerful tool but it can’t buy you an American election, especially when the candidates themselves are putting up several orders of magnitude more money on the same platform (not to mention other platforms).
Instead, the Russians worked to exploit existing divisions in the American public for example by hosting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter protest events in the same city on the same day. The people who shows (sic) up to those events were real even if the event coordinator was not. Likewise the groups of Americans being fed partisan content was real even if those feeding them were not. The organic reach they managed sounds very big in absolute terms and unfortunately humans are bad at contextualizing big numbers. Whatever reach they managed represents an infinitesimal fraction of the overall content people saw in the same period of time and certainly over the course of an election across all media.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12962
    • View Profile
Good article.  What Google and Facebook do everyday to advance liberalism is more than Russia can do in an election cycle.

Russia was/is more interested in sowing discord than getting one candidate elected.

Most Democrats (msm consumers) believe Russia changed actual votes in 2016 and they didn't.

Funny that Democrats don't suspect Russia of swinging the 2018 election to Democrats.  Vote harvesting was a homegrown operation.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11014
    • View Profile
Russians

Republicans

Magas

Nazis

Fascists

Conservatives

White hetero men

= EVIL



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile
Almost makes me want an Alexa
« Reply #463 on: January 30, 2020, 11:28:02 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11014
    • View Profile
Alexa we need guns
« Reply #464 on: January 31, 2020, 04:25:01 AM »
That is a riot

No pun intended for what might be coming....... :wink:



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
WSJ: 9th Circuit rules for Goolag over Prager U.
« Reply #470 on: February 27, 2020, 10:08:40 AM »
Tech Platforms Aren’t Bound by First Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Judges decided against Prager University, which claimed YouTube didn’t have right to flag videos

Google, parent company of YouTube, argued that allowing a conservative nonprofit to pursue a constitutional claim would have ‘disastrous consequences’ for the First Amendment and online discourse.
PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
By Jacob Gershman
Feb. 26, 2020 3:29 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
320
A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday ruled that privately operated internet platforms are free to censor content they don’t like.

Though not unexpected, the unanimous decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco marks the most emphatic rejection of the argument advanced in some conservative circles that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other giant tech platforms are bound by the First Amendment.

The case concerned a YouTube channel operated by Prager University, a nonprofit founded by talk-radio host Dennis Prager that produces short explainer videos promoting conservative ideas. In 2017, PragerU sued YouTube and its parent, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, after YouTube flagged dozens of its videos as “inappropriate,” stripping the clips of advertising and making them less accessible to students, library users and children.

PragerU contended there was nothing offensive about the restricted clips—with such titles as “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” and “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?”—and that it was a victim of viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

It argued that YouTube has essentially turned itself into the operator of a giant public square, a government-like role it says warrants more legal scrutiny of the platform’s content moderation. PragerU brought a similar lawsuit in California state court.

“Obviously, we are disappointed,” said PragerU attorney Peter Obstler. “We will continue to pursue PragerU’s claims of overt discrimination on YouTube in the state court case under California’s heightened antidiscrimination, free-speech and consumer-contract law.”

Google, echoing the wider tech industry, argued that allowing PragerU to pursue a constitutional claim would have “disastrous consequences” for the First Amendment and online discourse.

The feud is part of a wider debate around speech rights in the digital age, where a few giant tech firms own and police the country’s core mediums of communication.

No court has endorsed PragerU’s legal argument. As a general rule, the First Amendment’s speech protections put constraints on government, not the private sector. Exceptions are rare. In one such case, the Supreme Court in 1946 ruled that a Jehovah’s Witness had the right to hand out pamphlets on a sidewalk that was the property of a shipbuilding firm, in an Alabama suburb.

The Ninth Circuit was emphatic: This case was no exception.

“Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” wrote Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown for the three-judge panel, affirming an earlier lower-court ruling.

Circuit Judge McKeown also stated that YouTube’s “braggadocio about its commitment to free speech” doesn’t expose it to a federal false-advertising claim.

“Google’s products are not politically biased,” Farshad Shadloo, a YouTube spokesperson, said in a statement Wednesday. “PragerU’s allegations were meritless, both factually and legally, and the court’s ruling vindicates important legal principles that allow us to provide different choices and settings to users.”

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile
More medical hatespeech
« Reply #480 on: April 28, 2020, 04:37:01 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11014
    • View Profile
fox news political pundits
« Reply #482 on: April 29, 2020, 05:21:49 PM »
Tucker. -  I look forward to his shows  :-D

remember when Rachel Madcow used to be his sidekick yrs ago?

I avoid Hannity mostly
Laura for me has lost a bit of luster

Levin always earns "great one " moniker.  :-D


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
Love Tucker, even when I disagree with him.

Did not know about Rachel.

I think of Hannity as President Trump's press secretary.

Bret Baier Special Report is still very good but the loss of quality reporters such as Katherine Herridge hurts, as does the not-as-stellar-as-they-used-to-be guests on the panel.

Martha M.  does good and fair work.  Love that she regularly has on Gen. Keane.

Laura-- agreed.

Shannon B.:  Easy to overlook because she is so pretty but her self-effacing manner masks some decent lawyerly skills.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
YouTube took down a clip of two California doctors in scrubs with over 5M views.  I gather that someone somewhere posted it outside of the FB/YT Goolag.   Can we find the URL for it?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
This appears to be it but it is on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=537566680274166&ref=watch_permalink

Is there a less vulnerable URL for this?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11014
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
What is Spotify?



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile
So, its a music thing, like Pandora?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile
So, its a music thing, like Pandora?

Mostly.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52067
    • View Profile