No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘Google

Freudian slip

with 16 comments

If Elon Musk’s purchase of 9.2% of Twitter caused Leftie heads to explode, his bid to buy the whole thing has resulted in a complete meltdown over the last week.

The following is a classic example of this because, even though the delivery is calm on the surface, the message is apocalyptic and tells you exactly what these people think they’re already doing to the public.

These responses are over the top not just because they smack of End Days thinking but also because, even with control of Twitter, Musk would be in no position to do anything about the censorship practiced by the rest of the Social Media universe, especially Google/Youtube and Facebook, where pulling advertisements to demonetise people and shadow-banning are at least as powerful weapons on the censorship front as what Twitter has.

The usual MSM hypocrisy is a hoot as well, as shown by these screen captures of the responses from Business Insider and Robert Reich (Secretary of Labour in Bill Clinton’s first term), writing for the Washington Post.

But the Musk-Twitter controversy is an insight into the MSM because a lot of journalists, perhaps all of them, rely on the platform for news and guidelines on the narrative they need to stick to, as well as putting their own stuff out there.

Hence the meltdown in the MSM over this, which is captured here by another journalist’s response.

Greenwald is as Left as it comes and he spent much of the last twenty years fighting what he saw as the GW Bush/Obama administration’s control or influence of the MSM narrative with regard to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Most of the Left were on his side because he was ripping the war mongering neo-conservatives that backed both administrations, although it was telling that many became uncomfortable when he moved straight on to Obama from Bush using the same criticisms because he felt little or nothing had changed.

Now he’s in even more hot water with “his” ideological side, despite the fact that he’s being entirely consistent in his criticism of the MSM, and now Social Media.

Even with the world of Twitter itself, as this article pointed out before Musk pulled the trigger, there are a number of big roadblocks in returning it to being the free speech platform it was a decade ago, and we know they exist because they are what changed it. The article details four steps and shows how they worked before and could work again – possibly destroying Musk in the process.

  1. Blame the platform for its users.
  2. Coordinated pressure campaigns
  3. Exodus of the Bluechecks
  4. Deplatforming

He’d have to fire most of the staff and rebuild from scratch, and I’m not sure that’s possible. Even the remaining staff could still pull stunts behind the scenes with the algorithms that throttle down the re-tweets of “disinformation”.

Also the Babylon Bee stings Twitter with this…. Nice to see Alphabet (You Tube) haven’t followed Twitter in banning Babylon Bee. Yet. My fave part with the Rorschach test:

Mandy: “Nazis…. Nazis…. Nazis….. Oh, I know that one. It’s the Indian symbol for peace. Namaste”

Written by Tom Hunter

April 18, 2022 at 11:18 am

Kill Big Tech – and the CIA, DHS

with 2 comments

The next GOP President needs to treat Google, FaceTwit and the rest of the Silicon Valley biggies the same way that Teddy Roosevelt treated Standard Oil.

Bust them up.

People thought oil was a dominant energy as early as the 1900’s, when we were less reliant on it than we are now.

But these people control the information flows of the world, and in the wake of the 2020 election and the shit they pulled with Hunter Biden’s laptop, plus other things about Joe Biden that should have been put before the American voter, it’s obvious that such dominance in the field is far more powerful.

Also, the next GOP President needs to take a hammer to US intelligence agencies, as GW Bush did not do in the wake of the massive failure of the CIA, FBI and the rest on 9/11. Instead he threw yet another blanket of bureaucracy over the top of them called The Department of Homeland Security that supposedly would tie them together more effectively.

They’ve always been political, but now it’s reached levels that are not acceptable for a democracy. They’re not so good at stopping the US getting screwed by its enemies but they’re very good at playing political games in Washington D.C.

Read the Powerline article for the specific list of these assholes and what they’re saying now about Hunter Biden’s laptop in response to follow-up questions. Note also their jobs: there’s no consequences for members of The Establishment.

Another Powerline article sums up the response more accurately

The New York Times expresses no regret because it doesn’t regret what it did. The Times isn’t a newspaper, it is a mouthpiece. Its purpose was obvious. It was the same purpose that animated many other news outlets, Twitter, and the 51 lying spies: they were trying to get Joe Biden elected president.

That effort succeeded. Lying about the laptop was just one of many corners they cut to achieve their desired objective, but poll data suggest that it was one of the most important. If voters had realized how demonstrably corrupt Joe Biden is–no one has ever bribed Hunter Biden–polls suggest that Donald Trump would have been re-elected. Liberal news outlets are proud of the fact that they acted together to prevent that awful possibility. If it took some lies to accomplish the mission, so what?

Thus, I attribute little significance to the New York Times’ casual acknowledgement that it blew the Hunter laptop story–really, it blew the 2020 election, if you think the Times is trying to report objectively on the news. But of course no one thinks that. For the Times, Twitter, and countless other liberal institutions, their lies about Joe Biden and Donald Trump accomplished the intended mission. There will be no apologies, no regrets–only, behind the scenes, discreet high fives.

The same is true of every person around the world who supported Joe Biden.

Written by Tom Hunter

March 21, 2022 at 7:42 am

What is censorship?

With the rise of Social Media websites that have created vast public spaces for discussion this question has been arising more frequently that it has in the past when censorship simply meant a government preventing you from speaking.

At present, because the likes of FaceTwit have banished President Trump from their spaces along with other Right Wing voices, the Lefty luvvies assume that Zuckerberg and company are on their side, so are more than happy to play the whole “Private Sector rights” back on to the Right – baking celebratory gay wedding cakes etc. In this they’re still being joined by the NeverTrump fanatics and the Libertarians.

You would think that the inconsistencies of the bans, with the likes of Iranian and CCP voices being allowed to remain while they punch out their propaganda, would cause the Left to think more deeply about this, but at present partisanship rules in the USA and as long as OrangeManBad is banned it’s all good.

Even the Socialist Workers Party had their access restored so they were probably quite happy to drop the subject.

I covered a fair bit of this double standard bullshit on a previous post, The Purge, back in February, including this quote aimed at the hard-line, private-sector-rulz Right Wing:

To be frank, anyone still defending big tech is part of the problem. You are going to “muh private company” yourself until every semblance of freedom is lost on these monopolistic “public squares.” And while some may be naive enough to think the ban monster isn’t coming for them, the next four years are going to get worse. Twitter, Facebook, etc. have no fear anymore. Trump is gone. The GOP lost the Senate and no longer control the committees. It’s a free for all, and everyone except those who are in hock with social media monetarily (i.e. The Dispatch crew) are vulnerable.

On that last, you should also refer to the counter-argument about such “private” spaces in the post, Answers to Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments.

Of course there are some governments that, as Tatinia McGrath spotted, FaceTwit are comfortable with, given that they slobber at the prospect of hundreds of millions of new customers.

But now the government of Nigeria has gone after Twitter.

This follows on from the government of Uganda doing the same thing to Facebook and Twitter back in January (Not Literary Folk), fearing that they might also choose political sides in their upcoming election as they had in the USA. The FaceTwit response then was to reveal that they have no idea what irony is.

“Access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter, is never more important than during democratic processes, particularly elections.”

This time their reaction was a little different, if equally stupid:

Wait! What? Access to them is “an essential human right in modern society”. ?

I know a guy named Donald Trump and 75 million Americans who might want to dispute the commitment of you assholes to that “right”. Or those who want to report on Hunter “Cocaine” Biden’s laptop. Or discussing gender vs. biology. Or comment on some CCP prick lying about the Chinese Sinus AIDS virus. Or discuss Chinese lab leak “conspiracies”.

Yeah, it’s a “human right” unless, apparently, you say something that FaceTwit/Google/Amazon don’t like. Then you’re gone, or certainly what you had to say is gone or dumped into a cyber Black Hole from which it can’t spread.

Yeah. That’s not the way “human rights” work, fuckers.

Still, it’s nice to know that FaceTwit have willfully denied Trump an essential human right.

I say we burn them to the ground. Well, their server farms at least.

Written by Tom Hunter

June 16, 2021 at 6:00 am

Bad Timing for Big Tech to pick a fight with the State

Google has threatened to pull its entire search engine capability from Australia.

This was made quite clear by their Australia-NZ Managing Director, Mel Silva, in his opening statement to the Australian Senate’s Economics Committee Inquiry:

“If this version of the Code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia. That would be a bad outcome not just for us, but for the Australian people, media diversity and small businesses who use Google Search.”

Given that Google dominates the online search engine market, with an incredible 88.14 percent market share (Oct ’20), that’s a substantial threat to those small businesses – and all of Australia.

Over the past few years there has been sporadic discussion in various nations about forcing the likes of Google to pay for the content of the news media that they link with. Naturally this has been proposed by the Legacy MSM, as they’ve watched their subscriptions nosedive and advertising revenue vanish into places like EBay, Craigs List and TradeMe since the early 2000’s. But Google is there as well, since it gets a small slice of the money when somebody finds a service or product they want to buy via the Google search engine.

But after all the talk, little has been done, even in Europe, until now.

The proposed Australian law would force digital platforms to enter into negotiations with news media companies to pay for content. If the tech companies and media companies fail to reach an agreement, the law would empower an arbiter to determine the payments. Google is obviously not happy about this, hence the threat.

Google’s larger problem is that in the wake of the things done by Big Tech in the recent US election, even Right-Wing political leaders who could normally be expected to defend business, aren’t quite that keen to do so any longer, as PM Scott Morrison made clear in response to a question at his latest press conference:

Let me be clear. Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our Parliament. It’s done by our government and that’s how things work here in Australia and people who want to work with that in Australia, you’re very welcome. But we don’t respond to threats.

Morrison is not the only leader that’s starting to push back against Big Tech. The nations of the European Union have long had the reputation of sticking it to America’s tech titans, as witnessed years ago when they levied a $US 794 million fine against Microsoft for its monopolistic practices against non-MS software products that needed to operate on MS Windows if they were to have a business.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH..(cough)

Google and Amazon make Microsoft look like pikers in the monopoly department, no more so than when they effectively destroyed a Facebook competitor, Parler, by denying to sell its online app (Google and Apple) and then denying it the servers it needed as a platform (Amazon).

That’s just the usual area of anti-trust and anti-monopoly law. But all this has happened in the wake of Facebook and Twitter banning the accounts of President Trump and thousands of Right-Wing online voices. The Euro’s, even hating Trump as they do, were not impressed:

“The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing,” wrote Thierry Breton, the European Union’s commissioner for the internal market on Politico. “It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.”

Merkel’s chief spokesperson Steffen Seibert said, “The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. “Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.” He said that they didn’t have issue flagging a post. if it was ‘inaccurate, but that they should not be banning speech.

U.K Health Secretary Matt Hancock also blasted Big Tech for what they had done, for making “editorial decisions” which then raised a “very big question” about how social media is regulated. “That’s clear because they’re choosing who should and shouldn’t have a voice on their platform,” Hancock said.

And their had been earlier warnings, such as one from psychologist Robert Epstein (who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016):

“We’re finding very substantial pro-liberal bias in all ten or at least nine out of ten search results on the first page of Google search results… not on Bing or Yahoo though,” Epstein reported. “And we’re seeing that bias in every single demographic group. In fact, in one report we generated recently, we saw more liberal bias in Google content going to conservatives than going to liberals.”

It’s hardly a surprise that the California-based giants swing Democrat hard in their political donations. It literally goes with the territory.

A 2018 survey found that conservative employees in Silicon Valley tech companies live in fear that their political beliefs will be found out. James Damore said conservatives at Google are “in the closet” and that Google executives are digging through a secret email list in order to out them.

It’s never a good idea for any business, no matter how large, to pick political fights, because you can never guarantee that the side you pick will always be in power.

European politicians have a different motivation; they guard the power of the state much more closely and jealously than their counterparts in the USA, which has a history of not trusting government and supporting the private sector against governments. In the USA there are still Republicans who will defend the likes of Facebook and Google against the regulatory efforts of the EU and Australia, but after the stunts that Big Tech pulled before and after the US election against GOP voices, the ranks of those GOP defenders must be dwindling.

Ultimately it will be a combination of private and public sector efforts that are going to whittle away at the likes of Google, as happened with previous IT monsters like IBM and Microsoft.

And those efforts might be led by another super-rich person – actually the richest man on the planet at present – as shown by his re-Tweet of a Babylon Bee satirical article.

Elon Musk has long made known his displeasure about the likes of Facebook, on more than one occasion leading chants of “Fuck Zuck. Fuck Zuck“, as he did just the other day when he playfully discussed buying Facebook:

“You know, when I told some close confidantes about this idea of mine, they all wanted to know what I’d do with Facebook,” Musk explained. “And as much as I know people like to use it as the Internet’s premier ex-girlfriend or boyfriend stalking platform, I think I have much better solution, and I mean better for the species, if not our entire planet.”

Musk showed the investors in the room an animated video that detailed his plans for Facebook. The video shows a SpaceX Falcon rocket blasting off into the sky. At one point the two solid boosters fall off and glide on a precise path down to the landing pad. Both rockets land perfectly square, and one ends up resting gently on a big red button labeled “DELETE.”

“And you can see that the second side booster would end up pressing the delete button,” Musk said. “Which would send a proton torpedo down the exhaust port of Facebook’s headquarters, triggering a chain reaction that should destroy the platform.”

He’s got my support. Google and their ilk need to wake up to the fact that they’re making a lot of political and business enemies very quickly.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 23, 2021 at 8:29 am

The Trouble With Big Tech

I’ve often said that in a Web world dominated by the Social Media sites that have emerged over the last decade, the world of internet blogs that pre-dated Facebook, Twitter and other such sites, should be prepared to support eachother.

I’ve long concluded that it was a mistake for any political groups to abandon the free-wheeling world of the Web, circa 2000-2010, for these corporate walled gardens and I hope to see a reversal over time. Right now in the USA the Left, despite some grumbling, continues to play ball with FaceTwit Inc., but that’s only because they appear to be all in on the Democrat side in this election. That will not always be the case.

The time to hit back seems more appropriate than ever in the wake of Twitter and company trying to crack down and restrict the New York Post’s detailed reports on Hunter Biden’s corruption and the links with his father. While it’s nice to know that the Streisand Effect has taken off, with the story now exploding across the non-MSM world, it’s a pointer to an Nineteen Eighty Four future, albeit not precisely the one imagined by Orwell.

To that end there was an article written the other day by Tennessee law professor, Glenn Reynolds, that addressed these Social Media companies, what they have been doing and what may happen as a consequence. Reynolds is the author of Instapundit, one of the oldest blogs, and his latest article merely referenced the Hunter Biden scandal. However, that was enough for the newspaper USA Today to refuse to print it, after years of publishing his thoughtful pieces. So to that end, here it is in full. The original, complete with links I’ve not included here, can be found at here at Instapundit.

BIG TECH BURNED BY BIDEN BLUNDER

by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

In my 2019 book, The Social Media Upheaval, I warned that the Big Tech companies — especially social media giants like Facebook and Twitter — had grown into powerful monopolists, who were using their power over the national conversation to not only sell ads, but also to promote a political agenda. That was pretty obvious last year, but it was even more obvious last week, when Facebook and Twitter tried to black out the New York Post’s blockbuster report about emails found on a laptop abandoned by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

The emails, some of which have been confirmed as genuine with their recipients, show substantial evidence that Hunter Biden used his position as Vice President Joe Biden’s son to extract substantial payments from “clients” in other countries. There are also photos of Hunter with a crack pipe, and engaging in various other unsavory activities. And they demolished the elder Biden’s claim that he never discussed business with his son.

That’s a big election-year news story. Some people doubted its genuineness, and of course it’s always fair to question a big election-year news story, especially one that comes out shortly before the election. (Remember CBS newsman Dan Rather’s promotion of what turned out to be forged memos about George W. Bush’s Air National Guard service?)

But the way you debate whether a story is accurate or not is by debating. (In the case of the Rather memos, it turned out the font was from Microsoft Word, which of course didn’t exist back during the Vietnam War era.) Big Tech could have tried an approach that fostered such a debate. But instead of debate, they went for a blackout: Both services actually blocked links to the New York Post story. That’s right: They blocked readers from discussing a major news story by a major paper, one so old that it was founded by none other than Alexander Hamilton.

I wasn’t advising them — they tend not to ask me for my opinion — but I would have advised against such a blackout. There’s a longstanding Internet term called “the Streisand effect,” going back to when Barbara Streisand demanded that people stop sharing pictures of her beach house. Unsurprisingly, the result was a massive increase in the number of people posting pictures of her beach house. The Big Tech Blackout produced the same result: Now even people who didn’t care so much about Hunter Biden’s racket nonetheless became angry, and started talking about the story.

As lefty journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Intercept, Twitter and Facebook crossed a line far more dangerous than what they censored. Greenwald writes: “Just two hours after the story was online, Facebook intervened. The company dispatched a life-long Democratic Party operative who now works for Facebook — Andy Stone, previously a communications operative for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, among other D.C. Democratic jobs — to announce that Facebook was ‘reducing [the article’s] distribution on our platform’: in other words, tinkering with its own algorithms to suppress the ability of users to discuss or share the news article. The long-time Democratic Party official did not try to hide his contempt for the article, beginning his censorship announcement by snidely noting: ‘I will intentionally not link to the New York Post.’”

“Twitter’s suppression efforts went far beyond Facebook’s. They banned entirely all users’ ability to share the Post article — not just on their public timeline but even using the platform’s private Direct Messaging feature.”

“Early in the day, users who attempted to link to the New York Post story either publicly or privately received a cryptic message rejecting the attempt as an ‘error.’ Later in the afternoon, Twitter changed the message, advising users that they could not post that link because the company judged its contents to be ‘potentially harmful.’ Even more astonishing still, Twitter locked the account of the New York Post, banning the paper from posting any content all day and, evidently, into Thursday morning.”

This went badly. The heads Facebook and of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, are now facing Senate subpoenas, the RNC has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing that Twitter’s action in blacking out a damaging story constituted an illegal in-kind donation to the Biden Campaign, and most significantly, everyone is talking about the story now, with many understandably assuming that if the story were false, it would have been debunked rather than blacked out.

CNN’s Jake Tapper tweeted: ”Congrats to Twitter on its Streisand Effect award!!!” Big Tech shot itself in the foot, and it didn’t stop the signal.

Regardless of who wins in November, it’s likely that there will be substantial efforts to rein in Big Tech. As Greenwald writes, “State censorship is not the only kind of censorship. Private-sector repression of speech and thought, particularly in the internet era, can be as dangerous and consequential. Imagine, for instance, if these two Silicon Valley giants united with Google to declare: henceforth we will ban all content that is critical of President Trump and/or the Republican Party, but will actively promote criticisms of Joe Biden and the Democrats.

“Would anyone encounter difficulty understanding why such a decree would constitute dangerous corporate censorship? Would Democrats respond to such a policy by simply shrugging it off on the radical libertarian ground that private corporations have the right to do whatever they want? To ask that question is to answer it.”

“To begin with, Twitter and particularly Facebook are no ordinary companies. Facebook, as the owner not just of its massive social media platform but also other key communication services it has gobbled up such as Instagram and WhatsApp, is one of the most powerful companies ever to exist, if not the most powerful.”

He’s right. And while this heavyhanded censorship effort failed, there’s no reason to assume that other such efforts won’t work in the future. Not many stories are as hard to squash as a major newspaper’s front page expose during an presidential election.

As I wrote in The Social Media Upheaval, the best solution is probably to apply antitrust law to break up these monopolies: Competing companies would police each other, and if they colluded could be prosecuted under antitrust law. There are also moves to strip them of their immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from being sued for things posted or linked on their sites on the theory that they are platforms, not publishers who make publication decisions. And Justice Clarence Thomas has recently called for the Supreme Court to revisit the lower courts’ interpretation of Section 230, which he argues has been overbroad. A decade ago there would have been much more resistance to such proposals, but Big Tech has tarnished its own image since then.

Had Facebook and Twitter approached this story neutrally, as they would have a decade ago, it would probably already be old news to a degree — as Greenwald notes, Hunter’s pay-for-play efforts were already well known, if not in such detail — but instead the story is still hot. More importantly, their heavy handed action has brought home just how much power they wield, and how crudely they’re willing to wield it. They shouldn’t be surprised at the consequences.

Written by Tom Hunter

October 21, 2020 at 6:22 am

Panoptigoogle

While reading an article about the decline of LA earlier today I came upon a comment about Google’s HQ – specifically their parking buildng.


Here’s a photo of it.

Seriously!

It’s like they just really want to rub your face in the fact that they’re tracking the living shit out of you in every aspect of your life 24/7, to a degree that the NSA could only dream of. And like Bentham’s concept, nobody really knows they’re being watched, or worse yet they don’t care if they are. Worst of all, they crave to be so.

And of course by contrast this building has all the private security you could want in the world:

Private security guards wander round as a handful of employees returning after lockdown drive into the complex in their Teslas, Porsches and Range Rovers.

Charity worker Robert (he declined to give his last name) mans two portable toilets opposite the Google HQ. Recently released from jail, this menial job is the only work he can get. He says two people have overdosed in the toilets in the past two weeks.

Why isn’t Antifa, BLM and every other communist in the USA protesting and rioting outside of these assholes HQ every fucking day? Hell, even I might join them – if I was stupid enough to live in LA in the first place.

You know the answer as to why they don’t. Of course.

In fact I’d guess that Google knows more about almost every individual in the world than the NSA does.

NSA HQ, Fort Meade, Maryland

Classy building though. Reminds me of something else, although there are fewer worshippers and public displays of affection are definitely not encouraged.

Given their technology capabilities, wealth and the fact that 90% of their staff donate to and 99% support the Democrat Party I think Google should have gone for the whole holographic version of this…

.. because there’s really no reason for them to bother with their shit motto any longer:

Written by Tom Hunter

August 17, 2020 at 6:45 pm

Humans and Reality (Updated)

An interesting analysis of actual causes of death compared to the most common Google searches for them, compared to New York Times coverage of them, compared to The Guardian‘s coverage of them.

Amusing that The Guardian is little different to the NYT, since that’s not how they see themselves.

I think that this demonstrates two things that we already knew about the NYT and The Guardian and probably the rest of the MSM as well, including Fox News.

First, that the phrase that became prominent in the 1970’s about local TV stations in the US – “If it bleeds, it leads” – applies just as much as ever, and to supposedly “high class” media outlets like the two that were studied, whatever their pretensions to solid, deep reporting. That stuff’s expensive, while reporting on crime and death is cheap, and probably gets larger audiences.

Secondly, it demonstrates that the reason for this is that humans focus on the dramatic rather than the mundane, on bad news rather than good news. On death; deaths of individuals, deaths of societies,  the death of the planet.  The MSM are simply led even further in those directions by their desperate desire for readers and viewers and the need to do it as cheaply as possible.

Now none of this is new information, but it’s nice to see it confirmed with actual data. And of course Social Media is even worse in leading people down rabbit holes of hysterical insanity. You could probably accuse blogs of doing the same, but even in their heyday I don’t think they were as bad as Twitter/Facebook/Tumblr and the rest.

And as recent articles and thought-pieces have concluded, they’re doing this because human brains are wired this way – except that they’re much better at tweaking those brains for clicks and attention than the old MSM ever was. Facebook’s constantly changing algorithms are designed entirely around keeping people ginned up in their echo chambers and looking at the screen for the next dopamine hit.

On social media, a “share” or “retweet” takes but a second, and research indicates that most people never read anything but the headline before sharing. This facilitates the rapid spread of outrage mobs, conspiracy theories and hysteria.

Things are made worse by the fact that social media sites operate under algorithms that promote “engagement,” which generally means emotion. And because, as tech visionary Jaron Lanier has written, the easiest emotions to engage are the negative emotions, the effect of social media platforms’ algorithms is to amplify negative feelings.

The more you use them, the angrier and sadder you’re likely to become. (And they’re quite consciously designed to be addictive.)

It’s pretty ugly. Hardly a surprise that it’s turned out that many of these tech titans won’t let their own kids play with their products.

Written by Tom Hunter

June 17, 2019 at 7:44 pm

Posted in New Zealand

Tagged with , , ,

Facebook: Why Adern & Macron may get their wish

Jenna Ellis Rives is a constitutional lawyer and author, but she was part of the Trump campaign, which is likely why this sharing of Matt Walsh’s mockery resulted in the breaching of Facebook’s “hate speech standards”.
Similarly on Wednesday, Twitter suspended the account of Greg Scott, director of media at the incredibly evil Heritage Foundation. Scott tweeted out the same article I referred to here on No Minister a couple of weeks ago, about a guy who identifies as a woman and was booted from competing in women’s weightlifting.
Wonder how long Julia Beck and Miriam Ben-Shalom, as just two feminist examples, will last on FB and Twitter?
My bet is that after 24-48 hours or so Facebook will lift the block and “apologise”, but that’s geological ages in social media world: nice way to bury opposing arguments in the heat of debate.
Maybe blogs will make a come back?
Either way these companies should not look to the GOP or any right-wingers with our usual support for free enterprise, when the Democrats and EU come hunting for scalps at Google, Facebook and the others. Let them burn in their own fire.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 17, 2019 at 9:06 pm

Goodbye Google

Readers will be aware a number of major tech companies e g Google, Facebook, Twitter have moved towards what can only be called political censorship, whereby conservative comments are blocked and conservative sites harassed.

The latest episode concerning Google has prompted a potentially damaging action from an employee who was fired for expressing quite mild views which did not comply with the PC leftist group-think of the corporation.

Adolf is grateful for a commenter at Bloomberg who provided detail of an alternative search engine, duckduckgo.com.

Adolf will not be returning to Google nor does he use Facebook or Twitter.

Written by adolffinkensen

January 15, 2018 at 2:03 am

Posted in New Zealand

Tagged with