Leaked Google Emails Reveal Internal Discussion On Burying Articles From Conservative Outlets

This blog, online since 2005, and our predecessor Little Nicky Machiavelli have been reporting on the corporate malfeasance of Google since the search giant launched.

Google has always been politically motivated, the two semi autistic nerds reputed to have created the technology went straight from being socially challenged college kids to being billionaires, totally missing out of real life aling the way. Thus they have always clung to the kind of naive, extremist political positions embraced by students. After the 2016 election the corporation was exposed as having tried to help Hillary Clinton win, and who beside themselves with angst after she lost. Since then Google has been at the forefront of the Democrats campaign of misinformation, disinformation, distortion, misrepresentation and downright lies aimed to stirring up suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign and the government of Russia to steal the election. Unfortunately such evidence as has come to light suggests Google and social media giant Facebook were the only organisations meddling in the election, and they were on the side of Clinton.

Now leaked documents show high level meetings of Google’s management discussed whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function after Donald Trump became president, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation‘s Peter Hasson.


Google founders Page & Brin, liberals, leftists, privacy abusers, election meddlers, fake news spreaders and general cunts (picture: Zero Hedge)

Internal communications obtained by the The Daily Caller reveal that The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out for potential censorship.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.” –DCNF

Not all Google employees agreed with the notion of censoring conservative outlets; engineer Uri Dekel – a self-described Clinton supporter, argued that manipulating search results was the wrong approach.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote Byer in a reply, adding “I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories”

Another engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested that the company could avoid “accusations of conspiracy or bias” by using technology to “trace information to its source, to link to critiques of these sources, and let people decide what sources they believe.”

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-byte,” added Brauwerman.

Other Google employees have expressed support for providing context to sources in order to “help” users evaluate information. Unfortunately, the search giant’s solution was to employ fact-checking organizations with a liberal bias, such as Snopes, which has never exposed a Democrat lie and never acknowledged a Republican truth.

According to the Caller. Google eventually pulled their fact-checkers in January, crediting an investigation by the Daily Caller in their decision.

Google claims that the email conversation did not lead to the manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.” –DCNF

Anyone who still believes anything an official spokesperson says or that is included in a Google press realease is obviously two bits short of a byte – speaking of which, if you want to know do Google manipulate search results, a Google search for “Idiot” returns pictures of the Trump family, while the same search in DuckDuckGo is completely different:

vs:

This isn’t the first time Google have been caught manipulating search results either:

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

Meanwhile, President Trump told the Daily Caller in September he suspectted that Google and Facebook were trying to manipulate election outcomes in the 2018 US midterm elections.

RELATED POSTS:
Google is the enemy and must be destroyed (or freedom dies forever)

Can We Control Big Tech Corporations

We learned today that the British government is to fine Facebook £500,000 for its part in the abuse of uers’ private information in the Cambridge Analytica scandal which doinated the news for a couple of weeks earlier in the year. At the same time Google is facing much larger fines imposed by the EU, for the offence of manipulating search results to benefits its own interests. These amounts are unlikely to make any difference as they are paltry to the big tech companies. Google, we hear, are so worried by the fine that they are in business as usual mode.

So how can we bring the big tech companies to heel, break up their monopolies and convince the arrogant, inexperienced CEOs that LAWS apply to everybody.

There was a well thought out article in The Guardian a few days ago that takes a constrictive look at the problem

I Told You Google Were Evil

Dr. Evil’s even more evil twin, Dr. Google (source)

Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission

I was always puzzled by they way Google became so dominant in the internet search market, OK Google would return a million results on your search and nerdy types are always impressed by big numbers but really, nerds aside, who would consider ‘most linked’, ‘most viewed’, ‘most recent’ and likely to earn most advertizing revenue as the best criteria foe grading the quality of content?

When however I learned beyond reasonable doubt last year that Google is really a subsidiary of the United States Department Of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) things made sense. Almost anything can be made to happen if you have unlimited money to throw at making it happen.

It also explains why Google (corporate motto – Don’t be evil) are the most evil corporate business on the planet (well, apart from Monsanto maybe, but they are the only serious contenders.

So how evil are Google? Have a read at this from The Guardian:

Privacy campaigners and open source developers are up in arms over the secret installing of Google software which is capable of listening in on conversations held in front of a computer.

First spotted by open source developers, the Chromium browser – the open source basis for Google’s Chrome – began remotely installing audio-snooping code that was capable of listening to users.

It was designed to support Chrome’s new “OK, Google” hotword detection – which makes the computer respond when you talk to it – but was installed, and, some users have claimed, it is activated on computers without their permission.

“Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”
Google to exclude ‘revenge porn’ from internet searches
Read more

The spyware feature is installed by default as part of Google’s Chrome browser. But open source advocates are up in arms about it also being installed with the open source variant Chromium, because the listening code is considered to be “black box”, not part of the open source audit process.

“We don’t know and can’t know what this black box does,” said Falkvinge.

READ FULL ARTICLE at The Guardian

When Algorithms Rule The World

Google, Facebook, Amazon: algorithms will soon rule our lives so we’d better understand how they work

A very scary item is hidden away the the government’s budget for this year – not an allocation of funs for joining in the Thiord World War, nor a chunk of money for building wind farms everywhere so coal and oil power stations can be closed and the weirdie beardies can have their wish and make us all sit shivering in the darmk and playing I-spy-with-my-little-eye for entertainment. It was actually the £220 was million of government funding for the new Alan Turing Institute for “big data and algorithm” research.

Today, with the awesome processing power of modern computers and the “big data” analysis, algorithms designed to analyse the shitloads of data illegally obtained every day by government security agencies and evil corporate entities like google and Microsoft, algorithms increasingly manipulate or even control what information we have access to. Technology can also be used to influence our choice of products and with our social behaviour.

In spite of all that, many people still have no idea what algorithms can do or how they are used. An algorithm is just a simple formula which must be followed to calculate the answer to a mathematical problem. (The word “algorithm” itself is derived from the eighth-century Persian mathematician Al-Khwa-rizmi- but the concept goes all the way back to the Greeks.)

Algorithms are vital to the internet because they help to order and arrange vast volumes of data at a scale and speed impossible for a human. Google’s famous PageRank algorithm counts the number of links to a page and assesses their quality to determine how important a website is. The quality and quantity of websites’ links to each other are compared and ordered; the more important websites are displayed first on the Google search page when a search query is entered. It has long been suspected however that Google’s algorithm favours those sites which bring the search engine operator revenue, though Google, a notoriously secretive corporation, are never likely to admit this.

All other search engines have similar algorithms although it is probably true to say the others do not seek to exercise the Orwellian levels of control over information as Google do.

All internet search technologies are based on proprietary algorithms. Having better algorithms than opponents is at the core of Amazon’s future plans, on Christmas Eve 2013, they patented something called a “method and system for anticipatory package shipping”: an algorithm-based system that could potentially ship products before consumers place an order for them. Algorithms that make the best sense of data can earn companies billions. That’s why they are as closely guarded as the recipe for Coca-Cola. Don’t be too scared however, when I start typing a search term and Google’s predictive text algorithm tries to complete it for me, it has never been right yet, and thus far Amazon has never recommended for me a book that I am ever likely to buy (it has recommended books that I would enjoy reading, but in these cases I’ve already read them and occasionally have actually previously bought them from Amazon. How clever is that?)

There social and economic benefits from being able to process data at much more quickly and efficiently than humans, though these fall some way short of the advantages nerds claim will be gained from letting computers do all the thinking. Some commentators believe that algorithm-led data analysis of NHS records could result in huge improvements in treatment outcomes, as we’d get a much better understanding of works and what doesn’t. If the price we must pay for these as yet unquantified benefits is loss of privacy and the sharing of our personal data with private healthcare and Big Pharma corporations, as has been suggested, are we willing to pay it given the track record of such corporations for abuses of trust.

OK, so I’m a serial dissident who feels he must always challenge the wisdom of the crowd. I’m not the only one who thinks this way however. Evgeny Morozov thinks all of this algorithmic analysis of personal information on a massive scale amounts to an incremental erosion of privacy by private companies and the state, and could even end up in Minority Report-style preventive policing. Others, like Filter Bubble author Eli Pariser, believe that by trying to use what they erroniously and arrogantly refer to as “Artificial Intelligence” (it’s really just high speed sorting and retrieval) their search engine predict our preferences with his search function, Google “limits our opportunities for serendipity, discovery, exploration” – we end up reading and watching the same things, having our horizons slowly narrowed.

As I have been saying for years, everything government and corporations do is about control and power.

RELATED POSTS:
Pissed Off With Government/Microsoft/Google Online Spying? Be Completely Anonymous Online
Internet technology menu