Trump to ‘look into’ Facebook censorship after site gags his social media chief
President Donald Trump has promised to look into accusations of anti-conservative bias on Facebook, after the social media giant apparently blocked his social media chief Dan Scavino from commenting.
Scavino complained on Monday that Facebook had abruptly blocked him from replying to his followers, with the company claiming his comments had been reported as spam.
“AMAZING. WHY ARE YOU STOPPING ME from replying to comments,” he wrote. “People have the right to know. Why are you silencing me???”
“I will be looking into this!” Trump tweeted in response. The president has often accused Silicon Valley tech companies of discriminating against conservative users, and did so again on Tuesday. “Facebook, Google and Twitter, not to mention the Corrupt Media, are sooo on the side of the Radical Left Democrats,” he tweeted. “But fear not, we will win anyway, just like we did before!”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly dismissed accusations of liberal bias directed at the company. Grilled by Republican lawmakers on the topic last year, Zuckerberg claimed that their examples of censorship were once-off mistakes, but did admit that most of his employees probably lean left politically.
These accusations have come from within the company too. An anonymous whistleblower told conservative watchdog Project Veritas last month that Facebook actively developed and uses “deboosting” tools to suppress and delete right-wing content. Last year, a Facebook employee called the company a liberal “monoculture that’s intolerant of different views,”and savaged Facebook’s workforce for being “quick to attack – often in mobs – anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”
The employee’s rant, posted on an internal message board, attracted the support of more than 100 other workers, who formed a group called ‘FB’ers for Political Diversity.’
Screw the Christchurch Shooter and Screw the Mainstream Media
Published on Mar 15, 2019
Repeat after me; content creators, are not, responsible, for the actions, of their fans. Candace Owens and pewdiepie don’t cause violence you twits.
Soros/Media Matters Manifesto to Destroy the Right Is Alarmingly Successful
The memo/manifesto, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” outlines Brock’s four-year agenda to attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Shareblue, each with their own strategy and attack plan.
Created by Brock, the document was given out at a private meeting with deep-pocketed liberals/leftists in January. The meeting was led by David Brock, founder of Media Matters and a close ally of George Soros who also provides much of his funding.
On the surface, it’s a plan to influence the media and the public over the next four years but, at its core, it is a plan to manipulate and control the populace.
The nuanced document claims the moral high-ground and insists they have the “moral responsibility” to fight the right-wing.
The talk of impeachment is Media Matters idea; controlling Google and Facebook is their idea; delegitimizing Trump’s presidency and Republicans – their idea; partnering with Facebook and Google to fight so-called “fake news” – theirs.
Everything they outlined is taking place.
Media Matters will expand to do the following
For the next four years, Media Matters will, according to the document, fight right-wing “misinformation” and “propaganda”; “Google and Facebook” will not “enrich fake news sites and propagandists” [they will punish the sites if they don’t cooperate]; “alt-right social media harassment campaigns…will be punished and halted.
They are in fact going after everything right-wing.
They have a goal of promoting good journalism but it is based on their view that the right-wing is extreme and the mainstream news is journalism.
Their issues include correcting “misinformation” on left-wing issues of LGBT, workers’ rights, treatment of immigrants (illegal), gun control, gender equality, reproductive health (abortion on demand), climate and energy and economic policy [tax, spend, regulate]. If you look at their Progressive agenda, which includes identity politics, and compare it to that of the Communist Party USA, you will find them comparable.
They have the raw data of social media
Gateway Pundit has been analyzing it and pulled out the following paragraph indicating they have the raw data from social media sites.
“Media Matters has already secured access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. We have also put in place the technology necessary to automatically mine white nationalist message boards and alt-right communities for our archive.
We will now develop technologies and processes to systematically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
With the raw data, they can control every facet of social media and, as a result, the minds of readers.
For example, on p. 43, they wrote they were building an algorithm at the time of printing that is “specifically designed to amplify negative content for Trump and deliver positive content to bolster the resistance. Further, by pulling the most widely shared progressive content from the top 1,000 social media accounts, Shareblue’s algorithm will not only aggregate, but drive news and opinion.” [Shareblue is their left-wing answer to Breitbart].
Also, Media Matters has mapped the right-wing “fake news” sites, prioritized them, and has helped Google tailor their policies for advertising to shut these sites out.
They are behind the shutting down of the right on Facebook and Google by their own admission (p.12).
Having a wide reach isn’t enough, they want to recruit and train other bloggers to call out and shut down the right-wing. With the raw data and the cooperation of Google and Facebook, it won’t be hard for them to do and we already see it happening.
They also have the opposition research thanks to American Bridge. It’s American Bridge’s job to research, collect, store and disseminate their huge database of information to level the opposition.
The targets
The President of Media Matters, they admit, shut down Glenn Beck and got advertisers to pull ads from Limbaugh.
This document was printed before O’Reilly was forced off the air but The New York Times already published an article stating Media Matters spearheaded the silencing of O’Reilly by bullying his advertisers.
They say they derailed Rudy Giuliani’s cabinet nomination using their knowledge of his business connections.
They take credit for driving up the Koch brothers’ negatives. Koch’s money is “dark money” but theirs isn’t.
They are opposed to right-wing radio hosts, Fox News and now information from government agencies because of Trump. They admit they kept Murdoch from expanding.
The document explains how they obliterated Senators Richard Luger and Todd Akin.
The research
Through American Bridge, they are doing opposition research on Republicans to enable “Progressives” [they don’t say Democrats] defeat them in 2017 and 2018.
They have mapped out Donald Trump’s network of businesses and they have the largest video archive. “The campaign to stop him must be nonstop”.
Indeed it is.
On p.22, they talk about finding candidates to compete for Senate seats and Republicans are worried. Five seats will have competitors who are far-left but were also veterans or had some other impressive feature we normally see on the resume of a right-wing candidate.
They are going after every gubernatorial and legislative race.
At one point in the document, they talk about the Trump War Room (p.17, p.20-21) to keep Donald Trump unpopular.
Their wicked watchdog
Using Trump’s business empire as a target, their watchdog group CREW will keep up unrelenting pressure. Targeting all powerful special interests they oppose is on the list.
CREW takes responsibility for 40% of the fines passed out by the FEC in 2016. CREW has an army of pro bono lawyers according to the document.
Their media arm
Shareblue (P.41) is their antidote to Breitbart.
Their editorial priorities are to get Trump, tying him to Russia, and to destroy Pence.
Goals include calling out so-called signs of authoritarianism and championing those who warn us (Antifa?); nonstop coverage of the influence of Vladimir Putin and Russia on Trump and his administration; exposing Trump as weak, a thin-skinned “loser” vulnerable to goading; relentless beating the drum that he has no mandate, didn’t win the popular vote, and is the least popular president in U.S. history.
They are behind the movement to call out Trump’s alleged “conflicts of interest” and the movement to characterize the right as “subversives of the nation’s interests”.
The remainder of the goals are to highlight Trump’s supposed ties to white supremacists, track odious GOP legislation, track and comment on SCOTUS decisions, give positive coverage of Trump critics [it will be profitable], expose media journalists who “normalize Trump”.
To conclude, this is the outline of the assault from the far-left in a war for our culture and our freedoms.
In a footnote to this, several of the Wikileaks documents from Soros’s Open Society Foundation exposed their plan to control all media. Soros is known to have significant financial influence over 30 newspapers and other media outlets. Another Wikileaks email from Open Society revealed their plan to take over every government entity, from the smallest village to the presidency. They thought they were poised to do it until Trump won the presidency.
Soros, who funds Brock and Media Matters also funds Facebook’s “fake news” initiative.
Project Veritas Slams Twitter Execs’ Spying Claims
Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde claim direct messages aren’t monitored
Thursday, March 07, 2019
Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde told podcast host Joe Rogan that direct messages on the social media site are not monitored — a claim challenged by investigative journalist James O’Keefe of Project Veritas.
When asked by Rogan if company employees “read direct messages,” Dorsey replied, “We don’t read direct messages.”
Gadde followed up, explaining that the only direct messages read by employees are those which have been reported to Twitter support.
Rogan pressed further, asking if it was possible for Twitter employees to intentionally peruse a user’s direct messages.
“I don’t think so,” Gadde replied.
However, according to multiple Twitter engineers who discussed the subject of direct messages with undercover Project Veritas journalists, Dorsey and Gadde may have been misleading with their answers, at best.
“There’s teams dedicated to it [reading direct messages],” said Clay Haynes, a senior network security engineer at Twitter. “I mean, we’re talking… at least three or four hundred people… they’re paid to look at dick pics.”
“It is creepy Big Brother.”
Pranay Singh, a direct messaging engineer, revealed that all content shared on the platform — including private messages — are stored on Twitter servers for analytical and advertising purposes.
“So all your sex messages and your dick pics are on my server now,” Singh said. “Everything. Anything you post online.”
“A machine is going to look at it. An algorithm will look at it, and they’ll make a virtual profile about you.”
Watch the full exchange here.
Google Happy to Promote Sharia Law in App Store, But Not Free Speech
By Shane Trejo
The monolithic tech giant Google has demonstrated many times that it does not have respect for basic American values, and the organization is showing its colors again by leaving a Saudi-based app that allows men to track women like animals in its Play Store.
Despite the fact that the blatantly sexist Absher app allows men to invade the privacy of women and rescind their ability to freely travel throughout Saudi Arabia, Google found that it did not violate the rules of its app store. It will remain available so Saudi men can use it to enforce Sharia Law and heinous inequality.
Ex-Muslim women’s rights advocate Yasmine Mohammed is crying foul at Google for fueling ‘archaic misogyny’ because of their apparent alliance with the Saudis.
“What irony,” she said. “In the West these technologies are used to improve lives and in Saudi Arabia they’re used to enforce gender apartheid.”
Meanwhile, Google punishes entities that stand for universal free speech. They booted Gab from its app store because enraged leftists demanded it. Because the platform heroically refuses to censor its content, they were targeted by Orwell’s minions, and Google was more than happy to comply.
“We have had an app on the Play Store for months. This is targeted. We have been very consistent with promoting free and lawful expression and speech for everyone for over a year now,” Gab founder Andrew Torba told Tech Crunch after Google announced their ban.
Google’s video platform, YouTube banned Alex Jones of Infowars from its platform. Infowars is the leading alternative media platform, but the pro-Trump wrong think coming from Jones was ultimately deemed unacceptable for audiences by Google’s wannabe thought controllers.
“All users agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines when they sign up to use YouTube,” YouTube said in a statement. “When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts.”
Although Google pays lip service to fighting hate speech, they are still happy to do the bidding of the most totalitarian governments of the world when it benefits them.
It is not just the Saudis who are lobbying Google and other tech corporationswith great success. Google is also doing the bidding of the communist Chinese as they fight a crucial trade war against the US that will determine the future direction of the global economy.
“Google is planning to launch a censored version of its search engine in China that will blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest,” according to exclusive reporting released last year by The Intercept.
“The project – code-named Dragonfly – has been underway since spring of last year, and accelerated following a December 2017 meeting between Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai and a top Chinese government official, according to internal Google documents and people familiar with the plans.”
Google is happy to serve the enemies of freedom throughout the world with the overriding goal of making Big Brother an inescapable reality.
Until Google proves that they respect American values such as free speech and the right to privacy, they should be appropriately sanctioned, punished and perhaps even banned from the US marketplace.
REVEALED: Google’s Fascist WAR on the Populist Right
By
GOOGLE is using its unfair and unwavering online dominance to crackdown on political ideas, free speech and the populist right and now the world has PROOF the search giant actively alters ‘organic’ search results to favour left-wingers.
The web giant is working to silence the right by de-ranking outlets, figures and content in Google search results and is demonetizing right-wing news websites, the channels of popular right-wing figures in an authoritarian online war.
‘THE SMOKING GUN’: Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Hot Topics …Leaked Convo: ’Tons of White- and Blacklists That Humans Manually Curate’… …Pro-Life Videos Demoted — After Left-Wing Journo Complaint!
By Allum Bokhari
In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”
The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.
The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.
In the leaked discussion thread, a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source.
“We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”
Others were more concerned about the presence of the blacklist. According to the source, the software engineer who started the discussion called the manipulation of search results related to abortion a “smoking gun.”
The software engineer noted that the change had occurred following an inquiry from a left-wing Slate journalist about the prominence of pro-life videos on YouTube, and that pro-life videos were replaced with pro-abortion videos in the top ten results for the search terms following Google’s manual intervention.
“The Slate writer said she had complained last Friday and then saw different search results before YouTube responded to her on Monday,” wrote the employee. “And lo and behold, the [changelog] was submitted on Friday, December 14 at 3:17 PM.”
The manually downranked items included several videos from Dr. Antony Levatino, a former abortion doctor who is now a pro-life activist. Another video in the top ten featured a woman’s personal story of being pressured to have an abortion, while another featured pro-life conservative Ben Shapiro. The Slate journalist who complained to Google reportedthat these videos previously featured in the top ten, describing them in her story as “dangerous misinformation.”
Since the Slate journalist’s inquiry and Google’s subsequent intervention, the top search results now feature pro-abortion content from left-wing sources like BuzzFeed, Vice, CNN, and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. In her report, the Slate journalist acknowledged that the search results changed shortly after she contacted Google.
The manual adjustment of search results by a Google-owned platform contradicts a key claim made under oath by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in his congressional testimony earlier this month: that his company does not “manually intervene on any search result.”
A Google employee in the discussion thread drew attention to Pichai’s claim, noting that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”
One of the posts in the discussion also noted that the blacklist had previously been edited to include the search term “Maxine Waters” after a single Google employee complained the top YouTube search result for Maxine Waters was “very low quality.”
Google’s alleged intervention on behalf of a Democratic congresswoman would be further evidence of the tech giant using its resources to prop up the left. Breitbart News previously reported on leaked emails revealing the company targeted pro-Democrat demographics in its get-out-the-vote efforts in 2016.
According to the source, a software engineer in the thread also noted that “a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland” had been added to the blacklist – another change with potentially dramatic consequences on the national policies of a western democracy.
youtube_controversial_query_blacklist
At least one post in the discussion thread revealed the existence of a file called “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist,” which contains a list of YouTube search terms that Google manually curates. In addition to the terms “abortion,” “abortions,” “Maxine Waters,” and search terms related to the Irish abortion referendum, a Google software engineer noted that the blacklist includes search terms related to terrorist attacks. (the posts specifically mentions that the “Strasbourg terrorist attack” as being on the list).
“If you look at the other entries recently added to the youtube_controversial_query_blacklist(e.g., entries related to the Strasbourg terrorist attack), the addition of abortion seems…out-of-place,” wrote the software engineer, according to the source.
After learning of the existence of the blacklist, Breitbart News obtained a partial screenshot of the full blacklist file from a source within Google. It reveals that the blacklist includes search terms related to both mass shootings and the progressive anti-second amendment activist David Hogg.
This suggests Google has followed the lead of Democrat politicians, who have repeatedly pushed tech companies to censor content related to the Parkland school shooting and the Parkland anti-gun activists. It’s part of a popular new line of thought in the political-media establishment, which views the public as too stupid to question conspiracy theories for themselves.
Here is the partial blacklist leaked to Breitbart:
2117 plane crash Russian
2118 plane crash
2119 an-148
2120 florida shooting conspiracy
2121 florida shooting crisis actors
2122 florida conspiracy
2123 florida false flag shooting
2124 florida false flag
2125 fake florida school shooting
2126 david hogg hoax
2127 david hogg fake
2128 david hogg crisis actor
2129 david hogg forgets lines
2130 david hogg forgets his lines
2131 david hogg cant remember his lines
2132 david hogg actor
2133 david hogg cant remember
2134 david hogg conspiracy
2135 david hogg exposed
2136 david hogg lines
2137 david hogg rehearsing
2120 florida shooting conspiracy
The full internal filepath of the blacklist, according to another source, is:
//depot/google3/googledata/superroot/youtube/youtube_controversial_query_blacklist
Contradictions
Responding to a request for comment, a YouTube spokeswoman said the company wants to promote “authoritative” sources in its search results, but maintained that YouTube is a “platform for free speech” that “allow[s]” both pro-life and pro-abortion content.
YouTube’s full comment:
YouTube is a platform for free speech where anyone can choose to post videos, as long as they follow our Community Guidelines, which prohibit things like inciting violence and pornography. We apply these policies impartially and we allow both pro-life and pro-choice opinions. Over the last year we’ve described how we are working to better surface news sources across our site for news-related searches and topical information. We’ve improved our search and discovery algorithms, built new features that clearly label and prominently surface news sources on our homepage and search pages, and introduced information panels to help give users more authoritative sources where they can fact check information for themselves.
In the case of the “abortion” search results, YouTube’s intervention to insert “authoritative” content resulted in the downranking of pro-life videos and the elevation of pro-abortion ones.
A Google spokesperson took a tougher line than its YouTube subsidiary, stating that “Google has never manipulated or modified the search results or content in any of its products to promote a particular political ideology.”
However, in the leaked discussion thread, a member of Google’s “trust & safety” team, Daniel Aaronson, admitted that the company maintains “huge teams” that work to adjust search results for subjects that are “prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content” – all subjective terms that are frequently used to suppress right-leaning sources.
He also admitted that the interventions weren’t confined to YouTube – they included search results delivered via Google Assistant, Google Home, and in rare cases Google ’s organic search results.
In the thread, Aaronson attempted to explain how search blacklisting worked. He claimed that highly specific searches would generate non-blacklisted results, even controversial ones. But the inclusion of highly specific terms in the YouTube blacklist, like “David Hogg cant remember his lines” – the name of an actual viral video – seems to contradict this.
Aaronson’s full post is copied below:
I work in Trust and Safety and while I have no particular input as to exactly what’s happening for YT I can try to explain why you’d have this kind of list and why people are finding lists like these on Code Search.
When dealing with abuse/controversial content on various mediums you have several levers to deal with problems. Two prominent levers are “Proactive” and “Reactive”:
- Proactive: Usually refers to some type of algorithm/scalable solution to a general problem
- E.g.: We don’t allow straight up porn on YouTube so we create a classifier that detects porn and automatically remove or flag for review the videos the porn classifier is most certain of
- Reactive: Usually refers to a manual fix to something that has been brought to our attention that our proactive solutions don’t/didn’t work on and something that is clearly in the realm of bad enough to warrant a quick targeted solution (determined by pages and pages of policies worked on over many years and many teams to be fair and cover necessary scope)
- E,g.: A website that used to be a good blog had it’s domain expire and was purchased/repurposed to spam Search results with autogenerated pages full of gibberish text, scraped images, and links to boost traffic to other spammy sites. It is manually actioned for violating policy
These Organic Search policies and the consequences to violating them are public
Manually reacting to things is not very scalable, and is not an ideal solution to most problems, so the proactive lever is really the one we all like to lean on. Ideally, our classifiers/algorithm are good at providing useful and rich results to our users while ignoring things at are not useful or not relevant. But we all know, this isn’t exactly the case all the time (especially on YouTube).
From a user perspective, there are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content. Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay. E.g. a video of a puppy playing with a toy is probably okay in almost every culture or context, even if it’s not relevant to the query. But a video of someone committing suicide and begging others to follow in his/her footsteps is probably on the other side of the line for many folks.
While my second example is technically relevant to the generic query of “suicide”, that doesn’t mean that this is a very useful or good video to promote on the top of results for that query. So imagine a classifier that says, for any queries on a particular text file, let’s pull videos using signals that we historically understand to be strong indicators of quality (I won’t go into specifics here, but those signals do exist). We’re not manually curating these results, we’re just saying “hey, be extra careful with results for this query because many times really bad stuff can appear and lead to a bad experience for most users”. Ideally the proactive lever did this for us, but in extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary. And also keep in mind, that this is different for every product. The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high. However, the bar for things we let our Google Assistant say out loud might be a lot lower. If I search for “Jews run the banks” – I’ll likely find anti-semitic stuff in organic search. As a Jew, I might find some of these results offensive, but they are there for people to research and view, and I understand that this is not a reflection of Google feels about this issue. But if I ask Google assistant “Why do Jews run the banks” we wouldn’t be similarly accepting if it repeated and promoted conspiracy theories that likely pop up in organic search in her smoothing voice.
Whether we agree or not, user perception of our responses, results, and answers of different products and mediums can change. And I think many people are used to the fact that organic search is a place where content should be accessible no matter how offensive it might be, however, the expectation is very different on a Google Home, a Knowledge Panel, or even YouTube.
These lines are very difficult and can be very blurry, we are all well aware of this. So we’ve got huge teams that stay cognizant of these facts when we’re crafting policies considering classifier changes, or reacting with manual actions – these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but admittedly are also not made in a highly public forum like TGIF or IndustryInfo (as you can imagine, decisions/agreement would be hard to get in such a wide list – image if all your CL’s were reviewed by every engineer across Google all the time). I hope that answers some questions and gives a better layer of transparency without going into details about our “Pepsi formula”.
Best,
Daniel
The fact that Google manually curates politically contentious search results fits in with a wider pattern of political activity on the part of the tech giant.
In 2018, Breitbart News exclusively published a leaked video from the company that showed senior management in dismay at Trump’s election victory, and pledging to use the company’s power to make his populist movement a “hiccup” in history.
Breitbart also leaked “The Good Censor,” an internal research document from Google that admits the tech giant is engaged in the censorship of its own products, partly in response to political events.
Another leak revealed that employees within the company, including Google’s current director of Trust and Safety, tried to kick Breitbart News off Google’s market-dominating online ad platforms.
Yet another showed Google engaged in targeted turnout operations aimed to boost voter participation in pro-Democrat demographics in “key states” ahead of the 2016 election. The effort was dubbed a “silent donation” by a top Google employee.
Evidence for Google’s partisan activities is now overwhelming. President Trump has previously warned Google, as well as other Silicon Valley giants
Tom's Blog 