Google executive admits election meddiling to prevennt Trump winning in 2020

[Marion Morrison]

Video re-upped

 

[OldLady]

Why do we let these high tech monopolies run monopolies of our communications?

Google Insider to Project Veritas: Company Will 'Never' Let Somebody Like Trump Come to Power Again | Breitbart

A Google insider who spoke anonymously to Project Veritas claims the company is devoted to preventing anything like the 2016 election of Donald Trump from happening again.
The insider who spoke to Project Veritas also drew attention to the covert suppression of non-progressive voices on YouTube, a Google-owned platform, said that stopping President Donald Trump and other politicians like Trump has become a priority for the tech giant.

The insider claimed that the company did a “complete 180 in what they thought was important,” abandoning earlier ideals of self-expression and “giving everyone a voice” in favor of crackdowns on “hate.”

Previous leaks from Google support the insider’s account of a dramatic shift in thinking following the election of Trump. An internal company document titled “The Good Censor” leaked to Breitbart News last year admits that the company has undergone a “shift towards censorship,” in part as a response to the events of 2016.

Earlier in the year, recently-fired Google software engineer Mike Wacker spoke of a colleague who informed him that a manager at the company said the tech giant “need to stop hate [speech] and fake news because that’s how Trump won.”

Via Project Veritas’ interview with the insider:

There’s this façade about what they’re doing, but what they’re actually doing, what the employees are actually seeing inside the company is different. And, people need to know what’s going on with Google, and that they are not an objective piece – they’re not an objective source of information. They are a highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.

Right after Donald Trump won the election, in 2016, the company did a complete 180 in what they thought was important, before they thought self-expression, and giving everyone a voice was important, but now they’re like, “Hey, there’s a lot of hate.” And because there’s a lot of hate and misogyny, and racism, that’s the reason why Donald Trump got elected.

They started talking about the need to combat hate and racism online, and also at YouTube. They had the same talks by the CEO, Susan, and they talked about combating that and getting rid of unfairness.​

*They* assess their power as being able to do this, true or not, and that to me is clear evidence they need to be broken up NOW.

Having the number one controller of information in the world try to mess with elections is far more dangerous than a handful of Russians buying some stupid ads on Facebook. This is the real danger. Will you see CNN doing investigations about Google election interference? Not on your life

First, it's Project Veritas and Second, reported by Breitbart. It doesn't get much more sterling than that. But if that conversation is 100% true, it was still kind of confusing where the company's concern actually lies: with hate speech and phony Russian accounts, or with simply making Trump lose. Well, they can't do that; they aren't that powerful, and besides, I always use Google and I have no problem finding neutral and factual articles about anything that is happening in the news.

Project Veritas and Breitbart are hated by all Tards because they expose the truth....

The exact opposite is true with cnn and all your other Tard media....

Not so sure about that, Deno. I've caught Breitbart pulling some pretty tricky nonsense and Project Veritas goes looking for the predetermined answer to their questions, not true investigation at all. If they don't find the answer the want, they manufacture it.

As for CNN, if they reported that the President was leading in the polls by 10 points, you'd believe them fine.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Why do we let these high tech monopolies run monopolies of our communications?

Google Insider to Project Veritas: Company Will 'Never' Let Somebody Like Trump Come to Power Again | Breitbart

A Google insider who spoke anonymously to Project Veritas claims the company is devoted to preventing anything like the 2016 election of Donald Trump from happening again.
The insider who spoke to Project Veritas also drew attention to the covert suppression of non-progressive voices on YouTube, a Google-owned platform, said that stopping President Donald Trump and other politicians like Trump has become a priority for the tech giant.

The insider claimed that the company did a “complete 180 in what they thought was important,” abandoning earlier ideals of self-expression and “giving everyone a voice” in favor of crackdowns on “hate.”

Previous leaks from Google support the insider’s account of a dramatic shift in thinking following the election of Trump. An internal company document titled “The Good Censor” leaked to Breitbart News last year admits that the company has undergone a “shift towards censorship,” in part as a response to the events of 2016.

Earlier in the year, recently-fired Google software engineer Mike Wacker spoke of a colleague who informed him that a manager at the company said the tech giant “need to stop hate [speech] and fake news because that’s how Trump won.”

Via Project Veritas’ interview with the insider:

There’s this façade about what they’re doing, but what they’re actually doing, what the employees are actually seeing inside the company is different. And, people need to know what’s going on with Google, and that they are not an objective piece – they’re not an objective source of information. They are a highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.

Right after Donald Trump won the election, in 2016, the company did a complete 180 in what they thought was important, before they thought self-expression, and giving everyone a voice was important, but now they’re like, “Hey, there’s a lot of hate.” And because there’s a lot of hate and misogyny, and racism, that’s the reason why Donald Trump got elected.

They started talking about the need to combat hate and racism online, and also at YouTube. They had the same talks by the CEO, Susan, and they talked about combating that and getting rid of unfairness.​

*They* assess their power as being able to do this, true or not, and that to me is clear evidence they need to be broken up NOW.

Having the number one controller of information in the world try to mess with elections is far more dangerous than a handful of Russians buying some stupid ads on Facebook. This is the real danger. Will you see CNN doing investigations about Google election interference? Not on your life

First, it's Project Veritas and Second, reported by Breitbart. It doesn't get much more sterling than that. But if that conversation is 100% true, it was still kind of confusing where the company's concern actually lies: with hate speech and phony Russian accounts, or with simply making Trump lose. Well, they can't do that; they aren't that powerful, and besides, I always use Google and I have no problem finding neutral and factual articles about anything that is happening in the news.

Project Veritas and Breitbart are hated by all Tards because they expose the truth....

The exact opposite is true with cnn and all your other Tard media....

Not so sure about that, Deno. I've caught Breitbart pulling some pretty tricky nonsense and Project Veritas goes looking for the predetermined answer to their questions, not true investigation at all. If they don't find the answer the want, they manufacture it.

As for CNN, if they reported that the President was leading in the polls by 10 points, you'd believe them fine.

It'll be a cold day in hell before CNN does that.

 

[OldLady]

Video re-upped

I listened to the first ten seconds of that video and shut it down. Cheap "something is going to get you" music in the background and the announcer with his voice masked as if he were ratting on Jimmy Hoffa or something.
C'mon.
P.T. Barnum said a sucker was born every minute. Don't be one of them.

 

[OldLady]

Nothing here is surprising to anyone who witnessed the throttling of search terms like “Climategate”.

Climategate? LOL

 

[Marion Morrison]

Video re-upped

I listened to the first ten seconds of that video and shut it down. Cheap "something is going to get you" music in the background and the announcer with his voice masked as if he were ratting on Jimmy Hoffa or something.
C'mon.
P.T. Barnum said a sucker was born every minute. Don't be one of them.

That was a current Google worker. They say more are coming forward...we'll see.

 

[citygator]

Isn’t Google a corporate monolith without a political soul? My bet is “they” don’t care who is president or in congress as long as they can be influenced with googlebucks.

 

[OldLady]

Video re-upped

I listened to the first ten seconds of that video and shut it down. Cheap "something is going to get you" music in the background and the announcer with his voice masked as if he were ratting on Jimmy Hoffa or something.
C'mon.
P.T. Barnum said a sucker was born every minute. Don't be one of them.

That was a current Google worker. They say more are coming forward...we'll see.

So Project Veritas says.
Half the company could come forward, though, and it wouldn't matter, Marion. Google is a private company and of course employees have opinions and their beefs. And however much $$ Project Veritas is paying them. (Yeah, no link--that's conjecture.)

 

[OldLady]

Isn’t Google a corporate monolith without a political soul? My bet is “they” don’t care who is president or in congress as long as they can be influenced with googlebucks.

For some reason, everyone seems to need to feel threatened these days. The leftards are out to get them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Video re-upped

I listened to the first ten seconds of that video and shut it down. Cheap "something is going to get you" music in the background and the announcer with his voice masked as if he were ratting on Jimmy Hoffa or something.
C'mon.
P.T. Barnum said a sucker was born every minute. Don't be one of them.

That was a current Google worker. They say more are coming forward...we'll see.

So Project Veritas says.
Half the company could come forward, though, and it wouldn't matter, Marion. Google is a private company and of course employees have opinions and their beefs. And however much $$ Project Veritas is paying them. (Yeah, no link--that's conjecture.)

they are a privately owned MONOPOLY and should be prosecuted under anti-trust laws.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Isn’t Google a corporate monolith without a political soul? My bet is “they” don’t care who is president or in congress as long as they can be influenced with googlebucks.

For some reason, everyone seems to need to feel threatened these days. The leftards are out to get them.

That's what millions of people in China said about Mao, too, and Pol Pot in Cambodia and Stalin in Russia.

What you lefties always miss is the fact that not long after the general population is purged, other lefty folks catch it even harder.

 

[OldLady]

Video re-upped

I listened to the first ten seconds of that video and shut it down. Cheap "something is going to get you" music in the background and the announcer with his voice masked as if he were ratting on Jimmy Hoffa or something.
C'mon.
P.T. Barnum said a sucker was born every minute. Don't be one of them.

That was a current Google worker. They say more are coming forward...we'll see.

So Project Veritas says.
Half the company could come forward, though, and it wouldn't matter, Marion. Google is a private company and of course employees have opinions and their beefs. And however much $$ Project Veritas is paying them. (Yeah, no link--that's conjecture.)

they are a privately owned MONOPOLY and should be prosecuted under anti-trust laws.

Where is the monopoly? Didn't I just find an article listing over a dozen other search engines? Explain, please.

 

[OldLady]

Isn’t Google a corporate monolith without a political soul? My bet is “they” don’t care who is president or in congress as long as they can be influenced with googlebucks.

For some reason, everyone seems to need to feel threatened these days. The leftards are out to get them.

That's what millions of people in China said about Mao, too, and Pol Pot in Cambodia and Stalin in Russia.

What you lefties always miss is the fact that not long after the general population is purged, other lefty folks catch it even harder.

Jim, no one is being purged. This is histrionics.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where is the monopoly? Didn't I just find an article listing over a dozen other search engines? Explain, please.

What Is a Monopoly in Economics?

Pure monopolies are rare, but examples of partial monopolies or markets with monopolistic tendencies abound. One example was John D. Rockefeller's gigantic company Standard Oil. At its peak in the late 1800s, Standard Oil controlled more than 90 percent of oil production in the United States. It wasn't a pure monopoly, since other competitors existed, but it owned enough of the market to control prices almost completely.

A controversial recent example is software giant Microsoft. In the late 1990s, Bill Gates' company controlled more than 90 percent of the market for operating systems with its line of Windows products. In 1999, a judge ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly, and ordered the company to break up. After years of appeals and negotiations, Microsoft still exists as a single firm. However, it now faces far more competition in the market, and its position no longer is as dominant.

9 Examples of a Monopoly
Oligopoly
An oligopoly is an industry that is dominated by two or three firms. This may result in healthy competition. However, an oligopoly represents a high risk of collusion as firms could meet and decide to fix prices, salaries or supply. In many cases, this is illegal but difficult to detect.

Small Monopoly
Monopolies aren't necessarily large firms. For example, the only supermarket in an extremely remote town is a monopoly as it effectively has no competition.

Cloaked Monopoly
A monopoly that attempts to make itself look smaller by classifying itself as a member of a gigantic industry. It is common for monopolies to define their industry in vague or broad terms such as "technology company", "consumer services firm" or "transportation company".

Notes

A monopoly can result in higher prices, low quality and poor customer service as the secure position of the monopoly gives them incentive to take much and give little.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Google is a monopoly — and it's crushing the internet

Five to 10 years ago, independent bloggers used to be able to get by on internet advertising, like the broadsheets of yore. But that changed quite quickly, and for two big reasons: Facebook and Google. They now gobble up the vast majority of internet advertising dollars — about 85 percent, as my colleague Jeff Spross writes — and a great many media outlets have been forced to move to direct subscriptions or other business models.

Google and Facebook manage this because they are platform monopolists. They can exert tremendous influence through their control of how people use the internet — and crush productive businesses in the process. Like any monopoly, it is long since time that the government regulated them to serve the public interest.

The latest example of monopolist platform abuse comes from Adrianne Jeffries with the story of CelebrityNetWorth.com. This was a small business started by a man named Brian Warner, who found in 2008 that there was no good data on how much Larry David was worth. After some digging, he figured it out — and discovered that there was tremendous demand for information about celebrity wealth. He started a small media business, eventually hiring a staff of 12 to conduct detailed investigations — sometimes even corresponding with the celebrities themselves.

Not, perhaps, the most noble pursuit in the history of journalism. But it was manifestly serving a public demand, and keeping a dozen people productively employed. Entrepreneurship!

Then Google came up with an idea for "Featured Snippets," which places answers to search queries at the top of the search page. Instead of having to click through to find the answer to a question, it will simply tell you a summary of the top search results.

Before rolling it out, Google asked Warner if they could scrape his data and credit him. Warner declined, but Google did it anyway. The algorithm they use for the snippets is notoriously error-prone — and worse, the celebrity net worth ones often failed to credit his site. Many would scrape other sites that had themselves aggregated CelebrityNetWorth.com. The overall result was devastating:

In February 2016, Google started displaying a Featured Snippet for each of the 25,000 celebrities in the CelebrityNetWorth database, Warner said. He knew this because he added a few fake listings for friends who were not celebrities to see if they would pop up as featured answers, and they did. "Our traffic immediately crumbled," Warner said. "Comparing January 2016 (a full month where they had not yet scraped our content) to January 2017, our traffic is down 65 percent." Warner said he had to lay off half his staff. [The Outline]

Now, it is true that Warner was getting most of his traffic from Google in the first place — which brings me right to the core of the case for regulation. Many would argue that it's Google's (or Alphabet's, as it were) search tool, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it, end of discussion. But this fails to understand the true roots of Google's position and strength.

Google is indeed a pretty nifty search tool. But it is not that much better than Yahoo or Bing — indeed, its algorithm is so present-biased that I find DuckDuckGo a superior tool when looking for less immediate material. What gives it roughly 80 percent of the online search traffic is first mover advantage.


Back in the mid-'90s when Sergey Brin and Larry Page started the company, there were many other search tools jostling for position. Google was just a little bit better than the others, and far more importantly, rolled out at crucial time when the internet was exploding in size and in popular consciousness. When people first learned about trying to find things on the internet, Google was generally where they were sent. With a single, unified internet, search is largely a winner-take-all service. Soon, "google" became a verb. That leg up gave them a huge advantage on other companies trying to compete in the search space. Microsoft has been flushing money away on Bing for years and years and barely made a dent, and Yahoo has been slowly killed off by all the ad money flooding into Google and Facebook.

Second, what makes Google's search dominance profitable is network effects. Without a large internet to index, and a huge number of people looking for things online, even the best imaginable search would be worthless.

The upshot here is that both Google's overwhelming search dominance and their profitable exploitation thereof are almost wholly unmerited in terms of their actual product. Google is a fine tool, but what defines the company is luck. Its profits come from a largely unearned strategic position within a socially-created communication medium. Devouring a small business that provided Google and the internet writ large with quality research simply to keep people fenced onto their own portion of the internet is just one particularly egregious example how this position can be abused.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Peter Thiel: Google Has Insane Perks Because It's A Monopoly

In his new book " Zero to One," PayPal cofounder, billionaire tech investor, and suit-hater Peter Thiel argues that Google is a monopoly — and every company should want to be one, too.

Thiel says a monopoly is "a kind of company that's so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute," a company that's "10x" better at what it does than anybody else.

Google hasn't competed in search since the early 2000s, Thiel says, when it definitively leapt ahead of Microsoft and Yahoo.

And while Google doesn't claim to be a monopoly, Thiel argues that is most certainly is, though clever positioning obscures the fact. He provides the following stats:

Google owns about 67% of the global search market

• Google owns less than 3% of the global advertising market

• Google owns less than 0.24% of the global consumer tech market

Thiel says that Google frames itself as "just another tech company," which allows it to sidestep scrutiny. But he assures us it's a monopoly, since competitors Microsoft and Yahoo lag at 18% and 11% marketshare in search. And he says you can't expect "to Bing" to enter the Oxford English Dictionary like "to Google" has.

 

[RealDave]

Why do we let these high tech monopolies run monopolies of our communications?

Google Insider to Project Veritas: Company Will 'Never' Let Somebody Like Trump Come to Power Again | Breitbart

A Google insider who spoke anonymously to Project Veritas claims the company is devoted to preventing anything like the 2016 election of Donald Trump from happening again.
The insider who spoke to Project Veritas also drew attention to the covert suppression of non-progressive voices on YouTube, a Google-owned platform, said that stopping President Donald Trump and other politicians like Trump has become a priority for the tech giant.

The insider claimed that the company did a “complete 180 in what they thought was important,” abandoning earlier ideals of self-expression and “giving everyone a voice” in favor of crackdowns on “hate.”

Previous leaks from Google support the insider’s account of a dramatic shift in thinking following the election of Trump. An internal company document titled “The Good Censor” leaked to Breitbart News last year admits that the company has undergone a “shift towards censorship,” in part as a response to the events of 2016.

Earlier in the year, recently-fired Google software engineer Mike Wacker spoke of a colleague who informed him that a manager at the company said the tech giant “need to stop hate [speech] and fake news because that’s how Trump won.”

Via Project Veritas’ interview with the insider:

There’s this façade about what they’re doing, but what they’re actually doing, what the employees are actually seeing inside the company is different. And, people need to know what’s going on with Google, and that they are not an objective piece – they’re not an objective source of information. They are a highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.

Right after Donald Trump won the election, in 2016, the company did a complete 180 in what they thought was important, before they thought self-expression, and giving everyone a voice was important, but now they’re like, “Hey, there’s a lot of hate.” And because there’s a lot of hate and misogyny, and racism, that’s the reason why Donald Trump got elected.

They started talking about the need to combat hate and racism online, and also at YouTube. They had the same talks by the CEO, Susan, and they talked about combating that and getting rid of unfairness.​

*They* assess their power as being able to do this, true or not, and that to me is clear evidence they need to be broken up NOW.

Having the number one controller of information in the world try to mess with elections is far more dangerous than a handful of Russians buying some stupid ads on Facebook. This is the real danger. Will you see CNN doing investigations about Google election interference? Not on your life

First, it's Project Veritas and Second, reported by Breitbart. It doesn't get much more sterling than that. But if that conversation is 100% true, it was still kind of confusing where the company's concern actually lies: with hate speech and phony Russian accounts, or with simply making Trump lose. Well, they can't do that; they aren't that powerful, and besides, I always use Google and I have no problem finding neutral and factual articles about anything that is happening in the news.

Project Veritas and Breitbart are hated by all Tards because they expose the truth....

The exact opposite is true with cnn and all your other Tard media....

Not so sure about that, Deno. I've caught Breitbart pulling some pretty tricky nonsense and Project Veritas goes looking for the predetermined answer to their questions, not true investigation at all. If they don't find the answer the want, they manufacture it.

As for CNN, if they reported that the President was leading in the polls by 10 points, you'd believe them fine.

It'll be a cold day in hell before CNN does that.

That's because there would never be that many stupid people.

 

[OldLady]

Thanks, Jim.

 

[RealDave]

Nothing here is surprising to anyone who witnessed the throttling of search terms like “Climategate”.

So we should allow purposeful misinformation to flow without fail?

This is how you people got this stupid. You are against it because you need more stupid people to join your Klan.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thanks, Jim.

No problem, Ma'am.