Google

Google’s decision to work with China, not US, ‘unprecedented’: Peter Thiel

PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel Opens a New Window. said on Sunday that his calls for the U.S. government Opens a New Window. to investigate Google Opens a New Window. are in an effort to see if there is any “foreign infiltration” at the tech Opens a New Window. giant. Thiel, a conservative who is an outlier among his peers in Silicon Valley, originally called for the federal investigation in mid-July at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., accusing Google of working with China Opens a New Window. but not the U.S. government. The billionaire, who also sits on the board at Facebook, said Sunday that regardless of whether an American firm works with a civilian company in China, all technology is passed along to the communist nation’s military. “It’s not like the U.S., where you have different companies and different people and you have a government sector and a private sector and these things don’t always coordinate or work together,” Thiel told “Sunday Morning Futures.” “In China, these things are still tightly coordinated across the board.” In particular, Thiel said he is most concerned about Google’s sharing of its artificial intelligence called “DeepMind,” what he deems the tech firm’s “crown jewel.” DeepMind was founded in 2010 and purchased by Google four years later. The search giant opened its AI research lab in China, the same year that the nation amended its constitution to include a mandate that requires all research done inside the country to be shared with its armed forces (the People’s Liberation Army). “I think it is unprecedented in the last 100 years, or ever, that a major U.S. company refused to work with U.S. military and has worked with our geopolitical rival,” he said. “So this is not a liberal-conservative thing … this is absolutely unprecedented.” While Thiel stopped short of calling the company’s alleged links to China treasonous (though he has previously used the term regarding the same matter), he described the company’s self-image as “globalist,” “post-national” and “cosmopolitan,” adding that he believes “more that it’s incredibly insular.” The billionaire noted the first step toward making change is to talk about the issue. “This is an open secret in Silicon Valley,” Thiel said. “A lot of people think this is like kind of crazy what Google’s doing … And I sort of feel like I’m the little kid saying ‘the emperor has no clothes.’ It’s the secret hidden in plain sight.” A Google spokesperson called Thiel’s allegations “baseless” and said the company does not work with the Chinese military. “Our AI work in China is limited, with a small number of people working on global open source and education-related activities,” the spokesperson told FOX Business in a statement. “We are proud to continue our long history of work with the U.S. government, including the Department of Defense, in many areas including cybersecurity, recruiting and healthcare.” Thiel’s original comments also gained the attention of President Trump (whom Thiel supports), who said he will recommend various federal agencies, and possibly the Department of Justice, “take a look” into Google. “It’s a big statement when you say that Google is involved with China in not a very positive way for our country,” Trump, who referred to Thiel as a friend, told reporters at the White House. “So I think we’ll all look at that. I know that our other agencies will be looking at it and we’ll see if there’s any truth to it.”

And, we of course will keep on this developing story.  If Peter’s accusations are correct, then shame on Google.   That indeed would be treasonous.  We urge the Trump Administration to take a serious look into this, and then report back to we-the-people.  We need to know if Google is selling us out to the communist Chinese government and its military.

STUDY: The CNN Search Engine — Google Search Results Overwhelmingly Favor Mainstream Media

According to data compiled by Northwestern University, Google search results overwhelmingly favor CNN compared to other news sources, followed by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Of the top 20 news sources promoted by Google in its “top stories”, the top results on its News Search feature, just one was somewhat right-wing, Fox News. But Fox accounted for just three percent of the stories that appeared in “top stories,” compared to 10.9 percent for CNN, 6.5 percent for the New York Times, and 5.6 percent for the Washington Post. Other mainstream or left-wing media sources which represented the top 20 sources include ABC, CBS, NPR, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, BBC, The Verge, Al Jazeera, Politico, and the LA Times. 86 percent of all results in Google’s “top stories” came from the top 20. Of those, all but the three percent of Fox results came from left-wing or establishment news sources. Even mainstream media sources with a reputation for a right-of-center editorial line, like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post do not appear in the top 20.

Gee..  What a shocker.  Soo..  To be VERY clear..  If you Google anything, the top 20 results you’ll get will be links to sources from the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  And to think Dems in the House and in the Senate have actually been suggesting that “big tech” is in bed with Republicans.  This study more than suggests it’s just the exact opposite.  And, keep in mind, Northwester University near Chicago is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.  For more, click on the text above.

Report: Google Is Tracking Your Location Even if You Tell It to Stop

Google is reportedly tracking your physical movements with your smartphone even if you select privacy settings which are supposed to stop it from doing so. According to the Associated Press, who launched an investigation into the tracking, it “found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you’ve used a privacy setting that says it will prevent Google from doing so.” “Computer-science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP’s request,” it continued, adding that, “Storing your minute-by-minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects — such as a warrant that police in Raleigh, North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene.” Despite Google claiming that you can turn off the tracking, the Associated Press revealed that this is not true, and even “with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking.” “If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” expressed Jonathan Mayer, a former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.” In a statement, Google defended their tracking, and proclaimed, “There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App Activity, and through device-level Location Services. We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls so people can turn them on or off, and delete their histories at any time.” In February 2018 Tucker Carlson revealed that placing an Android phone in airplace mode or disconnecting it from the network would not stop it from tracking location. The governments of South Korea and the U.K. investigated Google for tracking users’ locations without their knowledge in 2017.

French: James Damore’s Lawsuit Exposes Google’s Culture of Ignorant Intolerance

Let’s ponder a disturbing question: What if the crisis of free speech on college campuses, with their often extreme intolerance for conservative points of view, represents the high point for free expression in a student’s life? In other words, what if the “real world” is more repressive, more ignorant, and more punitive toward dissenting speech? What if entire corporations adopt the ideologies and norms of the most ruthless campus social-justice warriors, ruining careers and depriving employees of their livelihoods when those employees dissent from the dominant ideology? In other words, what if the rest of corporate America starts acting like Google? Yesterday former Google employee James Damore filed a class-action lawsuit against Google, alleging systematic race, gender, and political bias against white, male, and conservative employees. Damore, you may recall, was summarily terminated after writing a lengthy memorandum noting that disproportionate male representation in tech fields may be more the result of individual choice and innate differences between men and women than of invidious discrimination. He also suggested some non-discriminatory methods for increasing diversity at Google. Scientists argued about his conclusions — some agreed with Damore, others vigorously disagreed — but rather than engage with Damore, Google proved one of his points (that Google is hostile to dissenting views) by summarily terminating his employment. Damore has now answered Google with a legal broadside, and it’s extraordinary. Most people don’t have time to read his entire 181-page complaint, but those who do will find a comprehensive argument that Google’s corporate culture encourages, sanctions, and facilitates an extraordinary amount of abuse against conservative white males. And he has the receipts. Much of the complaint consists of screen shots of internal Google communications and postings on internal Google message boards that would constitute strong evidence of hostile-environment race-and-gender harassment if the the races and genders were reversed. For example, “Googlers” (that’s what employees call themselves, using Google’s silly corporate language) relentlessly enforce a so-called “Googley” culture where employees blacklist conservatives (blocking them from in-house communications), actually boo white-male hires, and openly discuss committing acts of violence against political opponents. The “punch a Nazi” debate is alive and well at Google, and the definition of “Nazi” is extraordinarily broad. In one posting, an employee proposes a “moratorium on hiring white cis heterosexual abled men who aren’t abuse survivors.” In another, an employee advertises a workshop on “healing from toxic whiteness.” Another post mocks “white fragility.” The examples go on and on, for page after page. Damore also alleges (and again, provides screenshots of emails and other communications to support his claims) that managers actively attacked conservative employees, encouraged punitive actions against dissenters, and even awarded “peer bonuses” for speech attacking conservatives. At the same time that Googlers crack down on standard conservative speech, mock white men, and deride whiteness, they exhibit a remarkable level of tolerance for unusual behavior. For example, Damore claims that “an employee who sexually identifies as a ‘yellow-scale wingless dragonkin’ and an ‘expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘living as a plural being’ at an internal company event.” It’s important to remember that Damore’s complaint represents his side of the story, and Google has yet to file a response, but the screenshots and images present a compelling prima facie case of racial and gender bias that would be intolerable and illegal in the vast majority of American jurisdictions, including under federal law. It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males. Google is of course disproportionately male, but even disproportionately male organizations can commit unlawful acts of discrimination depending on the measures taken to diversify the workplace. Claiming a desire to diversify a workplace can’t justify, for example, hostile-environment harassment; nor can it justify explicitly discriminatory hiring and firing decisions in any given department. In addition, California (unlike many states) provides a limited degree of protection against political discrimination. Damore cites California labor codes that prohibit employers from “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees” and prohibiting employers from coercing or attempting to coerce “employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” I’m withholding judgment on the legal merits of Damore’s claim until I see Google’s response (the law should be broadly protective of employers’ rights to freedom of association), but the evidence he provides is damning indeed — and it’s not just damning because it raises legal concerns about Google’s behavior. The cultural implications are profound. For a generation the American public has been conditioned to think of Silicon Valley as a special place where American ingenuity is at its apex. Silicon Valley billionaires have enjoyed special status, and the men and women who work creating the apps and devices that have changed our nation are often seen as a breed apart, America’s best and brightest. They’re the lovable nerds who enrich all our lives. Well, the emperor has no clothes. Googlers may have special coding skills or may fit seamlessly in the company’s Googley culture, but it’s now plain that much of their discourse represents a special kind of pettiness, stupidity, and intolerance. It’s often fact-free, insulting, and narrow-minded. In other words, a Silicon Valley monoculture produces exactly the kind of discourse produced by monocultures everywhere. While there are certainly kind, courteous, and civil progressives at Google, the existence of the monoculture also enables the worst sorts of behavior. Unfortunately, this phenomenon isn’t limited to Google. Talk to Americans in industries ranging from software to insurance and beyond, and you’ll hear tales of internal naming and shaming, and even social-media monitoring that privileges one side of the debate and considers conservative discourse inherently problematic. I have conservative friends in Nashville who agonize over their social-media posts while their progressive colleagues hold forth without fear. Conservatives are held to the highest standards of civility and reason while angry, threatening progressives are merely deemed to be full of “righteous indignation.” This kind of culture doesn’t exist everywhere. There are countless thousands of work sites free of such bias. But to those who claim that campus social-justice warriors will be humbled when they encounter the “real world,” I give you Google. Sometimes social-justice warriors change the real world, and when they make it “Googley,” they often make it more intolerant and ignorant than the campuses they left behind.

Exactly!!  And well said, David.  Author David French is an attorney and Army Reserve officer (Major).  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  There are many companies out there who have similar cultures to Google which brazenly discriminates against white males, and especially conservatives.  Perhaps you work at such a place.  We’ll, of course, keep an eye on how this lawsuit progresses, and what impacts it may have on other companies with similar politically correct, anti-conservative cultures.

Report: Google Search Bias Protecting Hillary Clinton Confirmed in Experiment

In a report published by Sputnik News, psychologist Robert Epstein reveals evidence that Google is manipulating search results related to Hillary Clinton that may “shift as many as 3 million votes” in the upcoming presidential election. Earlier this year, Matt Lieberman of Sourcefed published a video that claimed Google’s autocomplete suggestions were biased in favour of Clinton. The video went viral, with an abridged version of it being viewed over 25 million times on Facebook. Epstein set out with his colleagues at the American Institute for Behavioral Research (AIBRT) to investigate the claims. They concluded that whilst the investigation is ongoing, their report “generally supports” Lieberman’s video. In order to test the results, Epstein and his associates tested hundreds of different response terms related to the election, using Yahoo and Bing search as a control. Each search was also conducted through proxy servers, such as the Tor network, to make it very difficult for Google to identify the researchers and thus customize the search results for them.

Very interesting…  To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on the text above..

Report: Google Censors ‘Hillary Clinton Health Problems’ Search Results

Google users attempting to search for information regarding presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health are fed search suggestions that have nothing to do with the issue, many on Twitter pointed out Saturday. Images show users typing, “Hillary Clinton’s he” into the Google search bar, before the search engine gives auto-complete suggestions including “Hillary Clinton’s headquarters,” “Hillary Clinton health plan,” and “Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan” – in other words, suggestions that have nothing to do with the current trending issue concerning Clinton’s health. Readers are encouraged to try this for themselves. In contrast, the Microsoft-owned search engine Bing.com displays search results related to the current trending issue regarding the former secretary of state’s health conditions. Search engine Yahoo.com’s auto-complete search suggestions are perhaps the most truthful about current trending topics regarding the Democrat nominee. Merely typing the name, “Hillary Clinton,” in the Yahoo search bar brings up several suggestions inquiring into the former First Lady’s health status. Indeed, just by entering the name, “Hillary,” users are fed multiple suggestions related to the former New York senator’s health and email scandal. Observation of the issue sparked the viral hashtag #HillaryClintonSearchTerms which was trending on Twitter on Saturday. Google had previously been called out for changing its algorithm to censor search engine suggestions for people looking for information regarding the multiple mysterious deaths tied to Hillary, known popularly as the “Clinton body count.” Unlike Yahoo and Bing, Google brought up search suggestions referring users to research auto repair shops. “While Google may not be outright censoring the information (people can still search for ‘clinton body count’), the fact that the term does not auto-complete clearly suggests that the company has altered its algorithm to clean up ‘conspiracy theories’ about Hillary,” wrote Paul Joseph Watson. A report from Politico last year found that Google donated between $500,000-$1 million to the Clinton Foundation in recent years. Yahoo and Microsoft, on the other hand, do not appear on the list of media organizations that contributed to the foundation.

Very interesting..   If Google is your default search engine, then now might be a good time consider changing to Yahoo or Bing..  Just sayin..

High court rejects Google’s appeal in class action lawsuit

The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from Google over a class action lawsuit filed by advertisers who claim the internet company displayed their ads on “low quality” web sites. The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the lawsuit representing hundreds of thousands of advertisers using Google’s AdWords program could go forward. Google argued that a federal appeals court in San Francisco should not have approved the class action because damages must be calculated individually for each company advertiser. The appeals court rejected that argument and approved use of a formula that would calculate harm based on the average advertiser’s experience. Google runs what is by far the world’s largest digital ad network. It generated $67 billion in revenue last year.