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.
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.
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..
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..
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.
That most curious of American holidays which acts as both a cookout-fueled celebration of the beginning of summer and a sombre remembrance of the men who sacrificed all to maintain our freedom was all but ignored on Google’s homepage. Why? This is the website that has a special logo (called a Doodle) for everything. Whether it is Independence Day in Jordan or the start of the hundreth Tour of Flanders, Google has a special logo to celebrate it. Of course all the stops are pulled out for Earth Day, that most holy of liberal holidays. Google also commonly creates Doodles to celebrate the birthdays of important people. Sometimes their selections are a bit dodgy, with most of their userbase having to Google the honorees to find out why they deserve to be highlighted on the homepage of the Internet. Take for instance Samaun Samadikun, Indonesia’s most important scientist but hardly a household name. In other cases their selections go beyond obscure into the liberal wacko category. You will remember our coverage just two weeks ago on Google’s tribute to Yuri Kochiyama, an extremist who considered Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Osama Bin Laden to be swell guys. I suspect Google’s treatment of Memorial Day was rooted in the desire to please the latte-swilling left that considers Yuri Kochiyama a stunning and brave heroine for the ages. Nothing could be more gauche to them than highlighting America’s freedom and those that died to defend it. Google will be quick to point out that below the search bar they did add an American flag with a yellow ribbon, but it is damning with faint praise. The flag wasn’t even a link- imagine the donations Google could have generated if they had linked to a charity for families of those fallen, or perhaps a charity dedicated to fighting the suicide epidemic among vets? The real shocker isn’t that Google snubbed Memorial Day, but rather that there wasn’t a special logo in honour of Harambe, the prematurely perished primate, late of Cincinnati zoo. Google’s preferred user base were up in arms over the death of the gorilla, killed to save the life of a small child that had worked his way into the beast’s habitat. Perhaps the Google exec in charge of politically-correct Doodles had the day off to relax and grill vegan-friendly cuisine with his or her (or xer) family. By all rights, Google should be celebrating American values and those who died to safeguard them. They print new millionaires by the Google busload, and have defined capitalism in the new Internet age. But their preoccupation with left-wing causes and troubling signs like being the most frequent visitor to the decidedly business-unfriendly Obama White House show that Google, like many companies in Silicon Valley, is a schizophrenic mess of high-octane capitalism and lefty ideology. Google should ask itself some hard questions. Would it exist but for those who that sacrificed all for America? Would the advances in technology that resulted from military hardware and eventually enabled Google have happened strictly in the civilian world? If so, when? Would Sergey Brin, Google co-founder and a Russian immigrant, have even been born, or would his family have joined the millions of Russian civilians that perished in World War II? Brin himself at least at one point understood everything he owed to America and by extension its veterans and those who died for their country. According to a Moment Magazine profile from 2007, Brin witnessed the USSR. in its death throes during a 1990 trip with his father. He told his dad “Thank you for taking us all out of Russia”. As a youth Brin, recognized that America, made great by veterans, those who fell in the line of duty, and Americans whose freedom was ensured by those two groups, presented a world of opportunity that the old world did not. The fact that he took advantage of that opportunity to create Google is an immigrant success story as old as the country itself. Google has a few months before Veteran’s Day, which will give them another opportunity to show respect to America’s servicemen. My personal suggestion is that they work with their corporate parent Alphabet to review the ABCs. Here is a head start: B is for Bataan, C is for Chancellorsville, F is for Fallujah, and K is for Khe Sanh. If you need more, just ask a vet where they saw action and, just as importantly, who they lost. -Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter and Facebook. Android users can download Milo Alert! to be notified about new articles when they are published. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at firstname.lastname@example.org
Well said, Milo!! 🙂