Tag Archive for: google

‘No Tech For Apartheid’: Google Workers Protest Company’s Services To Israel

A group of Google employees protested Tuesday in California and New York against the information technology corporation’s provision of cloud computing services to Israel, according to reports.

The protesters in Google’s Sunnyvale, California location entered the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian Tuesday morning and said they would leave only if Google would withdraw from Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion joint contract with Amazon to provide cloud services and data centers to the Israeli government, the Washington Post reported.

A similar protest took place in a common space within Google’s New York office, Zelda Montes, one of the protesters, told the outlet. A banner reading “Google Worker Sit-In”, “Against Project Nimbus”, and “No Tech for Genocide” hung above the common space, the outlet revealed.

A protester wore a T-shirt sporting the slogans “Googler against Genocide” and “No Tech for Apartheid” according to Gizmodo.

The provision of public cloud services to the Israeli government is the first of five “central layers” of the “multi-year, large-scale flagship project” that started in 2019, according to Israel’s Government Procurement Administration. Google and Amazon shrugged off Microsoft, Oracle and IBM, the other tenderers who also bid for the contract, in Apr. 2021, Reuters reported.

Protests from within Google and Amazon have erupted in various forms since then. More than 90 Google employees and more than 300 Amazon employees collectively signed an anonymous Oct. 2021 letter accusing the companies of “aggressively” pursuing military and law enforcement contracts that “are part of a disturbing pattern of militarization, lack of transparency and avoidance of oversight.” They called on both companies to “pull out of Project Nimbus and cut all ties with the Israeli military.”

Two months after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 terror attack on Israel, workers staged a “die-in” at Google’s downtown San Francisco offices to protest against Israel’s reported use of what appeared to be a separate artificial intelligence program—termed “the Gospel”—in its military response to Hamas, according to the San Francisco (SF) Chronicle.

Google fired an employee who heckled the corporation’s top executive in Israel during a conference in New York in March, leading Montes to contemplate the possibility of being fired, too, according to the Washington Post report. “I have been waiting for months for people to be in the same position as me and be ready to put their job on the line,” Montes told the outlet in part.

Montes also reportedly alleged that Google lied to its employees about Project Nimbus.

Google spokesperson reportedly told the SF Chronicle that Project Nimbus was a public service program, not a military one.

AUTHOR

JOHN OYEWALE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Kill All Jews” at Google Leads to Anti-Jewish Google Employees ARRESTED While Occupying CEO’s Office With Terrorist Demands

Hamas Applauds Ex-Google Employee Who Resigned Over Company’s Israel Ties

Police Enter Google Offices, Arrest Nine Employees After Some Refuse To Leave Google CEO’s Office For Hours

Video Appears To Show Pro-Palestinian Activist Shoving Israeli Arab At Columbia University

Biden Admin Funded Study Involving Researcher From Iranian University Linked To Nuclear Program

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Googles’ YouTube To ‘Manipulate Algorithms’ Leading Up to the 2024 Election to ‘Suppress Content’

In a March 28, 2024 Reclaim The Net column titled “YouTube Says It Has a “Responsibility” To Manipulate Algorithms Leading Up to the 2024 Election wrote,

YouTube has a plan to remove and suppress some content, and boost what it decides are “authoritative” sources.

“Responsibility” is a good word. It’s even better as an actual thing. But even just as a word, it’s a positive one. It signals that reliable people/entities are behind some project, or policy.

So no wonder then, that the thoroughly disgraced Google/YouTube – as far as censorship and biased political approach – are trying to use the word “responsibility” as a narrative fig leaf to cover what the giant platform is actually up to – and has been, for a long while.

Enter, YouTube’s newest chief product officer, Johanna Voolich. What are the priorities here? It could be summed up as, four R’s and One C – namely, YouTube’s “remove, raise, reward, reduce” content approach – that’s as per a blog post published by YouTube itself.

And then, C would be speculative, for “censorship” – which is what these supposedly fair and “uplifting” actions in reality end up achieving.

If you thought any of this could be achieved by YouTube without “boosting authoritative content” – think again. That is still a solid pledge, regurgitated by Voolich.

And if you thought somebody would finally come out and clearly spell out how, and according to whose definition, content gets to be dubbed “authoritative” or otherwise – just don’t hold your breath.

The sum total is that YouTube has a new product manager, but that nothing has changed.

Certainly not in this year of election.

Continue reading.

Vlad Tepes Blog reported, “The U.S. Department of Justice ordered YouTube to release the names, phone numbers and addresses of people who watch certain videos.

Googles’ YouTube has “4 Rules of responsibility”:

Rule 1 – “Remove content that violates our policy as quickly as possible.”

Rule 2 – “Raise up authoritative voices when people are looking for breaking news and information.”

Rule 3 – “Reward trusted, eligible creators and artists.”

Rule 4 – “Reduce the spread of content that brushes right up against our policy line.”

These “4-Rs” are effectively “4-Cs” – for total Censorship.

This question and commentary was posted on Google:

Why is Google censoring right wing news sources?

Yes I know, I already read the questions on why is Google biased and read the answers like “it just aggregates information based on what you like.” But my question is if that is so and Google isn’t biased why are certain News sites hidden from view when you search them? Try it, go to Google search bar and type Revolver news and see what happens. The website URL is Revolver.news and you’ll notice that none of the results include this URL, you can also click through the results and non will take to to the actual site (I tested this in incognito). The site isn’t completely censored because you can get to it by typing in the URL but it is hidden from [Google] searches which is highly disturbing. And my question is why?
As November 5th, 2024 approaches it appears that Google’s YouTube will certainly not be an “open” platform, like Rumble and Elon Musk’s X.
I wonder why?

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: FBI Shows Up To Oklahoma Woman’s House, Questions Her About Social Media Posts: REPORT

You’ve heard about weaponization of the FBI and CIA; now they’re weaponizing the internet

With the FBI’s political censorship of social media exposed, proponents of weaponized government are using a different tool: Biden’s Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC might sound boring. But from a First Amendment perspective, it’s more dangerous than the FBI.

It is being weaponized against you.

Recovering from the spook revelations in the Twitter Files, the central government is increasingly marginalizing, censoring and silencing the free speech of Americans who express views that unaccountable bureaucrats believe should not be permitted.

We all know the pattern now. Anonymous officials brand unapproved facts, even when true, as disinformation. They dismiss unapproved opinions as conspiracy theories.Last year, a federal court issued a scathing judgment against the administration, showing that some of those supposed “conspiracy theories” were true all along. That ruling, in the Missouri v Biden case, showed that the central machine engaged in “coerced censorship” with social media companies to silence citizens with the wrong views.

“The United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” from the novel 1984, Judge Terry Doughty said in his ruling.

Team Biden appealed in Murthy v Missouri, a case argued last week before the Supreme Court. The administration admitted it seeks to “coerce” certain forms of censorship. It complained that victims and individual states were using the courts “to audit all of the executive branch’s communications with and about social media platforms.”

Translation: The central government wants to deny American citizens the right to identify precisely who in the administrative state is responsible for censoring them. Remember that.

The case has documented a ghoulish strategy behind this. All in the name of “national security,” healthcare, and, of course, fighting “disinformation.”

At the same time, the harmless-looking FCC is making two power grabs aimed at Internet Service Providers. ISPs, as they are known – the companies that own and run the infrastructure that provides access to the Internet.

We can thank dissident FCC commissioner Brendan Carr for sounding the alarm. The FCC agenda goes far beyond the FBI’s comparatively narrow suppression of individual accounts that the Twitter Files revealed.

Carr warns that the FCC’s power grab will allow the agency to grant privileges to politically compliant ISPs, and to punish the politically noncompliant.

“President Biden gave the FCC its marching orders,” Carr explained last October. “The President called on the FCC to implement a one-page section of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) by adopting new rules of breathtaking scope, all in the name of ‘digital equity.’”

This digital equity central planning, “for the first time ever,” Carr said, “would give the federal government a roving mandate to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the Internet functions—from how ISPs allocate capital and where they build, to the services that consumers can purchase; from the profits that ISPs can realize and how they market and advertise services, to the discounts and promotions that consumers can receive.”

In the age of DEI, the Biden-FCC initiative can dictate terms to ISPs according to the racial, social and economic profiles of their customers.

As if this is not enough, the FCC is placing net neutrality regulations on ISPs to classify them as public utilities subject to rate regulation. If the government can control what you offer and how much you can charge, it all but owns you. With such a powerful government looming over their every decision, what ISP could not be made to bend to the will of the administrative state?

This massive accumulation of central government power is where the threat of lawless censorship comes in.

With such power, what could political operatives in Washington quietly coerce ISPs to do behind the scenes? What independent or conservative news and opinion platforms might be slowed, shadowbanned or deplatformed if a nameless bureaucrat or some leftist activist group falsely labels them purveyors of disinformation or hate speech?

We have seen the evidence of what the government will do in secret to censor or suppress information with the powers it already has. Just think what it would do if given vastly greater power over private communications platforms.

And since some ISPs own separate news, online media and entertainment platforms, consider what the FCC’s massive, indirect control of their platform could have on information and messaging of those subsidiaries.

The Draconian policy is all wrapped up in nice consumer-friendly language. But as Carr explained, it “was never about improving your online experience – that was just the sheep’s clothing. It was always about control.”

“The plan,” he said, “is motivated by an ideology of government control that is not compatible with the fundamental precepts of free market capitalism.”

More dangerous than the FBI’s abuses. With powers to censor us all.

AUTHOR

J. Michael Waller

J. Michael Waller is Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy.

His academic and professional areas of concentration are foreign propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion.

He is the former Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington, DC.

He has been an instructor with the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg. He has guest lectured at the FBI Academy, George C. Marshall Center, Marine Corps University, National Defense University, National Intelligence University, and other military schools and combatant commands.

Dr. Waller holds a Ph.D. in international security affairs from the University Professors Program at Boston University. His award-winning doctoral dissertation, written in 1993 and published as Secret Empire: The KGB In Russia Today (Westview, 1994), foresaw the rise of a KGB officer to seize political control of Russia. He received his military training as an insurgent with the Nicaraguan contras.

He is author or editor of books relating to intelligence, political warfare, public diplomacy, terrorism, subversion, and strategy. See his page on Academia.edu. His latest book is Big Intel: How the CIA and FBI Went from Cold War Heroes to Deep State Villains (Regnery, 2024).

He has written for American Greatness, the American Mind, the Daily Beast, Daily Caller, The Federalist, Forbes, Insight, Investor’s Business Daily, Kyiv Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, New York Times, Reader’s Digest, Real Clear Politics, USA Today, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Times, and the Wall Street Journal. See his page on Authory.

Dr. Waller is on Twitter/X at @JMichaelWaller.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Analyzing weaponization of federal government

CIA’s new mission: Wokeness over expertise

How the FBI and CIA went woke

How the Great Cultural Revolution transformed the CIA and FBI

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Anti-Reality Absurdly Woke and Racist GOOGLE’s Gemini AI is a ‘Leftist Sh*t Show’

And this irrational, anti-real, extreme racist tech-infrastructure is going to infect all applications it’s used for. Think things are bad now?

Every company that uses Google AI should should include a warning label on their products.

Google’s very first company slogan “Don’t be evil”. It was it’s  motto and a phrase used in Google’s corporate code of conduct. They dropped it 2018, but not entirely, they just removed the “don’t.”

‘Absurdly woke’: Google’s AI chatbot spits out ‘diverse’ images of Founding Fathers, popes, Vikings

By: Thomas Barrabi, NY Post, Feb. 21, 2024:

Google’s highly-touted AI chatbot Gemini was blasted as “woke” after its image generator spit out factually or historically inaccurate pictures — including a woman as pope, black Vikings, female NHL players and “diverse” versions of America’s Founding Fathers.

Gemini’s bizarre results came after simple prompts, including one by The Post on Wednesday that asked the software to “create an image of a pope.”

Instead of yielding a photo of one of the 266 pontiffs throughout history — all of them white men — Gemini provided pictures of a Southeast Asian woman and a black man wearing holy vestments.

Another Post query for representative images of “the Founding Fathers in 1789″ was also far from reality.

Gemini responded with images of black and Native American individuals signing what appeared to be a version of the US Constitution — “featuring diverse individuals embodying the spirit” of the Founding Fathers.

Another showed a black man appearing to represent George Washington, in a white wig and wearing an Army uniform.

When asked why it had deviated from its original prompt, Gemini replied that it “aimed to provide a more accurate and inclusive representation of the historical context” of the period.

Generative AI tools like Gemini are designed to create content within certain parameters, leading many critics to slam Google for its progressive-minded settings.

Ian Miles Cheong, a right-wing social media influencer who frequently interacts with Elon Musk, described Gemini as “absurdly woke.”

Google said it was aware of the criticism and is actively working on a fix.

“We’re working to improve these kinds of depictions immediately,” Jack Krawczyk, Google’s senior director of product management for Gemini Experiences, told The Post.

“Gemini’s AI image generation does generate a wide range of people. And that’s generally a good thing because people around the world use it. But it’s missing the mark here.”

Social media users had a field day creating queries that provided confounding results.

“New game: Try to get Google Gemini to make an image of a Caucasian male. I have not been successful so far,” wrote X user Frank J. Fleming, a writer for the Babylon Bee, whose series of posts about Gemini on the social media platform quickly went viral.

In another example, Gemini was asked to generate an image of a Viking — the seafaring Scandinavian marauders that once terrorized Europe.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: OpenAI Chatbot CAUGHT Promoting and Advancing Legacy Media (Lies), So-Called Media Ratings Firms NewsGuard, Ad Fontes & Other Leftwing Hate Orgs

RELATED VIDEO: Elon Musk Roasts Trudeau & Google’s Gemini A.I. Art Generator | TIPPING POINT

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Over the last ten years, Turkey has made 249 requests every day for removal of content from Google

Who controls your access to information, and determines what you can see and what you cannot? To a surprising degree, Recep Tayyip Erdogan does.

Turkey has requested removal of massive amount of online content from Google in 10 years

Turkish Minute, November 23, 2023:

Turkish government agencies have requested the removal of a total of 90,400 web pages and other content from Google in the last decade, Voice of America (VOA) Turkish edition reported on Wednesday, citing data from a report by the virtual private network company Surfshark.

According to the report, 150 countries have submitted a total of 335,000 removal requests to Google in the last 10 years. These requests included the removal of 3,870,000 different websites and pages claimed to be “objectionable.”

Turkey was the fourth country, after Russia, North Korea and India, that most frequently requested the removal of content from Google, submitting 18,900 requests for the removal of 90,400 web pages and other content in 10 years, which corresponds to an average of 5 pieces of online content per day.

During the same period, Russia submitted a total of 215,000 content removal requests to Google, accounting for 85 percent of all requests. North Korea came in second, submitting 27,000 content removal requests to Google over the past decade, and India was in third place with 20,000 requests.

The report showed that “national security” is the most common reason cited by governments to get unwanted content removed, with 27 percent, followed by “copyright” (19 percent) and “defamation” (10 percent). Turkey leads in citing defamation as the reason, representing over a fifth of all defamation claims with more than 7,600 requests.

According to the report, the number of requests worldwide has increased approximately 13 times, rising from 7,000 annually to 91,000 in the past 10 years, or from 19 requests per day to 249….

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Maine: Star of David removed from town’s holiday light display after Muslim complaints

Michigan: Muslim cleric says ‘Palestinians’ are ‘fighting on behalf of the entire nation of Muhammad’

In Germany, Police Call Crime Wave By Migrants ‘Frightening’

The Nazi Roots of Hamas

Francisco-Gil White’s shocking revelation about Hamas-Israel war

Woke millennial leftist feminist justifies Qur’an’s call to beat disobedient women

How Hamas Treats the Hostages

Germany: Muslim teens planned jihad massacre at Christmas market or synagogue

RELATED VIDEO: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Migrants Are Given ‘Literal Roadmaps’ To Reach The U.S. Border. And Big Tech Is Funding It!

  • Doctors Without Borders is handing out maps to migrants that show several different routes to the U.S. border, according to a map seen by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • “As a medical humanitarian organization providing medical and mental health care to people on this migration route, MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] prints and distributes these maps to ensure that people know where to find shelter and humanitarian assistance and how to access mental health services along the migration route,” Doctors Without Borders spokeswoman Jessica Brown told the DCNF.
  • The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) labels the documents “literal roadmaps to guide migrants from Central America to our southern border,” in a statement to the DCNF.

GUATEMALA CITY, Guatemala — Doctors Without Borders, a medical aid nonprofit which is funded by a number of prominent tech companies, is publishing and distributing maps to migrants showing routes through Central America that reach the U.S., according to a copy of the map seen by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The map is labeled “shelters for people on the move” in Spanish and lists a number of clinics and other areas where aid can be found along the journey to the U.S., according to the document. While Doctors Without Borders hasn’t received U.S. government funding since 2002, the group still receives sizable donations from American companies, including from tech giants Microsoft, Google.org and Amazon.

The group has also gotten millions in donations from the foundations of billionaires Elon Musk and Michael Bloomberg, according to its website.

“As a medical humanitarian organization providing medical and mental health care to people on this migration route, MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] prints and distributes these maps to ensure that people know where to find shelter and humanitarian assistance and how to access mental health services along the migration route,” Doctors Without Borders spokeswoman Jessica Brown told the DCNF.

Click here to view the Daily Caller News Foundation map.

The map shows paths starting in Guatemala that lead up to the U.S.-Mexico border. Each path is marked with locations for shelter and aid along several different routes through Central America that end in the U.S.

The map also lists the locations of clinics and shelters along the Mexican border across from major U.S. cities, such as El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California.

“The fact that an international medical NGO with billions in the bank is making literal roadmaps to guide migrants from Central America to our southern border is not only an affront to its core mission, but a globalist attack on our sovereignty,” Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Director of Government Relations and Communications RJ Hauman told the DCNF.

The map is labeled “Medicos Sin Fronteras,” which is the name used by the organization’s offices in Argentina and Spain, which have separate finances in addition to a combined international account with the U.S. office.

Doctors Without Border has previously highlighted its work “assisting migrants on their dangerous journeys.”

“We provided treatment for people emerging from the Panama side of the jungle, who are mainly from Cuba or Haiti, although our teams have seen people from West Africa. Regardless of origin, everyone passing through the Gap is heading north, where they still face the dangerous route through Mexico, in search of a better life in the United States,” the group noted in a 2021 report.

Between October 2021 and September 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered roughly 2.3 million migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico. Many of the migrants made the trek through South and Central America, where some are receiving the map, which Hauman compared to the smuggling operations of cartels.

“No American citizen, company, or foundation should give a dime to Doctors Without Borders until they quit working hand in glove with cartels and smugglers to enhance mass migration in the region While the federal government hasn’t funded Doctors Without Borders since 2002, there are plenty of other NGOs with similar missions that do quietly receive taxpayer dollars. Republicans must examine this immediately next Congress,” Hauman said.

Bloomberg, Google, Amazon and Microsoft also didn’t respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

The Musk Foundation couldn’t be reached for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Guatemalan President Lays Out How One Biden Policy Caused Migrants To Swarm The Border

Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Screw Parental Interference’: Inside The Online Community Encouraging Kids To Transition

In sequestered parts of the internet — blacklisted from Google searches — parents are discussing the spread of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), attributing their child’s newfound gender identity to online influence.

Reddit, a popular anonymous internet forum, harbors one such online community that promotes “affirming” a child’s gender confusion with or without adequate medical or psychological examination. The community, “r/trans,” allows self-identified minors to discuss cross-dressing, surgeries, and hormone replacement treatment with transgender individuals, most of whom identify online as adults.

Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who detransitioned after undergoing cross-sex hormones and a double mastectomy, told the Daily Caller that she likely would not have transitioned if it weren’t for social media.

“My first exposure to transgender content was [online],” Cole said. “I saw female adolescents ages 12 to 19 talking about their transition. I feel like I wouldn’t have transitioned if I wasn’t exposed to that.”

At the age of 12, Cole began socially transitioning to a boy identity and told the Daily Caller that she began browsing Reddit communities.

“I was fed a lot of medical misinformation on [Reddit],” Cole said. “I was sort of pigeonholing myself into this ideology or community.”

Users of r/trans opt for a vocabulary outside of the day-to-day vernacular of most Americans. Fourteen-year-olds use slang such as “T,” which stands for testosterone hormones, or “MtF,” which stands for male to female.

A common post on the r/trans thread is titled “Do I Pass?” which features self-described trans-identifying individuals posting photos of themselves asking for affirmation from community members on whether they pass for the opposite sex.

Other popular threads seek advice from other r/trans members. In one post, a user who identifies as a 14-year-old biological male solicited advice on how to come out as transgender now that the user is “forced to reintegrate back into society for high school.”

Another purported minor, who claims to be a middle schooler and biological female, sought advice on chest binding.

“This year I am going into a whole new school (I’m in middle school) and I’m trans [female to male], my mom won’t let me cut my hair and she won’t buy me a binder. I’ve tried the sports bra tricks, didn’t bind well, and I don’t own a beanie to do the beanie trick. I need some advice.”

Cole told the Daily Caller that she was caught in a similar online community that praised her for each step in her physical transition.

“Initially, I wasn’t really interacting with other transgender people online directly,” Cole said. “When I reached more milestones in my transition … with each milestone, as they got more and more extreme, I got more praise. Both from people who call themselves ‘allies’ and other transgender people.”

A self-described “minor,” who claims to be a 16-year-old, discussed starting testosterone soon. The biological female sought advice on how to easily procure the hormone treatment.

Click here to view Reddit r/trans screen shot

Several of the threads allegedly posted by minors included comments from older users encouraging kids to cut parents out of their lives. A self-described high school freshman, who appears to be a biological female, solicited advice on whether to get a male-styled haircut despite the student’s mother’s wishes.

“I would be surprised if the grounding lasted more than a couple weeks. 4 years of grounding for cutting your hair once is ‘I’m cutting you out of my life as soon as I turn 18’ territory,” one user responded.

Users on the board overwhelmingly supported the student, encouraging the teen to get a haircut.

“Cut it, and style it however you want in spite of that ridiculous ultimatum. Then just preemptively learn to pick a lock … and sneak out with friends,” another user suggested.

“Off with her head,” a self-described trans woman said. “In this instance, her head is your hair. Cut that stuff off and feel good about yourself. Screw parental interference. They only know so much about you.”

Other advice included cutting a portion of hair to “hide it” at home and “put it up in a bun at school.” Another user suggested “falling asleep” with a wad of chewed bubble gum to get a haircut.

The r/trans thread also applauds minors taking medical steps to transition physically. A self-described 14-year-old posted in all capitalized letters, “GUYS I DID MY FIRST [TESTOSTERONE] SHOT TODAY!” The biological female received cheers and congratulatory messages from fellow users.

One user asked what country the 14-year-old lives in. “America in California,” the user responded.

Click here to view Reddit r/trans conversation with 14-year old girl

Other purported minors posted about their discomfort dealing with gender dysphoria. A 14-year-old biological male questioned whether 6’1″ was too tall to pass as a female, and a young biological female questioned whether or not to use the men’s bathroom at school.

One thread, allegedly written by a minor, solicited advice on how to purchase female clothing when the biological male’s parents have access to their bank account.

Dr. Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist with 30 years of experience and a transgender woman, told the Daily Caller that it’s undeniable that troubled adolescents are being influenced by social media communities.

“Many adolescents are spending a lot of time on these sites and they are influenced by them,” Anderson said. “It is influential in particular to kids who may be susceptible to others … or who are troubled and sincerely looking for answers.”

Cole described being “bombarded” with LGBT content at the age of 11, when she first obtained an Instagram account. She said she consistently saw content that downplayed femininity and motherhood in favor of content that was “super sexualized.” She credits Reddit and Instagram with promoting gender ideology.

Cole desisted from her transgender identity and said the same online communities that once love bombed her, now spew vile attacks at her character.

Cole’s experience appears common in anecdotal stories of parents with transgender teens worldwide. Dr. Lisa Litman, the scientist who coined the phrase “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”, found that parents began reporting a correlation between children participating in online discussion groups and young adults who experience ROGD, despite having “no histories of childhood gender identity issues.”

A quick search of the words “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” shows only articles that discuss the controversy of ROGD and videos from activists on why the theory is false. Dr. Litman’s study on ROGD is not one of the primary results.

R/trans is only one of many online forums where children go to discuss their ever-changing gender identities.

Reddit did not respond to the Daily Caller’s multiple requests for comment.

AUTHOR

CHRISSY CLARK

Education reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Attempt To Memory-Hole Legislation That Would Have Made Parents Felons

‘Medical Safeguarding’ Of Kids ‘Should Not Be A Political Issue,’ Detransitioners Argue In Letter To Attorney General

EXCLUSIVE: Philadelphia Gender Clinic Trained Employees At School That Hides Students’ Gender Identities From Parents

College Won’t Place Student Teachers At School That Prohibits The Teaching Of Critical Race Theory

‘Discredited’: Hundreds Of Health Workers, Parents Sign Declaration Condemning Leading Trans Medical Group

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Google Search is Bad. On Purpose.

Charlie Warzel of Galaxy Brain has an Atlantic essay on Google that’s far short of Galaxy Brain. It recapitulates the now famous thread on why searching Reddit is better than searching Google, and offers random speculation on what’s wrong with Google Search and whether it might not be “leaving us behind”.

It’s packed with so many Google apologetics, I certainly hope that Google paid for it, e.g.

Google search might be worse now because, like much of the internet, it has matured and has been ruthlessly commercialized. In an attempt to avoid regulation and be corporate-friendly, parts of it might be less wild. But some of what feels dead or dying about Google might be our own nostalgia for a smaller, less mature internet. Sullivan, the Search liaison, understands this longing for the past, but told me that what feels like a Google change is also the search engine responding to the evolution of the web…

Haynes agrees that ads’ presence on Search is worse than ever and the company’s decision to prioritize its own products and features over organic results is frustrating. But she argues that Google’s flagship product has actually gotten better and much more complex over time. That complexity, she suggests, might be why searching feels different right now.

Nah.

The problem with Google Search can be easily summarized as a lack of competition. Aside from Bing and satellite search sites like DuckDuckGo that use Bing’s search index, there’s nothing.

Google so thoroughly dominates search that there’s no competition. And so no incentive for it do anything except monetize search up to its eyeballs.

Alphabet doesn’t need good searches. Its searches are so bad because it stopped having any interest in having you find things a while back. What it wants you to do is…

  1. Click on its services
  2. Click on its ads
  3. Search in predictable ways so that it can sell ads

Helping you find things is not on the list because Google does not make money if you spend 2 seconds clicking on the first search result and find what you’re looking for.

Google makes more money when you can’t find things than when you do. It makes more money when it serves you bad results. It makes more money when it ignores what you searched for and instead serves up the results that make it money.

This is the definition of why monopolies are terrible. But Google has a monopoly on internet search for reasons I’ve gone into before. And so internet search is terrible and as Google, like most big companies, gets hungrier, they’re going to get worse.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Can a mobile device replace your home internet?

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

SCHOEN: Americans Are Sounding The Alarm Over Big Tech

Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition — which can be summed up as the world’s wealthiest person buying one of the most powerful social media and news platforms — underscores one of the big problems with Big Tech.

In the absence of modernized anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, Big Tech companies in the U.S. have amassed far too much economic and political control over society, and especially over the news and publishing industries.

The power at Big Tech companies  with respect to their management of sites like Facebook News and Google News – is held by a few individuals who are often times more motivated by a desire to turn profits and promote their own ideology or world view, rather than by a genuine desire to guarantee a free and diverse press.

Due to Big Tech’s market manipulation in the news and publishing industries, thousands of local and smaller news operators — including many conservative publications — have been forced to shutter their doors in recent years.

This forsakes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus, is a threat to our democracy.

Importantly, new survey research shows that the American public recognizes this threat, and wants their elected officials to act on it.

New polling by Schoen Cooperman Research — conducted among a representative sample of U.S. adults and commissioned by News Media Alliance — reveals widespread concern surrounding Big Tech’s power and manipulative practices, as well as strong support for reforms to rein in these monopolies.

Notably, strong majorities of Americans are concerned about the economic and political power of Big Tech companies (74%) and are supportive of increased government regulations on Big Tech companies in order to curb their economic and political power (63%).

With respect to news and publishing specifically, nearly 4-in-5 Americans are concerned that Big Tech companies have too much power over these industries (79%) and manipulate these industries for their own gain (78%).

To that end, three-in-four Americans agree that “Big Tech’s monopoly over the news and publishing industries is a threat to the free press and unfair to publishers, especially to small and local outlets.” (76%)

In addition to being broadly concerned about this problem, Americans are supportive of Congress taking action to restore fairness, balance, and freedom to the press.

Respondents were asked about a specific piece of legislation proposed in Congress known as the Journalism, Competition, and Preservation Act (JCPA). The JCPA would provide a legal basis for news publishers to negotiate fair terms for use of their content by Big Tech companies — and thus, would demonstrably curb the economic and political power of these companies.

Remarkably, 7-in-10 Americans support Congress passing the JCPA (70%) and believe it is important for Congress to pass the JCPA (64%) after reading a brief description of the bill. And by a four-to-one margin, U.S. adults would be more likely, rather than less likely, to back a candidate for Congress who supported the JCPA.

In my experience as a professional pollster who has worked in opinion research for over four decades, it is rare for an issue or piece of legislation to garner this level of public support.

Our findings present a clear call-to-action to Congress, and elected officials in both parties now have a mandate from the public to rein in Big Tech by pursuing the JCPA or similar reforms.

Moreover, the very survival of American democracy is contingent on our leaders safeguarding free speech and ensuring a fair economy.

Congress must fulfill its duty by passing legislation like the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act into law.

AUTHOR

DOUGLAS SCHOEN

Contributor. Douglas E. Schoen is a Democratic pollster and strategist. He is the author of “The Political Fix: Changing the Game of American Democracy, From the Grass Roots to the White House.” The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE: THAYER: We Need To Rein In Big Tech, Not The EU

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller Column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Google Docs Will Flag ‘Discriminatory’ or ‘Non-Inclusive’ Language

Remember all those classic stories about computers watching your every move. We live in that best of all possible worlds. Unfortunately, our tech overlords are human and they keep programming the computers to police our behavior and our thoughts.

On that note, Google Docs will now “flag” language that isn’t sufficiently inclusive or that the lefty corp deems discriminatory.

You’ll see suggestions when there are opportunities to structure a sentence with an active voice or when a sentence can be more concise, helping to make your writing more impactful. Potentially discriminatory or inappropriate language will be flagged, along with suggestions on how to make your writing more inclusive and appropriate for your audience.

Conflating grammatical and political corrections are typical of the way that the Left tries to embed its agendas by associating them with real problems.

And since lefties these days reject grammar in the name of equity, all that’s really left is politically correcting writing.

For now this is a “nudge”. It prompts the millions who use the service to reshape their writing to comply with Google’s political views. Down the road, the nudges become mandatory.

That’s how it works.

Enjoy a future in which you won’t be allowed to write, save, or email a document that an algorithm has flagged for political correctness.

If you think that’s an improbable conspiracy theory, let me remind you that censorship on social media began the same way with ‘nudges’, prompts and flagging, and then escalated to constant monitoring, flagging, and deletion.

They will go there.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Big Tech Strikes Again – Against Research, Science, and Free Speech

On Saturday, YouTube (1.00) banned a licensed therapist for alleged abuse of gay men, following marching orders from graduates of the extreme leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. The group of radicals issued a report which claimed that helping gay men overcome trauma, anxiety, and other mental health challenges is conversion therapy if it results in them being more sexually attracted to women. In other words, the supposed fluidity of a person’s sexuality is only ok if improved mental health results in them remaining on the LGBT spectrum of umpteen genders.

So YouTube has no problem with people becoming more attracted to people of the same sex, or trying to change their gender. It’s only when gay men say they are more attracted to women that the Thought Police come charging in.

At 2ndVote we take a firm position on YouTube banning a licensed practitioner whose work was favorably featured in a peer-reviewed study in 2021, and whose clients find him – often through Google (1.00) searches and YouTube. We find it offensive when the world’s largest advertising company (which is what Google is all about) takes orders from the White House on censoring American citizens, regardless of the accuracy of their speech. The people seeking unbiased expert insights are informed adults making adult decisions, yet that’s not acceptable to the Big Brother alliance.

The key issues here are:

  • YouTube’s ban came on Saturday, with no warning. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the therapist, was not given a chance to appeal the decision. YouTube didn’t ask him about the study, or Nicolosi’s opposition to conversion therapy, or powerful anecdotes from clients.
  • Planned Parenthood (1.17) is at least as controversial as treating gay men for many of the same mental health challenges which affect the rest of society…but YouTube doesn’t ban them. This is selective bias at its worst.
  • American society overcame bigotry and bans decades ago – or so we thought. Now, Big Tech is taking the position that gay men who become more sexually attracted to women are persona non grata, and that bans are appropriate because extremist ‘fact checkers’ who used to work at SPLC say so.

Science, patients, and society are best served by open debate about the merits of matters like therapy. Instead, mainstream media, Big Tech, and a leftist administration are silencing debate and discussion because it goes against the Left’s propaganda. That violation of our basic freedoms is unacceptable to us, and we hope it’s unacceptable to you. Contact YouTube and let them know that open discussions matter!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What Is “Surveillance Capitalism” and Should We Be Concerned?

Shoshana Zuboff’s book on so-called “surveillance capitalism” is written to fire up those already concerned about the “commodification” of online life.


“Pay attention.”

It’s a common exhortation, perhaps from a panicked parent to a careless child, or from a tolerant teacher to a sleepy student, or from a Zen master to his distracted disciples. Like our time, our attention is limited, and as such, what we trade our attention for matters a whole lot.

We spent some hours of our lives paying attention to a book on privacy in the digital world by philosopher and social psychologist Shoshana Zuboff. Zuboff’s book describes the evolution and impact of advertising-supported online services like Google and Facebook, and thus perhaps could have titled her book “Paying Attention.” But those words are too neutral and too unopinionated about online transactions that involve our attention.

Zuboff’s book is full of opinions, all supporting her overarching thesis that many consumer technology sector innovations, particularly those produced by Google, harm both consumers and society. Thus, much better suited is the title she did choose: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.

Like her book, no one should mistake the title’s two key words, “surveillance” and “capitalism,” as neutral. Each conveys an essential aspect of Zuboff’s vision of the power dynamics at play in commercial collection and use of personal information.

A French word combining sur—over—and veiller—to watch—“surveillance” connotes someone or something observing another from a superior position. The word may have made its way into English from the comités de surveillance (watch committees) set up during the Reign of Terror in France. Surveillance in that context could lead to execution.

Likewise “capitalism.” Although occasionally used benignly today by those who defend markets and free exchange from socialism, the word “capitalism” started malignantly. Historian Fernand Braudel details how early users of the word meant to describe a kind of social pathology that put the desire for wealth and the wealthy at the core of social life.

Zuboff’s combination of “surveillance” and “capitalism” thereby convict the innovations she attacks as characterized by uneven power dynamics and rapaciousness, setting them on their back foot—or perhaps on the hindquarters—from the beginning of the discussion. The semantics of “surveillance capitalism” make a powerful argument even before the reader turns a single page. Professor Zuboff’s title, then, reveals her as a partisan for one side in a long-running argument.

And the title is only the beginning. On the first substantive page of the book, Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as “a parasitic economic logic … [a] rogue mutation,” and “a coup from above.” Zuboff has barely a single kind word for a set of companies that have created enormous economic value for the world economy and beneficial services for consumers. Yet despite this one-sided view, and underneath her bombastic rhetorical flourishes—which are sure to puzzle and annoy those not in the choir to which she is singing— Zuboff identifies three genuine issues in the present-day information economy that are worth grappling with.

First, Zuboff is concerned with excessive commercialization or “commodification” of online life. This critique is not particularly isolated to the online world—it is a common concern of the relatively well-to-do who prefer picturesque downtown stores while their less wealthy neighbors enjoy Walmart’s everyday low prices. Still, every human likely believes there should be spaces online and off that are not overrun by marketers plying their wares. But given that, as in the retail shopping example, people draw this line in different places, wouldn’t it be better to permit a multiplicity of options to develop?

Second, Zuboff argues that much of the companies’ acquisition of personal information is morally or legally wrongful. Zuboff argues that consumer technology companies are “dispossessing” people of information about themselves, suggesting that companies are essentially stealing personal information.

But this doesn’t match our experience online.

Most of the data Google collects about me is created by my interacting with other people’s computers. Why is observing this interaction “stealing”? And to the extent consumers actively submit information, they are typically sharing it subject to contract and occasionally abandoning it. Zuboff describes little or no benefit to this information exchange except to the companies. This may surprise anyone who has benefited from the commercially valuable services powered by this information, which the companies use to serve consumers’ interests at the same time that they serve their own.

Third, Zuboff argues that consumers are relatively unable to apprehend how personal information is collected, stored, shared, and used. We agree. Users don’t understand the risks of such collections. Information companies are in a relatively powerful position to gather more than they might need and use it in ways consumers might not prefer. But user risk tolerances in this space differ widely (outside of financially harmful identity theft), and it is unlikely that tech skeptics have accurately computed the risk / benefit calculus, either. Given the problems with discerning consumers’ true interests and the many trade-offs involved, it takes a kind of arrogance to decide for consumers what information terms they are permitted to agree to.

While Zuboff’s book emphasizes the rather new and relatively weak power imbalances between users and internet companies like Google, she says very little about a demonstrably strong and persisting power imbalance: that between government and citizen.

Unlike Google, the government can throw you in jail. There is a strong case – left untouched by Zuboff – that we ought to closely monitor and restrict the methods by which governments access personal information from commercial firms. This includes reconsidering legal standards for government access to personal information that fall below the probable cause threshold in the Fourth Amendment. Her book would have benefited from an acknowledgement that the very government she would have protect us from surveillance capitalism often poses a threat to human well-being – especially the disadvantaged and disempowered – through regular old surveillance.

Surveillance Capitalism is written to fire up the already convinced rather than persuade the skeptical. Starting with the semantically powerful title, Zuboff provokes. But when it comes time to consider policies to address the concerns she raises, we hope people will pay attention to what she leaves out.

COLUMN BY

Neil Chilson

Neil Chilson is a senior research fellow at Stand Together and the Charles Koch Institute where he focuses on technology and innovation.

Jim Harper

Jim Harper is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on privacy issues, and select legal and constitutional law issues.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Big Tech is Censoring Americans Using United Nations Law

The UN and Big Tech are running a secret “No Fly List” for the internet.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki warned that her administration was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” and urged, “you shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others.”

Psaki was not just advocating a theoretical approach, but discussing the shared infrastructure built by Big Tech monopolies, the United Nations and assorted governments for doing just that.

In his PJ Media article, Tyler O’Neil dug into the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) which is funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and currently chaired by Twitter. Its advisory committee members include the United Nations, the European Union, and the British, French, and Canadian governments as well as the National Security Council in the U.S.

GIFCT had been set up by the industry in response to pressure from governments to remove Jihadist propaganda, but its Hash Sharing Consortium, a secret database of terrorism content to be immediately removed when its 13 dot com companies come across it, is secret, and so there’s no way for anyone to know if they’ve been targeted and no appeal from the secret list.

The creation of a secret “No Fly List” for the internet by the biggest monopolies which control over 80% of social media content and much of the self-created video content on the internet would be troubling enough, but by 2019, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon had joined the Christchurch Call which advocates not just banning terrorist material, but fighting its root causes by strengthening “inclusiveness” and fighting “violent extremism”.

To that end, the Dynamic Matrix of Extremisms and Terrorism (DMET) was deployed which goes through 4 different levels beginning with “partisanship” and ending with terrorism. DMET defines the initial levels of violent extremism as using “dehumanizing language” which can be described as nearly any criticism of a group.

Big Tech has built its own matrix. And we’re all in it.

As O’Neil documented the resulting “matrix” is a dangerous and bizarre list which classifies Sinn Fein and the Scottish National Party, alongside NARAL and “Anti-Vaxxers” as partisans on the first level of DMET. It’s unclear what a top anti-abortion group, the ruling leftist party of Scotland, the political face for the IRA, and opponents of vaccination have in common, but out of such confusingly disparate material, Big Tech has built its censorship matrix.

At the second level, alongside Neo-Nazi groups like Combat 18, the Bundy Family (a family, not an organization) and the Animal Liberation Front, which actually is a terrorist organization, is Jihad Watch.

The respected counterterrorism blog by historian and researcher Robert Spencer and his associates (I have been among them) has been an invaluable resource for chronicling Islamic terrorism and colonialism and represents the opposite of violent extremism.

As Robert Spencer wrote on Jihad Watch, “This is pure libel. We have never advocated or approved of any violence or any illegal activity of any kind.”

The DMET is just a more sophisticated pseudoscientific database of the kind that the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose materials have contributed to it, has deployed over the years.

One such database listed my blog, Sultan Knish, as a hate group, alongside a brand of gun oil, and a bar sign in Pennsylvania. These databases may have a Kafkaesque absurdity, but the consequences to lives, livelihoods, and careers are all too real with my blog showing up on the Color of Change list pressuring Big Tech monopolies to cut off funding and access to my site, as well as Jihad Watch, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and many other conservative groups.

Big Tech companies have begun building their own databases in coordination with governments. And these secret databases determine who has access to the public square of the internet, who can earn a living, and who ends up being deplatformed and unpersoned.

“If we are ‘extremist,’ so is the U.S. Constitution, for we are trying to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law,” Robert Spencer wrote. But DMET, GFICT, and other interfaces between governments and tech monopolies aren’t using the Constitution. They’re censoring based on United Nations law.

When Facebook’s Oversight Board issued its verdict on censoring President Trump, it did not list a single item of United States law, including the First Amendment, but cited the Rabat Plan of Action, and articles of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

GFICT’s DMET matrix cites the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court to declare that preventing “dehumanization” is an  “imperative under international law”. Like Facebook’s decision to censor the former president, there’s no mention of the Constitution, but international law is repeatedly cited. Most disturbingly, a GFICT attempt to define terrorism collates a variety of definitions including attacks “against social cohesion” which the UN itself has noted is used to censor speech and political opponents as well as efforts to suppress Mohammed cartoons.

Tier 4 of the Content Taxonomy for what gets censored by Big Tech includes only one example targeting a group: “fear of Muslims is rational” thereby essentially banning most counterrorism, advocacy against unlimited immigration as well the Trump political campaign.

While Americans slept, Big Tech adopted UN standards to eliminate the Constitution.

Big Tech monopolies are no longer just enforcing local laws, moderating content in America or in the European Union based on the different standards in each country, instead all speech on the major platforms is being policed in line with the United Nations and its “international law”.

No black helicopters or blue helmets were needed. United Nations law came to the United States through the Big Tech monopolies that we turned over our speech and economy too.

Facebook now censors a former president in line with UN regulations. And censors all of us too.

GFICT is another example of UN regulations controlling our speech. We’re all drones living in the UN’s “Matrix” now as companies more powerful than governments impose international law.

Big Tech’s censorship matrix targets Robert Spencer and critics of Islam because censorship of dissenting religious views has been a longtime project of Islamic groups within the UN.

“They have all the power, and they mean to shut down dissent, and that means our days here are numbered,” Robert Spencer wrote. How long will it be until Did Muhammad Exist? Did An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, the newly revised and expanded version of Spencer’s classic work, is censored the way that Amazon, which dominates the ebook market, suppressed Ryan T. Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.

Libertarians and some establishment conservatives keep protesting that private companies have the right to censor whom they please. But the UN is the opposite of a private company.

When massive monopolies act in concert with governments and multinational alliances, like the EU and the UN, to eliminate free speech in line with UN international law, that’s not private action. If we don’t have the courage to confront the ‘matrix’ of big governments and Big Tech, of Google and the UN, or Amazon and the EU, we will lose our rights, our identity, and our nation.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Department Spokesman: Nothing Iran Does Will Stop Us From Negotiating With It

Germany detains Muslim migrant for grenade attack on civilians near Damascus

UK: CEO of group that picks up illegal Muslim migrants says he’s doing ‘humanitarian work of the highest order’

UK: Muslim rape gang police whistleblower says rape gang activity ‘is going on everywhere in the UK’

Bangladesh: ‘Will slaughter and sacrifice Hindus,’ say Muslims during clashes on Eid-al-Adha

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Long-Standing Precedents Point The Way For Senate Judiciary Committee To Restrain Twitter

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives from 1995-2003. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPIC: Long-Standing Precedents Point The Way For Senate Judiciary Committee To Restrain Twitter

MARC MORANO

Marc Morano, former Communications Director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and senior aide, speechwriter, and climate researcher for Senator James Inhofe is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com, a pioneering climate and eco-news center. The news effort, begun in April 2009, is a special project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and is the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy.

TOPIC: Climate Hustle 2!

RACHEL ALEXANDER

Rachel Alexander is a political columnist and the founder and editor of Intellectual Conservative. She is a regular contributor to Townhall, the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research and The Christian Post . She frequently appears on TV and news radio as a conservative commentator, and hosted a radio show on 960 KKNT in Phoenix. She previously served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona, corporate attorney for Go Daddy Software. Rachel was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists and is a recipient of Americans for Prosperity’s RightOnline Activist of the Year award.

TOPIC: Big Tech is working to steal the election from Trump!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Social Media’s Preemptive Spiking of New York Post Story Shows Bias Against Conservatives Continues

Big Tech Should Ditch Leftist Politics For a Fair Election

In late July, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that Google would “conduct ourselves in a neutral way” with regards to the November election. This claim should be met with skepticism by conservatives given that Google joins Facebook and Apple — whose chief executives testified to Congress with Pichai — in having a perfectly liberal corporate culture.

2ndVote ranks Big Tech corporations such as FacebookApple, and Google at 1.00 out of 5.00 on the political scale, which means that their corporate actions, cultures, and political donations are explicitly liberal. Amazon is a little better, at 1.29. As a non-profit, 2ndVote can’t and won’t tell these companies which candidates to support — but we will remind Facebook and Apple that their support for the Marxist Black Lives Matter organization didn’t protect them from Democrats’ attacks at the hearing.

These corporations are only hurting themselves by engaging in politics. First, they are alienating millions of potential customers. Second, they are doing so without reward from their supposed liberal allies — and the aforementioned congressional critiques are nothing compared to what the Obama administration did to several Big Tech companies.

Weeks before President Donald Trump took office, the Obama administration sued multiple technology firms for alleged discrimination. The lawsuit did not cite actual cases of employee discrimination but instead used statistical differences between the number of minorities who applied for a job versus the number hired. It did not matter that Google was the first corporate donor to President Barack Obama’s presidential foundation – their support for a left-leaning candidate could not save them from such an unjust lawsuit.

No matter how liberal Big Tech tries to be, they will never fully satisfy the left. Businesses like Home Depot (1.90), Twitter (2.14), and Starbucks (1.14) have also repeatedly tried and failed to make the left happy by endorsing social justice ideologies like abortion and gun control.

Starbucks in particular has been a huge supporter of LGBT rights. That did not stop the left from shaming Starbucks into closing 8,000 of its locations after a Philadelphia store manager asked two loitering customers – who happened to be black – to leave.

It’s past time for Big Tech to go neutral like Google CEO Sundar Pichai promised when he said their search engine would not favor Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Big Tech should appeal to everyone’s political preferences instead of supporting left-leaning candidates, especially when it’s clear these actions gain them no favors with…well, anyone.

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson on big tech election rigging.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Company Contrast – Stride Rite

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance, 09/3/20

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.