FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tech Giants' Fake News military cartel: Google Facebook etc
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16851
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2581
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Philip Cross Affair
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affai r/

UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:

The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.

There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.

Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?

Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.

The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.

Just as revealing are the people who “Philip Cross” seeks to protect and promote. Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career. Labour Friends of Israel’s Ruth Smeeth MP has had reference to the Wikileaks released US diplomatic cable that showed she was an informer to the US Embassy on the secrets of the Labour Party, deleted by “Philip Cross”. Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.

“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp, Philip Cross actually wrote the original hagiographic entry. The Guardian’s MI6 contact, Luke Harding, is particularly looked after by Cross, as are their anti-Corbyn obsessives Nick Cohen and Jonathon Freedland. So are Murdoch hacks David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm.

There is no doubt that Kamm, leader wirter of Murdoch’s Times, is close the the “Philip Cross” operation. Many people believe that Kamm and Cross are the same person, or that Kamm is part of a multiple persona. Six times I have personally had hostile edits to my Wikipedia page by “Philip Cross” made in precise conjunction with attacks on me by Kamm, either on Twitter, in a Times editorial or in Prospect magazine. Altogether “Philip Cross” has made 275 edits to my Wikipedia page. These include calling my wife a stripper, deleting my photo, removing my reply to attacks made on me by Kamm and Harding among others, and deleting my refusal of all honours while a British diplomat.

Neil Clark and Peter Oborne are among many others who have suffered attacks on them by Philip Cross on Wikipedia simultaneously with attacks by Kamm on other media. Clark is taking Kamm to court for stalking – and “Philip Cross” has deleted all reference to that fact from Kamm’s Wikipedia page.

What is plain is that Kamm and Cross have extremely similar political views, and that the dividing line of those they attack and those they defend is based squarely on the principles of the Euston Manifesto. This may be obscure, but is in fact an important Blairite declaration of support for Israel and for neo-con wars of intervention, and was linked to the foundation of the Henry Jackson Society. Who do we find editing the Wikipedia entry for the Euston Manifesto? “Philip Cross”.

What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.

The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.

In response many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.

Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?

I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.

“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.

I have in the past exchanged messages with “Philip Cross”. He says he is a person, and that he edits in conjunction with Oliver Kamm tweets because he follows Kamm and his tweets inspire him to edit. He says he has met Kamm and admits to being in electronic communication with him. That excjange I had with Cross was some years ago. More recent communication with Cross (who has now changed his twitter ID to “Julian”

has been less forthcoming and he has not replied:

George Galloway has offered a reward of £1,000 for the name and address of “Cross” so he may also take legal action.

My view is that Philip Cross probably is a real person, but that he fronts for a group acting under his name. It is undeniably true, in fact the government has boasted, that both the MOD and GCHQ have “cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media, and that is precisely the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation on Wikipedia. The extreme regularity of output argues against “Philip Cross” being either a one man or volunteer operation. I do not rule out however the possibility he genuinely is just a single extremely obsessed right wing fanatic.

Finally, it is worth noting that on Wikipedia, an operation to boost the mainstream media narrative and denigrate alternative sources has the massive advantage that only information from mainstream media sources is permitted in political articles.

In conclusion, some images from the edit pages of Wikipedia articles to give just a little flavour of what I am talking about:

I am slightly concerned lest I am myself getting obsessed. Do you find this as fascinating as I do?

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2581
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Britain’s Brave New World just got Braver
Posted on June 15, 2018 Post navigation← Previous
https://anniemachon.ch/annie_machon/2018/06/britains-brave-new-world-j ust-got-braver.html

First published by Consortium News.

On 5th June 2018 the UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, unveiled his new counter-terrorism initiative that he says is targeting an ever-metastasising threat, yet it raises a raft of new questions about people’s rights.

The government is acting on the imperative that something needs to be done. But MI5 — officially known as the UK domestic Security Service and the lead organisation in combating terrorism within the UK — has already, since the start of the war on terror, doubled in size and has also been promised yet more staff over the next two years.

Yet despite these boosted resources for MI5, as well as increased funding and surveillance powers for the entire UK intelligence community, virtually every terror attack carried out in the UK over the last few years has been committed by someone already known to the authorities. Indeed, the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, had been aggressively investigated but MI5 ignored vital intelligence and closed down the active investigation shortly before he carried out the attack.

This failure to target known threats is not just a UK problem. Attacks across Europe over the last few years have repeatedly been carried out by people already on the local security radar.

New approaches are needed. But this latest offering appears to be a medley of already failed initiatives and more worryingly a potentially dangerous blueprint for a techno-Stasi state.

The main points of the new Home Office plan include: making MI5 share intelligence on 20,000 “subjects of concern” with a wide range of organisations, including local councils, corporations, local police, social workers, and teachers; calling on internet companies to detect and eradicate extremist or suspicious content; making online marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay report suspicious purchases; increasing surveillance of big events and infrastructure; and passing even tougher anti-terrorism laws.

This all sounds reasonable to those who are fearful of random attacks on the streets or at events – that is unless one has seen in the past how some initiatives have already been proven to fail or can foresee in the future wholesale abuse of increased surveillance powers.

It sounds reasonable until you realize how similar initiatives have failed and how the new plan can make wholesale abuse of surveillance powers more likely.

Intelligence is not Evidence

The most chilling part of the MI5 plan is sharing intelligence on 20,000 subjects of concern. First of all, this is intelligence – by nature gathered from a range of secret sources that MI5 would normally wish to protect. When communicating with counter-terrorism police, intelligence agencies will normally hide the source, but that will require an immense amount of work for 20,000 cases before the information can be shared. Secondly, bear in mind that intelligence is not evidence. Effectively MI5 will be circulating partially assessed suspicions, perhaps even rumours, about individuals, very widely about people who cannot be charged with any crime but who will fall under a deep shadow of suspicion within their communities.

Also if this intelligence is spread as widely as is currently being suggested, it will land in the laps of thousands of public bodies – for instance, schools, councils, social care organisations, and local police. Multiple problems could arise from this. There will no doubt be leaks and gossip within communities – so-and-so is being watched by MI5 and so on.

There will also be the inevitable mission-creep and abuse of power that we saw almost 20 years ago when a whole range of the same public bodies were allowed access to the new eavesdropping and surveillance law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000). Back then, local councils were abusing counter-terrorism legislation to catch people who might be trying to play school catchment areas (districts) to get their children into better schools, or even, and I kid you not, might be cockle-rustling on their local beach. Of course, such intrusive electronic surveillance powers have been significantly increased since then, with the Investigatory Powers Act 2017, that allows bulk storage, bulk dataset hacking and hacking per se.

All this follows the notorious Home Office counter-terrorism PREVENT scheme – the failed parent of these new proposals.

A decade ago PREVENT was designed to reach out, build bridges with Muslim communities across Britain, encouraging them to report any suspicious behaviour to the authorities to nip incipient radicalisation in the bud. Unfortunately it did not quite work out that way. Young Muslims told stories of pressure from MI5 to spy on their communities. It destroyed community trust rather than built it.

Unfortunately, this new Home Office scheme goes even further down the wrong path. It asks teachers, social workers, the local police and other authority figures to go beyond reporting suspicious behaviour to actually be given a list of names to keep a awatch on “subjects of interest”.

The last time such a system of community informants used in Europe was ended when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and East Germany’s Stasi system of a vast network of informers was revealed in all its horror. How ironic that the same system that was devised to protect the East German youth from the “decadent influence” of Western ideals is now being proposed in a “decadent” Western country to spy on its own youth for traces of radicalisation.

Corporate Allies

Suffice to say that if the British government cannot even make the internet titans such as Google and Facebook pay their fair share in taxes, nor call Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to account in Parliament about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, then good luck forcing them make a meaningful effort to root out extremist material.

But even if they do agree, this idea is fraught with the troublesome question of who gets to decide whether something is extremist material or a dissenting opinion against the establishment? Facebook, Google and Youtube are already engaging in what can only be called censorship by de-ranking in search results material from legitimate dissident websites that they, with no history of exercising news judgement, deem “fake news”.Such established news sites such as Wikileaks, ConsortiumNews and World Socialist Web Site as well as many others listed on the notorious and unreliable PropOrNot list have taken a significant hit since these restrictions came into play on 23 April 2017.

Amazon, eBay and other retail companies are being asked to report suspicious sales of precursor materials for bombs and other weapons. Car hire companies will be asked to report suspicious individuals hiring cars and lorries. Algorithms to detect weapons purchases may be feasible, but denying rentals to merely “suspicious” individuals who’ve committed no crimes strays into Stasi territory.

Back in the era of fertiliser lorry and nail bombs, laws were put in place across Europe to require fertiliser companies to report strange purchases – from people who were not registered agriculturalists, for example, Unfortunately, this law was easily subverted by Norwegian right-wing terrorist, Anders Breivik, who simply worked to establish a farm and then legally purchased the ingredients for his Oslo car bomb in 2011.

You are Being Watched

The UK is known as having the most CCTV cameras per capita in the Western world. There have been various plans mooted (some leaked to Wikileaks) to hook these up to corporations such as Facebook for immediate face tagging capabilities, and the development of algorithms that can identify suspicious behaviour in real time and the police can move to intercept the “suspect”.

Face recognition cameras are being trialled by three police forces in the UK – with software that can allegedly watch crowds at events and in stations and potentially identify known criminals and suspects in a crowd and alert the police who will immediately move in and intercept.

Unfortunately, according to Big Brother Watch in the UK, these computer systems have up to a 98% failure rate. If the Home Secretary is really suggesting that such dodgy software is going to be used to police our public spaces I would suggest that he ask his geeks to go back and do their homework.

Do we really want to live in a country where our every movement is watched by technology, with the police waiting to pounce; a country where if we are running late or are having a stressed work day and seem “strange” to a person in a car hire company, we can be tracked as a potential terrorist; where children need to fear that if they ask awkward, if interested, questions of their teachers or raise family concerns with social care, they might already be on a watch list and their file is stacking up slowly in the shadows?

That way lies totalitariansim. I have been tracking how a state can slide unthinkingly into such a situation for years, particularly looking at such warnings from history as 1930s Germany and, over the last decade, I have seriously begun to fear for my country.

If these measures go through Britons could be living under SS-GB – the name of a book by the excellent spy writer, Len Deighton, in his envisioning of what the UK would have been like if the Nazis had succeed in invading during World War Two. The ultimate irony is that the acronym attributed to MI5 at international intelligence conferences way back in the 1990s used to be UK SS – UK Security Service. I hear it has changed now….

Copy permalink to clipboard  |  Why no sharings links?
This entry was posted in Annie Machon, Articles, Big Brother, Civil Liberties, Current Affairs, Intelligence, MI5, National security, Spies, Surveillance and tagged Annie Machon, Consortiumnews.com, law, MI5, Prevent, surveillance, terrorism, UK by Annie Machon. Bookmark the permalink.
Comments are closed.

RSS Feed Twitter Youtube Vimeo
Search
About Annie
Annie
Annie Machon is a former intelligence officer for MI5, the UK Security Service, who resigned in 1996 to blow the whistle on the spies' incompetence and crimes. Drawing on her varied experiences, she is now a media pundit, author, journalist, political campaigner, and PR consultant.

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16851
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Facebook Censorship and the Atlantic Council
https://www.globalresearch.ca/facebook-censorship-and-the-atlantic-cou ncil/5656896

By Jonathan Sigrist
Global Research, October 14, 2018
Yesterday we witnessed one of the greatest Facebook account and page purges since its formation over a decade ago. In total, 559 pages and 251 personal accounts were instantly removed from the platform, for having “consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior” according to Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity and former White House National Security Council Director of Cybersecurity Policy under Obama. This is but one of similar yet smaller purges that have been unfolding in front of our eyes over the last year, all in the name of fighting “fake news” and so called “Russian propaganda”.

What very few people know though, is that about 5 months ago, Facebook announced that is was officially partnering with the Atlantic Council in the form of an “election partnership […] to prevent [their] service from being abused during elections.” Indeed, the US midterm elections are only a couple of weeks away, so the Atlantic Council and its Digital Forensic Research Lab are now going at it with full force, closing facebook accounts left and right that they personally deem could be fake accounts, or accounts spreading misinformation, based on very shady criterias.

One doesn’t need to look far to understand who the Atlantic Council are and what they stand for : it is a think tank essentially funded by NATO, weapons manufacturers, Middle-Eastern oil-state monarchies, billionaires and different branches of the US military. In short, it has been described as being nothing less than NATO’s unofficial propaganda wing. The Atlantic Council doesn’t shy away from its political intents across the world, which can be seen solely by looking at who sits on its directors board – the crème de la crème when it comes to US neocons & war criminals: Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Frank Carlucci, James A. Baker, R. George P. Shultz, James Woolsey, Leon Panetta, Colin Powell, Robert Gates, and many more.

Needless to say, the Atlantic Council has been on the same side as every single war and conflict engendered by US and NATO imperialism over the last 50 years, and has itself played a role in abusing democratic elections around the world as well as spreading propaganda and misinformation both in home countries and abroad to achieve its political means.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2581
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shocking Leak Reveals Facebook Leveraged User Data To Reward Friends, Punish Enemies
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-16/shocking-leak-reveals-facebo ok-leveraged-user-data-reward-friends-punish-enemies

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/16/2019 - 10:22

As traders focused on bank earnings and the outlook for global growth, NBC News wrested the market's attention back toward Facebook by publishing a report on what appears to be the largest leak of internal documents since the data privacy scandal that has dogged the company for more than a year erupted with the first reports about Cambridge Analytica's 'improper' leveraging of Facebook user data to influence elections.

Facebook

Some 4,000 pages of documents shared with the network news organization by a journalist affiliated with the ICIJ, the same organization that helped bring us the Panama Papers leaks, revealed that Facebook had employed sensitive user data as a bargaining chip to attract major advertisers and close other deals between 2011 and 2015, when the company was struggling to cement its business model following its botched 2012 IPO.

The thousands of newly shared documents were anonymously leaked to the British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, who shared them with a handful of media organizations: NBC News, Computer Weekly and Süddeutsche Zeitung. Campbell, a founding member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, is a computer forensics expert who has worked on international investigations including on offshore banking and big tobacco. The documents appear to be the same ones obtained by Parliament in late 2018 as part of an investigation into Facebook. Facebook did not question the authenticity of the documents NBC News obtained.

Facebook essentially offered companies like Amazon unfettered access to its data in exchange for agreeing to advertise on Facebook's platform, according to the documents, only a small fraction of which have been previously reported on. All of this was happening at a time when the company publicly professed to bee safeguarding user data.

As the documents show, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his board found ways to tap the company's massive trove of user data to reward Facebook's customers and business partners.

The documents, which include emails, webchats, presentations, spreadsheets and meeting summaries, show how Zuckerberg, along with his board and management team, found ways to tap Facebook’s trove of user data - including information about friends, relationships and photos - as leverage over companies it partnered with.

In some cases, Facebook would reward favored companies by giving them access to the data of its users. In other cases, it would deny user-data access to rival companies or apps.

Facebook also leveraged its user data as a cudgel to punish rivals whom it felt were growing too strong.

For example, Facebook gave Amazon extended access to user data because it was spending money on Facebook advertising and partnering with the social network on the launch of its Fire smartphone. In another case, Facebook discussed cutting off access to user data for a messaging app that had grown too popular and was viewed as a competitor, according to the documents.

Documents showed this strategy was part of a plan to require third-parties to compensate FB, in one form or another, for access to users' data. The company decided to not directly sell the data, and instead opted to dole it out to 'friends'.

But the documents show that behind the scenes, in contrast with Facebook’s public statements, the company came up with several ways to require third-party applications to compensate Facebook for access to its users’ data, including direct payment, advertising spending and data-sharing arrangements. While it’s not unusual for businesses that are working together to share information about their customers, Facebook has access to sensitive data that many other companies don’t possess.

Facebook ultimately decided not to sell the data directly but rather to dole it out to app developers who were considered personal “friends” of Zuckerberg or who spent money on Facebook and shared their own valuable data, the documents show.

The documents appear to have been collected as part of a lawsuit involving Facebook and California startup Six4Three, which had also surrendered some documents from the case to Parliament.

After NBC contacted FB, the company reached out to the judge in the case to accuse Six4Three of leaking the documents and demanded that the company's founders be deposed. Six4Three has denied leaking the documents to NBC's source.

When Facebook finally abandoned its data-patronage policy in 2015, it had devastating repercussions for thousands of developer-partners who had come to rely on the data, prompting one engineer to compare Zuckerberg to a villain from Game of Thrones. Another called the decision "sort of unethical."

When Facebook ultimately cut off broad access to user data in 2015, the move contributed to the decline of thousands of competitors and small businesses that relied on what Facebook had previously described as a “level-playing field” in terms of access to data. In addition to Pikinis, the casualties included Lulu, an app that let women rate the men they dated; an identity fraud-detecting app called Beehive ID; and Swedish breast cancer awareness app Rosa Bandet (Pink Ribbon).

The strategy orchestrated by Zuckerberg had some of his employees comparing the company to villains from Game of Thrones, while David Poll, a senior engineer, called the treatment of outside app developers “sort of unethical,” according to the documents. But Zuckerberg’s approach also earned admiration: Doug Purdy, Facebook’s director of product, described the CEO as a “master of leverage,” according to the documents.


After the Cambridge Analytic scandal exploded into view, Facebook claimed that it had changed its policies surrounding the handling of user data in 2014 and 2015 over concerns about privacy. However, the leaked documents revealed that privacy concerns were rarely discussed during that decision. Instead, Facebook's primary concern was sidelining rivals, whom it had made dependent on access to its data, to try and consolidate its power in the market.

In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in early 2018 and rising awareness of the Six4Three case, Facebook has attempted to frame changes it made to its platform in 2014 and 2015 as being driven by concerns over user privacy. In statements to media organizations, Facebook has said it locked down its platform to protect users from companies that mishandled user data, such as Cambridge Analytica, as well as apps that spammed users’ news feeds or were creepy, such as Six4Three’s bikini-spotting app Pikinis.

However, among the documents leaked, there’s very little evidence that privacy was a major concern of Facebook’s, and the issue was rarely discussed in the thousands of pages of emails and meeting summaries. Where privacy is mentioned, it is often in the context of how Facebook can use it as a public relations strategy to soften the blow of the sweeping changes to developers’ access to user data. The documents include several examples suggesting that these changes were designed to cement Facebook’s power in the marketplace, not to protect users.

Every time the Facebook data privacy controversy seems to be dying down, some new embarrassment emerges to hammer the company's stock. Earlier this month, a team of researchers found troves of FB user information hiding in plain sight on the AWS cloud. The news sent FB shares tumbling in premarket trade.

FB

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16851
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cybersecurity
U.S. Unleashes Military to Fight Fake News, Disinformation
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/u-s-unleashes-milit ary-to-fight-fake-news-disinformation

By Pete Norman
31 August 2019, 14:43 BST
Pentagon research to sift 250,000 news items in initial phase
Fears grow about viral political memes polarizing society

Fake news and social media posts are such a threat to U.S. security that the Defense Department is launching a project to repel “large-scale, automated disinformation attacks,” as the top Republican in Congress blocks efforts to protect the integrity of elections.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency wants custom software that can unearth fakes hidden among more than 500,000 stories, photos, video and audio clips. If successful, the system after four years of trials may expand to detect malicious intent and prevent viral fake news from polarizing society.




“A decade ago, today’s state-of-the-art would have registered as sci-fi — that’s how fast the improvements have come,” said Andrew Grotto at the Center for International Security at Stanford University. “There is no reason to think the pace of innovation will slow any time soon.”

U.S. officials have been working on plans to prevent outside hackers from flooding social channels with false information ahead of the 2020 election. The drive has been hindered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to consider election-security legislation. Critics have labeled him #MoscowMitch, saying he left the U.S. vulnerable to meddling by Russia, prompting his retort of “modern-day McCarthyism.”

Risk Factor
President Donald Trump has repeatedly rejected allegations that dubious content on platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google aided his election win. Hillary Clinton supporters claimed a flood of fake items may have helped sway the results in 2016.


How Russia Meddling Became Social Media’s Problem: QuickTake Q&A

“The risk factor is social media being abused and used to influence the elections,” Syracuse University assistant professor of communications Jennifer Grygiel said in a telephone interview. “It’s really interesting that Darpa is trying to create these detection systems but good luck is what I say. It won’t be anywhere near perfect until there is legislative oversight. There’s a huge gap and that’s a concern.”

False news stories and so-called deepfakes are increasingly sophisticated and making it more difficult for data-driven software to spot. AI imagery has advanced in recent years and is now used by Hollywood, the fashion industry and facial recognition systems. Researchers have shown that these generative adversarial networks -- or GANs -- can be used to create fake videos.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Before The Senate Judiciary And Commerce Committees
Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg sits at the witness table after a break during a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, April 10, 2018.Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Famously, Oscar-winning filmmaker Jordan Peele created a fake video of former President Barack Obama talking about the Black Panthers, Ben Carson, and making an alleged slur against Trump, to highlight the risk of trusting material online.

After the 2016 election, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg played down fake news as a challenge for the world’s biggest social media platform. He later signaled that he took the problem seriously and would let users flag content and enable fact-checkers to label stories in dispute. These judgments subsequently prevented stories being turned into paid advertisements, which were one key avenue toward viral promotion.

In June, Zuckerberg said Facebook made an “execution mistake” when it didn’t act fast enough to identify a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which her speech was slurred and distorted.

“Where things get especially scary is the prospect of malicious actors combining different forms of fake content into a seamless platform,” Grotto said. “Researchers can already produce convincing fake videos, generate persuasively realistic text, and deploy chatbots to interact with people. Imagine the potential persuasive impact on vulnerable people that integrating these technologies could have: an interactive deepfake of an influential person engaged in AI-directed propaganda on a bot-to-person basis.”

By increasing the number algorithm checks, the military research agency hopes it can spot fake news with malicious intent before going viral.

“A comprehensive suite of semantic inconsistency detectors would dramatically increase the burden on media falsifiers, requiring the creators of falsified media to get every semantic detail correct, while defenders only need to find one, or a very few, inconsistencies,” the agency said in its Aug. 23 concept document for the Semantic Forensics program.

Semantic Errors
The agency added: “These SemaFor technologies will help identify, deter, and understand adversary disinformation campaigns.”


Current surveillance systems are prone to “semantic errors.” An example, according to the agency, is software not noticing mismatched earrings in a fake video or photo. Other indicators, which may be noticed by humans but missed by machines, include weird teeth, messy hair and unusual backgrounds.

Deepfakes Can Help You Dance, But They’re Not Always So Innocent

The algorithm testing process will include an ability to scan and evaluate 250,000 news articles and 250,000 social media posts, with 5,000 fake items in the mix. The program has three phases over 48 months, initially covering news and social media, before an analysis begins of technical propaganda. The project will also include week-long “hackathons.”

relates to U.S. Unleashes Military to Fight Fake News, Disinformation
A timeline of the program in the DARPA broad agency announcement.DARPA
Program manager Matt Turek discussed the program on Thursday in Arlington, Virginia, with potential software designers. Darpa didn’t provide an on-the-record comment.

Tech Gap
The agency also has an existing research program underway, called MediFor, which is trying to plug a technological gap in image authentication, as no end-to-end system can verify manipulation of images taken by digital cameras and smartphones.

“Mirroring this rise in digital imagery is the associated ability for even relatively unskilled users to manipulate and distort the message of the visual media,” according to the agency’s website. “While many manipulations are benign, performed for fun or for artistic value, others are for adversarial purposes, such as propaganda or misinformation campaigns.”

With a four-year project scale for SemaFor, the next election will have come and gone before the system is operational.

“This timeline is too slow and I wonder if it is a bit of PR,” Grygiel said. “Educating the public on media literacy, along with legislation, is what is important. But elected officials lack motivation themselves for change, and there is a conflict of interest as they are using these very platforms to get elected.”

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16851
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The tech giants behave as if its theirs.
So.
Take a few minutes to download your own personal social media data
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=your_facebook_information &
Twitter https://twitter.com/settings/your_twitter_data

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16851
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Google Censors, Shadowbans, and Blacklists Alternative Health News
https://www.theepochtimes.com/google-censors-shadowbans-and-blacklists -alternative-health-news_3098108.html

Maryam Henein
Comments September 27, 2019 Updated: October 2, 2019 Share

What if I told you that social media platforms are manipulating you, steering you toward health information that they think is right, rather than letting you evaluate content for yourself?

Accredited professionals, meanwhile, who stand for health freedom and who criticize Big Anything, are losing posting privileges, getting banned or buried, finding themselves deranked, and getting digitally assassinated.

Content is literally disappearing from the internet along with our health choices.

It sounds conspiratorial because it is. Independent journalists and health experts are blowing the whistle. But it’s become a silent one.



“The censorship that is being applied to alternative health is nothing less than demonic,” said Zach Vorhies, 39, who worked as a Google software engineer for 8 1/2 years before coming out as a whistleblower. “That may seem extreme, but I’ve been following the happenings in the new cures that are being suppressed.”

According to Vorhies, in the past three years, Google has rolled out changes that purposely down-rank independent health websites, even extremely high-quality and independent medical articles that are written by credentialed health care professionals.

“At the same time, establishment, big corporate pharma websites like WebMD are monopolizing the first page of results,” said Vorhies.

“What’s terrifying is that many of these establishment medical articles landing on the first page do not even have a stated author and make assertions that are contradicted by science.”

Consider that “people use Google to search for about 1 billion health questions a day,” author and health professional Joe Cohen says. “Eighty percent of internet users have searched for a health-related topic online, according to a recent study.”

High-quality online health sites that have been negatively affected include GreenMedInfo, Dr. Axe, Erin Elizabeth of Health Nut News, SelfHacked, Dr. Joseph Mercola, and HoneyColony (my website).

Censorship and freedom of speech vis-à-vis politics is being discussed, but no one in the mainstream media is covering the effect on the health space.

As Vorhies reminds us, Google’s stated mission statement is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible. “But in the past three years, it has betrayed those values by intervening in the search algorithm to tunnel users toward big corporate establishment players,” he said.

In late June 2019, Project Veritas—with the assistance of Vorhies—proved that Google is indeed manipulating search results, filtering content, and dubbing information as news based on Google’s agenda. Vorhies released 950 pages that insinuate that the search engine secretly boosts or condemns content on a platform that was supposedly neutral.

A document titled “News Blacklist Site for Google Now” singles out nearly 500 websites to be hidden from users of Google Now, an Android application that was phased out in 2016 and replaced by the Google Feed.

Natural Remedies Heist: A Long Time Cometh
The stifling of natural remedies in favor of peddling pharmaceuticals and monetizing medicine isn’t new. We gave our health over to the faux faith of maligned science and technology ages ago, back in 1910, when a teacher—not a doctor—wrote the so-called Flexner Report. Since World War II, the pharmaceutical industry has steadily netted increasing profits to become the world’s second-largest manufacturing industry after war toys.

Over 100 years ago, the powers-that-be created a gatekeeper who would help “influence legislative bodies on state and federal levels to create regulations and licensing ‘red tape’ that strictly promoted drug medicine, while stifling and shutting down alternative, inexpensive natural remedies,” according to health journalist S.D. Wells.

What is new and novel is that now Big Tech is collaborating with Big Pharma to suppress free speech. As if Big Pharma doesn’t do enough harm, Big Tech is harnessing their power to modify search algorithms to align and appease an arguably sick agenda, in the name of the supposed safety and protection of the public.

Jason Erickson, a writer for NaturalBlaze.com, wrote:

“Evidently, the fact that a level playing field of information—which is exactly what the Internet was promised to be—is skewing toward anti-vaccination (and other holistic healing) must be worrying to those who rely on the financial support of Big Pharma and establishment medicine.”

Consider that alternative medicine empowers the patient and that the supplement industry is a $32.5 billion business, according to the Nutrition Business Journal.

Google’s Hocus Pocus Predictions
Google’s latest trick? Autosuggestions. It’s bad enough that Google is effectively scrubbing previously high-ranking sites from their search results. Now they are actually “suggesting” what you should search for.

Here’s Google’s official statement:

“Autocomplete is designed to help people complete a search they were intending to do, not to suggest new types of searches to be performed. These are our best predictions of the query you were likely to continue entering.”

From a psychological point of view, autosuggestions are arguably the simplest yet strongest tool for mind control. Incredulously, Google states that the autosuggestions are actually “predictions,” not “suggestions.”

Tsk, tsk, Google, who made you resident psychic?

For instance, when I searched for “supplements are …” on Sept. 1, the suggestions were “bad,” “useless,” “not regulated,” and so on. In the past few weeks, Google has peppered in some positive keywords: “amazing” and “healthy.”

Google search screenshot
Screenshot of Google autocomplete suggestions for a search for “supplements are …” on Sept. 1, 2019. (Screenshot via Maryam Henein)
Google search screenshot
Screenshot of Google autocomplete suggestions for a search for “supplements are …” on Sept. 17, 2019. (Screenshot via Maryam Henein)
Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, a reputable health site, writes:

“Google is auto-completing the search fields of billions of users with false information (topics ranging from natural health to candidates for election), based not on objective search volume data, but on an extremely biased political and socio-economic agenda—one that is jeopardizing the health and human rights of everyone on the planet.”

The articles we publish at HoneyColony.com all reference studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature—the commonly recognized gold standard for research. But that doesn’t matter now that Big Pharma propaganda is disseminated via Google.

Don’t believe you are being bamboozled? View the disparities in volume yourself by going to Google Trends. Compare the actual search volume with Google’s amazing new “predictions” feature.

These actions trump the principles of truth and justice. It’s called social engineering. Human experimentation, even. What it isn’t is a search engine synonymous with looking for and finding objective answers. The Project Veritas video was promptly removed by YouTube (owned by Google) and then by Vimeo.

video screenshot



Technofascism Explained
Many of these acts can be classified as “technofascist.”

Four years ago, Chet Bowers, a now-deceased author, lecturer, and environmental activist, described technofascism as “an increased reliance upon computer-mediated learning at all levels of education [to spur] conformity of thinking.”

As Bowers put it, the populace assumes they are being given accurate information and over time are only able to digest short explanations. In addition to conformity, fascism necessitates “the loss of historical memory and a perceived crisis or endpoint that requires the collective energy and loyalty of the young and old.”

The internet has certainly “shorten[ed] people’s attention spans to the point where slogans and sound bites conveniently serve as the basis of political decision-making.”

“Masking disinformation as models of factual accuracy and objective reporting,” the prevalence of disinformation and fake news facilitates the ability to condition “millions of Americans to accept ideologically driven propaganda, which further reduces the likelihood of mass resistance to the techno-fascist agenda,” he wrote.

“While the moral foundations of techno-fascism align with the values of market capitalism and the progress-oriented ideology of science that easily slips into scientism, its level of efficiency and totalitarian potential can easily lead to repressive systems that will not tolerate dissent, especially on the part of those challenging how the colonizing nature of techno-fascism promotes consumerism that is destroying the environment and alternative cultural lifestyles such as the cultural commons.”

It’s 2019. Or wait, is it “Nineteen Eighty-Four”?

Social media platforms—toxins for the mind and intellect—now feed the masses processed manufactured information while omitting or fudging whatever doesn’t jive with Big Health Care, aka Sick Care.

The future is now. The zombies are here.

We’re being reduced to robots obsessively gazing at blue-lit screens, like in a twisted version of the Greek myth of Narcissus, in which we never recognize who we truly are: a magnificent species worthy of complete health and vitality. But alas, in this rendition, we’re too busy engaging in palatable online vitriol and trollism and ingesting toxic lies.

Instead of debating the subjects at hand with civilized decorum, we’re being polarized and we’re engaging in red herrings and ad hominem attacks. For instance, you begin talking about the negative impacts of 5G and someone on social media calls you a tin hat-wearing loon and discredits you, instead of focusing on all the experts that have spoken up and shared scientific evidence against this technology.

In this balkanization, we become part of sub-tribes, making it easier for corporations and government to manage and manipulate us.

Smoke and mirrors. Cloak and daggers. Crowd control.

All sickness. No health.

#GoogleExposed During Decade of Vaccines
In 2006, Google became so popular that the Oxford English Dictionary officially turned the company into a verb. Their role, we hoped, was not to take sides on a debate but to give the world access to information on an unprecedented scale. Knowledge is power.

Thirteen years later, Google is no longer an unbiased platform; they’re a publisher with an agenda. And they’re not only the most powerful search engine, they’re also a drug company. Google is a beautifully crafted Trojan horse for Big Pharma.

Simply put, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, owns pharmaceutical subsidiaries. In 2013, Google founded Calico. Calico’s mission is to understand the biology that controls lifespan and to treat age-related diseases. Two years later, Alphabet founded Verily Life Sciences (previously Google Life Sciences). Both pharma companies are partnering with others and having babies of their own.

Verily joined forces with the European pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s leading vaccine manufacturers. They formed a new drug company, Galvani Bioelectronics.

In January 2019, BusinessWire reported that Mary Ellen Coe, Google’s president of customer solutions, was joining the board of directors at Merck, another huge vaccine producer.

But the real clincher is that GV, the venture capital arm of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has also invested in Vaccitech—a company described as “the future of mass vaccine production.”

Founded by scientists at Oxford University, Vaccitech’s end goal is to develop a vaccine that would be the first in the world to fight all types of flu.

If all goes well, Vaccitech’s shot could potentially be ready for rollout in 2023. The potential development—“a so-called universal flu vaccine that elicits immunity against parts of the virus that do not change from year to year”—has been described as a “Holy Grail.”

“The Vaccitech trial marks the first time a universal flu vaccine has progressed beyond phase one clinical testing,” wrote The Independent.

Yet to others, a one-size-fits-all flu shot sounds like a disastrous future on several levels. According to a 2018 Department of Justice report, the annual flu shot is the most dangerous vaccine in the United States.

This invention doesn’t take into account or respect biodiversity. Not every body system reacts to “medicine” in the same way. Not to mention that we are sovereign humans; we should be able to choose what we do with our bodies, not be forced to subject ourselves to questionable medicine.

Is it just coincidence that vaccine safety has become so maligned in the media as of late? We’re being divided by design. People are being ostracized like never before for merely questioning alternative views. It’s to pave the way for what is coming—mandatory vaccines, not only for children, but for adults, too.

Vaccines are a billion-dollar business. In 2012 alone, the world’s 11 top pharmaceutical companies generated $700 billion-plus in profits on vaccines.

Stated another way, Google and Friends stand to earn a lot of money from vaccinating whomever they can stick a needle into, multiple times over. And letting people have access to valid questions about vaccine safety might damage their bottom line.

Commenting on the U.S.’s National Vaccine Plan, Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny, wrote:

“It lays bare the incestuous public-private relationship between the pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers, the U.S. government and the World Health Rulers.”

Furthermore, “the objectives in ‘Healthy People 2020’ represent the massive expansion of a nanny-state government, intent on taking over every area of a person’s life and eliminating health choices,” Tenpenny added.

Did you know that partners from all over the world came together with a global commitment to vaccination, declaring 2010–2020 the “Decade of Vaccines?” Meanwhile, in January 2019, the World Health Organization—in perfect timing—stressed the importance of getting your child vaccinated to protect them, and others, from deadly diseases. Not doing so poses a “global threat.”

Check, please.

How about the $4 billion-plus paid out to those who have been affected by vaccine injuries? The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was started as a result of a law passed in 1986, giving pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity from being sued due to injuries and deaths resulting from vaccines, according to Health Impact News.

Said another way, Big Pharma can create as many shots as they want, with no accountability involved. It’s a liability-free market.

Given what’s in the pipeline, isn’t it a bit odd that simply engaging in an educated conversation/exploration, or presenting opposing evidence, results in being 86’d from the internet? Oftentimes, opposers don’t have informed arguments, nor are they scientifically literate. And if you use intuition on what’s best for your own body? Fuhgeddaboutit.

One health influencer I spoke to pointed out that other platforms such as Vimeo and MailChimp are also helping to shut down the discussion.

In early July, Vimeo announced that it will no longer publish sites critical of vaccines, or sites that question vaccine safety.

Facebook, whose committee members include former Big Pharma employees, has also censored legitimate scientific inquiry and debate regarding vaccine safety.

No matter what your view is on vaccines, the point I’m illustrating here is that Big Pharma’s tentacles—full of suction and sway—now extend to Big Tech, and that prohibiting the sharing of (health) information—a tenet of the internet—is wrong. Unless you do not believe in the First Amendment.

If you bother to look, the conflicts of interest are obvious. Google has a clear agenda that serves pharmaceuticals, and its success is now directly built into its search algorithms.

Google Now Processed and Non-Organic
Back in the good ole days, organic search results closely matched the user’s search query. The algorithm was based on relevance and popularity unless you paid Google extra to get listed on top as an obvious ad.

Until recently, popular search terms helped connect Googlers with the information they were actually looking for. This, in turn, spurred writers to pivot and employ search engine optimization—such as keywords—when crafting content online.

By June 2016, our online magazine and marketplace HoneyColony—whose mission is to empower you to be your own health advocate—was getting about 500,000 unique visitors a month, according to Google Analytics. We were genuinely and organically garnering interest and offering value with solid well-researched articles.

Until we weren’t.

Google Analytics screenshot
A screenshot of Google Analytics showing traffic to website HoneyColony.com. (Screenshot via Maryam Henein)
What happened? Google changed its algorithms.

Updates on Google aren’t new. The company has gone through thousands of updates throughout its existence. And every once in a while, it rolls out a major algorithmic update. But until now, there’s been nothing as sinister as the recent changes, which apparently are powerful enough to do serious damage to a health-oriented site’s revenue, alongside the site’s organic traffic. Especially if Google doesn’t agree with what they’re saying.

In the past, Google claimed their updates were actually beneficial to pages that weren’t getting as many views. But it’s becoming clear that Google has other aims—to control what information is most accessible to searchers.

In August 2018, traffic to HoneyColony.com dwindled 30 percent. We proverbially scratched our heads during marketing meetings, wondering what we were doing wrong, based on Google’s standards. And then, we learned we had been affected by what would be referred to as the “Medic Update.”

According to Search Engine Land, the focus of the changes made under the “Medic Update” centered around the medical and health space, as well as the areas referred to as “Your Money Your Life,” defined by Google as “types of pages [that] could potentially impact the future happiness, health, financial stability, or safety [of users].”

When asked how to ensure sites don’t lose traffic, a Google employee named John Mueller said in a Webmaster Hangout, “There is no specific thing, where we’d be able to say, ‘You did this and you should have done that and therefore, we’re showing things differently.’”

This kind of vagueness and evasiveness is something I’ve encountered when interviewing government or big corporate lackeys who excel in the language of gobbledygook (or in this case, Googlygook) and speak from preapproved PR texts.

Google claims that sites can improve their rankings by improving their “EAT”—expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. But what criteria are they using to decide these?

Joe Cohen of the reputable and detailed site SelfHacked, another site that has seen its traffic plummet, says: “The thing is, no matter who I ask, they’ve all told me that SelfHacked is already authoritative, trustworthy, and displays expertise. You can look at any of our posts and judge for yourself.”

We’re witnessing a slow, sneaky purge, where crowdsource relevance is now seemingly irrelevant. The definition of what constitutes credible has drastically changed.

Then, in June 2019, Google rolled out yet another algorithmic change.

Sites impacted in previous core updates were once again affected. “On average, the impact was smaller than the August ‘Medic’ update,” as measured by MozCast.

While one source says the impact was smaller than the August Medic update, many would disagree. “Devastating” may be a more appropriate word than “smaller,” depending on if you’ve personally experienced content go from Page 1 of a Google search to being buried on Page 6.

socail media screenshot
(Screenshot via Maryam Henein)
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth,” said George Orwell in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

The new updates make it so searchers have to know the site name to find us. Unless you add “HoneyColony.com” or “Mercola.com” to a key term, you won’t find the content our sites publish.

“Even skipping ‘.com’ will minimize your search results,” wrote Mercola, whose Google search results had been topping the charts organically for years. Since these updates, Mercola’s site traffic has been slashed by about 99 percent.

Shadow-banned. Ostensibly scrubbed.

Google used to rank pages based on whether an author could prove his/her expertise, on how many people visited a page, or on the number of other reputable sites that linked to that page. How about when an author has a degree? Doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

Google now buries expert views if they’re deemed “harmful” to the public, explains The SEM Post:

“There has been a lot of talk about author expertise when it comes to the quality rater guidelines. … This section has been changed substantially. … If the purpose of the page is harmful, then expertise doesn’t matter. It should be rated Lowest!”

But who decides? What qualifications do Google quality-checkers possess? Who is deciding what’s harmful?

Who exactly defines “fake news” at Google? According to Vorhies, “If one was expecting an open and transparent group then they would be wrong: It turns out it’s the hyper-partisan left-wing group Media Matters.”

Given this, what do we do with a search engine we’ve taken for granted and trusted a bit too much? The cyber realm is sadly no longer the place to look for valid information.

Consider that in his book “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Orwell describes how history and facts are recalled and rewritten again and again, invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Journalists have witnessed information go missing before their eyes while doing research. I now use different search engines to conduct research and often find opposing narratives.

No Money in Cures
One in every two Americans today suffers from a chronic illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And Americans pop more pills than anywhere else in the world.

“In 2016, over 4.5 billion prescriptions were filled, earning the pharmaceutical industry more than $200 billion,” according to an article by Richard Gale and Gary Null published by the Centre for Research on Globalization, an independent research and media organization.

Yet we’re still the sickest country on the planet. And all these drugs are often just adding to the problem. According to a 2011 report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, in that same year, drugs were associated with 2 million to 4 million people in the United States experiencing serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.

Meanwhile, the United States also ranks pretty low when it comes to life expectancy. In 2019, the United States will spend about “$3.5 trillion on health care, in addition to a $1.5 trillion loss in work and wages due to illness,” according to Gale and Null.

What’s fascinating is that prescription medicines such as xannys and SSRIs are a part of American culture, woven into narratives, songs, movies, and casual conversation. We’ve come to accept these as part of everyday normal life—what social psychologist Erich Fromm would have described as a “socially patterned defect.”

So let’s put things into perspective. Opioid crisis. Antibiotic-resistance epidemic. Grotesque obesity stats. Rising rates of metabolic syndrome. Skyrocketing autoimmune conditions.

According to The New York Times, cities are even “suing major drugstore chains and Walmart, contending they distributed billions of painkillers that devastated communities.”

To heck with the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm; profits trump the long-term care of patients.

Gale and Null write, “Instead of making efforts to fund disease prevention and educate the public, prevention has been abandoned altogether.”

There is no money in cures. Management of symptoms is what keeps Big Pharma in business. Curing patients isn’t a sustainable business model.

With all these facts laid out, can we safely say—both figuratively and literally—that Western medicine may not have all the answers? It’s no wonder so many are going elsewhere for answers. Sectors such as nutrition, preventative medicine, and personalized holistic health have grown by leaps and bounds. In 2016, alternative medicine industry revenue was estimated to be at about $14.3 billion in the United States. (Of course, this industry also has its own host of issues.)

Congress, Corruption, and Censorship
What is the U.S. government—federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—doing about all this, you may ask? While some politicians, even presidential candidates, have spoken out against Big Pharma and the lack of proper oversight, it’s all ultimately useless. Big Pharma doesn’t just own Google. It owns Congress, too.

Dr. Raeford Brown, a pediatric anesthesia specialist at the UK Kentucky Children’s Hospital and chair of the FDA Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics, told Yahoo Finance:

“The pharmaceutical industry pours millions of dollars into the legislative branch every single year. In 2016, they put $100 million into the elections. That’s a ton of money.”

As one reporter wrote in The Guardian, “Drug money is coursing through the veins of Congress.”

Overall, Congress gets paid to grant Big Pharma carte blanche. The billions of lobbying dollars Big Pharma has spent over the years, and the different lobby groups involved, is enough to make a woke person nauseous.

Lobbying is how big business controls the government. Big Tech is now spending millions on lobbyists (paid persuaders), too, joining the top “usual suspects,” which predominantly includes Big Pharma.

“With Amazon spending $4.2 million, Facebook shelling out $4.1 million and Google chipping in $3.2 million on second-quarter lobbying, this marks the first time all three companies ranked among the top 15 lobbying spenders in a single quarter,” wrote Open Secrets.

Currently, tech companies such as Google are “indemnified against lawsuits for manipulating content on their platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996,” says GreenMedInfo’s Sayer Ji. “Until this act is repealed, [tech companies] will continue to operate with impunity, essentially above the law.”

Not all politicians are blinded. In June, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced Senate Bill 1914, a bill “to amend the Communications Decency Act to encourage providers of interactive computer services to provide content moderation that is politically neutral.”

The bill is referred to as the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.” Per traditional process, it will next be considered by committee before possibly being sent on to the House or Senate for a vote. But according to SkoposLabs, the bill has only a 2 percent chance of being enacted.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 9, most U.S. states and territories officially announced an antitrust investigation of Google (rather than an actual lawsuit).

Tony Romm reported in The Washington Post that the probe’s initial focus is online advertising. “Google is expected to rake in more than $48 billion in U.S. digital ad revenue this year, far rivaling its peers, while capturing 75 percent of all spending on U.S. search ads, according to eMarketer,” he wrote.

It was a few months earlier that the House Antitrust Subcommittee launched a bipartisan investigation into “competition in digital markets.”

In an earlier statement, Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) said:

“The growth of monopoly power across our economy is one of the most pressing economic and political challenges we face today. Market power in digital markets presents a whole new set of dangers. After four decades of weak antitrust enforcement and judicial hostility to antitrust cases, it is critical that Congress step in to determine whether existing laws are adequate to tackle abusive conduct by platform gatekeepers or whether we need new legislation to respond to this challenge.” (Involving government in online policing merits its own story.)

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice announced in late July that it’s launching an antitrust probe into online platforms. (Given the agency’s track record of allowing perverse unjust mergers, I wouldn’t hold my breath.)

What is happening is that social media platforms are getting fined. But so what? Facebook was just hit with a record $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission and a $100 million fine from the Securities and Exchange Commission, in late July. The EU, meanwhile, has fined Google billions of dollars on four separate occasions in recent years for violations of European monopoly policies.

Fines are paltry in comparison to the power being gained and the profits that Big Tech/Pharma/Government/Elites stand to make. Can we expect any real accountability, given Big Tech is sleeping with all-powerful Big Pharma?

The politicians who drink the Big Pharma KoolAid or have ties with Big Pharma are making arguments that social media and the openness of information is causing harm and are therefore contributing to making the problem worse, not better.

In a recent letter to Google and Facebook, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote:

“There is strong evidence to suggest that at least part of the source of this trend [of vaccine hesitancy] is the degree to which medically inaccurate information about vaccines surface on the websites where many Americans get their information.”

What is this “strong evidence”? Why not let the people decide and allow veritable independent journalists to do their job, offering accessibility to independent studies?

Schiff, who audaciously and wrongfully has stated that “there is no evidence that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases,” writes:

“The algorithms which power these services are not designed to distinguish quality information from misinformation or misleading information, and the consequences of that are particularly troubling for public health issues.”

Yet who decides what is “misinformation”? Big Pharma? This cuts both ways, or at least, it used to. Instead, Big Tech is taking an unequivocal stance on what constitutes health freedom and safety, blaming the openness of social media as the reason for a measles outbreak. Puhleeze. This fake narrative is manufactured to push an agenda that involves pills and needles, while smearing credible people, hiding information, and vaporizing sovereignty.

“Google is playing both sides of the game,” Vorhies told Project Veritas. “On the one hand, they’re saying they are a platform and that they are immune from being sued for the content that they host on their website. On the other hand, they’re acting as a publisher, in which they’re determining the editorial agenda of these certain companies, and they are applying that. If people don’t fall in line with their editorial agenda, then their news articles get deboosted and deranked. And if people do fall in line with their editorial agenda, it gets boosted and pushed to the top.”

Most people don’t understand the power of Google in their lives, nor do they have any idea that Google has rolled out impactful updates and has more in the works. But when I ask, I get a, “Yeah, you know what, I did kind of notice something was different about Google.”

And then there is the glut of fake news confusing the public. Take, for instance, this quote on ThinkProgress concerning evidence of Google’s preferential leanings:

“What appears to be happening is that some conservatives are massively distorting tech companies’ attempts to protect against foreign election interference or restrict the distribution of hateful views, stirring up conspiracy theories that the companies are demonstrating blanket bias against conservatives.”

Nonsense. Don’t believe that the algorithmic changes are being made only to protect you from another “rigged” election or to save you from four more years of Trump. And don’t believe that tech companies haven’t been allowed to cross a line. This is a perfect example of both a red herring and a false narrative.

Wikipedia: Online Encyclopedia or Google Sidekick?
Not long ago, Wikipedia regularly had a banner splashed on their homepage, hitting up online visitors for money to stay in business. Then, Google invested $3.1 million into Wikipedia, bringing Google’s total contribution to $7.5 million.

Wikipedia is now Google’s obedient sidekick. As journalist Louise Matsakis wrote in Wired:

“The decision isn’t altruistic. … The company also has used Wikipedia articles to train machine-learning algorithms, as well as fight misinformation on YouTube.”

Google now ranks Wikipedia in many searches as a totally legitimate encyclopedia, even though it’s an open-source site that has been described as an “often untrustworthy source of information.” On Wikipedia, users can update entries in real-time, without any formal peer review or editorial process. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger himself described it as a “broken system.”

According to Gale and Null:

“Content about medical products and therapeutic regimes are penned by completely unqualified editors with no medical background. … Yet Wikipedia editors state with authority that there are no proven health benefits in non-conventional and natural medical therapies.”

Given that their employers are part of Big Pharma, can we really believe them?

Google’s algorithms are giving better rankings to content from a bunch of anonymous, unvetted contributors over independent journalists educated in functional medicine who inspire conversation, question assumptions, challenge the status quo, and encourage curiosity. But we’re the castaways?

In truth, there exist tons of studies and articles demonstrating the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine. Many independent board-certified physicians and functional medicine practitioners utilize them in their practices with excellent results.

Take for example Dr. Joseph Mercola, an actual board-certified D.O. and respected author whose website predates Google. He has written hundreds of valid articles and has been an inspiration to millions. But now, many will never know his contributions, because, he says, “Google is now manually lowering the ranking of undesirable content, based on Wikipedia’s assessment of the author or site.”

Below is what you’ll find if you search for Joseph Mercola. Go ahead, kids, try it at home.

Mercola web search screenshot
(Screenshot via Maryam Henein)
“Whatever happened you vanished, and neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again,” states “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Technofascist Future: Will We Resist?
In the book “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us And Them,” Jason Stanley writes, “Shouldn’t liberal democracy promote a full airing of all possibilities, even the false and bizarre ones, because the truth will eventually prevail in the marketplace of ideas?”

I’m only scratching the surface of this well spun-out (worldwide) web.

You likely have never heard of me, even though I’ve directed an award-winning documentary about honeybees and colony collapse disorder. And now my chances of penetrating the mainstream have been compromised.

If I’m a mere worker bee, not worthy of high rankings, why have I been banned for life from PayPal, scrubbed off Kiva and GoFundme, had the company’s Facebook ads temporarily shut down on several occasions, had videos removed from YouTube, and been buried by Google? In truth, I can write a whole series or book about technofascist acts in the health and wellness space.

Just recently, I learned that Care2.com, a site that connects people with causes, is closing down its “Healthy Living and Causes” sections “as the company sharpens its focus on advocacy work and nonprofit partners.” What does that really mean? Not only are they shutting down the section, but they are also removing all their articles. Dozens of my articles. Poof. Vaporized. Gone.

Coincidental? Unlikely.

As Mercola writes:

“Big Tech has joined the movement, bringing in a global concentration of wealth to eliminate competition and critical voices—voices that bring awareness to the frightening future as our rights, freedoms, and competition erode into a fascist sunset, all disguised as a means to protect you from ‘misinformation.’”

Bowers asks:

“The most critical question is whether there will be resistance to how everyday lives are being increasingly monitored, motivated to pursue the increasingly narrow economic agenda of the emerging techno-fascist culture and stripped of historical values and identity.”

Will we stand up for rights for health freedom and sovereignty? Or sit back and play with our phones, oblivious that we are losing our rights and having a say in what happens to our bodies?

“Anytime you are truly free, there is a cost to pay,” Dr. Cornel West recently told Joe Rogan.

I agree. But the alternative is ghastly. Perhaps, as Stanley says, we need to look to John Stuart Mill, who defended the importance of free speech in his 1859 work “On Liberty”:

“To silence a false opinion is wrong because knowledge arises only from the ‘collision [of truth] with error.’ In other words, true belief becomes knowledge only by emerging victorious from the din of argument and disagreement and discussion,” Stanley wrote.

“According to Mill, knowledge emerges only as a result of deliberation with opposing positions, which must occur either with actual opponents or through internal dialogue. Without this process, even true belief remains mere ‘prejudice.’ We must allow all speech, even defense of false claims and conspiracy theories, because it is only then that we have a chance of achieving knowledge.”

I believe we don’t have to be slaves to Big Brother. If this message finds you, muster the courage to speak out and share. Use search engines such as Qwant. Stand for your sovereignty and health freedom.

The revolution is underway.

“We have to let people know that if Google is going to censor us, let’s censor them. And we can,” said Vorhies. “Together we are going to confront Google; were going to hold them to their own standards and justice will come because we the people will decide that’s what needs to happen.”

Maryam Henein is an investigative journalist, functional medicine consultant, and founder and editor-in-chief of HoneyColony. She is also the director of the award-winning documentary film “Vanishing of the Bees,” narrated by Ellen Page. Follow her on Twitter @maryamhenein

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group