The War on Free Speech

[Baron Samedi]

Internal Google Document: “People Like Us Are Programmed”

An additional document Project Veritas obtained, titled “Fair is Not the Default” says “People (like us) are programmed” after the results of machine learning fairness. The document describes how “unconscious bias” and algorithms interact.

https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-co...0.43.08-PM.png

Leaked documents here;

https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-co...SS1DocDump.pdf

[Baron Samedi]

Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech is “dangerous,” “taking sides”

Insider: “It’s time to decide, do we run the technology, or does the technology run us?”

“I really don’t buy the idea that big tech is politically neutral.”

“Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?”

“I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated. It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true.”

“I have a PhD, I have five years’ experience at Google and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to do what we want them to do.”

UPDATE: Project Veritas has learned that Greg Coppola has been placed on administrative leave by Google.

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/...-taking-sides/

I get the sense that the dam is getting close to breaking when it comes to tech firm whistle blowers, especially as the 2020 campaign nears and Big Tech start really going hard on the censorship agenda.

[Baron Samedi]

Republican groups halt Twitter spending after McConnell account locked

https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...-spending-over

I think right wingers had better prepare for a coordinated lockout of all republican advertising, republican fund raising systems, and republican messaging in 2020.

I think the leftist Big Tech Brother is testing systems to be utilized during the campaign, and I think they figure they can keep the courts tied up for a year or whatever is required to maximize their election interference abilities.

Then, after the election, they can claim it was all just a bug in the system, a mistake, or misguided code monkeys in the basement.

[O.Z.O.]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Republican groups halt Twitter spending after McConnell account locked

https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...-spending-over

I think right wingers had better prepare for a coordinated lockout of all republican advertising, republican fund raising systems, and republican messaging in 2020.

I think the leftist Big Tech Brother is testing systems to be utilized during the campaign, and I think they figure they can keep the courts tied up for a year or whatever is required to maximize their election interference abilities.

Then, after the election, they can claim it was all just a bug in the system, a mistake, or misguided code monkeys in the basement.

assuming you're right, what's the next step after this fails as well...because it will.

[Baron Samedi]

Exclusive: Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Of Docs And Laptop To DOJ

A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.

The former Google insider, who has already spoken in to the nonprofit organization Project Veritas, met with SaraACarter.com on several occasions last week. He was interviewed in silhouette, to conceal his identity, in group’s latest film, which they say exposes bias inside the social media platform.

Several weeks prior, the insider mailed a laptop to the DOJ containing the same information delivered on Friday, they said. The former insider is choosing to remain anonymous until Project Verita’s James O’Keefe reveals his identity tomorrow (Wednesday).

He told this reporter on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the House Judiciary Committee in December, 2018, that the search engine was not biased against conservatives. Pichai explained what algorithm’s are said Google’s algorithm was not offensive to conservatives because its artificial intelligence does not operate in that manner. He told lawmakers, “things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it” are what drives the search results. Pichai said even if his programmers were anti-Republican, the process is so intricate that the artificial intelligence could not be manipulated and it was to complicated to train the algorithm to fit their bias.

Google did not immediately respond for comment on the insider’s claims, however, this story will be updated if comment is provided.

The insider says Google is aware most people are unaware or not knowledgeable about these advanced IT systems and therefore unable to determine who is telling the truth.

“I honestly think that a free market can fix this issue,” he told this reporter at a meeting in Washington D.C. “The issue is that the free market has been distorted and what’s happened is that the distortion is so grotesque and the engineering is so repulsive, all we need to do is just expose what’s going on. People can hear that it is bad but that can be bias. But when they see what Google has actually written with the documents, this will actually be taught in universities of what totalitarian states can do with this type of capability.”

“It will be so revolting that it doesn’t matter what the solution is, a solution will just form as a reaction to this manipulation they have done,” the Google insider said.

He said he’s asked himself many times if he’s overreacting “and every time I simply look back at the documents and realize that I am not.”

“It’s that bad,” he said. “Disclosing Google’s own words to the American public is something I am, must do, if I am to consider myself a good person. The world that google is building is not a place I, or you or our children want to live in.”

Continued here...

https://saraacarter.com/exclusive-go...mpression=true

[Dwight Schrute]

What a pure coincidence it all stems from the left.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by Dwight Schrute

What a pure coincidence it all stems from the left.

In Big Tech it does.

In congress, the Republicans are 100% on board with internet censorship, too. The neocons, anyway. They're not fans of dissent amongst the right.

At heart, neocons are democrats. Always remember.

[AkPatsFan]

We need a purge of the Republican party and get rid of the neocons.

[PatsFan09]

Originally Posted by AkPatsFan

We need a purge of the Republican party and get rid of the neocons.

Amen!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Baron Samedi]

Google “Machine Learning Fairness” Whistleblower Goes Public, says: “burden lifted off of my soul”

The following are excerpts;

“I felt that our entire election system was going to be compromised forever, by this company that told the American public that it was not going to do any evil”
..........................................
“I gave the documents to Project Veritas, I had been collecting the documents for over a year. And the reason why I collected these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company and I realized that there were going to not only tamper with the elections, but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States.”
............................................................................................
Shortly after the report including the “algorithmic unfairness” documents was published, Vorhies received a letter from Google containing several “demands.” Vorhies told Project Veritas that he complied with Google’s demands, which included a request for any internal Google documents he may have personally retained. Vorhies also said he sent those documents to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.
.................................................................................
After having been identified by an anonymous account (which Vorhies believes belongs to a Google employee,) on social media as a “leaker,” Vorhies was approached by law enforcement at his residence in California. According to Vorhies, San Francisco police received a call from Google which prompted a “wellness check.”

“they got inside the gate, the police, and they started banging on my door… And so the police decided that they were going to call in additional forces. They called in the FBI, they called in the SWAT team. And they called in a bomb squad.”

“[T]his is a large way in which [Google tries to] intimidate their employees that go rogue on the company…”

The FBI and SWAT teams are standard procedure for wellness checks, right? There's nothing suspicious about corrupt policing here, is there?
...............................................................................................

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/...ff-of-my-soul/

There is an index and links to documents on the page.

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Social media and search engines are scrubbing away any opposing view points. Free speech my ass...

[tehmackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big/Sky/Fly

Social media and search engines are scrubbing away any opposing view points. Free speech my ass...

That isn't how free speech works.

[johnlocke]

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

That isn't how free speech works.

This.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

That isn't how free speech works.

As annoying as Alex Jones is, when he got the boot by all of the social media platforms...that was the tipping point. Also, AJ was an employee of Time Warner. Most likely a CIA worker bee. Controlled opposition.

[Baron Samedi]

First they came for the bots: US academics make case for 1984-style silencing of any dissent

With the "Russian meddling" theory of Trump's victory on life support heading into 2020, US academic researchers have heeded the patriotic call and put forth a new definition of "disinformation" that includes inconvenient truths.

Social media platforms must expand their definitions of "coordinated inauthentic behavior" beyond the usual bots-and-trolls model to include conversations about topics harmful to the state if they hope to curb the spread of disinformation on their platforms, a trio of University of Washington researchers insist in a paper released ahead of the 2019 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. To help in this quest, the researchers have redefined "disinformation" to include truths arranged to serve a purpose.

Evaluating disinformation is less about the truth value of one or more pieces of information and more about how those pieces fit together to serve a particular purpose.

Such an Orwellian redefinition would include the lion's share of journalism, especially opinion journalism, and sure enough, the researchers have their knives out for those who become "unwitting agents" in the spread of disinfo by writing based on anonymous tips – otherwise known as "reporting."

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This paper cites the CIA/NSA/FBI, New Knowledge &amp; Integrity Initiative psy-ops experts as legit refs, brands established facts on Syria as “disinformation” &amp; describes Black Lives Matter as “unwitting hosts” of Russian disinfo. Academia as a national security state gatekeeper. <a href="https://t.co/DQlyNogD9z">https://t.co/DQlyNogD9z</a></p>&mdash; Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1163918227514232840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

All it takes is one article on a "conspiracy theory" to cause a rift in society, the researchers warn, as a single story spreads to multiple outlets and then throughout the social media infosphere. But governments may spend billions of dollars on manipulating public opinion over social media, because it's OK to lie, as long as you're helping your country.

The paper tiptoes around propaganda campaigns run by the "good guys" – acknowledged US operations like the notorious pro-Clinton Correct the Record, while New Knowledge, rather than being called out for its fake Russian bot campaign to influence the 2017 Alabama senate election, is cited as an academic source!

Understanding that bot- and troll-hunting has limited use, the researchers focus on "actors who are not explicitly coordinated and, in some cases, are not even aware of their role in the campaign" - i.e. ordinary social media users with opinions the researchers don't like.

One "case study" examines content "delegitimizing" the White Helmets while neglecting to mention that the group and the publicity surrounding it are, themselves, part of a well-funded western influence operation against the Syrian government (with a sideline in terrorism and head-chopping). The researchers complain that anti-WH voices were not the expected bots and trolls but included "western journalists" and overlapped with "'anti-war' activism" – as if "anti-war" was an artifact of a bygone era when one could, realistically, be against war. They complain that not enough accounts retweeted pro-White Helmets articles and videos – essentially that the problem here was not enough of the right kind of propaganda.

Conspiracy theories especially get under the researchers' skin, as they have trouble untangling "conspiracy pushers" from those following mainstream news and seem incapable of realizing that people looking for answers in the aftermath of a tragedy are inclined to look in multiple places.

The researchers warn their peers not to minimize the effects of Russian "influence operations" in 2016, even if their analysis shows them to be minimal – clearly, they aren't looking hard enough (i.e., if you don't see the effects, it's not that they aren't there, it's that you aren't using sophisticated enough instruments. May we interest you in this fine Hamilton68 dashboard?).

Scientists are cautioned never to allow their hypothesis to color the way they report the results of their experiments. If the lab doesn't show something, it isn't there. But these researchers are not scientists – they, like the New Knowledge "experts" they so breathlessly cite, are propagandists. They are the droids they are looking for. At one point, they even admit that they "wrestl[ed] with creeping doubt and skepticism about our interpretations of [operations promoting progressive values] as problematic – or as operations at all." Skepticism, it seems, lost.

Social media platforms are warned that their current model of deplatforming people based on "coordinated inauthentic behavior" leaves much to be desired. If they truly want to be ideal handmaidens of the national security state, they must "consider information operations at the level of a campaign and problematize content based on the strategic intent of that campaign." It's not whether the information is true, it's where it came from – and what it might lead to – that matters. Such a model would complete the transformation of platforms into weapons in the state's arsenal for suppressing dissent, and the researchers acknowledge they might be at odds with "commonly held values like 'freedom of speech'" (which they also place in quotes), but hey, do you want to root out those Russian influence operations or not? We've got an election to win!

When at first you don't succeed, redefine success. None have heeded this maxim better than the Russiagate crowd and their enablers in the national security state, and academic researchers have long provided the grist for these propaganda mills. But the cheer chutzpah of expanding the definition of disinformation to include truths arranged to have an effect – a definition that could include most of journalism, to say nothing of political speeches and government communications – is unprecedented.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/466940-trut...on-bots-study/

Paper is here;

https://faculty.washington.edu/kstar...y-Preprint.pdf