+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

  1. Link to Post #21
    Israel Avalon Member PathWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th June 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,407
    Thanks
    6,693
    Thanked 6,522 times in 1,048 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Greetings Reader,

    I wish to suggest 2 important things.
    1. You have the power to chose your news content. It requires some responsibility as well.
    2. Google and facebook are choices your can change (I use DuckDuckGo).

    We have the power, if we do not use it someone else will, and they do.
    But we are awakening.
    Last edited by PathWalker; 29th January 2018 at 09:59.
    We are playing a virtual reality game, of duality. In the game of choices, align your choices with your ideals. Everything is whole, complete and perfect. Even yourself. Love is the power to change/create.

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to PathWalker For This Post:

    AriG (10th October 2018), Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), BMJ (7th February 2018), Bruno (12th April 2018), Daozen (11th April 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (28th January 2018), Ivy23 (12th April 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), mojo (19th February 2018), Valerie Villars (8th February 2018)

  3. Link to Post #22
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    74
    Posts
    3,079
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,183 times in 2,952 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Ecosia Search.....a member suggested this one; sorry I don't remember which member!

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), BMJ (7th February 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), mojo (19th February 2018), Tintin (16th September 2018)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    13th January 2011
    Location
    Outback in the Four Corners
    Posts
    851
    Thanks
    8,721
    Thanked 5,094 times in 759 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    "In this extract from his new book When Google Met Wikileaks, WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange describes the special relationship between Google, Hillary Clinton and the State Department -- and what that means for the future of the internet."

    ...

    "I was intrigued that the mountain would come to Muhammad. But it was not until well after Schmidt and his companions had been and gone that I came to understand who had really visited me."


    I'm not sure if this would fit here, but evidently it doesn't fit in giovanni's old thread anymore.

    Quote Posted by giovonni (here)
    'When Google Met WikiLeaks' ...



    Spying and storing: Assange says 'Google works like NSA'
    Reading a related article linked in the updated blog post by Roacheforque, Your Facts Are Biased, where Roacheforque talks about the betrayal of technology.

    This important update comes from an article, already three years old, by Julian Assange. Just imagine the state of affairs today.

    An interesting aside: The working title of Eric Schmidt's book was "The Empire of the Mind".

    And Roacheforque has called his family, "a dynasty of the mind."

    Both expressing similar mindsets?

    Or perhaps there's a closer relationship?
    Last edited by edina; 7th February 2018 at 15:37.

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to edina For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), BMJ (7th February 2018), Foxie Loxie (19th February 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), mojo (19th February 2018), Paul (7th February 2018), Star Tsar (7th February 2018), Tintin (28th September 2018)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member Valerie Villars's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th November 2017
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    12,298
    Thanked 10,600 times in 1,786 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Quote Posted by CurEus (here)
    I'm certain that most if not all of us are aware the Google, Facebook, Aplle, Microsoft .....cell phone companies and providers and a myriad of other tech companies are really just "fronts" for alphabet soup agencies and whatever their agendas are.
    The "spyware" is built into the hardware. The backdoors cannot be blocked.

    At best any measure we take just prevents "hackers" from accessing our data.

    Here is an excellent 6 part in depth video series that chases the money.
    I find their research high credible and compelling. and very much worth the time to watch. It's like a mini degree in what is behind tech companies of today. Some but not all of the names are familiar.

    Trillion Dollar Rip-Off
    Social Networking is a Stolen Trade Secret

    One of the largest government sponsored industrial espionage thefts of copyrights, trade secrets, and patents in modern times was the theft of scalable social networking inventions. The technology and programming code that underlie Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and most the other large-scale social networking companies runs on Leader Technologies’ intellectual property.

    It was stolen by a group of criminal lawyers, judges, spies and bankers working with complete impunity and in total disregard for the law. Under the guise of the IBM Eclipse Foundation, James P. Chandler III (who was a national security advisor and top White House attorney) led the group of criminals who, interestingly enough, are also appearing in the news currently due to their most recently discovered crimes, along with John Podesta, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, John Breyer, James Breyer, Larry Summers, Yuri Milner, Alisher Usmanov, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and a host of others who are not so well known.

    Usually, we see them stealing oil, gold, uranium and other resources, but this time they stole the very software code that is utilized by the largest tech companies in America, Europe, Russia, China, South America, and anywhere else they could market it – making trillions of dollars in the process.

    https://aim4truth.org/2017/11/21/fac...by-zuckerberg/
    You know what else they steal for profit? Your creative ideas. They read your mind and dreams and do it all the time.
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone when we are uncool." From the movie "Almost Famous""l "Let yourself stand cool and composed before a million universes." Walt Whitman

  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Valerie Villars For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), BMJ (19th February 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (19th February 2018), Ivy23 (12th April 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), onevoice (8th February 2018), petra (11th April 2018), Tintin (28th September 2018)

  9. Link to Post #25
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    15,138
    Thanks
    52,501
    Thanked 82,277 times in 13,884 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Brazil's largest newspaper abandons Facebook for "effectively banning professional journalism" with new algorithm

    Jay Syrmopoulos Truth In Media
    Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:48 UTC



    The largest newspaper in Brazil, Folha de S Paulo, announced late last week that due to Facebook's recent changes to their news feed algorithm resulting in what the paper claims is "effectively banning professional journalism," it would cease publishing content on the social media platform.

    The Guardian reported that the popular Brazilian newspaper has an online and print subscription base of nearly 285,000 subscribers and had roughly 204 million page impressions last December, according to the Communication Verification Institute, a non-profit media auditor. The company's Facebook page has nearly 6 million Facebook followers.

    The executive editor of Fohla, Sérgio Dávila, told The Guardian that the paper's decision reflected "the declining importance of Facebook to our readers," but added that the recent algorithm changes to Facebook's Newsfeed had precipitated the decision. The paper claimed the new algorithm "privilege[s] personal interaction contents, to the detriment of those distributed by companies, such as those that produce professional journalism."

    Only weeks ago, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder and CEO, announced that the company would be changing the algorithm used to determine what shows up in an individual's Newsfeed to prioritize "meaningful social interactions" and posts by friends, and "trusted" news sources.

    Folha noted that the choice to abandon Facebook was "a reflection of internal discussions about the best ways to get the content of the newspaper to reach its readers. The disadvantages of using Facebook as a path to this distribution became more evident after the social network's decision to reduce the visibility of professional journalism on its users' pages."

    A separate report in Folha noted that the newspaper's own analysis found that "fake news pages received five times the number of engagements that professional journalism received" during the month of January.
    "This reinforces the tendency of the user to consume more and more content with which it has affinity, favoring the creation of bubbles of opinions and convictions, and the propagation of fake news," Folha argued.

    "These problems have been aggravated in recent years by the mass distribution of deliberately false content...as happened in the U.S. presidential election in 2016."

    "In effectively banning professional journalism from its pages in favor of personal content and opening space for 'fake news' to proliferate, Facebook became inhospitable terrain for those who want to offer quality content like ours," Dávila told the Guardian.
    There has been widespread concern among civil libertarians, and independent media, about the continuing use of algorithms that effectively soft-censors content that includes controversial ideas or dissent.

    Brazil is the third biggest market in the world for Facebook, with roughly 130 million users, according to statistics portal Statista.


    Related:
    Zuckerberg: Facebook to prioritize news from 'trustworthy' news sources

    Social media: Can we take back power from the tech giants and their government overlords?


    Google and Facebook fund 'fake news war rooms' to 'truthify' Western elections - UK next

    Google and big business design adblocker to be installed as default on Chrome banning what it deems "most intrusive ads"

    Facebook censorship: Here's how to make sure you still see posts by your favorite sites

    As Facebook continues to blunder, new social media platform 'Steemit' pays you to participate

    Facebook censorship pushing alt media to new social networking platforms
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    AriG (10th October 2018), Bill Ryan (19th February 2018), BMJ (19th February 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Ewan (19th February 2018), Foxie Loxie (19th February 2018), Ivanhoe (12th April 2018), Ivy23 (12th April 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), mojo (19th February 2018), onevoice (19th February 2018), Sophocles (11th April 2018), Tintin (11th April 2018)

  11. Link to Post #26
    UK Moderator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    48
    Posts
    853
    Thanks
    6,605
    Thanked 5,178 times in 838 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Some more from Jon Rappoport here fairly hot off the press from his blog.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors." (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

    Facebook censorship: the grotesque solution
    By Jon Rappoport

    The problem with Facebook started a long time ago. They used their money to promote their social media operations, and tons of users jumped on board, believing that conventional rules of free speech applied.

    That was a mistake.

    The mistake was on the level of believing the military-industrial complex is only interested in legitimate defence of the nation; or believing the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in alleviating existing illness with safe drugs.

    Some lawyers and scholars are trying to "correct" Facebook. But beware: most of them are arguing that, since the Internet is a new platform, far beyond the ability of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated, we now have to change the meaning of the 1st Amendment, in order to make social media "more responsible" about the content they permit. In other words, Facebook should eliminate "more fake news."

    This is the road to disaster, as any sane person can see.


    Who decides what is fake? Government appointed fact checkers? The CIA? Either of the two major political parties? A biased hate speech organization?

    These scholars and attorneys want social media to be defined as "public square, town hall, news media"---but not so public that all political views are allowed through the door. No. They only want "reasonable" content, to protect "robust debate in a democracy." This is pure baloney.

    We're also seeing increasing calls for government regulation of social media. This means more censorship. We're witnessing that in California, where State Senator Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424), designed to force all Internet activity based in California to use designated fact checkers and issue warnings about fake news.

    It may seem like a good move to redefine social media giants as "more than private companies," but that direction is dangerous. In the main, it's not being shaped by true free-speech advocates, it's controlled by mainstream operatives who want their news to dominate the scene.

    A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece:

    "'You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,' says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law.

    'And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time'."

    Defer to well-informed elites? Really? This is the mainstream argument right out in the open:

    The vaunted traditional news outlets speak the truth and we must listen to them. We must censor all the extraneous "noise" on the Internet. The NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS would never lie. They vet their stories and fact check them. They are objective. They light the lamp of truth and point the way.

    They protect democracy.

    To mainstream scholars, improving social media means destroying the 1st Amendment under the guise of "adjusting and updating it."

    Eliminating hate speech includes censoring material that contradicts the "progressive culture" on issues like immigration, open borders, gun control, vaccination, and gender identity.

    "Free speech" is replaced by "better speech."

    "I don't like what you say" is replaced by "you have no right to say it."

    The very popular pro-Trump Diamond and Silk duo recently reacted to Facebook censorship:

    "...giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: 'The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community'."

    I guess Diamond and Silk are part of the dangerous noise that distracts the American people from "responsible journalism" so necessary to maintaining a robust democracy.

    Yes, that must be it.

    As far as I can tell, the following quote about the news was written before the Internet and Facebook existed, and therefore---heaven forbid---was actually aimed at mainstream sources:

    "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors." (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

    Censor Jefferson! He's contributing to doubt and disbelief in our most trusted streams of information. Ban him from Facebook! He's unsafe to the community. He's a corrosive influence. He's obstructing democracy. He's a conspiracy lunatic. The new and improved 1st Amendment doesn't protect him. How can we conduct intelligent and proper debate on serious matters in the face of such blanket condemnations which he spews?

    Yes, ban him, so we can be safe again.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  12. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (11th April 2018), Ivanhoe (12th April 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), latte (13th April 2018), onevoice (13th April 2018), Paul (11th April 2018), petra (11th April 2018), Valerie Villars (11th April 2018)

  13. Link to Post #27
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2016
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Age
    38
    Posts
    944
    Thanks
    2,825
    Thanked 3,036 times in 851 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    What bugs me the most is how it's psychoanalyzing me. PS: I've never watched Hello Kitty

    This one stood out to me recently,

    Quote Posted by Ref Article & Heard it on TV
    “Hello Kitty” on Facebook suggests that the user is more likely to be a Democrat, of African-American origin, and predominantly Christian, the study says.
    Ref: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/1...microtargeting

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to petra For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (11th April 2018), Tintin (11th April 2018)

  15. Link to Post #28
    UK Moderator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    48
    Posts
    853
    Thanks
    6,605
    Thanked 5,178 times in 838 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    And here’s J D Heyes writing for Natural News today and citing the ‘Diamond and Silk’ situation to which Jon Rappoport referred in my recent post from his blog, here.

    And a link to Hervé’s Jon Rappoport blog entry here on that specific thread in relation to the SB-1424 bill being pushed by Sen. Richard Pan (California)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    “Because if you speak in a way the tech overlords don’t like, all of a sudden you are ‘unsafe,’” Adams said. “This is a very dangerous precedent. They’re censoring Diamond and Silk just like they’re censoring me, just like they’re censoring Infowars at every opportunity."

    Health Ranger Mike Adams fills in for Alex Jones to warn about the “online ethnic cleansing” happening now
    Tuesday, April 10, 2018 by: JD Heyes


    Article link here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-...cleansing.html

    Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, filled in for Infowars creator and host Alex Jones on Sunday’s broadcast which he called his “most important” message ever: The tsunami of speech authoritarianism that is already sweeping the country as Left-wing social media giants commit “online ethnic cleansing” against conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump.

    Adams led off by noting that Jack Dorsey, the CEO and co-founder of Twitter, endorsed a rambling, lengthy Medium post last week that calls for the political (and physical?) destruction of all conservatives and Republicans using the “California model.”

    The piece, titled, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” not only claims Americans are already engaged in a new ideological conflict (we are), but that there is likely no way the two opposing sides will ever compromise or see eye-to-eye anymore (we won’t).

    And while those two observations are, in my view, correct, the overall theme of the piece — that the entire country should follow California’s path and relegate Republicans and conservatives to the ash heap of history — is provocative and dangerous.

    And yet, as Adams noted, Dorsey endorsed the piece — in a tweet, of course — as a “great read.”

    But then Dorsey’s tweets aren’t getting shadow banned, either, like those of conservatives, Republicans, and vocal Trump supporters, which is more to Adams’ point and the basis of his claim that the Left, and in particular Left-wing tech, is engaging in online ethnic cleansing of competing ideological, cultural, social, and political voices.

    Adams, in his broadcast, noted further that Facebook has recently labelled ardent Trump supporters Diamond and Silk as putting out “dangerous content” and that they’re “unsafe to the community.” This pair are funny, talented, and entertaining in their defence and support of the president — they are anything but ‘dangerous,’ unless of course, you’re a Marxist.

    “Because if you speak in a way the tech overlords don’t like, all of a sudden you are ‘unsafe,’” Adams said. “This is a very dangerous precedent. They’re censoring Diamond and Silk just like they’re censoring me, just like they’re censoring Infowars at every opportunity.

    “The war is on to silence all voices that do not comply with the totalitarian, authoritarian narratives of the Left,” Adams noted further. (Related: California state senator who pushed vaccine mandate now seeks to CRIMINALIZE “fake news” about medicine, politics and government.)

    Along these lines, Adams noted as well that The Washington Post at some point over the past two weeks “memory-holed” an Associated Press article noting that one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s witnesses in his never-ending, always expanding probe of all things Team Trump is a convicted paedophile.

    According to the article, George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, was a globe-trotting “fixer” who was convicted 15 years ago in Poland for 10 cases of sexually abusing minors and was given a one-year sentence in May 2003. You can draw your own conclusions as to why the Post would delete a widely syndicated article.

    Adams noted that the story that Dorsey praised calls for “Left-wing mob” rule, essentially, and that view “is reflected throughout YouTube, Twitter, Google, and Facebook” — all of which are doing the same thing, which is censorship of conservative and pro-Trump voices.

    “They are now running the gamut of just deleting every conservative voice and independent media voice, every independent journalist, every libertarian voice that they don’t like,” said Adams.

    The Health Ranger shared his recent personal experience of seeing his channel on YouTube, which featured hundreds of videos, taken down — all because he said that the human species comes in two genders, male and female.

    “That upset the LGBTQ community,” said Adams, and YouTube used it as an excuse to ban him.

    Watch more here:

    Last edited by Tintin; 11th April 2018 at 15:13.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  16. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (11th April 2018), Hervé (11th April 2018), Ivanhoe (12th April 2018), Ivy23 (12th April 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), onevoice (13th April 2018), Sophocles (11th April 2018)

  17. Link to Post #29
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    15,138
    Thanks
    52,501
    Thanked 82,277 times in 13,884 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    German historian posts on Facebook that 'Islam is not part of German history', gets banned

    Tyler O'Neil PJ Media
    Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:01 UTC


    © Shutterstock

    Last month, Facebook censored a German historian who posted a message about Islam's historic impact on Germany. Facebook banned the historian for 30 days, even though 76 percent of Germans agree that Islam does not "belong to Germany."

    Michael Hesemann, a journalist and Vatican historian with an honorary doctorate for his work in uncovering documents from the Armenian Genocide, posted a message that Facebook said did "not correspond to our community standards." The offensive message was an accurate - if overstated - historical statement.

    "Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight," Hesemann wrote, according to NRW Direkt. "In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

    Facebook argued that it would delete any comment that "attacks persons because of their race, ethnicity, national background, religious orientation, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or physical impairment," the Catholic site OnePeterFive reported.

    The historical relationship between Islam and Germany has become a hot topic in the last month, with the rise of the new Interior Minister Horst Seehofer. The former president of Germany, Christian Wulff, declared that "Islam belongs to Germany" -- and Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed.

    "No. Islam does not belong to Germany," Seehofer declared shortly after taking office. "Germany is characterized by Christianity." Even so, he added, "The Muslims living with us naturally belong to Germany."

    In a recent WELT-Trends poll, 76 percent of Germans agreed with Seehofer on this issue, with 61 percent saying they "strongly agree." Only 20 percent of Germans disagreed, insisting that Islam is fundamental to Germany. A mere four percent said they were "undecided."

    The historian lamented the forced silence of political correctness on this issue. "It says a lot about the deplorable state of our democracy under Chancellor Angela Merkel, when a historian may not utter simple historical facts," Hesemann told NRW Direkt.

    "The question of whether Islam belongs to Germany, as Merkel claims, or not, as Horst Seehofer stated, has a third answer: Yes, it is part of our history, albeit in a way that may be uncomfortable for many," the historian said.

    "Islam has contributed significantly to European integration. Without Islam, there would have been no Charlemagne whose grandfather, as hero of Poitiers, grew beyond his role as Hausmeier and laid the foundation for the Carolingian dynasty," Hesemann said. Without Islam, there would be "no crusades and no associated cultural transfer, no Renaissance - the consequence of the fall of Constantinople and the flight of its scholars to the West, no holy league as the first European defense alliance against the Turks, and so much else."

    The historian was referring to the Battle of Tours (732 A.D.), when Charles Martel defeated a Muslim army in France after the Muslims had spread north from Spain. That battle united various Frankish tribes, helping to create the nation of France. Charles Martel's grandson, Charles the Great or Charlemagne (742-814), united a vast territory under his rule and fostered a period of learning known as the "Carolingian Renaissance." His "Holy Roman Empire" played a colossal role in European history, and lasted for about 1000 years.

    So many pivotal moments in European history, from the Battle of Tours to the Battle of Lepanto (1571) to the Sieges of Vienna (1529 and 1683), resulted from direct conflict with Islamic expansion.

    Even the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492 would have been incomprehensible without Islam. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of the united Spanish kingdoms sent Columbus on his voyage after defeating the Muslims in Granada. The Portuguese started European colonialism in response to Muslim control of eastern trade routes, and the Spanish hired Columbus to find another route to the east.

    Without the presence of Islam as a perceived "threat of barbarism," Europeans would not have discovered and colonized the Americas, with all the good and ill that came of their expeditions.

    In Germany in particular, the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne inspired a separate German identity, eventually uniting disparate kingdoms and city states into the German Empire in 1871. So without Islam, there would be no Germany - but that doesn't mean Germany is Islamic.

    Summarizing this tremendous impact, the Vatican historian Hesemann added, "So Islam certainly played an important role in the history of Europe, and especially in Germany, but not as part of our culture, in which it was never integrated - but as a threat against which to unite, and to overcome all borders and disagreements."

    "Say: without Islam, a Christian West would never have defined itself in that clarity," Hesemann concluded.

    The historian shot back against the idea that he had attacked people because of their religious affiliation. "This analysis of the history of our relationship to Islam in the period between the 7th and 18th centuries does not affect a single living person," Hesemann said.

    "It does not attack Islam, even though it states that it was perceived by the Christian West as barbarism, a term that incidentally comes from ancient Greece and means all non-Greek characteristics," he explained. "Islam really does not have Greek roots."

    Hesemann explained, "Nobody would resent it when a historian states that the Franks and the Crusaders, in turn, have been understood by many Muslims as 'barbarians' in some ways."

    "But here, the historical assessment of Islam is simply censored and unworthy of a free society," the historian quipped. "Obviously, any critical engagement with a religion that has spread through the subjugation of other peoples and still today follows a barbarian 7th-century law that follows Sharia with its brutal corporal and capital punishments, including stoning and crucifixion."

    "Apparently, every single critical historian must now shut up," Hesemann said. "I strongly protest and plead for the right of freedom of expression and free discussion of historical facts."

    Indeed, recent events in Germany suggest that Islam is becoming something of a state religion. Criticism of the religion is considered unacceptable, and immigrants have gotten away with crimes as horrible as rape because of their cultural heritage.

    Last month, a German headmistress reportedly told a Christian girl who had gotten beaten up by Muslim classmates that she should just wear a hijab to prevent further bullying. In the same month, a German judge ordered Volkswagen to rehire a man who was suspected of recruiting for the Islamic State (ISIS). Last year, a Turkish man was acquitted after raping a German woman because his forced violent sex was not "culturally" considered rape.

    Whether or not Islam is fundamentally barbaric, Michael Hesemann's interpretation of history is correct. Europeans feared Islam and united in order to fight it, forging a Christian identity in contrast to the religion of Mohammed.

    Facebook should not ban historians who tell hard truths. If the company would ban Hesemann for this history, would it censor a Muslim who said the Crusaders were "barbaric"? Would Facebook consider it an insult to atheists if a Christian posted that atheist regimes killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century? Historical facts should never be censored, and Facebook should be ashamed of this behavior.

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  18. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (11th April 2018), Bill Ryan (11th April 2018), DNA (15th September 2018), Ewan (12th April 2018), Flash (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (11th April 2018), Ivanhoe (12th April 2018), Ivy23 (12th April 2018), KiwiElf (11th April 2018), latte (13th April 2018), Sophocles (11th April 2018), Star Mariner (13th April 2018), TargeT (12th April 2018), Tintin (11th April 2018), Valerie Villars (25th April 2018)

  19. Link to Post #30
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,235
    Thanks
    521
    Thanked 3,323 times in 996 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Excellent video speech. Internet controllers using just another divide and conquer ploy.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to amor For This Post:

    DNA (15th September 2018), latte (13th April 2018)

  21. Link to Post #31
    UK Moderator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    48
    Posts
    853
    Thanks
    6,605
    Thanked 5,178 times in 838 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    For those unused to Jon’s style, will need to be aware that here, he is dripping with delicious irony and just a small dollop of sarcasm, delivered by a dump-truck. And, as ever, the point is eloquently made: he strafes thought complacency and apathy in equal measure, as if he has loaded a gattling gun, and typically quotes some wonderful sources to reinforce the points made.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie---a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days---but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please." (Hannah Arendt, 1974)

    Famous figures that should immediately be banned by Facebook


    By Jon Rappoport

    Don't hesitate. These persons are a danger to the community. Facebook should ban them immediately, before their dangerous word-viruses infect the brains of a billion users.

    "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." (John F Kennedy, 1962)

    Outrageous. Ban him. Everyone knows unpleasant facts and competitive values make people feel unsafe. These are micro-aggressions, and anyone who supports them should have his Facebook page taken down.

    "We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks---that's show business." (Edward R. Murrow, CBS news anchor)

    Ban Murrow. He is attacking his own profession and making a mockery of it. By extension, he can be seen to prefer some other kind of news. Who knows what that is? Mainstream news is real news. Other news is fake.

    "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, of the people; and if the cause, the interest, and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and trustees." (John Adams, 1765)

    Adams is proposing nothing less than the right of the people to remove their rulers. [my emphasis - TQ) In some cases, this would be useful, but as a general proposition, it is incendiary. His statements would trigger many people. Adams is committing hate speech. Ban him.

    "The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie---a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days---but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please." (Hannah Arendt, 1974)

    She is implying that the mainstream press is lying to the people. This is forbidden. Establishment news is our only source of vetted truth. Everything else must be filtered by fact checkers. Take down her Facebook account. Ban her.

    "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." (George Orwell, 1972)

    We know all about Orwell. He champions the idea that mainstream authority, and the press, are perverting truth on an ongoing basis. He might well represent independent media. He needs psychiatric treatment. Ban him.

    "Private property ... has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is." (Oscar Wilde)

    This is a borderline case. We're not sure where Wilde stands on the issue of private property. Is he completely against it? If so, leave his Facebook account alone. We're submitting this quote to the fact checkers.

    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." (Thomas Paine, 1776)

    A troublemaker. Offending people triggers them. They feel unsafe. They suffer. Has Paine posted photos of family picnics, birthday parties? No. He prefers to disturb the community. Ban him.

    "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." (Noam Chomsky)

    "...Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place..." (Mark Zuckerberg)

    Do not post this statement on Facebook. It transmits the wrong impression. Facebook censorship is based on true ideals and premises, not left-leaning values. Issue Zuckerberg a warning. If he persists in this language, suspend his account. Keep in mind that Facebook only has 2 billion users. There are 7.5 billion people on Earth. Why is Zuckerberg so far behind in securing the goal of EVERYONE having a Facebook account?
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    DNA (15th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (13th April 2018), onevoice (13th April 2018), Valerie Villars (25th April 2018)

  23. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    74
    Posts
    3,079
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,183 times in 2,952 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Thanks for posting this, Tintin!!

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    DNA (15th September 2018), Tintin (14th April 2018)

  25. Link to Post #33
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    9,769
    Thanks
    23,309
    Thanked 41,165 times in 8,426 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Pinterest removing and censoring anti-vaccine content.
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-...rug-abuse.html
    "(Natural News) According to the new Pinterest community guidelines, you are no longer allowed to question vaccines. If you post facts about the failures of the flu shot… if you point out the poisons that are in childhood vaccines… if you share any research or personal testimony on vaccine damage… your post can and will be taken down by Pinterest’s Big Pharma-controlled censorship team. If you dare post “anti-vaccination” advice, you will be blamed for putting public safety at risk and encouraging people to commit self-harm.

    The latest copy of Pinterest’s community guidelines says that Pinterest will not tolerate anything that promotes drug abuse, suicidal ideation, or “anti-vaccine advice.” Pinterest warns they will remove anything that has “immediate and detrimental effects on a pinner’s health and public safety.” This includes removing pins that promote “false cures for terminal or chronic illnesses and anti-vaccination advice.”

    <
    In order to keep the internet safe from “disinformation campaigns,” Pinterest no longer allows anyone to post anything that questions vaccines or pharmaceuticals. Pinterest has bought into the lies and propaganda of the vaccine industry and is going to extreme levels to be the vaccine industry’s acolyte. In trying to eliminate “disinformation campaigns” Pinterest has actually fallen for one of the greatest disinformation campaigns in the history of medicine: that vaccines are 100 percent safe and effective. Just as North Koreans are punished for questioning their dictator, anyone who uses Pinterest cannot question holy vaccine science.

    Mother Nature's micronutrient secret: Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules now available, delivering 280mg of high-density nutrition, including the extraordinary "sulforaphane" and "glucosinolate" nutrients found only in cruciferous healing foods. Every lot laboratory tested. See availability here.

    What is “anti-vaccination advice?”
    Anti-vaccination advice is actually life saving advice that promotes the upward trajectory of a healthy, natural immune system. Vaccination is not synonymous with immunization. Immunization occurs naturally, within the body. The human immune system is constantly immunizing itself through natural exposure to the billions of bacteria, fungi, parasites, and virus cells that exist everywhere, all the time. Vaccination, on the other hand, is an attempt to force an immune response to pathogens. This is often accomplished using an adjuvant such as aluminum. Vaccination burdens the body with filthy poisons like human fetal tissue, diseased cow’s blood, formaldehyde, and toxic aluminum salts in order to introduce a specific pathogen to the person’s immune system. There are no guarantees this process works effectively for every individual. To make matters worse, fully vaccinated populations are some of the sickest because their immune systems are so run down by a consortium of toxic elements.

    Pinterest will take down any information that helps parents make an informed decision about vaccines for their children. Any pin that questions a Hep B shot at birth will be taken down.

    Any pin that dares mention the immune system boosting properties of probiotics, vitamin C, vitamin D, or human breast milk could be removed for being “anti-vaccine advice.”

    Any pin that shows the scientific facts about the failure of flu shots, can be removed for somehow putting public health at risk. Even though viral mutation and virus shedding from the flu shot is putting the public’s health at risk, Pinterest will suppress that information so more people obey flu shot propaganda.

    Any post about the deaths, seizures and auto-immune conditions that result from Gardasil vaccinations will be scrubbed from the site.

    Any dietary and/or herbal protocol that is used to heal chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease can now be censored from the site.

    By removing life-saving advice on natural immunity and by promoting toxic injections, Pinterest is complicit in promoting self harm and putting the public health at risk."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    DNA (15th September 2018), Flash (16th September 2018), Hervé (15th September 2018), Paul (16th September 2018), RunningDeer (16th September 2018), Valerie Villars (15th September 2018)

  27. Link to Post #34
    United States Avalon Member Valerie Villars's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th November 2017
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    12,298
    Thanked 10,600 times in 1,786 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Ah yes, censorship. Coming soon to a private conversation near you.

    It gets more disturbing by the day.
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone when we are uncool." From the movie "Almost Famous""l "Let yourself stand cool and composed before a million universes." Walt Whitman

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Valerie Villars For This Post:

    DNA (16th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (16th September 2018), onawah (16th September 2018), Paul (16th September 2018), petra (28th September 2018)

  29. Link to Post #35
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2016
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Age
    38
    Posts
    944
    Thanks
    2,825
    Thanked 3,036 times in 851 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    I didn't know you could target Facebook ads to phone numbers....

    Facebook is becoming a really good example of software that's "TOO POWERFUL" imo

    Quote Kashmir Hill, reporting for Gizmodo:
    Last week, I ran an ad on Facebook targeted at a computer science professor named Alan Mislove. Mislove studies how privacy works on social networks and had a theory that Facebook is letting advertisers reach users with contact information collected in surprising ways. I was helping him test the theory by targeting him in a way Facebook had previously told me wouldn't work. I directed the ad to display to a Facebook account connected to the landline number for Alan Mislove's office, a number Mislove has never provided to Facebook. He saw the ad within hours.
    Ref: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/09...ct-information
    And: https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-givi...-co-1828476051

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to petra For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (28th September 2018), Hervé (28th September 2018), Valerie Villars (29th September 2018)

  31. Link to Post #36
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    15,138
    Thanks
    52,501
    Thanked 82,277 times in 13,884 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    For a neat Google slight of hand, see this post (<---)
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (8th October 2018), Bill Ryan (8th October 2018), Sophocles (9th October 2018), Valerie Villars (8th October 2018)

  33. Link to Post #37
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    15,138
    Thanks
    52,501
    Thanked 82,277 times in 13,884 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Google+ shutting down after data breach which was never revealed to users

    RT

    Published time: 8 Oct, 2018 20:46
    Edited time: 9 Oct, 2018 07:42
    Get short URL


    © Omar Marques / Global Look Press

    Google is closing the Google+ social network after an error exposed the private data of hundreds of thousands of users last spring, in an incident which the company never disclosed to those affected.

    Google put the “final nail in the coffin” of the Google+ product by shutting down “all consumer functionality,” the Wall Street Journal reported citing an internal memo.


    The project launched in 2011 as an alternative to other social networks ended up being a huge failure for the company. The breach happened after a software glitch in the site gave outside developers potential access to private profile data including names, email addresses, birth dates, genders, occupations and more.

    The memo viewed by the Journal said that disclosing the incident publicly would possibly trigger “immediate regulatory interest” and do damage to the company’s reputation. Reporting the incident would result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” it warned.

    The Journal reported that the Google+ breach exposed Google’s “concerted efforts to avoid public scrutiny of how it handles user information” at a time when regulators and the public are trying to do more to hold tech companies to account.

    Google goes “beyond legal requirements” and applies “several criteria focused on our users” when deciding whether to provide notice, a spokesperson said in a statement. The company said it had considered whether or not it could accurately identify which users to inform, whether there was any evidence of misuse and whether there were any actions a developer or user could take in response. “None of these thresholds were met here,” the spokesperson said.

    The leaked memo says that while there is no evidence that outside developers misused any data, there is still no way to know for sure.

    As part of a slew of new security measures, Google is expected to clamp down on the amount of data it provides to outside developers through application programming interfaces (APIs), sources told the Journal.

    As part of an audit of APIs, Google also discovered that Google+ had also been permitting developers to obtain data from users who never wanted it to be shared publicly — but a bug in the API meant they could collect data even if it was explicitly marked non-public through Google’s privacy settings.

    New European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules which went into effect in May would have required Google to disclose the information to regulators within 72 hours under threat of penalty, but the Google+ leak was discovered in March, before the GDPR regulations came in and therefore was not covered by the European rules, according to Al Saikali, a lawyer who spoke to the Journal.

    Saikali said it was possible that Google could face class action lawsuits over its decision not to disclose the breach. “The story here that the plaintiffs will tell is that Google knew something here and hid it. That by itself is enough to make the lawyers salivate,” he said.


    Related:
    Mass legal action against Google blocked by UK’s High Court

    Breaking up Facebook & Google? RT’s Keiser Report looks at the best way to disband the monopolies

    Trump weighing antitrust probe into Google, Facebook & Twitter. It’s been a long time coming.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th October 2018), Sophocles (9th October 2018), Valerie Villars (9th October 2018)

  35. Link to Post #38
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    15,138
    Thanks
    52,501
    Thanked 82,277 times in 13,884 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    Google Didn't Just Ignore Its 'Don't Be Evil' Motto - It is Literally Surveillance Central

    Gordon Vick Sott.net
    Wed, 10 Oct 2018 03:15 UTC



    For the last five years or so, I have been involved with a non-profit called SeniorNet. SeniorNet's mandate is to assist people aged over 55 with understanding how to use their PCs, smartphones and tablets more effectively so that their more effective use of these tools can improve their quality of life.

    One of the things I have found quite mind-blowing while working with seniors is how few people are concerned about their privacy and either refuse to consider the risks they face using tools like Google products or Microsoft's latest OS, or else rationalise it with the hoary old chestnut - if you're not doing anything bad, you have nothing to worry about - which is just wrong on so many levels.

    Recently I have been reading an enlightening book by Yasha Levine called Surveillance Valley, which is basically a history of the internet that explains how it emerged from a Pentagon ARPA project (now DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) to facilitate data-sharing between military/intelligence agencies so they could improve their counterinsurgency programs against targets both inside and outside the USA. Levine also details how every breakthrough in technology that enabled the internet as we know it today was either spun out of ARPA research or was directly (and primarily) funded by such.




    I highly recommend you acquire a copy of Surveillance Valley and read it. Levine will shatter any illusions you may still hold about how the internet was ever going to be a tool of individual freedom against government.

    I want to focus on just one case study Levine explored - Google, whose operations today effectively comprise 25% of the entire internet. Before reading the book, I thought I had an appreciation of what Google was up to, and how incredibly intrusive it is when it comes to personal information, but actually I didn't know the half of it.

    Google was started by two students from Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who wanted to create a better search algorithm, an algorithm with predictive elements that could generate meaningful search results, rather than just long lists of largely irrelevant links.

    Page grew up around computers; his father was a NASA researcher, and his mother taught computer programming at Michigan State University. He grew up programming and after finding inspiration in the story of Nikola Tesla, he fed a desire to invent things and change the world. As Levine puts it, "Stanford University and a research program funded by DARPA would allow him to achieve his dreams."

    After WW2, Stanford was the elite engineering university closely linked to the US military-industrial complex. There was a huge university industrial park which became the hub for computer and microprocessor development. In that park there was also a branch of DARPA. Awash with military cash and cybernetic utopianism, Stanford later became the epicenter of the dot-com boom. And in this environment, Page started a computer science PhD program in 1995. Seeking a project for his dissertation, he finally settled on internet search. Contemporary search algorithms were very primitive but had attracted piles of cash - think Yahoo, AltaVista and Excite - so finding a better way to search would be challenging but financially rewarding.

    Page's graduate advisor, Terry Wingrad, came from a background of research with ARPANET and the Digital Libraries project, sponsored by civilian, military and law enforcement agencies. ARPANET was the original 'internet', first tested in 1969 between Stanford and UCLA. The Libraries project had a civilian mandate but the intelligence agencies wanted to be better able to access the digital trail people left on the internet with diaries, blogs, forums, photographs and emails. So this project was a good fit and Terry Wingrad was an appropriate mentor. When Page finally published his first research paper, it was marked "funded by DARPA."

    Sergey Brin was the polar opposite to Page. Outgoing and flamboyant, at Stanford he focused on data mining, building computer algorithms to predict what people would do based on their past actions. And indeed, behavioural data mining would prove to be a core Google foundation.

    The key factor for Page and Brin was PageRank. They developed a way to rank every page on the internet based on the number of times it was linked to other pages. Some links were worth more - a link from a national newspaper was more powerful than a link from a personal homepage. In the end the rank of any given webpage was the sum total of all the links and their values that pointed to it. As a consequence, Google manifested explosive growth and became the default search engine for the internet - and even had a verb named after it.

    One part of the drive behind the Google experience was predictive search - the ability to interpret what you want from a search term, based on what you have done before, websites you have looked at, and search terms you have used. In order to make that work effectively, Google needs data - your data, and the more data the better.

    And this is where things start to get spooky. The impetus driving everything Google does, including the products Google offers, is data collection for future data mining. In the beginning, Google collected your searches. Then, by using tracking cookies, a small piece of code placed on your machine, Google was able to see where you went after you left the search engine or the site you found using the search engine. The more data it gathered, the better 'psychographic' picture Google had of you and your online habits.

    But search terms and your trail on the internet wasn't enough. And so we saw the launch of the 'free' email service Gmail in 2004. In data gathering terms, this was pure genius. In order to use the service, you gave Google permission to scan all of your emails. Think about that. You gave Google the right to read all the emails you send and receive, all the attachments, all the documents, all the invoices, all the photos etc. Everything in your life that comes by email was suddenly available for Google to mine and that data then became theirs.

    What better way to connect browsing data from millions of people, aside from being the default search engine, than to offer people a free browser. And so we saw the birth of Google Chrome, probably the most used browser on earth.

    Then came Google Calendar and Contacts. Same story. You gave Google access to everything you do every day and to all the people you know, whether through business or your personal life. And still that wasn't enough. With the purchase of Android, Google extended its reach even further into your life. Through your phone, Google could now track who you called, who you texted, what was in the texts, where you went (via the location feature), the apps you use, the apps you own. And did I mention the Google online apps - their take on Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint. (By the way, don't feel virtuous if you use an Apple phone. You are in just as bad a place. When it comes to data harvesting, Apple is as rapacious as Google)

    The cherry on the cake for vacuuming up even more of your data comes courtesy of Google Drive. Google will give you 15 Gb of online storage to store all your electronic data and records. It's free, folks. Give us your stuff and we will keep it for you on Google Drive. If it is deleted from your home system, you can get it back from us. We are the good guys and we will look after your data, for free. And you can share it across all your devices. Isn't that so very convenient?

    Can you imagine the amount of detailed data that Google has on multiple millions of people worldwide - a virtually complete picture of their likes, dislikes, habits, hobbies, indiscretions, business matters, work history, sexual affairs, sexual orientation, friends, enemies, travel habits, movie and book preferences, political leanings, financial status...

    Google has said from the beginning that it is only using this data to better target users with advertising, although they don't boast too loudly that they're selling the data to advertisers and making a fortune from users' personal information. But recall where these people started from, who funded them, and the close and profitable relationship Google has with the US government in general and the military-intelligence 'community' in particular. Then recall the NSA's PRISM program, as revealed by Edward Snowden. Among the Snowden documents was tangible evidence that the largest, most respected internet companies - Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft - had worked secretly to funnel data on hundreds of thousands of users to the NSA. And they were VERY keen that you didn't know about it. And according to the agreements you made when you began using these products, the internet behemoths own that data and can use it in any way they want, including giving it to the NSA and hence the entire shower of sordid spooks running civilization into the ground.

    In the end, there's no such thing as online privacy. Not absolute privacy anyway. But what you can - and should, in my opinion - do if you are a consumer of Google products - Gmail, Chrome, Android, Calendar, Contacts, Earth, Maps - and you want to drastically reduce the data siphoning are the following:
    • Change your browser. Don't use Chrome or a chromium-based browser. Firefox is a viable alternative and the Mozilla foundation at least tries to err on the side of privacy.
    • Change your search engine. Don't use Google as your default search engine. Duckduckgo and Startpage are two good alternatives which don't copy and store your data.
    • Don't use the Gmail suite of products - mail, calendar, contacts, tasks. There are many email services - Fastmail, Protonmail, Startmail, Mailfence and many others - who do not pretend to offer a free service and then vacuum your details. You will have to pay a yearly fee to use them but, let's be honest, you are either going to pay money, or sacrifice your privacy - your choice. And don't just change to the Microsoft equivalent; all the same privacy issues exist in that ecosystem as well.
    • Change your cloud storage provider - avoid cloud offerings from Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon and any of the other internet behemoths.
    I'm open to other suggestions readers may have in this direction...

    Gordon Vick
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  36. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (11th October 2018), Bill Ryan (10th October 2018), Flash (10th October 2018), RunningDeer (11th October 2018)

  37. Link to Post #39
    United States Avalon Member AriG's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th September 2012
    Location
    Sadieville, KY
    Posts
    759
    Thanks
    1,262
    Thanked 3,390 times in 644 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    And it gets even more surreal. As it has been quoted, "Orwell could not have even imagined this".... I thought that I might have recently seen a netflix or movie related to this concept, but I cannot recall which or where (or when and where (insert music here)... This is beyond fricked up.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...m-killer-29752

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AriG For This Post:

    avid (11th October 2018), Bill Ryan (10th October 2018), Hervé (11th October 2018)

  39. Link to Post #40
    United States Avalon Member AriG's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th September 2012
    Location
    Sadieville, KY
    Posts
    759
    Thanks
    1,262
    Thanked 3,390 times in 644 posts

    Default Re: How Google, Facebook, Yahoo decide what you're going to see

    And I'll tell you what really chaffs me.... People are accepting this. Seeing it as a benefit. I know I recently said that "it doesn't matter" and I meant that on a macro scale, meaning that the hologram won't reverse its path until people stop giving power to negativity and mass manipulation. And I sincerely believe that. But we are watching people literally jump off cliffs here... lemmings... completely unaware that they are sacrificing their freedom to a machine. For what? A discount at flipping Starbucks? I really think its too late.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AriG For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th October 2018), Bob (11th October 2018), Hervé (11th October 2018), Valerie Villars (11th October 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts