Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 1:02:07 GMT
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.
Edit..I don't care how high you think your ass is..someone will make a ladder to get to it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 19:09:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by WingsofCrystal on Aug 14, 2019 23:06:29 GMT
Hey KAT,
Project Veritas
Published on Aug 14, 2019
A Google insider who anonymously leaked internal documents to Project Veritas made the decision to go public in an on-the-record video interview. The insider, Zachary Vorhies, decided to go public after receiving a letter from Google, and after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a "wellness check" on him.
~
Crystal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 0:12:05 GMT
Crystal..If I told you I've been waiting for this since the Isaac matter and the Drones since 2007..you wouldn't believe me. These Royalty of Silicon Valley are no less Corrupt than The non tech mafiosos in Government they are wedded to; They have struck a faustian deal to birth a Digital chimera to exploit and control humanity from cradle to grave.. If there is an exception to parenthood..mandating an abort ..this is it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 3:00:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by WingsofCrystal on Aug 15, 2019 11:32:10 GMT
Crystal..If I told you I've been waiting for this since the Isaac matter and the Drones since 2007..you wouldn't believe me. These Royalty of Silicon Valley are no less Corrupt than The non tech mafiosos in Government they are wedded to; They have struck a faustian deal to birth a Digital chimera to exploit and control humanity from cradle to grave.. If there is an exception to parenthood..mandating an abort ..this is it.
Good morning KAT,
A few years ago I would say you are being a wee bit paranoid, now not so much.
Crystal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 12:03:07 GMT
Google says ..Don't Block our Cookies..Eat Them! www.wsj.com/articles/google-warns-against-blocking-cookies-entirely-triggering-criticism-11566862905or you'll wind up on our Bad Citizen Social Credit Scoring
Is Silicon Valley Building A Chinese-Style Social Credit System? Profile picture for user Tyler Durden by Tyler Durden Mon, 08/26/2019 - 23:05 0 SHARES Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com, Companies in the United States, and more specifically, Silicon Valley, are building a social credit system for individuals. Much like the social credit system communist China uses to control its population, this authoritarian control is different in one way: it is being done by corporations as opposed to the government. Make no mistake though, the corporations building a social credit system in the U.S. are already another arm of the government. They are lobbying and using the money made to get certain politicians elected. This is the very definition of crony corporatism. If anyone thinks we live in a democracy or constitutional republic, they are either wholly uninformed, brainwashed or willfully ignorant. China’s tyrannical social credit system is a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior (or government-approved behavior). The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government According to Fast Company, China’s social credit system has been characterized in one pithy tweet as “authoritarianism, gamified.” And it’s already here in the United States. While many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system, they need to realize that they live under a system that is similar. Such systems are not unique to China. In fact, a parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and by surveillance of social media activity by private companies. Big Tech is helping advance totalitarian control over the population by censoring information they deem goes against the government’s agenda. For example: The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this yearthat life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money. Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies. It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car after an Uber ride, the app invites you to rate the driver. What many passengers don’t know is that the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is “significantly below average,” Uber will ban you from the service. You can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you. You can also get banned for sending spam, threatening messages, trying to hack or reverse-engineer the WhatsApp app, or using the service with an unauthorized app. - Fast Company An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services all while Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter. All of the companies participating in these types of behavioral controls want one thing, and it’s the same thing the government wants: power over people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 12:35:07 GMT
If you thought Google FB Twitter Whats App Etc is all about payback for 2016 and killing off conservative websites and bloggers and Trump Think Again..www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-26/google-burying-alternative-health-sites-protect-people-dangerous-medical-adviceGoogle Is Burying Alternative Health Sites To Protect People From "Dangerous" Medical AdviceFor their unorthodox views, some physicians are being treated as medical heretics. Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites... In Ray Bradbury’s classic novel “Fahrenheit 451,” firemen don’t put out fires; they create fires to burn books.
The totalitarians claim noble goals for book burning: They want to spare citizens unhappiness caused by having to sort through conflicting theories. Censorship Is Control The real aim of censorship, in Bradbury’s dystopia, is to control the population. Captain Beatty explains to the protagonist fireman Montag, “You can’t build a house without nails and wood. If you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood.” The “house” Beatty is referring to is opinions in conflict with the “official” one. “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it,” Bradbury wrote.
Nobel Laureate Copes With Conflicting Opinions When making decisions, we often face conflicting theories. Daily, we face choices about what to eat. Although the government issues ever-changing dietary guidelines, thankfully, the marketplace supports personal dietary decisions ranging from carnivore to vegan. We are free to choose our diet based on our evaluation of the available evidence and the needs of our bodies. When we face health issues, decisions become tougher. There is an orthodox opinion, and there are always dissenting opinions. For example, the orthodoxy recommends statins to reduce high cholesterol. Others believe high cholesterol isn’t a health risk and that statins are harmful. Nobel laureate in economics Vernon Smith was taking a prescribed statin and recently observed the impact it was having on him:
“In the last week, I had a very clear (now) experience of temporary memory loss. I did a little searching and found this article summarizing and documenting the evidence over many years,” he wrote on Facebook.
Smith continues,
“Such incidents have been widely reported, but the problem did not arise in any of the clinical trials, but neither were they designed to detect it."
Smith had to weigh the purported benefits against the side effects.
“Statin effectiveness in reducing heart/stroke events needs to be weighed against this important negative. Since I am actively writing, this is a primal concern for me, and I have stopped taking it.”
A free person understands that there is no one “best” pathway. Although experts have the knowledge, a free person takes responsibility, makes a choice, and bears the consequences. We never know what the consequences would have been had we made a different choice. Health Care 451Some people don’t like to take responsibility for health choices. They prefer to do what they’re told by the doctor. “Do you understand now why books are hated and feared?” asks Bradbury’s character professor Faber in “Fahrenheit 451.” Faber responds to his own rhetorical question: “Because they reveal the pores on the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless.” Bradbury is reminding us that life is messy. Often, there is no comfortable one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges we face. Despite the evidence against statins, the medical orthodoxy would like you to believe that those who question statins are being hoodwinked by fake news. The orthodoxy wants you to believe there is one size for all.Duke University’s Dr. Ann Marie Navar is the associate editor of JAMA Cardiology. In her article, “Fear-Based Medical Misinformation,” she rails against the “fake medical news and fearmongering [that] plague the cardiovascular world through relentless attacks on statins.” She writes many patients remain concerned about statin safety. In one study, concerns about statin safety were the leading reason that patients reported declining a statin, with more than 1 in 3 patients (37 percent) citing fears about adverse effects as their reason for not starting a statin after their physician recommended it. Dr. Navar takes the position that concerns about safety are “fake medical news,” spread in part by ignorant patients via social media. Don’t worry, she counsels, reports are incorrect when they claim “that statins cause memory loss, cataracts, pancreatic dysfunction, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and cancer.”
Fake news? Dr. David Brownstein (no relation) disagrees: “The Physicians Desk Reference states that adverse reactions associated with Lipitor include cognitive impairment (memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, and confusion associated with statin use). Furthermore, post-marketing studies have found Lipitor use associated with pancreatitis. Other researchers have reported a relationship between statin use and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Finally, peer-reviewed research has reported a relationship between statin use and cataracts. Statins being associated with serious adverse effects has nothing to do with fake news. These are facts,” he writes.
To be sure, more physicians would agree with Navar than Brownstein, but should treatments be dictated by those on one side of the argument? After all, due to human variability, statins may both save some lives and impair or kill other people.
Though some doctors question whether to prescribe statins for everyone, there is a large financial incentive to stifle debate. Can you imagine a future government-controlled health care system, completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry, mandating statins for everyone? I can. There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues, like the statin debate. Already Google is “burning” sites that question the medical orthodoxy about statins.Google Tips the Scales Mercola.com, operated by Dr. Joseph Mercola, is one of the most visited websites providing alternative views to medical orthodoxy. If I were researching statins, I would certainly read several of the essays questioning statin use and the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Essays at Mercola.com usually provide references to medical studies. Personally, since Mercola sells supplements and I am a supplement skeptic, I read his essays—like I read all medical essays—with a grain of salt. Dr. Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist who has helped thousands of women find alternatives to psychotropic drugs prescribed to treat depression and anxiety. In her book, “A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives,” Brogan reports that 1 of every 7 women and 25 percent of women in their 40s and 50s are on such drugs. “Although I was trained to think that antidepressants are to the depressed (and to the anxious, panicked, OCD, IBS, PTSD, bulimic, anorexic, and so on) what eyeglasses are to the poor-sighted, I no longer buy into this bill of goods” she writes.For their unorthodox views, Brogan, Mercola, and others like them are treated as medical heretics. Brogan and Mercola have documented how a change in Google’s search engine algorithm has destroyed search traffic to their websites.From time to time, Google updates algorithms determining how search results are displayed; there is nothing inherently nefarious in such actions. Google has achieved its market position by doing a better job than other search engines. According to Mercola, before Google’s most recent June 19 algorithm update, “Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.” After its June 19 algorithm update, Google is relying more on human “quality” raters. Google instructs raters that the lowest ratings should go to a “YMYL page with inaccurate potentially dangerous medical advice.” YMYL stands for “Your Money or Your Life.” “We have very high Page Quality rating standards for YMYL pages because low-quality YMYL pages could potentially negatively impact users’ happiness, health, financial stability, or safety,” Google writes. Does that sound reasonable? If a site argues for treatments other than the medical orthodoxy then, by definition, the site can arouse readers’ cause for concern and, for some people, unhappiness. Do we really want Google to assume the role of Bradbury’s firemen? Google wants to protect you from conflicting opinions. And if you don’t think that’s a problem, imagine sometime in the future when searching for information on monetary policy, you only find results for Modern Monetary Theory. Google thinks its intention to “do the right thing” is enough to prevent abuses; some Google employees would disagree. Google Plays Happiness DoctorGoogle isn’t eliminating access to alternative health pages; it’s making it harder to find them. Typical health searches will still generate plenty of “facts,” just not conflicting facts. In “Fahrenheit 451,” Beatty explains the government’s strategy: “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year.”
Instead of “conflicting theory,” Beatty explains the strategy is to “cram” the people “full of noncombustible data, chock them so … full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information.”Filled with “facts,” Beatty explains, people will “feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving.” He assures Montag that his fireman role is noble. Firemen are helping to keep the world happy. “The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we’re the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don’t let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don’t think you realize how important you are, to our happy world as it stands now.”
The only way Google will maintain its dominance is to continue to meet the needs of consumers. Whether Google continues to “burn” websites is up to us. Google will continue to sort out unorthodox views as long as “we” the consumer continue to rely on Google’s search engine.
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Aug 27, 2019 21:36:38 GMT
There are moderators on some site that ensure only the 'correct' views are expressed.
As for the Statin conundrum. May I suggest an experiment.
Recruit 1000 people who have been prescribed statins. But who think they will be better off without them.
Get them all to sign a document stating that they intend to stop taking the medication, and that they accept they are solely responsible for this action and, in the event of their demise, no action can be taken against anyone.
Then, on a pre-arranged day. they all stop at the same time.
They should then keep a daily log on the internet so people can follow the results.
A year should be enough to get a meaningful result.
HAL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 22:03:48 GMT
Thats good...especially if they are allowed to take alternatives of their choice..any non statin..compare with a group same ages taking only statin..there actually should be data like that already in the hundreds of thousands..
|
|