On the Nature of Things | Forum

US News and World Rep | How did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?

Google, Inc., isn't just the world's biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world's biggest censor.

The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.

When Google's employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.

The Internet is a fascinating case study in free markets. The Internet is virtually unregulated and anyone can broadcast just about anything they'd like. Domain names and hosting are dirt cheap. There is allegedly widespread dissatisfaction with major online services and yet, competitors in this frictionless market fail to materialize.

The free market fundamentalists have to accept this outcome as the actual revealed preference of the people, I guess.

Zack Morris wrote:The Internet is a fascinating case study in free markets. The Internet is virtually unregulated and anyone can broadcast just about anything they'd like. Domain names and hosting are dirt cheap. There is allegedly widespread dissatisfaction with major online services and yet, competitors in this frictionless market fail to materialize.

The free market fundamentalists have to accept this outcome as the actual revealed preference of the people, I guess.

Zack,

That is why I love you. 7 billion people on the planet, and you make the case for lack of variety on the internet.

You're a modern day version of us as kids, (manually!) changing the TV from channel 8 to 10 to 13 and then whining "Mommy! There's nothing good on TV!"

I blame noddy and the world wide conspiracy of programmers. They're all in cahoots!

The market has supplied the desired variety of Internet content. Just as it supplied the desired variety of deodorants. It's as simple as that. How many more anti-Obama conspiracy-peddling web sites do you want, exactly?

I guess censorship is something OTNOT and Google have in common then.

Mr. Perfect wrote:I guess censorship is something OTNOT and Google have in common then.

To update the words of Monty Python,

"Help. Help. I'm being oppressed. . . . On the internet."

Typhoon wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:I guess censorship is something OTNOT and Google have in common then.

To update the words of Monty Python,

"Help. Help. I'm being oppressed. . . . On the internet."

Power corrupts, and virtual power corrupts virtually.

Give some people an inch, and they'll think they're a modulator.

Luckily, my intellectual pecker is youge in cyberspace. I'd share more of it with you guys, but I don't want to suck up all the bandwidth.....

Maybe we all need bigger monitors?

It's hilarious to get censored in a thread about censorship.

Mr. Perfect wrote:It's hilarious to get censored in a thread about censorship.

Don't sell yourself short Mr. P. You have a gift. Wear it as a badge of honor.

Expecting others not to recognize your "specialness" is unrealistic.

Simple Minded wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:It's hilarious to get censored in a thread about censorship.

Don't sell yourself short Mr. P. You have a gift. Wear it as a badge of honor.

Expecting others not to recognize your "specialness" is unrealistic.

Quite.

A reminder. The "Complaints" thread in the "This Forum" section is for whinging about this mod and other forum related issues.
Further off-topic posts to this thread will be summarily deleted.

Zack Morris wrote:The Internet is a fascinating case study in free markets. The Internet is virtually unregulated and anyone can broadcast just about anything they'd like.

Yes, however, if someone makes a broadcast on the internet and no one finds it, then it may as well not exist.

Zack Morris wrote:Domain names and hosting are dirt cheap. There is allegedly widespread dissatisfaction with major online services and yet, competitors in this frictionless market fail to materialize.

Far from "frictionless". Rather de facto monopolies have evolved, Google, Amazon, Alibaba, Facebook, WeChat, etc., and the costs of taking them on are prohibitive.

On the other hand, there is one aspect of the internet of that may be describe as "frictionless".
The ease of selling knock off copies and fake counterfeit goods on Amazon.

Amazon's Chinese counterfeit problem is getting worse.

Zack Morris wrote:The free market fundamentalists have to accept this outcome as the actual revealed preference of the people, I guess.

Perhaps.

Colonel Sun wrote:

Zack Morris wrote:The Internet is a fascinating case study in free markets. The Internet is virtually unregulated and anyone can broadcast just about anything they'd like.

Yes, however, if someone makes a broadcast on the internet and no one finds it, then it may as well not exist.

Zack Morris wrote:Domain names and hosting are dirt cheap. There is allegedly widespread dissatisfaction with major online services and yet, competitors in this frictionless market fail to materialize.

Far from "frictionless". Rather de facto monopolies have evolved, Google, Amazon, Alibaba, Facebook, WeChat, etc., and the costs of taking them on are prohibitive.

On the other hand, there is one aspect of the internet of that may be describe as "frictionless".
The ease of selling knock off copies and fake counterfeit goods on Amazon.

Amazon's Chinese counterfeit problem is getting worse.

Zack Morris wrote:The free market fundamentalists have to accept this outcome as the actual revealed preference of the people, I guess.

Perhaps.

Apparently the idea is that everyone has to accept Zack's outcome. So what is your social / media credit score?

HqqZEf4LJuw

IWjzT2l5C34

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/ ... -revealed/

Exclusive: Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize as a hate agent you for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.

The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.

Perhaps we should start calling social media companies "Stazi media companies"

B_i8_WuyqAY

The control is built into the system.......

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/ ... gwhistles/

New Google Document Leaked Describing Shapiro, Prager, as ‘nazis using the dogwhistles’

by Staff Report June 25, 2019 in News Posts / Top Stories / Veritas Leaks / Tech / Google

“I don’t think correctly identifying far-right content is beyond our capabilities. But if it is, why not go with Meredith’s suggestion of disabling the suggestion feature?”

Really interesting considering that Ben Shapiro and the head of Prager U are both observant Jews.

Seems like calling Jews Nazis is just a left wing dogwhistle.

dirty filthy onions, perverting the youth with their suntanned curves.

https://www.simcoereformer.ca/news/over ... 02950dffe6

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:17 am B_i8_WuyqAY

The control is built into the system.......

Midway through the video this guy tries to argue that medieval serfs had more liberty than modern individuals. Right. What he calls "disciplinary society" is exactly the model of a nuclear family that is so near and dear to many on this forum: the patriarch tells everyone what to do and when. Property and personal time are strictly regulated. People are not only told what to do but when and how to do it. Habits are reinforced so that responses to situations are automatic and rote. Discipline is meted out to "reform" unruly individuals. The systems of control are so deeply embedded in the fabric of the family that even the disciplinarians are blissfully unaware that they are perpetuating an anti-individualist brainwashing program.

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:48 am

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:17 am B_i8_WuyqAY

The control is built into the system.......

Midway through the video this guy tries to argue that medieval serfs had more liberty than modern individuals. Right. What he calls "disciplinary society" is exactly the model of a nuclear family that is so near and dear to many on this forum: the patriarch tells everyone what to do and when. Property and personal time are strictly regulated. People are not only told what to do but when and how to do it. Habits are reinforced so that responses to situations are automatic and rote. Discipline is meted out to "reform" unruly individuals. The systems of control are so deeply embedded in the fabric of the family that even the disciplinarians are blissfully unaware that they are perpetuating an anti-individualist brainwashing program.

What the durian elite class and apparently you want is feudalism. Which includes many serfs. Children are not responsible adults as they have not lived through and survived puberty. That is why children have parents or lacking that guardians. What you are railing on about when you say "People are not only told what to do but when and how to do it." You are saying more about yourself than anything else. Evolutionary biology says that people under the age of 24 years are more risk taking than older adults. That it was people 24 years old and under that "Went forth and multiplied" as humans spread across the world. Many of whom died shortly there after leaving the "Nuclear family" .

Advice, just for you Zack, from the great evolutionary biologists Crosby, Stills and Nash:

EyU0P6iqyw4

Doc wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:57 pm What the durian elite class and apparently you want is feudalism. Which includes many serfs.

I think the right-wing elite class wants feudalism. Relaxing regulation and empowering private corporations to have complete dominion over your life. Without government protection, individuals are largely powerless against large private interests.

Children are not responsible adults as they have not lived through and survived puberty. That is why children have parents or lacking that guardians. What you are railing on about when you say "People are not only told what to do but when and how to do it." You are saying more about yourself than anything else. Evolutionary biology says that people under the age of 24 years are more risk taking than older adults.

The constraints on children and young adults often go far beyond what is necessary, especially as the age of functioning adulthood has been pushed back. But it isn't just children: a traditional nuclear family in the Western sense is a patriarchy, and the patriarch is typically the breadwinner while the wife performs rote domestic labor. This has changed in recent decades and the nuclear family is being reconfigured. However, it is not uncommon even to this day for a power balance to exist between partners.

That it was people 24 years old and under that "Went forth and multiplied" as humans spread across the world. Many of whom died shortly there after leaving the "Nuclear family" .

Nuclear families are hardly the normative mode of social organization and arguably not the best. Large, extended families and intimate communities that are not related by blood tend to be more widespread throughout human history. Nuclear families did not appear because young people died off. What an odd idea.

Zack Morris wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:35 am

Doc wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:57 pm What the durian elite class and apparently you want is feudalism. Which includes many serfs.

I think the right-wing elite class wants feudalism. Relaxing regulation and empowering private corporations to have complete dominion over your life. Without government protection, individuals are largely powerless against large private interests.

Large corporation have no loyalty to anyone. Large social media corporatins have become so large that they brag about being able to swing elections. They are illegal giving in kind aid well over and above the legal limits to political campaigns. The traditional way to deal with such companies is to break them up. Same with wall street banks. The TARP should have never happened. A bail out of banks that had a large hand in creating the housing crisis mess. SO how many of those Bansters did your hero Obama haul off to jail in handcuffs Zack? The answer is ZERO.

Children are not responsible adults as they have not lived through and survived puberty. That is why children have parents or lacking that guardians. What you are railing on about when you say "People are not only told what to do but when and how to do it." You are saying more about yourself than anything else. Evolutionary biology says that people under the age of 24 years are more risk taking than older adults.

The constraints on children and young adults often go far beyond what is necessary, especially as the age of functioning adulthood has been pushed back. But it isn't just children: a traditional nuclear family in the Western sense is a patriarchy, and the patriarch is typically the breadwinner while the wife performs rote domestic labor. This has changed in recent decades and the nuclear family is being reconfigured. However, it is not uncommon even to this day for a power balance to exist between partners.[/quote]

Funny thing the disintegration of the nuclear family is a left wing ideal. That more than anything leads to poverty. in 2019

That it was people 24 years old and under that "Went forth and multiplied" as humans spread across the world. Many of whom died shortly there after leaving the "Nuclear family" .

Nuclear families are hardly the normative mode of social organization and arguably not the best. Large, extended families and intimate communities that are not related by blood tend to be more widespread throughout human history. Nuclear families did not appear because young people died off. What an odd idea.
[/quote]

"Nuclear family" is the term you used. That I used your term in no way detracts from what I said and what you are avoiding talking about. But you are perfectly free not to take the advice of CSN. You have every right to be

cR2RdsmqD_g

Just don't walk in front of jet engine intakes and eat plenty of fruits so you don't get so constipated.

Twitter admits it is a "human rights" abuser

https://www.foxnews.com/world/twitter-h ... servatives

Twitter declares access to its platform a 'human right' amid censorship of conservatives
The Nigerian government banned Twitter after it deleted a tweet from President Buhari

The true exiled Prince of Nigeria has offered to reinstate Twitter if Jack Dorsey sends his banking information to fund a revanchist movement . . .

Nonc Hilaire wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:15 am The true exiled Prince of Nigeria has offered to reinstate Twitter if Jack Dorsey sends his banking information to fund a revanchist movement . . .

Yes !! Jack Dorsey needs to pay reparations for his past racism against Nigerian princes !!