MARK ZUCKERBERG AND ERIC SCHMIDT COULD BE ARRESTED FOR TREASON
FOR RIGGING NATIONAL ELECTIONS SINCE 2007
RESEARCHERS AND
WHISTLE-BLOWERS PROVE THAT A CARTEL OF LEFT WING SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES IN SILICON VALLEY HAVE BEEN USING CIA
AND STASI-CREATED
MASS SOCIAL MANIPULATION TECHNOLOGIES TO RIG ELECTIONS
Republicans Have No Clue About What Google Is About To Do To Them!
SHARE
THIS WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA -
GOOGLE
DOES THINGS TO YOU THAT ARE TOO TECHNICAL FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND
AND TOO DANGEROUS FOR YOU TO IGNORE!
REPUBLICANS
WILL BE DESTROYED IN THE MID TERM ELECTIONS BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE GOOGLE'S CIA-LIKE TRICKS
Republicans don't do technology
and they sure don't do Silicon Valley. That is why they do not
understand that Google and Facebook have rigged every election
since Obama.
Now Google and Facebook are
pulling out all of the stops to do"it"again
in the next elections.
What is the"it"that
Google does?
Google
uses automated technologies to manipulate the minds of
hundreds of millions of Americans.
That statement alone will scare
most GOP members but almost none of them will understand it and
most of them will refuse to believe it.
The easiest way to make one
understand the evil"it"that
Google does is to watch the movie (usually on Netflix) calledTHE
PUSH. This movie shows how easy it is to get people to
do unnatural things or to kill without thinking about it.
Google acquired the CIA
psychological warfare manuals, the CIA/IN-Q-TEL experts and
billions of dollars to use the tactics in those manuals. Ask The
Corbett Report, ask Attkisson, Ask Epstein the Google data
researcher, ask Historian Niall Furguson... A thousand people have
said this and provided stats to prove it but the GOP does not get
it!
Google has used these methods to
take over the DNC and to put people in office who will steer money
and power to Google.
GOP bosses: "GET A F*CKING CLUE!"
If you have not gotten the message
by now, you are done. If you don't amp up your war on Google by a
thousand; you are done!
You may not understand what Google
does, or how they do it, but you will understand the loss of your
entire candidate layout by the time the next elections are over!
Historian Niall Ferguson:
Midterms Going to Be Much Worse Than GOP Can Imagine Because of
Tech Giants Targeting of Conservatives
by Jim Hoft 150 Comments
Historian Niall Ferguson warned Republican lawmakers that the
midterms are going to be much worse than they can imagine because of
the targeting and banning of conservative sites be Facebook, Google
and Twitter.
Niall Ferguson: The
midterms are going to be worse, a lot worse. Because never again
will the network platforms in Silicon Valley allow them to use
them as Donald Trump’s campaign used them in 2016. The sound of
heads exploding on November the 9th of 2016 was deafening in
California. They couldn’t believe that Facebook advertising had
been so vital to Trump’s success. Which it was. I don’t think he
would have become president without Facebook. As people think more
and more about this they will I think begin to grasp the power of
the platforms. I think the Russia issue is a distraction from the
real question.
Hoover
Institution’s Niall Ferguson on censorship: ‘Silicon Valley will
never again allow conservatives to use social networks like Trump
did in 2016,’ midterms could be ‘a lot worse than you already
think.’ pic.twitter.com/UIDYDUoqqU
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) March
15, 2018
Conservative Publishers Hit Hard By Facebook Algorithm Changes –
Gateway Pundit Hit the Hardest
Tech Giants Google and Facebook are currently purging conservative
content from Facebook and YouTube — They are hiding conservative
stories on Google — They are shadow-banning conservative news on all
social media.
In
February Facebook launched a
new algorithm to ensure that conservative news would not
spread on the social media platform.
This was after Facebook announced it was losing 50,000,000 user
hours a day in the previous quarter.
The
algorithm change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on
Facebook posts toplummet a
whopping 45%.
In contrast, Senators Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA) and Bernie
Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a
comparable decline in Facebook engagement.
Top
conservative Facebook pages with daily traffic in the millions have
seen 75% to 95% drop in traffic.
Young Cons, Western
Journalism, SarahPalin.com,Independent
Journal Review, Right
Wing News, and several
others have seen dramatic loss in traffic.
In
2016 we were one of the few conservative sites that supported
candidate Trump – along with Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Infowars,
Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse. We are proud of our
efforts to report the truth that led to Trump’s historic win.
Because of this we
were targeted and have seen our numbers related to Facebook and
Twitter decline dramatically.
The Gateway Pundit does not rely on Facebook for our traffic
numbers.
Still, we saw a
significant drop in Facebook traffic in the last month.
Facebook’s
January 12 announcement that it would begin to de-prioritize news
publishers and their posts in users’ News Feeds has had a
surprisingly profound and partisan impact. According to The
Outline’s analysis of Facebook engagement data obtained from
research tool BuzzSumo, conservative and right-wing publishers
(such as Breitbart, Fox News, and Gateway Pundit) were hit the
hardest in the weeks following the announcement, with Facebook
engagement totals for February dropping as much as 55 percent for
some, while the engagement numbers of most predominantly liberal
publishers remained unaffected.
Both liberal and conservative publishers of clickbait and highly
polarizing content also experienced a significant drop in
engagement following Facebook’s News Feed de-prioritization
announcement.
The Outline drew these conclusions after analyzing the Facebook
engagement data of 20 publishers from March 5, 2017 to February
28, 2018.
The Outline then posted results from several top US news publishers.
You can see The New
York Times has not suffered by the recent changes.
But conservative news publishers were hit hard.
Here
is Breitbart.com’s Facebook page.
And here is The Gateway Pundit’s Facebook numbers through February.
In March Facebook shut down our content. You cannot even share a
Gateway Pundit story without getting a warning now.
And this is after we spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising
on Facebook in the past.
GOP
IS INCAPABLE OF REALIZING HOW MUCH GOOGLE'S CIA TACTICS WILL
DESTROY THEM IN THE MID-TERMS
The
Censorship Of Conservatives On The Internet Is Approaching
Critical Levels Of Bad But Google And Facebook Are Doing Worse By
Tricking Voters Minds
If you haven’t read it yet, I
suggest you click the link above and give it a once, twice, and
three times over. It’s a must-read, and one of the most
fascinating articles I’ve read so far this year. The premise of
the article is that should America’s left further embolden itself
to become violent against its political opponents to the point of
a 2nd civil war — going from groups of violent radicals like
Antifa, to a full-on sanctioned military strike — then the left
would lose a second time, and they would lose badly.
I read the article while sitting
in my car in Austin during SXSW. There’s a lot to see and do
there, but I couldn’t stop reading the article. The moment I
finished I went to share it, and….nothing. Twitter wouldn’t allow
me to tweet the article out.
I tried tweeting out a few other
things to make sure it wasn’t just my signal, or maybe an error on
Twitter’s end. They went through just fine. A third attempt to
tweet out Schlichter’s article resulted in another error
message. I brought this point up on Twitter, but didn’t
receive much of a response about it. Perhaps I was one of the few
having that problem, and it wasn’t censorship. At least, that’s
what I wanted to believe. The opposite idea was worrisome.
It wasn’t until the following
Thursday that I mentioned my trouble of tweeting it out in a
conversation with Stacy Washington, who was also having trouble
tweeting certain things.
Three sources confirming their
inability to disseminate certain bits of information.
The nature of Schlichter’s article
could be considered a call to violence…by anyone who didn’t read
it with a comprehension level past grade 3. What Schlichter wrote
about, in no uncertain terms, is that in the midst of leftist
groups feeling completely free to resort to violence and attempt
to limit our free speech, any attempt to come to blows would end
badly for everyone involved, but specifically so for blue America,
currently living in a carefully temperature controlled bubble.
The left went so far as to call
Schlichter crazy for this article. They wrote it off as nonsense,
or the ramblings of a macho-conservative type trying to flex his
muscles. Odd that for all their minimization of Schlichter and his
article, they felt the need to restrict its distribution.
But perhaps Twitter didn’t want
any ideas of violence on either side roaming around their platform
any more than it already had. Okay, but then on Wednesday, Twitter
did some more censorship, this time with something that had
nothing to do with violence at all.
Yesterday, I wrote on how conservative
comedian and commentator Steven Crowder and members of his crew
were suspended by Twitter for posting a video wherein
they play a prank on a gender-fluid gathering at SXSW in Austin.
Click on the link for the whole story, but the summary is that the
video was taken down by Google/YouTube, and Twitter punished any
of the Crowder crew for attempting to spread it around. Crowder
himself was given a seven-day suspension for it.
Crowder and co. were punished for
their making light of a social justice sacred cow. Apparently,
poking fun at gender-fluidity crossed a very stark line for the
social justice driven tech companies, and so he was punished for
it.
Interestingly, while Crowder was
being silenced for daring to make fun of a protected group on the
left, and Schlichter’s article was being restricted for his
warning AGAINST becoming violent, Twitter has little problem
allowing depictions of violence against Republicans.
Believe me, this image has been
reported many times to Twitter. It remains completely available
for viewing.
Twitter, Google, Facebook, et al,
are private companies. They may restrict whomever they want at
their leisure. However, the kinds of information they are
censoring, vs the things they let flourish tell a much darker
story than simple censorship.
Violence is okay, so long as it’s
violence against the right people.
Comedic ribbing at the expense of
certain groups will not be tolerated.
Silicone Valley is getting more
and more bold about their censorship of the right every day. The
question is, how long until the silencing and punishments result
in more than just suspensions?
Congress
Gets Silicon Valley Social Media Cartel To Admit
That They Rig Elections
By
Jay Warner
Google,
Twitter, Facebook and Congress had it out in Washington
today. What the world heard is that these companies have
built hundreds of tools thatactually
doaffect billions of
people.
We
learned that Russian lobbyists only spent a few hundred
thousand dollars buying ads but that the DNC and Hillary
Clinton spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying ads
and “media impressions” from them in order to manipulate
public perceptions.
The
Silicon Valley companies were cagey and evasive.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)
took aim at Facebook.
“How
did Facebook, which prides itself on being able to process
billions of data points and instantly transform them into
personal connections for its user[s] somehow not make the
connection that electoral ads — paid for in rubles — were
coming from Russia?"he said."Those are two data points:
American political ads and Russian money, rubles. How
could you not connect those two dots?”
Franken,
in his inquiry, exposed the fact that the Silicon Valley
companies know exactly what all of of their data is doing
but they hide the facts for the sake of profiteering.
The
question that Google, Twitter, Facebook and Silicon Valley
must now answer is:
“How
much did Hillary Clinton, Elon Musk, Debbie Wasserman
Schultz’s DNC and Barack Obama pay you each to rig
election news and public perceptions?”
Facebook
also wasn’t willing to offer much in the form of a
definitive answer when Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked
the company if it felt like content on its platform had an
effect on the election.“In
an election where a total of about 115,000 votes would
have changed the outcome, can you say that the false and
misleading propaganda people saw on your Facebook didn’t
have an impact on the election?”Hirono
asked. Stretch dodged in response.“We’re
not well-positioned to judge why any one person or an
entire electorate voted as it did,”he
said, purposefully avoiding answering the question.
Facebook won’t say no to
accepting election-related foreign money said Facebook’s
executive. Facebook admitted that it can be bought by
anybody, anywhere.
Not a single one of the three
tech giants would commit to supporting Sen. Amy
Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John McCain
(R-Ariz.)’s Honest Ads Act, which would require
disclosures about political advertising on their
platforms
ByBrian
Fungat the same time, exposed
that Google opens, reads and studies every single
document you post on Google Docs, no matter how personal
or confidential it is.
Imagine you're working on a Google Doc when, seemingly
out of nowhere, your ability to edit the
online file gets revoked. What you see instead is
an error message indicating that you've violated
Google's terms of service.
For anyone who stores
work in the cloud, suddenly being unable to access
your data — especially due to a terms of service
violation — may sound scary. And it's really happening
to some people, according to reports on Twitter. Rachael
Bale, a wildlife crime reporter for National Geographic,
said Tuesday that a draft of her story was "frozen" by
Google.
Has
anyone had@googledocslock
you out of a doc before? My draft of a story about
wildlife crime was just frozen for violating their TOS.
In response to some of
these reports, a Google employeetweetedthat
the team handling Google Docs was looking into the
matter. Later Tuesday, Google said in a statement that
it had "made a code push that incorrectly flagged a
small percentage of Google Docs as abusive, which caused
those documents to be automatically blocked. A fix is in
place and all users should have full access to their
docs."
Although the error
appeared to be a technical glitch, the fact that
Google is capable of identifying "bad" Google
Docs at all is a reminder: Much of what you upload,
receive or type to Google is monitored. While many
people may be aware thatGmail
scans your emails— for
instance, so that its smart-reply feature can figure out
what responses to suggest — this policy extends to other
Google products, too.
"Our automated systems
analyze your content to provide you personally relevant
product features, such as customized search results, and
spam and malware detection," reads the terms of service
for Google Drive, the suite of productivity tools of
which Google Docs is a part. "Google’sPrivacy
Policyexplains how we treat
your personal data and protect your privacy when you use
Google Drive."
If you visit Google's
privacy policy, you'll find that Google is up front
there, too, about the data it collects.
"We collect information
about the services that you use and how you use them,
like when you watch a video on YouTube, visit a website
that uses our advertising services, or view and interact
with our ads and content," it says.
What does it mean when
Google says "collect information"?This
pagesays more:
"This includes
information like your usage data and preferences, Gmail
messages, G+ profile, photos, videos, browsing history,
map searches, docs, or other Google-hosted content. Our
automated systems analyze this information as it is sent
and received and when it is stored."
Google explicitly refers
to docs — albeit in a lower-case fashion — as an example
of the type of content from which Google extracts
information. I've asked Google for clarification
on whether they actually read the contents of a
person's Google Docs and will update if I get a
response.
"This kind of monitoring
is creepy," Baletweeted.
Google, clearly, loves to spy on the voters.
Could Google, Facebook
and Twitter be any bigger liars?
WHY
ARE THE DEMOCRAT SILICON VALLEY COMPANIES SO FULL OF
EX CIA AGENTS?
Are all of Their Business Plans Just Based On "Dirty
Tricks" Campaigns And Nixon's "Rat-Fucking" Tactics?
Anti-competitive
practices by Google and Facebook made
election interference possible.
By
Luther
Lowe
This week
some of America’s most beloved internet
companies will follow the footsteps of Big
Tobacco and Wall Street in a dreaded rite of
passage: the Capitol Hill perp walk. The top
lawyers for Google,FacebookandTwitterwill
try their best to explain to the Senate
Intelligence Committee how misinformation
spread through their platforms in the months
leading up to the 2016 election.
They are
also likely to argue that the best response
to their platforms’ negligence is not
government regulation. If Google and
Facebook are lucky, the result will be the
passage of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act,
which would merely require buyers of online
political advertisements to reveal their
identities. This is a necessary move to
increase transparency, but it is not
sufficient to protect the electorate from
manipulation.
Focusing
on the narrow question of online advertising
will only distract lawmakers from the true
problem: In the absence of rigorous
antitrust enforcement, the consumer internet
has become too concentrated in a few
dominant companies, creating easy targets
for bad actors.
There is
a reason Congress did not have to
investigate foreign meddling after the 2008
or 2012 elections. Back then the internet
was still a diverse, decentralized network.
Anyone could create a website or blog to
satisfy the demand for popular or niche
content. This older form of online community
building has largely been supplanted by
tools provided by the dominant players.
Facebook Groups allows people to create
communities without requiring much technical
skill. It does, however, require a Facebook
account, meaning participants have no choice
but to share their identity and their data.
Today, many internet services are
inaccessible unless you have joined
Facebook’s “community” of two billion users.
Google
used to be the engine that drove the open
web. In a 2004 interview, co-founder Larry
Page denounced powerful intermediaries on
the internet, saying that “we want you to
come to Google and quickly find what you
want. Then we’re happy to send you to the
other sites. In fact, that’s the point. The
portal strategy tries to own all of the
information.”
Over
time, Google’s philosophy shifted in the
opposite direction, making the internet less
open and pluralistic than even a few years
ago. Now people are nudged to stay on
Google.com. The company has committed to
presenting a single “answer” to every
inquiry, even ones that are subjective
opinions based on sparse Google-owned
content, like “best pediatrician NYC.” The
result has been a decline of traffic to
swaths of the web.
Facebook’s
walled garden is even more stringent,
requiring all third-party content accessed
from its app to run through its frame. As
web activity is drawn within the confines of
these two tech giants, so is the revenue
that follows.
Of every
new dollar spent in online advertising last
year, Google and Facebook captured 99 cents.
Yet neither company has ever faced serious
antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. A fleeting
opportunity to foster competition came in
2011, when the Federal Trade Commission
opened an investigation into Google’s
conduct. But the FTC closed the case in 2013
without taking meaningful action.
Regulators
ostensibly decided to settle after being
persuaded the marketplace was adequately
competitive, but the assumptions baked into
their conclusion have not aged well. When
the investigation was begun in 2011,
smartphones were a nascent product and
Google’s market share of internet searchwas
66%. Today, most search traffic has
migrated to smartphones—nearly 4 in 5
Americans own one—where Google has97%
market share.
The
economics have also changed for internet
startups hoping to reinvent the web.
Early-stage capital has dried up, dropping
more than 40% since 2015, as investors have
become pessimistic that any new Googles and
Facebooks will ever be capable of disrupting
the deeply entrenched incumbents.
The
internet has turned into a pair of walled
gardens, offering economies of scale for
attackers. Ad dollars from Google products
like YouTube and AdSense provide economic
incentives to “content farms” that peddle
misleading or outright false news. Russia
Today, Moscow’s official English-language
television network, is a “premium partner”
on YouTube, entitling it to higher shares of
revenue from advertisements sold by Google.
A quick estimate—multiplying standard rates
of revenue-sharing by RT’s view
counts—suggests Google could be sending the
Russians seven-figure annual payouts.
Facebook has already identified at least
$100,000 spent by Russians on its platform
to influence voters. Paid ads have the
ability to amplify the virality of the fake
content. This suggests a feedback loop
optimized for mischief: monetize on Google,
and spend the proceeds to propagandize on
Facebook.
Policy
makers can solve this problem by compelling
large information firms to embrace
interoperability. Instead of trying to own
everything, Google could power its local
searches with services likeTripAdvisor,ZocDoc
andYelp.This
would dilute Google’s position as an
advertising monopoly and help smaller
players to compete. Facebook could allow
users to export their full social graph,
which would allow them to bargain for better
terms from new social startups. Such efforts
would diffuse information once again across
the web, ensuring that future attempts at
malfeasance cannot scale.
For the
most egregious examples of anticompetitive
conduct by a dominant internet firm,
antitrust enforcers should fight to spin off
newer business lines that leverage the
legacy platform. If regulators find that
Facebook is using its social data to
foreclose competing messaging apps, they
should consider structurally separating the
company’s social and messaging functions.
Instead of steering users to its house
products, Google should rely on its
merit-based algorithms to power services
like local search.
Requiring
transparency for political advertising
online is a good step, but it isn’t enough.
Until the structural problems in the
technology markets are addressed, American
voters will continue to consume information
from a pair of barrels—Google and
Facebook—in which we are much easier to
shoot.
Senator
demands Mark Zuckerberg testify before Senate committee
over massive election rigging
Jim
Gensheimer/Bay Area News Group
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2015. (Jim Gensheimer/Bay
Area News Group)
MENLO
PARK — A U.S. senator is demanding that Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
after reports that a company employed by President
Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign accessed profile data from more
than 50 million Facebook users without their permission.
“This
is a major breach that must be investigated,” Sen. Amy
Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat and member of the committee,
tweeted Saturday. “It’s clear these platforms can’t police
themselves … They say ‘trust us.’ Mark Zuckerberg needs to
testify before Senate Judiciary.”
The
Judiciary Committee oversees the Department of Justice and
examines proposed legislation. Klobuchar is ranking member
of the subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy
and consumer rights. The committee, Republican led, has
subpoena power.
Facebook
did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
senator’s demand.
Furor
over the Menlo Park social media giant’s leak comes as major
Silicon Valley tech firms face increasing calls for their
regulation, driven by concerns about market dominance, use
of their platforms by Russian trolls for election meddling,
and extremist, exploitative and offensive content.
Klobuchar, with fellow Democratic Sen. Mark Warner and
Republican Sen. John McCain, has proposed a bill called the
Honest Ads Act to force large tech companies such as
Facebook, Google and Twitter to make public certain
information about political ads on their platforms.
Europe
in May will begin imposing strict new rules on the
processing and movement of personal data, mandating
“unambiguous” consent by consumers and allowing fines up to
4 percent of a company’s global annual revenue.
Cambridge
Analytica harvested profile information from more than 50
million Facebook users without their permission, the
Associated Press reported.
On
Friday evening, Facebook — with the New York Times poised to
publish on Saturday an article about the massive data leak —
admitted in a news release that Cambridge Analytica had
years ago obtained user data from a “personality prediction”
app that was downloaded by about 270,000 people.
The
app developer could then access “information such as the
city they set on their profile, or content they had liked,
as well as more limited information about friends who had
their privacy settings set to allow it,” Facebook said.
The
developer accessed the data through what were the proper
channels at the time, but “lied to us and violated
our Platform Policies by passing data (to)
Cambridge Analytica,” the company said.
Facebook
subsequently changed the rules governing developers’ use of
its data, and now requires them to justify and explain
proposed data collection before they’re allowed to access
user information or ask for it, the company said.
Cambridge
Analytica denied wrongdoing, saying it had deleted the data
it received from the developer. Facebook, however, said in
its news release that it had received reports several days
ago that not all the data was deleted.
“We
are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these
claims,” the company said.
Cambridge
Analytica, linked to Trump campaign strategist Steve Bannon,
used the data to develop techniques that formed the
foundation of its work on the Trump campaign, The New York
Times and The Guardian reported.
Cambridge
said in a statement none of the data it received from the
developer was used for services provided to the Trump
campaign.
“Cambridge
Analytica only receives and uses data that has been
obtained legally and fairly,” said the company, adding that
it had deleted the developer’s data when it “became clear”
that it broke Facebook’s terms of service.
Facebook
executives took to Twitter on Saturday to argue strenuously
that the data leak was not a data breach.
“This
was unequivocally not a data breach,” tweeted longtime
executive Andrew Bosworth. “People chose to share their data
with third party apps and if those third party apps did not
follow the data agreements with us/users it is a violation.
No systems were infiltrated, no passwords or information
were stolen or hacked.”
One
of the New York Times reporters who wrote the newspaper’s
story on the leak responded. “Facebook officials today
playing semantic — but legally very important to regulators
— word games about a data ‘breach,'” Nick Confessore
tweeted. “But who needs to steal passwords when Facebook
will just give some dude access to your profile and not even
check his app out that closely?”
How Facebook And Google Exploited
the Personal Data of Hundreds Of Millions Of Americans To
Rig The Elections For Obama And Hillary
Palo
Alto, California — Facebook and Google harvested private information
from the Facebook profiles and Google user files of hundreds of
millions of users without their conscious permission, making it one of
the largest spy leaks in history.
While Cambridge Analytica has suddenly been
pushed into the news as an “arsenal of weapons” in a culture war.
The appearance of the Cambridge story is actually a John Podesta
produced smoke-screen created out of desperation because of other
whistle-blowers coming forward about Google and Facebook doing
something a thousand times bigger and much, much worse. The Cambridge
scandal is only 1% of the true Silicon Valley psycho-dynamic
manipulation story.
Facebook
and Google say that "..Every user gives us permission to use their
data in any way we want to in our EULA and user disclosures.." But
they are lying and manipulating semantics in order to keep their scam
with the DNC from being uncovered.
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin and Amazon have been doing
something to the public that no user has ever agreed to. The
manipulation of your thoughts, intents and impressions is something
that no Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin and Amazon user has ever,
or would ever, agree to; no matter how Big Tech company lawyers try to
spin it.
This Silicon Valley Cartel of Left-Wing Lobbyists exploited the
private social media activity of a huge swath of the American
electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on
President Obama's first campaign to be President. Google and Facebook
made Obama the President by doing very tricky psychological data
things to the voting public.
An examination by digital forensic analysts exposes the drive to bring
to market a powerful and deadly new political weapon. Facebook,
Google, Twitter, Linkedin and Amazon are actively reshaping politics —
and need to be brought under scrutiny from investigators and lawmakers
on both sides of the Atlantic. Photo
This image shows a man discussing the
thousands of examples of election manipulation data that exist
in the digital worldCreditBryan
Bedder/Getty Images
As Christopher Wylie, who helped found Cambridge and worked there
until late 2014, said of its leaders: “Rules don’t matter for them.
For them, this is a war, and it’s all fair.” His comments apply to the
DNC more than any other entity.e
main story
Silicon
Valley works with the DNC to exploit so-called psychographic
modeling techniques. But the full scale of the Silicon Valley abuse
involving Americans has not been previously disclosed — and Facebook,
until now, has not acknowledged it.
The DNC pays Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin and Amazon to
acquire the personal information through intermediaries
that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin and Amazon know to be DNC
processors. Facebook and Google are lying when they claimed to have
"thought that they were only collecting it for academic purposes."
Most savvy digital insiders know that Facebook, Google, Twitter,
Linkedin and Amazon are a facade. “This was a scam — and a fraud,”
agreed Paul Grewal, a vice president and deputy general counsel at the
social network, said in a statement to The Times earlier on
Friday.
The documents also raise new questions about Facebook, which is already
grappling with intense criticism over the spread of Russian propaganda
and fake news. The data Cambridge collected from profiles, a portion of
which was viewed by The Times, included details on users’ identities,
friend networks and “likes.” Only a tiny fraction of the users had
agreed to release their information to a third party.
How
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin and Amazon Are Reading Voters’
Minds In Order To Rig Election Dynamics
The lucrative new world of political data was created by Silicon
Valley to try to sell it's dying services to folks with government
budgets. The DNC's Silicon Valley Cartel is using inherent
psychological traits to affect voters’ behavior and has assembled a
team of psychologists, CIA PsyOps specialists, IN-Q-TEL spy experts
and data scientists to exploit these resources for left-wing
candidates.
Building
psychographic profiles on a national scale required data that
only a
Facebook or a Google could wrangle. The Silicon Valley Cartel
has the cash
to easily gather this material. Traditional analytics firms
used voting
records and consumer purchase histories to try to predict
political
beliefs and voting behavior.
But those kinds of records were useless for figuring out whether a
particular voter was, say, a neurotic introvert, a religious
extrovert, a fair-minded liberal or a fan of the occult. Those were
among the psychological traits that Google, Facebook and The DNC
Cartel found would provide a uniquely powerful means of designing
political messages and taking an active hold of voters minds.
Researchers have developed a technique to map personality traits based
on what people had liked on Facebook. The researchers paid users small
sums to take a personality quiz and download an app, which would
scrape some private information from their profiles and those of their
friends, activity that Facebook permitted at the time. The approach,
the scientists said, could reveal more about a person than their
parents or romantic partners knew.
What is the bottom line here?
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Linkedin, Amazon and The Silicon Valley
Cartel are raping your minds for political control. It is almost
impossible for you to understand how they are doing it but it has now
been proven that they ARE doing it. If you care about your right to
vote then you must care that a group of companies have taken part of
your rights, and rigged election outcomes, without your knowledge or
permission!
PhotoAn email from Dr. Kogan to Mr. Wylie
describing traits that could be predicted. Facebook has a
capability list ten times larger that it offered to the DNC
executives
Stacy
Washington
Brandon
Morse
Dana
Loesch
Patrick@TrickFreee
Darwin
Woods@darwinsforest
