- Did Barack Obama Exist In The Oval Office Entirely Illegally?
By Austin Sews and Ashley Peters
Hundreds of data scientists, developers, contract spammers and digital marketers used CIA and German secret police-created tactics to manipulate the national election and place Barack Obama in the White House.
While the DNC and Globalist controlled main stream corporate propaganda media would like you to believe that the current Facebook political scandal is over some data that a Trump financier bought, the actual story is the CRIME that started the whole political data industry in the first place back in 2006.Google and Facebook had pitched Obama on them being "the greatest
entrant into the burgeoning field of 'political manipulation technology'
as made famous in the movie MINORITY REPORT..."
On the evening of Obama's first election, Google Oligarch Eric
Schmidt was sitting in Obama's election office basement at a "White House
Situation Room"-type set of screens rigging the election data. Ask
Schmidt where he was that night. He can't deny it because there is now
video proof of it.
Google and Facebook revealed that they possessed detailed profiles on EVERY American voter based on up to 8,000 data points: everything from where you live to whether you own a car, your shopping habits and voting record, the medications you take, your religious affiliation, and the TV shows you watch, your sexual orientation, your medical status, if you were pregnant, what you said online, where you shopped, who you were dating and thousands of other facts about you stored in secret "Personal Overview Files". These personal file sets are comprised of data codes for every American. The entire file never exists in one location, but rather, can be gathered together by synchronizing the number assigned to each voter by Google or Facebook.
Google and Facebook had a unique approach to the micro-targeting techniques that have become warfare tools in politics.
They were funded by the CIA and had hired recommended CIA experts that no other companies had. They had direct server connection to Fusion GPS, Cambridge, Gawker, Gizmodo, Black Cube, Podesta Group, Media Matters and hundreds of other media assassin services.
Google and Facebook provided a service to Obama and the DNC. They coupled consumer information with psychological data, harvested from social-media platforms and their own in-house survey research, to group voters by personality type, pegging them as agreeable or neurotic, confrontational or conciliatory, leaders or followers. It would then target these groups with specially tailored images and messages, delivered via Facebook ads, glossy mailers, or in-person interactions.
Google had created software which was an all-in-one tool that let a campaign manage its voter database, microtargeting efforts, door-to-door canvassing, low-dollar fundraising, and surveys. It was a 1000 times bigger than the knock-off called "Ripon" that Cambridge Analytica later tried to copy and sell to Trump.
Doug Watts, a senior staffer on the Carson campaign, got a call from Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman. “What do you know about Cambridge Analytica?” Manafort asked. Watts replied that he didn’t think much of the firm. “They’re just full of shit, right?” Manafort said, according to Watts. “I don’t want ’em anywhere near the campaign.” Manafort knew that Cambridge was a tiny wannabe that had nothing like what Google had. Manafort thought that Trump had enough of the popular vote to not need ANY digital election manipulation.Google used CIA-created "psycho-graphics"—a fancy term for measuring attitudes and interests of individuals—to narrow the universe of American (or British voters) from the tens of thousands down to a single persuadable voter. Google then would "de-construct" the mind of that voter based on the psychological study Google had created of them from their internet activities.
In an example shown by Cambridge's copy effort, a slide listed a man named Jeffrey Jay Ruest, a registered Republican born in 1963. He was “very low in neuroticism, quite low in openness, and slightly conscientious”—and would likely be receptive to a gun rights message.
Google and Facebook exploited American privacy to harvest hundreds of millions of people’s profiles. They built models to exploit what Google knew about them and target their inner demons.
That was the basis the entire companies of Google and Facebook were built on. Google and Facebook covertly inject propaganda “into the bloodstream to the internet. Google bribes politicians (Over 1000 politicians have received cash, stock, jobs, sex workers and other perks) and takes out their enemies via recording undercover video or sending “very beautiful” Ukrainian “girls” to entrap a candidate.
Google and Facebook use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. They appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level via the CIA's "Behavioural Dynamics" media tricks. This field of study research rigs group behaviour for harnessing the power of psychology to craft messages that change hearts and minds for political interests.
On Election Day in November 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney watched as his campaign’s voter-turnout app, code-named Project Orca, was sabotaged by Google. It was humiliating but indicative of a larger dynamic: Democrats, powered by President Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 runs, had gained a huge advantage over their Republican counterparts in the realms of data and technology.The GOP’s 2012 postmortem report called for a cultural shift inside the party to embrace new tools and methodologies to win. “We have to be the Party that is open and ready to rebuild our entire playbook,” it read, “and we must take advice from outside our comfort zone.”
In 2007, David Stillwell, then a Ph.D. student in psychology, stumbled onto a digital gold mine. He’d always wondered about his personality and how he would score in the five-factor model, a personality test that measures openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Known as Ocean, this model is widely used by psychologists. But one challenge they encountered when applying it to different areas—marketing, relationships, politics—was gathering sufficient data. People naturally hesitate to give personal information about their fears, desires, and motivations.
Stillwell knew a little code, so he pulled certain Big Five questionnaires off the internet, stuck them in a quiz format, and uploaded an app to Facebook called myPersonality. It quickly went viral. Millions of people took the quiz, and with their permission, Stillwell went on to accumulate data on personality traits and Facebook habits for 4 million of them. Using this data, Stillwell, now working at the University of Cambridge’s Psychometrics Centre, and two other researchers published a paper in 2013 in which they showed how you could predict an individual’s skin color or sexuality based on her Facebook “likes.” They found a correlation between likes of “thunderstorms,” “The Colbert Report,” and “curly fries” with high intelligence, while users who liked the Hello Kitty brand tended to be high on openness and lower on conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability.Do you recall hearing about a new online service you wanted to try but were asked to sign in to it the first time with a Facebook, Google or Twitter button? Why did every new Silicon Valley online service have those same three buttons and only those three options? It was because Facebook, Google and Twitter had made a deal with the DNC to ONLY give you those options so that only they got your private dossier for the DNC!
Cruz’s campaign did, however, employ Cambridge’s psychographic models, especially in the run-up to Iowa. According to internal Cambridge memos, the firm devised four personality types of possible Cruz voters—“timid traditionalists,” “stoic traditionalists,” “temperamental” people, and “relaxed leaders.” The memos laid out how the campaign should talk to each group about Cruz’s marquee issues, such as abolishing the IRS or stopping the Iran nuclear deal. A timid traditionalist, the memo said, was someone who was “highly emotional” but valued “order and structure in their lives.” For this kind of person, an “Abolish the IRS” message should be presented as something that “will bring more/restore order to the system.” Recommended images included “a family having a nice moment together, with a smaller image representing Washington off to the side—representing that a small state makes for better private moments.” But for a temperamental type, the suggested image was a “young man tossing away a tax return and taking the key of his motorbike to head out for a ride.” For Obama, though, Google and Facebook used these tricks and tactics on a deeper, broader scale in a way that Obama LITERALLY stole the President election using digital CIA-like media tricks.
The DNC even had Match.com testing these tricks under the guise of "match-making tests".
Google and Facebook are manipulating U.S., British and Middle East politics and using creepy technology to turn our social-media habits against us. Google and Facebook hold more power over our lives—the ability to shape public conversation, even political outcomes—than many people are comfortable with, or realize. Data about our personality types, our predilections, our hopes and fears—information we unwittingly divulge via status updates, tweets, likes, and photos—will increasingly be used to target us as voters and consumers, for ill, and often without our knowledge. These tactics will facilitate the spread of fake news and disinformation and make it easier for corrupt Globalists, crooked corporations and Silicon Valley technology oligarchs to intervene in our elections.By SAC-INFO-DEFCON
Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Linkedin, Uber, Alphabet, RT, The Russian FSB, The Korean Hack Team, The Agency, Gawker Media, Fusion GPS, Cambridge Analytica and 420 other organizations have one thing in common: They use psychological tricks to manipulate political election outcomes for the benefit of their oligarch owners.
The majority of U.S. mass digital manipulation companies work for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) interests because those companies use Silicon Valley technology assets.
Silicon Valley took advantage of it's monopoly ownership of networking routes and servers and combined this with epic crony payola deals starting with the Clinton Administration.
The Clinton Administration promised Silicon Valley's Schmidt, Musk, Page, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Perkins, Doerr, Westley, et al; exclusive tax waivers, beneficial laws, green energy contracts, free government grants and loans, preferred rights, revolving door careers and other kick-backs in exchange for putting DNC candidates in office using psychological tricks to manipulate political election outcomes for the benefit of their oligarch owners.
This obviously spun quickly out of control for the newbie Silicon Valley lobbyists.
Today we have a situation where Silicon Valley has created a
cult-like devotion to digital election rigging that Silicon
Valley is incapable of halting or reducing.
Once you have monopolistic control of all of the money
on Earth, why would you stop?
Silicon Valley reaches over six billion people every minute. Do the math. If they can get just fifty cents from those billions of people every hour, the numbers soon become audacious.
Even on a bad day, Silicon Valley bosses receive enough money
to be able to afford to fly in a different one of the most
beautiful prostitutes from each country in the world each
night. They receive enough money every day to
fly to Aspen for breakfast and Paris for dinner on their
private jets. They get enough money every day to bribe every
Senator in California every week.
They live the most insane and extremist life-styles of the
most outlandish Hollywood Daddy Warbucks incarnations you can
imagine. Why would they stop? What possible motivation would
they have but to go as far as they can just to see how much
power they can amass?
They will lie, cheat and destroy documents to protect their schemes. They will issue a thousand "...oops, we got caught on that one...we will do better next time.." apologies but they will change nothing...EVER!
Google and it's many sneaky divisions spends more money in a day than most governments spend in a year. Google and Apple have more money than most States in America. They are private governments.
They will NEVER change. They will LIE at every Congressional and EU hearing they are summoned to. They are like crack heads lying to get their fix.
While we could provide you with millions of pages of psychological studies and CIA statistical reports, by now you should know what subliminal messaging is.
The fact is: NOTHING WILL STOP the use of
psychological tricks to manipulate political election
outcomes for the benefit of their oligarch owners except
the bankruptcy and shut-down of those companies.
These companies are liars and manipulators. How can anyone expect an addicted manipulator to not manipulate.
Government hearings who buy into the false apologies and lies of Google and Facebook are as stupid as the voters who fall for their tricks.
Government agencies must shut-down Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Linkedin, Alphabet and those they exist to rig our government!
That is the only answer that can work!
------------
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!
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) called THE 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!
by Jim Hoft
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.
Via Josh Caplan:
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
As TGP reported earlier this month:
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 to plummet 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.
In 2017 Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review found that The
Gateway Pundit was the 4th most influential conservative news
source in the 2016 election.
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.
And this past weekend Facebook shut down our traffic stream from the social media platform.
This is corrupt, if not criminal, behavior.
Meanwhile, liberal sites are doing fine.
Now this...
A new report by the far left Outline organization confirmed
the conservative publishers were hit the hardest by the recent
Facebook news feed changes.
The study also found the The Gateway Pundit was hit the hardest by these changes.
Via The Outline:
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.
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.
THE CENSORSHIP OF CONSERVATIVES ON THE INTERNET IS
APPROACHING CRITICAL LEVELS OF BAD BUT GOOGLE
AND FACEBOOK ARE DOING EVEN WORSE THAN JUST CENSORING BY
TRICKING VOTERS MINDS
by Brandon Morse
Social media censorship may be entering a dark age.
Two things happened over the last few days that have me worried about the future of information distribution for conservatives on social media.
That the current corporate entities that control the major
internet ports of thought are blatantly leftist is no mystery.
We’ve seen time and again their willingness to lean into
regressive, and social justice agendas to the point where they
would fire an employee simply for saying men and women are
different. Google will even punish a highly popular YouTuber
for exposing the nasty behavior of a social justice leader to
his viewers,
as well as punish him for not making a pro-Hillary Clinton
video during the 2016 presidential elections.
Two events recently have me worried that the left’s censorship of the right’s commentary and opinions has gone into full overdrive, however.
The first came on Monday when I attempted to share an article written by Town Hall writer Kurt Schlichter titled “Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too.”
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.
Stacy Washington ✔@StacyOnTheRight
So. I'm not permitted to tweet certain things. I am getting an
error message!
5:58 PM - Mar 14, 2018
858 - 480 people are talking about this
Brandon Morse ✔@TheBrandonMorse
I tried to tweet @KurtSchlichter’s civil war article, and
Twitter wouldn’t let me.
https://twitter.com/stacyontheright/status
/974087517514452994 ...
6:59 AM - Mar 15, 2018
Then NRA spokeswoman, and currently the left’s public enemy
number one Dana Loesch mentioned she had trouble tweeting out
certain things as well.
Brandon Morse ✔@TheBrandonMorse
I tried to tweet @KurtSchlichter’s civil war article, and
Twitter wouldn’t let me.
https://twitter.com/stacyontheright/status
/974087517514452994 ...
Dana Loesch ✔@DLoesch
I’ve noticed this, too.
6:59 AM - Mar 15, 2018
See Dana Loesch's other Tweets.
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 8 of 16on 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.
8 Mar
Patrick@TrickFreee
The @NRA & @DLoesch made its ad — now this Parkland
student is clapping back with an unyielding reply. #parkland
#neveragain @sarahchad_ pic.twitter.com/UEEUl5uRJ9
Darwin Woods@darwinsforest pic.twitter.com/Ae6Awpg762
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. Fake news is bad...but unproven leftist
claims can go unchecked (until the bias becomes too obvious).
Many of these companies rely on leftist groups to police their
internet. Google relies on the radical leftist group, the
“Southern Poverty Law Center,” among other leftist groups.
Twitter has a “trust and safety council” that was accurately
described as “Orwellian.”
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?
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 that actually do affect 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 at 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 @googledocs lock you out of a doc before? My
draft of a story about wildlife crime was just frozen for
violating their TOS.
— Rachael Bale (@Rachael_Bale) October 31, 2017
Others have reported similar errors.
Tfw your finalizing a piece on E. Europe post-socialist
parties in Google Drive and Google removes it because it's in
violation of its ToS??
— Bhaskar Sunkara (@sunraysunray) October 31, 2017
In response to some of these reports, a Google employee
tweeted that 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 that Gmail
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’s Privacy Policy explains 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
page says 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.
10 of 16"This kind of monitoring is creepy," Bale tweeted.
Google, clearly, loves to spy on the voters.
Could Google, Facebook and Twitter be any bigger liars?
- Are all of Their Business Plans Just Based On "Dirty
Tricks" Campaigns And Nixon's "Rat-Fucking" Tactics?
The Democrats are Running CIA Agents as Candidates
(youtube.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKC51CZ6sKc
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, Facebookand Twitter will 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 search was 66%. Today,
most search traffic has migrated to smartphones—nearly 4 in 5
Americans own one—where Google has 97% 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 like TripAdvisor ,ZocDoc and Yelp .
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.
Jim Gensheimer/Bay Area News Group
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2015. (Jim Gensheimer/Bay
Area News Group)
By ETHAN BARON | ebaron@bayareanewsgroup.com | 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 withouttheir 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!