I would bet if the liberal entries were regulated, they would be screaming, and soon the conservative entries would be allowed as posted. No, I do not care for censorship, but that is exactly what we have, one-sided, and spreading. When I wanted infor on the Congressional pedophile ring, I had to find two other search engines which presented the history, current deatails, and named names. Meanwhile, some sites are skewed to favor Hillary and Rape the Baby, but nothing on my topic. It disgusts me, the one sided and yet money making presentations. By the way, when Obama gave the Internet to socialist UN, who did they put in charge of running it, good ole China, talk about censorship.

Do you really wish for government hold your hand as you use the Internet? If you don't like site search elsewhere. Stop looking out for the non-thinkers.

Only the CIA knows.

The conspiracy requires you to be a moocher?

The conspiracy won't let me.

Sounds like your buddy has the start of very humorous fictional book, I am already laughing, almost fell off my chair!

Objectively observing evidence, connections and deriving a percentage of probability that there might be a connection does not "mean" causation. However, knowing these agencies like we do, and all their past fopas we begin to understand the likelihood that their actions serves some perverted purpose.

To work in one of the agencies one must surely have a very perverted sense of morality...likely one that is relatively subjective.

Just curious EWV, you who often decide what is appropriate for this board. Why don’t you support it?

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-o...

The CIA Handbook told me to. It's the Conspiracy. The CIA is so secret that it's impossible to find proof for its actions and nefarious motives; therefore none is required, so anything goes as "evidence" and those who reject it must be part of the Conspiracy. The Handbook says so. Don't deviate.

Bravo , add some ridiculous nonsense to muddy the issue. Once again you avoid the evidence.

No, he's not a 'fine thinker" and his religious conservatism is a very long way from Ayn Rand. Almost everyone now knows about at least some of the abuse from Google and Facebook; conservatives follow along and say maybe we should "consider regulation" -- "me too but slower". Better thinking than parroting the Hillsdale writer calling for a "degree of regulation" asks what rights are being violated and how to protect them, not entrenching the abuse through "regulation". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Rejecting conspiracy theories that the CIA secretly created the high tech industries of Google, Twitter and Facebook for nefarious purposes -- along with the conspiracy theory that the CIA secretly arranged the accusations against Kavanaugh -- is "critical thinking", not another CIA conspiracy theory "right out of their handbook" -- even though Agenda 21 dropped the Handbook instructions out of black helicopters to be sure we would all read it and do as told. To ensure compliance here on this forum, the instructions were hidden between the lines in Atlas Shrugged, too. The novel was provided to Ayn Rand by aliens who came in on the Crash of '47 at Roswell. She picked it up from Area 51.

Proposition 1 - Humans are basically good.
When bad stuff happens, it is all due to a few who are manipulating others. The few can be, variously according to your taste, George Soros, bankers, capitalists, Maurice Strong, oil barons, Zionists, mullahs, media moguls, alt-right, far-right, extreme-right, and maybe more.

2. Proposition - not 1.
Bad stuff happens for all kinds of reasons, people are mixed, some are evil, some are good, or not, then there in incompetence and indifference.

Is 1. or 2. right? If you take view 2. events can be considered rationally, you do not have to drill down to get to your ultimate Soros/source.
Another advantage of taking view 2. it is easier to deal with the world.

When faced with the facts of real bad behavior by the big new monster tech companies, it is not helpful to say it is a conspiracy. That probably means you are helpless and just a moaner.
Better to be specific about the bad stuff.
Then ask, does it break any current law, should there be new laws to control or regulate, and especially for this forum, would such laws and regulations, existing or new, be compatible with Objectivism? Are specific contracts being broken? Are implied contracts being broken? Is there such a thing as an implied contract? Are rights and property being stolen and violated? Are company published policies part of a contract? Can there be a contract without 'consideration'? Does that have to be money?

The question put by AJA, maybe not a strict Objectivist, but a very fine thinker, is thus a good one.

“Crackpot conspiracy theories” your insulting response is right out of the C-A ‘s hand book ...very well done.

Don’t use critical thinking. I am sure N Korea was just a new market opportunity for Google . Never mind the sanctions. Just think of the wealth that E Schmidt could extract from that prosperous country.

Your terms of Crackpot , bizarre , preposterous,
Rambling are very helpful.

It's not that there is no such thing as a conspiracy -- it is a valid concept -- but it is not what drives the world. Ayn Rand emphasized the importance of ideas and rational thought. "Conspiracy theorists" finding "The CIA" and "Agenda 21" everywhere are a narrower instance of lack of objectivity in conceptual understanding. Those chronically doing it are hurting themselves in lack of understanding and offering nothing. The least we can do is keep it separate from the perception of Ayn Rand's ideas and approach.

"subjectivist thinking must be rejected everywhere it appears, especially on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum where it only causes a false bad reputation."
I agree completely.
https://www.xkcd.com/386/
I don't mean to be glib. Someone should get the word out. People who reject conspiracy theories should read Ayn Rand, even if only to figure out what putative conspiracy theorist think.

The ignorant who assume Ayn Rand is associated with conspiracy thinking are misled by the embarrassing conservative conspiracy theorists who falsely associate themselves with Ayn Rand's ideas. Such subjectivist thinking must be rejected everywhere it appears, especially on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum where it only causes a false bad reputation. It is difficult enough defending rational ideas in an irrational culture without having to defend against the false attributions arising from the subjectivists and uneducated dragging us down with their false association.

"this was supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum. Welcome to Conspiracy Central."
Anyone searching for Ayn Rand on the Internet who has not read the books likely concludes they're about conspiracy theories and politics.

Rejecting crackpot conspiracy theories consisting of rationalizing arbitrary assertions and which contradict what is known does not require proving a negative. The bizarre claims that high tech companies with known histories are CIA conspiratorial creations are preposterous. You do not "back up" a claim by citing some crackpot on the internet who said so in rambling concoctions. There is a reason that normal people do not take this stuff seriously (and it's not a CIA conspiracy).

This has nothing to do with North Korea.

You make your claim with no evidence I have backed up my claim. Just a typical business meeting .
https://goo.gl/images/LzqJNk
Sanctions against North Korea. A number of countries and international bodies have imposed sanctions against North Korea. Currently, sanctions are largely concerned with North Korea's nuclear weapons program and were imposed after its first nuclear test in 2006.

"Most of those companies" were not "CIA creations". Please do not advocate violence against them, it's a crime whether or not you like them.

Must be a CIA conspiracy.

Who is lashing out in anger?

An "interest" by DARPA or other funding sources in technology does not mean that the CIA secretly created the high tech industry for ulterior purposes, plotting for Google to suppress conservatives.

"Many technologies have been in part subsidized through research grants or paid by the military at some point in their progression. It doesn't mean that the technologies or the private companies were "created" by government, let alone the CIA."

Ignoring all the known academic and other sources of search technology, along with the known real motives by everyone involved, together with the invention of reality to make secret "connections" "So they could run their secret dirty wars with even greater efficiency than ever before" is not objective.

Besides, it left out the True ultimate source as "Agenda 21", the delivery of secret systems by black helicopter, and alien research captured at Area 51.

The previous "report" proclaiming that Mark Zuckerberg "is simply a figure head for Facebook, and nothing more" to "document" that the "CIA created google, facebook and twitter" is just as bizarre.

Some people gravitate to this nonsense, then lash out in anger when it is properly dismissed. Feeling it 'way down deep' is not objectivity, and dismissing fantasy concocted to replace reality is not "ignoring reality".