New Internal Google Document Leaked Describing Shapiro, Prager, as ‘nazis"
Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 8 months ago to Politics
Project Veritas has obtained a newly leaked document from Google that appears to show a Google employee and member of Google “transparency-and-ethics” group calling conservative and libertarian commentators, including Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, “nazis.” Project Veritas received this document after the release of its investigation into Google through the “Be Brave” campaign
Also, look into using TOR as much as possible.
From what I have observed so far, they are a prime example of why we have these grand divides in society.
Ben, although accurate in his speech can rub the ignorant the wrong way but Prager U?, Dennis?...they try to teach Un-revised history and the facts thereof. Peterson?...come on, the man just wants to have a conversation and help the postmodern victims pull themselves up by their boot straps and have a happy life...what the hell is nazi about that.
Big Tech, Voter Manipulation and Political Bias
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8VuC...
I have abandoned use of Google's search engine, but weaning myself entirely off Youtube, Blogger, and even Google Maps is much more difficult. And then there's Android, to which the only real alternative, Apple, is worse than Google.
Still, it looks like the good guys are winning the deplatforming conflict, at least for now.
I can't stop giggling at the comment that called Prager a statist. That's almost as funny as calling a Jew a Nazi.
My cell phone is an LG android based. All the searches there are google. I do not use it. Soon as I can economically transfer, I am going to a jitterbug.
The latest slimjet version you can use with XP is 10.0.13.0, based on Chromium 50.0.2661.75.
The latest firefox version that runs on XP is 52.9.0.
synonyms: nationalist, loyalist; chauvinist, jingoist, jingo, flag-waver, isolationist, xenophobe
Must be some low level employee, right EWE and Petey
This would be yet another example of setting up algorithms with clear political bias.
But was that list from G itself or from some site they selected?
synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another lexeme (word or phrase) in the same language.
By definition the list is wrong. Loyalist and Xenophobe are not even close.
a person who is loyal; a supporter of the sovereign or of the existing government, especially in time of revolt.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a person who remained loyal to the British during the American Revolution; Tory.
(initial capital letter) an adherent of the republic during the Spanish Civil War, opposed to Franco.
xen·o·phobe
/ˈzenəˌfōb,ˈzēnəˌfōb/
noun
a person having a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.
But whatever browser you can select you can use any search engine from any browser. The browser will have a default search window, which may or may not allow changing the search engine there, but you can type the url of another search engine just like any web page.
StartPage https://www.startpage.com
DuckDuckGo https://duckduckgo.com
Bing http://www.bing.com
Google https://www.google.com
Sounds crazy, doesn’t it?
An accurate description of Shapiro, Prager and the rest of today's conservatives is that of Nationalist Statists.
Although the Google employees have no idea what they are talking about, but you can hardly blame them for opposing those that want to violate their rights and calling them "Nazis."
Also, this all assumes anything from Project Veritas is even accurate, which given their past history, I would not simply assume.
The politically ignorant Google clown doesn't get that far. He was not engaging in, and is apparently not capable of, such analysis. He is an emotional blowhard employing stereotypical name-calling he echoes from equally emotional and ignorant clowns around him. They lack sufficient understanding to even begin to be concerned with "violation of rights" by "Nazis". He is an immature (at best) incompetent who doesn't belong in any company position discussing interaction between their software and users.
The broader question is what does his emotional outburst and call for restrictions have to do with any actual implemented policy? Project Veritas doesn't even begin to document that. It doesn't even tell us if the blowhard is still in the same or similar position or when any of this occurred.
From what I can access it's not clear what it means at all. Who said it in what capacity? What is the context? What was the response by other members of the group and management, and what policy was implemented when?
All I've seen for documentation is an undated snippet from a google groups transparency-and-ethics discussion forum that is distributed via email to a list of 11 redacted google email addresses.
The originator appears to be a Llam Hopkins, claimed by O'Keefe to be (still?) a Google "employee" responding to some proposal referring to "dog whistles" in "step 1" of some process regarding a "suggestions feature" for links believed related(?) to whatever someone is looking at.
He suggests "disabling the suggestion feature". It's not clear if he means entirely; only for Prager, Peterson and Shapiro; or for what he calls "far-right content", which he believes google is capable of identifying automatically by unspecified means in accordance with unspecified standards.
His out of context "bias" doesn't even demonstrate what we already know about pervasive leftism among Google employees and management.
The O'Keefe press release claims that the email called all "conservative and libertarian commentors" "nazis", which it is does not. It does include an unspecified "et al" along with Prager, Person and Shapiro.
The rest of the O'Keefe page repeats previous quotes from a Google Senior Executive denying "political ideology in its search rankings".
This is packaged to make it look like there is a dishonest contradiction, but there is no description, let alone documentation, showing a relation between "search rankings" and the unspecified "suggestions feature", let alone what the reaction to the "nazi" comment was or what it has to do with any implemented policy.
The climax is the statement that a previous video of the Google Senior Executive was taken down for "privacy violations", adding three other sources on alternate pages that either don't load or show no video. It doesn't mention that the "privacy violations" may have been related to the (illegal?) surreptitious recording of a private person in what was apparently a restaurant.
So what is the context: When, the response, the actual technical feature referred to, and any policy actually implemented or still in effect?
The facts could potentially be very bad, in which case proof should be provided, or nothing but a politically ignorant and morally challenged blowhard spouting off with no effect. The O'Keefe promotion leaves out the facts and its hype emotionally manipulates us to believe the worst. Is he dishonestly emotionally manipulating people or doesn't he know the difference himself?