Google senior engineer speaks out about political bias in the tech industry

Posted by  $  Solver 3 weeks, 6 days ago to News
92 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

“ I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated. It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true.”

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/0...

07/26/2019 Update:
Google Senior Engineer Who Went Public Placed on Administrative Leave


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    Yes it is obvious to me from my searches that there is gross bias.
    Before the defenders of big-tech come on to tell us they can do what they want with their property,
    1. Is it their property? Have shareholders voted to approve bias?
    2. Executives testify to Congress, say one thing, do another, I understand that Michael Flynn got caught on a technical interpretation but big-tech bias is obvious, pervasive, and on-going.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      I have equal reservations about whose property this is, given that the internet itself was built at taxpayer expense. But I am reluctant to state that too strongly because I don't know to what extent these tech giants pay for this access....if they do at all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 5 days ago
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  gharkness 3 weeks, 5 days ago
          I am not going to bother to argue with certain people, but I don't mind stating that I was there in a very real sense when ARPANET came about. I was visiting my sister and brother-in-law (a fairly high-level federal employee) in DC (late sixties) when some of the very first trials of this precursor to the internet were taking place. There was a specific project I remember that involved a kidney surgery performed with important data being transferred during the surgery to a remote location for a purpose I didn't understand, but I knew it was important. I had no idea at the time just what was coming but I will never forget just how excited he was at the work they were doing. And...just for the record, these were definitely government-funded projects.

          Here is an interesting timeline I found while double-checking to make sure I didn't misremember:

          https://www.livescience.com/20727-int...

          An excerpt:

          "Credit for the initial concept that developed into the World Wide Web is typically given to Leonard Kleinrock. In 1961, he wrote about ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet, in a paper entitled "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets." Kleinrock, along with other innnovators such as J.C.R. Licklider, the first director of the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO), provided the backbone for the ubiquitous stream of emails, media, Facebook postings and tweets that are now shared online every day. Here, then, is a brief history of the Internet:

          The precursor to the Internet was jumpstarted in the early days of computing history, in 1969 with the U.S. Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). ARPA-funded researchers developed many of the protocols used for Internet communication today."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 5 days ago
            Yes I hear you. Thanks for the historical record.
            Some people think Mark Fucherberg invented Face book HaHaHaHa.
            LifeLog was a project of the Information Processing Techniques Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). According to its bid solicitation pamphlet, it was to be "an ontology-based (sub)system that captures, stores, and makes accessible the flow of one person's experience in and interactions with the world in order to support a broad spectrum of associates/assistants and other system capabilities". The objective of the LifeLog concept was "to be able to trace the 'threads' of an individual's life in terms of events, states, and relationships", and it has the ability to "take in all of a subject's experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone".[1]

            Contents
            Goals and capabilities
            Edit

            LifeLog aimed to compile a massive electronic database of every activity and relationship a person engages in. This was to include credit card purchases, web sites visited, the content of telephone calls and e-mails sent and received, scans of faxes and postal mail sent and received, instant messages sent and received, books and magazines read, television and radio selections, physical location recorded via wearable GPS sensors, biomedical data captured through wearable sensors. The high level goal of this data logging was to identify "preferences, plans, goals, and other markers of intentionality".[2]

            Another of DARPA’s goals for LifeLog had a predictive function. It sought to “find meaningful patterns in the timeline, to infer the user’s routines, habits, and relationships with other people, organizations, places, and objects, and to exploit these patterns to ease its task" [2] [3]

            The DARPA program was canceled in January, 2004, after criticism from civil libertarians concerning the privacy implications of the system.[4]

            Generically, the term lifelog or flog is used to describe a storage system that can automatically and persistently record and archive some informational dimension of an object's (object lifelog) or user's (user lifelog) life experience in a particular data category.

            News reports in the media described LifeLog as the "diary to end all diaries—a multimedia, digital record of everywhere you go and everything you see, hear, read, say and touch".
            Lifelong cancelled the same day Facebook incorporated. Funny that coincidence.
            There are no coincidences.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  gharkness 3 weeks, 5 days ago
              You DO know, I hope, that it wasn't you I was referring to about "not arguing" with.

              The lifelog is a very interesting story! And yeah, I agree that there are no coincidences. All this time I thought Sukerburg was a college kid just trying a new, fun project. Hahah.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
              Zuckerberg did invent and begin building facebook over an extended period while an undergraduate at Harvard. He got the idea from some similar, limited social communication projects already underway at several universities and was successfully sued because he had agreed to build it in partnership with some classmates that he betrayed. He got farther than others at the same time because of his programming abilities. He was not a puppet of a government plot

              The increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories are not rational. Copying and pasting long tracts into multiple posts, with or without attribution, with the feeling that irrelevant John Birch Society style "connections" can't be a "coincidence" does not help.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 week, 4 days ago
                Conspiracy theorist: someone who questions the statements of known liars.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                  That is not what conspiracy mongering is. It promotes imagined plots without regard to essential facts, causality, and proof, including baseless accusations of "known liars" as rationalization for more bizarre promotions. Pronouncements that Google and the Kavanaugh hearings are CIA plots are subjectivist paranoia confused with reality, not "questioning statements".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 week, 4 days ago
                    A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.
                    Example: Clinton campaign , Brennan ,Strozk , Page , Glen Simpson ,Fusion GPS, Bruce And Nellie Ohr , Christopher Steele , Comey , Mueller ,Wiessman , Downer , Misfud , McCabe, Schiff
                    And others creating a false dossier and then making an accusation of Trump working as an agent for Putin.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 5 days ago
            Everyone, not just "certain people" you "don't bother with", knows that Arpanet was a communications network funded by the Defense Department. The technical protocols required for the packet switching allowing multiple simultaneous messages, all with different sources and destinations, were developed by computer scientists in universities and private corporations. It had nothing to do with search engines and web sites, which did not exist then, let alone "political bias". It was not today's global internet (also not invented by Al Gore) and not a government plot to control everyone.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 4 days ago
              May not be a government plot, and may be developed generally with private funds. (There is clearly a chicken/egg argument about ARPAnet and search/browsers). However, Google has become so prevalent that it is not unlike addicting drugs in it's influence.
              It takes pretty concentrated effort to exclude it and vote with ones "wallet" (in this case advertising influence).

              Facebook got some recent ass-whipping. Maybe that can happen to Google as well, but it will take legion, not just a village.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  nickursis 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                Oh, Thor, I would say it was DARPA, we paid for it, and they use it:


                What Does Mark Zuckerberg Fear?
                Q
                !!mG7VJxZNCI
                9 Mar 2019 - 3:12:57 PM
                Nellie Ohr > C_A?
                There are others within the FBI/DOJ linked to the C_A.
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...
                What access does a House member have?
                What access does a House Committee member have?
                Think [Brennan] spy campaign > US SENATE
                What happens when the C_A targets [spy insertion] the Executive, House, Senate, DOJ, FBI, State, etc branches of the UNITED STATES GOV?
                How many so-called 'former' C_A agents ran for House elections in 2018?
                What party?
                [D]
                What happens when the C_A targets [spy + tech insertion] of GOOG, FB [LifeLog], Twitter, etc etc?
                https://www.foxnews.com/tech/mark-zuc...
                What happens when people wake up to the fact that FB is a cover for LifeLog [DARPA]?
                What happens when people discover all RT data [inputs + listening/camera/GPS meta] is being harvested and made accessible to Langley?
                Charter of the NSA? DOMESTIC + FOREIGN?
                Charter of the C_A? FOREIGN (NOT DOMESTIC (FORBID LAW))
                Why is the C_A conducting an active umbrella collection campaign [stringer tangents to 9] against all US citizens through LifeLog [FB] absorb/tan targeting?
                Bypass data encryption on phone/tablet etc?
                Primary focus on elected officials?
                Primary focus on elected officials in key sub committees?
                Can activation occur of 'recording' local on device pre SCIF entry?
                No logs.
                No keys.
                Ghost in-Ghost out.
                People only engage security (+ escape vehicles) when they have something very serious to FEAR.
                What is that FEAR for MZ?
                Q

                AND:

                2988
                DARPA = FACEBOOK
                Q
                !!mG7VJxZNCI
                6 Mar 2019 - 8:38:12 PM
                https://twitter.com/amyboo69/status/1...
                Define 'Lifelog' [DARPA].
                "an ontology-based (sub)system that captures, stores, and makes accessible the flow of one person's experience in and interactions with the world in order to support a broad spectrum of associates/assistants and other system capabilities". The objective of the LifeLog concept was "to be able to trace the 'threads' of an individual's life in terms of events, states, and relationships", and it has the ability to "take in all of a subject's experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone".
                Define 'FB'.
                The Facebook service can be accessed from devices with Internet connectivity, such as personal computers, tablets and smartphones. After registering, users can create a customized profile revealing information about themselves. Users can post text, photos and multimedia of their own devising and share it with other users as "friends". Users can use various embedded apps, and receive notifications of their friends' activities. Users may join common-interest groups.
                Compare & Contrast.
                DARPA senior employees > FB?
                DARPA TERMINATES PROGRAM FEB 4, 2004.
                FB FOUNDED FEB 4, 2004.
                DARPA = FB
                Q

                Hard to ignore, unless you really, really are committed to it....(not meant at you, Thor) Facts Matter, dates matter.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                  Got it. We don't need to argue the details of the chicken and egg to agree that 1) there were huge US Government investment enabling the internet and 2) that Google wields massive power, more than most governments.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  nickursis 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                    Agreed, I was just laying out data. Of course, Q is not a verifiable source, however, I did find some other articles that agreed with the point, some people actually went digging and found the paper trails....amazing what facts prove...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -1
                      Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                      Cryptic John Birch Society style conspiracy theory "connections" don't prove anything. The history of facebook's origins is well known. It was not a government plot.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                        Old predictions that turn up as fact are a good starting point. Especially if if is a regular occurrence.

                        What is up with this "government plot" stuff? A group of people seeking power is not a government plot. It is a regular occurrence.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                    Google does not have the coercive power of government. Government funding of research and some infrastructure should not exist but is a small portion of the private investment in the internet economy. The explosion in technology is a great value, not a government plot. It would have occurred with or without government funding.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                      Neither does heroin have the coercive power of government, but it does pretty good on it's own.

                      I like assertions such as "This would've happened with or without government funding." Nice, unsupported, just for fun. Maybe, maybe not. However, totally irrelevant. It did not happen without government funding. We might all agree that we wish it was all private, but it was not.

                      "Google does not have the coercive power of government". Quite wrong. Sooo wrong. Google does not have the coercive power of the US government, one of hundreds. Google could buy Somalia's constitution tomorrow, and take it over. The coercive power of a government is based on its fiscal resources. Google has more than most governments, and could take over most states.

                      Google has massive power, fiscal and other. Google powers 73% of all searches. They control more information flow than the US Government, and any other government. This was (and is) given to Google by the people willingly, but it represents massive power nonetheless.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                        Recognizing that the internet economy would have happened without government funding is not unsupported. We know that free economies grow and we know what those interested in computers were doing and interested in pursuing in both university research and private companies. Details of exactly the form it would take, including the packet switching technology supported by arpanet, could have differed in some ways if anything in the funding and who did the work were different.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                        Google is a private company operating in the economy through trade. It does not have coercive control and this has nothing to do with heroin. Government physical force and economic power are opposites. That is fundamental in understanding and defending the nature of free, capitalist society.

                        That some companies or people have enough money to criminally bribe government officials if they wanted to does not make them criminals or indistinguishable from government exercise of power.

                        Governments remain in physical power by the consent of the governed or by force, not "fiscal resources". Almost everything now requires "fiscal resources" ; that not does not obliterate the distinction between government and private action. Providing a popular search service, which is generally the best of them, is not physical control and does not mean Google wields more power than most governments.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                          Government physical force and economic power are opposites...in a well-managed free state, with well-defined rights, limits and a high degree of freedom. Government power and economic power in Russia are completely intertwined, as they are many places.

                          Why is it a crime to pay government officials to rewrite their laws and give control to the payer? There is no such law in many countries. You call it illegal. It may be immoral, maybe. But it is not illegal everywhere.

                          Lastly the "heroin" comment. Heroin is a strong addictive drug. Alcohol is a weak addictive drug. Food is addictive as well, and we have massive numbers of overweight people. It takes a lot of initiative to control one's weight after letting it go. It takes an almost impossible amount to do the same with alcohol or heroin. To stop using Google requires a significant amount of determination and effort. Certainly it can be done. This is an analogy, and before you note that they are not a proper logical argument, go back to your broad brushing of private/public funding of the internet.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                            We are talking about the use of Google on a freely accessible internet, not the Russian government. The choice to use Google has nothing to with medical addiction. Choosing to think is not overcoming "addiction". People do create their own bad habits in all kinds of realms, including evading thinking; Google does not impose that through a power causing addiction.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                The internet is very useful, not an addictive drug and not a government plot. Individuals are responsible for their own choices. A lot of them are making very bad decisions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                  First, I was discussing Google, not the internet.
                  Second, I never asserted the internet was a government plot.

                  My point was that not using Google required a concerted effort, not unlike avoiding the use of addictive drugs. (I know it is difficult, but I (not you) get to make my point).

                  However, back to individual choices. Why are you asserting individuals must be responsible for their own choices? We are talking about free people.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                    This has been a response to your and Nickursis'' points, not attempting to make your point. Please refrain from your snide personal "I know it is difficult" misrepresentation.

                    We were discussing Arpanet, not just Google. Arpanet funded the protocol development used for network communications, subsequently adopted by the internet, not search engines and web browsers, which did not exist then.

                    You said Arpanet "may not" have been a government plot. Others here claim it was. It was not.

                    Not using Google has nothing in common with an addict not continuing to use addictive drugs. All kinds of choices require effort. That does not make them like breaking a medical addiction.

                    We are talking about choices because that is what people do in contrast to anything like the requirements for getting off addictive drugs, by which you mischaracterized Google.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks ago
                      Ok, let me put words in your mouth then:

                      "Individuals must be responsible for their own choices, because it is the only way freedom can exist without forcing others to deal with the individuals choices"

                      How about that? If you don't like it, I welcome your wording.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                        Individuals are responsible for their own choices because they make them, not because of political considerations such as a desire for a political outcome.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                          Exactly!!!!!

                          "Individuals are responsible for their own choices"

                          Exactly!!!!!!

                          Therefore, there con not exist individual freedom, without individual responsibility.

                          So perfect! So clear,. So obvious. Who can argue, except one asserting people are so imperfect they cannot be responsible; therefore, they shouldn't have freedom.
                          Good luck with that.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                            It is clear and obvious to those who understand that individuals can and must think to live as human beings, that rationality is therefore a moral virtue, and that politics must therefore recognize and protect the freedom to do it.

                            "[A]sserting people are so imperfect they cannot be responsible; therefore they shouldn't have freedom" is exactly what has happened in centuries of bad philosophy, increasingly accepted, and leading to its progressively increasing imposition today.

                            But notice the direction of the logical dependence. It is the opposite of the conservatives' "freedom implies responsibility", by which they have typically meant some collectivist imposition imposing some duty as a supposed 'responsibility' (like military conscription). The "responsibility" they are talking about in that slogan is collectivist, not responsibility for one's own life. I use the example of the draft because I saw that argument over and over in the controversy over military conscription.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                              I see that you have a massive, knee-jerk reaction to a queered use of freedom to force responsibility; however, I never said any such thing or implied it.

                              Taking responsibility for one’s own choices (freedom) is a completely separate point than forcing someone to act to provide others freedom. I never implied the later, but the former is a massive gap in today’s society, and the term “freedom” is used over and over. Connecting freedom to the outcomes of one choices is an obvious logical point that no one can argue, without taking the position that people need training wheels, which is the same as restricting freedom.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 5 days ago
        The internet was not built at taxpayer expense. There has been some public funding in addition to the enormous private investment and development in internet infrastructure. Google is a private company, it was not built at taxpayer expense. Nor does use of publicly available infrastructure, including "access" to the internet, mean that no private company has a right to its own assets and success. That is Barack Obama Elizabeth Warren collectivist populist demagoguery.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      Yes private businesses are private property. Shareholders who don't like what management is doing can try to pass shareholder resolutions at stock holder meetings, or they can sell their shares and invest elsewhere.

      The persecution of Michael Flynn by the Mueller-Weissmann operation had not nothing to do with technology companies.

      Leftist bias is everywhere, especially among the bright university-educated because that is what they were taught. That general philosophical trend in the culture must countered with better ideas. Populist conservatives demanding more government control over business is not a solution to anything.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        private businesses are private property
        Agreed, tho' there are exceptions, tho' not all assets used by these businesses are their property.
        More important- you can walk down a public street carrying your legal gun, carving knife or fist but there are restrictions on what you can do with them.

        Shareholders who don't like what management is doing can try to pass shareholder resolutions at stock holder meetings
        Agreed. But corporation law is most Anglo-jurisdictions makes such resolutions non-binding.

        The persecution of Michael Flynn
        Quite related as discussed very well here (by ewv etc) not so much for obstruction of justice but for lying to congress members (whether an ambush or not).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
          Insinuating that the technology companies can't do what they want with their own property by casting doubt on "is it their property" and "shareholders" didn't "vote to approve bias" is not valid. Of course it's their property, which is not managed by "shareholder's votes".

          They are not threatening people with knives and guns. Restricting people from assaulting others with knives and guns does not imply it is proper for government to control businesses, least of all in accordance with demands by populists. You can't get from 'murder is illegal' to therefore government should control private property. Outlawing murder is not based on a principle of denying property rights.

          Flynn did not lie to Congress, he was maneuvered under threats into a plea deal "admitting" to lying to FBI officials who deliberately set him up. It had nothing to do with Zuckerberg's weaseling in politicized Congressional hearings. You don't have to like Zuckerberg to know that private companies should not be controlled by government under populist pressure. Likewise for the Google appearance -- he doesn't seem to know what his bias is, he thinks his news sources are just right and reliable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 3 days ago
            Insinuation? No, assertion-
            They sell stolen property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
              They own their servers and software and they sell ads. Their company is private property. They did not steal access to the internet. There is no excuse to use "bias" for government control.

              An entirely different matter from the prevailing political bias, which is everywhere, is the mass surveillance. There are still no laws defining and protecting personal information as private property to stop it. It would be interesting to see what would happen to their business if there were.

              Google and others fought the new European GDPR privacy law and failed to stop it, and are lobbying to minimize the newer California law, but seem to be legally functioning despite that. But "privacy" laws are not being formulated in terms of personal property rights.

              Is Australia doing anything along these lines? It has recently passed bad laws undermining security, which is the wrong direction.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  pixelate 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    Go to Google and type in:
    climate change scam
    climate change fraud
    ... For me, I get nothing back in the immediate search results.
    Type in "climate change hoax" and I get "climate change hoax proof" and this link goes on to discredit the folks that are offering evidence (and real science) to show climate change to be a politically motivated religion.

    In sundry other cases, I get lists of sites that continue to both support the politically peddled climate change narrative or act to discredit the scientists that are showing "climate change as advertised" to be a fraud.

    Next, I went to Bing...
    Type in "climate change"
    and the first immediate hit that I get is "climate change hoax"
    Click the link - the topmost article asks why some people think climate change is a hoax.
    However, the second link takes us to http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
    Google certainly has a heavy bias and is not to be trusted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 4 days ago
      Nice to have Big Google show us filtered results based on their political ideology. Most people don’t realize the political poison they’re being fed. They can’t figure out why this sickness is spreading. Now if Google just showed everyone a warning label about it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  pixelate 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        It was only recently that I discovered the Google Bias ... someone had shared a Project Veritas video related to Google searches for "clinton email" -- and the fact that Google comes back with nothing ... I mean, no rapid return links, nothing. At that point, I started searching for "climate change" and all I got back were links in support of this new age religion.

        Additionally, if you got o view YouTube videos that advance criticism toward the State's Message on Climate Change, a boilerplate blurb is affixed in the video description area that promotes the State Agenda; almost as if to say the critics are crack-pots and the State wants to ensure that you know "the real story."

        The Googlebots cannot engage in real debates as their cause is baseless. Instead, they fight with religious zealotry using silencing techniques. As "true believers" they do so with the approval of their own collective conscious. It is morally reprehensible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 4 days ago
          Well at least they’re not pushing the Scientology ideology otherwise all the top results would praise El Ron Hubbard and deniers would be extensively mob checked for “false purposes.”
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
          I just tried a Google search for "clinton email" and it returned "About 263,000,000 results (0.62 seconds)" with many pages of results.

          Restricting that general search to Google News returned "About 38,400,000 results (0.16 seconds)" in multiple pages.

          News on the narrower "project veritas clinton email" returned "About 11,600 results (0.22 seconds)".

          An interesting result is a recent CATO article "Misleading Project Veritas Accusations of Google “Bias” Could Prompt Bad Law" https://www.cato.org/blog/misleading-...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 3 days ago
            A test for bias has to look at the position of the links by source not just the number of results.
            Try this: choose a topic with political (or other) variation in views.

            Make a list of sources that you think should be presented.
            (say, BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, Washington Times, Breibert, RT, Le Monde, CS Monitor, Daily Telegraph ..)
            Label each by say:
            far right, racist, libertarian, far left, religious, progressivist, euro left, Stalinist, etc.

            Put the question into the search engine.
            For the top one hundred results list each by your categories. Give ranking points by position, eg 100 for first, one for the 99th.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
              He said that Google search returns nothing on the Clinton email scandal. That isn't true. Out of over 200,000 results, even what is returned at the top of the first page is critical of her actions.

              The criticism is not as detailed as Mark Levin's analysis, but you can find that, too. Search for 'clinton email mark levin' and it appears right after the Media Matters attack on Levin at the top, which the Google algorithm apparently rates as more important. Levin is there at the top but you still have to search through Levin's website to find something on his analysis of Clinton email scandal in particular.

              A bing search returns more explicit results on Levin's analysis, but it's also harder that way to find the leftist response to Levin, such as Media Matter's. The contrast illustrates the bias -- google isn't ranking details on Mark Levin's analysis as high as Media Matters -- but it isn't true that Google does not return anything about 'clinton email'.

              Most top news search returns are higher ranked with leftist media because the establishment media is leftist. It is what most people want to see because the whole culture is leftist, which in turn is why Google is leftist. They don't know what their own "bias" is. "Center and center-left" now means much farther to the left, but they think it's just the way things are, not a "bias". Almost no one is challenging the establishment intellectuals who are causing this. Screaming about Google "bias" deliberately "rigging" search engines is not helping.

              They don't know the alternate -- other than conservative self-parodies mixed with dogma, hysterical yelling (like Levin's undermining his own analysis), and a conspiracy mentality, understandably not taken seriously. Conservatives can be their own worst enemy, drowning out more serious analysis against the left and the nature of the cultural trends.

              But despite the bias, ironically you can find the recent devastating Robert Epstein Senate testimony technical analysis against Google (which Coppola, the engineer interviewed by Veritas, briefly referred to but did not discuss).

              Search for 'Robert Epstein Congressional testimony' and returned at the top of the results you see links for the video of the testimony and links to download his written comments: "Why Google Poses a Serious Threat to Democracy and How to End That Threat", Testimony by Robert Epstein https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/...

              But you do have to know what to search for to find it. Searching on 'google bias' turns up criticism of google, including law suits, but not the details you may want.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
          "Googlebot" is the Google web crawler software that gathers information to index for searches, not "religious zealotry" and "silencing techniques".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 2 days ago
            The anonymous ignorant cowards who 'downvoted' that should look up the fact that 'Googlebots' are in fact the "bot" software that scans the web to retrieve and update website information to be indexed and later ranked for search engine queries. Web searches are based on stored indexes; they do not go out in real time to find the information for each search query. Software that scans the web for new information is not a conspiracy of "religious zealotry" and "silencing techniques".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    One does not need awhistleblower to find Google bias. WikiLeaks reported on the DNA making a deal with them to put favorable results about Hillary regardless of search, during the election. When I check about he Iran head injury (not fall at home), it gave me Hillary's workout clothing. When I searched Congressional pdeophile ring on Google, result 0- When I switched to another search engineg, pages of info on how it works, who has been involved, how mch it brings in, how young the children are, if you don't find it on Google, does not mean it is not ourthere, elsewhere. Google wil become extinct.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      The problem is that not enough people are aware of the Google bias and they automatically turn to it for searches.

      Like you, I stopped using Google about a year ago after I got fed up with their "methodology, and their ultraliberal bias at their workforce.

      I have a vert talented colleague who was looking for a new position and contacted every high tech company in Silicone Valley except Google. I asked him for his reason and his reply was: "Nah, I am a middle aged white guy. They'd never hire me."

      Then the extent of Google's harmful ways really hit me.

      It must be a stifling environment to work there for anyone who has a sane thinking head on his/her shoulder.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dnr 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    I don't like any Google products, especially search. I always use Bing. Much better search engine and I don't see the same bias. (I do have an Android phone because I like Apple even less, and there are no other reasonable choices.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      Google products are like "i" products, they are knivers, they build obsolescence into their products. My special needs daughter is already on her second iPad and needs to upgrade again in order to continue some of the programs she really enjoys.

      I just tried to reprogram my older Chromecast devices to a new network. The program now tells me that it detected version 8, and I need version 7 or 4. Try to find a version 7 or 4 on the internet. Somehow they managed to purge the internet of the older program because they decided not to support Chromecast for PC anymore. I don't own an Android device that might work, not even a cellphone. These compatibility issues are becoming intentional.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 6 days ago
    It will be interesting how long it takes Google to fire this senior engineer for telling the truth and publicly admitting that there is political bias at Google, thus Google executives are lying to Congress during their testimony.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks, 6 days ago
      He's toast, and he knew it when he came forward. He should get offers from companies that actually produce something if he is as clever as he claims to be.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 5 days ago
        There is an increasing chance for something like Google executives saying, “Fire him!” and CNN later reporting that a white racist lying senior Google engineer beat himself up, tied himself to his bed post and burned his house to the ground while inside.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      My thoughts exactly.

      As FFA said, he is probably fully aware of his fate at Google.

      But one has to wonder: how long Google will get away with its lies and misleading rhetoric?

      Probably for a long time since it decked its rank and file with like minded leftists and they'll back the bias to no end.

      But even then, long practice of inbreeding has wiped many species off the face of this Earth. It'll apply to liberals as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 5 days ago
        It’s like if good old trustworthy Lucifer made a new promise that became a motto in hell,
        “Don’t do evil.”
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 5 days ago
          “The mind is its own place, and in itself
          Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.
          What matter where, if I still be the same,
          And what I should be, all but less than he
          Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at last
          We shall be free; the almighty hath not built
          Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
          Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
          To reign is worth ambition though in hell:
          Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”
          - Lucifer in Paradise Lost

          Was Lucifer the first postmodernist?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rainman0720 3 weeks, 5 days ago
        You're right, exceller. They probably have loaded up on people who think like they do. And that by itself explains why they don't see what they're doing as biased.

        Tom Brokaw once said that he didn't believe he wasn't right down the middle, because nobody he new or hung around with thought any differently than he did. So he must be mainstream.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    YouTube is a nice platform for a lot of ideas. Other than that, I dont have much desire to use Google, and I understand they are completely biased.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 5 days ago
      Their executives also tend to lie when testifying to Congress.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        Tend?

        They lie. That is the norm.

        Not lying these days is considered simple mindedness.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 4 days ago
          Even Coppola said in his interview that "lie" is too strong a term. Zuckerberg is a snake; Google CEO Pichai does not realize the bias in his own sources. Coppola said he had "no smoking gun"; he was talking about the usual leftist dominance within the personnel, not claiming deliberate "anti-conservative" filters in search results.

          A problem with these Congressional hearings is that Congress generally does not know what to ask or how to follow up. They're looking for political sensationalism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    I'm wondering how long before the big tech guys run into the Ma Bell buzz saw, and get torn to pieces. They've acquired so much across the industry, a case can be made for antitrust action by Congress. They may be banking on cover from Democrats by maintaining the bias as a form of insurance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 3 weeks, 4 days ago
      I don't see how to break up Google or Facebook without destroying its usefulness. If you made them divide their user community up geographically, either everyone would go back to one of the "baby Googles" or, by forbidding that, the whole thing would just shut down.
      You could break it up into its component services (blogger, youtube, gmail) but you couldn't stop them continuing to cooperate without ruining them. And so forth.

      This doesn't seem to me to be a problem, until a service that is a monopoly or near-monopoly starts deplatforming people. For example, Chase Bank has begun purging conservatives from its customer base, as have PayPal, Patreon, and even MasterCard. If this is allowed to continue then e-commerce becomes a privilege for lefties only. And some domain name registrars refuse to serve free speech sites such as Gab; if they all did then we'd be cut off from the Internet (and that is a real danger now that ICANN is part of ITU, which is part of the UN).

      A worse monopoly problem is if the government starts regulating social media sites, as Facebook and Google are already lobbying for. If running a site like this were to require a license, guess who would be issuing the licenses? Not you or me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      "Anti-trust" government actions attacking private companies for being "too big" and "too successful" don't require Congressional action. Nor are even the elastic "standards" of anti-trust laws based on political bias. Punishing and breaking up successful companies would do nothing to stop the pervasive, increasing leftist bias in the culture.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    On another level, Open Markets is the first significant casualty of a broader battle between Silicon Valley and the Democratic Party. These companies—socially liberal, immensely popular, forward-looking—have become enmeshed in the Democratic establishment. They have acquired an enormous amount of political and economic power, thanks in part to a bipartisan consensus on antitrust issues and on the benevolence of the tech industry. But that consensus is starting to fall apart, thanks to a new awareness of the ways in which tech monopolies are crowding out competition and hurting consumer choice. At New America, anti-monopoly apparently became a dealbreaker for Schmidt and Google—there’s no reason to believe that won’t be true across other left-leaning institutions or the Democratic Party itself.

    In response, the titans of this industry are starting to act like politicians. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has embarked on a seemingly endless whistlestop-style tour across the country, possibly because he plans to run for president and possibly because his company realizes that PR work is crucial to bolster the company’s image and keep regulators at bay. Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman have launched a platform to Reddit-ify the Democratic Party and remake it in their own image. The vision these tech gurus have outlined is one that retains most of the Democratic Party’s social liberalism, while safeguarding the pro-business laissez-faire philosophy that has allowed Silicon Valley to flourish and that has come under criticism from the left.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    Eric Schmidt is an influential figure, even among the parade of powerful characters with whom I have had to cross paths since I founded WikiLeaks. In mid-May 2011 I was under house arrest in rural Norfolk, about three hours’ drive northeast of London. The crackdown against our work was in full swing and every wasted moment seemed like an eternity. It was hard to get my attention. But when my colleague Joseph Farrell told me the executive chairman of Google wanted to make an appointment with me, I was listening.
    In some ways the higher echelons of Google seemed more distant and obscure to me than the halls of Washington. We had been locking horns with senior US officials for years by that point. The mystique had worn off. But the power centers growing up in Silicon Valley were still opaque and I was suddenly conscious of an opportunity to understand and influence what was becoming the most influential company on earth. Schmidt had taken over as CEO of Google in 2001 and built it into an empire.1
    I was intrigued that the mountain would come to Muhammad. But it was not until well after Schmidt and his companions had been and gone that I came to understand who had really visited me.

    *

    The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google’s in-house “think/do tank.” I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact, Cohen had moved to Google from the US State Department in 2010. He had been a fast-talking “Generation Y” ideas man at State under two US administrations, a courtier from the world of policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early twenties. He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened “Condi’s party-starter,” channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into US policy circles and producing delightful rhetorical concoctions such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0.”2 On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed his expertise as “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.”
    It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran.4 His documented love affair with Google began the same year, when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a “think/do tank” based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.
    Later that year the two co-wrote a policy piece for the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs, praising the reformative potential of Silicon Valley technologies as an instrument of US foreign policy.5 Describing what they called “coalitions of the connected,”6 Schmidt and Cohen claimed that

    Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies. . . . They offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world [emphasis added].7

    In the same piece they argued that “this technology is overwhelmingly provided by the private sector.” Shortly afterwards, Tunisia. then Egypt, and then the rest of the Middle East, erupted in revolution. The echoes of these events on online social media became a spectacle for Western internet users. The professional commentariat, keen to rationalize uprisings against US-backed dictatorships, branded them "Twitter revolutions." Suddenly everyone wanted to be at the intersection point between US global power and social media, and Schmidt and Cohen had already staked out the territory. With the working title “The Empire of the Mind,” they began expanding their article to book length, and sought audiences with the big names of global tech and global power as part of their research.
    From this Wikileaks link https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-w...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 3 days ago
    Political bias in tech companies is all part of free speech.
    We might disagree with it but we have to defend their right to it just the same.

    There's nothing to whistle-blow.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
      Coppola, the engineer interviewed, had nothing to 'whistle blow' in the sense of political corruption or crime, which is the way the term is usually used, but there are policies and practices inside Google that are useful to know and which most people don't.

      Coppola had some interesting insights, but nothing dramatic or new against Google. He said himself (in the video but not the synopsis) that he has no "smoking gun" and described the bias in Google in terms of personal biases that ordinarily have no impact on the company's technology, and then only in the form of choices -- made sometimes with political bias without realizing it -- of what is regarded as a reliable news source. We already know that the high tech industry is politically biased to the left everywhere, which he confirmed from his own observations.

      He did not confirm the claims of deliberate "anti-conservative" filters in search results and said that his managers honestly do not realize the bias in their own selected sources, insisting that calling them liars in the response to Congress is too strong. Coppola did say that he could not go into more detail revealing proprietary aspects of the algorithms. The political weighting of search results is more subtle than is being acknowledged in the controversy.

      He didn't say anything about the mass surveillance problem violating privacy, which is an area he does not work in. He could only report that in his experience engineers are very careful about handling personal data, but had nothing to say about the policies of why they have it at all and the inevitable consequences of that.

      My impression from the edited video interview is that Project Veritas is hyping it beyond what it is. Coppola seems like a sensible engineer with some legitimate concerns, with a more objective perspective than what we usually get. The interviewer seemed almost disappointed as he tried to make the most of it. It would be interesting hear what else Coppola said that was edited out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 3 days ago
        Great post as always, but I'm not even humoring what Veritas is trying to do here.
        It's especially rich coming from that organization which has previously been caught trying to stage fake accusers of Roy Moore in order to create false narratives.
        No one should be taking these people and their "expose" videos seriously.
        They simply know nothing about politics and want private companies regulated. This makes them clueless leftists and that's all I'm pointing out to them.
        You're giving them way too much credit by engaging in this level of discourse, not that I don't love reading it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
          The rational discourse here is not written for them.

          Coppola, who gets credit as an honest man with some good observations avoiding the hype, is an engineer, not one of their "investigators".

          They do know about politics, and are playing the game of imagery and emotion. They don't have a rational political philosophy. They are notorious for hysterical attacks on the right of abortion and O'Keefe says he is going after Google to stop "anti-Christian bias".

          I don't remember their being caught staging fake accusers of Roy "Commandments" Moore. It would be hard to accuse Moore of something worse than what he is.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 2 days ago
            "The rational discourse here is not written for them."
            Yea I know :)

            "Coppola, who gets credit as an honest man with some good observations avoiding the hype, is an engineer, not one of their "investigators"."
            True, but he should know what's going on and refuse to take part in it.

            "They do know about politics, and are playing the game of imagery and emotion. They don't have a rational political philosophy."
            That's what I mean when I say they don't know anything about politics. Without this knowledge all they have is appeals to emotions, media games, scandals, etc, etc.
            That's why I refer to conservatives as the religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing.

            "I don't remember their being caught staging fake accusers of Roy "Commandments" Moore."
            https://mashable.com/2017/11/27/proje...
            Basically they tried to discredit the honest accusers of Moore by putting forward fake accusers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
              A lot of people should know better than to be involved with O'Keefe's organization. So should O'Keefe himself. But they don't. Coppola is an engineer, dedicated to his work, and appears to have no expertise in or principled knowledge of politics. All his interview said about it is that he is Trump supporter. With O'Keefe's record, however, it is legitimate to ask the question, is there behind this than they have said?

              Here is another one on O'Keefe's antics and apparent incompetence and sloppiness even in his own game https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...

              This lengthy article seems to expose some documented facts about him, but is a leftist hit piece itself trying to create an image and should not be taken entirely at face value. You never know what they have left out or spun into misrepresentation. In particular it tries to whitewash the lefts' own worse political antics (including whitewashing Media Matters), but shows how systematically nasty politics has become.

              But don't equate all conservative politics with O'Keefe "investigations" manufacturing and hyping scandals. There are some very good, honest, pro-individualists out there doing excellent work on specific issues in valuable alliances who should not be dismissed as the "religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                "There are some very good, honest, pro-individualists out there doing excellent work on specific issues in valuable alliances who should not be dismissed as the "religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing"."
                Do you have links I could look at?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                  They are individuals I have worked with personally, mostly in defending private property rights. Grass roots political action is done through organizing and communication on specific issues, staying focused and knowledgeable on specific issues and actions, and tactically and strategically dealing with current political realities, not generalities posted on the web.

                  People who do that and who are effective are not running around evangelizing religion or subjective feelings with conspiracy theories or promoting more government intervention. It's the opposite of what you see on much of this forum.

                  A very different realm than grass roots action, but still focused on very specific current issues, is the realm of court challenges in 'public interest law'. Good Judicial decisions, such as Supreme Court decisions, that you occasionally see in the news don't happen by themselves with some judges happening to make the right decision.

                  The cases are brought by knowledgeable, very good attorneys who specialize in some aspect of public policy such as private property rights. They are long, expensive, arduous processes. They file briefs and argue cases selected from abuses with a good chance of being stopped, publicize the cases, and remain in contact with non-lawyers fighting the abuses in different ways in order to maintain an up to date 'knowledge base'.

                  The biggest and most successful public interest law firm has been Pacific Legal Foundation, whose cases have been discussed on this forum several times, with most here not realizing what made the court victories and the reporting on them possible.

                  There are other, smaller such legal organizations, such as the "libertarian" Institute for Justice, which led the battle against the infamous Kelo takings case. They lost the case at the Supreme Court but publicized the abuse so effectively that it created an enormous nation-wide backlash resulting in at least some legislative reforms and more of a reluctance by government officials to repeat the abuse.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 1 day ago
                    In all Prager's, Shapiro's, et al, horror shows, I forget the day-to-day fights that are taking place like this.
                    It's good to know that stuff like this is happening.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                      The day to day battles are still ongoing, but are not enough. You never win anything fighting government impositions: at best you get to keep most of what you started with less the loss in time and resources to defend it. And it has done nothing to reverse the overall downward trend, as you would expect. With the loss of the individualist sense of life in this country there also appear to be fewer in the younger generation with the ability and motivation to fight in their own self defense.

                      Meanwhile a handful of gurus like Prager and Shapiro become better known by a minority of zealous followers, as they become personally wealthy while undermining meaningful opposition.

                      On this supposedly Ayn Rand forum, their followers are still repetitively promoting fundamentally anti-individualism, allegedly in the name of defending capitalism. The latest 'capitalism is altruism' nonsense is repeated again here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo