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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tend?

They lie. That is the norm.

Not lying these days is considered simple mindedness.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

I absolutely understand and appreciate you comments. Peace to Q

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.

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.

He has been adopted by the Satanic Luciferian Cabal. Who push a postmodern technocracy.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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...

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-w...

"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.

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.

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.