Latest 'Google Whistleblower' To Prove Anti-Conservative Bias Doesn't Prove Anything And Appears To Be Bigoted Conspiracy Theorist
from the pick-your-heroes-carefully dept
So, we had just pointed out that the "fired ex-Googler whistleblower" whom everyone was pointing to last week as "proof" of "anti-conservative bias" at Google, didn't look so good when you got to see the details (which included statements that certainly read to be pretty supportive of white nationalists, rather than support for, say, the free market and lower taxes). You'd think that peddlers continuing to push this theory with the next person would take more time in the vetting process. But... of course, if it's Project Veritas we're talking about, it appears the only vetting they like to do is "can we spin this the way we want so that idiot suckers will buy it?" And that's what's happened.
The usual folks in our own comments who insist there's anti-conservative bias at Google have been yelling at me for the past few days, claiming that I'm "ignoring" this proof because I just can't take it or something. Or... more accurately, because it's total garbage. First, let's talk about the "whistleblower." If you thought the last guy was bad, well, get a load of Zach Vorhies:
What O’Keefe’s video leaves out, though, is that his much-hyped insider is not as credible as he claims. On social media, Vorhies is an avid promoter of anti-Semitic accusations that banks, the media, and the United States government are controlled by “Zionists.” He’s also pushed conspiracy theories like QAnon, Pizzagate, and the discredited claim that vaccines cause autism.
Seems credible, no?
Okay, okay, but maybe these "950 documents!" really prove something. Well, rest assured, they did not. As Matthew Feeney from the noted leftist bastion (that's sarcasm for the slow ones), the Cato Institute pointed out, there's "a whole lot of nothing" in the documents. One folder is labeled "Censorship" and all it has are screenshots of emails without any context. It shows someone sending an email to Google CEO Sundar Pichai arguing that Breitbart shouldn't get to use AdSense, but that's it. One random employee -- out of 100,000 or so employees sending an email to the CEO? And there's no evidence that AdSense has barred Breitbart (trust me, we'd have heard about it).
One of the leaked documents also isn't new and is completely misrepresented. Project Veritas had already posted it back in June and totally misrepresented it then. They claim it shows "election interference" regarding Ireland's election in which abortion rights were up for referendum. Project Veritas -- because they have to misrepresent basically everything -- claimed it proved that YouTube was trying to influence the election by suppressing searches on phrases like "abortion is murdering." What they leave out in all the hype and bluster, is that the document also contains many, many phrases on the other side of the debate, including "repeal the 8th," "pro choice," "woman's right to choose" and more. In other words, the document is not YouTube putting its finger on the scales, but, just as the company explained at the time, an attempt to have the top results on YouTube be focused on more authoritative neutral content providers, rather than those pushing one side or the other. That's... kinda reasonable? And also the very thing that "conservatives" keep demanding of the company -- to be "neutral."
Indeed, so much of these documents seem to be evidence of Google trying to figure out how to deal with liars, trolls, and propagandists peddling nonsense. And PV turns that into "proof" of anti-conservative bias. Sorry, dudes. Unless you're admitting that "conservative" only means liars, trolls and propagandists peddling nonsense...
Amusingly, among the documents, which were released the very same day a laughably bad complaint was filed against YouTube for discriminating against LGBTQ+ folks, was a document about how YouTube was trying to improve its machine learning algorithms to better handle such content.
Most news sources are not covering this -- not because they're avoiding it, but because it's bullshit. Of the few that have, as the Next Web notes, there's nothing particularly damning anywhere. Well, unless you're going to take documents totally out of context.
For example, among those that PV is hyping up is a "news black list for Google Now." Google Now was a service that Google used to have for Android but has since gotten rid of. It was partly a news app that would try to surface stories. Notably, a bunch of the top links are to Google's own URLs, but hey, you don't hear Project Veritas mention that. Then, as you go down the list, most of the first batch are to torrenting and other sites that Hollywood would likely label "pirate" sites. It's odd/weird that TorrentFreak (a news site, not a torrent site) is on the list, but that happens. The White Supremacist site Daily Stormer is also on the list.
But the part that has PV and its idiot sycophants up in arms are other Trump-fluffing, nonsense peddling sites that they like. Except, what they miss is that these are sites that have high user block rates. In other words, when those sites did show in Google Now, users were quick to block them. Because they're nonsense, propaganda peddling sites that anyone with more than a few hundred brain cells knows are bullshit. So this isn't Google blocking them. It's a huge number of Google users.
In other words, this is a huge self-own. Rather than demonstrating bias from Google, it's showing that the public is not interested in this nonsense.
PV also plays up the following screenshot, which it describes as: "Another newly published document titled “Fringe ranking/classifer: Defining channel quality” lists an example ranking of various news sites, including CNN and FOX News."
No context is provided for that weird screenshot. But even taking it at face value, it, uh, does not suggest anything regarding anti-conservative bias. It shows that this is a "work in progress" and they're trying to figure out way to deal with "fringe" sites that aren't quality. Isn't that a good thing? And note that the top publication in that list is the Wall Street Journal -- which, last I checked, is considered pretty damn conservative. Also, pretty far down the list -- below Breitbart and RT America -- are Huffington Post and the Young Turks, two sites generally considered pretty left leaning.
So... if anything you might read into this that it's showing anti-liberal bias? I mean, that is if you actually took one out of context screenshot that appears to just be an internal presentation of a "work in progress" rather than any evidence of any actual thing.
In short, this is a giant nothingburger that doesn't show any actual evidence of anti-conservative bias. But it does show a real desire by fringe peddlers of idiotic nonsense to keep peddling misleading nonsense, pushed by folks who are not exactly credible. Someone in our comments once joked that Project Veritas only made sense if you took the first word to be a verb instead of a noun -- and even then I think they fail. They don't project anything truthful at all. It's a chop shop propaganda house that's not even good at that.
A year ago, Zach Graves, a conservative who works for a conservative policy organization, wrote a post for us saying that Conservatives need to stop crying wolf on tech bias. It appears that almost no one is listening.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, james o'keefe, project veritas, propaganda, zach vorhies
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If your primary source for a claim is Project Veritas, it's a good sign that your claim is bullshit. The National Enquirer has a better track record.
I wouldn't believe James O'Keefe if he told me it was sunny and hot outside. And I live in Phoenix.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think you could have just gone with "the nutty conspiracy" for
Having read through the article, you could have saved us some time, and labeling it as "the nutty conspiracy." Sure, it's not as technically accurate but it's got just as much zing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think you could have just gone with "the nutty conspiracy"
He could have - but considering how some of the regulars have been screaming that this report "proves" something it is important to break it down and show just what it does and doesn't contain.
Even a nutter could have proof. This one doesn't however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm currently in an ongoing debate with a friend about social media "acting like publishers" and "anti-conservative bias". PV came up and to make sure I could properly address his points I watched the latest video interview with Zach. I almost puked at the end of it. Absolutely nothing in the video was in any way credible.
They even had the blacklist file up on the screen and there was a programmer comment right at the top saying it was for Google Now, plus all the Google and leftist sites were plainly visible. That still didn't stop Zach from saying this was a blacklist for all of Google Search and James to completely go along with it.
I mean, they just disproved their entire premise on their own by displaying that file. And they just ignore it. That's not good fact-checked, verified journalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
For added fun, the guy also claimed that he was sure Google was going to assassinate him for stealing these documents. He even went so far as to put the cache of documents in a "deadman's switch" type of deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"The documents speak for themselves." ~ Tech Bias claimant by the name of Warguy
It appears that they do, in fact, speak for themselves. And what they are saying is "no bias here."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conservative = Fox News
The corporate party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
Because you can read Google's unethical nonsense in their own documents, in their own words. They even have a section in there about how they get journalists to carry water for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds me of the DMC email dump from the 2016 election. People would point to single emails, clearly responses to other emails or events, lacking any context of the conversation, and would show that those emails 'prove' some conspiracy, but would fill that context in themselves, rather than point to the context necessary for this email to be proof of anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If James O'Keefe told me the sky was blue, I would go to a doctor to see what was wrong with my eyes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Zof can lie so frequently
As stated in the article and as is plain to see for anyone who actually read the documents, they state nothing of the sort.
As I mentioned in a post above, the "blacklist" of websites is for Google Now (not Search) and contains some of Google's own sites as well as liberal ones. Yet it was still held up as evidence of "search bias" when it blatantly had nothing to do with it. The other documents in the cache are much the same.
So, the real question is, why are you lying? Or if you truly believe what you are saying, how come you reject plain facts that disprove your conspiracy theories?
Also, didn't you say you were leaving TD months ago? That's an awful long goodbye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
If you have found this evidence in the document list when Mike has not, I suggest you point to it. Which document? Have a link? A screenshot? Anything beyond the claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
"They even have a section in there about how they get journalists to carry water for them."
As if Google is the only corp that expects preferential treatment from the government, are you daft?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
I feel so, so bad for you Zof.
Bigly bad. You and your conservative brothers are just never going to catch a break despite 2 years of a republican congress, executive branch, and adding 2 justices to the SCOTUS.
It just seems like every single person you elect to office is so impotent when it comes to things like locking Hillary up, getting Mexico to send up that check for the wall, repealing that awful Obamacare for a new, improved, bigly, bestly thingly ever Trumpcare, or breaking up Google.
Hell, a Trump DOJ can't even keep a pedophile alive long enough to put those damn Clintons in jail, and liberate those children being held in that pizza parlor basement!
When are you going to ditch this bunch of dimwitted incompetent losers? How many times do they need to tell you what they're going to do, not do it, complain about it not being done, and having you come on here complaining about it not being done despite having elected people to get it done?
Seems like you should suggest stopping payment on the Republican congress until they, you know, actually do something, amirite? Because that's why you elected them, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
Contemplate this tidbit:-
It says that most people do not want to hear your point of view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
As I noted about the DNC email dump, documents here are presented often without context, with you filling in that context. Or as noted in the article, ignoring and/or misrepresenting the context present in the evidence.
Google's own words can be super biased when you put words in their mouth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I sure, as a lefty, this sounds just fine, as a conservative, subjectively, I see bias everywhere. This is text book ad hominem on your part, must be anti-semitic, no, pedophile then, no, Nazi then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
“The National Enquirer has a better track record.”
The sad thing is this isn’t hyperbole. Hell, at this point you can turn on any random old episode of The Simpson’s and find it more relevant to today’s reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think you could have just gone with "the nutty conspiracy"
The nutty conspiracy isn’t the document leak, it’s the way their fans have been reacting to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
The fun fact is, many people have, and they still don’t see the parallel universe you’re jacked into. Maybe the problem isn’t the journalists?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How does it feel to be more full of shit than someone with a severe case of constipation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It certainly isn't. The Enquirer is trash but it occasionally breaks an important story, like John Edwards's extramarital affair.
People with a scoop and no scruples who want to make a buck go to the Enquirer. The only people who go to Project Veritas are people trying to push the same misleading political narrative that O'Keefe excels at.
Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In addition to the constipation, he must be following Bolsonaro's climate change advice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I know you're joking, but remember: they aren't lies; they're bullshit. You can't trust anything the bullshit artists say to be true or to be false.
Distrust, but don't be thrown off if the broken clock occasionally reports the right time. It doesn't mean the quality has improved, or that there's something wrong with your view of reality, it just means that they can't even bother to put in the effort to be consistently wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"He’s also pushed conspiracy theories like QAnon, Pizzagate, and the discredited claim that vaccines cause autism. "
uh, yeah. That gives him credibility to me.
QAnon, yeah, he's right about 75% of time. The other 25% when he's wrong, looks like he's intentionally throwing off the black hats to make them show themselves. Pretty darn clear to me, that he's connected closely to Trump.
Pizzagate. yeah, Jeffrey Epstein pretty much proved to me that Alefante and Podesta were creepers. They're all connected and the Miami Herald pretty much exposed Epstein as a child trafficker in 2008. They all know each other.
Vaccines cause autism. You're referring to William Thompsom of CDC withholding the data that supported African American kids exposed to the MMR vaccine had a +30% chance of getting autism? That discredit? Or was it about him apologizing to the Wakefield, the guy that found the connection between gut bacteria and brain issues from a MMR vaxx? They've since confirmed that Wakefield's original findings.
So yeah, I'd say the whistleblower is on point if he's following those 3 points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the most effective bullshit is seeded with truths. That's why Project Veritas gets video of people actually saying things. They just have to twist it by changing the context, omitting that they prompted the person to speak hypothetically rather than confess to something, or editing out anything that contradicts the argument they want to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
qwoieoiyerqweioyr
qweu90ioewyt9oiuer
lkwqjrehwweypqrwt
pwjekarhpwqeuewq
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
Why do we even bother replying to Zof. He comes in here, drops a steaming stinking pile of bull shit then leaves. He never debates nor does he provide any links to back up his assertions.
If we quit replying to his already debunked 100 times comments, he will quit commenting here and spewing his shit all over for us to clean up after.
I suggest that we all just click the "Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam." every time we see his comments and quit replying as I am sure each and every reply is just feeding his delusions and conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All the strange....Stuff.
An old trick used in the past was to Bury the subject.
How many ways to do this..
Over post it, complain, bitch, Rattle along and all everyone hears is the SAME CRAP.
Everyone turns away and wont look at the subject anymore...
Along the way, it gets passed. As no one was paying attention.
Or.
Something in the background, happens. Its like your kid running around the house, and you Tune them out...THEN they do something REALLY stupid.
the idea of Propaganda has been widely spread and learned Very well since WWII. They have learned what works and what happens. How to push the buttons, and Hide what is about to happen.
Its as if we pay attention to what they Point at, and some odd Bill in the background appears and Runs threw the congress. Like all the Anti pollution laws and regs, being removed.(as an excuse for not having enough Work in the nation)
One I would love to find is Where the idea that the Gov. is/was to big, came from. since it WAS the largest employer in the nation, not long ago. and now we are dealing with Food inspections at 8%.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I’d tell you to go back to 8chan where you belong, but…
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
lol, you crack me up. but yeah, you're mostly right.
Trump was a democrat, who went republican to get elected. His previous runs for the DNC nomination failed and already guessed what would happen if he tried again, look at what happened to Bernie. NeverTrumpers on the republican side working with a former democrat just means Congressional gridlock. Can't lock Hillary up because there are favors owed everywhere thanks to payouts from the CF from UraniumOne which benefited Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Lynch, et al. Brennan and Clapper are even covering for Obama, until Clapper throws him under the bus for the FISA thing. Mexico is paying tariffs (for the wall), China is paying tariffs (for the farmers), walls being built by Army corps thanks to padded Pentagon budget, ACA repeal failed thanks to McCains last minute change of heart. As for the kids in the basement? they were on the island, Comet pizza was the red herring, just because Alefante knew Podesta well, doesn't mean it all took place there. Epstein? well, he's a played card, but more unsealed indictments coming thanks to Chandler and Mack spilling the beans. Very funny insight/spin you have though, keep it up : )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Gonna need some sauce:
QAnon, yeah, he's right about 75% of time.
About what? Be specific. Need citations.
Pizzagate. yeah, Jeffrey Epstein pretty much proved to me that Alefante and Podesta were creepers. They're all connected and the Miami Herald pretty much exposed Epstein as a child trafficker in 2008. They all know each other.
How about you connect the dots for us? Be specific. With citations.
Vaccines cause autism. You're referring to William Thompsom of CDC withholding the data that supported African American kids exposed to the MMR vaccine had a +30% chance of getting autism? That discredit? Or was it about him apologizing to the Wakefield, the guy that found the connection between gut bacteria and brain issues from a MMR vaxx? They've since confirmed that Wakefield's original findings.
By now you should know what I'm about son. Gonna need some citations on this. Gonna need some hard links.
You got the sauce? Or is this pasta gonna stay dry?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
QAnon: Routinely proven to be false by easily verifiable facts and data. NONE of what he's stated to date has been right as far as I'm aware.
Pizzagate: This was a theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor. This was 100% debunked once it was found that it was impossible for the pizza parlor to have had a basement to begin with.
Vaccines: Vaccines don't cause autism. Multiple studies have proven this without a shadow of doubt. Wakefield was publicly discredited and his medical license stripped when it was discovered that his entire study of vaccines and autism was either outright falsified or was conducted improperly so as to give the results he wanted. Nothing has been withheld, and studies since Wakefield have continued to disprove his assertions. The man is a fraud and a liar.
You are factually wrong on every account. None of which changes the fact that these documents clearly show NO evidence of bias, and instead show that PV is continually willing to be incompetent and not bother doing the most basic fact checking if they think they have something they can spin to fit their narrative. It comes back to bite them in the butt every time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This seemingly contradicts the entire rest of your comment.
Also: facts and citations please, otherwise all you got is hot air coming out your ears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They've since confirmed that Wakefield's original findings.
They have since confirmed that Wakefields original findings were 100% fabricated and he has been discredited and de-licensed due to Fraud.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/05/24/doctor-behind-vaccine-autism-link-loses-license/
https: //www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
QAnon = Qless
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So something that you may find interesting if you are on the autism bandwagon. Cuba has the highest rate of vaccinations but extremely low rate of autism. 99.7% of the population has the MMR but their rate of autism is 298 times lower than the US. That alone should make it clear that it isn't vaccines. Currently the one major difference between the US and Cuba is that doctors prescribe acetaminophen for fever in the US and metamizole in Cuba.
It is only a hypothesis at the moment but here is a link. So potentially the blame can more be placed on Tylenol than vaccines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm wondering how zofs own words can be biased
Looked like someone dropped a double deuce up in here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
“uh, yeah. That gives him credibility to me.”
Good to know I can safely ignore the rest of what you said. Saves time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
“When 8chan sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing conspiracy theories. They’re bringing anti-vaxers. They’re kiddie pornographers. And none, I assume, are good people. Actually never mind. They are sending their best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lack of almost everything
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of almost everything
Wut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of almost everything
Username checks out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
Wow, that was great! Marked as funny :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He’s also pushed conspiracy theories like QAnon
Given 4chan's history of trolling simple-minded rubes, do you guys ever think that QAnon (and specifically, the chimps who wear the "We are Q" shirts are being trolled into saying they're the "Q" in LGBTQ? I mean it's kind of an oxymoron - a something-other-than-straight conservative (well, other than priests, and that wide-stance guy) right? How funny would it be for them to freely wear something that broadcasts "I'm not straight!"
I've always wondered this, and when I see the stupid shit they post/say, and those nifty little shirts, I've got to wonder if they're all just being laughed at for the gullible dumbfucks they are.
That you find QAnon credible is funny as hell! Again, marked as funny because you're just hilarious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be biased
...and in so doing, echo what Google is doing with YouTube moderation.
This isn't liberal bias, it's anti-BS bias. Works the same way when someone comes in repeatedly spewing unsubstantiated claims about any liberal-based conspiracy fodder as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"A stay-at-home mother is nothing more than a prostitute on a long-term contract to her husband." This is a logical argument that could easily get banned as "misogynist" because it "offends women," yet it makes a valid political point about feminism.
"Most crime against minorities is committed by others in the same minority group." This makes a valid political point that could easily be construed as "racist."
"Many women who call themselves #metoo victims were well aware that their bosses wanted to sleep with them, and that this was a factor in their having been hired." This makes a valid political point, but could easily be construed as sexist, even though it is easily proven.
Terms like "misogynist" or "racist" are subjective. Justifying censorship by slapping those labels on speech which one finds personally offensive is an example of why ANY censorship is bad.
As for "why should a website be forced to host content with which it disagrees," that makes it a publisher because they are curating content, rather than making their "public space" available to anyone on equal terms, which actually is a basic tenet of "net neutrality."
One could easily ask why a broadband provider should not be allowed to sell its bandwidth for any price the market will bear, rather than letting "power users" get a free ride.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As for "why should a website be forced to host content with which it disagrees," that makes it a publisher because they are curating content, rather than making their "public space" available to anyone on equal terms, which actually is a basic tenet of "net neutrality."
Incorrect! It's been oft-repeated, but apparently needs to be repeated over and over again - the relevant law (CDA Section 230) makes no distinction between platforms or publishers. The argument that moderation turns organizations into publishers is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. All that matters is "did the platform say the thing, or did someone other than the platform say it?" And if someone other than the platform said it, the platform cannot be held liable for it. That's it.
As for the more specific: ...rather than making their "public space" available to anyone on equal terms, which actually is a basic tenet of "net neutrality."
Also incorrect! Net neutrality is not about the moderation of content, but rather the connection to providers of content. The basic tenet of net neutrality is that connection utilities (Internet Service Providers, the people who let you connect to the internet) should be neutral in the provision of access to the internet. It's about making sure that the provider of your pipeline doesn't charge you more for accessing one site, and less for accessing their site, or shenanigans like that.
Net neutrality is about being neutral to the source of content. It doesn't get into the weeds of moderating content based on it being objectionable.
One could easily ask why a broadband provider should not be allowed to sell its bandwidth for any price the market will bear, rather than letting "power users" get a free ride.
One could, but it would be irrelevant to a perceived anti-conservative bias. Please try to stay on topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"A stay-at-home mother..." could easily get "marred" as misogynist because it is: you've absolutely ignored everything else, as clearly stated with "nothing more than", chump. Because you've literally stated that being a mom and a whore is the same thing.
Is that clear enough for your smoothbrain, or am I gonna have to start hallucinating a smart person? I better hallucinate you wrote a hidden post, that would be more productive to the conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It gets labeled as misogynist because it is. The statement has the underlying (and faulty) assumption that the only thing the stay-at-home mother is contributing to the relationship is sex.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, during 2012-2015, most crime in general is committed by others in the same ethnic group (white-on-white, black-on-black, etc.). So limiting the statement to imply that it's only minorities that do this would make it, you guessed it, racist.
Are you claiming that these women somehow took advantage of the hiring manager's sexual interest to get the job? In that case, [citation really needed], but even if they did, it still doesn't justify sexual harassment. And then if your claim also includes the implication that men don't take advantage of their attractiveness to get hired... Yep, sexist.
Not as much as you seem to want to believe. All of your examples are very much not subjectively misogynist, racist, or sexist.
And you also don't understand net neutrality. NN refers to infrastructure, not platforms. NN doesn't care who Twitter bans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Say what now?
[Citation needed.]
Um, what? What political point is that making exactly? Other than their bosses were douches? And how is stating that "easily proven" fact sexist?
Not really.
You mean moderation.
By the government. Done by a private company on their platform it's called moderation and is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. i.e. I don't have to listen to your lies in my house and kick you out if I feel like it.
No, it's moderation. Curation happens prior to publishing, moderation happens post publishing. Websites do moderation, not curation, in the vast majority of cases.
Uh, they do. Anyone can sign up to use social media on the same terms as everyone else.
No, net neutrality has to do with the infrastructure layers, not the application layer.
What? Nobody is getting a free ride on broadband. Everybody is paying for what they are getting. What are you on about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm wondering how Google's own words can be bias
That really was a fresh piss-take on how conspiracy tards actually think. You may have both my funny and my flag bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lack of almost everything
Beat me to it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bro if I didn’t know for a fact how dumb assholes like you are. I would accuse the regulars on here of spoofing this post just so they could shred it like a bored kitten with a roll of toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, I’m gonna have fun with this.
Not…really? I don’t see how a woman staying at home to raise a child is the same thing as a woman selling access to her body for sexual acts.
…legitimately is a misogynistic rant that views a woman who chooses to raise a child as a sex object.
The point is valid, but the reasoning for bringing it up in the first place is racist. It basically says that a given minority (e.g., Black people) can’t complain about interracial crimes committed by the majority (e.g., White-on-Black crime) until they they do something about the intraracial crime. Most crime is intraracial, which means there will always be more Black-on-Black crime than there will be White-on-Black crime — but that doesn’t make the White-on-Black crime any less outrageous when it is something like, say, the murder of Trayvon Martin. The “Black-on-Black crime” argument is a racist deflection and should be regarded as such.
How can you prove that they didn’t feel coerced into trading sex for employment by, say, the fact that employment meant being able to pay the bills? You’re assuming that “many women” willingly went through with such a deal without any coercion on the part of their boss. Hell of an assumption to make there, all things considered.
Nobody here is talking about the government taking away someone’s right to express themselves for being sexist or racist. Private companies have every right not to associate with sexists and racists. That refusal to associate doesn’t equal censorship.
By that logic, the New York Times should be forced to publish content which its editors do not want published within the paper’s pages because those editors curate content for the paper.
Except, no, it isn’t. Network Neutrality is the principle that anyone who connects to the Internet can access the same Internet as everyone else, with the same (general) speed as everyone else, without interference (e.g., data throttling) from their Internet access provider. It doesn’t have anything to do with an interactive web service remaining “neutral” towards the speech its users post.
Because then you get situations where the IAP can pick and choose which sites people will and will not pay more to merely access. If Comcast can charge a fee for accessing Netflix (on top of the fee people pay to watch Netflix) but offer up both access to and membership for its own (inferior) streaming service to Comcast customers free of charge, I fail to see how that benefits anyone but Comcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Only Herrick could start off a criticism of Google with "I'm not allowed to call women hookers anymore"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Oh, not for lack of trying. I attempted spoofing Jhon boi a couple times, but between the dreams of hatefucking Masnick and thinking of all women as two-bit prostitutes I decided it wasn't worth it.
You never go full Hamilton, and you sure as hell never go full Herrick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Before jumping in the lake, check for water first
Ah good old confirmation bias. A 'whistleblower' came forward with what they claimed were incriminating documents and the gullible simple took it as a given that they were incriminating because it supported what they already believed, only to yet again be left with nothing.
You'd think by now they'd have learned, 'check your evidence and sources before trumpeting about how they prove you right', but I suppose in their mindset the fact that they were duped yet again will just feed into the conspiracy theory they cherish so strongly as evidence that Google must just be really good at hiding the real evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I tried it once too... but for me it was extremely difficult to hold back my vomit while I was simultaneously laughing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Semi-colons; how do they work?
I see that Mr. Stone has gone with the full shredded roll, and also; has not denied being the OG AC 🤔
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is why I find the accusations by Herrick of "other posters were mimicking me and forced me to come back" to be completely laughable. Spoof posts are ridiculously easy to pick out.
Wonder what Herrick's piss-poor excuse for coming back this time is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Semi-colons; how do they work?
wtf? lol!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The sad thing is that I can't tell if you're serious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$$$$
Who funds project veritas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I tried it once too... but for me it was extremely difficult to hold back my vomit while I was simultaneously laughing."
That's where you did wrong, then.
The key to simulating a Baghdad Bob/Hamilton/OOTB post is precisely NOT to hold back your vomit. Just make sure you pour it in the textbox and voilá. One classical Baghdad Bob/Hamilton post right there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dude, that would have been like the perfect quote, if only you had left off the first four words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SEMI-COLONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $$$$
A little out of date, but:
https://thinkprogress.org/project-veritas-funding-2e4ef0319195/
(ooh look something called the Donald J Trump Foundation was included, what a shock!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Before jumping in the lake, check for water first
Exactly the same as "Climategate" I and II.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sure, I'll indulge you techies for a bit.
What is Q Anon?
According to the FBI, Q Anon is a domestic terror threat...
https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-terrorism-160000507.html
“[QAno n] posts classified information online to reveal a covert effort, led by President Trump, to dismantle a conspiracy involving ‘deep state’ actors and global elites allegedly engaged in an international child sex trafficking ring.” [Yahoo News, 8/1/19]”
FALSE.
“Q” posts on 4chan and 8chan, clues and tidbits, leading people to figure things out themselves.
Nothing ‘classified’. Review Q drops here https://qmap.pub/
Q kinda maps out what's happening behind the msm spin, which is why its gained such a following, and being attacked for it.
TRUE.
Lots of posts on 8chan requesting “Q” prove (Q Proofs) that he’s working with POTUS, have been acknowledged by Trump via Tweets and media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKR7Srh3uJI&list=PL1wvr5yRwpxk7z5_P_UIcL8sFXUGjR4kU&in dex=2
Too many 'coincidences' to be called chance.
TRUE.
Part of draining the swamp. Clapper, Brennan, Schiff, Comey, Lynch, Clowns in Action (Mudd), Fake Media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox)
The ‘conspiracy’ is the whole Russia Collusion (Hoax), initiated by Hillary after she lost 2016 election, (FISA abuse, Steele Dossier) supported by Obama and his supporters (Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, et al), Clapper turned on Obama by saying it was Obama’s idea to wiretap Trump’s Tower, recall that MSM lambasted Trump for being narcissistic to claim he was being spied on. Too much to get into here.
Probably doesn't make any sense to you anyways. I digress...
A quick intro by prayingmedic will tell you QAnon's origins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vYqqH3-xFY
He deciphers Q drops https://www.youtube.com/user/prayingmedic (but a bit too religious for me)
Fortunately, he's one of many deciphering Q drops...
X22Report https://www.youtube.com/user/X22Report
SGTReport https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2nQYGjfe9I_tgWpqgJorUg
David Janda https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ-qLG1bdWVrHM-Hu2W73CQ (more into medical stuff)
A bunch of randoms in a playlist doing Q proofs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKR7Srh3uJI&list=PL1wvr5yRwpxk7z5_P_UIcL8sFXUGjR4kU&i ndex=2
Some of it is truly a stretch, but some of it is also tough to deny
You don't follow Q, so of course, you wouldn't know.
And if you spent less time talking to yourself (here) with your many accounts, you might have a differing opinion.
Because of the nature of the drops (classified?), Q can't spell it out, you have to decipher it, or figure it out, due diligence required.
Examples (found in Q proofs and videos) are:
Q drops clues to what Trump is doing. I say its about 75% correct, because most of Q's clues seem to pan out, over time
("Future predicts past"?)
However, my biggest criticism for Q would be the times Q has been wrong (misleading). Those are easier for me to remember.
1) declaring the date and time of Hillary's arrest (mis info)
2) that Sessions was doing really good behind the scenes work to flesh out bad actors (mis info)
3) military tribunals are going to start Jan 1, 2019
One can call it intentionally misleading the bad guys (actors) who also have access to the drops. Or just feeding the shills with datapoints to help discredit Q's clues. And there are quite a few shills.
So I'm watching Q, he's right most of the time. It's why they're (DS) trying to shut him down by taking away 8chan's ISPs.
Some call it censorship.
It was really funny when NYT credited 8chan for the Norweigian shooter's manifesto, when the site was down.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/fake-news-ny-times-says-norwegian-terrorist-posted-ma nifesto-on-8chan-before-attack-except-8chan-has-been-down-for-a-week/
Find out (decide) for yourself whether Q Anon is a LARP, a psyop, or "for real". I've already said my peace about it.
Some of you have also made your opinions clear about Q.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I generally like Futurama references, but, when it comes to that meme, I'm not a huge fan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Have we reached peak bullshit?
"leading people to figure things out themselves"
Most people conclude that ... Qanon is bullshit,
there are a few useful idiots remaining however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bro. You need mental heath care bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey bro. You should stick to your day job of asking if “I’d like fries with that?”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he honestly thought we wouldn’t recognise him this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He honestly thought he could spout the same shit and not be recognized?
...Only in the barren, desolate void that is "Herrick's Brain" Funland...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dude. You've been played by 4chan hoaxers who hooked naive idiots.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n 900531
Don't be a naive idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I think you could have just gone with "the nutty conspir
"The nutty conspiracy isn’t the document leak, it’s the way their fans have been reacting to it."
No conspiracy is needed when what is posited is what the entire extreme right wing so dearly WANTS and NEEDS to hear - that the reason they're being treated like pariahs online is NOT because the main majority happens to dislike their messages of "Black men want our wimmin!" and "Jewish conspiracy is behind everything I tell you!!".
Racists and bigots just hate to have to own the fact that their opinions are bigoted and racist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think people mix up The National Enquirer with Weekly World News. The former is as you say trash, but generally reports on real stuff. Not usually important stuff, but real - what celebrity they got photos of sunbathing nude, and the like. Weekly World News is the one with completely made up stuff like bat boy and alien abductions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"On 27 August 2014, Dr. Hooker’s article published in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration that concluded “African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis” was removed from public domain due to issues of conflict of interest and the questionable validity of its methods... As the CDC noted, the authors of that study suggested that the most likely explanation for the moderate correlation between autism and vaccination in young children was the existence of immunization requirements for autistic children enrolled in special education preschool programs."
So just another made up conspiracy theory. I mean obviously Edmund will not be susceptible to evidence but for anyone else.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-medicine/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What is Pizzagate?
Jeffrey Epstein pretty much proved that there's something going on there in DC.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/9/1870513/-Jeffrey-Epstein-is-Pizzagate
MSM has been covering for (protecting) the democrats for a long time,
https://www.dailywire.com/news/20982/multiple-democrats-currently-involved-child-sex-ryan-saavedra
"what is becoming a disturbing pattern of Democratic politicians involved in crimes and allegations of child sexual abuse —
scandals largely ignored by the media." DW 9/13/17
but have no issue exposing republicans for those same crimes.
http://goodizen.com/list-of-convicted-republican-pedophiles/
Why do you think that is?
Maybe its because Epstein/Clinton-Podesta/Trump etal were democrats?
(speculation) He wouldn't have been using these kids to blackmail politicians, could he?
Pizzagate was a loony conspiracy theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Lots of information there, explaining to normies (normal people) why the allegations were bogus
Lots of bs stuff piled on to make sure no one believed anything connected to it.
But yet, when Anthony Weiner's laptop was seized by the NYPD in 2016 (because he was sexting a minor),
they found a folder labelled 'Insurance' containing 650k of Clinton's emails.
https://truepundit.com/nypd-turns-against-the-fbi-seized-laptop-shows-hillary-clinton-covere d-up-weiners-alleged-sex-crimes-with-15-yr-old-during-election/
But it all went away after the FBI (Comey) confiscated Weiner's laptop from the NYPD.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/search-warrant-for-anthony-weiners-laptop-unsealed_2529665.html
"The Weiner laptop turned out to have a trove of Clinton’s emails containing classified information and emails from the first three months of her term as State Secretary—emails that the FBI had not obtained before, Comey said."
Which significantly differs from what the NYPD guys found.
Did you know Weiner is Huma Abedin's husband?
Did you know Abedin is a long time personal aide to Hillary?
Now, a bunch of NYPD guys are just dying, naturally
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/9th-nypd-officer-suicide-nypd-commissioner-james-oneill-makes -plea-to-officers-after-recent-suicides-2019-08-15/
especially the ones connected to the original case.
https://totalrehash.com/nypd-chief-commits-suicide-1-month-before-retiring-was-directly-involv ed-in-anthony-weiner-laptop-computer-evidence-handling/
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=124448
&q uot;There were a total of 12 individuals who saw Anthony Weiner’s Laptop computer, 9 of those 12 people are dead now." SotN 6/28/19
It's a fad, even Epstein killed himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide.html
Seems anyone who's investigating, or being investigated for, child trafficking, has suicidal tendencies (or just dies).
Not limited to law enforcement.
https://grandmageri422.me/2019/06/10/two-former-gop-state-senators-found-murdered-withi n-two-days-of-one-another-now-hillary-clintons-brother-dies-of-unknown-causes/
So yeah, Pizzagate is real. If you're a reporter/journalist/blogger, don't investigate it if you know any better.
It's better to toe-the-msm-line and say its a loony conspiracy theory, then try to prove otherwise.
How does Epstein play into Pizzagate? He provided the girls. Under age girls. You can call it child trafficking.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7371693/Jean-Luc-Brunel-gave-Jeffrey-Epstein-t hree-poor-12-year-old-triplets-France-birthday-present.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-dead-m odel-and-the-dirty-billionaire
https://pagesix.com/2015/01/09/modeling-honcho-allegedly-gave-epstein -young-models-for-orgy/
If Weinstein can do it for aspiring actors, Epstein can do it for aspiring models.
Did I mention he had an island? Laced with cameras? That the FBI recently raided?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-investigators-raid-epsteins-pedophile-island
by "At least a dozen members of Customs and Border Protection and the FBI"
If only the FBI were involved, they'd probably find nothing, like they did in NYC.
Let's hope the CBP keep them honest.
Anyway, there are others with more time than I do, have done a better job explaining it all
https://archive.is/fKqCg is a good synopsis.
It's why the right wingers went nuts over it.
I call that 'Snopespin'. A 'straw man' argument, purposely promoted to be easily taken apart.
Make an absurd statement around a bit of truth, and no one will believe the truth.
Wrap a lie (or two) around the truth and no one will listen to any details.
Did I mention shills exist to help muddy the waters of public opinion?
What is the truth? Epstein trafficked under age girls, for the rich.
Recorded the interactions as insurance/blackmail/leverage.
Did Hillary run it? Of course not. She just used the services for her husband.
How many times did Bill say he was on the "Lolita Express"? (4).
https://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971
How many times did his name show up on the flight manifests? (26).
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1507315-epstein-flight-manifests.html
Did Democrats eat the kids? Seriously? (No)
They need these kids to maintain their supply chain. (trafficking)
Survivors like Virginia Roberts Giuffre can tell you all about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLAzubOpOtg
and she's not alone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDQJe0PIwbY
Fortunately, Trump was elected in 2016 and signed that 12/21/17 executive order to go after child traffickers.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-perso ns-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/
How do you explain Epstein getting jail time for molesting Minors in 2008 and nobody heard about it until now?
Why didn't Obama (Hillary's boss) go after the Pizzagate allegations? Investigate it to prove it was patently false? Because they all knew each other and covering each others backsides?
Any documents proving Epstein's guilt in 2008 were sealed, until recently.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451613-judge-orders-release-of-sealed-document-in-jeff rey-epstein-case
Which is why Epstein had to go. Too many people in high places, implicated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What else would you expect from someone who names himself after a character who has been wronged by society, out seeking justified revenge on all his enemies?
Although the fictional Edmond D (an honorable, intelligent man) would probably be disgusted at this conspiracy theorist who has borrowed his name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hm... would that be the James Edwards incident that you refer to? https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/the_enquirer_makes_a_bid_for_a.php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
A conspiracy theory/hoax that has no basis in reality.
So he's an internet troll who posts stuff so general and vague it could be taken to mean just about anything. Got it.
So he's got nothing then.
That just proves Trump is extremely gullible and will re-post whatever strikes his fancy. Also, if he was actually working with Trump, then it would be classified, wouldn't it?
Only to be refilled by Trump putting in his only family and other people from Fox. Lol.
It's not a hoax if there is evidence proving Russia did attempt to collude with Trump. Oh, would you look at that, evidence!
Only because I live in reality where facts matter. You have none to support any of those assertions.
Somebody already debunked this down below.
You mean people who have failed to do proper fact checking.
Etc....
If it's a stretch then that would seem to imply it's not true.
I'm sorry, did you just presume to know what I do and do not follow? I've followed Q enough to know it's a conspiracy theory or hoax, or both.
Um, what? That's some massive projection you got going on there.
You just got done explaining how none of it was classified. Get your lies straight at least.
That's not how it works. Classified documents are regularly leaked and published by news outlets. If he has actual proof, why doesn't he just come out and say it instead of leading everyone on a wild goose chase based on clues that are too vague to attribute to anything.
Why not just come out and say exactly what he is doing?
Well if he really WAS working with Trump then he would be right 100% of the time.
Says something about his veracity then.
That's not how good misinformation campaigns work. Especially when 75% is correct.
Such as yourself?
He's really not as already explained.
You don't get out much, do you?
Censorship is only done by the government. ISPs kicking them off is just business.
And this has to do with what, exactly? Besides, the NYT corrected that and stated that the online message board it was posted to was incorrectly listed as 8chan. Come on man, keep up.
None of the above. It's a conspiracy theory and a hoax. (Do you even know what a LARP is? Because that definitely ain't it.)
Begone then.
Yes, based on facts and reality. Not delusions and rejections of easily verifiable facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next Item for TechDirt to have fun with...
... would be this article commented on by Tim Pool - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_fDgR_xHs . Then again, been a lot of crickets from TechDirt in light of the other issue going on with Tim and the MINDS folks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krG0Ekvkz1A&t=909s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is a singular garbage fire of a post. I’m sure you’re really sad that 8chan is down. But no one here cares about your bullshit conspiracy rantings bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No need to thank me bro
https://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
First you say Pizzagate is real, then you say it's fake and a conspiracy theory, then you say it's real again. Dude, pick one.
But as the other AC said, yeah, that is steaming pile of crap if ever I saw one. Especially considering half those links disprove your entire theory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Next Item for TechDirt to have fun with...
There's a submit story link to use if you want something to be covered. Not submitting a story then whining when they don't magically pick the subject you're interested in is not a good tactic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Latino vote fixing
To me the most damning thing in the PV release are some documebts under the "partisanship" folder which show that a subset of google employees worked hard to improve the latino voter turnout in the 2016 presidential election. The documents also clearly show the motive behind this: to swing key states away from trump.
Teo quote from a googler behind this effort, in the context of addressing hillary's loss, read:
"We tried so hard..."
"... We never expected 29% of latinx voters to choose trump".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
None of those things are illegal, against the law, or conspiratorial in any way. You literally are saying that people getting other people to get out and vote is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Republicans just think that they must be, because they interfere with their minority voter disenfranchosement tactics and other election manipulations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Their complaint is based on what they do. When they "get out the vote," they are very careful to only get out Republicans. That is because they regard people who might vote Democratic as un-American, and they would bar all of them from voting, if only it weren't for that un-American Fourteenth Amendment.
So naturally, when Democrats get out the vote these people assume they are getting out only un-Americans, and leaving good American Republicans sitting at home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You folks are the perfect shining real life examples of successful Zio social engineering. More plausible than anything is that an authentic whistle blower would be painted as a ‘nut’ on the google-controlled web and the Zio owned media. Keep reinforcing the tyranny with your emotionally-bound conditioned responses to the authority beloved brothers and sisters of the human race.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What does any of this have to do with Phantasy Star, Kamen Rider, or a Japanese vehicle?
Then I'm sure you have a perfectly good, reasonable, and logical explanation for why the "search blacklist" he shows off in the video contains a host of sites that can still be found via a Google search? Including some of Google's own sites, like Drive, and Gmail? Or why it says at the top of the file that it's a blacklist for Google Now, a currently defunct service, instead of for Google Search?
Also, I'd really love to hear why we shouldn't consider him a 'nut' for claiming that Google was going to send assassin's after him. Please, do explain that one.
Hahahaha!!! ...oh wait, you're serious. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"More plausible"
Yes, yes, a massive worldwide conspiracy, that's both secret and well known to you, is far more plausible than one guy with an axe to grind making claims that aren't backed by evidence pats hand. Now, run along while the adults talk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whistle blower
The moment an emolyee tries to tell the truth you can bet your last cent the HUGE amounts of money and time will be spent trying to destroy him/her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]