Posted on 05/11/2020 4:31:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dont be evil was explicit to Googles motto and code of conduct for some 15 years. In 2015, Google updated its motto to Do the right thing. Today, Google, which owns YouTube, seems to have altered its motto to Be evil or Do the wrong thingincluding censoring free speech of doctors, scientists, professors, politicians and journalists whose ideas differ from those of Google executives.
This is the next step in the evolution of the Internet, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt lauded Googles purchase of YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006. We now know Schmidts definition of Internet progress ostensibly centers around inducing users to think like himby using YouTube to push assenting views and censor differing perspectives under the guise of legality or neutrality.
On April 27, YouTube deleted a videothat had accumulated over five million viewsof a news conference hosted by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi. The video contained no obscene content; no hate speech; and no copyright violations. The doctors operate a private urgent-care clinic in Bakersfield, California, and they courageously questioned the scientific accuracy of massive, elongated shutdowns extending to the young and healthy: "Do we need to still shelter in place? Our answer is emphatically no...We're actually seeing the patients. Dr. Fauci hasn't seen a patient for 20 years."
YouTubes Unfair Advantage at Taxpayer Expense
Capricious discrimination is wrong. Unless youre YouTube. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram.
Most Americans have never heard of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed in 1996, professedly to keep the Internet clean of pornography, the clause gives platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter special protection against libel that is not afforded to traditional publishersincluding television, newspapers, magazines and book publishers.
Newspapers are liable for anything printed within their pages or websitesincluding external submissionssuch as Letters to the Editor. In contrast, thanks to Section 230YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitterbecause they claim to be platforms (podiums for all ideas versus an editor or promotor of content) have virtually zero liability for what is posted or deleted from their sites. Unfortunately, these so-called platforms increasingly abuse this privilege, acting more like publishers and less like platformscensoring certain content and boosting other content based on political, scientific, cultural or religious perspective.
Not foreseeing the consequences, the Supreme Court tossed the anti-porn portion of Section 230 on First Amendment grounds, while retaining the special perks in Section 230 for online publishers. Result: the exact opposite of what legislators intended. Todays Internet is a breeding ground for graphic sensuality and vitriol melded with the blatant censorship of conservative, libertarian, Judeo-Christian, and other ideas that dont fit the criteria.
Harvard-educated Dr. Robert Epstein former editor of Psychology Today magazine has done copious research regarding Google Search, and its influence on elections. He uncovered the phenomenon known as Search Engine Manipulation Effect.
Up to 10.4 million and as low as 2.6 million votes were swayed in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election by Google Search results, Epsteins research found. Even though I lean left and was publicly supportive of Hillary Clinton, numbers that large tell you that there is no free and fair election anymore, Epstein said of his findings as reported by David A. Patten in the March 2020 issue of Newsmax magazine.
Google, Epstein says, took advantage of the fact that its search engine users assume its results for common queries like Hillary email scandal or best Democratic candidate are neutral and unbiased. In 2016, the results for such searches pushed results that overtly favored Hillary Clinton and liberal ideas.
Epstein further found that Google blacklists right-leaning sites, forcing them outside natural search resultsin favor of left-leaning news sources. It is astonishing that Breitbart and some similar websites are not more present [in Google Search results], given the enormous traffic some of these websites get, Breitbart especially, Epstein told Los Angeles Times. Yahoo and Bing results were found to be considerably more impartial than Googleanother indication that Googles search results favor agenda over accuracy.
Predictably, Google calls Epsteins research the flawed work of an amateur. But Google stands to lose its righteous Dont be evil public imageand significant ad revenueif its worldwide users wake up to its active manipulation of search results, and therefore of election results.
Googles influence on the world, post-COVID-19, extends beyond web censorship. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is being enlisted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to help reimagine New Yorks economy. Using COVID-19 as an excuse, the liberal billionaire behind Google is being invited to tell New Yorkers how they may live for the foreseeable future. Which businesses may open, and howwith an emphasis on telemedicine, remote education and working from home.
Social distancing is rife with issues and also helps Democrats, politically-speaking. Democrats are pushing for voting from home because its more susceptible to influence and fraud. Telemedicine is useful in some cases, but threatens the integrity of patient-doctor relationships. Certainly, there are benefits to having people stay home for work or school, such as family bonding. However, forcing people to stay at home is essentially zookeeping for humans and second, there is no such thing as guaranteed safety, only choices between risks and benefits.
What We Can Do
Consider switching your default Internet search engine to DuckDuckGo, Yahoo or Bing due to Googles censorship of free speech on its search engine and sites it ownsincluding YouTube.
Ultimately, preserving free speech is a bipartisan issue. Left, Right and in-between must come together in this causebecause, once even one small group loses free speechwe all do.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has found bipartisan support (including from Sen. Elizabeth Warren) for dismantling the protection that platform-publishers like YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter gain from Section 230. Unfortunately, Cruz has struggled to find sufficient courageous allies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, is a staunch promoter of perpetuating the perks afforded social media giants in Section 230. So, we must pressure our elected officialsespecially Republicansto challenge Section 230 protections for platforms.
It is the Press which has corrupted our political morals - and it is to the Press we must look for the means of our political regeneration, said Alexander Hamilton. Todays Press is broader than the newspaper of Hamiltons time. Today, all publishersincluding online publishers like YouTube, Facebook and Twitterconstitute the Press and we must hold them to the highest standards. We must support good journalism and media outlets that do promote the truth with our clicks, subscriptions and shares.
Lets also encourage listening to all perspectivesincluding those we despise or consider dangerous. For, whats the point of protecting milk-toast, non-controversial statements that no one would care if one said (or not) anyway?
Use your voice to speak up and pressure your local and national government to promote free speechand end the unfair monopoly of ideas currently held by Google and its subsidiaries.
Time to treat Facebook, U-Tube, and Twitter as public utilities, with no political censorship. This will make the libertarians nervous, but there’s not going to be any liberty at all if the tech lords rule. Would any libertarian want the power monopoly turning off their juice for polical reasons? How about the water monopony?
If you believe in free speech, free yourself of the socialist media and Google. Dump Chrome, it is a tracker. Dump Gmail. It is a tracker. Facebook just plain sucks.
Who are you allow to criticize?
Then, you will know you masters.
Google & SillyCone Valley are evil.
They sure are and they must be avoided
Sorry for my bad spelling:
........
Time to treat Facebook, U-Tube, and Twitter as public utilities, with no political censorship. This will make the libertarians nervous, but theres not going to be any liberty at all if the tech lords rule. Would any libertarians want the power monopoly turning off their juice for political reasons? How about the water monopololy?
Sorry for my bad spelling:
........
Time to treat Facebook, U-Tube, and Twitter as public utilities, with no political censorship. This will make the libertarians nervous, but theres not going to be any liberty at all if the tech lords rule. Would any libertarians want the power monopoly turning off their juice for political reasons? How about the water monopololy?
The other side of the coin: no one is forced to look at Google.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.