Internal Google Leak Reveals ‘Blacklist’ Used To Skew Search Results

Technocrats at Google lied about how they personally manipulate search results and then tried to cover it up. Now, they are busted in the act. Furthermore, Google CEO Pinchai may have lied to Congress when under oath. ⁃ TN Editor

Following Breitbart News’ latest bombshell report on Google’s blacklisting of pro-life YouTube videos, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) commented on the company’s manipulative actions. Rep. Gohmert told Breitbart News: “If Mr. Pichai lied to Congress, he was under oath and it would be a criminal matter for a Grand Jury.”

Breitbart News recently published yet another leak from within Google, which reveals that YouTube has manually intervened to blacklist pro-life videos in its search results on numerous occasions. It was further revealed that Google often engages in “manual actions” in order to correct controversial search results in their search product, as well as their Google Home and Google Assistant device search results. Some of the altered search results reportedly relate to Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

Breitbart News reached out to Rep. Louie Gohmert for comment on the issue. In a written statement to Breitbart News, Gohmert said:

The information leaked from Google certainly raises yet another concern of Google and YouTube subjectivity and manual manipulation of search results.  If Mr. Pichai lied to Congress, he was under oath and it would be a criminal matter for a Grand Jury. His defense would become more inconsequential by a ‘Trust & Safety Team’ verification that there were ‘huge teams’ at Google involved in determining the manual manipulations that Mr. Pichai testified were not happening.

Regardless, this issue is more reinforcement for my bill (H.R.492) that would remove large social media companies’ immunity from lawsuits. This immunity was provided when these types of internet outlets were argued to be simply like ‘town squares’ where anyone had equal access to come and speak without filter. However, now we know that’s not the case. Instead of acting like the neutral platforms they claimed to be in order to obtain their immunity, it appears to me that some have turned Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 into a license to manipulate results, censor political thought with which they disagree, and even defraud with impunity. Testimony from witnesses like Diamond and Silk that raise issues of potential deception and fraud should be heard in court.

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about the revelations in the article as well:

Read full story here…




Facebook Employees Accuse It Of Being Cult-Like

There are a number of factors, including culture, peer-pressure and job evaluation processes, all of which spin into an internal echo-chamber that produces the Technocrat group-think that so angers outsiders. ⁃ TN Editor

At a company-wide town hall in early October, numerous Facebook employees got in line to speak about their experiences with sexual harassment.

The company called the special town hall after head of policy Joel Kaplan caused an internal uproar for appearing at the congressional hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. A young female employee was among those who got up to speak, addressing her comments directly to COO Sheryl Sandberg.

“I was reticent to speak, Sheryl, because the pressure for us to act as though everything is fine and that we love working here is so great that it hurts,” she said, according to multiple former Facebook employees who witnessed the event.

“There shouldn’t be this pressure to pretend to love something when I don’t feel this way,” said the employee, setting off a wave of applause from her colleagues at the emotional town hall in Menlo Park, California.

The episode speaks to an atmosphere at Facebook in which employees feel pressure to place the company above all else in their lives, fall in line with their manager’s orders and force cordiality with their colleagues so they can advance. Several former employees likened the culture to a “cult.”

This culture has contributed to the company’s well-publicized wave of scandals over the last two years, such as governments spreading misinformation to try to influence elections and the misuse of private user data, according to many people who worked there during this period. They say Facebook might have have caught some of these problems sooner if employees were encouraged to deliver honest feedback. Amid these scandals, Facebook’s share price fell nearly 30 percent in 2018 and nearly 40 percent since a peak in July, resulting in a loss of more than $252 billion in market capitalization.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s reputation as being one of the best places in Silicon Valley to work is starting to show some cracks. According to Glassdoor, which lets employees anonymously review their workplaces, Facebook fell from being the best place to work in the U.S. to No. 7 in the last year.

But employees don’t complain in the workplace.

“There’s a real culture of ‘Even if you are f—ing miserable, you need to act like you love this place,'” said one ex-employee who left in October. “It is not OK to act like this is not the best place to work.”

This account is based on conversations with more than a dozen former Facebook employees who left between late 2016 and the end of 2018. These people requested anonymity in describing Facebook’s work culture, including its “stack ranking” employee performance evaluation system and their experiences with it, because none is authorized by Facebook to talk about their time there. This stack ranking system is similar to the one that was notoriously used by Microsoft before the company abandoned it in 2013, the former Facebook employees said.

Facebook declined to comment on former employees’ characterization of the work place as “cult-like.”

Inside the bubble

Former employees describe a top-down approach where major decisions are made by the company’s leadership, and employees are discouraged from voicing dissent — in direct contradiction to one of Sandberg’s mantras, “authentic self.”

For instance, at an all-hands meeting in early 2017, one employee asked Facebook Vice President David Fischer a tough question about a company program. Fischer took the question and answered, but within hours, the employee and his managers received angry calls from the team running that program, this person said.

“I never felt it was an environment that truly encouraged ‘authentic self’ and encouraged real dissent because the times I personally did it, I always got calls,” said the former manager, who left the company in early 2018.

The sentiment was echoed by another employee who left in 2017.

“What comes with scale and larger operations is you can’t afford to have too much individual voice,” said this person. “If you have an army, the larger the army is, the less individuals have voice. They have to follow the leader.”

In this employee’s two years at Facebook, his team grew from a few people to more than 50. He said “it was very much implied” to him and his teammates that they trust their leaders, follow orders and avoid having hard conversations.

The company’s culture of no-dissent prevented employees from speaking up about the impact that News Feed had on influencing the 2016 U.S. election, this person added.

Read full story here…




Facebook’s Anti-Christian Bias Hits Franklin Graham

Facebook’s AI censorship program tagged Franklin Graham but his large public profile forced an apology and reinstatement. How many other ‘little people’ have been banned that never come to the surface because they have no voice? As in China, Technocracy in America is blatantly anti-Christian and will increasingly be seen and felt. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Evangelist Franklin Graham on Sunday accused Facebook of personally attacking him after the company banned him from the platform for 24 hours over a post he published in 2016.

“Why are they going back to 2016,” Graham, the president of the evangelism organization Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said on Fox News after discussing how the social media platform moderates content on a day-to-day basis.

“I think it was just really a personal attack toward me.”

His comments came a day after a Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Charlotte Observer that Graham had been banned from the site for 24 hours last week over the contents of a 2016 post.

The spokesperson said that Graham was mistakenly banned from the site after the post in question was flagged by its content review team for violating a company policy banning “dehumanizing language” and excluding people based on factors like sexual orientation and race.

The post had targeted Bruce Springsteen for canceling a North Carolina concert at the time due to the state’s House Bill 2, or “bathroom bill.”

“He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards,’” Graham said in reference to the singer in the post. “Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands.”

Graham’s page has since been reinstated.

“The problem with Facebook, if you disagree with their position on sexual orientation then you could be classified as hate speech, or that you’re a racist. This is a problem,” Graham said Sunday of the social media company.

“The Bible is truth and I would hope [Facebook] would look to the Bible and get some instruction from God’s word.”

Read full story here…




Censorship is Rising And Free Speech Is Diminishing Throughout The World

Forcing compliance requires muzzling your speech, whether its shadow-banning, censorship, label lynching or faux hate-speech. The only practitioners of censorship are autocrats and in most cases, Technocrats. This dangerous trend is producing many martyrs who pay with their very life. ⁃ TN Editor

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that criticism of Muhammad constitutes incitement to hatred — meaning that in Europe, criticizing Muhammad is no longer protected free speech.

What the court has actually done, however, is rule out the possibility of any debate in which a range of various experts and members of the public could take part. Now, it seems, the only views that will be respected in the public forum are those of devout Muslims.

Underage marriages are considered by some countries child abuse or statutory rape, but are acceptable under shari’a law; they also take place in Muslim communities in Western countries such as the UK. This alone is a major reason why platforms must be found to debate the issue instead of sweeping it, as something offensive, under the carpet. Ignoring it is offensive.

Moreover, as some Muslims are often offended by even small matters regarding their faith, such as a toy teddy bear named Mohammad or a prisoner on death row declared innocent — so that mobs take to the streets to condemn, or even kill, those individuals — what now will not be censored in the West?

There are, of course, social settings where it pays to watch your words. Saying you fancy the looks of a mafioso’s new girlfriend could well prove fatal. Spending time with a bunch of Hamas terrorists while expressing your love for Israel might not lead to your premature demise. In London today, young men who make remarks or play music to other youths on the street can wind up stabbed to death. A recent comment on The Independent website claims, “In this country [the UK], some views, regardless of how valid and logical, can result in anything from public rebuke to loss of a job to violence.”

For the most part, we learn how to avoid words or actions that may offend someone or some group, especially if it is known to be prone to violence. Yet these misfortunes are rare and we live our lives on the assumption that in democratic countries, we can speak freely within the norms of civil society. We recognize that in many countries, racist, homophobic, antisemitic, or “Islamophobic” hate speech can be reported to the police and lead to the arrest and eventual trial of the speaker. The United States’ First Amendment to its Constitution protects its citizens from prosecution for free speech, except where there is a credible threat of “Imminent lawless action.”

If angry exchanges take place, they are just a consequence of living in countries where free speech and unfettered opinion are cherished. We have seen what happens in countries where there is no free speech –as the Soviet Union or present day Pakistan (herehere and here); it often is not pretty and in much of the West is regarded as well worth the trade-off.

Particular sensitivities surround religious ideas, and histories. Nowhere is this more apparent today than in the instance of Islam, where anything untoward, especially statements that even a few people may consider blasphemous — such as young schoolchildren naming a toy teddy bear Mohammad, a common enough name in the Sudan — might be treated as criminal offences. In the West, within secular democratic states, most churches mercifully appear no longer interested in controlling matters such as blasphemy. When I lived in the Irish Republic in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Catholic Church held a tight grip on society. Books were banned, including by James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence and all of Sigmund Freud. Films and plays were also banned or censored. The intolerant ban on Catholicsstudying at Trinity College Dublin perpetuated injustice. Since the 1960s, however, we now have same-sex marriage, women’s right to abortion, and an openly gay Taoiseach (Prime Minister). This year, on October 6, a majority of the Irish voted in a referendum to abolish the blasphemy law that had been in its constitution since 1937. The country has liberalized remarkably.

Ironically, while Ireland’s 2010 blasphemy law was still technically on the books (although never actually implemented ), the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – consisting of 56 mostly Muslim states plus “Palestine” — cited it in 2009 during an attempt to impose an international blasphemy law on the UN. Also in 2009, the government had passed a new Irish Defamation Act that contained a full definition of the blasphemy law (the one abolished this year). This vote took place during a committee meeting for the 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council. The proposal, made on behalf of the OIC by Pakistan, used the Irish definition:

38.1 States parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents to that religion.

We do not know if the principal motivation for the OIC came less from a concern about religions that Muslims might consider entirely false, abrogated and inferior, such as Judaism or Christianity, or more from a concern that no one should be allowed to criticize Islam.

In any event, Ireland finally woke up to the injustice of its blasphemy law, and the damage it was doing to its growing reputation as a country purporting to observe human rights.

Read full story here…




Dragonfly: Congress Hammers Google CEO On Censorship Plans In China

Congress does not understand the natural affinity between Technocrats at Google and Technocrats in China, where the object of progressive technology is social engineering. Whatever Google does in China will be done in the U.S. as well. ⁃ TN Editor

Google CEO Sundar Pichai came under fire from lawmakers on Tuesday over the company’s secretive plan to launch a censored search engine in China.

During a hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee, Pichai faced sustained questions over the China plan, known as Dragonfly, which would blacklist broad categories of information about democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest.

The hearing began with an opening statement from Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who said launching a censored search engine in China would “strengthen China’s system of surveillance and repression.” McCarthy questioned whether it was the role of American companies to be “instruments of freedom or instruments of control.”

Pichai read prepared remarks, stating “even as we expand into new markets, we never forget our American roots.” He added: “I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way. To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests.”

The lawmakers questioned Pichai on a broad variety of subjects. Several Republicans on the committee complained that Google displayed too many negative stories about them in its search results, and claimed that there was “bias against conservatives” on the platform. They also asked about recent revelations of data leaks affecting millions of Google users, Android location tracking, and Google’s work to combat white supremacist content on YouTube.

It was not until Pichai began to face questions on China that he began to look at times uncomfortable.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., told Pichai that the Dragonfly plan seemed to be “completely inconsistent” with Google’s recently launched artificial intelligence principles, which state that the company will not “design or deploy” technologies whose purpose “contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”

“It’s hard to imagine you could operate in the Chinese market under the current government framework and maintain a commitment to universal values, such as freedom of expression and personal privacy,” Cicilline said.

Pichai repeatedly insisted that Dragonfly was an “internal effort” and that Google currently had “no plans to launch a search service in China.” Asked to confirm that the company would not launch “a tool for surveillance and censorship in China,” Pichai declined to answer, instead saying that he was committed to “providing users with information, and so we always — we think it’s ideal to explore possibilities. … We’ll be very thoughtful, and we will engage widely as we make progress.”

Pichai’s claim that the company does not have a plan to launch the search engine in China contradicted a leaked transcript from a private meeting inside the company. In the transcript, the company’s search chief Ben Gomes discussed an aim to roll out the service between January and April 2019. For Pichai’s statement to Congress to be truthful, there is only one possibility: that the company has put the brakes on Dragonfly since The Intercept first exposed the project in August.

Read full story here…




China’s Blacklists Millions From Travel Who Have Low Social Credit Scores

China aims to bankrupt ‘untrustworthy’ citizens, driving them to extinction. This is the harbinger of total Scientific Dictatorship where the ‘system’ does all the thinking and simply bans under-performers. No appeal or dissent is allowed. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Millions of Chinese nationals have been blocked from booking flights or trains as Beijing seeks to implement its controversial “social credit” system, which allows the government to closely monitor and judge each of its 1.3 billion citizens based on their behaviour and activity.

The system, to be rolled out by 2020, aims to make it “difficult to move” for those deemed “untrustworthy”, according to a detailed plan published by the government this week.

It will be used to reward or punish people and organisations for “trustworthiness” across a range of measures.

A key part of the plan not only involves blacklisting people with low social credibility scores, but also “publicly disclosing the records of enterprises and individuals’ untrustworthiness on a regular basis”.

The plan stated: “We will improve the credit blacklist system, publicly disclose the records of enterprises and individuals’ untrustworthiness on a regular basis, and form a pattern of distrust and punishment.”

For those deemed untrustworthy, “everywhere is limited, and it is difficult to move, so that those who violate the law and lose the trust will pay a heavy price”.

The credit system is already being rolled out in some areas and in recent months the Chinese state has blocked millions of people from booking flights and high-speed trains.

According to the state-run news outlet Global Times, as of May this year, the government had blocked 11.14 million people from flights and 4.25 million from taking high-speed train trips.

The state has also begun to clamp down on luxury options: 3 million people are barred from getting business class train tickets, according to Channel News Asia.

The aim, according to Hou Yunchun, former deputy director of the development research centre of the State Council, is to make “discredited people become bankrupt”, he said earlier this year.

Read full story here…




Leaked: Google Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search Results

Many web sites have been selectively ‘shadow-banned’ by Google for years. This means pushing certain stories off the first page of a search, onto deeper pages where most people will never look. Now some concrete evidence is surfacing. ⁃ TN Editor

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued. (RELATED: Google Search Labels Republican Women ‘Enablers’)

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures.

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told The DCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

Read full story here…




Internet Is Splitting In Two As Dispute With China Emerges

Because China is a full-blown Technocracy, strategic values are polar opposites to freedom and liberty. China wants total control over content and the minds that consume it, but Technocrats in the U.S. are not far behind. ⁃ TN Editor

Western bigwigs were a no-show at China’s biggest web conference. But in their absence, the local overseers of the nation’s technology industry were only too happy to plug their unique vision for the global internet.

Unlike 2017, when Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai graced the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, this year’s gathering was a decidedly domestic affair, presided over by the likes of Tencent Holdings Ltd. Chairman Ma Huateng. Given the floor, they again pushed the concept of a rigidly policed medium that — nonetheless — is a wellspring of innovation to revolutionize businesses and modernize the Chinese economy.

That first part flies in the face of the familiar U.S.-led model, yet has produced two of the world’s 10 most valuable companies: Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent. That rapid ascendancy prompted former Google honcho Eric Schmidt to declare the internet will split down the middle within the next decade, as authoritarian governments adopt China’s all-encompassing controls.

On one side is a cyberspace arena that espouses open communication while the other is a walled-off, thoroughly scrubbed world where many are eager to sign away their data in exchange for services. At China’s most important tech industry confab this week, Ma and a clutch of government officials stressed it’s the country’s destiny to become an internet power, and called for more balanced governance of cyberspace.

China’s regulators have trumpeted its concept of “cyber-sovereignty” since the inaugural conference in 2014. But the dichotomy between the American and Chinese tech industries has never attracted as much scrutiny as today, when the world’s two richest countries are butting heads in a conflict that may shape a new world order. As U.S. icons like Google and Facebook come under fire for privacy violations and enabling hate speech, their Chinese counterparts are touting theirs as the superior model: one geared toward the interests of the state.

“The Chinese economy is a vast ocean. Storms cannot disrupt it,” Ma, who is also known as Pony, told delegates. “This ocean holds massive market potential and also great room for innovation. I believe, this isn’t just a development opportunity for the internet industry, but for all sectors. It’s not just an opportunity for China, but for the entire world.”

Remarks from Chinese President Xi Jinping read out at the start of the conference called for “mutual respect” in cyberspace between the two nations. The current rift in their approaches however has profound implications and may bar the likes of Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc. from any meaningful presence in the world’s largest internet and mobile arena. It’s another manifestation of what former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson called an “economic iron curtain” dividing the world if the two nations fail to resolve their strategic differences.

Unlike the relatively hands-off American model, the Chinese approach is geared toward one over-arching imperative — propelling and safeguarding the ruling Communist Party. Anything deemed to undermine that objective, from pornography and addictive games to pockets of dissent, is ruthlessly rooted out when discovered. To wit, China has the lowest level of internet freedom among 65 countries polled by Freedom House.

Critics of the model say players like Alibaba and Tencent thrive because Beijing dampens competition by making it nigh-impossible for global players such as Facebook to operate. They say the government’s heavy hand and unpredictability is counter-productive. Exhibit A: a months-long crackdown on gaming that helped wipe out more than $200 billion of Tencent’s market value this year. That cultivates a pervasive climate of fear, said Gary Rieschel, founding partner at Qiming Venture Partners.

“Every time you see one of these vast losses, you can see the Chinese government,” he said. “We’ve never seen a country solve the issues that China is trying to solve, when your best and brightest people aren’t fully committed to being there. This is new territory, we’ve not seen this before.”

Read full story here…




Former Facebook Engineer Explains Toxic Culture And Why He Quit

This is a critical look into the internal turmoil at Facebook. Former employee Brian Amerige warns of a small minority of overtly belligerent ‘social justice warriors” who are driving censorship at Facebook, and they viciously denigrate any critic. ⁃ TN Editor

A former senior Facebook engineer who wrote a memo earlier this year decrying the social media giant’s “political monoculture” told Fox News on Tuesday night that the company has a “vocal minority” intent on implementing “social justice policies across our mission.”

Brian Amerige, whose last day at Facebook was Friday, told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that “you can’t have conversations about … anything that’s a tenet of the social justice ideology, effectively, without being attacked personally.” He added that the company’s recent policy cracking down on so-called hate speech was a particularly sensitive topic.

“You can’t even have conversations about that policy inside the company without having your character attacked — and I’ve experienced this personally — without being called a sexist or a racist or a transphobe or an Islamophobe,” said Amerige.

Amerige drew national attention in August when he penned an internal memo, “We Have a Problem With Political Diversity.” The memo, which was later leaked to The New York Times, stated that Facebook employees “claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”

On Tuesday, Amerige said that Facebook executives had taken his concerns seriously and had worked with him to improve the hate speech policy. However, he said rank-and-file, left-leaning employees did not share his concerns.

“The real concerning thing that’s happening here is that even though this is a minority of employees in the company, unfortunately, I’m not sure that Facebook leadership knows how to push back against them,” Amerige said. “They’re unbelievably belligerent, demanding and hostile not just toward other employees, but toward Facebook leadership directly.”

In an exit memo obtained by Business Insider, Amerige wrote, “I care too deeply about our role in supporting free expression and intellectual diversity to even whole-heartedly attempt the product stuff anymore, and that’s how I know it’s time to go. ” On Tuesday, he criticized the hate speech policy as “dangerous” and “impractical.”

Read full story here…




Google CEO Sundar Pichai Claims Search Engine Has No Political Bias

Sundar Pichai is a Technocrat who is so buried in his own Alice in Wonderland Utopian vision that he cannot see reality right under his nose. Google simply does not see or believe that it has any political bias. This is more dangerous than knowingly applying a political bias. ⁃ TN Editor

Google CEO Sundar Pichai claims in a leaked memo that the company’s search feature has no political bias.

According to the New York Times, following recent reports of a systemic political bias within Google, the company’s CEO Sundar Pichai issued an internal email to employees in which he assured them that the company does not alter its search results for political purposes.

Pichai’s email to employees comes shortly after Breitbart News published a leaked video from inside a Google “TGIF” all-hands meeting from 2016 in which employees and executives alike consoled each other over the success of President Trump in the presidential election.  Shortly after this bombshell, Fox News host Tucker Carlson revealed that Google employees brainstormed ways to alter the tech giant’s search engine in efforts to push back against Trump policies following the President’s proposed travel ban in 2017.

Now, the company’s CEO has reached out to staff members to claim that there is no inherent bias within the company’s search engine and that they do not alter search results for political purposes.

“Recent news stories reference an internal email to suggest that we would compromise the integrity of our Search results for a political end. This is absolutely false,” Pichai wrote in the email, which was obtained by the New York Times. “We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda. The trust our users place in us is our greatest asset and we must always protect it.”

Read full story here…