Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
OverSword

Whistle Blower Leaks Googles Political Bias

42 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps

I hope and pray that what the guy  said about proving that google libeled themselves when they testified to congress because as far as I am concerned, google sucks and I stopped using them long ago - google search, chrome, everything that I could.

Oh, if congress could only break that company up as violators of anti-trust laws, I would be a very happy camper.

GOOGLE SUCKS! put that in your search engine, you freekin' Nazis

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
skliss
2 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Project veritas is a **** show and not a reliable source. They've been caught faking and manufacturing their material.

Not true, it's what left sources say because they dont like what project veritas has discovered. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
42 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

but swaying 1.5 million voters

Oh, like the Russians did :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)

Honestly after doing more research I agree the source is a bit janky.  But I still have no doubt that google is guilty of exactly what it is accused of in this instance.  That picture with the Hillary emails,  is exactly what happened when I googled it a while back.  There was also a now disappeared video of a google exec (Jen Gennai) stating that they would ensure that another election like the one that got trump in office never happens again.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 minutes ago, aztek said:

That's not the one.  The one I was referencing is an undercover video of some woman with a big drink in front of her in a bar openly talking about subverting searches to ensure the 2016 election was never repeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

That's not the one.  The one I was referencing is an undercover video of some woman with a big drink in front of her in a bar openly talking about subverting searches to ensure the 2016 election was never repeated.

i added  the correct video to the post

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
29 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Antitrust and labeling something a public utility have nothing to do with each other...

Apparently, you're the only person on earth who believes that:

Antitrust Laws and Public Utility Regulation

Phillip E. Areeda
The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3003070?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Apparently, you're the only person on earth who believes that:

Antitrust Laws and Public Utility Regulation

Phillip E. Areeda
The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3003070?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I'm thinking you didn't read your own article..just a headline.  The article, which is almost 50 years old, is talking about applying an antitrust law TO public utilities, not using an antitrust law to make something a public utility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
12 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

The article, which is almost 50 years old, is talking about applying an antitrust law TO public utilities, not using an antitrust law to make something a public utility.

I'm thinking you didn't read (or at least comprehend) what I wrote earlier.  The argument is that Google is ALREADY a de facto public utility.  Nobody said antitrust laws would be used to assign Google the status of being a "public utility" (not a legal term, btw).

I know you're trying, but sheesh...try harder.

One of the most famous antitrust cases involved the breakup of the Bell System, a public utility by virtue of its growth and success...like Google:

Breakup of the Bell System

Quote

This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the United States Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[2] AT&T was, at the time, the sole provider of telephone service throughout most of the United States. Furthermore, most telephonic equipment in the United States was produced by its subsidiary, Western Electric. This vertical integration led AT&T to have almost total control over communication technology in the country, which led to the antitrust case, United States v. AT&T. The plaintiff in the court complaint asked the court to order AT&T to divest ownership of Western Electric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 hours ago, skliss said:

Not true, it's what left sources say because they dont like what project veritas has discovered. 

You're living in a fantasy world if that's what you truly believe 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
2 hours ago, hacktorp said:

I'm thinking you didn't read (or at least comprehend) what I wrote earlier.  The argument is that Google is ALREADY a de facto public utility.  Nobody said antitrust laws would be used to assign Google the status of being a "public utility" (not a legal term, btw).

I know you're trying, but sheesh...try harder.

One of the most famous antitrust cases involved the breakup of the Bell System, a public utility by virtue of its growth and success...like Google:

Breakup of the Bell System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Keep up.  You said Google should be labeled a public utility, I said it wouldn't happen because conservatives won't even name the internet, which is used to access Google a public utility.  YOU brought up antitrust laws.  And no, the internet is not a company, like you said.  But, when you started speaking about making Google a public utility, that applies to the infrastructure that runs said being.  In Google's case, it would be it's code, algorithms, and servers.  In the internet's case, it would be the servers, lines, cables, and towers.  You are the one comparing apples to oranges while not really making any sense.  I am showing you how to compare the two. 

Why was the Bell system broken up?  THE INFRASTRUCTURE!  It allowed no other companies to utilize the infrastructure which was being maintained by a great amount of tax dollars to no expense of the company, because it was a NECESSITY.  Now, that is where net neutrality comes in again.  We are allowing companies to use the infrastructure to create local monopolies, and manage how we use our bandwidth.  They create agreements between themselves to not let competitors move in to fix the prices.  Therefore, creating far more of a monopoly than Google.  Don't like Google?  There are DOZENS of other search engines.  Don't like Android phones?  Get an Iphone.  Don't like Chrome?  Opera, Firefox, Edge.  If I don't like my internet provider, I have no other option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, aztek said:

unfreepin' believable. Jen Gennai is the head of “Responsible Innovation” for Google

What happened to the good old days when the mafia guys had nicknames like "gas pipe" and "hammer head"

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

The problem with trying to break up google is that the dems will vote the proposal down. Naturally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Keep up.  You said Google should be labeled a public utility, I said it wouldn't happen because conservatives won't even name the internet, which is used to access Google a public utility.  YOU brought up antitrust laws.  And no, the internet is not a company, like you said.  But, when you started speaking about making Google a public utility, that applies to the infrastructure that runs said being.  In Google's case, it would be it's code, algorithms, and servers.  In the internet's case, it would be the servers, lines, cables, and towers.  You are the one comparing apples to oranges while not really making any sense.  I am showing you how to compare the two. 

Why was the Bell system broken up?  THE INFRASTRUCTURE!  It allowed no other companies to utilize the infrastructure which was being maintained by a great amount of tax dollars to no expense of the company, because it was a NECESSITY.  Now, that is where net neutrality comes in again.  We are allowing companies to use the infrastructure to create local monopolies, and manage how we use our bandwidth.  They create agreements between themselves to not let competitors move in to fix the prices.  Therefore, creating far more of a monopoly than Google.  Don't like Google?  There are DOZENS of other search engines.  Don't like Android phones?  Get an Iphone.  Don't like Chrome?  Opera, Firefox, Edge.  If I don't like my internet provider, I have no other option.  

^^Those are a lot of words that unfortunately make very little sense.  I'm sorry that you are offended someone might suggest Google could face antitrust action, but this is a very widely-discussed topic at the moment (all dated today):

States to Move Forward With Antitrust Probe of Big Tech Firms

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorneys-general-to-move-forward-with-antitrust-probe-of-big-tech-11566247753

The Justice Department is working with states on tech investigation, antitrust chief says

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/20/20814033/justice-department-makan-delrahim-tech-facebook-google-antitrust-law-states

HUGE GROUP OF STATES CONSIDERING ANTITRUST PROBE OF FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, AMAZON, AND APPLE

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/tech-antitrust-investigation-state-attorney-general

Maybe it was my use of the word "utility" that has you all hot and bothered, but that, too, is being used to describe Google by many people who are aware of what is being looked into concerning big tech firms.  You seem to take this Google stuff personally...that's great; I'm glad for your devotion to them.  But try not to get too attached to Google...with their ties to the Chinese, they will not only get investigated for antitrust violations...but espionage as well.

And who ever told you that you have no other options for internet provider?  There are literally hundreds to choose from.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp

This guy, Dr. Robert Epstein, is a researcher and former Hillary Clinton supporter.  He has been studying Google's impact on elections and has been widely quoted of late.

After Hillary declared Epstein's work "debunked" the other day, Epstein today unloaded with a MASSIVE tweet storm you just gotta read:

https://twitter.com/DrREpstein

Suffice to say, both Hillary and Google have been whacked by Epstein's research results...and hard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, hacktorp said:

This guy, Dr. Robert Epstein, is a researcher and former Hillary Clinton supporter.  He has been studying Google's impact on elections and has been widely quoted of late.

After Hillary declared Epstein's work "debunked" the other day, Epstein today unloaded with a MASSIVE tweet storm you just gotta read:

https://twitter.com/DrREpstein

Suffice to say, both Hillary and Google have been whacked by Epstein's research results...and hard.

 
 

A leaked email showed that in 2014 #Google's #EricSchmidt offered to run #Hillary's tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office. https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ 

 

 

#Hillary: #Google poses 3 serious threats to humanity: 1) an obscene level of #surveillance across 200+ platforms, 2) the power to determine what content 2+ billion can or can NOT see (#censorship) (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated ) & 3) invisible #manipulation on a massive scale.

 

 

I just want to add, that Epstein claims that Hilary got 2.5 to 10 million more votes because of manipulations by her tech company but it is trying for me to cut and paste right now.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.