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 -

Big Tech’s Blueprint to Stop a Red Wave in 2022


el midgetron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Republicans think a “red wave” is inevitable in November. But the Democrats still have one big advantage: the ever-tightening grip of Big Tech censorship, which will be used to prevent undecided voters from encountering even the most mainstream conservative news in the runup to the next election. Republicans will have a strong message — but what if voters are prevented from hearing it?

In the runup to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Google completely suppressed Breitbart News from its search results. Compared to 2016, Breibart News went into the 2020 election with a 99.7 percent reduction in visibility for its links on Google search. The censorship was so severe, no-name blogs with plagiarized headlines and content would appear in search results before the original Breitbart News articles. On searches for the term “Joe Biden,” Google cut visibility on Breitbart News links to zero.
 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/07/27/bokhari-big-techs-blueprint-to-stop-a-red-wave-in-2022/

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. The damage is done, and been done for six months. The red wave is coming in. The liberal media keeps throwing "what if.." out there, but this is a more republican friendly year then I can remember, going back to Reagan.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google suppressed Breitbart?

 

Did they get some sort of prize? They deserve one. 

 

I don't usually back the blues, but in the states everything is upside down anyway. 

 

Red wave huh. Sounds like a dolphin massacre. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Tech have been boasting about this since February 2021 - Time praises media for fortifying the election (link). Scary thing is how they made it sound like it was a good thing! The media giants literally mucked with not just Breitbart but with lots of conservative website, while simultaneously elevating left-wing sources and pushing the fake narratives from the left. But don't worry, the media couldn't possibly consider doing something like that again :whistle: 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, el midgetron said:

the ever-tightening grip of Big Tech censorship, which will be used to prevent undecided voters from encountering even the most mainstream conservative news in the runup to the next election.

They are targeting white people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Big Tech have been boasting about this since February 2021 - Time praises media for fortifying the election (link). Scary thing is how they made it sound like it was a good thing! The media giants literally mucked with not just Breitbart but with lots of conservative website, while simultaneously elevating left-wing sources and pushing the fake narratives from the left. But don't worry, the media couldn't possibly consider doing something like that again :whistle: 

So lobbying by groups that don't engage in publishing as their core business.

Media just means opinions you don't like.  That's how you rationalise that Murdoch is not MSM.

Not your flavour of legal course-of-conduct or free speech?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'd tend to agree that websites like Google, Facebook, YouTube, and such are sovern companies, only beholden to the stock holders. They can do whatever they please. Unless enough stockholders vote otherwise. Buy the stock and vote, if people really care.

I think the "news" shows that promote half truths, under the auspices of the "whole truth", are the real influencers. They can openly lie, hiding behind it being "opinion", and convince hundreds of millions to the viewpoint they want to sell.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

They are targeting white people.

Not really sure what you mean but I’m interested.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Not really sure what you mean but I’m interested.

That's what Joe said, right? 

If you can't make up your mind, you ain't Black.

Only black people are decisive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Republicans think a “red wave” is inevitable in November. But the Democrats still have one big advantage: the ever-tightening grip of Big Tech censorship, which will be used to prevent undecided voters from encountering even the most mainstream conservative news in the runup to the next election. Republicans will have a strong message — but what if voters are prevented from hearing it?

In the runup to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Google completely suppressed Breitbart News from its search results. Compared to 2016, Breibart News went into the 2020 election with a 99.7 percent reduction in visibility for its links on Google search. The censorship was so severe, no-name blogs with plagiarized headlines and content would appear in search results before the original Breitbart News articles. On searches for the term “Joe Biden,” Google cut visibility on Breitbart News links to zero.
 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/07/27/bokhari-big-techs-blueprint-to-stop-a-red-wave-in-2022/

How do you know you can trust this article?

Doug

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That's what Joe said, right? 

If you can't make up your mind, you ain't Black.

Only black people are decisive. 

So, big tech’s censorship is targeting white people because Joe Biden says you ain’t black people if you aren’t voting for him? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, el midgetron said:

So, big tech’s censorship is targeting white people because Joe Biden says you ain’t black people if you aren’t voting for him? 

That's not what I said.  Just read the words I wrote.

If you cant make up up your mind you are indecisive.  Those are the people Joe said aren't black.

If we have to stick with strict semantic logic when Trump muses over bleach, then we should do the same when Joe talks about indecisive people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

How do you know you can trust this article?

Doug

I guess because I don’t believe the constant stream of BS coming from the MSM. 

How do you know you can trust the MSM after they deceptively edited Trump saying “very fine people” and were able to manipulate you for years into believing he was talking about Nazis? 

Or how they smeared Rittenhouse despite the fact anyone could watch the footage and see for themselves that he only fired his gun in self defense, 

Russian collusion, the Covington Catholic boys, Hunter Biden Laptop, the list could go on and on. Everyone makes mistakes but the MSM only makes mistakes against one side of the isle. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That's not what I said.  Just read the words I wrote.

If you cant make up up your mind you are indecisive.  Those are the people Joe said aren't black.

If we have to stick with strict semantic logic when Trump muses over bleach, then we should do the same when Joe talks about indecisive people.

I guess. However, that conclusion negates the consideration of people being denied access to information that could influence their decision. Maybe the black vote wouldn’t be so balkanized if they weren’t corralled into an informational box by big tech? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

I guess because I don’t believe the constant stream of BS coming from the MSM. 

How do you know you can trust the MSM after they deceptively edited Trump saying “very fine people” and were able to manipulate you for years into believing he was talking about Nazis? 

Or how they smeared Rittenhouse despite the fact anyone could watch the footage and see for themselves that he only fired his gun in self defense, 

Russian collusion, the Covington Catholic boys, Hunter Biden Laptop, the list could go on and on. Everyone makes mistakes but the MSM only makes mistakes against one side of the isle. 

In other words, you don't know whether you can trust it.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

In other words, you don't know whether you can trust it.

Doug

Oh no, I do know I can trust it. I was trying to provide you with a reason,

I can trust it because I read Breitbart and am familiar with their reliability. Just like I am familiar with the reliability of the MSM. 

Anyway, if there is an error or false claim in the article I am open to you enlightening me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, el midgetron said:

I guess. However, that conclusion negates the consideration of people being denied access to information that could influence their decision. Maybe the black vote wouldn’t be so balkanized if they weren’t corralled into an informational box by big tech? 

The assertion is that black people have already made their minds.  Personally, I'd go so far as to say most people have made up their minds. 

You are the one saying the black vote is balkanised.  Joe technically said Black people have already decided.  It would then follow that it's a waste of time campaigning to them.  And we eventually find a politician contradicted themself.

I don't believe Russia Today ever would significantly influence the American voter at the ballot box - whether, or not, there was collusion.  I would question the media's power to alleviate long held greivances of voters.

Personally, I still bear a wariness of The Green's Manifesto from two federal elections ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, el midgetron said:

Oh no, I do know I can trust it. I was trying to provide you with a reason,

I can trust it because I read Breitbart and am familiar with their reliability. Just like I am familiar with the reliability of the MSM. 

Anyway, if there is an error or false claim in the article I am open to you enlightening me. 

You have not offered any reason or rationale for trusting it.  All you are doing is asking me to show that it is not reliable.  As I am not a fan of Breitbart, I would be at a disadvantage in doing that, which I suppose you assume.  But you, being a devotee of that publication cannot offer a reason to trust it.  And that says volumes.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Republicans think a “red wave” is inevitable in November. But the Democrats still have one big advantage: the ever-tightening grip of Big Tech censorship, which will be used to prevent undecided voters from encountering even the most mainstream conservative news in the runup to the next election. Republicans will have a strong message — but what if voters are prevented from hearing it?

In the runup to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Google completely suppressed Breitbart News from its search results. Compared to 2016, Breibart News went into the 2020 election with a 99.7 percent reduction in visibility for its links on Google search. The censorship was so severe, no-name blogs with plagiarized headlines and content would appear in search results before the original Breitbart News articles. On searches for the term “Joe Biden,” Google cut visibility on Breitbart News links to zero.
 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/07/27/bokhari-big-techs-blueprint-to-stop-a-red-wave-in-2022/

Maybe the Democrats are counting on some other advantages.  On abortion law, contraception, gay marriage, transgender issues and even gun control  the majority of Americans do not support the Republican stance.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe the Democrats are counting on some other advantages.  On abortion law, contraception, gay marriage, transgender issues and even gun control  the majority of Americans do not support the Republican stance.

OK @Tatetopa, I'll ask you some insight into the nature of American Humans.

What occupies your thoughts when you're in the queue waiting to vote?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

OK @Tatetopa, I'll ask you some insight into the nature of American Humans.

What occupies your thoughts when you're in the queue waiting to vote?

Beats me.  My state has been voting by mail for the last 20+ years.

So I sit down at my desk or kitchen table with the state voter's pamphlet which can run to 100 pages.  Every candidate at every level has a biography, a policy statement and a list of endorsements.  So I can look at what they say and also who endorses them. In county, city and state races, there is often a good field of choice. On the federal level it is more limited and sometimes it is a matter of the least detestable as it was with Trump and Biden, or even Hillary Clinton and Trump.

I look at candidates  statements about abortion, women's rights, gay issues, transgender issues, gun control, personal responsibility, tax policy, medical care policy and try to pick the best match to represent what I want our country to look like.   I take it seriously, I always vote in every election including local and have done so for 35 years.  Self determination requires effort.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Beats me.  My state has been voting by mail for the last 20+ years.

So I sit down at my desk or kitchen table with the state voter's pamphlet which can run to 100 pages.  Every candidate at every level has a biography, a policy statement and a list of endorsements.  So I can look at what they say and also who endorses them. In county, city and state races, there is often a good field of choice. On the federal level it is more limited and sometimes it is a matter of the least detestable as it was with Trump and Biden, or even Hillary Clinton and Trump.

I look at candidates  statements about abortion, women's rights, gay issues, transgender issues, gun control, personal responsibility, tax policy, medical care policy and try to pick the best match to represent what I want our country to look like.   I take it seriously, I always vote in every election including local and have done so for 35 years.  Self determination requires effort.

 

 

 

 

To summarise, would it it be fair to say, there is not much opportunity for "the fake news media" to influence your final decision making process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

To summarise, would it it be fair to say, there is not much opportunity for "the fake news media" to influence your final decision making process?

Yes, I try to limit infotainment in my decision making.   I do look at news and events.  I try to winnow fact from opinion.  I am aware of bias on both sides and look for it.  Even on the Internet,  it is hard to separate fact from opinion.  But I don't pay attention to any TV news, including FOX which is the biggest  station in the MSM.  I don't care what Whoopi Goldberg says either.

In all honesty, I know that neither I nor anybody else is completely immune to infection from  media.

"Fake news" in my view is opinion posing as news.  Facts that one does not like are not "fake news".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Google suppressed Breitbart?

 

Did they get some sort of prize? They deserve one. 

 

I don't usually back the blues, but in the states everything is upside down anyway. 

 

Red wave huh. Sounds like a dolphin massacre. 

I'd suggest Milo Yiannopoulis may have done more to suppress Breitbart.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

You have not offered any reason or rationale for trusting it.  All you are doing is asking me to show that it is not reliable.  As I am not a fan of Breitbart, I would be at a disadvantage in doing that, which I suppose you assume.  But you, being a devotee of that publication cannot offer a reason to trust it.  And that says volumes.

Doug

And that’s how to make one big circle. You ask me how I know I can trust the article, so I tell you how. To which you respond “so you don’t know”. So, I offer further reasoning I trust the article, to which you call me “devotee” and pretend I haven’t already explained why I trust it. Big circle.

Listen Doug, all the information is right there. Either directly in the article of in the hyperlinks included in the article. Try reading. Being to lazy to vet something yourself doesn’t give you credit to accuse others for what you are unwilling to do, I can trust the article because I’ve read the article. Until you do the same and can say why I shouldn’t trust it, your opinion is worthless, 

How does Doug know he can trust anything? Does he ask people like myself to tell him what he can trust or not?

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.