Post by The PeelerOn Thu, 18 Oct 2018 05:55:28 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'
Post by The JewsOf course they are-- for normal humans, Gordon!
This leaves you out, of course!
Loading Image...
Luckily for the planet, it was born dead.
VERY luckily jew master !
But that won't stop you from continuing having intercourse with your sex
partner (whatever he/it is), right, you abnormal sexually crippled cretin?
No doubt about that!
The mangina is such a creepy pervert.
Now here is an article Judith Bergman wrote about Big Tech stifling free
speech.
Big Tech Snuffing Free Speech; Google's Poisonous 'Dragonfly'
by Judith Bergman
October 17, 2018 at 5:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13129/google-censorship-china
If the big social media companies choose what to publish and what not to
publish, they should be subject to the same licensing and requirements as
media organizations.
Google has decided it will not renew a contract with the Pentagon for
artificial intelligence work because Google employees were upset that the
technology might be used for lethal military purposes. Yet Google is
planning to launch a censored search engine in China that will empower a
totalitarian "Big Brother is watching you" horror state.
Freedom Watch filed a $1 billion class-action lawsuit against Apple,
Facebook, Google, and Twitter, claiming that they suppress conservative
speech online.
A Media Research Center report found that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube stifle conservative speech and that in some instances staffers have
admitted that doing so was intentional.
Chinese officials prevented a journalist, Liu Hu, from taking a flight
because he had a low "social credit" score. According to China's Global
Times, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from
taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.
Google is reportedly planning to launch a censored version of its search
engine in China, code-named "Dragonfly," which will aid and abet a
totalitarian "Big Brother is watching you" horror state. (Image source:
[Photo of woman] iStock)
The internet, especially social media, has become one of the primary places
for people to exchange viewpoints and ideas. Social media is where a
considerable part of the current national conversation takes place.
Arguably, big tech companies, such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube,
therefore carry a responsibility to ensure that their platforms are equally
accessible to all voices in that national conversation. As private
commercial entities, the social media giants are not prima facie legally
bound by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and are free to set
their own standards and conditions for the use of their platforms. Ideally,
those standards should be applied equally to all users, regardless of
political or other persuasion. If, however, these companies choose what to
publish and what not to publish, they should be subject to the same
licensing and requirements as media organizations.
The current media giants' favoring one kind of political speech over
another -- progressive over conservative -- and even shutting down political
speech that does not conform to the views of the directors, certainly skews
the national political conversation in a lopsided way that conflicts with
basic principles of democratic freedom of speech and what presumably should
be the obligations of virtual monopolies.
The question of whether such discrimination against conservative viewpoints
constitutes a breach of law is currently the subject of a number of
lawsuits. In October 2017, PragerU, a conservative educational website,
filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company, Google, for
"intentional" censorship of conservative speakers, saying that they were
"engaging in an arbitrary and capricious use of their 'restricted mode' and
'demonetization' to restrict non-left political thought."
PragerU claimed that "Google and YouTube's use of restricted mode filtering
to silence PragerU violates its fundamental First Amendment rights under
both the California and United States Constitutions," YouTube, for instance,
restricted a video by a pro-Israel Muslim activist, discussing how best to
resist hatred and anti-Semitism, as "hate speech". The US District Court
Judge in the case, Lucy Koh, however, dismissed PragerU's claims because
Google, as a private company, is not subject to the First Amendment.
"Defendants are private entities who created their own video-sharing social
media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content
that has been uploaded on that website," Koh wrote. PragerU has appealed the
decision.
In August, Freedom Watch filed a $1 billion class-action lawsuit against
Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, claiming that they act in concert to
suppress conservative speech online. Freedom Watch claims, among other
things, that the four media giants have violated the First Amendment to the
Constitution and that they have engaged "in a conspiracy to intentionally
and willfully suppress politically conservative content."
PragerU and Freedom Watch are not the only conservatives to have experienced
suppression of their voices on social media. In April, the conservative
Media Research Center released a report detailing the suppression of
conservative opinions on social media platforms.
The 50-page report, "Censored! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing
Conservative Speech," which looked at how conservative political speech
fared on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, found that the tech
companies stifle conservative speech and that in some instances, staffers
have admitted that doing so was intentional. The report found that Google
showed a "tendency toward left-wing bias in its search results", and that
Twitter (by admission of its own employees) had "shadow-banned" some
conservative users. ("Shadow banning" means that their content did not
appear to other users, but the account owners themselves had not been
notified of this "banning" of their content).
The apparent leftist bias, however, not only shows itself in the suppression
of conservative speech on social media giants' websites. Censorship and
selective presentation of speech has also led to unfortunate policy
decisions by some of the big tech companies. Google, for example, has
decided it will not renew a contract with the Pentagon for artificial
intelligence work when it expires next year, because Google employees were
upset that the technology they were working on might be used for lethal
military purposes.
Yet, according to leaked documents, Google is planning to launch a censored
version of its search engine in China, code-named "Dragonfly," which will
aid and abet a totalitarian "Big Brother is watching you" horror state.
China, according to the Economist, is planning to become "the world's first
digital totalitarian state." The Chinese government is in the process of
introducing a "social credit" system by which to score its citizens, based
on their behavior. Behavior sanctioned by the government increases the
score; behavior of which the government disapproves decreases the score.
Jaywalking, for example, would decrease the score. China is reportedly
installing 626 million surveillance cameras throughout the country for the
purpose of feeding the social credit system with information.
According to Gordon G. Chang, Chinese officials are using the social credit
system for determining everything from being able to take a plane or a
train, to buying property or sending your children to a private school.
Officials prevented a journalist, Liu Hu, from taking a flight because he
had a low score. According to China's state-owned Global Times, as of the
end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14
million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips. "If we don't
increase the cost of being discredited, we are encouraging discredited
people to keep at it," said the former deputy director of the development
research center of the State Council, Hou Yunchun. He added that an improved
social credit system was needed so that "discredited people become
bankrupt".
According to a legal expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in
Beijing, Zhi Zhenfeng:
"How the person is restricted in terms of public services or business
opportunities should be in accordance with how and to what extent he or she
lost his credibility.... Discredited people deserve legal consequences. This
is definitely a step in the right direction to building a society with
credibility."
The goal, straightforwardly, is to control citizen behavior by aggregating
data from various sources such as cameras, identification checks, and "Wi-Fi
sniffers" so that Chinese citizens will end up being controlled completely.
As Chinese officials have reportedly put it, the purpose of the score card
system is to "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while
making it hard for the discredited to take a single step."
It is, in other words, an excellent deliberate tool to suppress the human
rights of the Chinese people.
Although Google has refused to comment on the concerns about Dragonfly, the
leaked documents indicate that this censored version of Google's search
engine will help the Chinese government do just that by blacklisting
websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and
peaceful protest. It will also, reportedly, link users' searches to their
personal phone numbers, thereby making it possible for the Chinese
government to detain or arrest people who search for information that the
Chinese government wishes to censor.
"Linking searches to a phone number would make it much harder for people to
avoid the kind of overreaching government surveillance that is pervasive in
China," said Cynthia Wong, senior internet researcher with Human Rights
Watch. Fourteen organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, Reporters Without Borders, Access Now, the Committee to Protect
Journalists, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy
and Technology, PEN International, and Human Rights in China, have demanded
that Google stop its plans for a censored search engine. They say that such
cooperation would represent "an alarming capitulation by Google on human
rights" and could result in the company "directly contributing to, or
[becoming] complicit in, human rights violations."
In a recent speech, US Vice President Mike Pence also asked Google to end
Dragonfly: it "will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the
privacy of Chinese customers," he said.
So, while Google claims it has moral qualms about cooperating with the US
government, the company evidently has no moral issues when it comes to
cooperating with Communist China in censoring and spying on its billion
citizens with a view to rewarding or punishing them via opportunities in
real life. Google employees, according to the Intercept, have circulated a
letter stating that the censored search engine raises "urgent moral and
ethical issues," and saying that Google executives need to "disclose more
about the company's work in China, which they say is shrouded in too much
secrecy, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter".
Google is apparently all too eager to work with China on micromanaging its
citizens, and there is plenty to work on, according to a recent Amnesty
International report :
"China has intensified its campaign of mass internment, intrusive
surveillance, political indoctrination and forced cultural assimilation
against the region's Uighurs, Kazakhs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic
groups."
Up to 1 million people have been detained in "China's mass re-education
drive," many of them tortured, according to the report.
Eight years ago, Google co-founder Sergey Brin -- who was born in the highly
repressive Soviet Union -- at least had the decency to hesitate on (if not
turn down) doing business in China if it involved censorship. "[W]e have
decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results," Google
had announced two days before "company spokesman Scott Rubin started singing
a different tune."
Perhaps totalitarian Communist repression is of no consequence to Google, so
long as it gets still more market share?
Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a
Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
