There is a constituency on the right for forcing media tech giants to become even-handed

This was the title of the post: I am tired of conservative bleating over social media, with this his basic point.

Conservatives are going to get nowhere good with their unending complaints over big tech and the internal policing of content…. Worse still, it’s boring. What proportion of conservative content on social media is now about the censorship of conservative content on social media? Enough!… This isn’t heading towards a freer, healthier online environment. This is opening the door to regulation and government watchdogs.

These were the comments which could be read as stand-alone statements. Every comment, whether reprinted here or not, went in the same direction.

This is certainly one of the biggest loads of crap posted on the Cat.

I don’t think you realise just how big Google and Facebook are and how far their reach is. Not to mention the honey pot they present for enemy foreign governments. Government have already granted them their status. They are effectively a guild being considered a ‘platform’. The only way to be considered a ‘platform’ is to be granted such status from government. In order to actually compete with them, you too need to be a ‘platform’.

FFS what is so difficult to understand about the rule of law? We have laws that “publishers” who pick and choose their content are responsible for what they choose to publish, and that, in very broad terms, “common carriers” who don’t pick and choose but just provide a service don’t have that type of liability. Why is it so hard to understand that the internet giants shouldn’t be allowed to keep sheltering from responsibility by falsely claiming to be common carriers when they’re very clearly operating as publishers? That is, why is it so hard to understand that the law should be enforced?

This person should have adult supervision while using the internet. FFS. PayPal bans you – stop complaining damn you, build your own payment network. Wells Fargo closes your accounts – build your own bank. MasterCard cancels your credit cards – build your own credit card from scratch. Google won’t let you advertise your business – build your own search engine etc etc etc. No wonder our side never wins. All want to lose with grace. Go lose elsewhere knave – we’re fighting now.

Your proposed approach assumes that we can innovate – and entrepreneur our way forward faster than the woke corporatocracy and their government-funded SJW chums can screw us. On evidence to date, that’s a bad bet. Sure, we need to build our own platforms, etcetera, and a lot of that work is well underway. But at the same time we need to fight back against open political discrimination by a range of businesses that happen to be operating under actual or de facto government licenses. For example, WestPac will close your account if they don’t like your politics. Is the answer to create our own bank? No, that’s silly. WestPac needs to either be forced to provide an evenhanded service, or else have their license pulled. Likewise, the social media oligopoly operates under a de facto license, by which government allows them to be common carriers when they defame us, and allows them to be publishers when they deplatform us. The natural response to this sort of predatory, prejudiced oligopoly is a boot up the bum from the Commonwealth. Like it or not, we live in a heavily-regulated society in which we pay over the odds for a meddlesome government. We aren’t calling it into existence, it’s already here. So it’s only sensible to fight back against licensed bullies by using the force of the government that licenses them. Either we use the government while we can, or there’ll come a time when we can’t use it at all.

No point banging our heads against a wall trying to explain reality to these low info posters. The statement above says it all. He is unaware of the numerous SocMed start ups crushed by the likes of Visa and Mastercard and Pay Pal et al, who refuse to handle on-line transactions of conservative start ups. He thinks even though almost all avenues that lead to the info highway have been closed off by these tech giants, we can just have a few meetings and start our own tech giants and interweb thingies. Imagine a small innovator having his electricity cut. No problemo, get yourself a generator. But hey, no one will sell me a generator. No problemo, just build yourself a generator. It’s a free World right? I build a generator but no one will sell me the diesel to power it. No worries mate, start drilling, get your own oil and distill it into diesel. It’s a free World right? This is the result of believing that if it’s in a textbook, if it’s theoretically correct, then it must work in the real World. Libertarians. If the left wasn’t so evil, I’d say libertarians were worse for humanity. (Only because they are so naive, yet act like geniuses.)

I am not sure you understand the risks here. Not surprising, given that the discussion in the media and by the politicians has not yet figured it out.

Why would a future progressive government seek to monitor and control online content, when the big corporations (google, facebook, reddit etc) are already doing so for them?

It’s already quite clear that these platforms can be used to significantly enhance a political campaign. Obama proved that in 2012. Barack Obama’s digital operation was key to his re-election effort. Google “Inside the Cave,” if you want to know how that worked. In part, it centred on Facebook allowing its platform to be used, by that campaign only, in a way that significantly invaded the privacy of users. How? Whenever a facebook user made a donation, their list of friends was published to the campaign, and those friends were also approached for donations/spamming and so on. The campaign also was able to mine the vast data repository behind facebook to identify anyone who might be responsive. Sure, all political parties maintain databases, but very few have access to the wealth of information held by facebook and google. It’s a decisive advantage, especially when only one political flavour is allowed to use it.

Speaking of vast databases, facebook and google are not alone. Other very large vendors (outside of social media) have seen the value (so far, mainly for figuring out what type of ads a person on the internet might respond to) of maintaining as many cross-referenced records on people as they possibly can. One I am aware of has extensive records of billions of individuals. By extensive, I don’t mean just name rank and serial number. They have all of that, plus personal preferences, political interests, credit history, internet history, app usage and so on. Hundreds of facts about each individual, across the world. Facts derived from sneaky surveillance, cookies, ad-trackers and many other methods that would fly under most peoples radar. Any source of data is sucked up, correlated, then marketed for profit.

As an example of how troubling this is, consider any credit record you might have at any of the standard financial reporting agencies. It has been sold to one or more of the bigger global players, then cross-referenced with other data, building a detailed picture of your credit worthiness, social positions, academic capabilities, political positions, family relations, and any other personal feature that might somehow be marketable in the future. Think of the value of that for law enforcement, intelligence and the like. And as for the social engineering possibilities, the only difference between China’s social credit system and what is sitting in western data centres, is that China announced it, and proclaimed what they would use it for. The west already has the data at least, and is using it for purposes that don’t extend to managing “social credit”, but that is just a short tweak from where they already are. So, why would any conservative seek to build their own version of the same thing, to get around a current leftist / statist / autocratic monopoly on big data, when the whole idea goes against a number of things I hold dear. Many western governments are constrained by law as to how they can interconnect and cross link their databases. The commercial world is not. They have had a lot of time to consider how big data can be monetised. Think it through. The issues and risks are much bigger than you think. Foundational principles such as freedom and privacy are at risk. I don’t know the answers, but the last thing I would do is “start building explicitly conservative” versions.

Go back to your room and look up the meaning of these words: Monopoly, Cartel, Publisher, Carrier.

There’s lots of payment processors out there, but if the big guys really manage to put their foot down most of those little payment processors will be forced to abandon customers too. There’s always cheques and bank transfers as a fallback … at a significant nuisance factor. Interesting question whether a big payment processor can legally cut off a smaller payment processor from the transaction network, not for violating any rules, but merely for having a customer that isn’t politically correct. For example, the “David Horowitz Freedom Center” is politically outspoken for sure, but has never done anything illegal to the best of my knowledge. So you have one big player in the marketplace who not only refuses to do business with XYZ (under a “free society” that’s would probably be OK), but also applies pressure on everyone else to refuse to do business with XYZ (which is certainly anti-competitive and probably an unfair trade practice).

I am tired of conservatives not acting, because they worry about what the left might do or say.

I just don’t know where to start with this crap… “In fact, they may just be opening the door for future progressive governments to start monitoring and controlling online content.” Well it isn’t the future sunshine, it’s happening now…from both progressive and not so progressive governments…..after Christchurch….Bitchute, 4chan and various other sites were blocked in this country…..I think Gab was also blocked here for a while…it might even still be blocked….you have to get a VPN or know how to change your computer to access Bitchute. “Stop whinging and start building explicitly conservative organisations.” Well yes…..all well and good but those “conservative platforms and organisations” that have been built…such as Gab (a free speech platform) or Minds (a Facebook alternative)…or those that are currently being such as the one that Jordan Peterson is building….are constantly subjected to attacks from the left….smeared as platforms for the fascists, far right, the hard right, the extreme right, nuttzies, white supremacists, incels and all the rest of the crap that they throw at the centre and the right.

Here’s just a smidgeon of “conservatives” who have been banned from platforms….platforms that still host Antifa, far left groups and organisations (that preach violence), religion of pieces extremist organisations, Hamas, Hezbollah…..and I could go on and on and on…. Sargon of Akkad…hardly conservative or far right….banned from twitter, banned from Patreon..oh and after his “banning” from Patreon….he moved to a startup run by Russians called “Subscribestar” which was then blocked temporarily by Mastercard and Paypal because both Mastercard and Paypal were being subjected to pressure from far left pressure groups. His youtube channel has now been demonetised. Robert Spencer…hardly far right…he runs a website that monitors the religion of pieces…..he had his account closed by Mastercard and Paypal…….because of activism by a religion of pieces organisation….I kid you not.

David Horowitz…..account closed by Mastercard
Lauren Southern..banned from Patreon
Milo..banned from everywhere
Alex Jones….banned from everywhere
Laura Loomer…banned from everywhere
Pamela Geller…banned from everywhere and doxed by Antifa
Paul Joseph Watson..banned from Facebook and Instagram…still active on Youtube…but for how long?
Avi Yemeni….banned from Facebook and Instagram…still active on Youtube…but for how long?

And I could go on and on and on. Oh and closer to home…we have a television network called Sky News…which during the evening has the AUDACITY to host some conservative/right wing/libertarian commentators….haven’t you heard about Sky after Dark? For hosting conservative commentators Sky is constantly under siege from pernicious and very ugly far left activist groups such as “Sleeping Giants”…or as I prefer to call them…”Sleeping Midgets”…..because of their far left activism…many advertisers have pulled business from Sky…..I have personally fought back at an advertiser that succumbed to pressure from those midgets and this particular advertiser is now back on Sky advertising….but what I am trying to say is that even if conservatives set up a completely new television station…it needs money and thus it would require advertisers…..and yet those advertisers would be subjected to the same pressure from far left scum to cease advertising. I think that it’s entirely appropriate to “whinge”…..actually it’s better to be angry.

The non-left in the West has not yet woken up to what they are dealing with: the left who don’t play by the rules. If you play by the rules you’re stuffed. So far Trump has got this; Farrage maybe and a few other leaders and potential leaders in Europe and Brazil. To beat the left you have to act like the left.

Conservatives seem to be bound by the “conservatives should act by their principles” mantra. it’s a losing proposition as we have been watching steadily unfold for the last few decades. conservatism is pretty much dead and buried, it’s only the sheer stupidity of the left that allows the odd conservative to get into power these days. or look at the UK, conservatives are labor light. A take no prisoners approach is what is required. scorched earth policy when it comes to any forms of marxism.

I have long thought that we should play them at their own game. Turn the other cheek and they will stomp all over anyone who disagrees with them. Reasoning does not work with them, they just change the rules as they go along, to get their own way.

For the 3 zillionth time (exactly – I’ve been counting): NOTHING will change unless we engage in some creative destruction. All strictly legal, of course. As I posted a few days ago, those self-proclaimed strategic masterminds who vow that all we need to do is sit back and ‘let them trip themselves up,’ are utterly deluded. Sun Tzu didn’t proclaim that ‘magic happens’ or ‘let the universe provide. Chillax dude!’ Neither did he advocate that letting your enemies make their own mistakes was a passive, solitary, one-size-fits-all tactic. Change does not just ‘happen.’ It needs to be forced. You have to MAKE change take place. That all begins with attitude. The conservative attitude – with a minute number of exceptions – seems to be that the moral high ground precludes any aggression or even assertion, in the face of threat from an enemy. Dazzled by our own righteousness, we are oblivious to the fact that the moral high ground on which we proudly pose, has been surrounded, and is being progressively undermined by the industrious vermin we gaze down upon. ‘Primitives!’ we sneer, crossing our arms, shaking our head, and closing our eyes. All the while, those ‘primitives’ are building a human pyramid, and before too long, their ‘primitive’ sharpened sticks will be thrust through our flabby flesh from all sides. But let’s continue to pretend the threat is not existential. Let’s not get our hands dirty, or – heaven forbid! – crack a fingernail. Plan, scheme, strategise, undermine; neutralise the enablers first, to weaken the enemy’s ability to withstand the barrages that will follow. This is a head-thing. Get over the head-thing, and the capacity is present to dominate.

A summary of my post above for those with short attention spans: We will not win this by only focusing on how we can get to the finishing line (it’s a metaphor – just stay with it) – we need to reduce our opponent’s ability to compete with us. Whether it’s switching urine samples in the change room, getting in their face with yo-mama insults, or stepping it up and actually smashing a kneecap, there is no such thing as fairness or sportsmanship in this race. The meek will be mercilessly crushed. We are being crushed.

I think this person has blown more than a valve. I think the head gasket is a goner. For some real world perspective, here is the co-founder of Facebook (clearly a MAGA hat wearing knuckle dragger) who says that Faceborg MUST be broken up for plenty of very good reasons, all of which have nothing to do with being conservative, or whingeing or whatever else. If these are good reasons (and I think they are), then why are reasons of unequal play not good enough for a debate about changing the status quo?

FFS, it isn’t hard. Alinsky rule 4: ″make them live up to their own rules”. Yes we are in an existential fight for civilisation. No prisoners, no mercy. That’s what the left is doing. Time the right realised it and did the same but we have the odd ideologically pure fools who want to impose Alinsky 4 on us and hence tie our hands.

Many here mentioned Gab so I checked online,this summary is from Wikipedia. Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base. The site has been widely described as a “safe haven” for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. The site was launched in 2017 and claimed to have around 850,000 registered user accounts by December 2018. It primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks. The platform populace is mainly populated by users who are “conservative, male. Is this a fair summary? or could Wikipedia be a wee bit biased?

Folk have already pointed out the many alternatives to Facebook etc. that are already up and running. You can also support individuals who are setting up their own channels. And, like Vox Day, you can fight back (eg. his Indigogo battle). The only other thing I’d like to mention is the idea of government & private companies as seperate entities that have differing goals. So – imagine there’s a group of people behind both, manipulating or using both, to their own ends, whatever they many be. We don’t know what happens in those meetings of government officials, mega-rich, and big company owners when they get together. What do they discuss? What do they plan? What are their goals/dreams/ambitions? Well, we can take a guess. As Roger pointed out, when Chad Robichaux’s ads were taken off Youtube, they told him the offensive word was ‘Christian’. When he changed the word to ‘Muslim’ and submitted again, Youtube were happy with it. I suggest we’re thinking in wrong categories.

Regulating to prevent censorship and discrimination, enforcing 1st amendment rights is not opening the door to regulation that requires censorship and rewards discrimination. A basic tenet of a free society is that you cannot discriminate in commerce because of prohibited grounds. We don’t want Woolies denying food and Energy Australia cutting off the power because they don’t like LNP voters. We don’t want Dr Mohamed, Dr Muhammad or Dr Mohammad at my local medical centre saying “begone kufr, we only treat people who keep halal here.” If I don’t agree with Joyce Allan, I shouldn’t have to start my own airline to be flown to Perth.

If it ain’t illegal it ought to be illegal to censor it. Pretty simple.

This entry was posted in Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to There is a constituency on the right for forcing media tech giants to become even-handed

  1. stackja

    If it ain’t illegal it ought to be illegal to censor it. Pretty simple.

    Don Chipp allowed adults to read and see all and leftists applauded. Now leftists want censorship .

  2. Bruce

    Just don’t “buy” their stuff, nor any product for which they carry advertisements.

    Spread the word.

    Think of it as a counter “strike”. You refuse to front up and hand over your hard-earned at the counter.

  3. BoyfromTottenham

    Maybe off topic, but lately I cannot access WattsUpWithThat.com on my new ipad – I get a ‘no internet connection’ message even though the same ipad top bar is showing that I have both wifi and 4G connections. It doesn’t happen with any other website.

  4. mh

    I think my comment deserves posting again, too

    Bleating? Thats coming from a Kiwi.

    You’re not baaaad, Arky.

  5. There’s an old saying that goes ‘The squeaky wheel gets the oil’. Basically, if we remain quiet, we’ll get rolled. Ever hear of a quiet Leftist?

  6. Tim Neilson

    I don’t understand why my comment [copied below] was seen as a plea for the internet giants to be forced to do anything.

    It was clearly a call for them to be treated according to law the same as anyone else.

    If they choose to keep selecting content, that’s fine by me as long as they’re treated the same way as other content selectors.

    FFS what is so difficult to understand about the rule of law? We have laws that “publishers” who pick and choose their content are responsible for what they choose to publish, and that, in very broad terms, “common carriers” who don’t pick and choose but just provide a service don’t have that type of liability. Why is it so hard to understand that the internet giants shouldn’t be allowed to keep sheltering from responsibility by falsely claiming to be common carriers when they’re very clearly operating as publishers? That is, why is it so hard to understand that the law should be enforced?

  7. pbw

    BoyfromTottenham,

    A couple of years ago, I searched for wattsupwiththat on Go Ogle (thanks, prk) and turned up zero hits. What? I switched to Bing, and found the site and a cascade of references. It doesn’t get more blatant than that.

    Try connecting to https: // http://www.bitchute.com .

    bitchute.com’s server IP address could not be found.

    There’s no such problem with https: // http://www.bitchute.info .

  8. BoyfromTottenham

    thanks, pbw, I’ll try it. Still, getting a ‘no Internet connection’ message when I clearly have connectivity is new to me.

  9. Dr Fred Lenin

    Boy from Totenham ,just got wattsup on duck duck mo problem ,I rarely use google on my i pad pro .

  10. I just searched for WhatUpWithThat: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=wattsupwiththat, and it did appear, with a very biased commentary from Wikipedia in the right hand panel.

    Watts Up With That? is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Wikipedia

  11. Sinclair Davidson

    I think there is a constituency on the right for rounding up ethnic minorities and executing them – yet that doesn’t make it appropriate or moral either.

  12. Iampeter

    There is a constituency on the right for forcing media tech giants to become even-handed

    Anyone supporting “forcing media tech giants to become even-handed” is not on the Right.

  13. Louis

    Sinclair you seem to have extended Steve’s comments to an ‘ought to be from an is’ when he did not make such logical fallacy.

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    Louis – do you think I’m stupid?

  15. HP

    When I checked what data Google was collecting on me, in part through my gmail address, I found:
    – my online grocery shopping lists going back years
    – my hotel reservations, flight reservations, even restaurant reservations
    – online purchases via Amazon, eBay, and the like.
    – every search term I had ever used in Google
    – every video I had searched for in YouTube, everything I had ever watched in YouTube
    – my location history (where I had been)

    I even found voice recordings of myself made using a Google Home device that I had connected for a brief period of time. I have now changed my email to a paid service that stores my email encrypted.

    In my view these companies have gone rogue. Their behaviour is thoroughly disgusting.
    Regulation around privacy is necessary with the advances in tech and the democratisation of its use. (And laws around property right as well, by the way.) But regulation on privacy may not be enough. I am quite open to a debate on breaking these companies up as well.

    As far as I am concerned, they deserve everything that is will happen to them. And then some.

  16. max

    The regulatory system protects large enterprises from competition from upstart companies.

    “Governments have created fiefdoms through regulation. They have created dependent guilds that rely on regulation and licensing to screen out price-competitive innovators.”

    “Juvenal asked: “who will guard the guardians?” Adam Smith’s answer is two-fold. First, the state and its byzantine laws and regulations certainly won’t: instead, they confound outsiders and abet insiders’ selfishness. Second, the “obvious and simple system of natural liberty” is imperfect; yet it will outperform any scheme which princes and their flatterers might concoct.’

    In 1983, legal scholar Harold Berman warned in the Introduction to his book, Law and Revolution, that administrative law threatens to destroy the Western legal tradition. It is a major threat to liberty.
    Nowhere is this threat better organized than in the area of economic regulation. The vast expanse of administrative rules, the immunity of bureaucrats from being fired, the lack of oversight by legislators, the complexity of the rules, the judicial arbitrariness of the bureaucrats, and the political immunity of the agencies to budget cuts all combine to reduce liberty.

    I go to facebook once a week for 10 min max
    I use duckduckgo plus google for searches
    I get my informations from:
    mises, lewrockwell,drudge,fee.org,catallaxy,zero hedge…

  17. max

    bigger problem is “free” compulsory government education — that is your socialist paradise

  18. Hydra

    Everyone at the Cat these days is basically a commie

  19. Lee

    If it ain’t illegal it ought to be illegal to censor it. Pretty simple.

    Don Chipp allowed adults to read and see all and leftists applauded. Now leftists want censorship .

    In the 1960s and for many years after, the Left were at the forefront of those opposed to censorship.
    Not so, now that the paradigm has swung so very far the other way.
    In fact in many instances, if you proclaim that you’re in favour of “free speech”, for example, that makes you a “racist.”

  20. roger

    Everyone at the Cat these days is basically a commie.

    Fellow conservatives: government intervention into private companies in order to make the companies’ product/service “fairer” is pure Stalinism.
    What’s the alternative to this “unfairness”, be it imaginary or real unfairness?
    The alternative is to accept that private companies are run by private people who invariably have their own personal biases. Don’t like their product/service? Move to another company.
    If you don’t accept that some people/companies (such as Google) are free to do things which you may find unfair (such as censure certain opinions/people in their own website), you don’t accept freedom.

  21. The Sheriff

    I think there is a constituency on the right for rounding up ethnic minorities and executing them – yet that doesn’t make it appropriate or moral either.

    You mean the left.

  22. Publius

    Sinclair- There is no such voter base in Conservatives politics. Pls provide evidence for any Conservatives who have advocated such an action as you proclaim there is a proclivity for on the right side of politics.

  23. Muddy

    Neither of my two republished comments – which respectively began with “For the 3 zillionth time … ” and “A summary of my post above …” – made any recommendations for dealing with this specific issue. While they were certainly admonitions to ‘stop moaning & start doing something practical,’ they were abstract and generic.

    I normally refrain from posting about issues of which I know little detail (which covers almost everything), so it is with hesitation that I place on record my inclination not to favour the intervention of the state in this matter.

    My preference would be for conservatives to take the initiative, and, if a competitor’s advantages have allowed them to build an unassailable dominance, to legally do whatever is necessary to weaken that dominance, by adopting and adapting strategies and tactics from other domains, such as historical armed counterinsurgencies. As an example, I have posted previously about identifying and weakening the enablers of certain popular issues and organisations.

  24. Sinclair Davidson

    … a constituency on the right …

    Compare with

    … voter base in Conservatives politics …

    You ‘conservatives’ are beginning to act like the very lefties you despise so much.

  25. rounding up ethnic minorities and executing them

    Who are these people calling for the rounding up and execution of minorities?

    What an astounding statement to make on a public forum. Why not actually identify these people?

  26. John Murray

    Sinclair, could you please provide some evidence for your statement:-
    I think there is a constituency on the right for rounding up ethnic minorities and executing them – yet that doesn’t make it appropriate or moral either.”
    This is a sincere request, I have never seen any evidence of a genuine Right constituency with those views. The fact that the Left lies and propagandizes the views and constituency of their side – Facists, Nazis, KKK,etc and calls them Right, does not make it so.

    [The person to whom my comment is directed knows exactly what I’m referring to. Sinc]

  27. HP:

    When I checked what data Google was collecting on me,

    How did you do that?

  28. HP

    Winston,
    If you are interested, you can logon here with your gmail account (most likely it will actually sign you in automatically – more about that later):

    https://myaccount.google.com/intro/data-and-personalization

    Once logged on, I’d suggest to click around for a while to check what is there.
    Focus on the “Activity Controls”, for example:
    – under “web & app activity” I found all my grocery lists
    – under “voice & auto activity” I found the recordings: everything you ever said to a Google Home device
    – check also “YouTube search activity” and “Youtube watch activity”

    Your Google search history you can find under “Activity & timeline”
    You will also find “location history” there. Etc.

    Scroll down and you will find the section “reservations”.
    there is a handy filter so you can check separately: your hotel reservations, flight reservations, restaurant reservations.

    I decided that it was no longer a good idea to keep what I consider private comms on a “free” email service.
    It is not see free after all.
    Better off paying 4 bucks a month and have it be secure, I figure. Should have done that a long time ago.

    If indeed you did not have to log on to the link, but automagically got logged on, please check the below:
    In this case it is not just your interaction with Google and you email that may be collected.

    In that case you will want to check if your browser is not logging you on to Google using your Gmail account itself – via the browser. In Chrome, for example, you can see that in at the top, right corner: It will show your Gmail account initials in a circle. You may want to turn that off. Because that means Google can use Chrome as a data hoovering device, collecting data on you, while you browse to sites that have nothing to do with Google or gmail.

    Turning it off in Chrome:
    Go to Settings -> Advanced -> Find the setting “Allow Chrome sign-in” and turn it off.

    You may want to have a look at the other settings in there as well. For instance, I did not like this one:
    “Continue running background apps when Google Chrome is closed” – Excuse me, what..?

  29. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The correct approach in terms of policy is conservative like the mischief rule found in law.

    1. Are the current laws necessary or unenforced? [They’re actually out of date and left wing].

    2. Are the bad faith actors breaking the law or acting against the US national interest? [Google contracts to the Chinese military].

    3. Are there alternatives? [Yes, Summit News, BitChute, Brave, Gab dot AI, Dissenter, Duck Duck Go, Pandia…].

    There is no reason to break up any of these firms. They’re already destroying themselves.

  30. HP

    My 2 cents:
    1. The scale and scope of data collection on citizens which has already taken place is a massive issue. And it continues and is getting worse.
    2. These companies are now using their resources towards political ends.

    These 2 combined: these companies are a priority national security issue in the short term and a threat to democracy in the medium & long term.
    As far as I am concerned, breaking them up is an option that should be on the table (until it proves to be unnecessary).

  31. Ellen of Tasmania

    There is no reason to break up any of these firms. They’re already destroying themselves

    Yes, for sure. But then, I can’t see how Steve could have taken my comment as being in any way supportive of government interference in those companies. Indeed, I thought the point I was making suggested the uselessness of such an effort.

    What it is to be misunderstood!!

  32. I_am_not_a_robot

    I think Tucker and the man from Google are at cross purposes.
    I think what he is saying is that the Google rankings are simply the result of millions of individual searches.
    Search engines make money through advertising, through paid higher listings or side ads.
    Why would any search engine want to exclude potential clicks from one side of a political spectrum (or matrix) or another?

  33. Why would any search engine want to exclude potential clicks from one side of a political spectrum (or matrix) or another?

    You have it wrong. Here’s one explanation: https://www.channel4.com/news/if-google-is-free-how-does-it-make-so-much-money. If advertisers threaten to pull out of Google’s services (that includes YouTube), Google will lose money. It’s really not much different to regular advertising that you see on TV.

  34. Colonel Crispin Berka

    If we’re having difficulty figuring out whether there is even a problem, let alone what to do about it, perhaps that is because there is something fundamentally new in this situation that we don’t have a ready-made solution for.
    This reminds me of a quip a leftist once made in an argument about regulating the Internet in general. He/she advanced the rhetorical question and answer:

    Q: What did Adam Smith have to say about the regulation of public utilities?
    A: What’s a public utility??

    They were implying that there were entirely new types of powerful economic entities in the world that simply didn’t exist in the time of capitalism’s founding fathers, so we could not look to capitalist doctrine for guidance. Their conclusion does not logically follow, however the substantive, relevant, and (IMHO) valid point in their argument was the fact that we’ve already accepted local government or quasi-governmental regulation of very important commodity services. It’s not nationalisation usually, but it controls a lot about ownership, liability, vertical integration, and sometimes even prices. The only criteria I know of for this interference is that there must be a high barrier to entry and it has to affect a lot of people. The justification is that it’s easier to standardise the qualities of the commodity than to expect 3 sets of telephone lines, power lines, water pipes, sewerage pipes, roads, and radio frequencies to be built everywhere just to provide consumer choice (and in the case of RF that’s impossible).

    Lemme just clarify the problem before proposing a solution. What we’re grappling with is whether the Big Tech triumvirate are a new instance of an old problem, versus whether they are a problem qualitatively different or massively quantitatively different to Standard Oil, AT&T Bell, or Westinghouse/Edison. The judgement being that what was done to those companies, such as the energy suppliers by the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, is either appropriate or not appropriate to FB/Google/Twitter.
    Is that it?

    The question of whether social networks should be publishers is a more important question than whether they in fact already meet the definition. Let’s figure out where we want to go with this, otherwise the facts will not have significance and we won’t know which facts need to be found. If we do face a new problem we cannot assume existing rules are appropriate.

  35. Phill

    Colonel Crispin old chap,

    You are on the right track. None of what we are seeing was contemplated in standard capitalist doctrine or in the precedent set by various monopoly breakups. My concern is around large companies hovering up large holdings of personal data, which when analysed can be sold on to the highest bidder / political mates. It extends far beyond whether these large companies are “platforms” or “publishers”. Some have no public presence at all, beyond being very big IT companies, who have seen the possibilities, and are pursuing them.

    Hence, in my view, the traditional media oriented arguments don’t cover it, capitalist doctrine doesn’t cover it, and current (Australian) law does not contemplate it.

    Perhaps this problem should be seen as a data privacy issue. The closest set of laws globally that might be used as a model is the EU GDPR rules, where activities that lead to a privacy breach impacting on any EU citizen can result in fines that would make even the biggest players wince.

  36. I_am_not_a_robot

    bemused @ 5:05 pm:
    You are wrong that I am wrong.

  37. You are wrong that I am wrong.

    Then explain why so many links go missing.

  38. I_am_not_a_robot

    My original comment was referring to the Tucker interview above, I have no idea what you are referring to.
    I wrote: ‘search engines make money through advertising’ and that is precisely what your link says, what’s your problem with that?

  39. 2dogs

    We need to push for moving the social graph into the public domain.

    The Open Source community, which leans slightly to the Left but has really started to resent SJWs recently, would be in favour of such a move (particular since their own Mastodon software would be involved).

    The opportunity here is that the Open Source community has the ability to inflict a lot of pain on the Tech Giants, if it is sufficiently motivated to do so. A large number of the programmers who, in their day jobs, keep the lights on at these firms, are members of this community. And part of the business model of the Tech Giants requires them keeping the Open Source community on side.

    Are there any US citizens on this site? If so, could you create a white house petition for this move?

  40. what’s your problem with that?

    You said:

    Why would any search engine want to exclude potential clicks from one side of a political spectrum (or matrix) or another?

    I answered.

  41. Muddy

    2dogs
    #3120032, posted on July 31, 2019 at 6:57 pm

    The opportunity here is that the Open Source community has the ability to inflict a lot of pain on the Tech Giants, if it is sufficiently motivated to do so.

    Interesting.
    By ‘open source,’ you mean the creators of, say, software, not staking a claim to the I.P.?
    Aside from government intervention, would there be other means of using the open source community to weaken the dominance of the tech giants?
    Serious question. I’m a tech-tard, so I truly don’t know, and would not have the capacity to use the information if I did know. I am quite interested in abstract strategies and tactics, however.

  42. Phill

    There is a movie out at present, called The Great Hack…The blurb says

    “Data, arguably the world’s most valuable asset, is being weaponized to wage cultural and political wars. The dark world of data exploitation is uncovered through the unpredictable personal journeys of players on different sides of the explosive Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data story.”

    Its got an 82% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

    I get somewhat annoyed. The key lie here is that Obama had already done, in 2012, what Cambridge Analytica tried to do in 2016. Except they tried it for conservative campaigns (Cruz in 2015, Trump in 2016).

    According to wikipedia;

    “The personal data of approximately 87 million[24] Facebook users were acquired via the 270,000 Facebook users who used a Facebook app called “This Is Your Digital Life.”By giving this third-party app permission to acquire their data, back in 2015, this also gave the app access to information on the user’s friends network; this resulted in the data of about 87 million users, the majority of whom had not explicitly given Cambridge Analytica permission to access their data, being collected. The app developer breached Facebook’s terms of service by giving the data to Cambridge Analytica.”

    Once the Obama campaign insiders explained in considerable technical detail how they had done it, it was open to other players to exploit the same bug / feature in the facebook API. BTW, Cambridge Alalytica declared bankruptcy a few years later.

    So to me, it is not a question of whether conservatives should develop the same tools. They will never be allowed to use them.

  43. The open source community has a snowball’s chance in Hell of overcoming the tech giants. Just consider Linux, in 1999 I was told by many ‘experts’ that Linux would be on every laptop and desktop in a few years and Windows would be dead. That didn’t work out.

    But the open source community does nothing more than potter around with software, saving us from evil tech monopolies with alternatives to Photoshop and the like. What we’re talking about here is something quite different and much more powerful.

    We’re talking about social engineering and from organisations with very deep pockets. Just consider that George Soros is now funding Firefox. You might wonder why. Maybe because he’s a philanthropist.

  44. I_am_not_a_robot

    Q: “why would any search engine want to exclude potential clicks from one side of a political spectrum (or matrix) or another?”.
    A: “[because] if advertisers threaten to pull out of Google’s services (that includes YouTube), Google will lose money”.
    You don’t say.

  45. Publius

    Sinclair back up your bullshit comment with facts and evidence.
    Go on. Show us what you got.

  46. roger

    We’re talking about social engineering

    Enough with the hyperbole.
    Google, Facebook and Twitter are private businesses who are in it first and foremost for the money. All of them started off as small start-ups; so, in the back of their minds, they know that some small start-up is now lurking in the dark, waiting for them to make some stupid mistake so that the start-up can be the next big thing. Our data is how we pay them for their services, instead of dollars. That’s how it works. These companies can have my data and choke to death on it, for all I care. And I can quit at *any second I choose* using any or all of their services.
    It is entirely up to me.
    If FB, Twiiter and Google are so powerful, how did the Left lose in the US, Britain, Australia, Brexit, etc. Wanna take on social engineering by giant media orgs? Start with the ABC/SBS. They are the real danger to our freedom, because we have to put up with them.
    Get it? Your freedom is *never* in danger from services you are free to opt out of, such as Google/FB/Twitter, but rather from government and its agencies, such as ABC and SBS, which impose themselves on us.

  47. Enough with the hyperbole.
    Google, Facebook and Twitter are private businesses who are in it first and foremost for the money.

    None so blind.

    how did the Left lose in the US, Britain, Australia, Brexit,

    They simply overestimated their position and became overconfident, but are now doubling down, especially for 2020. When Democrats fall foul of the likes Google because they aren’t their preferred candidate, it says something:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFGAAa91U3o

    But you already know all of that and are simply trying to ride shotgun for the Left.

  48. The obsession that some conservatives have with the alleged political power of Google/FB/Twitter is truly a sight to behold.
    My take on this is that the number of people swayed to vote for the Left because of bias of Big Tech is the same number of people swayed to vote Trump because of, you know, all that Russian collusion exposed by the Mueller report. Now, excuse me while I go and dig out some more interesting facts about how millions of votes were swayed by some Google search results or some stupid Tweet/FB post by a Putin agent. May start my research with Alice in Wonderland.

  49. Howard Hill

    Now you can see why Australia is so fucked up, Roger. So many lefties, even on a libertarian blog.
    The lefty apocalypse is upon us.
    I’ll bet my house they all use the services of the slime they now want .gov to punish because they haven’t got what it takes to fight this war and let me remind you, it is a war!

    I’ll bet almost all of them have an android phone, use do no evil for their searches and if they have a website, use do no evil analytics, do no evil user content, do no evil, api’s and the list goes on and on. Fucking hypocrites the lot of them.

    Hmm, Iampeter isn’t such a loony after all, he’s right on the money!

  50. Crossie

    If I don’t agree with Joyce Allan, I shouldn’t have to start my own airline to be flown to Perth.

    Qantas doesn’t belong to Joyce, he is merely its current steward and he is abusing his position.

  51. Crossie

    You ‘conservatives’ are beginning to act like the very lefties you despise so much.

    If you can’t join them, beat them.

  52. roger

    I’ll bet almost all of them have an android phone, use do no evil for their searches and if they have a website, use do no evil analytics, do no evil user content, do no evil, api’s and the list goes on and on. Fucking hypocrites the lot of them.

    – “…and that’s how the Google and the Left took control over our society…”
    – “So, Grandpa, why didn’t you stand up for yourself against evil Google before it was too late?”
    – “But, but, what was I supposed to do? What else could we have possibly done but give up?!”
    – “Grandpa dear, why didn’t you just switch to another search engine?”
    – 《Slaps self in forehead.》 “Dang, I had a feeling there was something I was missing!”

  53. Howard Hill

    Exactly, when it’s too much of an inconvenience for them, they call on .gov to do their dirty work for them. Hmm just like a lefty, lol. Is it any wonder .gov is bigger and more power than god with all these disciples supporting it?
    Sickening really, but that’s the clown world we live in, unfortunately.

  54. Crossie

    Hmm just like a lefty,

    Exactly. Why would you want to tie your own hands behind your back? They resort to .gov, you do the same.

  55. 2dogs

    The open source community has a snowball’s chance in Hell of overcoming the tech giants. Just consider Linux, in 1999 I was told by many ‘experts’ that Linux would be on every laptop and desktop in a few years and Windows would be dead. That didn’t work out.

    Says you, in a post on a server running Linux.

    Linux has a huge share of internet servers, and with regard to personal computing devices, there is a lot of open source in both the Android and iPhone platforms.

  56. 2dogs

    But the open source community does nothing more than potter around with software, saving us from evil tech monopolies with alternatives to Photoshop and the like. What we’re talking about here is something quite different and much more powerful.

    You miss the point. Many of those people pottering around in their spare time have day jobs at these Tech Giants. The threat is one of industrial action. If these guys unionise, those Tech Giants are going to have a fight on their hands.

  57. Crossie

    The threat is one of industrial action. If these guys unionise, those Tech Giants are going to have a fight on their hands.

    Not going to happen. The tech giants, just like the Democrats with illegal aliens, have imported a new workforce from India that is at their mercy and will not rock the boat.

  58. Howard Hill

    you do the same.

    I can tell you that I do not rely on .gov for anything and do everything in my power to stem their hold over us, even at great inconvenience to myself and my family. You would be surprised at the length we go to, to avoid feeding parasites and not just the ones in .gov! We live and sleep very well (for the time being) without them. You should try it some day, it’s a very rewarding life style.

    The open source community has a snowball’s chance in Hell of overcoming the tech giants. Just consider Linux, in 1999 I was told by many ‘experts’ that Linux would be on every laptop and desktop in a few years and Windows would be dead. That didn’t work out.

    Hahaha! What a freaking numbskull. Linux is android you fumbling fruitcake. Do no evil use Linux exclusively in their entire network as does that other piece of crap farcebook. Even the once mighty microshaft use it for their web services. Your fucking toaster, microwave runs on linux. FMD, this country is full of stupid morons!

  59. 2dogs

    The tech giants … have imported a new workforce from India

    If that is how the Tech Giants respond, they are in for a nasty shock.

  60. Crossie

    gs
    #3120185, posted on July 31, 2019 at 11:18 pm
    The tech giants … have imported a new workforce from India

    If that is how the Tech Giants respond, they are in for a nasty shock.

    Not really, most of them have already been absorbed into the Borg of the big tech.

  61. Howard Hill

    George Soros is now funding Firefox.

    The Mozilla corporation is a bunch of woke fuckwits, has been for a long time.
    Like every good lefty, they’ll take OTP’s money from anyone willing to give it to them.

    Anyone with a brain, who’s aware or their surroundings and the consequences of supporting evil, brain dead, lefties has already moved on to other browsers, Waterfox, Pale Moon, Brave and a myriad of others.

    Ignorance carries consequences and it is people like the lefties on this forum that call themselves conservatives that are sabboing the rest of us. They’re just like the people described in this video to a tee. And now they’re winging because their consequences are coming back to bite them, lol. Clown World, what an apt description!

  62. Jannie

    I can’t watch the video, error, nor can I find it on YouTube search with his other stuff.

  63. Howard Hill

    I can’t watch the video, error, nor can I find it on YouTube search with his other stuff.

    Hi Jannie.
    Strange, works for me. But I use Open DNS. Perhaps your isp is blocking it like the good little .gov lackeys most of them are.

    Search hooktube/youtube for: Government As God

  64. Zatara

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    ― C. S. Lewis

    Arguably, we are and have been living under the robber barons.

    Powerful groups of ‘omnipotent moral busybodies’ acting in what they consider to be the best interests of society have overcome governments more than once. The Russian and French revolutions come to mind. It could very easily happen again under the current circumstances. Control the press and social media and you are most of the way there.

    Fight them now or be completely subjugated by them later.

  65. roger

    I can’t watch the video, error, nor can I find it on YouTube search with his other stuff.

    You’re not missing out on anything.
    Anarchistic claptrap that may be hard even for the more deranged members of Antifa to stomach.
    Started watching this, but two minutes into it realised that I’m never going to get the time I spent on this nutjobbery back in my life, so I stopped.

  66. 1735099

    Get it? Your freedom is *never* in danger from services you are free to opt out of, such as Google/FB/Twitter, but rather from government and its agencies, such as ABC and SBS, which impose themselves on us.

    Last time I checked, there was no law or statute that said watching the ABC or SBS was mandated.
    The little buttons on your remote have other numbers besides 2 and 3…..

  67. Linux has a huge share of internet servers, and with regard to personal computing devices, there is a lot of open source in both the Android and iPhone platforms.

    I’m well aware that Linux is a big player when it comes to servers, but I was talking about desktops. I’ve tried like Linux since the early 2000s and always come to detest how it works. Linux lovers always say ‘even my grandma can use Linux’, but give her any computer and tell her to then install and maintain it.

    I was a Windows phone owner till its death, but eventually had no choice but to chose Android or Apple. I hate both. The same applies to just about everything now, you have no choice but to use YouTube if you want to post videos (forget Vimeo), Google analytics if you want to know whats going on (I tried Matomo, but again, learn a new language to try and install it). And so it goes.

    IT geeks have no idea what if means for a non-specialist to navigate the IT world nowadays.

  68. Last time I checked, there was no law or statute that said watching the ABC or SBS was mandated.

    Last time I checked, there was a law that says I have to pay taxes.
    Last time I checked, there was an allocation of > 1B$ that make these Leftie fvckwits the most dominant news and current affairs network in Oz, whether I like it or not.
    They coerce the taxpayer to fund them. To the tune of > $B1.
    They get their power by coercion, not customer choice.

  69. Howard Hill

    I’m well aware that Linux is a big player when it comes to servers, but I was talking about desktops. I’ve tried like Linux since the early 2000s and always come to detest how it works. Linux lovers always say ‘even my grandma can use Linux’, but give her any computer and tell her to then install and maintain it.

    So you tried something 20 years ago and deduced it was crap and never looked at it again?
    Now you’re trying to tell everyone that scouring the internet for obscure hardware drivers, having to download gigabytes of data on a weekly basis to keep your system up to date, waiting for countless reboots to take place, answering a myriad of license agreements and Eula’s, needing to spend thousands of dollars on software; is easier than simply typing aptitude install program, aptitude update and aptitude safe-upgrade?

    That you have no restrictions on what you can do with your system, that you have total control of what you install and what you don’t want installed, is harder/worse than being dictated to by a bunch of woke totalitarians that move the goal posts on you at any opportunity so as to force you into parting with your hard earned cash for no good reason at all?

    What you really mean to say is: I’m a lazy bastard that couldn’t be bothered with stretching my brain a bit and the rest of the world be damned. That I’ll use anything that’s easier for my small brain to comprehend and then whine like a spoiled child when someone does something I don’t like and demand the state solve my problems for me.

    I’m no IT guru by any stretch of the imagination but claiming that Linux on the desktop is harder than the rest is just plain bullshit!

    Started watching this, but two minutes into it realised that I’m never going to get the time I spent on this nutjobbery back in my life, so I stopped.

    Yeah, the truth is often hard to swallow, even for the most sane of persons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.