Google dropped its motto – Don’t be evil in 2018. In 2020, I can see why. Tune in to see what I mean. #privacy #censorship #MindControl Big respect to DuckDuckGo!
Hi, I’m Jim Stroud and this is my podcast.
Back in May 2018, Google quietly removed its famous ‘Don’t be evil’ motto from the introduction to its code of conduct. As spotted by Gizmodo, the phrase was dropped from the preface of Google’s code of conduct in late April or early May. Until then, ‘Don’t be evil’ were the first words of the opening and closing sentences of Google’s code of conduct and have been part of it since 2000. So, I’m wondering, has Google been evil since removing its famous motto? I’ll share some recent, rather controversial, articles about Google and let you decide. Stay tuned.
Do you like junk food? Of course you do, who doesn’t? So, its likely you have some junk food in your cabinet or refrigerator. What if one of your friends was a personal trainer? They spot the junk food in your house and immediately begin tossing it in the trash . When you ask them what they’re doing. Their response is “trust me, its for your own good.” Most likely you would be offended because you rightly believe that you have the freedom to make your own decisions and that choice was taken away from you. Well, that’s kind of what Google is doing when it comes to their Google Drive system. If you store a video on your Google Drive that Google does not approve of, Google will remove it. Yes, I said what you just heard. Listen to these quotes from the website – Reclaim The Net.
Ever since Big Tech platforms started cracking down on what they deem to be coronavirus misinformation, the media has been willfully flagging alleged violations to social media companies and getting content taken down.
And now the file storage and sharing service Google Drive has started to take down users’ files in response to media complaints about them containing coronavirus misinformation.
In an article reporting on the takedown, The Washington Post’s Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complains that after the coronavirus documentary Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access “banned footage” from the documentary via Google Drive.
She then notes that after The Washington Post contacted Google, Google Drive took down a file featuring the trailer for the Plandemic documentary.
The Plandemic trailer isn’t the only file that’s been censored on Google Drive in recent months.
After SpaceX and Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk linked to what Dwoskin describes as a “questionable study” about the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine in March, Google blocked access to the document.
For many Google Drive users, the service is their only file storage solution and they use it to save copies of videos and posts that have been deleted or censored on other platforms.
If this precedent continues, it could mean these users have their only copy of content that has been scrubbed from social media platforms taken down because they shared a link to those files with other people.
The takedown of the Plandemic file is reflective of the increasingly aggressive moderation standards big tech companies are employing when it comes to what users are allowed to say about the coronavirus.
Okay, another scenario. Imagine that you are in love or, something similar, and you take some rather provocative photos and videos intended to be seen only by your lover. Well, things happen, you break up and your racy photos and videos are online and easily found with a Google search on your name. Feeling extremely embarrassed, you contact Google and explain things. You tell them that it not only embarrasses you but, endangers your livelihood. You even get a lawyer involved! Google’s response? Too bad. So sad. We will not remove a thing. Listen to these quotes from the NY Post.
…I pleaded with Google’s “Legal Removals” team to show mercy on 15 women I represented in a case against a porn company. My clients, all aged 18-22, had answered deceptive bikini-model ads and had become embroiled in a conspiracy to perform porn that resulted in some of them being raped before and during the shoots. These nonconsensual sex videos were then shared hundreds of thousands of times on popular porn sites.
We sent affidavits to Google urging them to remove the videos. Google’s policies dictate only two instances when they will remove content — child pornography and copyright-infringement requests.
The current policy says Google may remove nude or sexually explicit images that were shared without consent, but the company maintains sole discretion about when to remove nonconsensual pornography. If Google decides it will keep linking to a website that contains your nude images, victims are just out of luck. And there’s no appellate body. There is no law, only corporate policy, that protects (or fails to protect) victims’ most private information. Not even New York’s new revenge-porn laws help here because they are aimed at punishing the individual who nonconsensually shared the material and not the search engines that drive views.
Google knew these women had been tricked, held captive, sexually assaulted and humiliated and were suffering because of the exposure it was causing, but corporate interest dictated total indifference. To this day, Google will not remove those links from their search-engine results. The graphic evidence of abuse now haunts these women as they apply for jobs, use social media, seek roommates, date. Most of these women remain underemployed, terrified and unable to lead normal lives because Google won’t lift a finger on the basis of its cynical corporate policy.
Google is the number one search engine in the world. According to Statcounter, Google handles 91.89% of all search engine searches. The second most popular search engine is Bing with 2.79% search engine market share. This gives Google an unprecedented amount of control over how we think. For example, if you have no knowledge about peanut butter sandwiches and you search Google for information then, chances are your views on peanut butter sandwiches will be formed by what you find on Google. Now imagine that instead of peanut butter sandwiches, you are curious about a political candidate.
In an undercover video from the media company – Project Veritas, a Google Insider exposed the bias that Google has against President Trump. In no uncertain terms, they were very much against him politically and are determined to do all they can to prevent his reelection. Now, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, this should concern you. In effect, Google is taking delight in steering your thoughts so you think the way they want you to think. Listen to this clip from Project Veritas that exposes Jen Gennai, Head of Responsible Innovation at Google and others.
This report was suppressed by the mainstream media which is why you might not have heard a lot about it or anything about it, prior to this podcast. However, it did reach the attention of some people in Washington. Listen to this exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and Google User Experience Director, Maggie Stanphil during a Senate hearing on June 25, 2019.
Did you hear any remorse in that testimony from Google? I didn’t either. If Google’s indifference towards manipulating search results to guide your way of thinking does not bother you nor, its censorship of information that you keep in your private Google Drive nor its lax attitude towards removing embarrassing data that threatens your way of life then, I have one more consideration that is sure to bother you indeed. I’ll share that, right after this.
How do you feel about Google knowing you better than your friends and family? Even if you’ve done nothing wrong and “have nothing to hide,” what about the potential of hackers getting personal information and using it to steal from you or harm your reputation or endanger the lives of people you associate with?
John Battelle is an entrepreneur, author and journalist. Among his claims to fame, is helping to launch WIRED magazine, founding the annual Web 2.0 Summit and his popular book, “The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture,” describes the history and impact of search engines and the late emergence of Google from a field of competitors. He also writes the blog – “Searchblog” where one of his readers asked him a very interesting question back in 2006.
His reader asked,” Does Google keep logs of searches correlated with IP address or other personally identifiable information for users who have not logged in?”
John Batelle answered, “I knew it kept parts of this data, but was not sure. So I pinged Google PR, which checked in for me (thanks!). The response was to quote Google’s privacy FAQ:
Like most Web sites, our servers automatically record the page requests made when users visit our sites. These “server logs” typically include your web request, Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser. In other words, yes, Google does record this data. But, does it KEEP that data, I asked?
The answer: Yes, we do.
“…just because you set Google not to track your online or offline activity doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve closed off your data to Google completely. Google has admitted it can track your physical location even if you turn off location services using information gathered from Wi-Fi and other wireless signals near your phone. Also, just like Facebook has been guilty of doing for years, Google doesn’t even need you to be signed in to track you.
Not to mention, there are sometimes seeming contradictions between Google’s statements on privacy issues. For example, Google recently admitted to scanning your Gmail messages to compile a list of your purchases in spite of publicly declaring in a 2018 press release, “To be absolutely clear: no one at Google reads your Gmail, except in very specific cases where you ask us to and give consent, or where we need to for security purposes, such as investigating a bug or abuse.” Perhaps by “no one” Google meant “no human,” but in an age of increasingly powerful AI, such a distinction is practically moot.
MUSIC IN THIS PODCAST
► unset (Prod. by Lukrembo)
► Music Credit: Dj Quads Track Name: “www is a thing” Music By: Dj Quads @ https://soundcloud.com/aka-dj-quads Original upload HERE – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cqqU… • DJ QUads YouTube channel HERE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCusF… • Dj Quads on SoundCloud HERE: https://soundcloud.com/aka-dj-quads • Dj Quads on Twitter HERE: https://twitter.com/DjQuads • Dj Quads on Spotify HERE: https://open.spotify.com/artist/2VZrd… • Dj Quads on Instagram HERE: https://www.instagram.com/djquads/
► Music Credit: ‘Cloophie’ Track Name: ‘Year 3077’ Music By: Cloophie Official “Cloophie” SoundCloud HERE –
https://soundcloud.com/cloophie Official “Cloophie” Instagram HERE – https://www.instagram.com/cloo_phie/ DOWNLOAD @ https://www.chilloutmedia.com/cloophie License for commercial use: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported “Share Alike” (CC BY-SA 4.0) License. Full License HERE – https://creativecommons.org/licenses/… Music promoted by NCM https://goo.gl/fh3rEJ @ https://www.LoFi-HipHop.com
Related Posts via Taxonomies
- When it comes to machine bias, the struggle is real…
- NSFW: Can Artificial Intelligence Stop Porn in the Workplace?
- Biometric Resumes are Coming Soon to an Interview Near You
- Alexa, Witness for the Defense
- Hashtag Delete Facebook
- Immortality for Sale But, Who Wants to Live Forever?
- Amazon wants to know more, more and more about you!
- The Pros and Cons of Predictive Policing
- Barcoding the Homeless
- Would you ride in a car without a driver?