The main Internet gatekeepers and causes for concern are Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR), and Microsoft (MSFT) – together, GFTM.
Internet Gatekeepers’ Misconduct
Google locked conservative University of Toronto professor Jordan B. Peterson out of all his Google accounts. The probable cause is his dissent with the identity politics of the Left, especially his opposition to the mandatory use of “gender neutral pronouns.” Daily Caller reported on August 1:
“Please tell me what principle I have violated,” said Peterson in his email to Google upon discovering that he was locked out of his account. “I have not violated any terms that I am aware of and have not misused my account.” The psychology professor has over 350,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel, which he uses as a platform to post his lectures, interviews, and Q&As. “We understand you’ve recently been unable to access your Google account, and we appreciate you contacting us,” said Google in a response. “After review, your account is not eligible to be reinstated due to a violation of our Terms of Service.” …
When emailed at his Google address, Google returns an “Address not found” error message. “I’ve had that account for the last, say, 15 years,” said Peterson to TheDCNF. “All of my correspondence is in that account. It’s hundreds of thousands of emails from people all over the world.”
Yes, you read that right. Google locked not only his YouTube account, but also his email and other services. There is no reason to think this is a coincidence. Google refused to publicly comment on its actions. FSM has blacked out this news.
Most smartphones run on Google’s Android operating system, which receives frequent updates. Many of us rely on Google Maps navigation. Some of us use Gmail accounts for all our documents (Google Docs), data (GDrive), appointments (Google Calendar), logging into third party websites, and other essential purposes. Google has the potential to destroy lives. This is on top of the deceitful Google Search, which has already been discussed (2).
Facebook was caught manually selecting and removing news stories, which it displayed as Trending. The users were told that the stories were trending among other Facebook viewers and were placed automatically, although the stories were hand-picked by mostly leftist editors. Later, the editorial team doing selection was laid off, most likely because Facebook has developed algorithms to emulate its choices.
After Hillary Clinton blamed her loss of elections on “fake news,” Facebook joined her and announced a major initiative to suppress “fake news.” It assembled a group of international “fact checkers” and declared the steps it would take against news disputed by these “fact checkers.” All of them are left-leaning and accept climate alarmism lies and distortions as facts. Claims such as “settled science” and the 97% meme are touted as truth. Recently, this censorship system, originally requested by Frau Merkel, has been put in action in the U.S. Users trying to share stories not liked by the “fact checkers” are told that the story is disputed by 3rd parties (which is false, because the “fact checkers” hand-picked by Facebook are not a 3rd party), and must go through up to four additional steps to share the story (3, 4). Even worse, Facebook shows some users “related articles” written or suggested by the “fact checkers” (4a). These actions look like fraud and abuse of monopoly.
Twitter has been shadow banning accounts of non-conforming authors, including our friend Scott Adams, since at least October 2016. See his posts Twitter and Periscope Shadowban Update and Am I Shadowbanned on Twitter? Adams’ only “controversial” opinions are dissent from climate alarmism and support of Donald Trump. Shadow banning is an especially nasty way of silencing dissent because neither viewers nor the author are notified of the ban. The posts are not shown to viewers while the author remains unaware of it.
Twitter is in the business of delivering tweets, just like UPS is in the business of delivering parcels. Shadow banning is the equivalent of UPS accepting parcels then intentionally delaying or disposing of parcels from senders whose religious or political views it does not like. Even worse, Twitter falsely notifies the senders that the hidden tweets (the stolen parcels) have been delivered, and tells the intended recipients that the sender did not tweet (sent parcels) as they expected. These actions look like theft and fraud.
Twitter has banned several highly visible anti-Left authors (4b). Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey publicly toyed with the idea to ban President Trump from Twitter. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party and the media continues calling on him to do it. “Deputy Chair of the DNC Keith Ellison recently called on Twitter to ban Donald Trump once and for all, joining countless publications who have made the same demand.” (5)
Facebook, Twitter, and Google are monopolies in their respective markets. They were allowed to achieve and maintain this position through sweetheart deals with the Obama administration.
Microsoft’s Bing Search is no better than Google Search on the climate debate, indicating that Microsoft artificially down-ranked climate realist content. Microsoft also abuses its screensaver rotation feature to send us leftist political messages. A couple weeks ago, Microsoft announced “creating a carbon-free headquarters in the Puget Sound region” (6). Microsoft Windows runs our desktops and laptops, and the company can brick most of them with a single update.
Besides being apparently illegal, these actions violate the principle of net neutrality. All four companies operate network platforms and shall not discriminate against users or content. Ironically, they violate net neutrality while claiming they fight to protect net neutrality.
Causes and Intent of the Gatekeepers’ Misconduct
But the reasons for the recent Gatekeepers’ misconduct are even worse than its effect. They suppress speech in the U.S. in response to the demand by foreign governments and supranational organizations. These companies see the Internet as borderless space. China asserted its sovereignty by building a Great Chinese Firewall, but the European Union started with minor demands and GFTM acquiesced. In May 2016, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft signed a code of conduct promising to combat “hate speech,” as defined by the EU from time to time (7). Even worse:
“… the IT companies [GFTM] commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online … The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.“
Here, “critical thinking” probably stands for uncritical acceptance of climate alarmism dogma. In early 2017, the unpopular governments of France and Germany, facing hard elections, demanded the social networks to remove “fake news.” Recently, Germany even passed a law to that effect. GFTM were happy to oblige (8). Thus, GFTM respected the sovereignty and laws of foreign countries and regional blocks while fighting Trump’s efforts to protect U.S laws and borders.
The European Union wields a lot of power over U.S. “tech” companies and has very little incentives not to abuse this power. The EU governance structure also empowers transnational agendas and organizations such as the climate alarmism governance. No doubt, the European Union bureaucracy used and continues to use its influence to covertly and illegally influence U.S. elections and other domestic affairs. The appointment of Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA has sent enviros into a panic, and the rejection of the Paris pact might have burnt all fuses there. Less than a month after this historical rejection, and possibly in retaliation for it, the EU fined Google $2.7B.
Whether GFTM succumbed to the pressure from foreign governments or enthusiastically sided with them against this country, their behavior is inexcusable. The EU can ban or promote whatever speech it wants in the EU countries. U.S. companies operating in foreign countries must follow the laws of those countries, as long as that does not violate applicable U.S. laws. But U.S. companies are not allowed to “import” foreign laws into the U.S. And this is what they have been doing. The following quote from an article by Robert Spencer on an unrelated subject contains evidence that Twitter and Facebook implement the EU policies against U.S. authors on American soil, in violation of American laws.
“Did thousands of people who used to click through to Jihad Watch articles from Facebook and Twitter suddenly lose interest on February 10, 2017? Of course not. What happened on that day was that Facebook and Twitter began to censor Jihad Watch as “hate speech,” in accordance with the assurances they had given to the European Union.”
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. A hard ban, as in the case of Prof. Peterson, used to be rather a rarer case. The techniques used by these gatekeepers to hide anti-Left opinions, including climate realism, usually range from shadow banning to demoting or de-ranking undesirable content. We know about some of these efforts mainly from the companies themselves. The typical excuses are a fight against fake news, hate speech, and the spread of terrorism. The first two monikers are familiar. The term “fake news” includes any news which the Left does not believe. The “hate speech” is speech by anybody whom the Left hates. But fighting against the spread of terrorism is as good a pretext to suppress dissenting opinion as any other. Few days ago, Google’s YouTube announced that it would take actions against “videos [that] don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content” (9). Google YouTube is a monopoly, created in collusion with Obama administration.
Connecting the Dots
The “tech” companies rejected courtship by Trump and refused to participate in the councils set up by the administration. They viciously attacked him over the travel ban, Paris pact rejection, restoration of Internet access freedom, and juts about everything else. Their leaders publicly side with foreign powers and domestic “resistance” against the Trump administration, and use their platforms and stockholders’ money to silence Trump supporters.
Why is the “tech” industry trying so hard to antagonize President Trump? It makes no sense. It needs governmental support and forbearance all the time. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are monopolies. They need the government to tolerate them, or to be “gentle” when dismantling or regulating them. They need the government to protect them against fines, tariffs, and confiscations abroad. Many of them have extremely fragile business models that may be ruined by minor changes in copyright, privacy, and tort laws and regulations. Internet behemoths have no friends. Their accomplices among trial lawyers and their symbionts would tear them apart with the same joy with which they intended to tear apart oil companies.
Such antagonistic behavior by a large industry towards the elected government is unprecedented in modern time. Further, it comes in a time when ability of commercial interests to oppose the government is at an all-time low. The “tech” industry leaders themselves have contributed to the decline of what they call “corporate power.” They are just a strike of an AG pen away from a RICO investigation. The only thing needed for a RICO conviction is finding two counts of fraud by more than one of them (plus some conditions that are already met). And many of them commit thousands of frauds each day. On the opposite side, the Trump government is unusually strong. President Trump has majorities in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and even the Supreme Court. Even Roosevelt didn’t have such a strong hand.
The only explanation is that the “tech” industry is trying to overthrow the government, in collusion with known actors. And many industry leaders have invested in this attempt not only their personal wealth, but also the money of shareholders to whom they owe fiduciary duty. Even if sedition charges don’t stick, the breach of fiduciary duty might put them behind bars for decades. They have burnt bridges behind themselves, and are unlikely to stop on their own. They must be stopped by law enforcement.
Implications & Suggested Action
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft have amassed enough control over the critical informational infrastructure to seriously threaten national security. I believe they are abusing this power and intend to escalate this abuse with no limit in sight. For example, they can use their control of the networked operating systems and other platforms to start riots, to direct attacks on critical infrastructure, to spread panic, and to confuse police and security services at a nationwide level and at the time they choose. Because of their hiring and promotion policies, they might be infiltrated by saboteurs who would do such things even without company approval.
I would suggest the FBI should start an investigation in these matters and should use technical talent with security clearance. The FBI should investigate even if it does not suspect sedition. I ask the readers who are familiar with the procedure to notify the FBI, the DOJ, and SEC, and to file complaints with fair state Attorneys General. Also, these corporations are national assets that must be protected against harm and misuse by their officers.
GFTM might be required to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
An unusually prominent feature of climate alarmism was targeting scientific organizations (such as the Marshall Institute) and individual scientists who advocated the development of an anti-missile shield, including Frederick Seitz and William Happer. This connection was acknowledged (although in a perverse form) by Naomi Oreskes. The Marshall Institute’s budget has never exceeded more than a few hundreds of thousands of dollars – a tiny fraction of the budgets of Greenpeace or WWF. Somebody has to ask an already answered question about the reasons for such actions. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt made an unexplained visit to North Korea in 2013. Today, four years after that visit, North Korea has nearly completed the development of a nuclear-capable ICBM. Eric Schmidt, one of the most active supporters and funders of climate alarmism and a member of Obama’s Council on Science and Technology, seems a perfect person of interest on these matters.
I suggest readers to also take legal action against GFTM for civil rights violations, fraud, and tort under federal and state laws. Those who are going to pursue private action should notice that “Good Samaritan” protections of 47 U.S. Code § 230(c) do not apply to GFTM’s silencing of anti-Left speech because of lack of good faith in this behavior by GFTM.
Current and former employees and contractors of these companies, who might be privy of any suspected misconduct that might be prosecuted under the False Claims Act, should contact attorneys who specialize in this area of law.
Disclosure: I hold short positions in GOOG, FB, TWTR, and MSFT.
Thanks to H.J. for collaborating on this article.
This has gone far too far. This makes 1984 look like a pleasant sunday at the beach.
This has to stop. Now.
Breaking news: Google has fired the software engineer, who dared to question its “diversity” politics in an internal document, now available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf.
Unfortunately, even this man believes in “climate change” pseudo-science: “… Right deny science that runs counter to the ‘God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences …”
This is a bit of an exception. Holding that belief and keeping it to yourself is one thing, but he broadcast his manifesto throughout the entire company. Not only do I think his manifesto is short sighted and reinforce persecution, real and imagined, among their female workforce, but using your work account to spread pretty much any manifesto in your company is a very stupid idea and I’m glad he got fired. For instance if I worked at a Guinness distillery and I spread a manifesto that said that no Irish should ever brew beer because they’re more likely to become alcoholics, I’d expect my ass would be fired the next day by my Irish foreman.
Thank you for the link: I’ve now read it. If it’s misogyny, it’s very moderate, well caveated and apologetic: it’s not of a kind an earlier generation would recognize (whoops: that’s a bit anti-diverse of me).
The author of the memo seems to be arguing in favour of diversity of mind. Google seems to prefer diversity of body and uniformity of mind.
Michael, by your comment it would appear that you have not read the document itself so much as the media about the document. Perhaps you could point to the section that “reinforces persecution, real and imagined, among the female workforce”? Notwithstanding the point that _imagined_ persecution probably isn’t actually persecution of course.
The Atlantic has a good story, “the most common error in coverage of the Google memo,” at:
May be this is the image of the original::large
yes this is sinister and should be roundly condemned but WHY do people put stuff which their “lives” and maybe career depend upon, on a service of which they have no control , no right of reply or to contest or arbitration, no redress and no consumer rights ( because it’s “free” ) ?
Web and email hosting is pretty cheap as are domain names.
If stuff is important, pay for somewhere to put it that can’t be taken away in a politically correct hissy fit by the provider.
If your email archive is important personally or professionally, don’t leave it floating around on a cloud somewhere. It may sound really cool and trendy but we all know clouds have a tenancy to disperse or just blow away. That should sound like a pretty damned clear warning that it is not a good place to put your valuables.
Use an email client like Thunderbird and download you emails and back them up. instead of relying on web interface and imagining they will always be there.
You are also forcing Google’s intrusive analysis and indexing of the content of your correspondence on all your personal contacts, who fall into big G’s web as a pre-condition of communicating with you.
I feel sorry for Dr Peterson but much of it is of his own doing. I hope this highlights the unreliability of gmail to others.
Too late now, best look for a little island we can buy together. Sorry, did I say little? Isn’t the right/left split approx 50/50 in many countries?
Most people read “1984” as a warning. Progressive,Retards read it as a training manual.
Breitbart is running several articles right now, about the Orwellian culture at Google.
Here’s a link to one of them, with others accessible from main page:
Breitbart censors, too. Kind of like calling the kettle black……
If Breitbart censors what can be seen on their site, they can. No big deal.
But search engines such as Google are censoring what people are allowed to find on a particular subject. (Much akin to what Wikipedia does on certain subjects.)
To what extent is a private company beholden to free speech? The first amendment prohibits the government from acting favorably towards a religion or viewpoint but it doesn’t constrain or regulate private companies; Google has no obligation to provide a platform for “free speech”. The “Fairness” doctrine went by the wayside 40 years ago.
Certainly the groups you mention (Leo) have an agenda, and that agenda is very certainly manifest in their behavior. Beyond GFTM I’ll mention the Conde’ Nasty suite of media imprimaturs, who regularly censor (very openly) speech that doesn’t suit the gospel according to the authoritarian left. Hey, what’s to say about it? It’s their website. They have no obligation to carry your speech or respect your opinions.
The only thing a person of conscience can do in this situation is stop patronizing the folks who openly work against freedom of speech and thought. These groups suppress thought that counters their agenda and they don’t appear to care who knows it. They make no attempts to hide their agenda.
We watched quietly as the authoritarian left (Marxists) took over the US educational system. We didn’t worry; heck, they wore Birkenstocks and preached “peace and love”. They tried to repeal the 2nd amendment. What’s the problem? Then they took over the media and we said “hey, it’s just TV, who cares?”
And that’s where we are. So if you really think you can’t live without Google or Facebook, Twitter of Microsoft, you’re in trouble.
Cut the cord. Stop using them. Shut them down. Starve them out. They are pure evil and they always have been. That isn’t going to be regulated out of them. You starve the beast until it’s dead. No other solution is remotely viable.
Bartleby – Private companies are under NO intrinsic obligation to protect ‘free speech’. However, there is a long standing principle of ‘public accommodation’ which requires that anyone offering services to ‘everyone’ cannot discriminate. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc, etc is against the law and certainly the freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution is a strong statement of law.
The “Doctrine of Public Accommodation” is no more enshrined in law than that of free speech; it applies to government action. The closest you might get to that concept being expressed in civil or criminal law would be the 14th amendment. It describes protected classes explicitly and same sex marriages (for example) are omitted.
There’s really nothing I’m aware of that prohibits Google from editorializing. William Randolf Hearst made a fortune off it.
Microsoft is probably not a good one to short in the long term. But the others have no real physical assets. The price is built on consumer confidence. And if they start screwing half the population, they will not be adding to their value.
anyone using those platforms especially storing mail off their own pc is asking for trouble anyway.
a massive shift to better systems like LINUX would seem to be wise
im in the throes of doing so
and let fbk twits n the rest crash n burn, idiotic places to be bothered with anyway
search with nonspyware engines like duck duck go,startpage by ixquick and yandex
This is why I only run Linux, run my own email server and use my own cloud. I am pissed that I’m forced to buy windos when I purchase a laptop which never even gets booted before its wiped from the drive.
I just bought a refurbished desktop for the church and discovered that it had a fresh windoze license on it, which undoubtedly increased the price. I nuked windoze immediately so I basically got robbed by microscoff.
It’s also hard to avoid android for phones. It’s built on Linux but google makes it almost impossible to take real control of the phone.
With regard to facebook, youtube, twitter, etc. “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” link
Even when you pay over a hundred thousand for a product, some people insist that you don’t really own it because it has their proprietary software embedded. link
You can buy PC’s and laptops without an OS installed, and I understand you can claim a refund from Microsoft if you don’t use windows on a new PC you have bought with it installed.
Yes, I build my own servers and don’t need to buy windos. Laptops are a different story and only a limited number of models either can have the OS deleted or already come with Linux.
I was a internet service provider before I retired. I wouldn’t trust my data to me, let alone some of the see-you next-tuesday’s out there.
the cloud is MY cloud.
Then you also know what kind of Obstruction of Justice Hillary was capable of by running her own private email server. It’s trivially easy to make all traces of any email thread disappear forever. I wonder how many emails to/from Elizabeth Carlisle were deleted …
This is why all my email is on my computer and I use my website emails, not Google. My husband does use Google (He has a Chromebook) but downloads the emails and could switch to my accounts if need be. My websites are hosted by small and somewhat small companies. Only two of my blogs are on Google. Needless to say, I do not trust Google at all.
As ozspeakup notes, it’s important to download everything like email and blogs if you can to backup. I learned that years ago running a mainframe computer—backup, backup, backup and do not use the Cloud. Use an external hard drive or DVD’s or jump drive.
We need to find something besides Facebook to communicate with. Being a dinosaur myself, I actually send pictures and letters through the mail much of time. At least the post office just delivers the mail and doesn’t open and read it. Maybe the electronic age is not such a good idea for many reasons.
Good info Sheri.
Research into the antics of Eric Schmidt, of Google, especially the evolution the Obama campaign’s 2012 “Narwhal” data mining operation into Schmidt’s Civis Analytics is enough to convince anyone to expunge Google from their system.
It is easy to install non-tracking search engines in your browser. Three of the best are Ixquick, Searchpage and DuckDuckGo. Searchpage and Ixquick are the same company, but Searchpage is tailored for US search and basically adheres to Google search priority, but without the tracking. Ixquick is much the same, but with basically a global (world wide) search without Google site rankings. To install Ixquick you must download it from http://www.ixquick.eu.
With Toolbar buttons for all three I can select the desired one as default for the browser “address and search” window or chose a either one for a one-time option. [Ixquick is my favorite}
The only reason for ever willingly exposing myself to Google is that a few of my contacts are still using Gmail as their email client. [ But I am trying to talk them out of it at every opportunity. 🙂 ]
I agree with your comment, “I don’t trust Google at all.”
re Jerry Howard
Outside USA (I’m guessing) Searchpage is StartPage
Why don’t we just ask ourselves, “What would Hillary do”?
Yandex technically is spyware, as it is controlled by the Russian intelligence services. But FSB probably doesn’t care what foreigners do on the web, as long as it doesn’t concern Russia.
I moved to Linux two years ago and love it, would never go back to Microsoft or use an Apple PC either.
I have been using Linux since 1999 and have NEVER needed to look for anything else.Totally secure and as easy to use as anything around.The only thing wrong with it is,there are so many choices,that it can be a bit confusing.Give it a go,you won’t regret it.
Microsoft totally corrupted the SSD on my desktop computer in an update from Windows 7 to 10. It then bricked my laptop so bad on a weekly patch update that I couldn’t even go back to the last restore point. I have to thank them though, it got me on to Linux and I’ve never looked back.
Excellent read, you nailed it. Shared.
Windows 10 and Office 365, once hooked (Subscribed), hooked forever!
Both easily replaced with better (and far more secure) options.
True. However, most copr’s are going down this path.
True Patrick. Not sure how but the left seemingly manage to infest and takeover any organisation beyond some critical mass. It’s tempting to think that GFTM have gone so rotten that they will naturally wither and die leaving opportunities for newer less corrupt outfits. But it’s kind of inevitable that they will go the same way. The problem is so huge and deep now I believe we are looking squarely at a civilisational crisis point.
They run the HR departments, not hard to see how they took over using Facebook and the rest of social media to pre-select people based on public statements…
I would suggest you read the Terms of Service for gmail in opposition to Office 365. Google pretty much says they are going to scrape your email, Microsoft says exactly the opposite. Then again, Google is in the business of selling advertising while Microsoft is in the business of selling computer technology.
“once hooked (Subscribed), hooked forever!”
This is probably more accurately used to describe crApple. MS is starting to copy some of their worst lock-in practices, but crApple invented them.
RICO their asses.
I posted the following in 2014 – at least one civil RICO lawsuit has since been filed, but this field is open to many more such lawsuits. Global warming alarmism is a trillion-dollar industry based on fr@ud.
Under civil RICO, target warmist institutions with money – such as universities that profited from billions in funding for phony warmist research.
Not sure how it could work under civil RICO, but there are other causes of action to sue business giants like Google and others that are suppressing free speech.
I suggest that someone is going to sue these warmist fr@udsters in the USA, probably using the civil RICO statutes.
Watch for it…
Free speech has no bearing on private organizations, only government. The “great cake wars” of a few years ago also weren’t in any way justified by constitutional measures; private companies and groups retain their freedom to associate. There’s nothing that says I need to make wedding cakes for gay marriages anywhere in law.
HI Bart and thank you for your comments, You may be correct.
In Canada we have Human Rights Commissions that will address such issues – however, they tend to be dominated by leftist imbeciles and it is unlikely they would help a Jordan Peterson, who has entirely too much common sense.
Our Human Rights Commissions tend to enforce the rights of tiny minorities and especially their alleged rights to feel offended by utterly trivial situations.
Some Anti-Trust action is needed
I don’t think that would work. There are already too many alternatives to Gargle, Faceplant and Twitter (Twitter is it’s own humorous cacography). You wouldn’t make an anti-trust action fly unless you could show those groups intentionally held hidden interests in their competitors (which they probably do).
What is Peterson’s status as of today?
I found claims his account has been reopened? Yet, there appeared to be no explanation.
Presumably they believe doing the right thing. The problem isn’t in the good intentions, but in the destination of the slippery paving coming with it.
As well as these allegations against GFTM, I can show similar conduct by the popular University-linked blog “The Conversation”. I am banned from posting, despite requests for reinstatement, for vague allegations of my violation of their guidelines, which are quite broad.
In a legal sense, do the officers of Their Conversation, funded in part by government revenues, have actual power to censor? Geoff
“The only explanation is that the “tech” industry is trying to overthrow the government,”
With posts like this it will be hard to shake the “conspiracy theorists” label.
Why do you suppose that Bezos bought the WaPo, and is now engaged in a war of words with Trump?
Why do you suppose so many tech titans donate so liberally, as it were, to Democrat candidates, “climate change” sc@ms and other “Progressive” causes?
Offer an alternative explanation.
Some people cried wolf when there was no wolf. One should not conclude from that there are no wolves at all.
Well, if you read any of the tech blogs, you will see Progressive agenda items pushed relentlessly, so, yeah – kinda.
“Conspiracy’ is simply cooperation among the like-minded, and to call it a ‘conspiracy theory’ is usually the first dodge.
Zuckerberg has delusions of grandly running the world via FB.
Google and MSFT can censor all of us- each and everyone of us- by not very sophisticated word mining and network analysis.
We are indeed in a very dangerous environment.
When I do a search for “climate change” on Bing I get the following for “Related searches for climate change”:
scientific evidence against global warming
climate change facts and myths
scientists against climate change
climate change hoax
22 reasons climate change is not real
climate change facts
climate change facts debunked
do 97% of climate scientists agree
Sounds good to me! I’ll try anything rather than google if it works. I keep getting grief from Kaspersky as well when I’m on WUWT .
Leo Goldstein wrote, “Microsoft’s Bing Search is no better than Google Search on the climate debate, indicating that Microsoft artificially down-ranked climate realist content.” Examples? Evidence? How would doing so be in Microsoft’s interest?
“Microsoft also abuses its screensaver rotation feature to send us leftist political messages.” Examples? Evidence? The standard default pictures that my Windows computer displays at startup are nature scenes with no political content. If your screensaver is displaying “leftist political messages” I suggest you find a qualified service technician to have them removed and then be more careful what links you click on. Alternatively, do a Bing search on “windows 10 screensaver”. The first result is a set of instructions from Microsoft titled, “Change Your Screensaver Settings” with a convenient link. Try it.
A couple weeks ago, Microsoft announced “creating a carbon-free headquarters in the Puget Sound region” This is a statement of fact and has nothing to do with Bing search, blocking content or suspending users.
Microsoft Windows runs our desktops and laptops, and the company can brick most of them with a single update. Has Microsoft ever done this? How would this ever be in Microsoft’s best interest?
On the climate issues, Bing obviously does this. Put “climate change” into a Bing search and the first skeptical article (an article by Delingpole at Breitbart) appears on page 4. According to Alexa, Wattsupwiththat is consistently the highest trafficked site in climate change, but I still haven’t seen a link to this site by the 10th page of results. That really leaves only intentional malice as the cause – censorship of opinions inconvenient to ones political position is right out of 1984. Of course, to the left 1984 is a playbook, not a warning.
OweninGA wrote, “According to Alexa, Wattsupwiththat is consistently the highest trafficked site in climate change … ”
Science > Environment > Climate Change >
Wattsupwiththat isn’t in the top 50 … which is all I can see without subscribing.
I am not an expert on Alexa rankings so if you have some better information, please post a link.
@rovingbroker “I am not an expert on Alexa rankings so if you have some better information, please post a link.”
If you look at the rank on your search results you will see:
1. Climate.nasa.gov Global Rank: 984 US Rank: 442
2. ipcc.ch Global Rank: 68,228 US Rank: 51,439
Not listed in this search result: wattsupwiththat.com Global Rank: 38,982 US Rank: 13,124
For comparison realclimate.com (Gavin Schmidt’s site) Global Rank: 18,850,016
Ok, bear with me here. I again say that I’m not an expert on Alexa rankings but here’s what Alexa says about their top sites list …
The sites in the top sites list are ordered by their 1 month Alexa traffic rank.
The 1 month rank is calculated using a combination of average daily visitors and pageviews over the last month. The site with the highest combination of visitors and pageviews is ranked #1.
By this method, wattsupwiththat is not in the top 50 in Science > Environment > Climate_Change.
A possibly naïve analysis would be that wattsupwiththat is preaching to the converted. In support of that hypothesis I ask, how many times has a wattsupwiththat post been featured or even quoted in a NYT or WSJ or CNN or any other main stream media story?
@ rovingbroker August 8, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Ok, bear with me here. I again say that I’m not an expert on Alexa rankings but here’s what Alexa says about their top sites list …
Did a little research on why WWUT does not show up in the category you selected. It’s not in that category; it is listed in Society > Issues > Environment > Opposing Views > Climate Change Skeptics
Where it ranks number one:
If Microsoft’s neutrality has the same truth value as its “carbon-free headquarters”, you can mark it all as LIE. What Microsoft does is pay for “renewable energy” and then uses coal, oil and hydro, just like everyone else on the grid. Microsoft, as far as I know, has NO off-grid headquarters. If there’s a powerline to the building, you are NOT carbon free in any way. It’s a fraud.
I believe they call it “carbon neutral” and is an accounting smoke and mirrors, typical of the virtuous greens.
Sheri wrote, “I believe they call it “carbon neutral” and is an accounting smoke and mirrors, typical of the virtuous greens.”
I’m not an expert but it looks like Microsoft is purchasing actual renewable (carbon-free) energy direct from the producers and paying Puget Sound Energy (PSE) only for transmission. It is a complex and costly arrangement but appears to use no coal, oil or gas generated electricity.
Creating a carbon-free headquarters in the Puget Sound region
Yesterday we took an important step in this sustainability journey when the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission approved a new contract between Microsoft and Puget Sound Energy, which enables us to go to the open market to buy 100 percent carbon-free energy to power most of our Puget Sound operations in Washington state. This isn’t just an aspirational goal. In this contract, we’ve committed to buying renewable energy at levels substantially higher than Washington state law, targets that are not only aggressive but meaningful. If we fail to meet these requirements we will face penalties.
Remember, the US Pacific Northwest has lots of hydroelectric power so if this can work anywhere in the near term, that is the place.
Boeing uses carbon-free hydroelectric and renewable energy sources for nearly half our total electricity consumption. Hydropower provides more than 80 percent of electricity to our facilities in Everett, Washington, and the Seattle area, and is also used to generate electricity at our facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Boeing uses the EPA definition of renewable energy, which includes resources that rely on fuel sources that restore themselves over short periods of time and do not diminish. Such fuel sources include the sun, wind, moving water, organic plant and waste material (eligible biomass), and the Earth’s heat (geothermal).
One good thing about highly profitable companies is that they have the financial luxury of making and keeping the kinds of costly commitments others only talk about. We all know that talk is cheap.
Yes, MSFT screensaver usually shows beautiful landscapes and buildings. But on one day I saw a message saying something like “only 6.7% of women graduate with degrees in STEM,” which I consider a political boost to the Left.
Leo Goldstein wrote, “one day I saw a message saying something like … ”
That’s not very strong evidence of anything. One day. Sheesh.
“Leo Goldstein wrote further ” … “only 6.7% of women graduate with degrees in STEM,” which I consider a political boost to the Left.”
Microsoft (and Google and Boeing and Facebook and Apple and Intel and Netflix and … I could go on) depend on educated and talented engineers to make and keep them profitable (a capitalist objective) and I don’t see why Microsoft (and Google and Boeing and Facebook and Apple and Intel and Netflix) working to have more women become educated and talented engineers is a political boost to the Left. It is in their (and our) best interest.
Please explain why you think this is a political boost to the Left.
No it is not. Microsoft (and Google and Boeing and Facebook and Apple and Intel and Netflix) need qualified engineers. Their race, sex, ethnicity, or creed is irrelevant. Anyone worried about any of those things is trying to fill a quota system, they are not looking for the most qualified candidates. Period.
You cannot serve 2 masters. You either go for the most qualified. or you go for a quota system. Period.
As for education, most people can be taught the discipline. But only those who want to do it are going to be good at it. And you cannot force ambitions and desires on anyone.
Presumably they would like more STEM graduates of every gender ( and there are a lot of genders nowadays). I would like to see more as well and I would like it better if they posted a percentage of all graduates as a call for more, but that is the real world. Men especially just have to do it on their own and get blamed for everything. On the other hand, I wouldn’t trade to be anything else 🙂 I doubt that a STEM career is easy for anybody. Too bad we seem so determined to trash our own economy with self inflicted Green wounds!
“I don’t see why Microsoft (and Google and Boeing and Facebook and Apple and Intel and Netflix) working to have more women become educated and talented engineers is a political boost to the Left.”
Well. because it is?
Capitalism isn’t founded on gender identity. There’s no purpose behind capitalists engaging in gender promotion. Recall sweatshops. Capitalists don’t care how old you are or what gender you are. You can either do the work or you can’t.
Oh yes. Lots of times.
the IT press is full of examples.
It hasn’t done it deliberately yet, tho.
Leo Smith wrote, “the IT press is full of examples.”
Please supply a link from “the IT press” showing where Microsoft has bricked “most … or our desktops and laptops.”
Geez dude – one query in a search engine starts to bring them up! https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/08/15/microsoft-warns-windows-10-anniversary-update-crashes-problems/
Seriously, you can doubt it was intentional, you cannot doubt it happened. Stop being a non-paid shill for Microsoft.
That is the first hit (and latest). There are many others. And no, I am not giving you any more links. Learn to search yourself.
About 18 months ago I had a lap-top that died during an upgrade. All I could get from it was the blue screen on power up. I tried everything I knew and the IT guys at work knew to try. I was eventually told that my only option was to buy a new copy of Windows for it.
In the good old days, they would get a couple of CDs with the OS on it when you purchased a new computer.
Actually, yes. Several times. With their patches. With previous versions, users could decide when or if to install patches (and my recommendation was always to wait – due to them doing exactly what you just asked about).
However with Windows 10, users no longer have that option.
While Microsoft claims that the bricking was a “bug” in the patch, there is no way of verifying that. And as any support person knows, “features” of Windows are merely bugs waiting to be patched.
So have they intentionally bricked PCs? I have no idea. But I do not dismiss it out of hand either.
This is very disturbing and is not so easily remedied. It the Trump administration takes action, it is the administration that will be painted far and wide as Orwellian, which could have a high price to pay in mid-term elections.
It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword and GFTM are in control of an awful lot of pens.
As they should be. Tyrannies take action against organizations doing things they don’t like, not free societies.
I wonder if this can be pursued under anti-trust laws. For a company to put itself in the position, with the cooperation of other companies, to control ones own free expression (IE linking computers to just google) sounds like a modern version of old-style strong-arm companies trying to control the entire market.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Before those things existed, people got along just fine.
And before they existed it was much easier for the Lame Stream Media to let you see and hear only what it wanted you to see and hear. All you have to do is see YouTube pulling the same stunts and the minority view will be back to sending mimeographed newsletters via snail mail to like-minded parties. Access denied.
There’s nothing wrong with mimeographed newsletters (now printed in volume from a computer instead). It’s private, can’t be traced and the post office could use a boost. The immediacy of the internet is not really required. It may actually be an impediment in the long run.
I think some printers leave a microcode print of their serial numbers on each page..
I think there are “actual”, if not legal, parallels with Bell Telephone.
Microsoft? Apple? Google? etc?
If i understand it correctly, Bell was nailed for controlling production from top to bottom.
These guys are trying to control information from top to bottom.
Now let’s get the tally of what these same companies are doing to enforce communist order in China and Chinese thought control.
Why they’re cooperating with every fiber of their being as they probably would be here if Hillary had won as planned.
I put a comment in Tips and Notes the other day that seems related to this. It was an article I found and it had a link to a ‘playbook’. Here are the links to the article and playbook.
Argh. Here’s the link to the ‘Playbbok’.
Peterson was a good find, referred to me by a friend. I listened to his advice, for the millenials. He is poison for the left, and cannot be “allowed.” Too much Western Civilization there…. His youtube is still there this morning.
Once market share reaches a certain level oligopolies occur. It has been shown that they then operate pretty much as monopolies in most respects. Good examples are Dish Network and Direct TV. Pricing and offerings are pretty much identical in spite of consumers disires to not be forced into buying their “package” deals in order to obtain the few channels they really want. This is all, of course, with the tacit cooperation of the elected officials who run this country, and should not even be allowed to play with matches, and ignore their monopolistic behavior. Free enterprise is great until monopoly raises its ugly head.
You’re beating the wrong horse.
Does this apply to satellite tv? Some channels can be purchased ala carte, but not others, like fox news. How does that work?
Cable providers are regulated monopolies created by local governments.
Googled ‘Breitbart.” The negative results started about 5 from the top. Here’s an interesting one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/how-to-destroy-the-business-model-of-breitbart-and-fake-news.html
It is interesting that the author of that story is Pagan Kennedy. Did her parents name her pagan or did she choose that name herself. Either way, it may say a lot about the environment she grew up in.
She writes: “Why would an environmental science program want to be promoted on a site that denies the existence of climate change?” Of course, Breitbart does not ‘deny the existence of climate change’, but what’s a little fake news when you are trying to accuse others of fake news?
Kellogg tried that model against Breitbart and received a #DumpKellogs boycott in response. Their stock has been on a downward trajectory since then. The two may not be related, but a boycott can never help a company that has other business challenges. The sword cuts both ways.
Whatever happened to antitrust legislation?
It doesn’t apply? Not that it should, anyway, rather, not that anti-trust legislation should ever have been allowed in the first place.
You get what you pay for! There is no Free. Complaining about Google, Facebook or Twitter is similar to churches accepting tax exempt status and then complaining about having to follow federal regulations. You can’t sleep in garbage and not expect to smell! Solution, stop using the products! There is no FREE Lunch, ever!
In the 80’s and 90s people bought imported products because they where cheaper, not necessarily better. Now, same people complain that there are no good paying jobs or no jobs, period. Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts!
In many cases the imports were better, or at least as good.
BTW, for a lot of people, it’s cheap, or do without.
Don’t blame the consumer for seeking the best deal, blame those who refused to compete on price and quality.
“Blame those who refused to compete on price and quality”
It’s all bar impossible for even the most honest Western companies to compete with China, etc when they have to comply with myriad consumer, environment & employment laws.
Then blame the government, not the consumers.
Free Market Capitalism will provide the answer. All we need is for some other company to establish a competing service, with a Libertarian or Conservative bent (and those folks do not censor the Left, as it exposes them to their justly deserved ridicule!) and watch the money roll in.
Example: Fox News Channel.
Takes big bucks to compete with monopolies and apparently most of the folks with those bucks are lefties. Enforcing antitrust legislation is also an alternative.
“Network effects” bars such a competitor from ever reaching the mass needed to be successful. An isolated, marginalized, insulated-from-contact Lib/Con service would be agreeable to the mainstream—very agreeable. It may be what is being aimed at.
You must kow-tow to the religion!
..and Iran, N.Korea, China, Russia all luvs ya!
Quite shocking, thanks for the insightful article!
It never occurred to me that the Ministry of Truth could be housed in private companies.
How can the marketplace respond if it’s being strangled?
“It never occurred to me that the Ministry of Truth could be housed in private companies.”
It’s the essence of fascism.
They are private, but allied with Obama administration. Obama administration looked other way on their dubious activities as monopolies and foreign agents,persecuted their competitors (including much maligned cable companies), and pulled them to the Left.
and this is why I run my own mail server (exchange 2013) right here at home.
When people like Gates and Zuckerberg can tell people what to think, we’ve got a problem.
“The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts, what a shock, and the facts of climate change are not in question anymore,” Schmidt said. “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.” –
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt
Eric Schmidt should sit down and read United Nations Human Rights – carefully:
«Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion …
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.»
Each individual need to judge what he reads. The ´principles of science´ is a good filter. Scientists (and journalists) should also observe the ´ethical guidelines for scientific conduct´: Principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct (v8.0)
Is he really that simple-minded, or is he (like Gore, Nye, etc.) being disingenuous? The eternal question.
That is the eternal question that we will never get the answer to.
«I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.»
– Michael Crichton
Actually, the same realization is the reason behind my alias: ´Science or Fiction?´
Unbelievable as it may sound, the scientific enterprises around the world has failed to define clearly how to distinguish reality from fantasy, or knowledge from beliefs. And that is the reason I, with great support and scrutiny from ´Gnomish´ that saw the same, had to develop my thesis about that. See the thesis linked to above: «Principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct (v8.0)».
Those who think I´m wrong can easily prove that by providing a link to such principles.
However, I have not, so far, succeeded in finding a set of well-defined principles or basic guidelines for scientific conduct.
The corruption of reason and knowledge has even polluted the National Academy of Sciences:
In an editorial published in Science magazine on July 3, Marcia McNutt, at the time Editor-in-Chief of the Science Journals, removed all doubt concerning the direction that this once prestigious journal is taking. In “The beyond-two-degree inferno”, she wrote:
“The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.”
Then, she strongly supports the contrived effort of the European Union to keep “global warming” below 2°C above the preindustrial level – a number for which we have no rigorous measurement or logic.
Marcia McNutt is now president of the NAS
Imagine what kind of culture is now developing in the National Academy of Sciences?
You guessed right: skepticism has been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,”a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science.
Here is link to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/22/what-happened-to-the-traditional-role-of-skepticism-in-climate-science/
“Those who think I´m wrong can easily prove that by providing a link to such principles.”
+ a lot. I don’t believe you’re wrong.
“You guessed right: skepticism has been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,”a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science.”
“I Want to Believe”* seems the new Science. The “post-reality” version of science. I think it was Robert Heinlein who first introduced me to the that dystopian concept with his short story “If this goes on…”
* seen in the background of an “X Files” set featuring Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.
“Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren…”
It takes a true, dyed in the wool, imbecile to say something like that. What, tongue tied perhaps? Maybe he had his tongue tied to something big that was moving away rapidly?
People who “oppose” climate change? Those would be those willing to spend the entire world’s blood and treasure to “stop” it? Those idiots?
I don’t think Eric is on the same page. It would appear he has a severe reality deficit.
Perhaps these companies are playing a long game. In other words, perhaps they are hoping their censorious policies will be reversed by United States’ courts or congress, enabling them to tell the EU, “our hands are tied.”
The “don’t throw me in them thornbushes Brair Fox!” hypothesis?
No. These are people that show no ability at all to think more than three months in advance.
Unfortunately, there are few options. Google offers great services, for the low price of your information.
“Google offers great services, for the low price of your information.”
And it’s worth every penny you pay 🙂
That was just too… poignant I suppose, to let pass without comment. Google certainly offers low price information. It’s not low cost information though.
‘It’s not low cost information though.’
Agreed. There are those who have invested million-plus into the messaging. As well as the suppression thereof.
*It worked – Mod
“Please tell me what principle I have violated,”
I’m with Mr. Peterson in that . . I was never told what principle was violated by a comment I made that did not violate even ctm’s (to my mind hasty) decrees . .
(Please consider going back and carefully reading the comment in question (if you can resurrect it), Charles, and I think you will realize it was just a rational/logical attempt to answer an important question that I feel ought to be addressed/discussed seriously here . . As I have repeatedly said in such discussions; regardless of the ultimate truth of the “vehicle” theory, which I believe was employed to set the stage for the sort of (skepticism free) science based authoritarianism I believe the CAGW embodies most clearly.)
Reply: I told you multiple times to cease various comments and you would not stop. You behaved like a petulant child. You were annoying. You were belligerent. You lied in the process. If you continue to whine about your treatment you will be moved from moderated to blacklisted again. Learn to say. “Ok” and it’s all over. ~ctm
“I told you multiple times to cease various comments and you would not stop”
I believe you believe that . . but I don’t. This is the clearest “directive” I have seen from you in this realm, and I did not violate it when you last banned me, I feel, anymore than what I just wrote above does;
“Reply: Read what I wrote. I’m not banning discussions of evolution. I’m banning debates over evolution vs creationism. Both sides in those debates tend to be disrespectful and contentious.~ctm”
I think you’ve been reading things into my comments all along, sir . . and merely ask that you take a bit of care to avoid becoming what you warn of in that reply . .
Reply: Just stop. Stop complaining. Stop whining. Stop trying to win past arguments. Move on to discuss new things. I have been more than patient with your whiny, entitled, petulant behavior, which you deny to your detriment. Seriously…one more “but…but…” and you are back on the black list. HOW HARD IS IT TO JUST STOP? DON’T TRY TO WIN THE ARGUMENT ANY MORE. JUST STOP. DON’T ADDRESS ME ANYMORE. GO BACK TO MAKING RELEVANT COMMENTS. IMAGINE I’M NOT HERE.~ctm
Well, it’s true that Charles has, in the recent past, expressed a certain amount of angst over his “burden”.
It’s important to remember that this is not just propaganda pushed by the Internet – it’s the rank and file members of the entire media as a whole.
Just an example: here in Oregon we have had an ‘historical heat-wave’… as reported by the press.
What this means is that we had two days exceeding 100 degrees – something that usually happens a couple times a year, here in the valley. And before it even happened, we were getting new, breathless reports about how temperature ‘could’ reach an all-time high… if it does.
History will also be made if we get a nine-day string of 90-plus degree days… if it does.
All this was reported in advance. And the day the first of the heat hit, there were interviews with people on the street, one of whom intoned grimly how, “I’ve never felt heat like this… not even when I was living on the East Coast.”
This would have been before noon on the first day when the temperature still hadn’t climbed past the mid-nineties – so this guy had apparently never experienced ninety-plus degrees before, but was apparently convinced that what he was feeling was something new and unprecedented.
Personally, I call it ‘August’. They didn’t call the song, ‘Cool Breezy August Nights’.
Of course, as it turned out, we did not hit an ‘all-time high’, and the 90 degree streak was broken after four days or so. So, the ‘historic’ heat wave was simply a projection.
Talk about getting ahead of the news.
But this is just one example of the sort of thing that goes on all the time, in every news outlet in the country every day. None of these people were ‘bribed’ or ‘coerced’ – they just saw an opportunity to push their world view and sell others on it, and did so. Just like they all jumped forward to rationalize away the Hadley e-mails, or Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’, or the Pause.
There are a couple people who post here – I’ll call them ‘skeptical warmists’, as opposed to the resident number of trolls – those who are at least open-minded enough to visit the site, but can’t accept the idea that so many marching brooms exist, or that so many people could believe in something that amounts to complete crap. All I will say here is look at this example and then watch what people do around you – particularly in the press or from some media pulpit – and watch if those patterns don’t repeat.
It’s the first step to independent thought.
Did any Western Oregon cities beat heat records for any date in July, or for the month?
Eastern Oregon temperatures came in less hot than forecast, in part because of smoke from the forest fires.
I don’t know about every city, but I haven’t heard any records being reported (and I’m guessing they would have been broadcast loudly if there had been, but I don’t know for sure). As a whole, here in the valley, we’ve just come off of the coldest winter we’ve had in several years – we had several inches of original snow from December still on the ground through the end of January. This is after two warm winters with very little, if any snow (which coincides with the year-and-a-half El Nino – correlation if not causation). The winter remained fairly cold, with the exception of one month (I think February) when it warmed up enough to finally melt the ice – I remember going to work past the fields and seeing the water evaporate into the air like swamp mist.
The rest of the year has been fairly mild – a really nice, comfortable summer – with the temperature (according to my electric bill) averaging between two to five degrees cooler than last year. Still waiting, of course, to see how the rest of August pans out after a hundred-degree opener.
Again, this is just my little corner of the world.
I spent December in Oregon last winter, when normally I’d have been in South America. My departure was repeatedly delayed by snow and ice. PDX wasn’t equipped to handle so much.
When I finally did get away, I was stranded in LA due to the late takeoff.
I also recall the prior mild winters, when in January I saw that the temperatures weren’t that much cooler than where I was in the SH.
The local paper was hyping hot temps recently when they exceeded 100 deg F for a couple of days. You had to read to the end of the article to learn that the record low local temp was 107 deg F set in 1937.
The Attorney General for (The People’s Republic of) Maryland is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Democrat-controlled legislature just passed legislation to allow the Attorney General to side-step the Republican Governor and bring lawsuits against the Trump administration. He has one in progress claiming that President Trump has violated the foreign emoluments provisions of the Constitution because he has businesses that have foreign governments as customers.
However, when I use Google to call up Bray cycle the first four
Nov 24, 2016 – Guest essay by Andy May and Javier The evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years is strong. There is …
Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies …
Sep 20, 2016 – The ~ 2400-yr Bray cycle. This cycle was identified by J. Roger Bray in 1968 from a consilience of geophysical, biological, and glaciological …
Nature Unbound IV – The 2400-year Bray cycle. Part A | Climate Etc.
Jul 11, 2017 – By Javier The existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray, is supported by abundant evidence from vegetation …
The Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle | Andy May Petrophysicist
…so aside from the “https” designation, the filter seems to be open in
It’s my opinion that “don’t be evil” was like water off a duck-duck-go… (I just couldn’t resist)
Just in time in Breitbart:
Rebels of Google: ‘Constant Abuse, Sneers, Insults And Smears … Sometimes You Get Punched’
Former Google Employee: ‘There Are Efforts to Demote Anything Non-PC from Search Results’
And of course not all of those who work for Google are actually coding. Some, like the roving troll, attempt to diminish what they are doing so as to appear “unbiased”. Much like the MSM did in the 80s, before it became impossible to claim any type of objectivity with any degree of a “straight face”. They still do, but even then they are laughing. as they know it is a lie.
The Atlantic has a good story, “the most common error in coverage of the Google memo,” at:
BTW, at the moment and in the near future, the social media site Google+ is likely less censored than Facebook. The denizens are noticeably smarter too. There’s a Kindle book out on how to interact with it.
Good commentary here, about Google and free speech.
Google firing an engineer for standing up against the hive mind is about more than one minority opinion.
If the web’s gatekeeper doesn’t believe in its own employees’ right to free speech, how can we trust it with ours?
There is the SEC regulating good conduct in business at the stock exchange. There ought to be a similar instrument to regulate freedom of information on the internet. Time for DJT to get that big fat bug fixed. America first also means -imho- to take the constitution and its amendments seriously, if necessary with the help of another “Freedom of Information” amendment.
Boycott GFTM, use AdBlockers.