by Serban V.C. Enache
The [conservative] investigative group, Project Veritas, did a probe into Google’s new “safeguards” to prevent another Trump presidency. It includes interviews with a whistle-blower from that company, and two secretly filmed conversations with a Google executive and a Google engineer. Unsurprisingly, Youtube, a subsidiary of Google, took down the video, claiming it violated privacy rules.
Jen Gennai, head of ‘responsible innovation,’ says the following… “Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her, but she’s very misguided; like that won’t make it better, it will make it worse – ’cause now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, […] a small company can’t do that. […] We got called in front of Congress multiple times. […] They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.”
Let’s briefly dissect the above paragraph. Breaking up a company – one that has a de facto monopoly in several fields, monopoly obtained through preferential relationship and access to technology from specialized US Government institutions and anti-competition practices – is a political choice. Unless she wants to become a politician or a lobbyist, the head of the “responsible innovation” department of Google should refrain from emitting such obviously biased and self-serving, political opinions. More to the point, she should not manipulate the audience by conflating her political preference with what is and isn’t technologically and logistically feasible. Multiple companies policing reprehensible behaviors online is not akin to having multiple companies digging up the ground and planting their own pipe and sewer systems underneath a city, a task which is neither economically nor environmentally feasible. We’re talking about the digital realm, where the constraints are vastly different. And if we’re talking about a lack of financial resources for these smaller companies, that’s a red herring too. So long as there’s demand for a service, there is profit to be made, and investors and business loans can be secured. But of course, this
Jen Gennai wasn’t talking about any sort of reasonable standard of content policing [child pornography, human trafficking, terrorist cells etc] she was referring wholly to Google preventing the reelection of Donald Trump. In short, this Google executive is full of it.
Another hallucinating aspect raised by Project Veritas in their probe on Google is “algorithmic unfairness,” as the company understands it. A passage from this document, under the sub-title “If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?” reveals the following… “Yes. For example, imagine that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men… even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness.” Google software engineer, Gaurav Gite, is secretly caught on camera stating that, “So they’re trying to modify the model, such that even if the data for female CEO is low, it still balances out.” This is social-engineering gone berserk. Instead of depicting actual reality and striving to promote equality of opportunity, not just de jure, but de facto, while also taking merit into consideration, without which the outcome cannot be just, Google is trying to deform reality to suit its fantasy, however progressive it may be. The goal doesn’t justify the means; but the mantra of the ‘PC police’ is ‘judge us by our motives, not our methods.’
These type of secret and invisible filters to its algorithms are unacceptable in a society that’s supposed to be free and democratic. Ultimately, the fate of this society depends on the will of the citizenry to be informed and stay informed, not on shady, corporate giants, who are unelected and accountable to none. A state and a press that fears the people, or I should say, the groups in control of the state and the press who fear the people must be brought down from these institutions – initially through democratic exercise at the ballot box, and if they refuse, then by force of arms. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”
Meanwhile, the Establishment’s mouthpieces, those ‘woke’ intellectuals, whose hearts bleed for the fate of immigrants and Muslims in the US, who manufacture crocodile tears on air, and who – prior to Trump’s election – were criticizing the Donald’s potential “isolationist” foreign policy and were bemoaning the possible demise of US internationalism were in fact fearing that the next POTUS might shed away the empire in favor of the nation state. I hope it’s evident by now, to the average spectator who still has a soul in his or her chest, that all of these internationalists and bleeding-heart intellectuals are in fact political prostitutes, mercenaries, and war profiteers, and in no way, shape, or form do they serve the national interest of the United States. And when I say national interest, I mean the national interest defined in Westphalian terms: nations forgiving and forgetting past transgressions among and between them, while working to “further the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other.” The Westphalian national interest should be the cornerstone of any civilized country, especially for those countries which claim to be Christian. For more on this, please read my articles The Sovereign Nation State and The Globalists of Left & Right.
What have these mainstream commentators [tories and libs] done during the Trump presidency? They’ve applauded every belligerent action taken by the Government and condemned every sensible and diplomatic action as “weakness,” as evidence of “Russian meddling,” as “gross disorganization” because Trump didn’t launch military attacks. Isn’t it ironic that the vast majority of these elites are the most rabid for military confrontation? Of course, they’d never want to be in the front lines or to have their kids there, just the plebs recruited by the Military, because who cares about them? And isn’t it also ironic that the far right, to an increasingly larger and vocal degree, doesn’t share the same affliction? Quite the opposite, it condemns former and future military involvements and opposes US soldiers going abroad to kill and be killed on behalf of foreign interests. But the pro-peace voices [no matter their political color] are being denounced as out of touch, isolationist, extremist, and militant. So what are these elites telling us? That censorship is freedom, secrecy is accountability, might is right, and war is peace.