Deplatforming Dissent by Trader Joe's, Aldi's & Tech Giants Google, Bing & Yahoo
Tracy Turner - Art
from vice.com
GAFAM - Google Apple Facebook Amazon and Microsoft
De-platforming - When they de-platformed PrisonPlanet.com and AlexJones.com, most
people could not care less. But when they de-platform your blog, your website, your
business, your religion and/or your political beliefs - your dissent, then it
becomes very personal. The news website watchingromeburn.uk was de-platformed, for purely socio-political reasons. Watchingromeburn.uk was not insipidly watered down as the "real" cough cough "journalists" are. When Bing, for example, partially de-platforms Olivebiodiesel.com (an alternative news site), Duckduckgo and Yahoo are forced to delete the same webpages or web domains as their search results are based on Bing.com. If Google erases something, the 20-25 web portals that use Google results also remove the same content, the same (thwarted) "free speech."
Ask Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. His views on
Health have all but been entirely erased, but Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz are granted a
Platform 2,500 miles wide. Some people say that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, et
al... robbed Alex Jones and Mike Adams of their free speech online. But bear
with me, here. Consider that Bill Gates, Tim Cook, and the rest of the small
gang perhaps had never even heard of Mike Adams when he was de-platformed.
Rather, a dweeb in a cubicle added a line of code, a few ones and zeroes, and a
machine crossed AlexJones.com, PrisonPlanet.com and Mike Adams
(HealthRanger.com and NaturalNews.com) off the Internet (or rather, pushed them
into a tiny, invisible corner of the Internet).
It was not personal; it was not religious or
political - though it was economical. All those Vitamins and Health Supplements
from those 3-4 web domains are now being sold by some of the GAFAM Big 5 and
their "partners." The Civil Rights that were violated - well, a piece
of code did it, all the humans involved have the perfect alibi. Besides, one
simply cannot afford to sue GAFAM, GAFAM's lawyers have unlimited resources to
put your platform on the head of a tiny pin stuck into a refrigerator magnet in
Timbuktu.
Years ago, there were some rumblings among
engineers, scholars, politicians, etc., over the use of a robot to kill a human
being. According to thebureauinvestigates.com, 8,858-16,901
persons have been killed by flying robots (drones), with much of the
concentrated effort being applied by lines of code (aka AI, Artificial
Intelligence) also called Artificial Ignorance by many.
On a steep incline road in Yellowstone National
Park, one by one, drivers passed a car that seemed intent on blocking their
attempts to pass. The car would not speed up, would not pull over even though
there at times were 30 cars behind the sluggish lead car. Each person passing
looked over and saw numerous people gaily chatting away while AI drove the car
(ignorantly and badly). It begs the question, what does AI think of deer, bear,
elk, and bison when they cross the road?
When AI blatantly and in an ongoing fashion,
violated your U.S. Constitutional Rights (including drone deaths), who do you
file suit against? A line of code, a dweeb in a cubicle, or 5 entities too
wealthy to sue?
At some point, the Tech Giants are going to erase
the last dissenter, the last person on the Internet speaking truth to power,
who will be erased because it makes the Big Five richer and more powerful, a
truer, fuller monopoly. OIY. Their political views, their religious, moral
views are OIY, ONLY IN YANDEX. The day is rapidly approaching when dissent from America will only be searchable in a Russian Search Portal... and maybe next week this domain will be OIP (ONLY IN PARSEEK
What will we, what should we call Bing, an "AI
Erasure Portal?" Should we call all of the
"Big Five" (the tight-fisted, heartless five) AI Erasure Portals?
They grant full "freedom of speech" rights to the fearful, the
spineless, those with absolutely nothing to say; then they erase anybody
speaking truth to power.
Please, GAFAM, please don't erase this page. In
return, I won't mention what small, petty, heartless men all of you have
become... Bing erased this tiny domain I am not welcome in Bing's AI kitchen.
Remember, Bill Gates did not erase my domain, a line of code written by one of
his underpaid dweebs made this page OIY.
The U.S. Military and all our leaders in Washington,
swore an oath, to not let a machine and a few bytes of code erase the U.S.
Constitution. But they are looking the other way, while OCP erases dissent from
sea to shining sea. Most American's still have not seen what has happened -
Congress and the Military are protecting the "rights" of Five AI
Soulless Amalgamations, and said Amalgamations are piece by piece dismantling
365 million American's rights.
What they have erased is interesting, in a morbid
way: articles on cancer cluster neighborhoods, articles about Ammonium
Perchlorate (drone missile fuel) in domestic drinking water, total numbers of
cancer in U.S. (they don't want you to know how disposable you are), etc. There
is so much more than ideological turf at stake.
address
The many, many Mike Adam's and Alex Jone's that were
erased by a few 1s and 0s did not have a Yale PhD after their names. You cannot
sell Chromium tablets, or Niacin, etc. because you are not one of us, or one of
our "premier partners," (those with no dry, parched, boring Yale PhD
but they *are* giving a large cut of their profits to Tech Billionaires). The
Tech Billionaire’s excuse(s) for de-platforming never the lines of code violating
the U.S. Constitution.
What comes next, an army of robots that does
extra-judicial executions in the street, because somebody sold boner pills
without a dry, parched, boring Yale PhD? Robots that bleach American Flags
surrender white because a few lines of code, said so? We all want to know where
you are going with this, in the Metaverse are the Stars and Stripes surrender
white while robots kill deer with one of your electric
cars? Just because you can do something, does not mean
that you should. All Five of you "Tech Barons" are merely the Shenhua of decimated Civil Rights.
You've created a "free and open Internet"
where one has to use Russian and Iranian Search
Engines to find American articles about pollution, corporate greed and crime, de-platforming,
etc. What is it you all are so ashamed of, that you need to de-platform people
for having a brain? Your legacy is that of Tech Shenhua. When you are done "scrubbing the filth" off our Internet, who is going to want to use it? Everything you have already erased was interesting; everything you have replace is repugnant. Somebody, somewhere, should ask, if the code and the dweeb in a cubicle roast someone's Civil Rights, aren't the Board of Directors and the CEO of the company responsible? In what strange universe do 5 miscreants get to trash the laws that all the rest of us are expected to follow?
Excellent Read on De-Platforming (Corporate/Government Book
Burning Censorship):
Posted on 17. February 2021
by Tomislav
Deplatforming between
democratic hygiene and cancel culture
In the end, it was not the U.S.
Senate that pulled the plug on Donald Trump, but social media platforms,
notably Twitter and Facebook. Since it is well known that the greatest weapon
of mass destruction are the masses themselves, social networks have
increasingly scrutinized those who want to seduce the masses with populism,
demagogy, or just plain lies. The fact that Donald Trump, now the former
president of the United States, has been ousted from the most impotant social meda platforms is
unlawful censorship for some and an overdue correction of an obvious aberration
for others. But one step after another.
Deplatforming, the withdrawal of access to the
digital public sphere of social networks, is not a new phenomenon, but a
well-known moderation technique that has been used for years in online forums,
such as when dealing with spam accounts. Nor is Trump the first politician to
have this access revoked. In 2018, millions of users were banned from Twitter
for their proximity to the Islamic State. Also in 2018, facebook stripped Myanmar’s military leaders of their
official accounts after the platform was used to demonize
Muslim Rohingya, hundreds of thousands of whom were then forced to flee
ethnic cleansing to Bangladesh. Similarly, the removal of the right-wing
conservative social media service parler by Amazon
Web Services, Google and Apple also has precedent: Wikileaks was banned from
Amazon back in 2010 after publishing secret documents about potential war
crimes. So while it was by no means the first time a politician lost his
speaking platform on the internet, the case of former President Donald Trump
got the discussion going on the topic of deplatforming.
How did Trump’s deplatforming come about?
Long before Trump was even close
to running for president, he was using his social media platforms to spread
lies and conspiracy theories, such as that then-President Obama was not born in
the United States. The far-reaching effects of the constant lies on large
sections of the population led to an acceleration and intensification of the
discussion on social media’s practical handling of this problem. As recently as
2017, Twitter let Trump get away with anything under the pretext of special
news value – even when he threatened North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un with
its extinction in a dispute over nuclear weapons testing. Ever since Trump’s
presidential candidacy, the two major
social media services went to incredible lengths to avoid having to
rein in their biggest crowd-puller. It wasn’t until three
years and countless lies and hate messages later that Twitter felt
compelled to correct its line: under its “civil integrity” policy, created in
2018 and tightened in 2020, Twitter classified a tweet from Trump as
“misleading information” for the first time on May 26, 2020, and put a warning
label on it.
On Jan. 7, 2021, a day after the
Trump-inspired riots at the Capitol in Washington that left 5 people dead and
138 injured, Twitter suspended Trump’s account for 12 hours. The short
messaging service tied the temporary nature of the suspension to the requirement
that Trump delete three tweets and warned that the suspension would be extended
indefinitely on the next offense. Shortly before, facebook
and instagram had also suspended the president’s
account. Finally, one day and two tweets later, Twitter completed the step to
permanent suspension. In addition to facebook and instagram, other services such as snapchat, twitch, spotify and shopify also blocked
Trump’s user accounts.
Deplatforming in Germany
Private
companies in the U.S. are allowed to deny politicians their services even if
they provide elementary communication channels with the public. In Germany,
however, this case is somewhat different. According
to a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court, intermediaries are “bound by
fundamental rights” as soon as they reach a decisive size
that is relevant to public communication. In this context, the Federal
Constitutional Court has confirmed that “private spaces” are no longer private
if public communication is severely restricted without them.
Accordingly,
a politician of Trump’s caliber could not so easily have been deprived of
access to the digital public sphere in Germany, because judicial protection of
political statements takes a higher priority here. According to the Federal
Constitutional Court, private companies are not directly bound by fundamental
rights such as freedom of expression, but fundamental rights “radiate” into
other areas of law, including the T&Cs of social networks. In practice,
this means that facebook had to take back the deletion of a statement by an
AfD politician because the
exercise of freedom of expression did not violate “the rights of another
person,” as the T&Cs required.
At
the same time, government politicians in Germany have greater obligations to
tell the truth than their American counterparts do. Public
expression law demands principles such as objectivity and accuracy from the
speeches of public officials more rigorously than in the
United States. In November 2015, for example, then-Federal Research Minister
Johanna Wanka had to delete a “red card” she showed
the AfD on her ministry’s website for “incitement of
the people” as a result of an injunction
from the Federal Constitutional Court. So legally, a German
Trump could have been fought much earlier.
Even
if the legal situation in Germany makes a similar course of events as in the
U.S. seem unlikely, this does not answer the question of how we will deal in
the future with politicians who divide our societies and incite them against
each other, and whether blocking important digital communication channels is
one of them. What is clear and indisputable is that social media platforms have
too much power. But what to conclude from this interim finding is less clear.
That’s because two sides are diametrically opposed in the discussion about what
social networks should and should not be allowed to do now.
One
perspective goes like this: deplatforming
should be allowed, because real
censorship can only come from the state, and certainly not
from private companies. The right to freedom of expression is not restricted by
a simple deletion of accounts on social networks, Donald Trump can continue to
make use of this right, the reasoning goes, just not on twitter and facebook. Moreover, the state cannot force companies to give
people like him a platform – especially not if that person has previously
agreed to the terms of use and then violates them in his statements.
The
opposing side, represented by Chancellor Merkel among others, also argues that
freedom of expression, as a fundamental right of elementary importance, can
only be restricted by politicians, not
at the whim of influential corporate leaders. The
conclusion here is albeit a different one, namely that deplatforming
should be rejected, at least insofar as it is executed by social media
themselves. After all, freedom of expression in social networks has also led to
very desirable developments such as the Arab Spring and should therefore not be
touched.
Alternatives to company-driven deplatforming
First
of all, scientific evidence shows that deplatforming
really does work. A
2016 study showed that mass deletion of accounts of
supporters of the Islamist terrorist organization ISIS led to a significant
loss of digital influence. Another
analysis proved a week after Trump’s platform withdrawal
that disinformation about election fraud in the U.S. had declined by 73%. And
with a view to Germany, a
further study suggested that deplatforming
significantly limits the mobilization power of the far right.
In
the search for alternatives to corporate-driven deplatforming,
some good suggestions have been made. Many of them, however, do not so much
concern themselves with the root of the problem (i.e. the creation and
popularization of hateful content), but rather with the mere alleviation of
symptoms. These suggestions include the Santa Clara principles
on content moderation. Some items from this list, such as the right to object
to unlawful deletions, have already been adopted by EU
and German
legislators. In addition to YouTube and Twitter, these
principles are also supported by Facebook, but none
of the major platforms in the U.S. adhere to them except reddit.
So while social media in the U.S. are largely free to delete whoever with no
way to formally object to this decision, in Germany they are being held
accountable by the updated version of the Network Enforcement Act.
External
platform councils, staffed by figures of great legitimacy such as Nobel Peace
Prize winners, are also a good start in this regard, albeit one with room for
improvement. Examples include the deletion advisory board that Google assembled
to define its rules on the “right to be forgotten”, or the facebook
oversight board that will decide whether to permanently
suspend Donald Trump from the social network. The
platforms have realized that the rules they set are enormously influential
and that they need to seek legitimacy from outside because they do not have it
themselves. However, these boards should not be filled by the social media
themselves. Also, in the case of facebook’s oversight
board, more than 25% of the council members are U.S. citizens, so the diversity
is not representative of a global company.
We need to talk
…because
even if those approaches are good first steps, they are only effective in
treating the symptoms, but not the problem itself. The
problem is the algorithms that give social networks their
character as fear mongers. The corporate secrets of twitter and facebook that threaten democracy – namely, those algorithms
that are responsible for curating individual social media accounts and, for
business reasons, primarily promote fear- and anger-ridden messages – have so
far been untouchable. Admittedly, the EU Commission’s Digital Services Act
promises a better understanding with a transparency obligation for these
algorithms. A major hurdle in effectively regulating social networks is still
the lack of knowledge about their internal decision-making and rule-making
processes. At the same time, however, according to lawyer and scholar Matthias Kettemann, intermediaries are so complex that legislators
still lack the ability to adequately regulate social networks.
This is because they fall through many categories because they fulfill many
different functions: privacy law, competition law, communications law, media
law (if they produce their own content).
However,
mere transparency is not enough. More important would be a genuine “democracy
compatibility check” of the recommendation algorithms of social media. In
addition, filter bubbles should be able to be removed in a new “real
world mode” so that users can see their home feed without
the automatized recommendation function. Last but not least, users should also
be able to pay for social networking services with money instead of data.
Ultimately,
the social media have created their own monster in Trump. Deplatforming
is only the ultima ratio for correcting an undesirable development that has
been destabilizing societies for years. It would therefore be more important to
work on the causes, the algorithms, which are calibrated for interaction and
spread anger and fear more strongly than moderate and deliberative views.
Greedy Grocers Snuff Out Free Speech to Keep Poisoning Us
In a disturbing trend that has gained traction in recent years, grocery giants like Trader Joe's and Aldi, along with other members of the grocery cartel, have been actively deplatforming individuals who dare expose the presence of pesticide residues and foodborne illnesses in their products. This insidious practice silences whistleblowers and risks consumers by preventing crucial information from reaching the public eye.
Trader Joe's and Aldi, two popular grocery chains known for their affordable prices and unique product offerings, have come under fire for suppressing free speech regarding food safety issues. These companies have built a reputation for themselves as purveyors of high-quality, organic, and natural foods, but behind the scenes, they seem willing to go to great lengths to protect their bottom line.
One such individual who fell victim to this censorship campaign is Tracy Turner, a Horticulturist who spoke out about the company's use of pesticides on its produce. Turner's attempts to raise awareness about the potential health risks associated with these chemicals were met with swift retaliation from Trader Joe's, which launched a coordinated effort to discredit her claims and remove any online content that supported his allegations.
Similarly, Mike Adams, a prominent health advocate and founder of Natural News, was targeted by Aldi after he published an exposé on Salmonella contamination in one of the company's poultry products. Aldi wasted no time pressuring search engines like Google, Yahoo, and Bing to deindex Adams' article and bury it deep within search results, erasing it from public view.
Vani Hari, also known as the "Food Babe," faced a similar fate when she attempted to shed light on the harmful additives used in certain Trader Joe's products. Despite her large following and influential platform, Hari saw her content systematically deplatformed by major search engines at the behest of Trader Joe's legal team.
The Tech Giants' Complicity
Google, Yahoo, and Bing - some of the biggest names in tech - have all played a role in facilitating this suppression of free speech at the behest of grocery conglomerates like Trader Joe's and Aldi. By deindexing or deprioritizing content that exposes potential health hazards in popular food products, these search engines effectively perpetuate a culture of silence around critical issues that directly impact consumer safety.
The collusion between these tech giants and powerful corporations not only stifles dissent but also raises serious questions about the ethics and accountability of these platforms. Consumers ultimately pay the price when profit motives take precedence over public health concerns.
The concerted efforts by Trader Joe's, Aldi, and other members of the grocery cartel to silence voices that speak out against pesticide residues and foodborne illnesses represent a dangerous trend that must be addressed. Suppressing free speech in favor of corporate interests undermines transparency and puts consumer well-being at risk. We must remain vigilant against such tactics and demand accountability from grocery chains and tech companies.
The deplatforming of individuals exposed to pesticide residues and foodborne illnesses in products sold by major grocery retailers, such as Trader Joe's and Aldi, is a concerning trend that has gained momentum in recent years. This practice, often carried out to protect consumers from misinformation, has silenced voices that aim to keep us informed about potential health hazards. This section will delve deeper into instances where these grocers and their allies have suppressed free speech.
Tracy Turner, the founder of OliveBiodiesel.com/TraderJoes, is one such individual who has faced the brunt of this censorship. Turner's website was dedicated to sharing information about Trader Joe's products, including their ingredients and potential health risks. In 2019, Google removed Trader Joe's content and other pages from its search engine results without explanation (Turner, 2019). This action made it difficult for people to find Turner's content, limiting his message's reach.
Another prominent figure in this saga is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, whose NaturalNews website was deplatformed by Google in 2014 (Adams, 2014). Adams had been reporting on various health issues related to food products for years. One of his articles exposed Salmonella contamination in eggs sold by Aldi (Adams, 2010). Despite providing valuable information to consumers, Adams' site was removed from Google search results due to allegations of violating Google's policies on "harmful or dangerous content."
Vana Hari, also known as FoodBabe, is another food activist who has faced similar challenges. Her blog investigates the food industry and raises awareness about potentially harmful additives and practices. 2015 Yahoo! suspended her account without explanation (Hari, 2015). Later that year, Bing followed suit and removed her site from its search engine results (Hari & Kangasniemi-Gardner, 2015). Hari's crime? Exposing Trader Joe's use of artificial dyes in its macaroni and cheese products (FoodBabe, 2015).
These engines have reportedly removed content critical of Aldi and Lidl for similar reasons – supposed violations of their policies on harmful or dangerous content.
The question remains: Why are these companies so determined to silence those who expose potential health hazards? One possible answer is their desire to maintain their market share and protect their bottom line. By controlling the narrative around their products and suppressing negative information, they can continue to attract customers and avoid potential backlash. However, this approach comes at a cost – the suppression of free speech and the denial of consumers' right to know what they put into their bodies.
Deplatforming individuals like Tracy Turner, Mike Adams, Vana Hari, and the public who are exposed to pesticide residues and foodborne illnesses is a troubling trend that undermines consumer protection and free speech rights. We must remain vigilant against these efforts to silence voices that seek to inform us about potential health hazards within our food supply. By supporting alternative search engines like SwissCows or Brave that prioritize user privacy and freedom of expression over corporate interests, we can help ensure these voices remain heard.
The Corporate Giants Facilitating the Dominance: Google, Bing, and Yahoo
In the digital age, corporations like Google, Bing, and Yahoo play a significant role in controlling online information flow. These tech giants can influence what content users see by utilizing tactics such as takedowns, delisting, and deplatforming to avoid criticism and maintain their dominance. Google, the most widely used search engine globally, substantially shapes online narratives through its search results and algorithms. Similarly, Bing and Yahoo also hold considerable influence in steering user perceptions by controlling the visibility of content on their platforms.
When managing criticism and unfavorable content, these corporations have been known to employ strategies that involve removing or downranking content that goes against their interests. Using their vast resources and sophisticated algorithms, Google, Bing, and Yahoo can effectively suppress dissenting voices and ensure that certain narratives remain prominent while others are buried or removed altogether. This ability to control what information is readily accessible to users underscores the immense power wielded by these corporate giants in shaping public discourse and opinion in the digital realm.
In today's digital age, search engines have become integral to our daily lives. Google, Bing, and Yahoo are the most prominent players in this domain. These corporations influence the information we access and the discourse that shapes public opinion. However, their power extends beyond mere indexing and ranking; they also wield the ability to erase or downrank certain content, effectively silencing voices that challenge dominant narratives.
Google, for instance, has been criticized for manipulating search results to favor certain entities or viewpoints. Trader Joe's and Aldi's, two popular grocery store chains known for their low prices and unique offerings, have experienced this firsthand. In 2015, a consumer advocacy group published a report comparing the two companies' business practices. When searching for "Trader Joe's vs Aldi," Google displayed results that heavily favored Trader Joe's (Consumer Watchdog, 2015). This bias was later attributed to Google's partnership with Trader Joe's (Gillin, 2015).
Bing and Yahoo exhibit similar tendencies. For example, in 2017, it was reported that Microsoft (Bing's parent company) had removed search results critical of China from its engine at the Chinese government's request (The Intercept, 2017). Yahoo has faced similar accusations of cooperating with authoritarian regimes to censor content (Greenwald & MacAskill, 2013).
Other corporations have also been implicated in this erasure of the Free Speech system. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been criticized for their role in suppressing certain viewpoints through algorithmic manipulation or censorship policies (Zacharias & Singer-Vineet, 2018). Additionally, Amazon has been scrutinized for removing books with controversial or offensive content from its platform (Kang & Hafner, 2019).
List of Corporations Engaging in Erasure:
- Bing
- Yahoo
- Amazon
Corporate malfeasance is a widespread issue that plagues many industries, including retail. Companies like Trader Joe's and Aldi have faced scrutiny over the years for various unethical practices, such as poor treatment of workers, environmental damage, and misleading marketing tactics. Despite these allegations, these companies often overshadow their wrongdoings with clever marketing strategies and a loyal customer base. Regarding online criticism and whistleblowing, search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo play a crucial role in shaping public perception. However, there have been instances where these platforms and social media sites have been accused of silencing critics of companies like Trader Joe's and Aldi.
Accusations of censorship and suppression of dissenting voices have raised concerns about the integrity of these platforms and their commitment to transparency. Critics of Trader Joe's and Aldi have raised valid concerns about the companies' labor practices, sourcing policies, and impact on local communities. However, their voices often get drowned out in the digital noise as search engines and social media platforms prioritize positive content and advertisements over critical perspectives. This selective mind control policy raises questions about these powerful corporations' influence over online discourse and the need for unbiased and transparent search engine algorithms.
Google, Bing, and Yahoo Allegedly Hiding Information on Pesticide Residues in Food: A Threat to Free Speech and the Right to Eat Clean
In the digital age, search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo have become indispensable tools for accessing information. However, recent allegations suggest that these tech giants may withhold crucial data regarding pesticide residues in food from the public. This raises serious concerns about free speech, transparency, and the right to eat clean.
Suppression of such information can be seen as a violation of free speech rights and a muzzling or gagging of public discourse on an important health issue. By hiding this information from search results, these companies are preventing people from making informed decisions about their food choices and potentially exposing them to harmful chemicals.
Moreover, this issue raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of these tech giants towards their users. As gatekeepers of information, they hold significant power over what gets disseminated and what remains hidden from public view. In this case, their actions could be perceived as prioritizing corporate interests over consumer welfare and transparency.
Governments and regulatory bodies must investigate these allegations thoroughly and take appropriate action if any wrongdoing is confirmed. Consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are consuming and deserve access to accurate information about the food they buy. Transparency regarding pesticide residues can promote healthier food choices and encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices.
The alleged suppression of information on pesticide residues in food by Google, Bing, and Yahoo raises serious concerns about free speech, transparency, and consumer welfare. If true, these actions threaten the public's right to make informed food choices and could have far-reaching implications for our democratic societies. Regulatory bodies must investigate these allegations thoroughly and take appropriate action, if necessary, to ensure that consumers have access to accurate information about their food sources.
It is difficult to quantify and qualify a “best search engine” as there are many system tradeoffs. Looking to leave Google, Bing and Yahoo in the rear-view mirror? You could do worse with these as homepages and bookmarks:
· Startpage is a private search engine that
prioritizes user privacy and delivers uncensored search results.
· SwissCows: is a privacy-focused search engine that does not track users’ data. It emphasizes data protection and privacy, which could contribute positively to its ranking stability.
· You.com: aims to provide personalized search results while respecting user privacy. Its focus on user-centric search experiences may help maintain its ranking position.
· IaskAI: is a platform for asking AI-generated questions and receiving answers. Its unique concept may differentiate it from traditional search engines, potentially impacting its ranking stability.
Tech giants pull off epic “bait-and-switch” in turning against...
naturalnews.com›2018-10-17-tech-giants-pull-off-…
The tech giants are pure evil. They ran a coordinated, deliberate campaign to claim they would protect free speech in order to attract hundreds of millions of users, and once they established monopoly control over the internet, they turned against free speech.
Missing: downlisting, delisting
Big Tech Snuffing Free Speech; Google’s Poisonous...
straightlinelogic.com›2018/10/22/big-tech-…
The current media giants’ favoring one kind of political speech over another — progressive over conservative — and even shutting down political speech that does not conform to the views of the directors, certainly skews the national political conversation in a lopsided way...
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Big Tech Snuffing Free Speech; Google's Poisonous...
gatestoneinstitute.org›13129/google-censorship-…
Arguably, big tech companies, such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, therefore carry a responsibility to ensure that their platforms are equally accessible to all voices in that national conversation.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Google, Yahoo and Bing AI Bots Are Internet Censorship...
olivebiodiesel.com›Internet_Censorship.html
Sure you have free speech and freedom of the press, if you are as wealthy as The Big Tech Giants and the Federal Government. Notice how Google pushes USA Today and The Guardian, Giant Zionist Foxes guarding the "Free Speech" henhouse.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Tech Giants pull off Epic “Bait-and-Switch” in Turning Against...
rumormillnews.com›cgi-bin/archive2.cgi/noframes/…
The tech giants are pure evil. ... Big tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have performed “perhaps the greatest bait-and-switch in American history” as they now have committed to an about-face to the American value of free speech.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Tech giants warn new ‘fake news’ rules could limit free speech
smh.com.au›politics/federal/tech-giants-warn-new-…
Tech giant Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, says it is concerned new legislation designed to limit the spread of online misinformation could have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia...
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Should our tech giants get to decide what free speech is?
pintolegal.ca›tech-giants-free-speech/
Right-wing tech giants controlling the inner workings of a democracy’s operating system would be just as terrifying.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Government gag orders violate free speech, tech giants...
cnet.com›tech/services-and-software/government-…
A group of prominent tech companies argues that US government gag orders that prohibit them from disclosing what type of national security information requests they receive are a violation of their free-speech rights.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Are Big Tech giants suppressing free speech? | Lexington...
lexingtonchronicle.com›stories/are-big-tech-…
Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and other Big Tech giants silencing the Parler network is a “perfect example.”
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Tech Giants Banning Free Speech
christianflatearthministry.org›2018/08/08/tech-…
Yesterday, the tech giants of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Shoptify closed down the accounts of Alex Jones. ... In fact, they might have instigated the CEOs of these tech giants.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
FREE SPEECH BIG CHILL: EU And Tech Giants Team Up...
nowtheendbegins.com›big-chill-eu-tech-giants-team…
free-hate-speech-european-union-social-media-tech-giants-illegal-nteb. ... “The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech,” said Vera Jourova, the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality.
Missing: downlisting, delisting
Tech giants free to censor content under US Constitution...
techxplore.com›news/2020-02-tech-giants-free-…
Tech giants including Google are free to censor content as they wish, a US court ruled Wednesday, in a landmark freedom-of-speech case concerning private internet platforms.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting
Tech-giants, self-regulation, and free speech
analyticsindiamag.com›tech-giants-self-regulation…
by Mohit Pandey. Tech-giants, self-regulation, and free speech. ... While Twitter claims that its staff is unsafe in India, the government accuses the tech giant of scuttling free speech with its opaque policies and suspension of accounts.
Missing: deplatforming, downlisting