Deplatforming Dissent by Trader Joe's, Aldi's & Tech Giants Google, Bing & Yahoo

Dissent delisted deplatformed downlisted by Trader Joe's Aldi's Yahoo Bing and Google

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:

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.

 

.

Tracy Turner was born into two extended families of bookworms - one horticultural and one petroleum industry. Semi-retired from IT, Corporate Analyst and Botanical Garden Plant Propagation. Among his many interests are all sciences, news, tracking political corruption, national and world events (corruption). Urges you to ask several USA IT professionals about web censorship; which is becoming rampant. Twitter, Facebook and Myspace are not free speech - they are places of monitoring, censoring and personal data harvesting. Also, just because you see your words in print online, it does not equate to "free speech". Do you believe Google and Bing blacklist Michael Taylor's online words as often as said censors blacklist your online "free speech"? If you love freedom, become active in corruption watch, exposure; free speech and freedom of the press activism.




 


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