Tech Giants’ Realm: Our Future Dystopia in Microcosm

Tech Giants’ Realm: Our Future Dystopia in Microcosm

By Erik Rush •

If one does a web search (I absolutely refuse to use the word “Google” as a verb) of the words “google facebook censorship,” the sheer volume of articles and blog posts referencing the blatant and coordinated suppression of free speech and thought on the part of the biggest tech companies is quite sobering.

It’s pretty clear at this point that Google wants to own the online environment in its totality. Not only does this company engage in a level of censorship and social engineering that border on brainwashing, but its business practices are so demonstrably unethical that it’s a wonder they’ve not been investigated for racketeering.

Google ads permeate cyberspace, and some websites that engage other ad publishers have found their sites suddenly flagged by Google as “malicious,” the pretext often being obscure issues with the non-Google advertisers’ back-end ad code. Purveyors of products that make liberals’ sphincters spasm find it difficult if not impossible to get their websites approved to run Google ads.

Thus, by definition, Google is picking winners and losers in commerce, and only the truly naïve individual believes that this could not expand to encompass individual enterprises as opposed to industries Google’s uber-lib leadership frowns upon. In fact, the user tracking protocols and algorithms used by companies like Google effectively give them the ability to engage in counterintelligence campaigns against anyone, from the conservative business owner to the outspoken Christian PTA member.

The retail giant Amazon has also become notorious for cherry-picking winners, censoring media sold on its platform and manipulating the sales statistics of books by conservative authors, for example. Like Facebook, Amazon has its own user privacy issues, and its overall business practices have come into question, even extending to allegations of criminal corruption in securing government contracts.

In the microcosm, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become stellar examples of what liberals think Americans’ sensibilities should be, and how dissenting views ought to be quashed. The inconsistencies in their application of community standards are evidenced by the thousands of reactions posted by users daily. A radical leftist, Muslim or a gay activist can post the most derisive, incendiary material and there are no consequences for such action. If a conservative, a Christian or an observant Jew mildly criticizes someone belonging to one of these protected groups however, they are summarily suspended or banned by the platform.

I suppose the rationale of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai is that in the end, it won’t matter if politicos aren’t able to impose thought or behavior; these matters will be handled in the marketplace of ideas.

It makes one wonder what went on in several meetings former president Barack Obama held with the leaders of large tech companies during his presidency. The pretext for these meetings was to address issues of emerging technologies and user privacy, but it bears mentioning that these meetings were conducted in secret.

One could speculate as to the overall tone and content of the meetings, but in light of the criminality of the Obama administration (of which some have been long aware, but which is only now coming to light), I am confident that the tech giants’ current program of censorship was substantially refined and codified during those meetings.

Even lefty journalists aren’t too happy with the effects that the policies of companies like Google and Facebook are having on their industry, but like other protected classes under the socialist umbrella, they’re willing to take a hit for the team.
This phenomenon does give rise to a certain cognitive dissonance. It’s been pointed out that in the brave new socialist world, LGBTQ individuals are to be embraced, but so are Islamists, who have a nasty habit of summarily murdering gays and lesbians. These shortcomings are routinely ignored by the left; if pressed, they simply deny that such things occur.

This is par for the course however, and ought not distract those opposed to the socialist agenda. Duplicity is the socialist’s stock-in-trade, as is the wholesale betrayal of these protected groups once they’ve attained power.

Because socialists and hardcore liberals are without honor, tech giants’ desire to extinguish free speech and independent journalism is reflected in the microcosm of their properties, wherein they enforce their “morality” without restraint. This foreshadows the ruthlessness with which our population will be handled should these odious creatures gain political ascendency.

If I’d said to you prior to 1982 that yes, AT&T cornered the market on telephone service, but it’s a sovereign business entity that can operate as it wishes, and no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you use the telephone, you would have seen the folly of that line of reasoning.

The federal government did, and determined in 1982 that AT&T had established an illegal monopoly, which led to its breakup that year. Had the company attempted to implement a malignant political agenda rather than or in addition to employing unethical business practices to capture a market, I am quite confident that its executive board members would have been tried for treason, and the company’s assets liquidated.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
It’s Time to Move Against Facebook and Google

It’s Time to Move Against Facebook and Google

By Erik Rush •

Earlier this month, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC, Australia’s analogue to our Federal Trade Commission) issued a report criticizing online giants Google and Facebook, and even recommended that a new government watchdog organization be formed for the purpose of watching over the two companies.

The ACCC report addressed the fact that Google and Facebook have developed “significant market power in terms of news discovery and digital advertising—and have, up until now, operated in an almost completely unfettered fashion,” as well as concerns over how the companies have collected and disseminated user data without consumers’ knowledge.

Meanwhile in America, alarm over the deportment of these tech racketeers is growing with mounting revelations of their unethical practices. On December 7, Liberty Vittert published a piece for the Fox News website entitled “Facebook is the villain and we all finally know it.” The column discussed highly confidential documents and company emails that had been released by a British lawmaker that week, and which revealed that Facebook has indeed been selling its users’ data, despite repeated denials that it has done so. Further, that Facebook “leveraged our data to reward developers who spent a lot of money on the platform, and ice out its competitors, all the while making sure we, the users, never found out.”

This is all in addition to the shameless manner in which Facebook has advanced a far left agenda whilst taking great pains to silence opposing views on its platform. On December 10, Fox News’ Brian Flood published a column on how foreign governments, as well as state and local governments in America are beginning to wake up to Facebook’s chicanery. Recently, WND covered the pushback campaign of a very powerful private advocacy organization that is threatening to lobby Congress to remove legal protections from these tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if they continue to censor conservative content.

Last week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee to address allegations of anti-conservative bias and privacy violations on that platform. In his prepared remarks, Pichai said:
“I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way. To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests. We are a company that provides platforms for diverse perspectives and opinions—and we have no shortage of them among our own employees.”

To which I tweeted in response:

In March of this year, I shared in this space how Google had sent me a notice via email that my website contained unacceptable “social engineering content” and subsequently designated it a “deceptive site”—such as those where one might pick up a nice case of malware, a computer virus, or fall prey to a phishing scam. That tech companies like Google and Facebook have engaged in draconian practices to stifle that of which they do not approve is simply not open for debate, so brazen have their methods been.

The significance of the Australian agency’s reference to “significant market power” cannot be overstated. Market power carries the ability to influence hearts and minds, and the more market power someone has, the greater their influence. Facebook had 2.17 billion users worldwide at the beginning of this year, and Google is already the Kleenex of search engines.

The ACCC report on Google and Facebook also stated as follows:

“Australian law does not prohibit a business from possessing significant market power or using its efficiencies or skills to ‘out compete’ its rivals. But when their dominant position is at risk of creating competitive or consumer harm, governments should stay ahead of the game and act to protect consumers and businesses through regulation.”

In this vein, I would encourage online consumers (and certainly the Trump White House, if it hasn’t already done so) to study the history of Antitrust law in America. While some forms of antitrust legislation have been opportunistic government power grabs, others involved circumstances wherein powerful corporate interests engaged in activities so precedent-setting in their lack of ethics that said activities were criminalized.

While the politically-motivated antics of tech giants like Facebook and Google are craven, subversive, and border on sedition, they aren’t merely trying to socially engineer a leftist America; they’re attempting to own all of cyberspace and rule it with an iron fist. If left unchecked, they will become the sole arbiters of what is acceptable online fare, regardless of whether it’s politics, products, fashion trends—you name it.

Like the monopolies that were legitimately reined in during the last century, these companies are only getting away with what we’re letting them get away with. Australia’s ACCC is making a beginning in mitigating their influence in the same spirit of fair play that America has exercised in the past.

It may be somewhat more difficult to initiate a move against them than in bygone days since their industry and our government are infested with the same class of socialistic vermin, but with the proper impetus from the public and a few stalwarts in our government, it can—and must—be done.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Obama-Zuckerberg’s Plans: Slavery Or Annihilation

Obama-Zuckerberg’s Plans: Slavery Or Annihilation

I’m sure my readers were positively titillated by the buzz emanating from the Mobile World Congress Conference this week. What is the Mobile World Congress Conference, you ask, and why should anyone with the intelligence to navigate this publication care?

Well, although the MWC conference is essentially a bunch of high-level computer geeks stroking each other’s egos, in another sense, the conference illustrated a juxtaposition of two very different future possibilities, neither of which is particularly pleasing.

Over the last few years, mobile Internet surpassed desktop and laptop computers as the premier digital platform, so the computer industry in all its vastness is heavily invested in mobile technology. The Mobile World Congress is a creation of the Groupe Speciale Mobile (GSM), itself a creation of the Confederation of European Posts and Telecommunications (CEPT), the largest European telecommunications industry association.

The MWC conference dominated headlines in Barcelona, Spain, this week where it took place (you remember Spain – the country that bailed on its allies after Muslims blew up just one of its commuter trains). After some difficulty getting under steam due to a transportation strike in the largely socialist nation, representatives from communications and media companies from around the world eagerly proceeded with the big event.

One of the conference’s major affairs was Monday’s presentation of new offerings from tech giant Samsung, which drew even more media attention when Facebook CEO and entrepreneur wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg made an “unannounced appearance” to stump for a virtual reality (VR) partnership between Samsung and his company. Facebook has been on track to move forward with VR in a big way since its $2 billion acquisition of Oculus VR, a pioneer in virtual reality technology, back in 2014.

A spoof piece on Zuckerberg’s visit by one website was erroneously picked up as legitimate news by at least one online news outlet; it claimed that Zuckerberg said the Oculus VR headset would allow Facebook users to have virtual sexual intercourse or battle to the death in the social network’s comment sections. On a darker note, one of the online sources covering the Barcelona conference drew a comparison between the VR presentation and popular dystopian futures represented in science fiction films.

What gave me pause relative to Facebook’s VR pursuits was its history of rabid liberalism and Zuckerberg’s penchant for unabashed complicity with the diabolical administration of Barack Hussein Obama. Whether we’re discussing secret meetings Zuckerberg attended with Obama and other accomplices in the tech world, or Facebook’s blatant censorship of conservatives and Christians while permitting the most virulent anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian rhetoric out there, I couldn’t help but wondering if that online publication’s sinister interpretation of Zuckerberg’s MWC appearance might be prophetic somehow.

At the risk of giving life to yet another wholly unfounded conspiracy theory, we’ve known for decades that people can be subtly manipulated through subliminal messages on television. Audiogenic seizures (those caused by sound) have been known to scientists for a long time, and some years back, they even discovered that the stroboscopic effects in some video games can induce seizures in humans.

So, what might the starry-eyed, nouveau riche elitist and Obamaphile Zuckerberg have in mind for VR consumers – a segment that is likely to explode as VR equipment prices come down and the technology improves? In Barcelona, Zuckerberg announced that Facebook’s proprietary streaming technology would soon be incorporated into Samsung’s VR hardware and that Facebook had created a “social VR team” to explore how people can connect using VR technology.

Why, that sounds strikingly similar to announcements Obama has made about exploratory “teams” he has deployed to gather data on such things as mass scale behavior prediction. Should we be concerned that surreptitious mind control via virtual reality headsets is in store for our future?

What I find amazing amidst all of this is the hubris of the Western world’s power players. This is the juxtaposition of which I spoke earlier: While our leaders busily complete finishing touches on their socialist leviathan, they are also attempting to leverage millions of radical Islamists against their citizens, playing “chicken” with China, North Korea, Iran and Russia, and destabilizing vast regions of the globe.

It’s clear that they have no belief whatsoever that the violent chemical reaction they initiated could possibly mushroom out of control.

One of science fiction’s standard story lines has to do with protagonists acting out the story’s conflict on a post-apocalyptic Earth. How did the apocalypse come about? Well, it was the people who ran things – governments, corporations, etcetera – who precipitated whatever doomsday scenario came to pass prior to Act 1. Sadly, their arrogance and conceit wound up leading to all but a few hundred or a few thousand people on the planet perishing in a hideous paroxysm of global devastation. They didn’t mean to transform Earth into a poisonous, irradiated moonscape, but things got out of hand, you see. While zealously bringing about their malevolent design, somehow they miscalculated the risks.

Of course, someone like Mr. Zuckerberg would already have a first-class ticket on the secret, high-tech mega-ark that stands ready to transport him, his powerful peers and their material wealth to a safe location in the Himalayas or the far side of the moon while the world burns. After the rest of us murder one another off for food, succumb to the radiation or engineered plague, they’ll come back and re-populate the Earth with their socially evolved, intellectually superior offspring.

On a more serious note: As America plunges headlong into this campaign season, consider that mass mind control and imminent global conflagration are not things people were discussing eight years ago.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns