Google now banning SCIENTISTS and statisticians as the search engine’s war on truth ramps up

Image: Google now banning SCIENTISTS and statisticians as the search engine’s war on truth ramps up
Source: NaturalNews.com
Frances Bloomfield
August 23, 2017

On the afternoon of Aug. 19, 2017, East Coast Time, statistics professor Salil Mehta discovered that he had been banned by Google. As reported by ZeroHedge.com, this entailed having all of his Google-linked accounts erased and rendered inaccessible, from his e-mail to his blog to all of his Google-hosted university pages.

This came as a complete shock to the Columbia University adjunct professor as he had been given no reason nor warning for the total wipeout of every single one of his accounts. All of his repeated attempts to restore those accounts were rejected and explained away by Mehta allegedly violating the company’s Terms of Service…despite the fact that nearly all of his Google-related efforts were dedicated to promoting math theory. In his own words, Mehta’s background was spotless and absent of “political or social agenda”. At no point or time did he advocate or denigrate a certain viewpoint.

“I teach probability math and that’s it,” he stated in his open letter. “[I] have worked with both the Obama administration and advised on polling statistics for the Trump campaign, am an adjunct professor at three top universities, an editor of the peer-reviewed journal of the American Statistical Association, and wrote a best-selling statistics book — all the proceeds of which I gave to charity!”

Mehta then went on to ask if Google intends on treating “all CEOS and professors and politicians” the same way, if they plan on holding kangaroo courts and treating all their customers without tact or grace. He recalled how his appeals were greeted by stone-cold silence for days, and then answered coolly and with little empathy to his situation.

“Fear is running wild about who is next and on what other social media platforms,” he wrote. “We are going to be looking back on this time in Google’s history and those of other social media and know that they have done some very immoral and confusing things, and it has hurt their public reputation with decent people who wanted to grow into the next future with them.”

Fortunately, Mehta’s story ends on a happy note. According to OneNewsPage.com, Google finally relented and restored all of Mehta’s accounts to their former state on Aug. 22, 2017. For his part, Mehta has gone on to state that he has no intention of commenting on the incident any further, nor does he begrudge Google. It remains unknown, however, what the exact reasons are behind the initial ban.

Of course, this whole occurrence could have been avoided had Google actually done their research on Mehta’s body of work, or simply not banned him at all. Google has already earned itself the reputation of being the Internet’s censor and master manipulator, do they really to want be caught doing anything that bolsters that? Mehta’s situation points to a solid “yes”. (Related: WAKE UP: StartPage search engine is powered by Google … Use GoodGopher or DuckDuckGo instead)

Google doesn’t mind being called out for its censorship of different viewpoints. They don’t care that their silencing of “naysayers” affects scientists and statisticians, men and women who, for the most part, are committed to preserving and presenting the facts as they are. Even if they hurt or go against the grain. But then again, that’s exactly why Google would want to suppress them, right? Because they think and speak of something different? Even or especially if it’s the truth?

To keep up to date on Google’s continuing war against the truth, go to Censorship.news today.

Sources include:

ZeroHedge.com
OneNewsPage.com

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Advertisements

Big Brother Spy Culture: How your AccuWeather app is spying on you

Source: RT
August 23, 2017

A popular weather app known for precise forecasts and storm warnings has been caught tracking users and sharing the location data with a third-party monetizing firm. RT America’s Marina Portnaya brings us the details.

Could This be the Beginning of the End for Facebook?


Source: TheDailyBell.com
August 23, 2017

“Facebook is for old people,” I was told by a 17-year-old last week in San Francisco at the Startup Societies Summit.

He doesn’t use the social media platform. He’s right too. About half a million fewer teens aged 12-17 will use Facebook this year compared to last year.

Facebook depends on older people for its advertising revenue. But it needs to get users while they are young in order to keep them coming back to the social media website when they are older.

Facebook may be busy cooking up ways to attract the younger crowd, but they will inevitably fail at doing so. It is too late. If I am being told by a teenager that Facebook is for old people, the company probably suffers from an insurmountable branding problem among teens.

If parents are on Facebook, kids aren’t interested.

It’s not time to dig Facebook’s grave just yet.

Instagram is the preferred alternative to Facebook among youngsters. And Facebook owns Instagram.

But Facebook and Instagram are totally different platforms. On Instagram, you share pictures. Sure, you can write a caption and use some hashtags. And plenty of people still share memes. But it is not the personal information clearinghouse that Facebook is… or was.

Facebook is struggling with how to get people to share more personal things on their website. That was the main feature for a while, and probably what made Facebook popular. But now people are moving towards sharing more images, memes, and videos… things you can do on Instagram, Youtube, and Snapchat.

Ironically Facebook’s attempts to compete with other platforms helped depersonalize it. The engagement which made it popular is in the process of evaporating.

…sharing of original, personal content on Facebook declined by 21% between mid-2014 and mid-2015, and by 15% between April 2015 and April 2016, according to the Information.

Facebook addressed this decline in the sharing of personal content as “context collapse.” As users’ networks ballooned and their feeds became crowded with an ever growing pool of links and multimedia content from brands, who could blame them for not sharing? What’s the point of writing on a friend’s Timeline or posting a status update when it won’t be seen?

For me, Facebook is basically just a directory. People I have met and want to network with are added as friends, and then if I need to contact them, I can always send them a Facebook message.

It is also considered necessary to have Facebook pages for businesses or websites. This just adds to the impersonal feeling. People are seeing Facebook as more of an advertising machine, and less as an online social club. They are seeing more news–sure sometimes with their friends’ terrible opinions thrown in–and less about how their friends are feeling.

Facebook needs to know how you are feeling… it is how they advertise to you.

And this highlights why owning Instagram might not be enough for Facebook’s business model. Yes, they will still be alive as a company. But being alive isn’t the same as being an advertising powerhouse.

The reason Facebook is such a good way to advertise is because of the data. They know your “likes” and dislikes. They know what time you are most likely to click, and when you just want to be shown a cute cat video.

In Zuckerberg’s quest for world domination, Instagram just cannot deliver.

Facebook is in the power game by manupulating emotions, and making you feel a certain way. Facebook actually performed a study which manipulated the emotions of over 600,000 users in January 2012. For a week, they showed some people only negative news and status updates, and others only positive stories.

What the targetted users went on to post corresponded with whether or not they were being shown negative or positive things. They even were more likely to post emotional status updates when shown friends’ emotional updates. When they were shown mundane, boring posts, they were more likely to refrain from posting at all.

Facebook basically demonstrated that they can shape your worldview based on the information they throw into your feed.

But Instagram is different. On Instagram, you don’t have “friends.” You can follow someone, and they can follow you back. But they don’t have to. You can have one way follows. And it isn’t that easy for the other person to tell if you follow them, except at the very beginning, or by tediously looking through their follow list.

Sure, Instagram could serve up, or withhold certain images. But it is easy to unfollow friends who are posting stupid political memes without them ever knowing. People want to see beautiful places, architecture, animals, and pictures of friends.

It is a photo platform. Most of the time I don’t even read the description. Most of the time I scroll right past an image with words on it. Yes, they are still going to advertise to me, but my brain immediately recognizes it as an advertisement. They can only go so far without taking me out of the experience. In Facebook, that is all part of the experience, and it is relatively seamless.

So is Facebook going the way of the dinosaurs?

Probably not anytime soon. But I would be surprised if their influence didn’t shrink significantly over the next decade. They are not immune to industry disruption.

Even mighty behemoths of companies are not as safe as they might think. Remember MySpace?

Read More at: TheDailyBell.com

Net Neutrality Shocker! – Verizon Admits To Throttling Video In Violation Of Net Neutrality Rules

Verizon admits to throttling video in violation of net neutrality rules
Source: RT
July 22, 2017

Verizon wireless customers have noticed their video streaming being throttled when testing their speeds on Netflix and YouTube. The telecom giant later confirmed that video streaming speeds were being temporarily capped.

In a statement provided to Ars Technica, Verizon claimed users were experiencing lower speeds due to a temporary test they were conducting on a new video optimization system.

“We’ve been doing network testing over the past few days to optimize the performance of video applications on our network,” a Verizon spokesperson told Ars. “The testing should be completed shortly.”

Customers who tested their data speeds on fast.com, which runs from Netflix’s servers, found Verizon’s LTE network was capped at around 10 Mbps.

Multiple users on Reddit also reported that their data appeared to be capped on Netflix. Users at Howard Forums said the cap was being applied to YouTube as well as Netflix.

A representative from the company said that caps were applied across the board to all video applications on the Verizon Wireless network.

“We are constantly testing the network,” a representative told the Verge. “It’s what we do, to optimize performance for our customers. The test was across the board, and did not target any individual applications.”

However, when users compared fast.com with other speed tests, they found drastic differences in speed while using the same Verizon network.

Users who tested their speed using a virtual private network (VPN), which hides which sites they were visiting, also noticed that they had much higher speeds.

The Verizon representative also said, “The consumer video experience should have been unaffected by the test, since 1080p video is HD quality and looks great at 10 [Mpbs].”

While it is true that many users would not be able to notice a difference, those who tether their phones to other devices could experience lower quality video. Netflix also said that Ultra HD quality video may require 25 Mbps, but only for non-mobile devices.

In the past, Netflix has throttled their own video stream in order to help users stay under their data caps. However, they recently changed their policy to allow users to choose different quality settings on mobile devices. Now, Netflix allows users to adjust data usage settings, which includes an “unlimited” option that “may use 1 GB per 20 minutes or more depending on your device and network speeds.”

When Verizon first announced its unlimited streaming plan in February, they told Ars Technica that they “deliver whatever the content provider gives us,” adding that they “don’t manipulate the data.”

According to Verizon’s website, those with an unlimited plan should not be throttled until they reach 22BG of data in a month, and even then, they should only experience throttling if their network is congested.

Internet service providers (ISP) like Verizon are subject to Title II regulations under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which requires them to treat all traffic equally. The current head of the FCC has called for net neutrality rules to be rolled back, which would allow Verizon to prioritize or manipulate traffic to any site or application.

Read More At: RT.com

Inhuman Markets: Even The Algorithm Creators Don’t Know What…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 27, 2017

Over the years I’ve become increasingly wary of the various markets that are now run almost exclusively by computers and have occasionally commented about it in blogs. I’ve even entertained the possibility, in my high octane speculation mode, that various “flash crash” events seem to have features that suggest that the algorithm “took over” and drove a market event with no connection to human market realities; in this respect, I continue to be unconvinced, for example, by the various explanations of the May 2010 flash crash; call it a suspicion, or a hunch, nothing more. Yes, in short, I’ve entertained the idea that artificial intelligence (AI) is not “coming” but already “here”, and may be infesting the “dark pools” and high frequency trading (HFT) algorithms.

Well, now I’m not the only one, according to these stories shared by Ms. K.M.:

Like Something Out of ‘The Twilight Zone,’ This Market Is About the Machines

Doug Kass: Not Even The Algo Creators Know What Is Going On

From the first article, I want to draw your attention to the following statements:

Listen Luddites, for the stock market, too, it’s a thing about the machines.

Throw away your fundamental analysis, your price charts, interest rates and economic growth forecasts, as the market has lost its moorings.

It is no longer a pyramid of fundamental and technical analysis nor is it a response to changing investor sentiment.

The ongoing multiyear changes in the market structure and dominant investor strategies in which quants, algos and other passive strategies (e.g., ETFs) have replaced active managers raise the same risks that Finchley faced 57 years ago.

And the overwhelming impact of central bankers’ largesse is the cherry on the market’s non-fundamentally influenced sundae.

As I have written:

“The combination of central bankers’ unprecedented largesse (and liquidity) when combined with mindless quant strategies and the enormous popularity of ETFs will, as night follows day, become a toxic cocktail for the equity markets. While we live in an imperfect world, we face (with valuations at a 95% decile on a number of metrics) a stock market that views the world almost perfectly.”

Back to JPMorgan’s Marko Kalonovic, who is quoted at the top of this piece and again here:

“… some striking facts: to understand this market transformation, note that Passive and Quantitative investors now account for ~60% of equity assets (vs. less than 30% a decade ago). We estimate that only ~10% of trading volumes originates from fundamental discretionary traders. This means that while fundamental narratives explaining the price action abound, the majority of equity investors today don’t buy or sell stocks based on stock-specific fundamentals. (Bold emphasis added)

Let that last statement sink in for a moment, for if you, like I, have been wondering just why the heck markets don’t make sense any more, it’s because they are utterly unconnected to humanity and human decision-making. That “less than ten percent” of trading volume that “originates from fundamental discretionary traders” means that actual human consideration of stock performance, or even equities in a certain specific sector of industry – say, film-making or farm implement manufacture – are based on actual human consideration of the performance, risk, and returns of a particular stock.

I don’t know about you, but I find this development more than disturbing.

But before we move on to the second article, pause and consider something else: it is often a criticism or critique that centralized solutions, the “one size fits all” political solutions of the political left are unworkable, precisely because no human being can calculate for all possible circumstances for all human beings: one cannot, as it were, create a bureaucratic policy or algorithm to stick in “guideline notebooks” for every possible situation.

And that raises the thorny philosophical question that no one seems to want to address:

How then, can we expect human creators of computer algorithms to do for markets, what cannot be done for other segments of human interaction by bureaucrats?

With that philosophical point in mind, turn to the second article, and consider these very cogent points made for our friends at Zero Hedge:

Most people think of artificial intelligence and algos as simply executing logical rules programmed into them by humans — the same rules that the programming humans would follow if they were presented with the same data and data analysis. The algos and AIs are doing it in the same way humans have always done and would do, but at a much slower speed or perhaps not at all because of the very weak and distant relationship of some data items to other data items.

The general belief is that algos and AIs are just “faster humans able to do a lot more calculations in a meaningful time frame”. That may NOT be a correct characterization of some of the more powerful AIs that may be working in the markets. Of course, we don’t know what AIs are working because there are no regulations requiring that machine decision-making accounts disclose and register as such … a very, very big gap in regulation.

True, AI and the related “machine learning” developments at the leading edge of such technology do NOT simply duplicate human rules and logic. Instead, while they may perform simple repetitive correlations initially on data as humans currently formulate that data, the more advanced machines go on to program themselves at successive layers, where the data being analyzed and correlated is no longer what we think of as data. Rather, it is often data artifacts created by the first layers in a form that no human would ever consider or has ever seen. To put in a more street-level way, the first level creates ghosts and apparitions and shadows that the second layer treats as real data on which it assesses correlation and predictability in the service of some decision asked of it. AND … a third and fourth and on and on are doing the same thing with output from each layer below it.

The result of this procedure is striking and terrifying when the the leading experts in AI and machine learning are interviewed. They admit that they have no way of determining what rules AI and machine- learning powered machines are following in making their decisions AND we cannot even know what inputs are being used in making those decisions.

Think about that. The creators have no knowledge of what their creations are thinking or what kind of inputs the machines are thinking about and how decisions about that are being made. The machines are inscrutable and, most terrifyingly important, UNPREDICTABLE.

We are not telling these AIs how to make decisions. The machines are figuring out how to decide to “make a profit” on their own and subject to no enforceable constraint.

The resulting risk of “flash crashes” — to lump all sudden and unexpected behaviors into a catchphrase — is unknowable but probably much greater than anyone even dreams. The machines have no fear of flash crashes or any other kind of crash. Such crashes might even serve their purpose of “making a profit.”

Note what is really being said:

 (1) algorithmic trading generates artifacts in data that no human ever would;

(2) is processing and making trading decisions based on those artifacts;

(3) none of these processes are transparent, and thus, we do not even know why the markets are behaving as they are behaving, we only know they are not reflective of human market realities; and finally,

(4) all this can lead to the risk of flash crashes.

Lest one think that this sounds too incredible to be true, consider the final closing paragraph of this article, which is the biggest jaw-dropper of them all:

Everyone should read this important note from JPMorgan’s head quant (hat tip to Zero Hedge) in order to understand how risk parity, volatility trending, stat arb and other quant strategies that are agnostic to balance sheets, income statements and private market value artificially are impacting the capital markets and, temporarily at least, are checking volatility. (Bold and italics emphasis added)

Let that sink in for a moment: because algorithms trade at such extraordinary speed, and execute trades in blocks of equities, little or no correlation is being with actual specific equity performance, such as a human “discretionary investor” would make, looking at “old fashioned analogue sorts of things” like balance sheets, income, profit/loss statements, company indebtedness, cost-earnings ratios, exposure, assets &c… in other words, the algorithms have little to no connection to markets and their realities, much less to human decision-making processes that are normally involved in the investment process.

The bottom line? Well, over the long term, obvious a huge rethink of computer-based trading is in order. Frankly, I’m old fashioned enough to want to see a Wall Street trading floor of shouting traders, piles of paper, and bundles of stock certificates being mailed out every day. But beyond this, there’s a short term necessity, perhaps one can call it a strategy, and that’s “keep it local”, and in “keeping it local” I mean, even for local investments, finding out about their exposure to national and international markets: how much of that local bank’s stock is traded on the big markets, and who are the major shareholders? And so on… because, for right now, these machines are at the root of market unreality.

This should, and I hope will, prompt a discussion, and it will have to be a deep one, for the problem of the quants and their algorithms is highlighting the limitations of technology for a human world. The disconnection of markets from real human market activity is a case in point of how technologies have been adapted to a normal human activity – investing and trading – in an inhuman way. And the problem is, if the markets are that far removed from human realities, what will happen if, suddenly, someone pulls the plug? How many would remember how to conduct trades on the floor, the “old fashioned way”?

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Data Indicates Cell Phones Expose Consumers To Radiation Levels Higher Than Manufacturers Claim, Says The French Government

Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine Frompovich
June 20, 2017

The Environmental Health Trust published “Cell Phone Radiation Scandal: More Exposure Than Manufacturers Claim ‘PhoneGate’  In France, government data release reveals 9 out of 10 phones tested exceed regulatory limits” [1].

The French ANFR published online on June 1, 2017, a listing of cell phone data “details of make, model and test results for each cell phone that was tested, after months of legal action by French physician Dr. Marc Arazi.”

According to Environmental Health Trust,

Popular brands such as Apple, Motorola, Samsung and Nokia were among the cell phone models tested. When tested in contact with the body, some phones have test results as high as triple the manufacturer’s previously reported radiation levels.  [1] [CJF emphasis]

Here’s something that for the life of me, I cannot understand parents permitting or allowing their toddlers to play with!

Source [1]

Dr. Arazi replied with the following statement as a result of a French court order to publish the results of cell phone radiation exposure when used next to the human body, as most cell phones are handled, even worn “live” in women’s bras, men’s trouser pants pockets, on belts, or anywhere on the body:

As a physician, I am deeply concerned about what this means for our health and especially the health of our children. People have a right to know that when cell phones are tested in ways people commonly use phones – such as in direct contact with their body – the values exceed current regulatory limits. This is a first victory for transparency in this industry scandal.

Here are Dr. Arazi’s less than 2 minute comments about the French court’s decision on cell phone radiation dangers.

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com