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

Warrantless cell phone tracking in consent that no one reads – Lionel

Source: RT
August 17, 2017

Legal and media analyst Lionel explains how cell phone companies take advantage of their customers who never read the consent form about where the personal information goes, allowing the companies to track the users’ data.

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

It’s Never Been More Important to Support Independent Content Creators


Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
June 30, 2017

When I first started this website I didn’t have a plan for monetization. While I certainly believe people should be compensated for hard, useful work, all I wanted to do was read, write and think. The “business side” of running a blog felt like a nuisance and wasn’t something I had much passion or energy for. That hasn’t changed.

What has changed is passively putting third party code like Google Adsense on your website doesn’t really earn someone like me any money. While it was never a significant amount of cash in the first place, it wasn’t totally worthless. At this point it has become basically worthless, but that’s ok. I’m not going to complain about Google. Google doesn’t owe me anything and neither do the corporations that use the network. It was never a smart way for writers, particularly anti-establishment type writers highly critical of our economic system based on cronyism and fraud, to earn money. It never really made any sense, but I went down that road anyway because it was easy and allowed me to focus on what I really cared about, my work. But things have changed.

Advertisers have begun to flex their muscles over the past year or so, with YouTube demonetizing videos with any sort of unconventional political bent. From the advertisers’ perspective this makes perfect sense and there’s no point in complaining about it. This has forced many content producers to shift to a more reader supported model, which I think is far more empowering and healthy in the long-term despite painful short-term hits to revenue. Indeed, we shouldn’t trust any media that relies on large corporate advertisers to fund their “journalism,” as the product will be more like public relations than any hard-hitting truth to power. We’ve already seen that advertisers are willing to flex their muscles when it comes to content they don’t like, and we can expect that to accelerate going forward.

The latest warning sign comes courtesy of a Washington Post policy that forbids employees from disparaging advertisers. The Washingtonian reports:

A new social-media policy at the Washington Post prohibits conduct on social media that “adversely affects The Post’s customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers or partners.” In such cases, Post management reserves the right to take disciplinary action “up to and including termination of employment.”

The Post‘s Guild sent out a bulletin Sunday night protesting the policy. “If you’re like most of us, you probably acknowledged its receipt without reading it,” says the note, which was written by Guild co-chair Fredrick Kunkle.But what you don’t know could hurt you.”

The guild wants to jettison other parts of the policy, which the Post confirms to Washingtonian went into effect on May 1 and applies to the entire company:

  • A provision that prohibits employees from “Disparaging the products and services of The Post’s advertisers, subscribers, competitors, business partners or vendors.”

  • A demand that employees “Refrain from using social media while on your work time, unless using Social Media is an authorized part of your job.”

  • A clause that encourages employees to snitch on one another: “If you have any reason to believe that an employee may be in violation of The Post’s Social Media Policy … you should contact the Post’s Human Resources Department.”

I thought part of the appeal of a billionaire like Jeff Bezos owning a “paper of record” is that it might make it less beholden to large powerful interests than you might otherwise expect. Guess not.

One thing the last twelve months should make clear to everyone reading this is that billionaire-owned corporate media cannot and should not be trusted to provide honest information, and will definitely never challenge the true centers of power in society. This makes the need for independent publishers more crucial than ever, and since such publishers cannot and should not depend on corporate advertisers, readers need to step up and support them. I’m not talking about my work specifically, I’m talking about all of the independent content creators you enjoy. Support all of them.

On Friday, I plan to publish an article outlining my plan for turning Liberty Blitzkrieg into a reader-supported publication in the years ahead. I think that’s the only sustainable way to stay on point, refrain from the temptations of clickbait, and avoid the whims of corporate advertisers and Google.

Stay tuned for more.

Meanwhile, if you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Read More At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com