In today's US CITIES deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES the use of these public surveillance structures to include LOUD SPEAKERS are falling into the hands of CITY COUNCIL---MAYOR and their political machines, but these public surveillance are controlled by HOMELAND SECURITY. When I say I hear FEEDBACK from public surveillance, it is those LOUD SPEAKERS I am hearing outside----
If we continue to allow MOVING FORWARD what is today's city governance structure with people from our city or living there-----will disappear. In colonialism, AVATARS being global 2% will be using those public surveillance including LOUD SPEAKERS ----in a totalitarian society. Sorry, no global banking 5% freemason/Greek player/pols chasing me around the city making NASTY comments about me on these LOUD SPEAKERS to anyone near me.
'Homeland Security streetlights include surveillance cameras ...www.naturalnews.com/034045_
Big_Brother... Homeland Security streetlights include surveillance cameras and loud speakers'.
So, who will be shouting through those LOUD SPEAKERS telling people what to SAY, THINK, DO, WHO TO TALK TO OR NOT?
THAT WOULD BE GLOBAL ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%. Most likely it will be AVATARS tied to artificial intelligence. NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG along with 5% freemason/Greek players will be UNDER THE BUS.
'Tito and his comrades set up KGB style police units in the former Yugoslavia (UDBA and OZNA). These organisations conducted political repression on a grand scale'.
TITO when installed by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS to be that brutal MARXIST dictator-----killed sovereign MEDIA outlets and installed lots of SURVEILLANCE including LOUD SPEAKERS to shout down at people what they were supposed to do.
YOU MEAN AS IS HAPPENING HERE IN BALTIMORE? ABSOLUTELY.
We spoke of the novel MY STRUGGLE rehabilitating HITLER----when we GOOGLE other fascists from WW2 era we see articles as well saying THOSE GUYS WERE NOT SO BAD and yet we have several decades of history telling us how bad they were.
Quickly add a free MyWikiBiz directory listing!
Titoism and Totalitarianism
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday June 25, 2019
This article is about Titoism, the former Yugoslavia and its relationship with Totalitarianism. Titoism and Totalitarianism  are political ideologies that dominated the history of Communist Yugoslavia. Titoism as a ideology emerged after the Soviet Union expelled Yugoslavia from the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) and was named after the Dictator Josip Broz Tito. A single party, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and its leader Josip Broz Tito, ruled the country. It was a Totalitarian political system. Josip Broz was a member of the infamous Soviet Police-NKVD and the Soviet Communist Party. The NKVD executed the rule of terror and political repression in and out of the Soviet Union. Tito and his comrades set up KGB style police units in the former Yugoslavia (UDBA and OZNA). These organisations conducted political repression on a grand scale. The regime relaxed its authoritarian rule  from the 1960s onwards, although the former Yugoslavia always remained a totalitarian dictatorship and a single-party state.
Revolutionary totalitarianism, pragmatic socialism, transition. Volume One, Tito's Yugoslavia, stories untold
Author: Gorana Ognjenovic; Jasna Jozelic; Palgrave Macmillan (Firm), Publisher: New York, New York : Palgrave Macmillan,  ©2016
This book, the first of two volumes, challenges decades of superficial and selective rhetoric about Tito's Yugoslavia. The essays explore some of the gaps in the existing descriptions of the country that have existed for decades.
Here we see what I call FAKE REVOLUTION---OUR REVOLUTION Bernie Sanders et al trying to install that global corporate MARXIST FASCISM which as say has NOTHING to do with LEFT SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. It's simply global banking 1% being brutal and restructuring sovereign societal structures. BERNIE et al are being touted as PRAGMATIC DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS-----Clinton neo-liberals were touted as PRAGMATIC LIBERALS------neither being ACTUAL left liberals or left communists/socialists
We mention this in a week's discussion of MEDIA PUBLIC POLICY because these totalitarian structures do not allow free press----open media outlets and sources. They use only SURVEILLANCE structures to communicate much being that LOUD SPEAKER. Back in the day these communications would arrive by airplane dropping leaflets.
We appreciate this CATHOLIC description which is accurate------although these brutal MARXIST regimes are installed by OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH. There are no doubt a 99% of REAL Catholic and Jewish citizens who know this.
YOUTH GROUPS, SCHOOLS, AND MEDIA ARE FIRST TO GO IN MOVING FORWARD TO FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM----
That is what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has installed in HOMELAND SECURITY public surveillance structures. As we see, these PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE LOUD SPEAKERS become the only MEDIA our 99% WE THE PEOPLE have access.
Who installed HITLER, STALIN, TITO-----OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH. who dies in these manufactured civil unrest civil wars? Hundreds of millions of CATHOLIC citizens----tens of millions of JEWISH citizens as well as PROTESTANTS, MUSLIM, AND HINDI-BUDDHIST.
NO ONE WINS accept global banking 1%.
COMMONER CORE anyone? Selling OUR REVOLUTION MARXISM as LEFT social democracy-----this is FASCIST control of media.
John Paul Meenan, Editor
December 6, 2018
There are two primary things that totalitarian regimes seek to control, and whose take-over are themselves a sign of creeping totalitarianism in any society: The first is education, and the younger they get access to our minds, the better. The second is the media, newspapers and radio, and, now the vast ethereal space known as the Internet.
The reason is rather simple: Media and education are the primary means we access the truth, and, as tyrants as far back as Plato have known, it is far easier to control people from within – by domineering their thoughts, even such that they don’t even they’re being manipulated – than from without, using such clumsy tools as armies and police, clubs and tear gas – even if they be there, in full force, as back-up, in case interior control fails in some cases. As I wrote not long ago, commenting on Josef Pieper, authoritarian power is most effectively consolidated through control of ‘language’, in all that implies, in what is – or allowed to be – said or even thought.
Over the past few decades here in Canada, the government has gained an almost total hegemony in the educational sphere, from kindergarten to post-doctoral fellowships, almost all of it government funded and overseen by anonymous bureaucrats, hiding behind an alphabet soup of various acronyms: OECTA, EFFTO, OSSTF, PEQAB, AUCC. There are still a few private schools here and there – those free of such state control, or at least of their meretricious purse strings – few and far between, almost all beleaguered and underfunded. There are some exclusive elementary and high schools for the rich and elite, who disdain the inferior public education they keep most firmly in existence for the plebes and hoi polloi.
The minds of almost every Canadian alive and active today – some of those well into older age have escaped – has been almost completely formed by such faceless public agencies, from the dawn of reason until, in many cases, the dawn of middle age.
That’s bad enough. But what of after class hours? And what of their life beyond the unhallowed halls of academe, into the bright light of what used to be called the real world? What if – perish the thought – some uncomfortable truths inconsistent with the State agenda should somehow find a way into their brains?
Hence, from the totalitarian perspective, news and information must also be strictly regulated, as Orwell presciently warned in his 1984 dystopia. We have a sort of ‘ministry of truth’ that goes by the acronym of the CBC – more or less a glee club for the Liberal party and their particular pet ideologies – every morning, and I scarcely exaggerate, I hear a story of global warming, the most recent one that eating a meal uses more carbon than driving to the next town over. And this agency is currently funded to the tune of about one billion tax dollars per annum – but that now seems not enough.
Hence, you may have read recently that under the aegis of supporting the beleaguered media industry which has dropped precipitously in subscribers – especially newspapers and their on-line editions – Prime Minister Trudeau has announced a bailout package to the tune of $600 million, effectively nationalizing nearly the entire mainstream media, forcing us to pay for ‘news’ that we neither need nor want, news that will now be dependent – like education – on the support of government, and therefore, likely continue to shape opinions in the ‘Liberal’ direction, and all this, conveniently enough, in an election year.
Ponder that: A billion and a half of your own dollars. Are we supposed to pay for subscriptions on top of this, if you would even want to?
Keep in mind that the news is not just news, but includes all the commentaries, interviews, questions, answers, which will all be vetted, to ensure they skew in the right direction.
Freedom of the press, as well as education, has been a bedrock of any functioning and free society. As de Tocqueville presciently warned, one of the primary tasks of a free citizenry is to keep their government in check, for power tends to metastasize, to gather ever-more power, and usually not in beneficial directions. The press – which in some way includes all of us, at least as readers, if not writers – should speak, proclaim and witness to the truth, with various points of view vigorously debated in the public arena, while holding the feet of those who wield public authority to the fire – metaphorically speaking. They must not be allowed to hide behind an impenetrable wall of doublespeak.
Chesterton warned of the subtle power of the media complex – and he had no idea of the umbilical ubiquity of ‘smart’ phones – which does not begin with outright lies and coercive censorship – even if they often get there eventually – but just by ignoring uncomfortable truths, by focusing only on those stories or images that fit their preconceived and dearly held ‘values’, all interpreted for you, free of charge, so you hardly notice. They will decide what you see and hear, what is good and evil, what is important, and what is not, and what it means to be sane, and what, insane, to belong, and to be shunned.
This, dear reader, is unhealthy and incestuous, the government funding media, which in turn supports the government, with the result that the truth that might set us free is hidden and obscured.
If you have a few spare moments today – and most of us do – read over Plato’s allegory of the cave, which sounds as though he were writing for 2018.
Allow me to wax anti-Lennon – if not anti-Lenin – in a more Catholic, theistic mode:
As a thought experiment – a future eutopia, if you will – imagine if the CBC suddenly turned around, its eyes – and by that I mean those of all the producers, commentators, anchors and reporters – opened to recognizing the truth, of such things as abortion for the horror that it is.
If they condemned those three physicians – at Sick Kids Hospital – calling for child euthanasia, comparing them to the Nazi psychiatrists whose euthanasia program laid the rotten seeds of the ‘final solution’.
Imagine they spoke of drug use, sodomy, pornography and even masturbation as degrading habits that rot one’s brain and psyche.
Imagine if they spoke of transgenderism as a psychiatric disorder, and the subsequent ‘sex change transitioning’ as grievous hormonal and surgical mutilation.
Imagine they portrayed the Church in a more positive light, as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, which still shines behind the scandals.
Imagine they spoke of saints and pioneers, of those who built this nation on the bedrock of faith and family.
Imagine if they had a series on the glories of marriage and domestic life, of hearth and home, of productive work and the spiritual fecundity of consecrated and single life.
Imagine if they prayed the Angelus before the news.
It’s not that hard, if you try.
Of course, we do have some media sites that do speak of such things, but they are not going to see a cent – sorry, a nickel – of that Trudeaupian $600 million. Rather, they will continue, along with their analogous private schools, to hobble along, underfunded, underappreciated and even derided by so many, even within the Church.
Now, such sites are being shut out by Facebook and Google, who will conveniently filter what truths get by the State’s so-far passive censorship.
There is a bright side: Like love, the more difficult it is to find the truth, the more we may appreciate it. Christ never said getting to heaven would be easy, and the pearl of great price is often hidden in a field full of duplicitous weeds. Once we find it, not only should we rejoice, but like Plato’s philosopher – to say nothing of Christ’s Apostles – we should lead as many as we can to that same treasure, even if we die in the doing.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES have been shouting since CLINTON era 1990s that this is what was MOVING FORWARD. Why am I being HIT with illegal surveillance and made black market PORN by NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG criminal sex trade PORN MULES? Because I am an ALL-AMERICAN political activist.
My case is being made VERY PUBLIC not only as POLITICAL PAYBACK----but, global banking 1% want to TEST this LOUD SPEAKER and CHATTER as that global corporate FASCIST tool. Every media outlet has hired only far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players who DON'T CARE----who DO AS THEY ARE TOLD ---and this is why are US MEDIA is completely FAKE NEWS.
'Exceptionally so. Totalitarian regimes usually control all media and information and severely curtail freedom of speech and of the press'.
This is one reason I have decided to be VERY PUBLIC about all this HITTING happening to me. It is meant to describe the operational structures and tools today being TESTED and DEVELOPED----but not yet fully functional.
When I call 5% freemason/Greek players POD PEOPLE because they seem to receive via telecommunications all that they are meant to SAY, DO along with that LOUD SPEAKER system PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE----we eliminate completely a sovereign FREE PRESS/MEDIA.
How effective are/were propaganda in totalitarian regimes?
Charlene Dargay, former propagandist / corporate speechwriter
Updated May 22 2016
Totalitarian regimes usually control all media and information and severely curtail freedom of speech and of the press. Such regimes make use of propaganda to achieve support for and perceptions about the success of their plans and programs. (Totalitarian programs somehow never fail, at least not as long as the regime is in power.)
People growing up / living in such places have (or had, pre-Internet) few, if any, other sources of news and information beyond what the state told them. They became conditioned to believe. Most such regimes also had a “secret police” spying on citizens, severely curtailing speech and information exchange. People had pretty much no choice but to believe what they were told, except in cases when the reality of life contradicted the propaganda.
North Korea is a present-day example of a totalitarian regime that tightly controls all information to its people. Nazi Germany is the archetype totalitarian regime that (unfortunately for the German people and the world) made highly effective use of propaganda. Joseph Goebbels was minister of propaganda for the Third Reich, a brilliant practitioner who chose to subvert his talents by propagating evil. The German film maker Leni Riefenstahl directed several highly influential and innovative propaganda films for Hitler, including “Triumph of the Will” about the 1934 Nazi Party rally at Nurenberg, and "Olympia" about the 1936 Berlin Olympics. (Both films are available on DVD and You Tube)
However, keep in mind that every type of government, economic system, and religion also uses propaganda; they just don't call it "propaganda." All forms of marketing, advertising, and "public relations" are propaganda -- the purpose is to shape your perception of corporations and brands, and to persuade you to buy their products versus competitors', or to gain support for a position or agenda they advocate.
The difference is that in a non-totalitarian system, such as a democracy, people have access to a wide range and variety of sources, information -- such as the Internet -- is not severely restricted, and individuals are free to discuss, debate, and have an opinion about pretty much anything. We can choose what data to accept or reject; we can learn about competing points of view and weigh the evidence. We are free to make up their own minds.
We have shouted against social media as having TEMPORARY media structure goals. SOCIAL MEDIA was designed to consolidate all media communications onto an INTERNET which can be controlled at the drop of a hat. FREE PRESS media is not able to be controlled centrally. An installed DICTATOR after sacking and looting of a sovereign nation could not eliminate or control a nation's FREE PRESS voice if not for this movement onto INTERNET.
MEDIA ON INTERNET IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE---OR THE GREATEST SOURCE OF FAKE NEWS----THAT GREATEST AND MOST POWERFUL SOURCE IS OUR US MAIN STREAM MEDIA OUTLET.
Supposedly, these social media and the INTERNET OF EVERYTHING was to be SUPER-DUPER DEMOCRAT---opening media and thought to everyone. If one knows the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE MEDIA VOICE-----one knows that was never the goal of placing all POPULIST media onto the INTERNET.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS now say----we want all that DEMOCRATIZING SOCIAL MEDIA SILENCED----we will simply call it FAKE NEWS.
No one is more raging global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal than CANADA'S TRUDEAU. He is not working to bring REAL INFORMATION to our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
The same CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA having killed our strongest in world history US free press and journalism are now CHAMPIONS of rooting out FAKE NEWS.
SOROS and OPEN SOCIETY is simply the same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS------in this case---TRIBE OF JUDAH-----not fighting against this media as propaganda.
Is Social Media the New Totalitarianism?
It is popular to criticize the major social media giants—Google, Facebook, Twitter—for their impact on people’s minds, and the proliferation of unwanted ideologies.
Both liberals and conservatives are concerned about the amount of “fake news” gobbled up by gullible social media users ready to be entrapped by clickbait.
Facebook has been conducting, ever more publicly since the 2016 election season, a vigorous campaign to screen content for factual reliability. Twitter recently changed its guidelines for verified users to include measurement of offline behavior, so they could have a reason to block users associated with radical right-wing groups. Google has been leading the charge for diversity in the workplace, LGBTQ rights, and very recently along with Facebook implemented in-house rules for dating in order to support the #MeToo campaign.
Nevertheless, the tech giants continue to attract international scrutiny and criticism. Just in the past few days, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned Facebook that unless it fixes its “fake news” problems soon, it will face direct government regulation from Ottawa. But others have identified what they believe is a deeper problem with the very nature of global social networks.
A few weeks ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, George Soros stated that he believed the behavior of the giant tech companies, like Facebook and Google, was “monopolistic,” and dominating the distribution of information in society. Not only were they suffocating public discourse, he argued, but they encouraged patterns of addiction in their users, and “are inducing people to give up their autonomy.” Without the freedom of mind enabled by the free distribution of ideas, people are easily manipulated, and Soros sees in the near future an alliance between such data monopolies and authoritarian states, resulting in “a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined.” Ironically, Soros’s proposed solution to assuage such fears was increased government regulation over the content distributed by the social media giants, which John Cassidy in The New Yorker, rightly I believe, identifies as “optimistic,” at the very least.
I fear that it would be glib to simply respond that in a free market, people are free to choose their means of disseminating information, and that the current market has overwhelmingly chosen three companies to do so. Soros has a point: Facebook, Twitter, and Google have made the dissemination of lies easier than ever before in human history. Every media source in the past has been liable to government censorship and manipulation; why should we not fear such control now?
I have two simple observations. Firstly, the proliferation of fake news is not a problem created by the social media giants themselves, but simply a fact of human corruption. The faster words move, the faster lies move. When the printing press was invented, all of Europe could spread information faster and more efficiently than ever before, and with it came lies, rumors, fake scandals, and libel of all sorts. Ironically, this presented more challenges to authoritarian states than at any previous point in history, as the printing press enabled the Protestant Reformation, and the later Enlightenment, to rapidly propagate their ideas across western civilization, quickly sparking massive political restructuring, and previously unknown individual freedoms.
Secondly, we need to make sure we are asking the right questions when we judge the value of Facebook, Twitter, and Google as distributors of information. The social media giants themselves would like to see themselves as passive, unbiased platforms which other people use to spread information. Concerned social commentators like Soros want us to simply accept their status as the new public square, and subject them to public regulation accordingly.
At the end of the day, we are asking a very fundamental question. What is the public square? What is public discourse? And is it the responsibility of the state to maintain the standards or quality of public discourse? I believe most of us would like to say that what happens on Facebook is public discourse, but are we willing to conclude that Facebook then is the new public square? Or is it a private space maintained by Facebook, as we are led to believe by the fact that we have to sign a terms of service agreement with Facebook in order to use the platform? We cannot respond adequately to the criticisms of Soros and others, or accurately measure the cultural effects of social media, until we grapple with these questions.
THE MARGINS----in this case a NEW YORK TIMES tells us the margins-----are WORLD SOCIALIST. We have discussed often how WORLD WORKERS----same as WORLD SOCIALISTS work for WORLD BANK/IMF/global corporations-----they are not LEFT ----BUT FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM.
Below we see this article pretends GOOGLE is attacking WORLD SOCIALIST.
GOOGLE is indeed the FAKE NEWS central. These SEARCH ENGINES control all information our 99% of citizens receive when they search and as we say we are seeing less and less REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE articles---we are seeing more and more REVISED HISTORY articles such as TITO really wasn't that bad.
'Google had stopped redirecting search queries to the site. He discovered that the top search terms that once brought people to the World Socialist Web Site were now coming up empty.
“This is not an accident,” Mr. North said. “This is some form of deliberate intervention.”'
CNN morning news had a few days ago an interview with GOOGLE'S owner BRIN-------and CNN will work with GOOGLE to root out FAKE NEWS.
Okay, Google: How Do You Prepare A Country For Totalitarianism?
Google is doing its part. To be ready for dictatorship, people have to embrace its habits and practices voluntarily, or at least show little resistance. our latest
Google Groupthink Is the Gateway to Totalitarianism - The ...www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/08/10/google...
Google Groupthink Is the Gateway to Totalitarianism. Another Google employee said, “Google is run like a religious cult. Conform and carry out the rituals, and you’ll be rewarded and praised; ask any uncomfortable questions or offend the wrong people, and the threats and public shaming will be swift and ruthless.
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored: Google's Totalitarian Model
Google is a private company and can create its own little enclave of mandatory wokeness if it likes, Damore’s lawsuit notwithstanding. The problem is that Googlers are not content to keep this ideological policing within their own walls.
Totalitarianism - definition of totalitarianism by The Free
1. a system of highly centralized government in which one political party or group takes control and grants neither recognition nor tolerance to other political groups. 2. autocracy in one of its several varieties. 3. the character or traits of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, party, government, or state. — totalitarian, n., adj.
Google's Totalitarian Search Engine
Right before your very eyes, a counter government is forming. Basing its control of your fellow citizens on content guidelines, vague hate speech penalization, and an emerging social credit system ...
Google The Totalitarian? | The Precursor Blog by Scott Cleland
Google's rapidly increasing power over the world's information, info-commerce, and Internet users, combined with its no-permission-required cultural ethos, appears to be morphing into a pseudo-totalitarian world view where Google will always push the envelope to be the ultimate authority, until some other authority forcefully pushes back.
We do not go to the #1 TOTALITARIAN TOOL of global banking 1% to ROOT OUT FAKE NEWS.
Here is global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----CARLOS SLIM's NEW YORK TIMES-----giving the impression having GOOGLE determining FAKE NEWS is OK except for those FRINGE---MARGINAL groups.
Google News Initiative announced to fight fake news and support journalism
By Chaim Gartenberg@cgartenberg Mar 20, 2018,
Google is announcing new efforts today to support the media industry by fighting misinformation and bolstering journalism, which will live under a newly announced umbrella called the Google News Initiative. Google already offers something similar in Europe through the Digital News Initiative, but the Google News Initiative is intended to be a wider worldwide expansion of those kinds of efforts.
As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm
CreditMinh Uong/The New York Times
CreditCreditMinh Uong/The New York Times
By Daisuke Wakabayashi
- Sept. 26, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO — When David North, the editorial chairman of the World Socialist Web Site, noticed a drop in the site’s traffic in April, he initially chalked it up to news fatigue over President Trump or a shift in political consciousness.
But when he dug into the numbers, Mr. North said, he found a clearer explanation: Google had stopped redirecting search queries to the site. He discovered that the top search terms that once brought people to the World Socialist Web Site were now coming up empty.
“This is not an accident,” Mr. North said. “This is some form of deliberate intervention.”
Accusations that Google has tampered with search results are not uncommon and date back to the earliest days of its search engine. But they are taking on new life amid concerns that technology behemoths are directly — or indirectly — censoring controversial subjects in their response to concerns over so-called fake news and the 2016 presidential election.
In April, Google announced an initiative called Project Owl to provide “algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content” and stamp out fake news stories from its search results.
To some, that was an uncomfortable step toward Google becoming an arbiter of what is and is not a trustworthy news source.
“They’re really skating on thin ice,” said Michael Bertini, a search strategist at iQuanti, a digital marketing agency. “They’re controlling what users see. If Google is controlling what they deem to be fake news, I think that’s bias.”
Despite Google’s insistence that its search algorithm undergoes a rigorous testing process to ensure that its results do not reflect political, gender, racial or ethnic bias, there is growing political support for regulating Google and other tech giants like public utilities and forcing it to disclose how exactly its arrives at search results.
Most people have little understanding of how Google’s search engine ranks different sites, what it chooses to include or exclude, and how it picks the top results among hundreds of billions of pages. And Google tightly guards the mathematical equations behind it all — the rest of the world has to take their word that it is done in an unbiased manner.
“The complexity of ranking and rating is always going to lead to some lack of understanding for people outside of the company,” said Frank Pasquale, an information law professor at the University of Maryland. “The problem is that a lot of people aren’t willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.” In his book, “The Black Box Society,” Mr. Pasquale warned about the potential risks from an overreliance on secret algorithms that control what information we see and how critical decisions are made.
As the dominant search engine, with an estimated 90 percent global market share, Google was criticized by both the right and the left of the political world during the 2016 election.
In June 2016, a video from the pop culture site SourceFed accused Google of manipulating automatically completed search suggestions to favor Hillary Clinton. Google denied the claim, but right-wing media seized on the video as an example that the company was tipping the scales in her favor.
In the days after the election, the top Google search results for “final election vote count 2016” was a link to a story that wrongly stated that Mr. Trump, who won the Electoral College, had also defeated Mrs. Clinton in the popular vote.
In the research that led to the creation of Project Owl, Google found that a small fraction of its search results — about 0.25 percent of daily traffic — were linking to intentionally misleading, false or offensive information. For a company that aims to deliver the most relevant information for all queries, that constituted a crisis.
Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines used by human raters to determine what is a good search result and what is a bad one. Google said its global staff of more than 10,000 raters do not determine search rankings, but their judgments help inform how the algorithm performs in the future.
Google has often said that it cannot reveal too much or people would use that information to try to game the rankings. The opacity around Google’s algorithm has given birth to a cottage industry of search engine optimization experts who dissect the company’s comments.
To assuage criticism about that lack of transparency, Google made public its guidelines for search quality in 2013. Pandu Nayak, a Google fellow who focuses on search quality, said disclosing the guidelines is more meaningful.
“The actual algorithm is not as important as what the algorithm is trying to do,” said Mr. Nayak. “Being completely transparent of what you’re trying to achieve is the central goal because how you accomplish that can change.”
Google said hundreds of factors go into its search algorithm and the formula is also constantly evolving. The company said it conducted 150,000 search experiments and implemented 1,600 changes last year.
This is why it’s hard to pinpoint exactly why search traffic plummets for a site like the World Socialist Web Site, which calls itself the “online newspaper of the international Trotskyist movement.” Mr. North, the site’s chairman, said traffic coming in from search is down 70 percent since April, citing data from Alexa, a web traffic analytics firm owned by Amazon.com.
In an open letter to Google last month, Mr. North traced his site’s traffic decline to Project Owl. Mr. North said he believed that Google was blacklisting the site, using concerns over fake news as a cover to suppress opinions from socialist, antiwar or left-wing websites and block news that Google doesn’t want covered.
In mid-April, a Google search for “socialism vs. capitalism” brought back one of the site’s links on the first results page but, by August, that same search didn’t feature any of its links. The site said 145 of the top 150 search terms that had redirected people to the site in April are now devoid of its links.
“They should be asked to explain how they’re doing it,” Mr. North said. “If they say we’re not doing anything, that’s simply not credible.”
Mr. North said that Google has not responded to his claims. Google declined to comment on the World Socialist Web Site.
Mr. North argued the drop-off in traffic is the result of Google directing users toward mainstream media organizations, including The New York Times. The World Socialist Web Site claimed that search referral traffic had fallen since April at a variety of other left-wing, progressive, socialist or antiwar publications like AlterNet and Consortiumnews.
The New York Times could not find the same level of traffic declines at all of those publications, based on data from SimilarWeb, a web analytics firm. Traffic coming from search engines for the World Socialist Web Site was down 34 percent during the months of May to July, compared with the preceding three months, according to SimilarWeb. Traffic that did not come from search was up 1 percent during the same period.
Mr. North said his site provides critical analysis for current events and it has nothing in common with sites peddling blatantly untrue stories. But he said he is opposed to any actions taken by Google under the pretext of stopping fake news.
“I’m against censorship in any form,” he said. “It’s up to people what they want to read. It’s not going to stop with the World Socialist Web Site. It’s going to expand and spread.”
'So-called ‘talking surveillance cameras’ that use a speaker system similar to the Intellistreets model are already being used in UK cities like Middlesborough to bark orders and reprimand people for dropping litter and other minor offenses.
According to reports, one of the most common phrases used to shame people into obeying instructions is to broadcast the message, “We are watching you.” '
We will look more closely at last century's brutal dictators like TITO-----and ties to controlling MEDIA with use of LOUDSPEAKERS.
This again is what I mean when I say I am hearing someone saying something about ME over PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE system supposedly controlled by HOMELAND SECURITY.
INFO WARS and DRUDGE REPORT are same global banking 1% FAKE NEWS but from the right wing side of media outlets---but, these issues are real.
New Street Lights To Have “Homeland Security” Applications
October 26, 2011High-tech system to include speakers, video surveillance, emergency alerts
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
UPDATE: Presumably in response to this article being linked on the Drudge Report, the company behind ‘Intellistreets’, Illuminating Concepts, has now pulled the video from You Tube entirely, presumably nervous about the negative publicity that could be generated from concerns about street lights being used for “Homeland Security” purposes – their words, not ours. We have added an alternative version of the clip below, but it may be subject to removal at any time. The video is still available on the company’s website.
New street lights that include “Homeland Security” applications including speaker systems, motion sensors and video surveillance are now being rolled out with the aid of government funding.
The Intellistreets system comprises of a wireless digital infrastructure that allows street lights to be controlled remotely by means of a ubiquitous wi-fi link and a miniature computer housed inside each street light, allowing for “security, energy management, data harvesting and digital media,” according to the Illuminating Concepts website.
According to the company’s You Tube video of the concept, the primary capabilities of the devices include “energy conservation, homeland security, public safety, traffic control, advertising, video surveillance.”
In terms of Homeland Security applications, each of the light poles contains a speaker system that can be used to broadcast emergency alerts, as well as a display that transmits “security levels” (presumably a similar system to the DHS’ much maligned color-coded terror alert designation), in addition to showing instructions by way of its LED video screen.
The lights also include proximity sensors that can record both pedestrian and road traffic. The video display and speaker system will also be used to transmit Minority Report-style advertising, as well as Amber Alerts and other “civic announcements”.
With the aid of grant money from the federal government, the company is about to launch the first concept installation of the system in the city of Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Using street lights as surveillance tools has already been advanced by several European countries. In 2007, leaked documents out of the UK Home Office revealed that British authorities were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”.
Dutch police also announced last year that they are developing a mobile scanner that will “see through people’s clothing and look for concealed weapons”.
So-called ‘talking surveillance cameras’ that use a speaker system similar to the Intellistreets model are already being used in UK cities like Middlesborough to bark orders and reprimand people for dropping litter and other minor offenses. According to reports, one of the most common phrases used to shame people into obeying instructions is to broadcast the message, “We are watching you.”
The transformation of street lights into surveillance tools for Homeland Security purposes will only serve to heighten concerns that the United States is fast on the way to becoming a high-tech police state, with TSA agents being empowered to oversee that control grid, most recently with the announcement that TSA screeners would be manning highway checkpoints, a further indication that security measures we currently see in airports are rapidly spilling out onto the streets.
The ability of the government to use street lights to transmit “emergency alerts” also dovetails with the ongoing efforts to hijack radio and television broadcasts for the same purpose, via FEMA’s Emergency Alert System.
The federal government is keen to implement a centralized system of control over all communications, with the recent announcement that all new cell phones will be required to comply with the PLAN program (Personal Localized Alerting Network), which will broadcast emergency alert messages directly to Americans’ cell phones using a special chip embedded in the receiver. The system will be operational by the end of the year in New York and Washington, with the rest of the country set to follow in 2012.
The notion of using the street lights as communication tools to broadcast “alerts” directly from the federal government is also consistent with Homeland Security’s program to install Orwellian ‘telescreens’ that play messages by Janet Napolitano and other DHS officials in Wal-Mart stores across the country.
The fact that the federal government is funding the implementation of ‘Intellistreets’ comes as no surprise given that the nation’s expanding networks of surveillance cameras are also being paid for with Department of Homeland Security grants.
'15 Countries That Had No Government For The Longest Time
A new party was elected, but this didn't stop the civil unrest. In the south, all law and order collapsed. The gangs completely took over the southern cities. During the night,
the gang leaders would announce on loudspeakers
that people were not to go outside, as the gangs would be having gun battles every night from now on'.
TOTALITARIANISM is always associated with ENSLAVEMENT------far-right wing global corporate FASCISM has always used FORCED FREE LABOR as the economic tool.
MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE HAS A GOAL OF INSTALLING FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY NIHILISTIC GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCIST MARXISM.
Here we see LOUD SPEAKERS being used as that tool----to tell people what they are to SAY, THINK, DO.
The African gang-up and betrayal of Negroes(1)
Published on Aug 1, 2018
THE AFRICAN BETRAYAL OF NEGROES(1)