Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Google Employee Discusses Google’s Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 (Updated: Google Removes Video)

Report: Google Employee Discusses Google’s Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 (Updated: Google Removes Video)

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”

Monday, Project Veritas released their latest undercover video, which appears to show a longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai discuss the company’s plans to prevent a “Trump situation” in 2020. A Google whistleblower, speaking anonymously also weighs in.

From Project Veritas:

  • Insider: Google “is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.”
  • Google Head of Responsible Innovation Says Elizabeth Warren “misguided” on “breaking up Google”
  • Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”
  •  Insider Says PragerU And Dave Rubin Content Suppressed, Targeted As “Right-Wing”
  • LEAKED Documents Highlight “Machine Learning Fairness” and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results “fair and equitable”
  • Documents Appear to Show “Editorial” Policies That Determine How Google Publishes News 
  • Insider: Google Violates “letter of the law” and “spirit of the law” on Section 230

Project Veritas has released a new report on Google which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider. The report appears to show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and “prevent” the next “Trump situation.”

The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai saying:

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

Jen Gennai is the head of “Responsible Innovation” for Google, a sector that monitors and evaluates the responsible implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. In the video, Gennai says Google has been working diligently to “prevent” the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020:

“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”

Watch:

Update: O’Keefe says Google has removed the video:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So what about the legality of this?

Are they entitled to discriminate against whites because whites are not a protected class under civil rights law?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to artichoke. | June 24, 2019 at 10:25 pm

    Google has needed their wings trimmed for a long time. Antitrust, breakup is in order.

    Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | June 25, 2019 at 1:55 am

    For the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as a “protected class”. Discrimination against whites because of their race is every bit as illegal as such discrimination against blacks, browns, reds, greens, or purples. But Google is not discriminating against whites, so that is irrelevant.

    Google is legally entitled to remove user-provided content from interactive forums that it runs, if it finds such content offensive. It is not required to be politically neutral. If it finds conservative views offensive it’s entitled to remove them all, just as Prof J is entitled to remove from this comment section any views he finds offensive.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 3:07 am

      Milhouse, you keep providing all the proof anyone needs that when you say people aren’t entitled to their own facts, that’s not a rule you apply to yourself. You arrogate to yourself the right to conjure “facts” out of thin air whenever you conflict with reality.

      The fact is that Google (and other social media platforms) were given special immunity from lawsuits per section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because they claimed that their moderation practices were not politically motivated. Therefore section 230 provided them an exemption from traditional publisher’s liability.

      Here we have proof positive that their moderation practices are politically motivated as alleged by numerous conservative content providers whose content is suppressed while the Google algorithms promote leftist/liberal/progressive content.

      By doing so they have become a selection site like Drudge, which is not exempt from publisher’s liability. By deliberately linking to some content rather than others selection sites can be sued for choosing to republish false, defamatory, etc., content. By making the deliberate editorial decisions as to what content they will link to Google has become a publisher.

      ” It is not required to be politically neutral.”

      Yes, actually it is. That’s what the Google whistleblower is pointing out when he observes that Google is obviously in blatant violation of both the spirit and letter of the law by engaging in political viewpoint discrimination.

      The world wonders what facts you’ll invent. Are all New Yorkers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? You two have a lot in common. She’s wrong a lot, too. But no matter how wrong she is (or you are) she refuses to admit it.

      I need to buy stock in a tool company that makes shovels, considering how your solution to digging yourself into a hole is to dig more and deeper holes.

        Arminius: The fact is that Google (and other social media platforms) were given special immunity from lawsuits per section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because they claimed that their moderation practices were not politically motivated.

        There’s nothing in section 230 about political neutrality. Rather, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” A platform can be liberal, conservative, dedicated to the study of cephalopods, or knitting, and can restrict content accordingly.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 25, 2019 at 8:06 pm

          But they are publishers if they make editorial decisions about what content they will suppress and what content they will promote. Which is precisely what this senior Google executive says they do. And what they are training their algorithms to do in order to prevent another “Trump situation.”

          Such editorial decisions are what define a publisher. Therefore they do not qualify for an exemption for traditional publisher’s liability which section 230 provides “interactive internet providers.”

          https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/why-you-cant-sue-google.html

          “…It’s important to realize that even without this law, Google probably would win any defamation suit brought against it anyway. A defamation claim requires not only proof of publication, but also proof of state of mind. And Google would virtually never have the state of mind required – or, indeed, any particular state of mind at all, with respect to a particular item that comes up in a given search. Since its searches work automatically, no one at the site would likely be aware that Google’s search engine had displayed a particular false statement of fact…”

          Here we have Google’s head of “responsible innovation” accidentally telling the world that they do have a particular state of mind, and they are training their algorithms to reflect the developers anti-Trump pro-left state of mind. They are promoting certain points of view based on their biased definition of “fairness” and she admits their definition of “fairness” is not one that Trump supporters would agree is fair. Or, in other words, half the country would agree is fair. Which means no neutral observer could agree is fair. But it is her intention to be unfair.

          I see the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply in your universe as well. They are either “publishers” or “not publishers.” In order to be “not publishers” they have to prove their search engines have “no particular state of mind.” They can’t make that claim now.

          Amusingly after this video came out the main character, Jen Gennai, tweeted out that this was what she thought was a private conversation and she used “imprecise language.” Then she congratulates Project Veritas; “You got me.”

          No, Jen, your language was very precise. You just told the world that the basis of your publisher’s liability exemption is complete bulls**t. That Google is just as much a selection site as Drudge, which enjoys no such exemption since by making deliberate editorial decisions regarding what to link to they are publishers.

          I really need to buy stock in a tool company that makes and sells shovels. I look forward, Zachriel, to you wearing out shovels as you keep digging your hole.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 25, 2019 at 8:18 pm

          “A platform can be liberal, conservative, dedicated to the study of cephalopods, or knitting, and can restrict content accordingly.”

          Once more for emphasis. Yes, of course it can. Any platform can have a point of view if it wishes. But if it does have a particular point of view it is not an “interactive internet provider.” It meets the FEC’s definition of a publisher and by definition a publisher is not exempt from traditional publisher’s liability.

          In order to qualify as an “interactive internet provider” and qualify for immunity from publisher’s liability the platform must, in addition to a couple of other odds and ends, have “no particular point of view.”

          Your assertions are demonstrably false. I suggest you and everyone else read the legal analysis at the link. And look up “the law of non-contradiction.” As we keep seeing in actual and virtual reality it’s a rare person who applies it. Instead most people prefer to live in cognitive dissonance. They are more comfortable being able to hold two diametrically opposed thoughts at one time and simply ignoring the contradiction as long as their biases are confirmed, depending on which thought serves their biases at any given moment.

          Arminius: Therefore they do not qualify for an exemption for traditional publisher’s liability which section 230 provides “interactive internet providers.”

          The law defines an interactive internet provider as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server” and enacts the provision that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

          Arminius: But if it does have a particular point of view it is not an “interactive internet provider.”

          Please quote the provision of 47 U.S. Code § 230 concerning “point of view”.

      cucha in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 8:16 pm

      I can tell this dumba55 has never worked a day in the past 30 years. The first thing employees are told in “anti-harrassment training” in every workplace is about protected classes, aka the chosen ones, who you can’t make a joke or else… Whites or conservatives, of course, are not in that special list.

      Go back to play with your toys, troll.

    artichoke: Are they entitled to discriminate against whites because whites are not a protected class under civil rights law?

    Whites are protected under anti-discrimination and hate crime laws.

    Black transgender woman faces hate crime charges in New York over ‘anti-white’ chemical spray and scissors attacks

The RINOs have been warned, repeatedly and loudly, about the liberal’s use of tech companies to ban conservative thought.

They have done NOTHING to stop it.

Shadowbanning, manipulation of search results, demonitization, and ACTUAL banning have been met with absolutely no consequences for them.

And until the spineless RINOs wake the hell up and DO SOMETHING, they’re going to continue getting more bold.

You think a Democrat President will do a damn thing to stop them, not matter how blatant and lawbreaking they were?

Control the tech companies and fix the widespread Democrat vote fraud or no Republican will be elected ever again.

Massinsanity | June 24, 2019 at 8:32 pm

The Dems caw about “net neutrality” because they know the true gatekeepers of content work for them and only them.

so this doesn’t count as an admission of conspiracy to electioneer?

there has to be some kind of law against what she’s admitting to.

I’m no legal brain by any stretch but what she is basically saying is that she didn’t like Trump being elected so she’s going to make sure that whoever she wants to be elected will get the benefit of their search algorithms and their company will attempt to ensure that whomever they DON’T want to be elected won’t be.

    Olinser in reply to PapaGuns. | June 24, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    There are laws. That doesn’t matter.

    What matters is whether there is somebody actually willing to prosecute violation of the law.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Olinser. | June 25, 2019 at 8:23 am

      If cases DO get prosecuted, one still has to see what the tyrant in the black gown will do. Rule based on law? Or, rule based on “what is right” in their view.

    Milhouse in reply to PapaGuns. | June 25, 2019 at 1:56 am

    Electioneering is at the core of the first amendment’s protection. Why do you think there must be a law against it?

      Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 10:01 am

      Milhouse makes another obtuse comment.

      Uh, obviously, you’ve never run a political campaign or a nonprofit involved in politics directly or peripherally. There are ALL KINDS of restrictions. Dollar limits, in-kind contributions, speech restrictions depending on the entity type.

      Get out from under your rock. Never heard of the F.E.C., hunh? Or the myriad state commissions regulation political speech….

WTH is “responsible innovation”?

Doesn’t sound legit. In fact anti-trust investigation might be just the ticket. Might be some FEC violation, but we all know only Republicans can violate the FEC.

    artichoke in reply to puhiawa. | June 24, 2019 at 9:37 pm

    The death penalty for the RNC ended before the 2016 election which is the only reason we had a slight chance there.

    Maybe there’s hope. Break up Google, with this video it should be within the realm of possibility. If a foreign influence can be found (given Google’s founders — Russians!), that could be useful.

    If Google is using a separate company the same way, Youtube (yes they own them but that’s moblike seen the right way) maybe RICO could be used.

      Close The Fed in reply to artichoke. | June 25, 2019 at 10:03 am

      Look, the video of the woman and of many Project Veritas videos shows foreign influence. They HIRE FOREIGNERS TO RUN THINGS, foreigners from places WITH NO CULTURE OF FREE SPEECH.

      It would be wise from a national security/election security standpoint, to restrict such companies from hiring foreigners as employees. They have too much power over AMERICA’S PUBLIC SQUARE.

Surprise. Google is suppressing the video.

Google issued a statement full of weasel words. Says the video was deceptively edited to exaggerate the power of Jen.

Missing is any claim that they haven’t done the deeds.

    Oversoul Of Dusk in reply to Petrushka. | June 24, 2019 at 9:13 pm

    These people are profoundly stupid. When will they learn?

    Google doesn’t have a copy of the raw video. Project Veritas does. When you claim “deceptive editing” with Veritas, they give you a week or two to put your foot all the way in your mouth, and then they release more video. If you come up with new lies about them, Veritas waits a while and releases even more.

    Google’s strategy only works when the whole media-leftist complex lies in unison and drowns out the truth. So I guess Google’s strategy usually works.

    artichoke in reply to Petrushka. | June 24, 2019 at 9:38 pm

    So does Trump have to tweet it?

    n.n in reply to Petrushka. | June 24, 2019 at 9:41 pm

    Google is mixing Alphabet and speaking truth to fascism.

    MarkS in reply to Petrushka. | June 25, 2019 at 6:23 am

    “Deceptively edited” is the buzz word Libs use whenever they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar

    Valerie in reply to Petrushka. | June 26, 2019 at 9:00 am

    Too late to suppress it. It’s now on a US.gov website.

    https://gohmert.house.gov/uploadedfiles/google.mp4

“Trump situation.”

Oddly enough, I rather like the sound of that. I’ll have some more, please.

This isn’t criminal election interference?

    Milhouse in reply to randian. | June 25, 2019 at 2:00 am

    What does that even mean? There’s no such thing. Google is just as entitled as anyone else to try to influence voters.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 3:33 am

      Fascinating stuff, Milhouse. Google is just as entitled to influence voters as anyone else even if they have to violate their agreement with the FCC to do so?

      Google may edit content that is specifically illegal, such as obscene material. Otherwise they must remain neutral about content. Only by remaining neutral about content do they qualify as “not a publisher” under the law. Here we have a Google executive explaining in detail that they make (and are training their algorithms to make) precisely the editorial decisions that define a publisher. And precisely the editorial decisions that they are forbidden to make to remain in compliance with the law that grants them immunity from publisher’s liability.

      I see the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply in your world. In our universe a thing can’t be both “A” and “opposite of A.” An entity can not be both “not a publisher” and “a publisher” at the same time. Yet on your planet it can.

      Tell us more.

      Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 11:46 am

      Not when they are the town square, and not when that influence is by preventing other people from being heard.

      Of no-one is permitted to hear you, do you have free speach?

iconotastic | June 24, 2019 at 9:50 pm

How is this not a breach of the fiduciary duty by the company and it’s Directors?

    Milhouse in reply to iconotastic. | June 25, 2019 at 2:01 am

    How do the shareholders suffer from this?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 3:26 am

      By reducing hits to conservative videos that might otherwise receive heavy traffic, they damage their own ad revenue. By de-monitizing certain channels, they are discouraging the production of new videos (or at least hindering their production). Fewer new videos results in fewer views overall at a channel, resulting in lower ad revenue for YouTube. (Videos get the most views while current/new. Over time, usually on a scale of a few days to a couple of weeks, views plummet. Money is made on fresh content.)

SpaceInvader | June 24, 2019 at 10:02 pm

You can see the trolls already working to demotivate Trump voters online. They blame Trump for not fixing the border problems and everything including a dirty kitchen sink as if the Democrats haven’t been blocking everything he tries to do. As the election nears Artificial Intelligence can flood the comment sections with anti- Trump comments in an attempt to make Trump supporters lose hope and stay home. Watch for it. They did it to Roy Moore with the bogus Russian bots scheme.

The Trump administration should public announce or threaten that Google is no longer in the public square, and therefore all copyright violation can be pursued in court. That would start many civil cases against Google. Google has a lot of money, but not that much.

    Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | June 25, 2019 at 2:02 am

    Huh? That makes absolutely no sense at all. You’re using words without having a clue what they mean.

      InEssence in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 4:25 am

      We have already gone over this. But selective editing or publishing content removes the DMCA safe harbor. Anyone can sue for copyright violations at that point. YouTube depends on the DMCA safe harbor.

      Your previous rebuttal of, “No it doesn’t”, isn’t enough to change the law.

      YouTube used to allow conservative content. They changed their policy, but they tell everyone that they didn’t which is fraud. The intent of the fraud is an attempt to change public opinion by editing what they publish while telling everyone that they don’t. The DMCA doesn’t allow selective editing and publishing except in a clearly stated manner. For example they can allow or suppress porn, because users know it is allowed or not. Any secret standard removes Google from the public square and the DMCA safe harbor.

      The idea is that Google is expressing an opinion through censorship. They can no longer claim that the views of their users are not endorsed by Google. Google is clearly expressing an opinion through censorship, and that opens them to copyright liability. About 10 million content creators have already been harmed, and the damages are often years of work thrown out the window. All Google says it that they violate the community standard. If the standard is secret, then fraud has been committed and the DMCA safe harbor requirements are no longer met.

        TheAbidingDude in reply to InEssence. | June 25, 2019 at 10:00 pm

        Also to liability for false and defamatory statements, including statements that they make inside their four walls that influence their operations.

        To wit: calling Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro “Nazis,” and using that as justification for editorial decisions regarding content produced by Prager or Shapiro.

        Section 230 of the CDA makes it clear: either you are a common carrier (no control over what is said beyond removing content that is illegal on its face), or you are a publisher (ANY curation of content beyond removing the strictly illegal stuff makes you a publisher).

        One of my high school classmates is running a social media curation startup in stealth mode. I feel sorry for her; bu the time she’s ready to go live, her business model is going to be deader than Elvis and Franco put together and she’s going to get slaughtered.

        InEssence: But selective editing or publishing content removes the DMCA safe harbor.

        No, it does not. For instance, while the Legal Insurrection blog is responsible for content William A. Jacobson publishes as original posts, if you were to link a copyrighted video in the comments, the blog’s only responsibility is to remove the content when informed about the copyright, but is otherwise not liable. This, even though the blog may restrict comments to conservatives or attorneys or native-born Americans or conservative native-born American attorneys.

        TheAbidingDude: Section 230 of the CDA makes it clear: either you are a common carrier (no control over what is said beyond removing content that is illegal on its face), or you are a publisher (ANY curation of content beyond removing the strictly illegal stuff makes you a publisher).

        47 U.S. Code § 230 is clear that an interactive internet provider is “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server” and enacts the provision that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

      cucha in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2019 at 8:22 pm

      You are trolling hard today, aren´t you little one?

“…because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation…”

Why would they be “charged” with that? Why is a particular political outcome the responsibility of private enterprise?

I think it might be fun to sit down with one of these pneumocephalics and go all Socratic method on them. I’ll bet I’d have no trouble getting them into a meltdown just by asking questions.

While the video has been memory holed, you can still read snowflake’s reaction here.

We have never had such a dangerous situation where so few had so much control – Soros, the Koch Bros.,Bezos, Zuckerberg, the power elite at Google, etc.

Don’t worry. As people here have told me often. monopolies don’t last. In 10-20 years Google will fall apart.

    venril in reply to RodFC. | June 26, 2019 at 10:38 am

    “.. 10-20 years..”

    It only has to last until they’ve consolidated power to the point they no long have to pretend. 20 years is a long time. You hear what’s said by supposedly main-stream, ‘rational’ folks on the left.

    Like the NGD or Obamacare. They’re not meant as solutions, they’re ramps to power and State control. When the bill came due, they didn’t expect to have to cover it.

    Like 2016, they never imagined anyone would look into what was going on; Hillary was a sure thing, so they did what they thought was necessary.

She don’t like Mondays, so to speak.

This brainless bimbo doesn’t realize that the reason companies are broken up is so that they don’t have the power and control Google possesses.

pneumocephalics

Heh!

To steal a Groucho, “I once shot a pneumocephalic in my pajamas.”

How Hillary got in my pajamas I’ll never know.

daniel_ream | June 25, 2019 at 2:21 am

The notion that the Internet consists solely of three web sites and that this justifies massive government intrusion into the private sector is one of the more peculiar fantasies to come out of the soi-disant right wing in recent years.

Google does not have a monopoly on anything. At all. Every single service Google provides has multiple alternatives. The very fact that O’Keefe was able to upload this video to a competing streaming media service within 24 hours where it remains unmolested is ample proof of that.

What Google is doing here is absolutely no different from what the New York Times does every day.

theduchessofkitty | June 25, 2019 at 3:21 am

I hope someone out there has made a copy of this video and spread it viral all over the Web – all the way to the White House.

On removing. We’re ham-handed because we can. Get used to it.

I can’t believe this valley girl is in a leadership position at Google …. apparently having the correct ideology is the sole requirement for upper management, presentation skills be damned. She uses so many “likes” …. maybe she thinks she’s working for Facecrap.

    Close The Fed in reply to walls. | June 25, 2019 at 10:15 am

    Don’t think she is a valley girl. Her accent and pronunciations indicate she is foreign. I’d like to know from where.

    I’ll repeat myself: the video of the woman and of many Project Veritas videos shows foreign influence. They HIRE FOREIGNERS TO RUN THINGS, foreigners from places WITH NO CULTURE OF FREE SPEECH, and cultures distinctly NOT AMERICAN.

    From a national security/election security standpoint, we need to restrict such companies from hiring foreigners as employees. They have too much power over AMERICA’S PUBLIC SQUARE, and no instinctive understanding of healthy American culture. Instead, they pick up on all the victimology and mistake it for true American culture. It so isn’t.

      LibraryGryffon in reply to Close The Fed. | June 25, 2019 at 2:42 pm

      She does sound Irish. But a degree from TCD doesn’t automatically mean a foreigner; I’ve got a BA(Mod), MA from Trinity in Medieval History, but was born in the US, and have spent most of my life here.

Two things I think we can all agree about.1) she is as ugly physically as she sounds; 2) google has too much power and needs to be cut down.

Close The Fed | June 25, 2019 at 10:35 am

She went to college in Dublin, presumably Ireland. She’s a foreigner, just as I thought. This is her linkedin profile.

Risk Analyst and Buyer Compliance SpecialistMarch 2007 – June 2008 (1 year 4 months)
Anti-fraud investigation (prevent anti-money laundering, credit card fraud etc.)and buyer compliance.
Supported Checkout’s launch in the UK
British Chamber of Commerce, Bratislava, SlovakiaAIESEC Management TraineeshipJanuary 2006 – December 2006 (1 year)online trade & economic newsletter writer, partner development, eventcoordination, database management
EducationTrinity College, Dublin
Management Science & Information Systems Studies

LookoutABear | June 25, 2019 at 10:43 am

While we are waiting for the government to maybe do something, start using big-tech alternatives where you can. It’s the only way. This the only other way to erode the big tech monopolies

They removed the video??? Do they not know how the internet works?

Bet that employee is now gone.

Twitter exchange NYT reporter and O’keefe

https://external-preview.redd.it/4mANoOiDuS0NHZiZC6GO3nsvGDXxplHBO0m34uNa-1Q.jpg?auto=webp&s=2036308eb7721467e50af73118538a48518480cf

Gennai has published a reply.

http://archive.fo/nqOEV

The comparison between what she said, and what she said she said, is choice. The full extent of mendacity in the archived article cannot be appreciated, absent video of her own full sentences.

Further, she used the words “debunked conspiracy theories” for a whole series of concrete demonstrations of biased results from Google searches. Google shenanigans with their searches has been a sore point for years, which is why I switched to Duckduckgo.

Google has other nasty habits, including promotion of violence against American voters.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/01/09/damore-google-antifa-links/

    puhiawa in reply to Valerie. | June 25, 2019 at 1:12 pm

    Doesn’t surprise me. Google, Twitter and Facebook turn over censorship to young people in majors that end in the word “studies”.(So do many corporate HR offices). These “studies” are in various grievances, and the employer assumes a certain amount of goodwill, as if the courses were balanced. In reality, the employed are immature activists driven to frenzy by college instructors of equally dubious credentials. the reason Google employees are now privatizing their social media undoubtedly is because it would demonstrate not only their intense, monolithic politics, but likely actual participation in dubious enterprises.

      Close The Fed in reply to puhiawa. | June 25, 2019 at 2:54 pm

      They are delegating it to foreigners, who haven’t been raised in American culture. This woman is IRISH. Look at her LinkedIn.

      Many of the other folks are Indian. The CEO of google is, pretty sure, Indian.

      We need the same restrictions on employment in social tech as we do on military contractors – no foreigners!!!

    Eskyman in reply to thalesofmiletus. | June 25, 2019 at 3:47 pm

    Thanks for the link, that’s an excellent discussion of “SJWs at Google are training AI to maximize bias, spreading of lies” as the headline states.

    An excerpt: “But I feel that lots of other bad things – and maybe crimes – are taking place at Google. The crippling of the ML programs may be considered sabotage. They are serving results while pretending that the results are objective – but in reality, they’re pumped by SJWs. That’s analogously bad as if a cigarette maker sells cigarettes as prerequisites for perfect health. It’s fraudulent marketing.”

DINORightMarie | June 25, 2019 at 9:16 pm

Sen. Ted Cruz questioned a Google “exec” (she sounds more like a mid-level manager) in charge of “Digital Wellbeing” and UX (User Experience) (really?!?!) today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po78aPI8XYA

Excellent!!

    DINORightMarie in reply to DINORightMarie. | June 25, 2019 at 9:30 pm

    This is a REALLY good article on what “Digital Wellbeing” is, and it all started at Google, no less – and it also refutes what she claims (throwing around terminology and jargon she thinks is not understood by her audience) about AI and Jen whats-her-name in the video, and her job not being integrally tied to AI and Google algorithms.

    Also, if you listen to hear answers, she does not refute anything the Project Veritas whistleblower accused Google of doing. If anything, if you read it as I did, she is (maybe unconsciously) CONFIRMING the accusations and claims.

    https://www.wired.com/story/google-and-the-rise-of-digital-wellbeing/

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend