Posts Tagged ‘Allum Bokhari’

Google Embraces Censorship

Wednesday, October 10th, 2018

The leadership of Google is very, very upset that you commoners keep making political choices of which they disapprove, so they’ve crafted a document to justify why they have to censor your views. They favor a “European” regime to emphasize “safety” from your non-liberal views over that pesky and outdated “free speech.”

The fact that they actually label the document “The Good Censor” sort of gives the game away, doesn’t it?

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.

But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

The briefing labels the ideal of unfettered free speech on the internet a “utopian narrative” that has been “undermined” by recent global events as well as “bad behavior” on the part of users. It can be read in full below.

It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers. “This free speech ideal was instilled in the DNA of the Silicon Valley startups that now control the majority of our online conversations,” says the document.

You can tell the document has came out a while ago (the date on it is March 2018), since the “Russia hacked the election” fantasy still plays a prominent role.

PP26-34 – The briefing explains how “users behaving badly” undermines free speech on the internet and allows “crummy politicians to expand their influence.” The briefing bemoans that “racists, misogynists, and oppressors” are allowed a voice alongside “revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners.”

“Social Justice Warriors: Good! Republicans: Bad!” How dare the proles be allowed to express approval for politicians of which we disapprove? And always remember that “racists, misogynists, and oppressors” is SJW-speak for anyone who refuses to toe the party line.

P45 – After warning about the rise of online hate speech, the briefing approvingly cites Sarah Jeong, infamous for her hate speech against white males (Google is currently facing a lawsuit alleging it discriminates against white males, among other categories).
P45 – The briefing bemoans the fact that the internet has until recently been a level playing field, warning that “rational debate is damaged when authoritative voices and ‘have a go’ commentators receive equal weighting.”

“Stop embarrassing our experts! Only experts with approved political opinions should be allowed to hold the conch!”

Page 70 indicates the shift to censorship is in response to “user demand,” which is false in the aggregate. Users aren’t clamoring for censorship, only the SJW hard left is doing that. Ordinary users want freedom of information, not what Google thinks we should be reading because the left keeps losing elections.

It ends with lots of fig-leafs about “transparency,” but the real purpose of the doc is to talk about the “problems” of free speech.

You can read the entire document itself in all its 85 pages of PowerPoint glory.

Google’s assertions to the contrary, this is not an internal document to decide what to do, this is an internal document to justify what they were already doing.

I don’t want my Internet search engine to be a “good” censor, or indeed any kind of censor. I don’t want my search results filtered for the “correct” opinions Google’s far left leadership wants me to hold. Between this, James Damore’s firing, and their decision to build a better censorship engine for China, Google already made the decision to embrace their inner censor before this document was ever commissioned.

Now would be a good time to switch your default search engine to DuckDuckGo, if you haven’t already…

Milo Explains It All For You

Monday, April 4th, 2016

And by “all” I mean two different things. First, here’s Milo Yiannopoulos why it’s so important to beat the Social Justice Warriors now at the peak of their powers:

Second, here’s Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari’s very interesting piece “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right.” Interesting, in that the authors attempt to lay out the various strands of the so-called “Alt-Right,” but not necessarily persuasive.

It is very informative as to identifying various alt-Right clades from Twitter trends, comments trolls, and other online venues. However, nothing in the piece really explains how Donald Trump is capturing some 37% of Republican primary voters down in the wilds of meatspace. In that context, I am especially unconvinced that those the authors finger as “natural conservatives” think about cultural issues in the way the piece suggest they do. “Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters.” While I am sure a fair number of Trump voters are indeed resentful of a national elite media that paints them as the redneck freaks of JesusLand, I would be greatly surprised if they give terribly much thought about symphonies and basilicas compared to economic insecurity, stagnant wages, and illegal aliens taking jobs away from Americans.

Similarly unpersuasive is the authors’ implied definition of “Establishment Conservatives.” As someone who has occasionally written for National Review and is backing Ted Cruz over Trump, I suppose I theoretically fit the definition. But this taxonomy (and the piece itself) completely ignores the Tea Party and its alternate media organs, lumping together everyone from David Brock to Ron Paul into some sort of amorphous political mass.

The piece is still worth reading, but with several grains of salt.