Police, Bomb Squad, & FBI Surround Google Whistleblower; Google Turns Bomb Robots, Police Dogs & Gun

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Krakatoa

Hey, I'm not defending it, just saying. Got a problem with this new law, don't complain about leftists. Blame the corporations and their toadies in congress.

Apparently, I’ve been under the mistaken impression that Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter are controlled by leftists. Perhaps Page, Brin, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Dorsey back leftist causes so leftists will buy their products, or maybe they’re utter hypocrites who virtue signal while living like pharaohs and controlling powerful monopolies. I checked the latest Wikipedia list of the planet’s wealthiest people, and eight of the 12 richest are anti-Trump.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

However this is a private enterprise and it is private information, not ours, but the corporations.

But if a company is conspiring to keep its breaking of laws, bribing, and infringing on human rights secret, that’s called conspiracy. Which is not protected by law.

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman
This is what we get when we let the left and it Marxist cronies dictate how law will be held in our Republic. We need to out these Communists, arrest them, and either imprison or deport them to a sufficient country of their choosing. The Democrat party and silent Republicans are becoming more and more intolerable.

By allowing the mainstream media flaunt their identity politics, we will have a society of snitches and liars so they can get their way. This social engineering creates this triggered society who eventually turn into a bunch of puppies looking to please their masters. If we do not get a handle on this the jack boot will be on our necks and fast.

whats strange is the overt use of force by the police to recover private property. Closing blocks away from his house? Fire trucks at the ready?
Google claimed he was dangerous, and setup a swat raid when a phone call and a visit from 2 cops would have yielded the same information. But you don't mind corporate use of government resources to intimidate do you? How much tax payer money was wasted just on this?


a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So did the information get to the DOJ? I sure hope so. This is wrong on so many levels.

a reply to: Scapegrace

Scape... here is my perspective.

Leftist leans toward socialism, right leans towards capitalism. Marx implied that a Communist State would be a trans-formative state moving ''from'' a capitalist'' economy to a '' socialist'' economy where the workers themselves would own their own factories and farms and manufacturing plants, ie, their own means of production. Every Communist State has either failed or turned capitalist. Russia, failed to turn socialist because Stalin took over and turned it totalitarian. Same with China and others.

China today though ''called'' a communist state is really one big corporate state and has nothing to do with socialism.

So, in that framework, I see all these big rich guys on that spectrum well within not the real leftist side but rather firmly entrenched within the right leaning side, or the defenders of capitalism side. All of them got their power from being the most successful of capitalists, not by being socialists.

I think you make two good points. One, '' Perhaps Page, Brin, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Dorsey back leftist causes so leftists will buy their products,is certainly true and as well sell their product to people who don't give a piss about politics as well.

And 2, ''maybe they’re utter hypocrites who virtue signal while living like pharaohs and controlling powerful monopolies.''

Well yes, and oh yeah. Just like kings. They are winners in the capitalist game and the issues they promote are for the most part issues that they believe will allow them to continue the expansion of their wealth and their chairs at the top of the world.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

However this is a private enterprise and it is private information, not ours, but the corporations.

But if a company is conspiring to keep its breaking of laws, bribing, and infringing on human rights secret, that’s called conspiracy. Which is not protected by law.

What law breaking is Google accused of doing? None.
Bribing? None
Infringing on human rights? None

Much like leftists scream, "Orange man bad!" conservatives scream, " Corporation bad!"

Google is not violating any laws. They are a private company that can make ANY rules it wants. Don't like them...don't use Google.
It is not your right to see search results how YOU feel they should appear. It is Google's right to manipulate any damned thing it wants while flipping you the bird.

I'm not a fan of corporations but I prefer them over thieves that somehow have this moment of altruism and decide (arbitrarily) to undermind their boss. It is not up to HIM to decide what is right or wrong, that is what regulators are for.
I hope the guy gets prosecuted and black balled from ever working again. It's what he deserves.

originally posted by: MrBuddy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

However this is a private enterprise and it is private information, not ours, but the corporations.

But if a company is conspiring to keep its breaking of laws, bribing, and infringing on human rights secret, that’s called conspiracy. Which is not protected by law.

It is Google's right to manipulate any damned thing it wants while flipping you the bird.

Excuse me....WTF?!??!?

a reply to: MrBuddy

It's always nice to hear from the authoritarians.

Thanks for your contribution.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MrBuddy

It's always nice to hear from the authoritarians.

Thanks for your contribution.

Contrary to what many of you know-it-alls think, businesses do not have to cater to your every whim. They are in business to make money, not make sure things are fair for every idiot that complains about search algorithms.

If you had a business, you'd be free to decide what items you want to sell your bread and butter custies. If others complained that you were purposely placing more expensive items in front of the lesser priced ones, would you give one crap? Nope.
Further, if you had an employee release emails stating that you did this purposely to make more money would that make you angry? Yep.

This is because it's YOUR business and you'll run it how YOU want. Google has that same right.

Capitalism is easy really. If a company isn't doing what the people want, the people can boycott and cost them money. So...switch to Bing if you're that butthurt over Google's algorithms. But you won't. You people just need to place blame on any entity you perceive as violating some right you never even had to begin with. It's pathetic.

originally posted by: MrBuddy

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MrBuddy

It's always nice to hear from the authoritarians.

Thanks for your contribution.

Contrary to what many of you know-it-alls think, businesses do not have to cater to your every whim. They are in business to make money, not make sure things are fair for every idiot that complains about search algorithms.

If you had a business, you'd be free to decide what items you want to sell your bread and butter custies. If others complained that you were purposely placing more expensive items in front of the lesser priced ones, would you give one crap? Nope.
Further, if you had an employee release emails stating that you did this purposely to make more money would that make you angry? Yep.

This is because it's YOUR business and you'll run it how YOU want. Google has that same right.

Capitalism is easy really. If a company isn't doing what the people want, the people can boycott and cost them money. So...switch to Bing if you're that butthurt over Google's algorithms. But you won't. You people just need to place blame on any entity you perceive as violating some right you never even had to begin with. It's pathetic.

You're completely missing the point. Whether it's woeful ignorance or complete ineptitude, it is not ok to censor news and information due to your ideological preference. This isn't a simple product you can buy on Amazon, this is Google we're talking about. They are tied to damn near every form of internet communications. They have the power to control what you perceive to be real. Think about that....or, I guess in your case...google that.

a reply to: Assassin82

The question is not whether it is altruistically "ok" to do what they're doing.
The question is if you or I have any right to claim that Google is infringing on some right we have as citizens.
The only answer is that our "right" to have all information at our fingertips at a moment's notice, properly algorithmd does not trump Google's right to run their business however they want.

Nobody cares if your Klan rally is purposely stuffed 100 pages away by Google. Get over it and care about animals or something that actually matters in this world besides what you think a corporation ought to do with it's own money or how unfair everything is.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't see it as a miss-use of this law, I see it as using it for what it was intended. If you and or others were mislead about what the real intention of the law was then that is on you or anyone who bought it in the first place. Am I using simple enough words for you here? Are those sentences too long?

Capitalism = private property
Private property is defended by US law
Google is a private corporation and hence, is entitled to that protection, Unless you might be willing to challenge the root of this problem, capitalism and only whine about some of it's naturally authoritarian aspects then you are not really willing to face the problem.

OH, by the way, those ''big words".. Did I use some that are over your head? I just scanned that post again and all I could find that might be termed, ''big words'' was dissemination. Do you need me to define that one for you? Now, that is patronizing so I take it back. Sorry.

if he wasn't a danger to himself, then how in the world could you see this law working as intended in this case? i work for a private corporation - have worked at several at this point. you know what a corporation does when they think you stole information or are mishandling sensitive company info? they litigate - it's as simple as that.

a reply to: MrBuddy



You are somewhat correct and somewhat wrong.
Yes Google is a private company and they control THEIR product.
That's said however, they are not doing that.
They are collecting the data that does not belong to them (which is fine) and they are presenting it as searchable and manipulating the results. That would also be fine except for one little problem.
They are insinuating that the information they are presenting is not filtered or manipulated.
The public has come to expect and see Google as a Non Biased source of search results and they are not only passively doing nothing to correct this, they are actively promoting the concept.
That's fraud.
Top this off with testimony they gave to Congress, whereby the officers and executives of Alphabet swore that they did not manipulate search results to favor political issues.
They lied. These documents that this whistleblower released clearly and unequivocally spell out that lie.
Congress gets up in arms about presenting truthful testimony but we are seeing nothing as yet that indicates that these executives will face perjury charges.

The DOJ has received the documents per the whistleblower and is reviewing them so this remains to be seen what will come of it.
Now, that's not even getting into the specifics of the searches that it manipulated and has promised to manipulate going forward.
Political searches relating to the 2020 election.
If they are manipulating searches to favor specific candidates then that's a contribution in kind to those election campaigns and that's at best Campaign Finance fraud and at worse on par with the election tampering that the Russian companies have been charged with already to set the precedent.


Now wouldn't it be REAL funny if Trump had this all planned the entire time? He gets Muller to indict the Russians knowing full well that the Dems will keep hounding on that to show the "collusion" and knowing full well that it sets the stage to bring the very same charges against the Big Tech companies....
Now that's some deep Q level conspiracy for you..

And actually, it IS okay to censor anything you choose in your own business. Do Christian Bible stores sell the Devil's Bible? Of course not.

It is noones RIGHT to see opposing views...or any views....besides those given to them by whichever entity they visit for said views.

Don't like how that entity tally's views? Nobody cares. Go elsewhere.

a reply to: facedye

I made that statement because I have seen too many laws that we thought had limited application turn into laws that were much more widely interpreted then we the people had originally thought them to be. To see this law being used already in this manner only suggests to me that in the writing, the intent was much greater than what the public was led to believe.

But as you have experience within a private corporation and suggest that in cases such as this they litigate may I ask you is this a common occurrence that people steal corporate information and threaten to go public with it. Is it not possible that within that stolen information there were some tid bits that a long process of litigation would leave open for dispersal and that this ''raid'' was hoping to grab before it became public? What do you think?

originally posted by: MrBuddy
And actually, it IS okay to censor anything you choose in your own business. Do Christian Bible stores sell the Devil's Bible? Of course not.

It is noones RIGHT to see opposing views...or any views....besides those given to them by whichever entity they visit for said views.

Don't like how that entity tally's views? Nobody cares. Go elsewhere.

But, it is NOT legal to lie under oath to Congress. If these allegations from the released documents rung true, then THAT is grounds for a legal battle and contempt of Congress charges at a minimum, and election tampering at the most.

Are you OK with them doing all that?

Im confused. Ive been repeatedly told that its wasn't possible for Russians to use Facebook to interfere with elections becuase "Americans aren't stupid" or "Americans reach their own opinions", but now we're saying Google can influence elections?

How? By disregarding the previous statement?

Am I reading people proposing that they are not only entitled to using Google's services, but those services should work exactly as they want them to?

Free or charge btw.

"Huurr my Obama is a gay Kenyan Muslim and Michelle is a man thread is called fake news by Google, they are censoring me!!"

Lol its a joke.

Don't like Google, dont use their #. Simple.

"Ohhh but its not realistic blah blah blah"

It is, you just want the convenience of using someone else's #.

Companies have policies and procedures, for example mine forbids the hosting of materials that can be considered sexual in nature.

I guess some nutbag out there can attempt to twist it into "censoring" nudist.

originally posted by: Assassin82
Whether it's woeful ignorance or complete ineptitude, it is not ok to censor news and information due to your ideological preference.

Heh. Because everybody does it, I assume it's okay. Caveat emptor, and all that.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Assassin82
Whether it's woeful ignorance or complete ineptitude, it is not ok to censor news and information due to your ideological preference.

Heh. Because everybody does it, I assume it's okay. Caveat emptor, and all that.

Well, there's a reason I don't watch the news or have anything to do with any mainstream websites. But when your search results are ideologically biased....just another day in the U.S. of A.