Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results To Program Users’ Behavior

google-big-bro-1024x455By Mac Slavo

In a new leak that can be accurately labeled “the smoking gun,” Google has been busted manipulating search results on YouTube in order to manipulate social behaviors and control minds. An internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals that Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform.

According to Breitbart, the existence of the blacklist (terms Google considered sensitive) was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source. Some of the blacklisted terms included “abortion,” and terms related to the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist and communist, David Hogg.

In the leaked discussion thread, Breitbart further reported that a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source. “We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”

According to the source, the software engineer who started the discussion called the manipulation of search results related to abortion a “smoking gun.”

The software engineer noted that the change had occurred following an inquiry from a left-wing Slate journalist about the prominence of pro-life videos on YouTube and that pro-life videos were replaced with pro-abortion videos in the top ten results for the search terms following Google’s manual intervention.

“The Slate writer said she had complained last Friday and then saw different search results before YouTube responded to her on Monday,” wrote the employee. “And lo and behold, the [changelog] was submitted on Friday, December 14 at 3:17 PM.” –Breitbart

The manual (human) adjustment of search results by a Google-owned platform contradicts a key claim made under oath by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in his congressional testimony earlier this month. Pichai actually said that his company does not “manually intervene on any search result.” A Google employee in the discussion thread drew attention to Pichai’s claim, noting that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”

And it cannot get more dystopian than that. Hitler insured his propaganda minister was able to manipulate the minds of many during his reign as a tyrant. Journalists in America are now no better and they are using Google to alter the minds and morals of otherwise good people. We live in strange and disturbing times.

Now We Know

Roundup-weed-killer-862x575By MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO

Ever wonder how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could continue to support the use of glyphosate—even after 17 of the world’s best scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller is a “probable human carcinogen”?

A new study published this week in Environmental Sciences Europe answers that question. As it turns out, the EPA based its conclusions on unpublished industry studies—99 percent of which found that glyphosate doesn’t damage your DNA.

The scientists at WHO’s International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC), on the other hand, relied on non-industry, published, peer-reviewed studies—and 74 percent of those found that glyphosate does damage DNA.

Gee, wonder how that happened? Could Monsanto lobbyists have had something to do with which studies the EPA used, and which ones it ignored?

Reporting on the new study, the writers at GM Watch said:

The article shows that only by framing and constraining its genotoxicity assessment in a highly selective and biased way was the EPA able to conclude that glyphosate was not genotoxic. It also demonstrates that the EPA’s cancer classification – as well as EFSA’s, which was based on the same data and was reached in a similar way – is scientifically baseless. Overall, the article shows that the way pesticides are assessed for risk is not fit for purpose and exposes people and the environment to unacceptable risks.

Read ‘How did the U.S. EPA and IARC reach opposite conclusions about glyphosate’s genotoxicity?’

Big Tech’s Censorship Is Leading To “The Takeover Of Humanity”

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been the stuff of sci-fi nightmares for decades, but under the reign of Big Tech, those nightmares may soon become reality. As AI technology becomes more advanced, the threat of total robotic takeover becomes more pronounced — and the tech industry is perfectly poised to capitalize on the power of AI. Censorship by way of algorithm should be presenting a major moral dilemma to Big Tech right now, but instead, these left-wing zealots are racing towards stronger, more far-reaching suppression tactics. This is bad news for anyone who believes in freedom.

The right to think and express your thoughts is supposed to be protected under the First Amendment. The rise of social media has drastically changed the ways in which people communicate across the board, but the lengths to which we preserve our right to free speech has not kept pace. Continuing to allow the tech industry to play thought police is a threat to the most important freedom we have: The freedom to think independently. While proponents of censorship are quick to assure the masses that their actions are intended for good, the truth of the matter is that AI can easily be corrupted and used for flat-out thought suppression.

Learn more:

Specific Actions You Can Take to Protect Yourself From Vaccines and Smart Meters

In many ways, it’s a good time to be a human. We have no shortage of modern comforts, and many of the threats that killed our predecessors are no longer an issue. However, at the same time, we are also facing new dangers brought about by all the advances in modern technology and medicine. Here’s how you can protect yourself against two of the biggest ones: smart meters and vaccines.

We’ll start by addressing smart meters as this is one danger that a lot of people don’t think twice about. These digital meters, which are being installed in homes around the world, are quietly exposing people to radiation that causes cancer while also recording personal data and transmitting it wirelessly. They’re a threat not only to your health but also your privacy. They can raise your risk of problems like cancer, migraines, insomnia, Parkinson’s, ADD, and oxidative damage, yet people allow power companies to install them in their homes because they believe they don’t have a choice.

It’s a similar story when it comes to vaccines, although more people are aware of those dangers. Their link to autism is well-known, and millions of people have sustained vaccine injuries; some have even died from vaccines. Children are especially vulnerable as their bodies are still developing. Many parents know this, but they feel pressured into complying.

Use the law to your advantage

What can you do if you don’t want to subject yourself or your family to these dangers? The answer is related to the opt-out contract that utility companies and doctors try to get you to sign when you refuse to poison yourself with their smart meters and vaccines. It’s an intimidation tactic more than anything. After all, refusing to get the meter or vaccine in the first place means you’ve already opted out.

According to personal rights crusader Jerry Day, these contracts are sneaky ways of getting people to say they should have opted in and to agree to give up some rights or pay penalties. Opt-out contracts don’t help you; they give the power to the other party.

Day says you should never sign them. Instead, keep in mind that you have what is known as “right of contract.” This means that your signature on any contract cannot be coerced or pressured in any way. If your utility company or doctor is making you feel pressured to sign it, it has no legal standing as long as you can prove there was coercion. You can’t be penalized in any way for refusing to sign something.

What if you signed an opt-out like this recently and you’re now having second thoughts? According to the law, you can send in a written revocation of a contract within three days for any – or no – reason; you have three days to change your mind by law on everything from cell phone contracts to mortgages and yes, opt-outs.

If your power company threatens to cut off your electricity for not signing or your doctor threatens to withhold services or have your child banned from school if you don’t comply, Day suggests you counter with a proposal of your own. If what they are offering you involves a risk to you of any kind, they have to insure you against that risk, so he suggests you ask them to sign a conditional acceptance. Tell them they must sign it before you agree to whatever it is they are proposing. Any time there is a risk, you have the right to refuse an offer unless they agree to insure you against the risks posed.

This means that when you’re being asked to sign anything related to one of these dangerous interventions, simply ask the person in question to agree to insure you against the risks and present them with a conditional acceptance contract. In other words, you’re saying that they must promise to be held accountable for any negative consequences before you accept. Of course, they probably won’t agree, so then you have the right to simply refuse and move on. Don’t let anyone bully you into getting a dangerous vaccine or smart meter.                                                                                         

You’re Probably Eating Roundup Herbicide in “Excessive” Levels

How much Roundup have you consumed this week? This question might sound like a joke, but the amount of the toxic weed killer that people consume unwittingly is certainly no laughing matter.

Most people have no idea just how widely used this chemical is. Now that Monsanto has genetically engineered crops to stand up to heavy doses of the chemical, it’s being sprayed on more food crops than ever. It is then taken up into the plants that we eat – as do the farm animals that we often end up eating as well.

According to a study by Norwegian scientists, American soy crops contain excessive glyphosate levels inside the food crop. In fact, the levels they found were “extreme” even by Monsanto’s own standards, which they defined as 5.6 milligrams for each kilogram of plant weight; the levels found in the study were 9 milligrams per kilo on average.

This might be enough to send you scrambling in the opposite direction of tofu, but even if you don’t happen to eat it, you’re not out of the woods. That’s because GE soy and corn – two  more crops that are often engineered to be Roundup-ready – are in the ingredients lists of many processed foods, hiding under terms like lecithin, mono-diglyceride, textured vegetable protein, and soya, to name a few.

In fact, a report from the Environmental Working Group found that 26 out of the 28 common breakfast foods they tested contained higher levels of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, than they consider safe for children. The foods involved will be all too familiar to most American households, including cereals, oat products, and snack bars from popular brands like Cheerios and Quaker.

Learn more:

Big Fail

unnamedBy Organic Consumers Association

In November 2017, the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) (the equivalent of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration) approved the use of glyphosate for another five years, despite calls for the herbicide to be banned. In December 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a risk assessment statement declaring that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer.

Both the EPA and Efsa contradicted the findings of the World Health Organization (WHO), which in March 2015, classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Instead of taking WHO scientists’ word for it, Efsa re-approved glyphosate based on a safety assessment conducted by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).

Now, the Guardian reports that BfR plagiarized chemical industry reports throughout that assessment—the one used by the EU’s food safety agency to determine glyphosate’s safety. According to the Guardian, the assessment contained “copy-and-pasted tracts from Monsanto studies.”

And a new study in published in Environmental Sciences Europe says the EPA assessed the safety of glyphosate largely on the basis of industry studies, not independent peer-reviewed articles.

No wonder government agencies fail over and over to protect us from chemicals that shouldn’t be used at all, much less sprayed on our food.

And no wonder we have to use our own precious financial and human resources to keep educating the public about this Big Fail, and keep the pressure on corrupt corporations and their dubious influence over government agencies.

The U.S. EPA is supposed to rule on the safety of chemicals like glyphosate once every 15 years. For glyphosate, the deadline for that decision was December 2015. Yet here we are, more than three years later, with no decision.

While the EPA twiddles its thumbs—and continues to base its “safety” assessments on industry studies—glyphosate continues to poison our food and waterways.

Thanks to you, we’ll keep the pressure on the EPA (which likely is stalling because it doesn’t want to deal with your wrath), and on the corporations that continue to sell and use Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller.

Organic Consumers Association