Tag: google

“Don’t Go Down The Rabbit Hole!” — NY Times Decries Critical Thinking Tells Us to Trust Google Instead

A new article from the New York Times claims that instead of engaging with someone who challenges your worldview, you should “resist the lure of Rabbit Holes” and go to more authoritative sources such as Google and Wikipedia.

The New York Times appears to have declared war on traditional critical thinking, which they say “isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation”.

Sharing the insights of “a digital literacy expert” named Michael Caulfield, the article reads as follows:

“We’re taught that, in order to protect ourselves from bad information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that washes up in front of us,” Mr. Caulfield told me recently. He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy (if kids get taught any at all) is that “you’ll get imperfect information and then use reasoning to fix that somehow. But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.”

In other words: Resist the lure of rabbit holes, in part, by reimagining media literacy for the internet hellscape we occupy.

Keep reading

Judge “Disturbed” To Learn Google Tracks “Incognito” Users, Demands Answers

A US District Judge in San Jose, California says she was “disturbed” over Google’s data collection practices, after learning that the company still collects and uses data from users in its Chrome browser’s so-called ‘incognito’ mode – and has demanded an explanation “about what exactly Google does,” according to Bloomberg.

In a class-action lawsuit that describes the company’s private browsing claims as a “ruse” – and “seeks $5,000 in damages for each of the millions of people whose privacy has been compromised since June of 2016,” US District Judge Lucy Koh said she finds it “unusual” that the company would make the “extra effort” to gather user data if it doesn’t actually use the information for targeted advertising or to build user profiles.

Keep reading

Youtube was So Afraid of What Came Out in Two Senate Hearings, It Banned U.S. Senate’s Videos

The United States Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs saw two videos vaporized in Stalinist fashion because Youtube’s censor didn’t see them as fit for public consumption.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the disturbing, Chinese-level act of censorship, which is raising alarms about where this is all heading:

Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.

It is interesting that one of the committee hearings relates directly to cheap drugs that might be used to treat COVID-19.

“At the December hearing, he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin, a cheap and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites, for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19,’ the Journal reported. “He described a just-published study from Argentina in which about 800 health-care workers received ivermectin and 400 didn’t. Not one of the 800 contracted Covid-19; 58% of the 400 did.”

Big Tech now seems fully committed to preventing transparency on public policy issues, even to the extent that it would ban videos from the U.S. Senate. That level of brazenness suggests that the corporations feel like they are untouchable. And beyond some lip service to holding these companies responsible, the U.S. government has thus far done nothing to challenge that assessment.

Keep reading

Google Quietly Escalates Manual Search Censorship

Google has quietly escalated censorship of its market-dominating search engine, adding a range of new topics where human moderators are allowed to manually penalize websites, suppressing them in search results.

If a website is affected by one of these manual acts of censorship, “some or all of that site will not be shown in Google search results,” according to the tech giant.

The list, published in full on Google’s support website, includes the following:

  • Discover policy violation: Adult-themed content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Dangerous content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Harassing content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Hateful content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Manipulated media
  • News and Discover policy violation: Medical content
  • Discover policy violation: Misleading content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Sexually explicit content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Terrorist content
  • News policy violation: Transparency
  • News and Discover policy violation: Violence and gore content
  • News and Discover policy violation: Vulgar language and profanity

Publishers who have been hit with a manual action by Google will be able to appeal the decision by “fixing” whatever issue violated the policy and then submitting their website to Google for a review. Google states that it could take “several days or a week” for the tech giant to reach a final decision, leaving

Once upon a time, Google attempted to conceal its censorship of search. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai insisted, under oath before congress, that the company does not “manually intervene on any particular search result,” a statement that one of Google’s own former employees said was a lie.

Keep reading

Google Sued For Data Costs After Android Phones Found Transferring “Unapproved, Undisclosed” Data

A new lawsuit against Google filed on Thursday of last week raises interesting questions about whether or not the tech giant is “stealing Android users’ cellular data allowances though unapproved, undisclosed transmissions to the web giant’s servers”. 

The suit, filed in US federal district court in San Jose by 4 plaintiffs aims to be certified as a class action. It alleges that Google is using Android users’ limited cellular data allowances to transmit information about the users unrelated to the use of Google services. The case surrounds “data sent to Google’s servers that isn’t the result of deliberate interaction with a mobile device”, according to The Register. 

In other words, data transfers happening in the background, when the phone isn’t in use. The suit alleges that none of the four agreements accepted to participate in the Google ecosystem say anything about cell data transfers taking place in the background.

The suit states: “Google designed and implemented its Android operating system and apps to extract and transmit large volumes of information between Plaintiffs’ cellular devices and Google using Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances.”

It continues: “Google’s misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances through passive transfers occurs in the background, does not result from Plaintiffs’ direct engagement with Google’s apps and properties on their devices, and happens without Plaintiffs’ consent.”

Keep reading