On so-called censorship by Google

crybabyona

Those that play the victim card over Google censorship or being fired ignore that this is a business designed for profit, not altruism or charity. 

Google is a business, its principle income comes from advertisers.  Google is no charity, nor is it altruistic, people host or link their content with Google “free” on the basis that Google can use it and make money from it via advertising.  Like all businesses Google has a reputation and a profit to maintain, and reacts if advertisers or governments threaten to take actions that impacts its business.  Those that post fake news, or abuse the system, which ultimately impacts the Google business should be unsurprised that they are getting their content impacted by Google services.

 

Earlier this year a Satan Hunter who had a large following on his YouTube channel made hundreds of dollars of profit from advertising by posting fictions, images and personal details of abused children in Hampstead London.  This was one of the individuals who saw his monthly healthy revenue collapse to zero on his YouTube channel as a result of changes in Google advertising strategies.

Those making the most noise are people with opinions on different sides of the political spectrum who suddenly lost their income from advertising.  If I was an advertiser, I would be reluctant to have my brand associated with any political, religious or social tribal content.  It makes sense to reward and associate advertising with useful content that benefits people such as gardening or how to run a successful business.  Every person and their dog has an opinion, and most opinion is low quality, hateful crap that the internet drowns in.

In my view Google is moving in the right direction of working on quality content and eliminating the junk.

Those that play the victim card because they were fired from an entity funded by Google who they viciously criticised, reality-check, its business, this is how it works.  How dumb to expect the one that feeds them to continue to support them when they are punching it in the face.

I am highly hostile to Google, but I am even more hostile towards those pitiful self-entitled creatures playing their victim card over censorship and being fired by a business that they think must be altruistic and supportive of their worthless opinions.

Advertisements

Desiring an internet free of stagnation

internet

The internet is alike to a grave yard, drowning in fixed unchanging content rarely recycled or fresh.  Why can’t everything be generated immediately for the moment by an AI, which changes from one moment to the next?

One of my frustrations about the internet and media is that everything that is generated and consumed is a fixed snapshot of a moment.  Heraclitus says that if you step in the river a second time, it will be different from the first time, since all nature is moving and changing from moment to moment.  What is served up on the internet such as a song, a video, an image or news article is a fixed unchanging thing, which makes the internet seem dead and stagnant, drowning under useless unchanging dead content.  How exciting if the user could serve up content that was changing from one moment to the next, a song that changed, a video, or news report.

 

I can visit my garden at different times, what will be served up to me will be different each time.  Moment to moment plants, animals and climate are appearing, changing and vanishing.  Everything in the garden is fresh, new and never the same.  This garden is manifesting a narrative that is exciting, surprising and creative.  How I wish this organic state of my garden might be replicated on the internet and in the media.

With the advent of artificial intelligence it should be possible that the AI can match the need of the user with unique, fresh and useful content there and then, which at this moment only happens in a limited way with regards to weather and financial markets.

I think the days of search engines such as Google are numbered, which is in essence a search engine of fixed static content like videos.  An AI could generate animation, images, songs that are unique, spontaneous and in real-time, changing from moment to moment, and therefore cannot be indexed for a search.

When it comes to art, I prefer something that has motion such as an engine powered by the wind rather than a fixed static picture hanging on the wall.  My philosophy of what I would like in art and the internet reflects the philosophy of Heraclitus, that all things are in motion and changing at each moment.

On liberty and responsibility

ona_child

Liberty comes with responsibility, otherwise the liberty is restricted or lost.

There is no escaping it, most citizens are part of a greater entity called the State, subject to the laws of that State, which forms the contract between the citizen and the State. The contract sets out liberties such as the liberty to freedom of speech, contractual duties like the paying of tax, and penalties for breaking a rule of the contract, a fine or a restriction of a liberty such as imprisonment.

The internet is a new medium of communication, a tool that remains at this time lightly burdened by contractual laws defining what the citizen can and cannot do upon it.  The citizen has many liberties in how and what they express on the internet, yet these liberties come with personal responsibility.  When the few abuse a liberty to harm, lie and steal about or from another citizen, and the many through apathy or active encouragement allow this behaviour to continue and grow, then the liberty becomes restricted or lost.

In my own personal experience, when citizens such as Nathaniel Harris and Kris Costa, writes upon the internet dishonest stories about me, linking me to an innocent man called Julian Vayne, with the knowledge and hope that Order of Nine Angles (ONA) vigilantes might attack Vayne, then it is an abuse of a liberty given to the internet.

When a father (RD) and his two children are pursued by a baying mob of thousands of self-appointed vigilantes desiring their abduction and destruction based upon a false Satanic Ritual Abuse narrative, then a liberty given to the internet is threatened.

When internet companies such as Google profit from linking advertising to content promoting hate, or in the case of the Hampstead SRA hoax pimping a false narrative, the faces and names of abused children, then a liberty of the internet is going to be lost.

When despite dozens of referrals and complaints to an internet company called Patreon about illegal and child abusive content, that clearly breaches its own terms and conditions, and its own moderation systems appear incapable of speedily dealing with it, then the internet suffers a loss of a liberty.

All liberties come with responsibility, or they are restricted and lost.  A citizen that loves a liberty, has a responsibility to treat others with the same liberty, and also defend that liberty from being abused.  When the State brings about changes to the contract to restrict or remove liberties previously enjoyed by the citizen on the internet, it is no use complaining, the citizen harvests what they sow.