Connect with us

censorship

Psychologist: Big Tech Will Use “Subliminal Methods” to Shift 15 Million Votes on Election Day

Warns it will cost Trump the election.

Published

on

Psychologist Robert Epstein says that Big Tech is planning to use “subliminal methods” in the upcoming election that could shift up to 15 million votes and cost Trump the presidency.

After the 2016 presidential election, Epstein surmised that search engine bias shifted 2-3 million votes in Hillary Clinton’s favor, and he warns that the number in 2020 could be five times that amount.

The author says that Google and other social media giants “can shift opinions and votes in numerous ways that people can’t detect” via “a wide variety of subliminal methods of persuasion that can, in minutes, shift the voting preferences of 20 percent or more of undecided voters without anyone having the slightest idea they’ve been manipulated.”

A leak of Google emails to the Wall Street Journal back in 2018 already exposed how Google engineers had sought to investigate how they could manipulate a user’s “ephemeral experiences” to change their mind on the Trump travel ban.

“Ephemeral experiences are those fleeting ones we have every day when we view online content that’s generated on-the-fly and isn’t stored anywhere: newsfeeds, search suggestions, search results, and so on,” writes Epstein. “No authority can go back in time to see what search suggestions or search results you were shown, but dozens of randomized, controlled, double-blind experiments I’ve conducted show that such content can dramatically shift opinions and voting preferences. See the problem?”

Google, Twitter and Facebook have complete control over what is seen and what is allowed to go viral, Epstein emphasizes, making it completely pointless to produce political ads if you cannot prevent algorithmic manipulation.

“If our own tech companies all favor the same presidential candidate this year—and that seems likely—I calculate that they can easily shift 15 million votes to that candidate without people knowing and without leaving a paper trail,” warns Epstein.

He also notes how the the “technological elite” Eisenhower warned about in his 1961 farewell address is now in control, underscored by the fact that “95 percent of donations from tech companies and their employees go to Democrats.”

Epstein says the only way to prevent all this is aggressive monitoring of algorithmic manipulation.

“When bias is detected that has the potential to shift votes, it needs to be reported immediately to the media, the Federal Election Commission, members of Congress, and other authorities,” he writes. “That will force the tech execs to back off; if they don’t, they’ll be risking humiliation, fines, and, quite possibly, criminal prosecution.”

Despite highlighting the issue for years, Republicans have done next to nothing to address social media censorship and algorithm manipulation. Numerous major boosters of President Trump during the 2016 election have also been completely banned on social media.

Pointing out that the margin of victory in many nationwide races is as little as 5 per cent, Epstein cautions, “Republicans, in general, are likely to lose.”

Epstein also emphasized that given his knowledge about what Big Tech are planning, he is “not suicidal.”

This is particularly noteworthy given that the psychologist previously suggested that his wife’s fatal car crash may not have been accidental.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading
Comments

censorship

Fearing Cancellation, Some Withdraw Signatures From Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

Oh, the irony.

Published

on

Getty Images

Some of the public figures who signed an open letter decrying the rise of cancel culture retracted their support, presumably fearing they too might become a victim of it.

As we highlighted yesterday, 150 intellectuals, authors and activists including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and JK Rowling signed the letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine.

The letter criticized how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,” states the letter.

Following its publication and pushback from leftists, some of the signatories caved and publicly withdrew their support.

“I did not know who else had signed that letter,” tweeted author Jennifer Finney Boylan Dog. “I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company.”

“The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry,” she added.

Historian Kerri Greenidge also tweeted, “I do not endorse this @Harpers letter. I am in contact with Harpers about a retraction.”

Vox journalist Matt Yglesias was also reported to his own employers by a transgender colleague because she claimed his support for free speech and his association with JK Rowling was an ‘anti-trans dog whistle’.

Is it any wonder that free speech is in such dire straits when this is the reaction to a letter that simply expresses support for it?

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

150 Top Intellectuals Sign Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

Numerous public figures including Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie oppose totalitarian march of ” ideological conformity”.

Published

on

Getty Images

150 of the world’s top intellectuals, authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture, censorship and the totalitarian march of “ideological conformity.”

Signatories include liberal icon Noam Chomsky and ‘Satanic Verses’ author Salman Rushdie.

The letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine, is also signed by J.K. Rowling, Fareed Zakaria, Garry Kasparov, and, perhaps surprisingly, feminist activist Gloria Steinem.

“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides,” states the letter, highlighting how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,” states the letter.

This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric, creating a “stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” according to the letter.

The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “liberals” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech.

However, some would ask where they’ve been hiding for the past three years since mass censorship, particularly by monopolistic social media giants, has been significantly ramped up.

The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate. Why don’t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles?

The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all, its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged, woke far-left.

The full letter is reprinted below.

——————————————–

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

Reddit Says It Will Allow Hate Speech Against “People Who Are in the Majority”

Site’s policy on bullying and harassment explicitly says it won’t protect every group.

Published

on

SOPA Images/Getty Images

After The Donald subreddit was banned by Reddit, users drew attention to the site’s policy on hate speech, which explicitly does not protect “people who are in the majority.”

Although it had been largely inactive for months after the owners set up TheDonald.win, Reddit banned the forum which was home to over 800,000 Trump supporters.

This occurred on the same day that streaming site Twitch temporarily suspended President Trump’s channel for “hate speech”.

An interesting caveat to emerge out of Reddit’s censorship is that the site’s section on Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability explicitly states that hate speech is still permitted towards “people who are in the majority.”

This is presumably a reference to white people, who are still a majority in America but represent only 10-12 per cent of the global population.

“Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families,” states Reddit’s policy.

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.”

In other words, Reddit is giving the green light to its users to engage in a list of behaviors it lists, including “harassment, bullying, and threats of violence,” so long as the target is “people who are in the majority.”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Trending