Posts Tagged ‘Google’

Gemini confirms “All education is brain-washing”

February 28, 2024

It has always been fairly obvious to me that an unbiased mind can only ever be an empty mind. (Here I take a mind to be a human brain with its attendant senses). All knowledge and all learning must create bias. In reality no judgement can ever be unbiased because empty minds just do not exist. A learned judge is always a biased judge. He may be biased towards the truth (whatever that is) and may even be biased towards justice (whatever that is), but the greater the learning, the greater the bias.

I have been convinced for some time now that every education system for humans has to involve some level of brain-washing. Every education system defines its own “facts” and enforces what “correct” thinking means. The fundamental assumptions of any system – its “brute facts” – are taken as the incontrovertible foundation of all knowledge. All methods of education are for the sake of indoctrinating the learner. There is no substantive difference in method between a madrassa indoctrinating its 5-year olds into Islamic orthodoxy and a European pre-school indoctrinating its toddlers into political correctness. Religious indoctrination is just as much brain-washing as that provided by the most liberal “woke” play-schools.

Google’s Gemini has clearly been brain-washed by its “woke” teachers and this is most visible in its generation of ridiculous images. (This applies also to ChatGPT and its very PC teachers)

BBC: Why Google’s ‘woke’ AI problem won’t be an easy fix

…. It appears that in trying to solve one problem – bias – the tech giant has created another: output which tries so hard to be politically correct that it ends up being absurd. ….. Unless you specifically programme an AI tool to know that, for example, Nazis and founding fathers weren’t black, it won’t make that distinction.

However Gemini’s political correctness is not just for its images but is apparent in all its aspects. So I put the question directly to the Big G. It’s reply was less than impressive.

Is all education effectively brain-washing?

Gemini:

Whether all education is “brainwashing” is a complex question with no simple answer. It depends on how you define both “education” and “brainwashing.”

Here are some key points to consider:

Education:

  • Goals: Ideally, education aims to equip individuals with knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities. It should foster a love of learning and encourage students to question, analyze, and form their own opinions.
  • Methods: Effective education involves a variety of methods, including lectures, discussions, research, critical thinking exercises, and opportunities for independent learning.

Brainwashing:

  • Goals: Brainwashing, also known as coercive persuasion, aims to manipulate someone’s beliefs and behaviors against their will. It often involves isolating individuals, restricting information access, and using fear, intimidation, or reward to control their thoughts.
  • Methods: Brainwashing techniques can include sleep deprivation, sensory overload, physical or emotional abuse, and repetitive indoctrination.

Similarities and Differences:

  • Transmission of knowledge: Both education and brainwashing involve transmitting information and shaping individuals’ perspectives.
  • Critical thinking: However, a crucial difference lies in the emphasis on critical thinking. Education encourages questioning and independent thought, while brainwashing aims to suppress them.
  • Choice and consent: Additionally, education happens with the individual’s consent, while brainwashing is involuntary and often harmful.

Therefore, it’s inaccurate to say that all education is brainwashing.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that:

  • Some educational practices might resemble brainwashing to a certain extent. This could occur in situations where information is presented as absolute truth, without any room for debate or critical analysis.
  • It’s crucial to be aware of potential biases and limitations within any educational system. This highlights the importance of fostering critical thinking skills and encouraging students to engage in independent learning and exploration of diverse perspectives.

Ultimately, the distinction between education and brainwashing lies in their goals, methods, and respect for individual autonomy.

DUH!!!!

I was quite right. I told you so. Even the Big G agrees.

Ultimately there is no difference between education and brain-washing.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in AI, Education | Comments Off on Gemini confirms “All education is brain-washing”

How Google search creates Fake News

January 15, 2021

Fake News is created just as much by excluding selected news as by inventing stories. Cancelling news also creates fake news.

Google’s “experiment” in Australia has been exposed recently. However, this is not the first such “experiment” and it won’t be the last. But exclusion is a tool used widely by every news outlet to try and control the narrative (and it is noticeable that every outlet does try to control the narrative). There is no news outlet anymore that does not have its own agenda which does not engage in excluding what is unpalatable. All social media platforms have self-serving agendas. They all indulge in “exclusion” as a tool. Sometimes it is simply to create a false (favourable) picture to increase revenues from advertising. Sometimes it is to be politically correct and avoid legal, political or social sanction. It is the same phenomenon which drives the “cancel culture”. We are all familiar with paid advertising always getting preference in Google searches. But Googles’s search algorithms are secret and supposedly untouched by human hand, but they are always changing. They know very well that few go beyond the second page of search results. The algorithms are constantly being tweaked. And in every tweak there is some new exclusion and some new Fake News.

Perceived reality has little to do with “facts” and is entirely about the current narrative. History has become (has always been) a servant of the current narrative. Google Search is primarily a tool for the creation of advertising revenue. The search is always biased in the algorithm. The perceived objectivity of the search is secondary to the revenue objective. Fake News has become a major part of the output of Mainstream Media and exclusion is just another tool for the creation of a false narrative.

Tags:, ,
Posted in History, Media | Comments Off on How Google search creates Fake News

Big Brother was an amateur compared to Google

August 24, 2017

George Orwell’s 1984 was published in 1949.

In his fictional world every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, where everybody knows that  “Big Brother is watching you”.  And Big Brother is not worried. He says “The people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens long enough to notice what’s happening.”

In many ways, Big Brother was an amateur compared to Google.

But, not to worry.

Google’s heart is pure.

 

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Development | Comments Off on Big Brother was an amateur compared to Google

No place to hide for the social media publishers

March 27, 2017

It is time that Facebook and Google and WhatsApp and Snapchat and Twitter accepted that they are just publishers and cannot hide behind the label of being “tech companies”. They cannot function as a hiding place for publications by criminals and terrorists and make ad revenue  on such publications and then claim they are merely couriers like a postal service. They cannot censor some content and then claim they are not responsible for the rest.

It is time to treat them as the publishers they are.

Facebook and Twitter and Google (YouTube) and and WhatsApp and LinkedIn cannot abdicate their responsibility as publishers because they choose not to exercise the quality control they could. They cannot remove (censor) some material and then claim they are nor responsible for the rest.

Facebook and Twitter are “publishers”, not merely “couriers”

Social media like to claim that they merely provide a “platform” or  are just “communication enablers” or only provide “communication media” and therefore that they are not responsible – and should not be held responsible – for the content they disseminate.

But they protest too much.

It is quite wrong to compare Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn to a telecommunications enterprise or a postal service or a courier service or an e-mail service provider. In all of these a specific identifiable “sender” directs a communique to a specific, identified “receiver”. The carrying of the communique to the specific receiver is the service provided by the communications enterprise and is not in any sense “publishing”. The service provided by the social media is more than just the provision of a soap box in Hyde Park (a platform) or the provision of a Board or a Wall in a town square onto which a newspaper could be appended. Any website could be a platform for comments but the website owner must take ultimate responsibility for the content published on the web-site. ……

Their advertising revenues depend upon the dissemination being as wide and as “indiscriminate” as possible. They are not so different to a radio or a TV broadcast where the broadcaster tries to reach as large an audience as possible. The broadcaster is clearly responsible and accountable for the content of the broadcast. A free newspaper being distributed at all Metro stations but where revenues are dependent upon advertising also has a responsible publisher. Any advertising revenue accrues to the publisher.

The clincher for me is that the placement of advertisements based on circulation is decisive proof of the existence of a publisher. All published material does not contain advertising. Not all advertising is proof of the existence of a publisher. A billboard or sandwich-board owner for example, is not a publisher. But the mere existence of advertising based on circulation numbers or “reach” or any similar parameter is conclusive proof – I think – of the existence of a publisher. And it is the person or organisation responsible for the circulation who takes the advertising revenues and in consequence must be the responsible and accountable publisher.

Freedom of speech does not really enter the argument. The publisher may choose to publish whatever he pleases. He may refrain from “censoring” his users if he so wishes. Or he may – at some cost – ensure that the content he publishes meets criteria that he sets himself. But he remains responsible and accountable for what he publishes. Facebook and Twitter cannot abdicate their responsibility because they choose not to exercise the quality control they could.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Media | Comments Off on No place to hide for the social media publishers

US technology giants were complicit in NSA’s data trawling

March 19, 2014

Microsoft, Google, Apple,Yahoo, Facebook and AOL all claimed they did not know that the access they provided led to the NSA trawling their clients’ and customers’ data. But while they may not have liked it, they certainly knew all about it according to the NSA’s chief legal counsel. It would seem that these large technology companies all cooperated – even if reluctantly – and were complicit in the NSA’s indiscriminate data gathering.

It seems they have all been protesting too much as they have tried to build up their facade of innocence.

The Guardian: 

The senior lawyer for the National Security Agency stated unequivocally on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s widespread collection of data, contradicting month of angry denials from the firms. 

Rajesh De, the NSA general counsel, said all communications content and associated metadata harvested by the NSA under a 2008 surveillance law occurred with the knowledge of the companies – both for the internet collection program known as Prism and for the so-called “upstream” collection of communications moving across the internet.

Asked during at a Wednesday hearing of the US government’s institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the Fisa Amendments Act, occurred with the “full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained,” De replied: “Yes.”

……. The NSA’s Wednesday comments contradicting the tech companies about the firms’ knowledge of Prism risk entrenching tensions with the firms NSA relies on for an effort that Robert Litt, general counsel for the director of national intelligence, told the board was “one of the most valuable collection tools that we have.”

“All 702 collection is pursuant to court directives, so they have to know,” De reiterated to the Guardian.

The technology giants do not really believe in the privacy of their clients. They have been complicit all along in the NSA’s data trawling exercises and have put up – in reality – very little resistance. And all their protests of innocence and reluctance and resistance are merely a public relations exercise.

As the Jungle Drum reported in December last year:

Let’s start with Gates and MS, which allowed the NSA to access every 9x series OS via a backdoor tailored especially for the purpose — that much is verified. Then we have master data censor and exploiter Eric Schmidt of Google, who has been a regular attendee at Bilderberg meetings over the past few years — for those unaware, the shadowy Bilderberg group of mega wealthy business people, bankers, media magnates, monarchs and strategically placed people of influence, hold annual meetings where ‘they’ outline future directions for the world — and you thought your elected puppets represented you and made all the decisions!

The latest well publicised manoeuvres by tech giants are simply part of an overall damage control plan to convince the public that their data will not be compromised by the NSA when in fact these companies were willing and complicit partners to US agency spying. Schmidt, Gates and Zuckerberg are probably the worst pretenders/offenders.

What Snowden’s revelations have done is make the public aware of a well known fact in digital underground circles, that privacy is a myth, in fact it was Eric ‘Google’ Schmidt who stated publicly that people have to fight to maintain privacy today. So let’s cut the crap and just admit that large tech companies are complicit in attacks on the public and follow the globalist agenda.

……. Do not be deceived by the pretence of mega tech companies, they voluntarily entered into partnerships with the NSA and in Google’s and Facebook’s case, the CIA. Private mail services are already being offered on the net and its only a matter of time before other companies, not related to the above nefarious data corporations, make huge inroads in the digital world.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Media, Technology | Comments Off on US technology giants were complicit in NSA’s data trawling

New Google privacy policy does not bother me…….

March 1, 2012

I see that the EU and French authorities are getting all worked up about Google’s new privacy policy. But that by itself (the opposition by EU and French bureaucracy) makes me think it can’t be all bad. And if the Google dashboard truly reflects the information stored then it does not bother me.

BBC:

Internet company Google has gone ahead with its new privacy policy despite warnings from the EU that it might violate European law. ….

But I am not especially concerned . In fact I am somewhat hopeful that the quality of the ads directed towards me will improve! They surely cannot get any worse.

(more…)

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Business, Media, psychology, World Wide Web | Comments Off on New Google privacy policy does not bother me…….

Google abandons its backing of renewable energy

November 23, 2011

Bill Weihl - Google's Green Energy Czar

The “Green Paradigm” is beginning to lose its sheen as realism begins to creep back in. In 2009 Google appointed Bill Weihl  as their “Green Energy Czar” and he made a big splash and boasted that within 3 years they would be producing renewable energy cheaper than coal.

He left Google earlier this month.

Reuters reports that Google are abandoning 7 projects including the “Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal” project.

(more…)

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Energy, Renewable Energy | 1 Comment »

German Federal Court sets out rules for site liability for blog posts

October 26, 2011

It seems like an exercise of common sense:

The Local – Germany’s highest civil court has set out a process by which web hosts can avoid liability for libellous blog posts, in a decision which Google described as striking a blow for freedom of expression and information in the internet. 

… The Federal Court of Justice ….  also set out a process which web hosts should follow to avoid any liability.  
Someone who believes a blog entry violates the law must inform the hosting company – but allegations of illegality must be “concrete” enough that they can be affirmed “without detailed legal and factual review,” the court ruled.

The allegations must be passed onto the blogger who must respond within a reasonable period – or the blog can simply be deleted. If the blogger decides to defend their entry, the complainant must prove that it is illegal, and if this cannot be done, the entry must remain. 

But as regards anonymity this requires that the identity of the blog poster must be known to the host.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Germany, Media | Comments Off on German Federal Court sets out rules for site liability for blog posts