Google Abused Its Power By Quashing a Report Critical Of Its Service, Reporter Says (gizmodo.com)

In the wake of claims that Google got a think-tank research team sacked for criticizing the company, a respected journalist is alleging other abuses by the search giant. Kashmir Hill, a reporter at Gizmodo, is claiming that when she worked for Forbes six years ago, Google told the the magazine's staff that if publishers didn't add the "+" Google Plus social network button at the bottom of stories, those articles would come up lower in search results. From her report: I published a story headlined, "Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers," that included bits of conversation from the meeting. (An internet marketing group scraped the story after it was published and a version can still be found here.) Google promptly flipped out. This was in 2011, around the same time that a congressional antitrust committee was looking into whether the company was abusing its powers. Google never challenged the accuracy of the reporting. Instead, a Google spokesperson told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn't been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.) It escalated quickly from there. I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down. The implication was that it might have consequences for Forbes, a troubling possibility given how much traffic came through Google searches and Google News. [...] Given that I'd gone to the Google PR team before publishing, and it was already out in the world, I felt it made more sense to keep the story up. Ultimately, though, after continued pressure from my bosses, I took the piece down -- a decision I will always regret. Forbes declined comment about this. But the most disturbing part of the experience was what came next: Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all. As I recall it -- and although it has been six years, this episode was seared into my memory -- a cached version remained shortly after the post was unpublished, but it was soon scrubbed from Google search results. That was unusual; websites captured by Google's crawler did not tend to vanish that quickly.

Comments

Probably true.

[tietokone-olmi]

Power is most easily apparent when it's being abused.

Re:Probably true.

[thsths]

"Do the right thing" (for Google).

Re:Probably true.

[Rockoon]

In my book, Google was only the good guy when Altavista was the alternative.

Now all the search giants are bad guys. They have the power to both effectively promote and silence, and not a single one of them can resist.

Re:Probably true.

[johnjones]

yes it might be true but context is everything...

I'll forgive google as I have experience with other software companies

Re:Probably true.

[Myrdos]

Well, the content they were quashing was stuff they supposedly released under an NDA. Still, upranking sites that have your +1 button is still pretty shameful.

Re:Probably true.

[JohnFen]

Google really was a good company in the beginning. That changed when they became a major multinational corporation.

Re:Probably true.

[JohnFen]

According to Google. The reporter says otherwise. Personally, I think that means I don't know if there was a NDA covering the exchange or not.

If I had to choose a "yes/no" answer to that question, the only basis to make the judgment is who is more credible -- and given Google's recent history, that would have to be the reporter.

Re:Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same people running the corporation now as it was then. They didn't suddenly change their entire personalities just because the company got bigger - no, they've always been evil, they just weren't able to express it before.

Many serial killers start with animals, too. They get more power, money, practice and work up to people.
Google started with little things, too, and proceeded to full blown open anti-trust violations and censorship.

Evil is Evil and Google certainly qualifies.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
— Pravin Lal

Re:Probably true.

[JohnFen]

It's the same people running the corporation now as it was then.

No, it isn't. Google became a public company, so the people running it now are the board of directors. Most of those people haven't been on the board for more than 5 years.

Re:Probably true.

[tietokone-olmi]

>, and not a single one of them can resist.

It's like certain journalists from the SF bay area: leftie critic of power one day, typing up hit lists of heretics for Der Stürmer the other.

Re:Probably true.

[shaitand]

"They didn't suddenly change their entire personalities just because the company got bigger "

Yes and no. They didn't suddenly become different people but their behavior and outlook changes. All people are basically selfish and abusive underneath the hood the only thing that changes is circumstances and perspective.

Re:Probably true.

[shaitand]

Who cares if there was an NDA or not. That issue is a red herring to distract you from the content of what was revealed. It isn't suddenly okay to do bad things because you'd gagged all the witnesses.

Re:Probably true.

[KingMotley]

It is probably more of side effect than a direct effect. They same would likely be true of any social media link back you put on the site.

Google's very basic ranking algorithm is the more sites that link to yours, and the better those sources are, the higher your page ranks. Given that, I could also say that if you put my button on your site that all it does is register the page in a database and outputs some blurb on a page on my site that links back to the page you clicked AND google crawls my page, then it has the exact same effect.

The rest was likely dumbed-down for the journalist who took a creative license/spin on how they technology works. It wasn't necessarily that it was a social media platform by google, just that it does in some way create link backs to the page. Since I wasn't there at the meeting, I couldn't tell you how to it was presented, but experience tells me that the journalist was likely half listening and half spinning.

Re:Probably true.

[Rockoon]

....or because those implicated claim that the Russians hacked to get the information

I propose "red herring" be the term of the day. I used it in a previous story already.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't be evil for someone else."

Re:Probably true.

[Kohath]

Enjoy seeing only what Google allows you to see and never anything else. You didn't really want to decide for yourself anyway.

Re:Probably true.

[JohnFen]

The NDA is a separate issue. I agree that in terms of the meat of the story, it doesn't matter.

Where it does matter, though, is if Google really was pulling the NDA card, that strongly implies that the gist of what the reported said is true.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, comrade. Whatever you have to say to remind us of your shitty actor-president.

Re:Probably true.

[Mashiki]

That board of directors doesn't have controlling stakes and don't have voting stake. Neither do the shareholders. Larry Page and Sergey Brin hold 56% and super voting stock. In other words, everything that's happening is happening because of them.

Re:Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcing Chrome to give "insecure site, scary, you shouldn't visit it" warnings for not having a HTTPS version of the site is an abuse of market power. Having Google bury sites that aren't HTTPS is an abuse of market power. Not allowing H2c (HTTP 2.0) over non-HTTPS connections is an abuse of market power.

Google is doing a lot of evil things in the name of making the web better, and while I agree things would be better if everyones sites were HTTPS by default, the way the browser vendors and Google in particular are going about it are leading to early obsolescence instead. Think about all those first to third generation mobile "smartphones/tablets/tv's" that don't support newer versions of TLS, or have weak CPU's so that HTTPS sites take 30x longer to load. I was noticing this a lot over the last three months that "Secure" sites were taking longer and longer to load, even on my top of the line desktop, and on my third generation ipad.

Because SSL is often done in software, battery life of "web apps" and websites kill smart phones and tablets pretty darn quick.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't do enough research on serial killers do you.

Re:Probably true.

[LeftCoastThinker]

"All people are basically selfish and abusive underneath the hood the only thing that changes is circumstances and perspective."

This is true to an extent, but just look at all of the selfless people reaching out to help others in the wake of hurricane Harvey. People who actually adhere to Christian teachings believe their highest command is to love others as they love themselves. That creates some very clear guidelines for fairness and charity. They also believe that there will be an accounting after death where everyone is held responsible not only for their actions but their motivations behind those actions as well. While not perfect in this world, that is pretty strong motivation to act fairly and charitably.

OTOH, Atheists, hedonists and agnostics can be altruistic, but they have no motivation beyond their own self interest to feel good about themselves, which is where you get many of the cut throat business types that crush thousands of people financially to get ahead unfairly and unethically and then create a charitable foundation at 55 because they fell like the shit that they actually are and want to feel better about themselves and all the bad things they have done. Modern Satanists also fall in this category.

Muslims are only charged with fairness towards other Muslims and acts of charity towards fellow Muslims, and any charity or fairness towards the infidel is for the express purpose of conversion. Infidels who refuse to convert can justifiably be slain at any time.

Buddhism teaches detachment from the world, which if implemented makes Buddhists unable and unwilling to help those in need and removes them from productive society altogether.

Hinduism is a mixed bag regarding fairness and charity, there is some implementation of the concepts in that world view.

The bottom line is that your statement very significantly depends on the world view held by the individual. I would argue that there is significant evidence that Google has been co-opted at the upper management and C-level by alt-left radicals who tend to be in practice atheists, hedonists or agnostics. The same is true of most college campuses. This is why we are seeing the motto change from "Do no evil" to "Do the alt-left thing" and unfair and unethical examples of behavior by Google increasing dramatically in frequency.

I predict that within the next 10 years we will either see heavy regulation reign in Google's behavior, the company broken up as a monopoly, or a dystopian reality where Google rules the world by brainwashing the populace via self serving search filtering algorithms, because if you can't find it it on Google it might as well not exist at all.

Re:Probably true.

[JohnFen]

It's really not that simple at all. What you say would be more true if it were a private company, but it's not and so different rules apply. Brin and Page absolutely have more power than anyone else, but they don't have absolute power. Even taking into account their stock holdings, the board still has more authority than they do. Exerting that authority against B&Ps wishes would cause a great deal of turmoil, but things like that have happened before in public companies situated similarly.

It's a question of where the buck stops, and the buck stops at the board.

Re:Probably true.

[jellomizer]

My experience is also the ones you yell the loudest are often the ones who have the least to say.

I am not denying that Google didn't abuse its power. But often we get a lot people who say how big old Google has thwarted them because their ranking isn't as high as they think it should be. And may be lowered because their post probably falls under a Ranting filter vs more formal content.

Just like a few years ago where Google infamously flagged a picture of an African American as a guerrilla (where the picture also had poor color quality, and she was angled at a seemingly uncomfortable angle. ) Was just a mistake on the algorithm, then a conscious reason to miscategorize something.

Re:Probably true.

[shaitand]

If I hacked someone to steal financial data for fun and profit that should have different consequences than hacking someone to obtain information for the general good such as revealing corruption in politics or an undercover genocide. If I reveal that your bank is ripping you off, you should consider the content of what I revealed independent of whether I was going for a joyride in bank data and selling it for a profit when I turned up the information that told you this. The bank doesn't suddenly become more or less wrong because of how right or wrong the hacker was. There isn't a limited amount of blame where assigning to one party reduces the amount left for the other.

And yes, I agree this also applies with a highly popularized hack of a certain U.S. political party and public figure allegedly perpetrated by Russians (with essentially no real disclosed evidence to date). It doesn't suddenly become okay to toss out valid logic when it gets in the way of demonizing someone you strongly dislike and oppose.

Re:Probably true.

[shaitand]

Agreed. And there is no moral win for Google here. If there was actually an NDA it implies Google knew full well what they were doing was wrong at the time they were doing it and were trying to prevent it from getting out. If there wasn't an NDA and Google is trying to allege one it suggests that they know what they were doing was wrong. Either implies an attempt to suppress the reporting of something.

Re:Probably true.

[shaitand]

"People who actually adhere to Christian teachings believe their highest command is to love others as they love themselves."

Unless they are women, homosexuals, Satanists, peoples of conflicting denominations, etc. It's actually fascinating watching this at work. Of course the "actually adhere to Christian teachings" part is the automatic out to point at any Christians doing something you disagree with or looks bad and suggest they aren't "real Christians." This is a key part of how you not only dodge their taint but maintain the delusion that your massive majority is somehow a repressed minority or generate an excuse to persecute pretty much anyone.

"which is where you get many of the cut throat business types that crush thousands of people financially to get ahead unfairly and unethically and then create a charitable foundation at 55 because they fell like the shit that they actually are and want to feel better about themselves and all the bad things they have done."

You do know almost all of the people who fit this description are Christians right? The "Do unto others" philosophy is even adopted by large corporations in a common field to allow collusion between key players on policies and create the effects of collusion and monopoly with needing to meet illegally.

"Atheists, hedonists and agnostics can be altruistic, but they have no motivation beyond their own self interest to feel good about themselves"

Self-interest yes, to feel good about themselves is not always accurate. These people are still part of groups and when one sees oneself as part of a group the definition of "self" gets extended to one degree or another to that group. Atheists engage in humanitarian work because they are all human.

"Buddhism teaches detachment from the world"

Buddhism isn't a religion it is a philosophy, and it doesn't teach detachment it teaches oneness with all life so that suffering in Haiti is akin to having a broken leg.

Not everyone needs unquestionable orders from a sky fairy to act in the interests of others but everyone sane ultimately acts out of self-interest. Believing things will be better or worse for you on Earth or the afterlife is still self-interest. Doing things for family (especially those descended from you) is self-interest. Working to save the business that employs you or toward the interests of your nation is self-interest, and working towards the benefit of humankind is self-interest. Even working toward reducing the suffering of other creatures you believe are intelligent is self-interest. In all of these cases you're working toward your own benefit or those with common ground you share.

Re:Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was 'the good guy' because it would index all the porn, porn hacking sites, and warez that Altavista was trying to clean out. Google has always been flashy scum even before Schmidt turned it to just boring monopolistic globalist scum.

Re:Probably true.

[AmiMoJo]

Was it really malicious though? Everyone knows that Google promotes things your friends have hit +1 on in search results, so naturally putting a handy +1 button on the site will encourage them to do that.

It sounds like a misunderstanding. Can't be sure, need further confirmation.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no clue what you are talking about. Please learn to read. Reread and get back to us.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just went full retard. A 100% brainwashed one at that. How's that new flavor of Google-Aid tasting?

Re:Probably true.

[XXongo]

People who actually adhere to Christian teachings believe their highest command is to love others as they love themselves.

Unless they are women, homosexuals, Satanists, peoples of conflicting denominations, etc.

For some reason, the purported "Christians" who are intolerant get a lot of press. (The Westboro Baptist Church, for example-- a church which isn't even affiliated with the Baptist alliance; they just call themselves Baptist-- has 40 members. That's it: 40. But it has had literally hundreds of thousands of news stories.)

But this is not all Christians, however. I remember back in the day when some churches were putting up big billboards with "God says this, God says that", the church near my house put up a sign saying "God loves you. No exceptions."

An interesting list here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Re:Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

LeftCoastThinker,

"OTOH, Atheists, hedonists and agnostics can be altruistic, but they have no motivation beyond their own self interest to feel good about themselves,..."

Speaking as an atheist I find your views ignorant, stupid, self aggrandizing, selfish and dangerous. I do hope you open your mind to differences of opinion soon.

By simply saying such a thing you show yourself as not being the "nice" person you think your God judges you as.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've clearly never studied Buddhism in any serious capacity. Buddhism is about attaining nirvana to escape samsara, the 'state of humanity', or a loop of reincarnation. Along the way, a Buddhist's goal is to lessen suffering in the world.

The subtext (religious people more virtuous than atheist) rings false as well. One need only to look to history to see the heinous things carried out in the name of a deity. Religion is built on dogma, which is an authoritative way to socially control people. It's been about control for thousands of years. Human culture cannot handle critical thought.

Re: Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Google! It has basically destroyed the internet. Prior to Google, the whole idea of Tim Berners Lee and others was to develop a " world wide web". Often you would go to a website and there would be an "interesting links section". You could follow those links and find websites you likely would not know about otherwise.

Then Google came along and monetized search and it became financially harmful to have outgoing backlinks that didnt relate to your site content. Information is now solely in the hands of Google.

I wish good alternatives like altavista still existed. But there are very few google alternatives. Microsoft Bing is one of the few competitors to Google and a few smaller search engines like gigablast.

Re: Probably true.

[Reverend Green]

Google sure does love abusing it's monopoly power.

Time for an antitrust trial. Break up Google!

Re: Probably true.

[jellomizer]

I just don't get outraged from one source of information. Google could be in the wrong but I need more info before decreeing judgement.

Re:Probably true.

[Rockoon]

You are totally right, if my bank is ripping me off but I only find out because you hacked them, then my bank isnt ripping me off.

YOU FUCKING RETARDED FUCK

Re:Probably true.

[shaitand]

You need some serious help with reading comprehension. That is pretty much the opposite of what I said in the post you are responding to.

Re:Probably true.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's worth anything I released an App in 2015 using Admob to generate some income. If you ever want to see how shady Google really is, deal with adsense or admob you'll soon learn.

After they took note of the App being a social media App they replaced my ad interstitials with picture of girl in a bikini with the words "naughty boy" (with some anime art they had on hand). Since i was a Gmail user Twitter at the same time notified the there was a password reset on my Twitter account and not 10mins later I had an email set to me telling me I was banned from Admob service for a month. It also told me don't bother trying to contact us for whatever reason as I had breached whatever terms, which i felt was a bit calis as they didn't even want to hear an apology.

I had the option to remove the ads and resubmit the app which i did. After the month was over Admob sent me $20 worth of clicks and told me it was all good.

Google isn't just a shit company the entire brand is run by left wing narcissists who prey on people and get away with it. Their power is only as influential as people let them and I could say for Google people are simply running out of patience. They need to knock off the YT censoring, the search suppressing and other the shady stuff, as they risk not being taken seriously. It's like Uber, we actually need real business people running these companies. Otherwise .com version 2 yah?

Seems like Google wants the right to be forgotten.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the irony.

Monopolies are bad

[Train0987]

News a 11.

Re:Monopolies are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the news at 11 is also a branch of a monopoly, so you'll instead hear a lot of defense of "moral" monopolies and the insistence that we only need specialized responses to hostile monopolies like Google, and not any of this old-fashioned generic anti-trust legislation.

Same...Barry Lynn (The Washington Post) got fired)

[Anonymous Coward]

" I Criticized Google. It Got Me Fired. That's Corporate Power" Barry Lynn.. here is the story
  http://m.ndtv.com/opinion/i-criticized-google-it-got-me-fired-thats-corporate-power-1744793

Interesting

[JohnFen]

As a disclaimer, I happen to think that Google is no different than most other multinational corporations -- that is, they are as evil as it is profitable to be.

But so many of the criticisms I read of Google seem to be oblique -- that is, instances of Google playing hardball, but with little indication of actual malice or illegal behavior.

This story is very different from that. This behavior is indefensible and unambiguously abuse of monopoly.

Re:Interesting

[shaitand]

"As a disclaimer, I happen to think that Google is no different than most other multinational corporations -- that is, they are as evil as it is profitable to be."

I agree with this sentiment and it applies to all large corporations, multi-national or not. That is why we should never consider "trust" or "ethics" with regard to large entities (including governments) and just assume any and all position and power they have can and will be abused. All decisions with regard to regulations and legal powers should be based on this assumption.

Facts or didn't happen

[Herkum01]

While everyone is up in arms about Google being evil I am a little on the wary side of this. Not because the story is untrue, but rather the implication that only Google is involved with attempting to influence rankings for search results. Everyone has been looking at gaming the system, companies regularly hired people to do just this. I admit that this is blatant but it is not like only Forbes could put the Google button on their page. They appeared to do it with anyone that was willing to participate.

The other issue I have with this piece is that from a story she did 6 years ago, did they change during this time or is still true? In this case I would like to see a little less complaining and a few more facts about the current state of the problem rather than a rehash of an old article.

Re:Facts or didn't happen

[JohnFen]

the implication that only Google is involved with attempting to influence rankings for search results.

Where is that implied?

There's no such implication that I can see. However, Google manipulating search rankings to its benefit is a worse thing than anyone else doing it, since it's Google who creates the search rankings.

Re:Facts or didn't happen

[Herkum01]

You mean Google, explains how it adjusts it search rankings based upon what is the on the page. I don't get it, people seem to think Google is a public utility that it needs to treat everyone and everything equally. They are in the business to make money too. Google, is working with Forbes, to sell Ads and they stated that the Google button increases the rankings of those pages.

It is not like Google hasn't integrated or adjusted their search results to promote other web sites. A great example is Wikipedia, if I ask a question like P-38 lightning what is that Wikipedia is not only at the top of the search results, but they have a special summary box at the top of the page and another box to the right. Another example is if you are looking for an actor/actress they not only pop-up their Wiki information but their profiles on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Myspace. Google has never been perfectly objective or fair.

We live in the age of caveat emptor . People need to be aware of what they are looking at and maybe do a little more work instead of complaining that Google isn't perfect and is not treating everything fairly.

Re:Facts or didn't happen

[JohnFen]

You mean Google, explains how it adjusts it search rankings based upon what is the on the page.

No, I mean Google dropping critical articles down the memory hole.

Re:Facts or didn't happen

[WaffleMonster]

While everyone is up in arms about Google being evil I am a little on the wary side of this.

Not because the story is untrue, but rather the implication that only Google is involved with attempting to influence rankings for search results. Everyone has been looking at gaming the system,

Surprise... every last solitary time a specific action of a specific company is being criticized you will always find a fan stepping up to cry foul by means of asserting everyone is picking on their favorite company. Your all ignoring X, Y and Z who are essentially "doing it too" as if such information is somehow relevant to the topic at hand.

First your factually incorrect. Nobody else gets to "do it too". They can only game algorithms. Nobody except Google has the power to directly alter results. If Google changed their index the hard way by following the same rules applied to EVERYONE except Google that would be a different matter. This isn't what was being alleged here.

Second you seem to be quite focused on a narrow and questionable assertion of search engine manipulation when real issue is Google leveraging it's monopoly position to force the press to quash stories of Google leveraging it's monopoly position.

Is an action any less defensible because more people do it? Hey officer why yes I was speeding but I shouldn't get ticketed because the guy in front of me was going even faster.

Yes judge I stole a million dollars when I hijacked that armored car bbuutt someone else did the same thing a week ago and they didn't get caught so I shouldn't have to go to jail either.

This particular line of thought crops up quite often. Unfortunately no matter how often and passionately repeated is still completely nonsensical.

Re:Facts or didn't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

There is at least one part of her claims that is factually untrue.

Instead, a Google spokesperson told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn't been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.)

I know for a fact Forbes has an employee handbook, a legal contract, that must be agreed to and signed in front of an HR representative before your employment start-date is even chosen.

That contract explicitly states an employee is also agreeing to uphold all other Forbes contracts and agreements.

So she did sign such an agreement (or optionally is lying about ever working at Forbes, but the former seems much more likely)

Additionally, when she states she "hadn't been told the meeting was confidential", that may have been true while she was speaking to Google PR, but isn't true in the long run.
She even admits it:

I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down

Right there she was informed by her boss of the internal Google agreement.
That's how it is supposed to work, her boss is supposed to be the one to make sure she is aware of such an agreement, not Google PR or anyone else.

Now again, I'm not saying she is lying about not being told *at the time*, but she was certainly told after the fact.
The boss responsible for informing her sorta screwed up by not doing so sooner. But this is very likely why the boss told her to correct the problem by removing the story, instead of corrected her problem by terminating employment. The boss clearly knew it wasn't her fault he screwed up.

In the end, as much as it may suck on a personal level, when you have a job and your boss tells you to do or stop doing something so that the company doesn't get sued for contract violations - you just need to swallow your pride and do it.

If she would have been willing to independently publish her article such that all the legal liability fell on her instead of on Forbes, things would have turned out very different.
Of course the Google PR rep that knew Forbes had a legal agreement with, would not have moved forward on the assumption a Forbes employee was working for Forbes and following Forbes guidelines and legal requirements.
She would have introduced herself not as a Forbes reporter, but as an independent reporter, and at that point either Google PR would have her sign any required contracts (Likely the same ones Forbes agreed to) or not move forward with an interview at all.

Re: Facts or didn't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good reason to have competitor right? If only google had a serious competitor that could cache such articles and make them available to search...

Re: Facts or didn't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even going to take the time to rip this reply, you are very naÃve.

First, no you don't sign an NDA when you get a jobs at Forbes as a reporter. Your job is to report stuff. An NDA counters that.

Second, her bosses saying the article was causing problems has nothing to do with an agreement. The google PR department signed off on what she wrote. It was only afterwards that google realized they fucked up, and tried to threaten her and actually took action by deranking the article and eventually making it disappear from google forever.

So basically everything was all good,'until it wasn't all good because google felt threatened. They then used that fear and their power to silence the reporter.

Re: Facts or didn't happen

[Reverend Green]

Google IS a public utility. The law just hasn't yet caught up with the technosocial reality.

Re:Facts or didn't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Feckin-A pimp. You're blojobbing GOOGLE so hard yer ears look like bugles.

Too Big to Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.

"Don't be evil"

[e_pluribus_funk]

...yeah, about that....

Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[goombah99]

Actually their slogan was "don't be evil". The amended version, after their plant on the apple board stole the iphone idea, is "Don't be (merely) evil".

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[lgw]

It has always been "Don't, be evil".

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google essentially tried to extort Forbes and you are saying Forbes is evil for exposing that....uh... you work for google or soemthing?

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Entrope]

Why was it a reasonable presumption that the meeting was confidential? Did they say in the meeting that the content of the meeting would be confidential? Did Google ask Forbes to sign an NDA that purported to prevent either party from disclosing the illegal activities of the other party? (It's illegal to abuse your market position in one area to gain an advantage in another market.)

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[LetterRip]

The amended version, after their plant on the apple board stole the iphone idea

Another person clueless about history,

IBM did the first smartphone (touch screen phone with applications) in 1992, the 'multitouch' features of the iPhone were from the acquisition of FingerWorks in 2005 - a company that a variety of phone companies had been interested in.

The LG Prada had been released the year before to wide applause by industrial designers for its capacitive touch screen.

Samsung and Nokia both had touch screen smart phones, but were worried about cost, so hadn't released them yet, because they didn't think people would pay 'that much' for a phone.

So the 'iPhone idea' wasn't Apples idea at all and being on Apples board almost certainly didn't impact androids development. Apple simply provided the most refined version of the smartphone idea, one that was being simultaneously pursued by all major phone companies.

http://mashable.com/2012/11/09...

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Immerman]

You're correct that all the technology was already in place - but I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Google basically scrapped their existing Android interface and redesigned it from scratch after the iPhone came out.

Apple has never been anything close to a technological innovator, but it's dishonest not to give them credit for producing streamlined user-friendly interfaces that become the standard against which all others are measured. They never do anything new, but they do do user interfaces *right* - at least for the non-techy masses. And even as a techy that avoids Apple products, I appreciate the influence they've had on more capable interfaces.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Why would any meeting with a marketing department reasonably be assumed to be confidential?
 

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[93 Escort Wagon]

It's well known that Marissa Mayer came up with the slogan "Don't Be Evil".

When she left Google, she unfortunately only took the "Don't" with her. So Google was left with "Be Evil"; while "Don't" neatly summarizes her tenure at Yahoo.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[phantomfive]

The author called Google's PR team to verify the facts in the article. If Google wanted to keep those things secret, they should have mentioned it to the PR team.

Also, Google shouldn't penalize site's search results for not putting "+1" on their site. That alone is a huge abuse of their power, whether they kept it secret or not.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[ShanghaiBill]

Did they say in the meeting that the content of the meeting would be confidential?

According to Google, yes, they did. The journalist's defense is that she didn't personally sign the NDA.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Underrared comment.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using android on smart phones since before Google bought it. The interface from version to version was never 'redesigned from scratch' as far as an end user would tell. The biggest changes didn't even happen until Honeycomb, to attempt to differentiate tablets from phones.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies, I didn't realize the Goog bought Android in 2005. I thought versions 1.0 and 1.1 were still produced by Android Inc.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Well, there's this - showing a 2007 Android phone's interface versus that of a post-iPhone Android G1:

https://www.technobuffalo.com/...

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so it looks like the 'pull up' menu must have happened some time pre 1.0. 2007 is before anything but prototypes were out. Your example is a touch less screen, it would be interesting to know if Android looked any different on a touch screen prototype era 2007. The home screen widgets, the pull down notification screen, and an 'app menu' of some sort have existed the entirety of Androids commercial releases. The app menu did change from pull up to icon in Eclair it appears, but that is more of a visual change than operational. Instead of dragging up the app menu, you just pressed the button where the pull up tab was.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[drinkypoo]

Well, there's this - showing a 2007 Android phone's interface versus that of a post-iPhone Android G1:

You simply can't give Apple all the credit. As much as I hate to admit it (I can't abide their hardware) you have to hand it to LG as well, if not moreso.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they say in the meeting that the content of the meeting would be confidential?

According to Google, yes, they did. The journalist's defense is that she didn't personally sign the NDA.

In any case, NDAs can't apply to crimes being committed.

So it's moot, even if there was such an NDA.

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[larryjoe]

Well, there's this - showing a 2007 Android phone's interface versus that of a post-iPhone Android G1:

https://www.technobuffalo.com/...

That post-iPhone photo reminds me a lot more of other then existing PDAs than the iPhone, especially looking at the row of buttons at the bottom.

Then again, the corners are more rounded, so maybe there is something to this copying idea ...

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Entrope]

Can you quote someone from Google claiming that a valid NDA covered that meeting? More particularly, can you actually answer the question I asked by pointing to language in the NDA that purports to silence Forbes (or its employees) if they chose to report on Google's attempted abuse of market position and attempted restraint of trade?

Also, the journalist's defense is actually that nobody told her there was an NDA until it became convenient for Google to claim there was one. You are being quite sloppy in your retelling of the journalist's account.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that bootleather taste?

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[mSparks43]

Pretty sure many marketting meetings are confidential.

e.g.
new product launches.
character assasinations
attack ads
blackmailing your clients
anything that might come under the title of bad press.

Only official corporate propoganda is allowed since Peter Thiel nuked gawker for telling everyone he's a raging faggot with aids.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it's closer to medium rare.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Zumbs]

And more to the point: Can a contract legally be used to force someone to not divulge knowledge of illegal activity?

Re:Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich Jewbois know this well. Don't feckin-A care. Such craven Trotsky-ism inspired Hitler. Some juridical bitches just won't learn from experience.

Re: Kafka said, you Become what you hate.

[CrimsonAvenger]

And more to the point: Can a contract legally be used to force someone to not divulge knowledge of illegal activity?

In a word, "no"....

Fishy

[duke_cheetah2003]

Why wait 6 years to come out with this stuff?

Got an axe to grind with Google?

While the story doesn't seem very far fetched, the delay is highly suspect.

Re:Fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about suspicious timing. Don't you think the government should regulate the net?

Re:Fishy

[duke_cheetah2003]

Who cares about suspicious timing.

Anyone with half a brain should definitely be suspicious. Why wait? And more importantly, why now? What's the motivation for coming out with this stuff NOW, instead of 6 years ago when it actually happened? Motivation is everything. And in this case, it's very suspect because of the lengthy amount of time that's elapsed.

Re:Fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, people need time to secure a new job before they feel safe talking about issues with the old one.

Maybe more people are waking up to the fact that web services are taking a page from Cthulhu.

Max Headroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Control? Control? Why am I off the air?

fuck google with a big rubber dick

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone still using google in 2017 is willfully giving their data directly to the NSA

Re:fuck google with a big rubber dick

[JohnFen]

anyone still using the internet in 2017 is willfully giving their data directly to the NSA

Fixed that for you.

Re:fuck google with a big rubber dick

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK GOOGLE in every orifice with a dick filled with sulphuric acid.

Re:Same...Barry Lynn (The Washington Post) got fir

[Anonymous Coward]

..and James Damore

Google needs to be regulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a public utility. It's simply too powerful and has way too much control over our decisions, to the point that we don't even realize it. They push their own products in search and then say it's organic search results, and they do the same with politicians or issues they like (burying right wing sites while pushing up left wing ones as well as promoting Hillary and the Democrats)

And for those who say there's competition, Bing and yahoo are absolutely jokes compared to Google, and Google has such a large database of information that creating a real competitor is impossible. I'm not generally one for government interfering with businesses, but Google has simply become too powerful and damaging to the flow of freedom of speech and information that a democracy depends on.

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[JohnFen]

It's easy and painless to do without Google's search. I was skeptical that this was true myself, but I switched away (to DDG) and have found that my search results have actually improved.

Yes, my results have more "false positives" than Google, but the hits tend to much closer to what I was searching for than with Google.

My theory is that it's because Google's "personalization" absolutely ruins the quality of search results. At least, it seems that way, since Google's results started declining in quality when they started doing that, and have been getting worse every year.

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[kwoff]

FWIW, I've switched to DuckDuckGo several times and ended up switching back to Google each time. I really would like to not use Google, but what happens is I search in DDB, see a bunch of 1997-level search results, then do that search in Google and get the right results. It's basically the same reason for switching to Google back then: I don't want to go through pages of bogus search results (from several search engines). I guess I didn't experience the degradation in Google results that you did.

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not personalization, Google are suppressing anything the alt-left consider threatening. Any search result can be flagged as hate-speech by a select number of anonymous people (that can use bots to match on keywords). Google won't publish the code or those on the list. Expect more trans-this, migration-that, and anti-Trump results to drift to the drop as real information is squashed. And this isn't limited to the search engine, the entire Alphabet stack is pushing their own agenda.

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[Anonymous Coward]

My theory is that it's because Google's "personalization" absolutely ruins the quality of search results.

I think it's more subtle than that.

I've found that DDG works best for me at a personal level. That's what I use at home and on my phone.

I've found that Google works best for me at work (newspaper publishing, but it's more about entertainment than "news"). At work it's actually been excellent that somehow all the topics are magically narrowed down for me a little, where I don't have to specify a bunch of additional "semi-implied" search terms. All my searches at work come with a little extra baggage (geography being an important one -- Google knows my city is a likely factor in all my searches) , and it's kind of neat that it knows what I'm up to and truly "interested" in.

And no, I'm not worried about industrial espionage. If you want into my business, you're welcome to join, but also a damn fool. The best advice I have for anyone in newspaper publishing is "find a way out!"

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but there is the maps integration and street view of course. I wish somebody else offered street views. Most videos are on YT, so you get sucked right back into Goober.

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[Ulfilas2000]

Bing has better responses to searches than Google

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[Anonymous Coward]

I have switched to DDG for months, truth is the search results are pathetically bad. But hey, even then ill take it over those companies that want to know your life.

Re:Google needs to be regulated

[pots]

You could use Startpage to test this, if you like. Startpage does anonymized Google searches, Duck Duck Go does anonymized Bing searches. This would allow you to compare the two without the personalization handicap.

My anecdotal experience has been the opposite, but I only tend to use Startpage when I can't find what I'm looking for on Duck Duck Go. So there's some confirmation bias there.

Re:I cared up to

[Nidi62]

Generally the first step to "lawyer/judge/court" is "reporter"

Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[TechyImmigrant]

A) Google to web site person: "By putting these +1 buttons on articles, we get to know what articles are liked better so the search algorithms work better".

B) Web site person to Google: "Surprise! I'm a journalist. Here's my headline: 'Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers' ".

The first is a natural consequence of how computers work. They are stupid and need data to help them.
The second is an accusation of abuse of power.

These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.

I have never once read an article on a topic which I have first hand experience in, where the journalist didn't twist the facts into a false narrative that they had pulled out of their arse. For example, I was involved in setting up IEEE 802.22. I chaired the study group that formed it. It defined mechanisms for communication between heterogeneous networks (E.G. Wifi and 3G) so sessions can hand over smoothly. A guy from Lucent and a guy from Nokia were the vice chair and secretary. I had to justify this activity to my employer (Intel) who were paying my wages and expenses. There was an article in an industry rag called Bluenote that published an article to the effect "OMG, Intel and Nokia and Lucent! They must be pouring millions into this standard" based on nothing. Nobody said this, it wasn't true and the journalist knew it wasn't true, but they wrote it anyway.

In TFA and TFS, the narrative is "Google abuses it's monopoly in search". It is the natural response of a tech journalist to twist the representation of any events concerning Google into that narrative and that it exactly what happened.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have less evidence of what really happened than the reporter. You talk about biases and then proceed to describe how your past experience with an unrelated reporter on an unrelated subject caused you to decide this piece is false. Are you retarded?

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[JohnFen]

I dunno. By my reading, A and B are saying precisely the same thing.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Google has a history (and anti-trust convictions) of abusing its search engine market dominance to push its other services. Of which this appears to be yet another instance.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it depends on whether anyone else heard this or not, which we shall see.

If it does help your search rankings, though, they're zero sum, so yes, it is equivalent to punishing everyone who doesn't add the +1 button.

Also, they already know which articles are popular--we click on them in the search results.

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you believe all profit motivated corporations are bad?

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Foreigner, go home!

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Hentes]

Can you explain how A does not imply B? It seems to me that if pages are upranked based on Google+ likes then pages without Google+ buttons would obviously get their rankings lowered.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[darthyoshiboy]

I had to sign in to see if I had any mod points for you. Sadly I did not and it's a damned shame since yours is the boring sort of mundane truthful reality that never gets the attention it deserves.

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[JohnFen]

Not at all.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Kohath]

In related news, Google abuses it's power in advertising. And Google abuses it's power in video. And Google bullies a leftist think tank.

Read the links now, while you still can. If you have Google Fiber, maybe read them on your phone. (Of course you can't read one of the articles in question -- Google made sure of that.)

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[bluefoxlucid]

The other interesting part is the article being in Google's search until it was taken down. Then, suspiciously, it disappeared from Google's cache very quickly.

... wait, can't Google just remove the listing from search results? Why did they need you to take the article down first? Why couldn't they just bury it on page 53?

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose a new law. I call it AC's Law:

If a comment in an online board ends in "Are you retarded?", the answer is "yes".

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[bluefoxlucid]

(A) implies something like that going into a hospital puts you in an environment where there are sick people, and so you might get sick. It's just what happens because you're breathing in air that they're trying to keep sterile because people are filling it with virulent pathogens.

(B) implies something like that the hospital despots are twirling their moustaches as they watch you sit in the waiting room, slowly leaning closer to the monitor. The smell of insurance money. They push the big red button, and the vent above you starts to cough out a combination of tuberculosis and influenza.

You use tone and specific words to manipulate emotional context. Use negative tones to convey that someone is being malicious, and positive tones to convey that someone has provided a helpful tool. (A) in this case impresses: "The baseline is X, and adding a Google+ share button raises you above baseline." (B) in this case impresses: "The baseline is X, and not adding a Google+ button pushes you below baseline." What the journalist wrote says Google penalizes you for not doing a thing, rather than that doing a thing allows Google to provide better results with better data gathering.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[ljw1004]

A) Google to web site person: "By putting these +1 buttons on articles, we get to know what articles are liked better so the search algorithms work better".

B) Web site person to Google: "Surprise! I'm a journalist. Here's my headline: 'Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers' ".

The first is a natural consequence of how computers work. They are stupid and need data to help them.
The second is an accusation of abuse of power. These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.

Here's how I imagine it went down...

Engineer: I have a good idea! Let's use +1 indications from Google Plus so we can improve the quality of search results by knowing what articles are liked.

-- EITHER --

DataScientist: I share your goal of higher quality search results, but tying it to Google Plus is a poor way to achieve it. That's because Google Plus isn't widely adopted. First we will get a signal of "which articles are liked by the biased subgroup that are Google Plus enthusiasts" rather than what articles are more generally liked. Second, the system will offer perverse incentives for websites to game the system by overly promoting the +1 button in detriment to their actual natural organic use. We need to build more accurate measures of which articles are liked.

-- OR --

BusinessManager: That's great! Not only will it improve the quality of search, but it'll do so by leveraging third parties to promote the Google Plus service on our behalf! Ship it!

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

I dunno. By my reading, A and B are saying precisely the same thing.

If you squint hard enough. The main difference is that B claims that not adding the buttons will hurt traffic, but the correct interpretation of A is that adding the buttons might help or hurt traffic, and that the effect of not adding them when everyone else does is unpredictable.

Look at this from the perspective of a search engine trying to uprank the best content. Without the buttons, the only signal you have is whether or not users click the link to go to the page based on the title and snippet. That's a useful signal, but it's really a signal about how interested people are in the title and snippet. It doesn't say much about the content. You can try to infer more about the content quality based on whether or not people come back to the search page and click other links after looking at it, but that inference is weak for many reasons.

If there's a +1 button on the bottom of the page, then you're getting a real content quality signal. Not everyone who likes the content will click, but no one who hates it will click.

So, sites with buttons wouldn't get any sort of automatic boost -- or demotion. They'd just provide more information for Google to uprank or downrank their content based on user feedback. Sites without the button simply don't provide any signal other than the pre-existing one, so nothing can be inferred about user satisfaction of the content, only of the title & snippet.

This means that sites with buttons that get lots of +1s may rise above those without buttons. But it also means that sites with buttons that get few +1s may fall below those without buttons. Whether this hurts or helps sites without buttons is unclear.

What is clear is that (as always), the very best way to get your site upranked is to provide good content, with a good title & snippet.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[OYAHHH]

I'm sorry, but a "Google +" button does not add one single solitary piece of information to search results.

It merely provides a sort order.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[JohnFen]

Yes, I agree with most of this. I have a little quibble, though...

If there's a +1 button on the bottom of the page, then you're getting a real content quality signal. Not everyone who likes the content will click, but no one who hates it will click.

If the goal is to find the highest quality content, the +1 button seems dubious. It's not measuring quality, it's measuring popularity. And it's a poor measure of popularity at that because of the heavy selection bias involved (most people aren't going to click it no matter how they feel about it.)

In other words, it's not really telling you much more than tracking who clicks on what links tells you. That this stuff figures so much in search rankings at all is probably part of why Google's search results have been getting worse.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Hognoxious]

It's like saying that if you insure your restaurant with Big Vinnie Protection & Security Inc it's less likely to burn down.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.

I don't see what's "false" about the perception. It's reasonable for Google to claim that adding G+ buttons will improve search results, while at the same time viewing it as an abuse of Google's search predominance to push an otherwise bad product.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

Look at this from the perspective of a search engine trying to uprank the best content.

Well, that concept has legs. Let's try some more of this.

"Look at this from the perspective of a search engine trying to uprank the best content: if you don't spend half an hour giving them detailed feedback on the pages you visit, they can't uprank the best content; it is therefore perfectly legitimate to give you the choice of either complying or doxxing you and releasing your porn browsing habits."

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[TechyImmigrant]

You have less evidence of what really happened than the reporter. You talk about biases and then proceed to describe how your past experience with an unrelated reporter on an unrelated subject caused you to decide this piece is false. Are you retarded?

It is one of four times where I have direct knowledge of facts showing the reporter twisting facts to a false narrative. That is every single time I've had direct, first hand knowledge of something reported in the press. So that strongly suggests a lot of press reports are twisting facts.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent!! The official Google Asshole is educating us on how extorting publishers to support a failed Facebook-wannabe social network is a Good Thing!!
Who you gonna believe, Google or your own lying eyes?

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you've never seen Good Fellas ;)

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

Yes, I agree with most of this. I have a little quibble, though...

If there's a +1 button on the bottom of the page, then you're getting a real content quality signal. Not everyone who likes the content will click, but no one who hates it will click.

If the goal is to find the highest quality content, the +1 button seems dubious. It's not measuring quality, it's measuring popularity. And it's a poor measure of popularity at that because of the heavy selection bias involved (most people aren't going to click it no matter how they feel about it.)

I'd say it's actually less biased towards measuring popularity than it is toward measuring agreement. Neither of those is exactly what you want, but it's still additional data about users' opinions of the articles. And it actually does contain an implicit measure of relevance and utility (which are the primary qualities sought): Most people who find it irrelevant or useless won't even get to the bottom, and so will never see the +1 button.

In other words, it's not really telling you much more than tracking who clicks on what links tells you.

This is wrong. It's an entirely separate decision based on entirely different actions. it may take some effort to figure out what it actually does and does not tell you, but it's definitely not the same thing.

That this stuff figures so much in search rankings at all is probably part of why Google's search results have been getting worse.

There's no way to respond to this. Your assessment is anecdotal and subjective. I'm aware of objective data regarding search quality, but can't share it.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

Look at this from the perspective of a search engine trying to uprank the best content.

Well, that concept has legs. Let's try some more of this.

"Look at this from the perspective of a search engine trying to uprank the best content: if you don't spend half an hour giving them detailed feedback on the pages you visit, they can't uprank the best content; it is therefore perfectly legitimate to give you the choice of either complying or doxxing you and releasing your porn browsing habits."

Those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[JohnFen]

Your assessment is anecdotal and subjective.

Absolutely true. I have no data beyond my own experience. (And truthfully, my own experience is the only thing that matters to me on this count.) But I do know, even if I'm in the minority, that I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

It irritates me because I remember when it wasn't true and I long for a search engine that is as good as Google's used to be. But, as near as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have just agreed that you're fucking retarded and saved us a lot of time.

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Hognoxious]

If Reservoir Dogs counts as a gangster movie I've watched two. The other is the one with "I read a lot about history ... Sicilians are actually N1ggers".

You can see I'm a total movieholic, can't you?

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

See the quotes? Do you understand the concept of "sarcasm"?

What's your IQ? 85?

Re: Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

#googlecuck

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

See the quotes? Do you understand the concept of "sarcasm"?

Sorry, I thought you were making an argument. After re-reading your message in the tone of my 16 year-old daughter, complete with eyeroll, I can now respond appropriately: By ignoring it.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

Question: Do you still do keyword queries with Google? If so, that may be your problem. Try using natural language instead; the engine has evolved in that direction because that's what non-technical people ("all users", to a first approximation) do; they type in questions.

I find, subjectively, that Google's results are as good as they've ever been, or better, but only after I changed the way I write my queries. 20 years ago, what worked well was to find the right set of keywords, possibly making use of the tools to narrow the results in particular ways. That no longer works very well... but what does work quite well is typing questions in English. The combination of NLP, the knowledge graph, search personalization, etc. makes it work quite well.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[TechyImmigrant]

Wow. A troll mod for stating facts. It's a harsh crowd today.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

I can now respond appropriately: By ignoring it.

And if you're lucky, you may yet grow up to be more mature than your 16 year old daughter.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[TechyImmigrant]

I'm thinking false because they certainly don't have a monopoly in search. They might have had in the past, but not when the Forbes business was going on and not now. As we've seen, there are plenty of other buttons attached to articles on web pages (twitter, facebook, etc). If they were saying your search results will suffer if you put on other vendor's buttons, then yes, that would clearly have been an abuse

It's like saying Seagate are abusing their monopoly in storage because they told someone their data integrity will suffer if they don't buy drives for backups.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[TechyImmigrant]

It provides exactly 1 bit of information per reader - has it been pressed or not.

Of course, since the odds of it being pressed are minuscule, the min entropy is much less than 1 bit per press. It's:
    -log_2(max( P(G+ button pressed), 1-P(G+ button pressed))) bits.
It's bigger than zero though, so I can't agree with your statement.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

I'm thinking false because they certainly don't have a monopoly in search

I didn't say they had a "monopoly" in search, I said "dominance". Nor did I allege that they are doing anything illegal.

It's like saying Seagate are abusing their monopoly in storage because they told someone their data integrity will suffer if they don't buy drives for backups.

It's more like Microsoft's tying, bundling, and exclusive contracts.

Again, I think Google should be legally fine to try to prop up their awful social network with their popular search engine. But it's also legitimate for journalists to criticize them over it.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[TechyImmigrant]

Fair enough. It's also fair enough to call out the journalists when they fail to present information in a highly distorted way.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

I can now respond appropriately: By ignoring it.

And if you're lucky, you may yet grow up to be more mature than your 16 year old daughter.

Even she could do better than that, when she was 16. Look, if you'd like to have an adult discussion, don't throw out ludicrous arguments then try to claim they were sarcasm.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

if you'd like to have an adult discussion,

If I want to have an adult discussion, I have it with adults.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[swillden]

if you'd like to have an adult discussion,

If I want to have an adult discussion, I have it with adults.

Really? That response is one (small) step above "I know you are but what am I?". Very adult.

Re:Classic Journalistic Twisting.

[doctorvo]

Really? That response is one (small) step above "I know you are but what am I?". Very adult.

Look, I made a quick sarcastic comment about Google that you obviously didn't quite get. You are a Google manager whose response was a series of ad hominems. Well, congratulations, your response is consistent with the article and the increasingly negative image that Google is getting.

Very professional and adult of you!

Company with jumbo jet for execs does evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

A with a private jumbo jet for executives does something evil???

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!

Inevitable

[jenningsthecat]

ANY organization becomes more evil, (from the standpoint of the average citizen), when it becomes bigger and/or more powerful. That 'and/or' qualifier I put there was intentional. Mozilla didn't have the kind of power that Google has, but after they reached a certain size their own internal power struggles, empire-building tendencies, and sheer hubris led to ignoring their users' needs and desires. As for Google, they are both very big and very powerful. "Might makes right" became a cliché for a very good reason, and Google is a fine example of this.

I've long argued that laissez-faire ought to apply to small businesses, with a sliding scale of progressively more government interference as a company gets larger. The catch-22 here is that government will become bigger and more powerful as a result, with the same consequences. So what we really need is an educated, thoughtful, politically engaged populace. But governments and corporations have that covered: schooling that teaches knee-jerk obedience to authority and frowns upon truly critical thinking, combined with bread and circuses and copious advertising, ensure that most people will take what they're given and do as they're told, even as they imagine themselves to be rebels.

Re:Inevitable

[JohnFen]

"Might makes right"

I never liked that phrase because of its obvious untruth -- might gets you your way, might makes victory, but being victorious and getting your way does not imply that you're right.

I prefer the redefinition of the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Are might and gold really that different from one another under capitalism?

Re:Inevitable

[Subm]

> what we really need is an educated, thoughtful, politically engaged populace

In other words, we're doomed.

Re: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: government will get bigger and more powerful - there is a solution to that. We need different levels of government to balance each other. Right now the power is shifted to the Fed. States should get more power. That can be accomplished for instance by abolishing the federal income tax. Have states collect it all in the exact same amount that's currently being collected by the Fed + States. Then have States share the money with the Fed government. An individual has very little power to affect taxes and budget spending. 50 States would have a lot more leverage.

Re:Inevitable

[JohnFen]

No, but I was making a distinction between "right" and "making the rules".

Re:Inevitable

[jenningsthecat]

"Might makes right"

I never liked that phrase because of its obvious untruth -- might gets you your way, might makes victory, but being victorious and getting your way does not imply that you're right.

Actually, I considered exactly that point as I was writing the comment. Then it occurred to me that I had misunderstood the saying all along - that maybe it meant 'right' in the legal sense, (i.e. 'rights'), rather than in the moral and philosophical sense.

Re: Inevitable

[jenningsthecat]

... States should get more power. That can be accomplished for instance by abolishing the federal income tax. Have states collect it all in the exact same amount that's currently being collected by the Fed + States. Then have States share the money with the Fed government. An individual has very little power to affect taxes and budget spending. 50 States would have a lot more leverage.

Why stop there? Why not take it down to the regional level, or even municipal? If I recall my history correctly, city-states have some significant advantages when it comes to individual autonomy.

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I've long argued that laissez-faire ought to apply to small businesses, with a sliding scale of progressively more government interference as a company gets larger. The catch-22 here is that government will become bigger and more powerful as a result, with the same consequences.

Wrong. Government is democratically accountable. And when that goes wrong, the answer is to fix that particular problem, NOT weaken it and allow its power to be taken by private industry, which is not accountable.

Gizmondo drama

[Anonymous Coward]

Take this with a grain of salt, Gizmondo are famous for dramatizing

Reason is simple, Google Plus is struggling...

[bogaboga]

Google told the the magazine's staff that if publishers didn't add the "+" Google Plus social network button at the bottom of stories, those articles would come up lower in search results.

They had to somehow "push" Google Plus down our throats. I would give some advice to Google if they want some traction.

Improve its interface. Have consumers continue to consume video content on the screen even while scrolling and consuming other material.

In other words, borrow a leaf from Facebook. They seem to be doing pretty well. Emulate the successful.

Re:Reason is simple, Google Plus is struggling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sensible ideas, on my Slashdot?
It's more likely than you think.

Google are hopeless at doing anything besides being pricks.
Killed off iGoogle because they couldn't make money from it. A fucking online RSS feed populated with peoples INTERESTS, can't make money, no money there at all. Nope, nada.
Killed off god knows how many of their services because they weren't as popular as search. A company as big as Google are somehow terrible at advertising their own products. Not even an anti-competitive thing either, they hid their own stuff behind silly amounts of menus.
The most successful mismanaged company in history. (besides American Government, but that's for another day)

Re:Reason is simple, Google Plus is struggling...

[swillden]

Have consumers continue to consume video content on the screen even while scrolling and consuming other material... In other words, borrow a leaf from Facebook.

Ugh, please not that leaf. Especially not on mobile. Well, allowing video to keep playing (and stay visible) is fine (the new Oreo PiP mode might be great), but please, please do not autoplay video.

Re:Reason is simple, Google Plus is struggling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Plus was a failure from the beginning.

A lot of Google stuff is good idea wrapped up in bad marketing, if not bad application.

eg, Forcing sites to use SSL or disappear from search. So now I have to pay for a more expensive hosting package AND I have to pay for a SSL certificate despite having nothing to secure, and nothing of consequence on my static sites.

Google Plus was being forced upon anyone in order just to use youtube, let alone comment or upload anything to it, that is the only space that Google made any headway, and that comes directly at the cost of username camping on gmail, and channel name camping on youtube, because now you can't just anonymously upload your cat videos, you have to treat it like a business, even if you're just shitposting cat videos daily.

Re:Reason is simple, Google Plus is struggling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Improve its interface. Have consumers continue to consume video content on the screen even while scrolling and consuming other material.

What are you talking about? I honestly don't understand this desire.

If I'm scrolling down the page and consuming other material, then I'm not watching the video, so why does the video need to follow me? This seems like an exact opposite of an improvement. I'd immediately hit F12, find the node that represents the floating video container, and delete it.

Maybe it's a mobile thing. I realized years ago that if I'm going to consume any media worth my time, then I wouldn't be using a mobile device for that. So maybe mobile users want this "improvement"? But then, that seems kinda silly because it would mean you're using a mobile device to watch a video while attempting to consume other content at the same time. Actually, it's not "silly", it's sad, because it's an indication of media addiction.

If that's the purpose of the "improvement" -- to feed consumers' media addiction -- then let's make sure we always refer to it in that context. Otherwise, people might accidentally think that the "improvement" is aimed at a productive person.

Re:Reason is simple, Google Plus is struggling...

[phantomfive]

They don't care about Google plus anymore. They never did, actually. The only reason they wanted you to sign up is so they could get your name, age and gender, so they could give it to advertisers. Once they had that from everyone, they dropped pretty much all caring about the platform.

They were feeling competition from Facebook because Facebook could tell advertisers about age and gender. Now Google can too.

Re:It's simple to fix Joogle's wagon... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a "-1000 Spam" mod for this guy.

But what's the point of power

[Anonymous Coward]

.... if you can't use it ??

Re: It's simple to fix Joogle's wagon... apk

[mSparks43]

does it work on ipad?

Seems unlikely.

[Gravis Zero]

Hear me out because i'm trying to be objective about this.

Google has +1 buttons on a fuckload of pages and it indexes them all. The question is, how much additional computational power would it require to identify the few pages that are not fond of Google? Given all that power used, how much money would they be paying just to suppress a negative articles?

I don't know the numbers but it seems to me that it would be rather costly to correctly identify which pages to avoid putting a +1 button on. I get the creeping feeling it's more likely that they left an html tag open or something which resulted in eating the button and thus not being displayed.

Re:Seems unlikely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's quite a post. I think you may be on something.

Re:Seems unlikely.

[JohnFen]

That not how it would work. You don't find pages not using the +1 button and punish them specifically. Instead, you reward the pages that do use the +1 button.

The end result is exactly the same, but the latter is easier to implement.

Re: Seems unlikely.

[Entrope]

Google has for a long time been able to de-index web pages on request, and apparently they are able to also de-index pages with similar content. They do that for legal reasons and because they think some pages are trying to game their search results. It's not far-fetched to think they might de-index pages for other reasons as well.

Re:Seems unlikely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Search rankings are zero sum. If I take over the #1 rank for some search, someone else loses that rank. So all they have to do is reward everyone who has a +1 button with a higher rank. That's it.

There's a concept in antitrust law that says you can't use your monopoly products to take over other markets. I don't claim to know if this qualifies and I realize that switching away from Google search is easy, but it stinks pretty bad if they're so embarrassed of some conduct that they don't want us to see it.

That said, I'd like to see if there's more than one report of this. I have yet to see other people reporting that they were told the same thing.

Re: Seems unlikely.

[Reverend Green]

Check out the Python library called "Beautiful Soup". Play with it a little, and see how long it takes you to write a script that can to detect the presence of a Google Plus button. (Hint: not very long.) See how much CPU it takes. (Hint: hardly any.)

One constant throughout all of human history

[Anonymous Coward]

Power corrupts.

Yet too many of you persist in rooting for certain monopolies fooling yourself into believing they are somehow different or exempt. When faced with evidence of entirely foreseeable outcomes you still cling to Google who can never do harm in your eyes.

When DJT said he could kill someone and his supporters would still love him he wasn't wrong. YOUR no different, it just pisses you off to have the obvious pointed out to YOU.

Re:One constant throughout all of human history

[Anonymous Coward]

Read on the eternal Jew (google's brin) all thru history then https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11064799&cid=55122885/ they're THE problem nation after nation all thru history.

Poor retarded racist APK posts again

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that poor retarded racist APK posted in this thread. It must really be hard being such a retard that you have to push shitty slow bloated software that was done by other better before you. APK wrote a file aggregator and like a retard calls it a hosts file engine. So why is it slow and bloated. Well we can start with the fact that something like this is a utility that should run in the background automatically. This means it does not need a GUI which like a retard APK included. Next that retard APK decided to include some DB functionality in it. Why, I don't know, it must be because he is a retard and felt a file aggregator needed to function like a database. To further prove his software is slow and bloated he had to make it multi-threaded to get some performance out of it. How big of a retard do you have to be that you need to write a multi-threaded file aggregator. I guess APK just likes getting spanked harder than an ugly redheaded step-child.

Alternative to Google news

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto on the lack of trust. I've just now concluded that (I'm slow to change )

I have been a Google news user for years now. I've stopped trusting them, and want to send my micro $ elsewhere. Any recommends for a mobile friendly news aggregator ?

Google, Google never changes...

[jimmifett]

I knew from day one when they tried to push thier "Do No Evil" mantra really meant Don't Get Caught.
Now they are (or perhaps always have been) an echo chamber of contemptible ideologies, distilled cancer.

I think they are about due for an antitrust breakup.

Re:Google, Google never changes...

[OYAHHH]

At this time I don't think an anti-trust breakup is necessary. I, along with thousands of others, are working hard to circumvent Google. I'm quite sure some of these efforts will take hold and be successful. It's just a matter of time.

and in the news yesterday...

[doctorvo]

Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant and New Think Tank Emails show "How Google Wields its Power" in Washington

Quashing reports, manipulating search results, and throwing its weight around seem par for the course for Google. After all, they want some return on their investment in politicians, the media, and intellectuals.

I renounce this Heresey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also! Please ignore politically motivated censorship like this article: Google Issues Ultimatum To The Liberty Conservative: Censor Your Content Or Lose All Ad Revenue

Do not capitulate to the PSYOP meant to manufacture consent for government control of the Internet.

Heil Google!

captcha: unfair

Re:I cared up to

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, first step is a tweet. Then a reporter spends the next hour of your life talking or writing about the public tweet. By the time the reporter is done twisting the story, the original tweet and what the person actually said couldn't be farther apart. If only there was some way people could read these public tweets and form their own opinions, then 90% of reporters would be jobless. I get that this specific story didn't start with a tweet, but it still started with a useless opinion of a journalist that wasn't based on fact but "strong" unprovable suspicions.

Re:The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's funny that this has been modded to -1, though it was sadly predictable. To the people modding this to oblivion, I've heard you justify your position because it's what's "right". An old saying that a lot of people seem to have forgotten.

"The road to hell is paved in good intentions".

This silencing anything you disagree with because "it's bad and wrong" may make you feel good, but stop and think about the larger ramifications of your actions would you?

Bing and Tor

[emil]

I am very glad that Bing has become so very friendly to Tor in the guise of Duck Duck Go.

Many searches that I test between Bing and Duck Duck Go are identical, and Bing is listed as a search provider for Duck Duck Go. I do not know if Microsoft is an investor in Duck Duck Go, but it would not surprise me.

Many harsh things could and have been said about Microsoft, but at this point they are the champions of anonymous search, and a far better corporate citizen in this regard than Google.

Re:Bing and Tor

[lgw]

Duck Duck Go adds a bunch of functionality I like to the search bar, even if the search is itself is still mostly Bing. Plus it hides your search history in general.

Mostly, though DDG "bang codes" are handy. I frequently use "!wa" to send my search to Wolfram Online - best calculator ever.

Re: Bing and Tor

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a champion of anonymous search try startpage.com or its parent company ixquick.com. Neither logs even ip addresses and the former acts as a Google proxy so you get Google results without Google tracking. Both also offer to serve links via proxy which might be handy if you don't have a vpn.

Firefox Focus...

[emil]

...is the tool that I use for Google search. I see no reason for Google to associate my account with my search history, nor should they retain my activities beyond what I explicitly permit. It is prudent to take steps to blind them.

Re: JEWgle = biggest racists + root of all problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the flying fuck?

1984

[OYAHHH]

Orwell's 1984. If there were ever a more prescient book I can't identify it.

1984 should be required reading for our children. But soon, just like "Gone With the Wind", "1984" will be more and more banned in the public sphere.

Thought, initially not banned by your government, but by the Wizards of Silicon Valley. The ones who hide behind a digital curtain, leading you down a yellow brick road, and adorning you with stories of how you too can have a heart.

But as the curtain of "Do No Evil" devolves into "We Tell You What is Evil" even the most dense among us realize they live in chains.
Chains not denoted by iron and steel, but by plastic, silicon, and lithium.

It is incumbent upon good women and men, who believe in freedom of thought, to take a stand. For if they don't children who never read 1984 will live in 1984.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

We all need to punish AT&T for its pile of abuses of the public interest starting way back when Mark Klein discovered their tap room and all the way to today when they hire hackers to post millions of fraudulent comments by actual people who have no idea they are speaking in their names to the FCC's public request for comment site.

Hey retard you posted that already

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey retard you posted that already. It adds nothing to the conversations but does show the world how much of a retard you actually are.

Re:It's simple to fix Joogle's wagon... apk

[OYAHHH]

I really wish I could understand a word of what you just said.

Looks like the APK simulator is stuck again

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the APK simulator got stuck in a loop again. Someone needs to go and power cycle the box. Also it appears that the brain damage in the ANN is too severe so it may be worth just starting over than trying to salvage this simulation. It appears to have become fixated with George Soros, Jews, racism, blind support for Trump, ineffective security solutions, and taking Alex Jones as the gospel truth. People we need to stop modding its posts down to -1 as it makes it difficult to catch these problems before they get out of control.

Re:I suggest mocking APK for being a racist retard

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we do know he's gay. His vicious denials only confirm that and his deep self loathing. Definitely needs therapy.

Dogs Bites Man

[hduff]

Not News: Big, powerful corporation uses influence to remove criticism from its records.

News: Google re-adopts the motto "Don't Be Evil" and lives by it.

It is just a defective chat bot

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't. It is just a defective chat bot that appears to have gotten stuck in a loop. Hopefully someone will power cycle it and train it on a better data set the next time. It shows up from time to time and seems fixated on blind support for trump, the Jews, a cabal run by George Soros suppressing its posts, poor security advice, and taking everything the Alex Jones says as the undisputed truth.

Re:It is just a defective chat bot

[OYAHHH]

Ok, I'll give you that. Have a great day!

Time for a new slogan

[John Jorsett]

Do Know Evil

Re:The Left

[sycodon]

Reposting the AC's comment. If you want to disappear it, you'll need to work harder.

The Left will come to you telling stories of tolerance, inclusiveness and equality.

They will make you believe that's what they believe in and work for.

But as soon as they have weaseled their way into power, be it in an industry, government or other organization, they quickly reveal themselves as the totalitarian absolutists that they really are.

The world's greatest atrocities were all perpetrated by people who believed they were doing it for the greater good.

Two Words:

[Ulfilas2000]

Use Bing

Just like Enron did

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in early 2001 when Bethany McLean wrote an article at Fortune that questioned if Enron was overvalued. Execs at Enron called her bosses and tried to get the article flushed. Didn't work, and she wrote a bestseller about the whole thing afterward. And several Enron execs went to jail for fraud.

Fuck Google. I've already switched email and search providers and refuse to use Android.

I switched to DDG and it sucked

[future assassin]

Most of my search results were lacking in relevance vs what I could find in Google. Sure I could probably refine them but its not 1999 and Google as much as I hate them and think they are not good for the internet does give me the results that I need up the top of the search listing.

Re:I switched to DDG and it sucked

[JohnFen]

I'm fascinated that so many people find DDG to be inferior. For me, it's night and day, with DDG putting Google to shame.

This just makes me suspect the personalization even more. Perhaps there's just something about me that makes Google's algorithms completely fail.

New icon needed like the gates-born one

[Anonymous Coward]

So hey /. editors, it's about time you folks created a similar icon like you did when it was all the rage to hate on msft.

It's simple to fix Joogle's wagon... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Stop their admoney (like a boycott) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Net neutrality will protect our freedom of express

[binkless]

Not

It's simple to fix Joogle's wagon... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Stop their admoney (like a boycott) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Alt-Left = Communist = Nazi

[HBI]

It's all the same totalitarianism.

Re: Alt-Left = Communist = Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

The alt-left have jack fucking shit to do with communism. They're a bunch of socially degenerate capitalist running dogs.

-- a communist

LMAO! Quoted /.ers spank your ass... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

I like your host file system by Karmashock

(NEED MORE? Ask!)

* Hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

APK

P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk

Fix JEWgle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

That was just APK going full retard

[Anonymous Coward]

That post was just APK going full retard. He does that a lot. That post frequently shows up in threads APK posts in. He rarely claims it but he has a few times. Other times like today he professes full support and he has in the past openly stated that he believes it to be true. What he fails to realize is that the style of that post matches his too much so he thinks he can get away with posting garbage like that and no one will know it was him. It is one of his many tactics when he looses a discussion which he does all the time. Other things he does is change the subject, move the goal posts (he does this less as he looses there too), try to deflect, blame others, post support from himself without signing it to make it look like someone supports him, or declare he won by fiat.

Fix JEWgle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Re: The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Reposting the ACs comment. If you want it to disappear you will have to work harder.

Both posts were throwing mud at each other. And both posts were pretty accurate descriptions. But let's see if this gets modded down.

"and the right will come at you saying what is good for business is good for everyone.
And everything will continue as normal.
Almost like it was designed that way."

Re:The Left

[Lingerance]

I think it's funny that this has been modded to -1, though it was sadly predictable. To the people modding this to oblivion, I've heard you justify your position because it's what's "right".

It's more to do with it being flamebait than anything else. The right is just as horrible. Unless you're of the opinion that corporations are infallible.

Fix JEWgle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Fix JEWgle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

software, and human interface guidlines

[Anonymous Coward]

SO you think an iphone was about hardware?

Re: JEWgle = biggest racists + root of all proble

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad part is, most of what he said is true. Some was over the top, but his numbers check out.

Fix JEWgle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Fix JEWgle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Is the NDA real?

[XXongo]

Is there any evidence that this purported NDA actually exists?

In the article she mentions that a Google spokesperson said that there was a NDA for the meeting... but nobody else seems to have heard anything about it. You'd think that if there really was a NDA, somebody other than an anonymous "google spokesperson" would know about it. (In the article, she refers to it as "the claim that the meeting was covered by a non-disclosure agreement." The wording is interesting here: if she had any good evidence that a NDA existed, she would have phrased this as "the fact that the meeting was covered by a non-disclosure agreement.")

A couple of people wrote articles commenting on her article before it got deleted: https://www.mediapost.com/publ... https://raventools.com/blog/fo...

Offtopic and flamebait [Re:The Left]

[XXongo]

I think it's funny that this has been modded to -1

It's not particularly funny. The comment is both off topic and flamebait.

There are some people (both left and right) who live to post political snarks at any possible opportunity. These are almost always -1 offtopic and -1 flamebait.

If I had mod points I'd mod you offtopic as well. (In your case, offtopic but not flamebait).

Re: Offtopic and flamebait [Re:The Left]

[mSparks43]

yes, heaven forbid someone should talk about politics on a news item about censorship and antitrust. obviously politics has nothing to do with it. the solution is clearly more xml.

Re: Offtopic and flamebait [Re:The Left]

[XXongo]

yes, heaven forbid someone should talk about politics on a news item about censorship and antitrust. obviously politics has nothing to do with it. the solution is clearly more xml.

This one was just a snark. "look, a chance to bash the left! I'll take it."

-1 flamebait, -1 off target, -1 please go away.

Re: Offtopic and flamebait [Re:The Left]

[mSparks43]

perhaps if a little political discourse made it into general conversation people could get away from the intentionally divisive and meaningless left/right garbage and actually affect change for the better.

Pretty sure that would beat letting the likes of Peter Theil, George Soros and Larrey Page decide what we can and cant talk about.

Re: The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the Left says, "surrender to us and we will provide". And the never provide.

The Right says, "here is a tool called capitalism. Employ it and you can succeed." And it usually does.

Google is the new Ministry of Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/31/google-issues-ultimatum-to-conservative-website-remove-hateful-article-or-lose-ad-revenue/

The NDA probably didn't exist [Re:Facts or did...]

[XXongo]

There is at least one part of her claims that is factually untrue.

This would be interesting if it were true. But apparently you can't read, since you assert facts that aren't in the article.

Instead, a Google spokesperson told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn't been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.)

I know for a fact Forbes has an employee handbook, a legal contract, that must be agreed to and signed in front of an HR representative before your employment start-date is even chosen. That contract explicitly states an employee is also agreeing to uphold all other Forbes contracts and agreements. So she did sign such an agreement (or optionally is lying about ever working at Forbes, but the former seems much more likely)

No. First, you haven't given me the text of the agreement you "know for a fact" she signed. Second, the statement we're talking about is about the purported NDA, which you haven't shown even exists.

Additionally, when she states she "hadn't been told the meeting was confidential", that may have been true while she was speaking to Google PR, but isn't true in the long run. She even admits it:

I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down

Right there she was informed by her boss of the internal Google agreement.

This is the part where you are showing that you are unable to read or comprehend English. This statement is very interesting: the boss does not mention a NDA (!)

This is actually the strongest evidence that no such NDA exists: if there had been a NDA which, by some oversight, she hadn't been asked to sign-- an actual legal agreement that Forbes wasn't allowed to publish anything said in the meeting-- her boss would absolutely have mentioned it at this point. The fact that he doesn't bring it up is damning.

That's how it is supposed to work, her boss is supposed to be the one to make sure she is aware of such an agreement, not Google PR or anyone else.

Right. And the fact that he didn't is very strong evidence that the purported NDA did not exist. What he said was that the article was "problematic". What he didn't say was "we can't publish that because it is covered by a NDA."

Re:The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

The Left is just as horrible. Unless you're of the opinion that government is infallible.

Re:Same...Barry Lynn (The Washington Post) got fir

[Anonymous Coward]

I criticized Obama, and it got me fired.

I was walking by some march downtown, and it got me fired.

I wore the wrong type of hat to work, and it got me fired.

Greetings, from the Soviet Union. :)

Forcing customers to join

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that about the same time that Google was forcing people who had gmail or Youtube accounts to join Google+ (by migrating the accounts)?

That was extreme bullshit right there.

Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I've switched away from Google. No company should have so much power

Google? Or some middle manager?

[TiggertheMad]

Moot point. The idea that a multi-billion dollar multi national corp can be completely controlled by a small group of leaders is just silly. Sure the CEO and board can steer the company in a given direction, but if some middle manager 10 steps removed from the c-levels decides to do something 'evil' (whatever that means) or at least morally questionable, they aren't going to find out until it hits the front page and lawyers are filing subpoenas.

Re:Google? Or some middle manager?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brin and Page control hiring - and firing, as Damore so recently showed.
They control funding. If they don't like your project, it doesn't happen.
They issue directives, and if you don't obey - you're out. If you manager doesn't obey, he's out and maybe you too.

You also seem confused about what executives in a company do. The C-levels are not aware of which code module the monkeys in Cubicle C are hacking at, but they're damned sure aware of what project that code module is a part of.
When Google runs a program where Google Plus participants are given higher search rankings than those that decline to participate, you can be DAMNED sure the executives know about it.
When Google gets reporters fired from the Washington Post, the executives approved it.
When Google shuts down a market research team at a think tank because it was critical of Google by threatening to withhold tens of millions of dollars, it wasn't a decision made by some low-level flunky. It was C-level.
And when the CEO of Google goes public to fire and defame an employee because the employee threatened the CEO's politics, you can be damned sure he knew what he was doing.

Re:Google? Or some middle manager?

[Mashiki]

Moot point. The idea that a multi-billion dollar multi national corp can be completely controlled by a small group of leaders is just silly.

Really? You should check out some more multi-billion dollar multi-national corps like Walmart which had something similar going on. Then they handed off "day-to-day" to people lower down, which created things like "trendy upscale walmarts" to compete against places like whole foods, or grocery-only stores. Or the various attempts to pull of publix or kroger. They blew through money failing at all of these things until the head of the waltons turned around and saw the quarterly losses.

Sure the CEO and board can steer the company in a given direction, but if some middle manager 10 steps removed from the c-levels decides to do something 'evil' (whatever that means) or at least morally questionable, they aren't going to find out until it hits the front page and lawyers are filing subpoenas.

It generally works out more like a game of politics at companies of this size. The CEO sets the vision, plan, etc. Makes the proclamations of "more diversity, inclusive, etc, etc, etc." People down the chain follow those, and pick up on the trendy stuff that the CEO is pushing, and implement it. That middle manager 10 steps removed from c-level execs are pushing policies that those people above them say are "the great thing to be happenin' with right now."

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine my surprise.

Public Utility - Monopoly

[Tulsa_Time]

Regulate as a common carrier.

They're nothing but 2 thieving jews

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:

1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)

2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)

3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.

They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.

The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert

Re: They're nothing but 2 thieving jews

[Anonymous Coward]

And muslims worship a man that enjoyed raping goats.

Which is why muslims will never have the capacity to do any of that and have to be banned from America.

Re: They're nothing but 2 thieving jews

[Reverend Green]

How much does Google's PR firm pay you to post this idiotic racist crap?

Re: They're nothing but 2 thieving jews

[Anonymous Coward]

No way, she's to dumb to have a job, most likely a bin bag wearing muslim that has time left after doing the dishes.

Why downmod hide this then JUDE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:

1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)

2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)

3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.

They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.

The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert

Why do you keep trying to hide this JUDE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:

1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)

2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)

3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.

They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.

The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert

Why do you downmod hide this then JUDE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:

1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)

2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)

3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.

They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.

The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert

Re: The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither is really suited to lead because they're corrupted by money.

Re: The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is the greatest excuse people've made for screwing each other over. 'The almighty market will equilize everything. Nobody will suffer.' Yet, the world is still full of suffering, even in 'developed' countries.

If capitalism was any good, it wouldn't need regulation to keep it from destroying humanity. Greed is our worst vice, and creates more suffering than anyone imagines. Because hey man, how bad can it be if people get well-paying jobs, completely ignorant of the forces that got them the jobs? Surely if someone is poor, they just aren't trying! /s

Capitalism blames people for not succeeding, but fails to consider a fatal weakness: if there is no demand for a given worker, he's considered worthless to society. Therefore he gets no job, cannot go to school without debt, and lives on the botom rung of society until some company decides to throw him a bone with a shit job, shit hours, shit treatment, and shit pay.

Capitalist apologists will bring out the bootstrap argument, or some red herring called 'personal responsibility'. They won't ever admit that it's a zero sum game. For some to profit a lot, they must exploit those 'beneath' them. Equality doesn't exist in capitalism.

Re: Because they're jew thieves!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than being a rag wearing sandni g g er getting gang banged by jews like Muhammed did before he commited suicide. nothing much changes.

Re: The Left

[Reverend Green]

I wish we could give up on this left/right bullshit. The terms are so vague and contradictory as to be useless for political discussion.

Ponder for a moment that V.I. Lenin, leader of a successful Communist revolution and founder of the Soviet Union, wrote a book *against* leftism. https://archive.org/details/Le...

See what I mean? Making left/right arguments just adds confusion to whatever is being discussed.

How about we all just discuss the actual policy issues we find interesting? Instead of saying "fuck you leftists", say "fuck you authoritarian social elitists". Instead of "fuck you rightists", say "fuck you greedy big business fat cats".

But maybe that's too much to hope.

Re: Same...Barry Lynn (The Washington Post) got fi

[Reverend Green]

USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

USSA - United Surveillance States of America

Re: I cared up to

[Reverend Green]

One problem: lawyers, judges, and courts are among the most evil, least trustworthy groups in our society.

Re: It's simple to fix Joogle's wagon... apk

[Reverend Green]

It's just forum pollution. Post an idiotic racist wallotext over and over again, to disrupt a forum discussing something "inconvenient". It's likely this pollution is paid for by Google's PR firm.

Fix Joogle's wagon thus... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Boycott their ads via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy (bandwidth too).

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it folks - as much as we all hate to admit it, Google Sucks. They are all about censorship and trying to control what people say. In political science, this is one of the main characteristics of fascism.

Security & web pros prove you wrong also

[Anonymous Coward]

Malwarebytes hpHosts' hosts/RECOMMENDS me!

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/ "Host file accessing the Internet - particularly browsing the Web - is actually faster... Spybot Search & Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans & other forms of malware"

OReilly hosts security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windows/2004/03/30/hosts.html/ & hosts speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/winxphacks_chap1/index1.html?page=3/

Steve Gibson endorses hosts https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045.htm/

WILDERS' SECURITY w/ inferior clone of mine http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/hosts-block.378901/

APK

P.S.=> China = imitation = flattery http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ see subject

Re: The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most sane comment on Slashdot in years. Everyone wants to treat everything as black/white, left/right, conservative/liberal. In the US at least, that can be blamed on 2 parties coopting the election process to make it seem that parties matter in the US and if course only their parties. And a gullible public believing it.

From a "running the government point if view (e.g.. the constitution), there are no parties in the government per se. E.g. the US is not a parliamentary democracy where number of seats by a given party forms "government". Parties in the US are simply corporate money making machines intended to get "their" candidates elected.

Consider I'm an Atheist libertarian. I am FAR more socially liberal than ANY democrat and more fiscally conservative than 90% of republicans.

Push comes to shove ideas should be debated on their merits, not some artificial left/right dichotomy.