THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA.
In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
Saturday, August 15, 2020
HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES TAKE OVER AMERICA
Sen Kamala Harris is a product of Silicon Valley's billionaires and will enforce their agenda in DC.
Eg, she's an author of the S.386 bill that allows the Fortune 500 to hire more white-collar workers from India for jobs needed by America's college grads https://t.co/gKCuD9DH5z
During the 2020 Democrat presidential primary, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was bestowed with the most billionaire donations of the nearly 30 candidates who ran for the nomination.
In the primary, Harris secured more donations from billionaires than any other Democrat running, according to a November 2019 analysis by Forbes. Before dropping out in early December 2019, Harris raked in donations from at least 46 billionaires.
A number of Harris’s donations came from executives and employees of big tech corporations, as Breitbart News reported at the time.
By August 2019, seven Facebook executives and employees had donated $1,000 or more to Harris’s campaign, nearly 20 Google executives and employees had donated more than $1,000, four Twitter executives and employees had donated more than $1,000, and 71 Amazon executives and employees had donated anywhere from $5 to $2,000.
Notably, Harris took donations from Impossible Foods president Dennis Woodside, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and Salesforce chairman Marc Benioff.
Despite a lack of enthusiasm and support among primary voters, Harris’s campaign was propped up by a base of elite coastal donors, with less than 40 percent of her funding coming from small-dollar donors giving $200 or less as of October 2019.
On Tuesday, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden confirmed Harris as his vice presidential pick. In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called Harris a “champion for hardworking families everywhere.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Big tech firms meet with US national security agencies in advance of November elections
14 August 2020
Nine major Silicon Valley technology corporations issued a joint statement coming out of their meeting on Wednesday with US government law enforcement and national security agencies in advance of the presidential elections in November.
The statement said: “For the past several years, we have worked closely to counter information operations across our platforms. In preparation for the upcoming election, we regularly meet to discuss trends with US government agencies tasked with protecting the integrity of the election. We held the latest in a series of meetings with government partners today where we each provided updates on what we’re seeing on our respective platforms and what we expect to see in the coming months. Specifically, we discussed preparations for the upcoming conventions and scenario planning related to election results. We will continue to stay vigilant on these issues and meet regularly ahead of the November elections.”
Joint industry statement on the collaboration of big tech with the US government during the 2020 elections published by Facebook.
The nine firms signing the joint statement are Facebook, Google, Twitter, Reddit, Microsoft, Verizon Media, Pinterest, LinkedIn and Wikimedia Foundation. Each of them issued the joint statement on their Twitter accounts along with a short comment.
In the case of Facebook, for example, the joint statement was issued through the company’s Newsroom Twitter feed and said, “Joint industry statement on ongoing election security collaboration between tech companies and USG agencies tasked with protecting the integrity of the election.”
The New York Times reported the meeting and joint statement with enthusiasm, writing, “The group, which is seeking to prevent the kind of online meddling and foreign interference that sullied the 2016 presidential election,” adding that the group “met on Wednesday with representatives from agencies like the F.B.I., the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security to share insights about disinformation campaigns and emerging deceptive behavior across their services.”
The Times report also said that the meeting included representatives from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. The CISA was created in 2018 by the Trump administration following the near-unanimous bipartisan passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act by Congress.
Although the meeting and joint industry statement were widely reported, attempts by news media to obtain statements from the participating companies and government agencies have produced nothing but silence. The names of the individuals who attended the meeting have not been released. No details about the meeting—the agenda, the topics of discussion, the planning initiatives, the action items—have been published.
The lack of any information about a meeting between the most powerful internet and social media corporations in the world and US domestic and foreign police agencies, that was held ostensibly to “secure the US elections,” was not lost on some in the corporate media.
Shoshana Wodinsky, of Gizmodo, wrote on Thursday morning: “If the American public is expected to make an informed decision—or hell, any decision—about where to put their votes come November, then we need more information and transparency right now, not less and not later. We need some sort of window behind the scenes to know who’s doing what (and how), so we can have any hope of navigating the information hellscape.”
Although Wodinsky accepts uncritically the unsubstantiated assertions of the US political establishment and intelligence state about “Russian election interference”—which have been repeated incessantly by the New York Times since 2016 as established facts—she is raising an important question: Why should the public think that the secret collaboration of big tech with the US government before the 2020 presidential elections will yield anything other than a “meddling” and “misinformation” campaign of their own in the form of online censorship?
Direct collaboration between the top tech companies and the US government began in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections. A meeting was held on May 23, 2018 at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California to “ensure that the midterms were not a repeat of the Russian interference in 2016.” The meeting was attended by representatives from Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oath, Snap and Twitter along with Christopher Krebs—who was at the time the undersecretary of DHS—and officials of the FBI’s “foreign influence” task force.
A second meeting at Facebook headquarters took place on September 4, 2019, that included representatives from Google, Twitter and Microsoft and the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security. This daylong meeting was specifically called to prepare for the 2020 elections.
As the crisis of the pandemic was beginning to spread across the US, the joint industry group held an emergency meeting at the White House on March 11 to “stop misinformation” about the coronavirus. This meeting included representatives of Google, Amazon, Apple, Cisco, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, TechNet and Twitter with US Chief Technology Officer Michael Kratsios.
Following each of these meetings, both government agency and tech company officials refused to respond to any questions or provide details of the discussions. After the session in 2019, Joan Donovan, a research director at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, said the public should also be concerned about the collaboration of government agencies with tech giants for privacy reasons. “We don’t know where the lines are drawn internally,” she said. “We don’t know whether the tech companies would consider your inbox or direct messages subject to sharing with the state.”
The collaboration of big tech with the agencies of the US security state takes many forms. Among the most important of these is the provision of advanced systems for the Pentagon in the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning for the killing machines of modern imperialist warfare.
As the corporate leadership of big tech moves to integrate itself further and deeper with the US state apparatus, the workers within these companies have increasingly opposed this collaboration. Google employees organized a campaign in 2018 that forced the company to discontinue its work on the Pentagon’s Project Maven for artificial intelligence implementation in drone warfare.
In January of this year, Amazon workers defied corporate communications directives and spoke out openly against the company’s collaboration with President Donald Trump and the DHS and ICE assault on immigrants within the US.
Lest anyone in the US government might think that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos held any sympathies for the sentiments of his employees, the world’s richest individual embraced the US Department of Defense in an appearance at a national defense forum in California last December.
Discussing the political movement and organizing among Amazon employees, Bezos said, “One of the things that's happening inside technology companies is there are groups of employees who, for example, think that technology companies should not work with the Department of Defense… I think it’s a really important issue, and people are entitled to their opinions, but it is the job of a senior leadership team to say no.”
Bezos went on, “My view is if big tech is going to turn their backs on the Department of Defense, this country is in trouble. That just can't happen.”
Behind the collaboration of big tech with government agencies in the 2020 elections are concerns that the working class, in the midst of the economic and social crisis triggered by the pandemic, will engage in mass struggles that will erupt independently of the two-party system. There is unanimity within both parties and the campaigns of both the Democrats and President Trump in cooperation with the tech monopolies that everything must be done to block the ideas of socialist internationalism and the program advanced only by the Socialist Equality Party in the elections from intersecting with the growing class struggle.
August 15, 2020
YouTube to end election 'interference' ... by interfering with the free press
Ever heard of destroying something in order to save it? Check out the latest genius move in the name of virtue-signaling from YouTube.
The world's largest video platform, with more than 2 billion users a month, will ban videos containing information that was obtained through hacking and could meddle with elections or censuses. That would include material like hacked campaign emails with details about a candidate. The update follows the announcement of a similar rule that Google, which owns YouTube, unveiled earlier this month banning ads that contain hacked information. Google will start enforcing that policy Sept. 1.
Which is preposterous. If some kind of news from some kind of hack is hot, all that matters is whether it's true or not, not whether it changes public perceptions. YouTube is focused on those 'perceptions' though and has changed its policy to make sure there is no change of perceptions. Status quo, anyone? They're very fond of the status quo. It's a stupid idea because we all know what this is about - the 2016 hacked John Podesta emails and all the interesting news about what Democrats say to each other away from the cameras and public relations spin operations. It was mostly inside baseball, and didn't affect the election, but the Democrats, bitter about Hillary Clinton's election loss, and still not admitting the problem was their bad candidate who refused to go to Wisconsin, continue to say it did.
This YouTube move accommodates their looney logic, which is a partisan political statement right there.
It's also a useless move because hackers are going to hack and if they've got something hot, people will get such news from some place else besides YouTube. QAnon is already an example of people getting news and information away from the traditional filters. YouTube will change nothing with this censorship policy.
What's perhaps most disgusting about this all the problems this kind of move presents for a free press.
1. First, reporters report stuff all the time that's hacked, provided it makes a Republican look bad. Is YouTube saying that only the New York Times (for we know they will never censor the New York Times) can used hacked information, nobody else can? Only the NYT can see the hacks and print only the ones that help Democrats? For YouTube and its favorite media, one hand washes the other.
2. Second, how many times have politicians claimed, in the wake of scandalous news, that their accounts have been hacked? Anthony Weiner pioneered this kind of political claim after news that he was sending photos of his privates to underage girls on Twitter got out and he claimed it was a hack. With this new YouTube policy, any pol who's the subject of any scandalous news now has a license to cover it all up, all for claiming it was a hac. Call this the Democrats' YouTube protection guarantee.
3. Third, there's a fine line between hacks and leaks, the bread and butter of journalists' output. Leaks are just as illegal as hacks, and lots of people have gone to jail for them, same as those caught illegally hacking have. Politicians have always complained about leaks, just as they have always complained about hacks. But among these hacks and leaks, many of which are reasonably jailable offenses, there's also the category of whistleblower, the person who calls out wrongdoing against a vast establishment doing something contrary to the public interest or its mission. The Democrats have managed to corrupt the term with their planned-out impeachment scam, but real whistleblowers exist, and YouTube is there to stomp them out.
The whole thing is badly thought out and clearly the work of some coordination with Democrats. For the professional hacker community, foreign or otherwise, that's a dinner triangle, suggesting that they've now got something to hide.
For Republicans, it's also a dinner triangle - the one that says these budding censors are now ready to be regulated like an edited platform, responsible for every last thing that goes out on their sites. It's time to get cracking on that, and getting loud about it if their Democratic partners persist. It's hard to understand why nothing so far has been done.
Here's the irony of it: It's profoundly anti-democratic. This great move undertaken to 'save' democracy from the machinations of hackers comes at the expense of why we have democracy at all, which is freedom. You don't save democracy by destroying a free press, pals.
Joint industry statement on the collaboration of big tech with the US government during the 2020 elections published by Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment