I found this list online of Jews running internet companies. I don’t care that the list comes from an anti-Jewish site, I am only interested in what is true.
I don’t think Jews need to hide Jewish successes. Google, Facebook and the internet are gifts of the Jews, like ethical monotheism.
Let’s imagine all the Jews in the following list of prominent online personalities were Muslims. Would the internet be a different place if Muslims ran it? I think so. What if WASPs ran it? Would it be different? Not sure.
I have a hard time imagining Muslims running the internet. I don’t think of them as a group pioneering technology. Perhaps that is a hateful stereotype?
Google seems to me to have a fierce commitment to free speech.
Here are complaints from Radio Islam about Jewish domination of the internet.
These complaints remind me of Godwin Smith’s essay on The Jewish Question back in 1892: “Mr. Arnold White, Baron Hirsch’s commissioner, says, in a plea for the Russian Jews (“The Truth about the Russian Jew,” Contemporary Review, May 1892), that “almost without exception the press throughout Europe is in Jewish hands, and is largely produced by Jewish brains;” that “international finance is captive to Jewish energy and skill;” that in England the fall of the Barings has left the house of Rothschild alone in its supremacy; and that in every line the Jews are fast becoming our masters. Wind and tide, in a money-loving age, are in favor of the financial race….”
I don’t personally look to anti-Semites for truth but over the past few weeks, I’ve decided to stop using the slur “anti-Semite” and to simply regard different groups as having different interests. Just because somebody hates Jews does not mean he is slippery with the facts.
While I don’t have much trust in Radio Islam as a source of truth, I do trust Steve Sailer.
January 21, 2010, Steve Sailer wrote:
The main Google searchbox on Google.com has a feature where if you start typing a phrase it tries to anticipate what you have in mind and offer the complete phrase in a drop down pick list based on what other users have asked. For example if you type into Google’s searchbox
How do I
Google offers ten suggestions for completing this entry, beginning with these three useful questions:
How do I find my IP address
How do I know if im pregnant
How do I get a passport
Commenter Victoria points out that if you type in, however, Pat Bu, Google offers you the following ten prompts:
Pat bus schedule
Pat Burrell stats
Pat Burrell wife
Pat Buckley Moss
Pat Burns cancer
Who are these people?
Using the power of Google, it’s easy to discover that Pat Burrell is a leftfielder, Pat Buttram was Gene Autry’s sidekick in 1930s singing cowboy movies and later Mr. Haney on Green Acres. Pat Burns is a former hockey coach. Pat Buckley Moss is a painter. Pat Buckley was the wife of William F. Buckley.
Somehow, I don’t think those are the most famous Pat Bu…s on the Internet today.
If you type in Pat Buc, then Google just gives up giving you prompts, which it doesn’t with other letters. For example, Pat But prompts you with a whole bunch of new names even more obscure than the immortal Pat Buttram.
Maybe it’s just a misunderstanding. So, let’s type into Google Patrick Bu. And we get another list of prompts, but none of them include He Who Must Not Be Named.
Finally if you type in Patrick J. you’ll get a list of prompts of people named Patrick J. Something, none of them as famous as Patrick J. Buchanan, winner of the 1996 New Hampshire GOP Presidential primary.
Of course, Google can’t (yet?) delete Pat Buchanan from their main search engine, just from the prompts. If you type Pat Buchanan into Google’s searchbox, you get back:
Results 1 – 20 of about 1,630,000 for pat buchanan. (0.22 seconds)
In contrast, if you type in Pat Buttram:
Results 1 – 20 of about 49,300 for pat buttram. (0.32 seconds)
It’s the sheer pettiness of Google going to the trouble of banning Pat Buchanan from its little prompting feature, one of its least important, that is so amusing and eye-opening.
P.S.: Richard Hoste points out in comments that Yahoo.com’s search bar has the same prompting engine, with Pat Buchanan being the first of the Pat Bu and second, behind Pat Benatar, for Pat B. Another commenter points out the Microsoft’s Bing search bar delivers the same prompts as Yahoo: Buchanan is the #1 Pat Bu and #2 Pat B.
So, somebody at Google is doing this intentionally. To repeat, this one example isn’t at all important — what’s striking is the mindless animus of somebody at Google that would lead to going to all the trouble of doing such a trivial thing.
And because Google is so close to being a monopoly, it’s crucial that the public monitor abuses by Google stemming from Google’s not exactly subtle political biases, such as this silly little thing or the more serious annihilation of Mangan’s blog in November (which was rectified after many complaints).
Ridicule is the best medicine.
From PC World:
Google Maps Misplaces Lincoln Memorial
Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, PC World
Aug 28, 2010 2:38 pm
A curious thing has been happening on Google Maps — the Lincoln Memorial is being misplaced in favor of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial [see screen capture from early today and compare it to the now correct map on Google] which is a good half a mile south of the more famous memorial.
According to the Geographic Travels blog, this “misplacement” has been happening for about two days now. Typing “Lincoln Memorial” into the regular Google search bar brings up a number of listings related to the Lincoln Memorial, yet shows a map of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial.
Is this a Google Maps glitch, or could this have anything to do with the fact that conservative radio and TV host Glenn Beck is holding a controversial “non-political” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday?
Beck’s rally, which is called the “Restoring Honor” rally, is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time today on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
I saw this wrong map for myself several times, as late as about dawn EDT on Saturday.
This is part of a growing scandal of Google abusing its near monopoly power for (currently) petty political purposes. Google maintains plausible deniability by making minor “mistakes” (sending Glenn Beck’s followers to the wrong place, turning Pat Buchanan into a unperson in the Prompts for awhile, and so forth). Misplacing the Lincoln Memorial is, of course, not a mistake, it’s, at best, a prank. I don’t know whether these dirty tricks are caused merely by individuals at Google abusing their authority, or whether Google, normally a most methodical company, is testing what it can get away with politically.
If it’s the former, has anyone at Google ever been punished for these political dirty tricks? I’ve never heard any follow up to the Pat Buchanan unpersonization, no apology, no press release, nobody reprimanded. So, it may well go down in company annals as a successful little experiment in what Google can get away with by picking on the unfashionable. We’ll see if they get away with misplacing the Lincoln Memorial.
Similarly, a lot of my VDARE.com articles tend to come and go from Google intermittently. For example, a few months ago, I needed to look up the long stream of closely reasoned abuse I’ve directed at Bill Gates’ educational philanthropic efforts over the years. Funny, I couldn’t find it through Google. So, I went to Microsoft’s Bing search engine and, bingo, there were all my attacks on Bill Gates, right at the top of Microsoft Bing’s list.
My personal guess is that Google will be able to get away with manipulating its data for political purposes as long as its masks its manipulations as mistakes that can be “fixed” instantly when the heat gets too intense. Google is too powerful and too scary for most media figures to question publicly. My strategy is the opposite: to speak out about Google’s political scandals. We’ll see…
March 31, 2013, Steve Sailer wrote:
The Google Guys aren’t really into Easter, so for today’s Google Doodle, they’re celebrating the birthday of Cesar Chavez by putting up a religious icon depicting somebody or other: That guy in the Philippines who gets himself nailed to a cross every Good Friday? Don Ho resurrected to sing “Tiny Bubbles” one more time? Apparently, Google doesn’t have any photos of Cesar Chavez on file, so they had to go with an artist’s conception of what Chavez must have looked like as He rose on the third day in his raiment white as snow.
Most of the Orwellian theorizing we’ve heard over the last week about the power of the Big Data companies misses the point that they can surreptitiously exert modest degrees of influence in all sorts of nearly subliminal ways.
For example, for several years, as you type in searches to Google, it offers auto-complete prompts of its best guess of what you are searching for. This might seem like a ridiculous trivial way in which to attempt to manipulate the public mind, and yet Google has a history of rigging prompts. For quite some time in 2010, for example, Pat Buchanan’s name would simply not be prompted by Google. Was this an effort to ever so slightly stifle Buchanan’s influence? Or did it just represent a vindictive desire to make Pat Buchanan fans type out all 12 characters?
Nobody outside of Google seems to know. Few seem very interested in asking. After all, journalists reason, Pat Buchanan deserves whatever he gets coming. And Google is good. We know this because their motto is the reassuring “Don’t be evil.” That proves they are on the side of the Good, which is us.
And, deep down, there’s the worry that Google is a lot better at keeping an eye on you than you are on them, so let’s not get into a power struggle with a vastly rich near-monopoly with who knows what capabilities.
Now, there’s a new example of Google rigging prompts. Last September, I published a column in Taki’s Magazine called “Google Gaydar” demonstrating my new quantitative methodology for measuring what Washington Monthly editor Charles Peter dubbed “the Undernews.” Just go to Google.com and type in a celebrity’s name, then see how far down in the prompts it takes for “gay” to show up. If it’s not one of the first ten, add a “g” and see how many prompts it then takes.
For example, Sir John Gielgud scored a 100 on Google Gaydar (i.e., “John Gielgud gay” was the first prompt, suggesting it was the number one search item about the great actor) and Walter Matthau a zero.
This opened up a new method for the social sciences to quantitatively study rumors, hunches, stereotypes, misinformation and the like.
But, since my article’s publication, Google has methodically abolished most of this capability. If you search on the late John Gielgud (1904-2000) now, Google will absolutely not offer the prompt “John Gielgud gay.” Only until you type in “John Gielgud ga” does it return “was John Gielgud gay,” which appears to be a rare search phrase that slipped by Google unanticipated. In contrast, “John Gielgud h” will bring up “John Gielgud homosexual,” but you aren’t supposed to use “homosexual” anymore, so few do.
Now, I can certainly understand the viewpoint that the public’s interest in the sexual orientation of the greatest Hamlet of the interwar stage is vulgar. But Google has hardly made it a policy to combat public vulgarity. And it’s hardly an invasion of the privacy of this high culture figure, now dead for 13 years, whose personal traits are of historical interest.
Google has put a fair amount of effort into their recent campaign to neuter Google Gaydar, as can be seen from the fact that Google Gaydar is not broken for out-of-the-closet gay actors, such as Neil Patrick Harris and Zachary Quinto, both of whom still score 100 on my system. In other words, Google looked up out actors and didn’t turn off Google Gaydar for them, or vice-versa.
Now, Google is a private company that has invested a lot of money into achieving something approaching a monopoly. They have, as far as I know, the legal right to manipulate their offerings as they wish.
I just think that the press should pay more attention to these subtle ways that Google manipulates us. Instead, the more evidence of Google’s power, the more people seem to be afraid of Google’s power, and thus conclude that they best shut up about Google’s power.
For a number of years, I’ve been pointing out the unaccountable power of Google’s search engine employees to marginally screw over individuals they don’t like. One of the weirder examples is Google’s intermittent but long-running petty campaign against the high-brow blogger Dennis Mangan.
If you go to Bing and type in “Dennis Mangan,” the first his is his blog, Mangan’s.
But if you go to Google and type in “Dennis Mangan,” you don’t get his blog on the first page of responses. Ironically, you just get other bloggers wondering why Google is messing with Dennis.
Google has disabled Google Gaydar, but you can still quantify the Undernews by just putting the word “Is” in front of a celebrity’s name and seeing what are the most popular prompts.
Personally, I’ve never felt inclined to state my Google searches in the form of a question, but then I know a lot about the logic of searching. So, these “Is” prompts may bring up a lower stratum of Google users. Let’s hope so.
In honor of Wimbledon, let’s try tennis players:
1. Is Djokovic doping
2. Is Djokovic married
3. Is Djokovic gay
1. Is Serena Williams married
2. Is Serena Williams a Jehovah’s Witness
3. Is Serena or Venus better
4. Is Serena doping
1. Is Nadal gay
2. Is Nadal right handed
3. Is Nadal playing in the 2013 French Ope
4. Is Nadal on steroids
1. Is Federer gay
2. Is Federer injured
Doping or steroids doesn’t come up in the top 10 for the Swiss great, who has already lost at Wimbledon.
1. Is Sharapova still engaged
2. Is Sharapova married
3. Is Sharapova engaged
How about baseball players? What could be more enthralling than rehashing once again last year’s American league MVP race?
1. Is Miguel Cabrera on steroids
1. Is Mike Trout married
2. Is Mike Trout a Christian
3. Is Mike Trout on steroids
1. Is Johnny Depp dead
This “is dead” thing seems to come up a lot with movie stars (Is John Goodman dead is popular, but so is Is James Garner still alive), but not with athletes or Presidents:
1. Is Barack Obama black
2. Is Barack Obama muslim
3. Is Barack Obama the antichrist
4. Is Barack Obama the devil
5. Is Barack Obama a mason
6. Is Barack Obama left handed
7. Is Barack Obama Osama bin Laden
8. Is Barack Obama a good president
9. Is Barack Obama getting impeached
For sheer minimalism, you can type in just “Is ” and find out What the World Most Wants to Know:
1. Is anyone up
2. Is shingles contagious
3. Is today a holiday
April 30, 2013, Steve Sailer wrote:
Last year, I pointed out in Taki’s the unintended existence of what I called Google Gaydar. Go to the home page of Google.com and type in the name of a celebrity, then hit the space bar. Google gives you ten possible auto-complete prompts based on what others have typed. If the celebrity is the subject of gay rumors, one of the first prompts will be the word “gay.” If that doesn’t come up, you can add the letter “g” and see if “gay” comes up.
For example, Bill Murray got a 0 on Google Gaydar, with the word “gay” never being prompted by Google in either situation. With Kevin Spacey, however, “gay” was the first prompt.
It was an interesting tool for gauging, for whatever they are worth, public perceptions and rumors, the Undernews.
But now Google has broken Google Gaydar. The prompt system still works, but “gay” won’t be offered as prompt. You can type in even “Harvey Fierstein g” and still not get “gay” as a prompt. Today, the first g prompt for the out Broadway actor who often performs in drag is “gerbil” — that’s okay with Google, but “gay” is not.
Ironically, aged basketball player Jason Collins’s carefully choreographed coming out party in the media is snagged on this too: Google’s first prompt for “Jason Collins g” is “girlfriend.” “Gay” won’t come up as a prompt for Collins. Google is trying to force him back into the closet!
Bing Gaydar still seems to work, though.
If you pay attention to Google, you’ll notice a lot of oddities like this that come and go. In 2010, I pointed out that Pat Buchanan had been deleted from Google’s prompting system. You could type in “Pat Bu” and be prompted with
Pat bus schedule
Pat Burrell stats
Pat Burrell wife
Pat Buckley Moss
Pat Burns cancer
But not with the name of the devil incarnate Pat Buchanan. (On Bing, at the time, he was the first prompt.)
Now, however, Pat is back in the good graces of Google Prompt and comes up first.
What happened? Who knows? Nobody was all that interested in asking. My impression is that the media is slightly terrified of Google. The search firm has so much power that all we can do is hope they live up their motto “Don’t be evil,” because if they don’t, whaddaya whaddaya?
My guess is that these weird events are not generally part of a Conspiracy that Goes All the Way to the Top with Sergey and Larry sitting around deciding who they are going to mess with today.
Instead, my guess is that on the inside, Google is a big ball of twine, with lots of low-level employees having fiefdoms over chunks of the extremely complicated code. If an individual Google worker gets bored and decides to screw with individuals or websites that he doesn’t like, he can get away with it for awhile, especially if it’s intermittent and thus not always replicable.
For example, I notice that most of the time my posts pop right up in searches, but some fraction of the time, Google forgets about my posts except for my weekly archives. Right now, for example if I type in “Steve Sailer Hart Risley” I get excellent search results to individual posts I’ve done. Other times, however, I only get links to Blog Archive 10/7/2011 – 10/13/2011 or whatever. This can go on for a few hours, then go back to working right.
Is this just accidental or is some clever Googleite screwing around by creating non-replicable problems for objects of his ire? Who knows? And nobody seems that interested in finding out.
February 11, 2010, Steve Sailer wrote:
A few weeks ago, we noticed that Google had rigged their little “prompting” system on the Google home page, where, as you type your search term, it offers up the most popular searches beginning with those letters. Oddly, Pat Buchanan had been relegated to Unperson status by Google, unlike Yahoo’s and Bing’s search engines where Buchanan was the second prompt for “Pat B” after only Pat Benatar.
Obviously, that wasn’t the most crucial issue of our times, but it does say something when a super-rich and powerful near monopolist surreptitiously engages in petty political vendettas.
I concluded, “Ridicule is the best medicine.”
And ridicule seems to have worked. Buchanan is now second on Google among the “Pat B” prompts, well ahead of the immortal Pat Buttram.