Revisit some past history and refresh your memory.
(Yes the 2020 Presidential Election Was Stolen- One Of Many Reasons)
https://swisscows.com/en (Swiss Cows Private Search Engine)
https://awiebe.org/ (CEO Of Swisscows Anonymous Seach Engine)
https://awiebe.org/die-grosste-bedrohung-durch-big-tech/
“Ephemeral experiences”: You may never have heard this term, but it’s a very important concept.
These are short experiences you have online, where content appears briefly and then disappears without leaving a trace.
These are the types of experiences we’ve obtained in our election monitoring projects.
You can no longer see the search results Google showed you last month.
They’re not stored anywhere, so they leave no paper trail for authorities to track.
Ephemeral experiences are a powerful tool of manipulation.
Are employees at companies like Google aware of the power they have?
Absolutely… In emails leaked to the Wall Street Journal from Google in 2018 , one employee says to others, “How can we use ephemeral experiences to change people’s views on Trump’s travel ban?” There’s this phrase, “ephemeral experiences.”
In the days leading up to the 2020 election, we discovered that Google was sending “go vote” reminders on its homepage only to liberals.
That’s a powerful ephemeral message, and not a single one went to conservatives. How do we know? Because we recorded the content our 700 “field agents” saw on their computer screens. This was a diverse group of registered voters we had recruited in three key swing states. Google was sending these voting reminders only to liberals. That’s a powerful manipulation that’s completely invisible to people – unless a group like ours found a way to monitor what people see.
A preliminary analysis of the more than 500,000 ephemeral experiences we kept in Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida revealed some troubling things. First, we found a strong liberal bias in the search results people saw on Google when they searched for political issues; this bias was absent on Bing and Yahoo. 92% of searches are conducted through Google, and we know from years of experiments that skewed search results can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters, and these are the people who decide the outcome of close elections. In experiments, we can easily shift 20% or more of undecided voters after just one search by showing them skewed search results.
In a national study we did in 2013, we got an 80% shift in one demographic – moderate Republicans – after just one search, so some people are particularly trusting of search results, and Google knows that. Using such techniques, the company can easily manipulate undecided voters – people who are vulnerable to influence.
Even before people see search results, preset search suggestions – those phrases Google shows you when you type in a search term – can change thinking and behavior. We’ve shown in controlled experiments that preset search suggestions can turn a 50-50 split among undecided voters into a 90-10 split, without anyone having the slightest idea they’ve been manipulated.
People have no idea that such manipulation is being used. They just do what they always do – they type in a search term, click on a search suggestion (sometimes), and then click on a high-ranking search result that takes them to a web page. They trust what is high in the search results, usually clicking on the first or second entry, and trust that this is the best answer to their question.
Unfortunately, people mistakenly believe that computer output must be impartial and objective.
People trust Google above all to give them accurate results. Therefore, when undecided people click on a high-ranking search result and are directed to a web page that supports a candidate, they tend to believe the information presented.
They have no idea that they may have been directed to that web page by highly skewed search results that favor the candidate Google supports.
Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t talk about his accomplishments in his famous 1961 farewell address.
Instead, he warned us about the rise of a “technological elite” that could control public policy without anyone noticing.
He warned us about a future in which democracy would be meaningless.
What I have to tell you is this: The technological elite is in control now.
Big Tech had the ability to shift 15 million votes in 2020 without anyone knowing they were doing it and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to track.
Our calculations suggest that they actually shifted at least six million votes to President Biden without people knowing. This makes the free and fair election – a cornerstone of democracy – an illusion.
I’m not a conservative, so I should be excited about what these companies are doing. But no one should be excited, no matter what you think about politics. No private company should have that kind of power, even if they happen to support your side at the moment.
Do these companies think they’re in charge? Are they planning a future for all of us who only know them? Unfortunately, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the answers to these questions are “yes.” One of the things that leaked from Google in 2018 was an eight-minute video called ” The Selfish Ledger ,” which should be accessible here. I’ve also created a transcript of the film.
This video was never intended to be seen outside of Google, and it’s about the power Google has to reshape humanity , to create computer software that not only tracks our behavior, but also offers direction toward a desired outcome.”
How can we protect ourselves from such companies? It’s harder than you might think. How do you control a mind control machine, after all?
You may have heard the term “regulatory capture” – an old practice where a large company that is about to be punished by the government works with the government to come up with a regulatory plan that suits the company .
For example, when you talk about “breaking up” Google, all that means is that we’re going to force them to sell a few of the hundreds of companies they’ve bought.
On average, Google buys another company every week. We force them to sell a few companies, the major shareholders enrich themselves by billions of dollars, and the company still has the same power and poses the same threats as it does today – threats to democracy, to free speech, and even to human autonomy.
Technology moves at the speed of light, but regulations and laws move slowly.
It’s doubtful that regulations and laws can ever protect us from new technologies. But imagine if these companies knew that we were monitoring them on a massive scale 365 days a year – that we were essentially doing the same thing to them that they were doing to us and our children 24 hours a day.
Imagine if we actually looked over the shoulders of thousands of real people (with their permission), like the Nielsen Company does with its network of families to monitor their TV viewing. Imagine if these tech companies knew they were being monitored – that even the answers they give people to personal assistants like Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri were being monitored. Do you think they would risk sending targeted voting reminders to members of just one political party? I highly doubt it, because we would catch them immediately and report their manipulations to the authorities and the media.
On October 30, 2020 – a few days before the November 3 election – we went public with some of our election monitoring findings and got Google to backtrack. Starting on the 31st, Google started sending these voting reminders to everyone , not just liberals.
Remember, all common election manipulation is inherently competitive: manipulation of votes, mail, and voting machines. But the kind of influence I’ve been discovering and studying since 2013 is not competitive. That’s the difference. In other words, if Google itself wants to favor a cause or a candidate, there’s no way to counteract what they’re doing. In fact, without surveillance systems, you can’t even detect Google’s manipulations, even though they can change the opinions and votes of millions of people. And people have no idea they’re being manipulated, which makes this kind of manipulation particularly dangerous. People conclude that they’ve formed their own opinions, even though they haven’t.
We’ve done controlled experiments with tens of thousands of people in five national elections. We know how powerful these new forms of influence are. We know that people can’t see them. We know that people end up falsely believing that they made up their own minds, when in reality we were the ones who decided which candidate they would support.
What can we do? In my opinion, the solution to almost all of the problems these companies pose is to set up large-scale surveillance systems and make them permanent
Not just in the United States, but around the world. Because surveillance is a technology, it can keep up with whatever the new tech companies throw at us, and however they threaten us, we can make them stop.
I envision a new nonprofit dedicated to monitoring what the tech companies show voters, families, and children – protecting democracy and the autonomy and independence of all citizens. There could also be a for-profit spinoff that could serve as a permanent source of funding for the nonprofit. The for-profit spinoff could offer commercial services to campaigns, law firms, candidates, researchers, and many others.
And there’s another way to completely eliminate the threats Google poses to democracy and humanity. As I noted in an article I published in Bloomberg Businessweek in 2019 and as I testified before Congress this year, our government could quickly end Google’s search monopoly by declaring that the database Google uses to generate search results is a “public commons” accessible to all. That’s a very old legal concept, and it’s a lightweight form of regulation. It would quickly lead to the creation of thousands of competing search platforms, each targeting different audiences.
On November 5, 2020, three U.S. Senators – Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, and Senator Ted Cruz – sent a letter to Google’s CEO outlining some of the findings from a project monitoring the 2020 online election, during which my team and I discovered several things.
We had found – just as in previous elections – a strong liberal bias in Google search results, but not in search results on Bing or Yahoo. That’s important for comparison purposes. It was a liberal bias that was enough to shift at least six million votes over time toward Biden and toward other Democratic candidates.
We also found a clear piece of evidence. Here’s what the senators’ letter focused on. We found that days before the election, the company sent a “vote” reminder on its Google homepage to liberals only. None of them went to conservatives. How do we know?
Because we had recruited 733 field agents in key swing states: Arizona, Florida and North Carolina. The agents were registered voters. They were politically and demographically diverse in other ways. We knew who the liberals were, who the conservatives were and who the moderates were.
With their permission, we had installed special software on their computers that allowed us to watch them as they did politically relevant things on the Internet. We aggregated this data. What we are particularly interested in are the so-called “ephemeral experiences.” This term comes directly from a leak of emails from Google to the Wall Street Journal.
Ephemeral experiences
This is a very important concept.
It’s the way Google and other tech companies shift opinions and votes without people noticing.
We’ve preserved these fleeting events that affect us every day and then usually disappear without leaving a trace.
Usually, these events – like search results, search suggestions, news feeds or messages from Facebook or Google – show up, affect us, disappear and then are lost forever.
You can’t go back in time and see what those events were.
You can’t look back at the search results Google showed you last month.
I’ve been running randomized controlled trials on the effects of ephemeral experiences on behavior, thought, and choice for nearly eight years, so I’ve learned a lot about how they work, and they’re powerful.
Are people at companies like Google aware of the power they have? Absolutely.
In leaked Google emails from 2018, an employee says to others, “How can we use ephemeral experiences to change people’s views on Trump’s travel ban?” There’s this phrase: “ephemeral experiences.”
Why are they interested in using ephemeral experiences to influence people – and not just us, by the way, but people all over the world?
Because such experiences are extremely powerful and because they leave no paper trail for authorities to follow.
They are the perfect weapon to change people’s views or influence the outcome of elections.
We set up our first election monitoring system in 2016. We were able to get 13,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo.
We found significant liberal biases in the Google search results, enough to shift between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton (who I supported) without people knowing it was happening and without leaving a paper trail.
That was quite a feat at the time. We had 95 field agents in 24 states. We preserved 13,000 searches and about 98,000 web pages. Preserving these fleeting events allowed us to analyze them and look for political bias.
By comparison, in this year’s presidential election, we deployed 733 field agents in three key swing states because we knew that if there was any manipulation, we would most likely uncover it in those states.
This time, we have preserved over 500,000 fleeting events – not just from Google, but also from Bing, Yahoo, the Google homepage, YouTube and Facebook. It will take us months to analyze this wealth of data.
An initial analysis of the data we collected revealed worrying results:
- First, we found a strong liberal bias in Google search results, but not in Bing or Yahoo search results. Since 92% of searches are done on Google, that can shift a lot of votes – maybe not yours, but the votes of undecided voters – the people who decide who wins a close election.
- In controlled experiments, we can easily sway 20% or more of undecided voters by using biased search results. We can change their opinions and voting preferences after just one search.
- In one demographic group – moderate Republicans – we found a remarkable shift of 80% after just one search.
People have no idea this is happening. People just do what they always do. They trust what is at the top of the search results, usually clicking on the first or second entry, trusting that this will take them to the best web page.
People mistakenly believe that computer output must be unbiased and objective, and they trust Google in particular to give them accurate results.
So when someone who is undecided clicks on a high-ranking search result and is taken to a web page that makes one candidate look better than the other, the user tends to trust the content.
After all, it was chosen by an “unbiased “computer algorithm.” AI.
With television, newspapers, billboards, advertising, everyone is skeptical of what they see because they see the human hand. Also, with conventional forms of influence, there is competition. You put up your billboard, I’ll put up mine.
The problem with platforms like Google and Facebook and Twitter is that they have no competitors. If Google itself favors a candidate or party, they can’t counteract the influence their tools have on users.
Generally, you can’t even tell what they’re doing unless you’re doing the kind of surveillance I’m doing. They have enormous power, not just here but around the world, to influence thinking, behavior, beliefs, attitudes, purchases – and votes.
I recently gave a speech at Hillsdale College. They asked me to submit a written copy, which I did. My title was ” The Technological Elite Are Now in Control .”
You may be surprised to hear where I got this phrase: “technological elite.” It comes from Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address as president in January 1961, delivered just days before John F. Kennedy’s inauguration.
Some people are old enough to remember this speech because it warned people about the rise of the “military-industrial complex.” In the same speech, Eisenhower also warned about the rise of a “technological elite” that could control public policy without anyone noticing.
That was in 1961, a decade before the invention of the microcomputer, decades before the invention of the Internet, decades before the founding of Google. What an extraordinary speech that was.
The typical farewell speeches of a president usually reflect on the accomplishments of an administration. Sometimes we also hear a few platitudes about how great the American people are and what a great future we have ahead of us.
That’s not what Eisenhower did. Remember, this was a highly decorated general in the US Army who led the Allied forces in World War II. Eisenhower didn’t talk about his accomplishments. He warned us about a future in which democracy would be meaningless.
Here’s what I have to say to you on the subject: The tech elite is in control now.
They had the ability to shift 15 million votes in 2020 without anyone knowing they were doing it and without leaving a paper trail for the authorities – except for my surveillance projects, of course.
Let me say a little bit about that. What we’ve done is extraordinary. We’ve preserved hundreds of thousands of these extremely dangerous ephemeral experiences that Google and other tech companies are now using to specifically influence thinking and behavior.
How do we know it’s intentional?
Well, I already mentioned the emails that were leaked in 2018, and, at this point, we also have several hundred leaked documents, as well as a dozen whistleblowers who keep telling us that Google, Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and other tech companies have a strong political agenda and that they use tools that people aren’t aware of to advance that political agenda.
I’m not a conservative, so I should be excited about what these companies are doing. I have friends and family who are excited and who are also unhappy about my research. But no one should be excited, no matter what their politics are, because no private company should have the power to undermine our democracy.
Today they may be promoting a cause you believe in, but you don’t know what cause they’ll support tomorrow .
If you look around the world, you’ll find that outside of the United States, Google doesn’t necessarily support the left.
Here, 96% of Google’s donations go to Democrats, but in Cuba the company supports the right because the left is in power and the people in power don’t like Google.
In China, Google is working with the Chinese government to help the government monitor and control its population. You don’t know what these companies are going to do – what their agenda is going to be from one day to the next.
Another leak from Google is a PowerPoint presentation titled ” The Good Censor . “
In this presentation, Google explains that it is the censor of the world by default, but that it is a “good” censor because the decisions they make about what we see and don’t see are good decisions.
(For more on this topic, see my article, ” The New Censorship ,” in U.S. News & World Report).
The problem is that these companies are not accountable to us. Our elected officials are, and they come and go. We can vote them out, but Google is not accountable to anyone except maybe its shareholders.
Facebook is not even accountable to its shareholders. Mark Zuckerberg holds the lion’s share of voting shares, so he is accountable to no one.
These are the leaders who now control the most powerful manipulation tools ever invented.
I discovered the first such tool in 2013 – the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME for short).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547273/
Since then, I have discovered a dozen similar new forms of online influence and have studied and quantified them over the years.
For example, manipulating search suggestions – those little phrases that flash up when you type a search term into the search bar – can turn a 50-50 split among undecided voters into a 90-10 split without anyone having the slightest idea they’ve been manipulated. I call this manipulation the Search Suggestion Effect (SSE).
Those answer boxes you see above search results also influence opinions and votes.
Did you know that 50% of Google searches no longer end in a click? Think about what that means. In other words, while someone is typing a search term, Google pops up an answer and many people just accept it. No click. I’ve studied this phenomenon too; I call it the Answer Bot Effect (ABE).
How about the Google Home device or Google Assistant on Android phones? You ask a question, and a computer voice just gives you “the answer.” That also shifts opinions and votes, just like those answer boxes.
But where does that answer come from? Who decided that was the right answer? Who reviewed it? Has it been reviewed by any experts or scholars? No, of course not.
The answers Google gives you serve the needs of the company. They make the company more money, shift political thinking in line with the company’s values, or both.
Maybe you have an Apple iPhone, and Siri gives you answers, so you’re free from Google’s influence, right?
But do you know where Siri gets its answers from? From Google .
Siri is just an extension of Google.
Apple pays Google $6 billion a year to get those answers.
Finally, let me make a few very broad points. We are all aware that under the Trump administration (but not under Obama), several federal agencies went after Google, and to some extent Facebook: the FCC, the FTC, the DOJ, and so on. You may also have heard about our government’s plans to break up Big Tech companies. I work with members of Congress, with people from the DOJ, and with the attorneys general of several states, and I can tell you that everything that is happening here is “regulatory capture.”
This is a very old practice where a large company facing punishment from the government works with the government to come up with a plan that suits the company. That’s what’s happening right now. You might think that these companies are on the verge of being tamed, but that’s not the case.
When you talk about breaking up Google, for example, it just means that the government is going to force them to sell some of the hundreds of companies they have bought over the years. On average, Google buys another company every week.
When they sell companies, the major shareholders will be billions of dollars richer, and the company will still have the same power it does now. It will still pose the same threats it currently poses to democracy, free speech, and even human autonomy.
That’s because you can’t break up the Google search engine itself , and in the case of Facebook, you can’t break up the social media platform itself . For both companies, these centralized platforms give rise to three powers that I believe pose a major threat to democracy and humanity.
The first power is surveillance .
Google is watching us and our children with more than 200 different tools that people are completely unaware of.
If you wear a Fitbit device, the first thing you should do is throw it away. Google recently bought Fitbit and can use it to track physiological data about you and your children 24 hours a day.
If you have a Nest smart thermostat in your house, I suggest you replace it with an old-fashioned one from Home Depot as soon as possible.
About five years ago, Google bought Nest and subsequently built microphones into its smart thermostats without telling anyone.
The latest versions of the thermostats also have cameras built in.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/turning-a-nest-smart-thermostat-into-a-data-stealing-spy-in-15-seconds
Google uses a business model called the “surveillance business model,” which Google invented 20 years ago, and this model has since spread to thousands of other companies.
They get us to use software or gadgets that spy on us, and then they monetize the personal information they collect.
They have no real products. We, the people , are their products. This is the world we will hand down to our children and grandchildren. To me, this is unacceptable.
What can we do? Unfortunately, not only because of regulatory capture, but also for other reasons, I don’t think any legislation or regulation will solve this problem. Legislation and regulation move very slowly, while technology moves at lightning speed.
So what, if anything, can we do? In my opinion, the solution to almost all of the problems these companies pose is to set up surveillance systems of the kind I’ve set up, but on a very large scale and permanently – not just in the United States, but around the world.
? (More surveillance is the answer?) ? (Captain Convey Mini Note)
Surveillance is technology, so it can detect and expose any new manipulations by tech companies, and it can also make them stop doing it.
How do I know? Because on Thursday, October 29, 2020, we got Google to retract a blatant tampering claim. That day, I decided to go public with some of our surveillance findings, and I communicated with a reporter, Ebony Bowden, from the New York Post throughout the day. I sent her lots of details about what we had found. She wrote an article that day about the evidence my team and I had collected that suggested there had been large-scale election tampering in 2020.
Their editor asked Google for comments on the article before it was scheduled to go to print the next day. Even without asking for comments, Google knew all about the upcoming article because the New York Post , like the New York Times and The Guardian and hundreds of other newspapers, not to mention thousands of schools and universities, all share their email with Google. (See my article on this topic in The Daily Caller here .)
Two things happened that night – one bad and one good. The bad thing is that the article was pulled, killed. In other words, I was censored by the conservative, Trump-supporting New York Post , which is crazy. How could this happen? Could someone from Google have reminded those at the Post that 32% of the paper’s traffic comes from Google? Google could shut down the Post in a heartbeat.
The New York Post had taken on Twitter just weeks earlier because Twitter suppressed its negative story about Hunter Biden. The Post could take on Twitter because only 5% of its traffic comes from Twitter, but taking on Google would have been risky.
And a second thing happened that night that is important because it means there is hope for the future. A few minutes before midnight on Thursday, October 29, Google stopped its targeted “Go Vote” manipulation . From that point until the end of Election Day, all 733 of our field workers received these “Go Vote” reminders. The targeting stopped.
Imagine if these companies knew that we were monitoring them on a massive scale, 365 days a year – that we were, in fact, looking over the shoulders of thousands of real people, just like the Nielsen Company does with the Nielsen families. Nielsen monitors television viewing behavior; that’s where the Nielsen ratings come from.
Imagine if these tech companies knew they were being monitored – that even the answers they give to personal assistants were being monitored. Do you think they would risk sending targeted voting reminders to only some political groups and not others? I doubt it, because doing so would risk fines and even jail time.
We must find the resources and the will to create large-scale, permanent surveillance systems. They will protect our children and maybe even our grandchildren from being manipulated by new technologies. They will protect democracy, free speech and human autonomy. That is the vision I want to share with you today.
? I Don’t agree that large scale AI permanent surveillance systems will do anything other than ensure we are permanently enslaved! – (Captain Convey Mini Note) ?
Finally, I want to give you a couple of links. One is MyGoogleResearch.com . If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you will find a link to the letter sent by three US Senators to the CEO of Google, on November 5, 2020.
And if you are interested in how to protect your privacy online, I encourage you to read my article on MyPrivacyTips.com , which begins with, “I have not received a targeted advertisement on my computer or cell phone since 2014.” You can learn how to protect yourself and your family from aggressive new types of surveillance that are in place 24 hours a day. You can learn how to start getting some privacy back into your life.
* * *
The following is a transcript of a briefing Dr. Epstein gave to the Gatestone Institute on November 10, 2020
Question: Did you find anything about the November 3 election?
Dr. Epstein : Yes, definitely. We found a consistent pro-liberal bias in all 10 search positions on the first page of Google search results, enough to shift millions of votes over time – not the votes of people who are highly engaged, but the votes of people who are undecided and trying to form their opinions. Six months before a national election in the United States, that’s about 30 million people.
We also found this bias in every demographic we’ve studied so far, including conservatives. In other words, Google was sending pro-liberal biased search results to conservatives, not just liberals.
You can’t look at the search results with the naked eye and see that this is happening. You have to look at the news sources and websites, which is what we do. Of course, we also found that smoking gun, which is a “Go Vote” reminder sent exclusively to liberals.
It is my expectation that these Senators will subpoena the CEO of Google again, and that I will be present at the same hearing. They will ask this man, “How do you explain Dr. Epstein’s findings?” They are trying to catch him in a blatant lie so that he can be impeached for lying to Congress.
Question: What can private companies do to detect or stop all this? It seems to be a potential national security threat.
Dr. Epstein : I’m not sure about the security threat. Google works closely with our intelligence agencies. Google was founded in part with funding that came from the NSA and the CIA. The thinking at the time was pretty sound. Google was building a very good gateway to information on the Internet.
The thinking of the intelligence community was that this would be a good way for us to find people who want to build bombs, to find people who want to harm our government, and to find people who pose a risk to national security. Google works closely with our intelligence community and with other intelligence communities around the world.
The national security question is a little complicated because of this long-standing collaboration. But there is no question that Google, and to a lesser extent other tech companies, pose a serious threat to democracy. I don’t think we even have a democracy anymore at this point. The warning Eisenhower gave us has come true.
Eisenhower warned us to be vigilant because he believed that a technological elite would emerge that would control public policy without us knowing it. In my opinion, as I mentioned, we are already there. At least in the swing states, looking at how close the vote was, I can go on record as saying that I don’t believe Biden could have won this election without the secret support of the tech community.
Looking at the numbers, I suspect that without this form of interference, President Trump would have won the election by a large margin. (Emphasis added.)
Question: How much of your findings are relevant to election recounts? Are we simply on guard for the future?
Dr. Epstein : In my opinion, the recount effort will come to nothing. As a lawyer told me many years ago, you have to give a judge something to hang his hat on.
Remember, vote, mail, and voting machine manipulation is competitive, while the types of influence I’ve studied are noncompetitive. That’s the difference. In other words, if Google itself wants to favor a cause or candidate, there’s no way to counteract it.
It’s not like TV advertising or mail influence, because that kind of influence is not competitive. That’s why it’s so incredibly dangerous. The fact that people can’t even see the influence makes it even more dangerous. People conclude that they have formed their own opinion when in reality they haven’t. We know this because we’ve conducted experiments with tens of thousands of people who followed five national elections.
We know how powerful these new forms of influence are. We know that people cannot see them. We know that people end up falsely believing that they made up their own minds, when in reality we were the ones who decided which candidate they would support. We decided, not them.
Question: What about the findings that certain algorithms and mechanisms within the actual voting machines can physically transfer a vote from one candidate to another?
Dr. Epstein : I’ve read those reports. In court, you have to prove not only that it’s possible, but that it actually happened. Then you have to show – this is the hard part – that there was consistent manipulation in one direction only. It’s not enough to show what’s possible. It’s not enough to show a few examples of irregularities. You have to show consistent shifting of votes in one direction. But we’re talking about activities that are inherently competitive. In other words, there always have been irregularities on both sides, always, and there always will be.
I saw some clips from Fox News from the 2018 election where some of the hosts on Fox News were making fun of some of the Democratic candidates who lost. At that point, the Democratic candidates were claiming that there was vote rigging in that election and that they only lost because of fraud.
Of course, that went nowhere. So far, the lawsuits that have been filed and that have been heard by the courts have been rejected. Given the numbers we have at this point, that election is over.
Biden came in with 306 electoral votes, which, by the way, was exactly the same as what Trump had in 2016. Biden didn’t even need a few of those swing states. The margins in those states – three of which we monitored – are not small margins.
Some of you remember the Gore v. Bush case, where the Supreme Court decided to stop the recount in Florida. Al Gore was very gracious, even though he won the popular vote by 500,000 votes. There were certainly some questions about irregularities in the vote count in Florida.
Question: Based on what you’re saying, there will be no more Republican victories. There will never be another honest election.
Dr. Epstein : That’s why I asked how do we move forward. That’s the question. How are we going to move forward? What bothers me most about a Biden presidency is that the investigations of the tech companies that began under Trump could be halted.
There is precedent for this, because in January 2013, when Obama began his second term, one of his first acts was to end the anti-trust investigation that the Justice Department was conducting against Google. This was shortly after someone from Google visited the White House.
Obama’s chief technology officer was a former Google executive. So was Hillary Clinton’s chief technology officer, Stephanie Hannon. By the end of Obama’s second term, six federal agencies were headed by former Google executives. 250 people swapped senior positions in his administration for senior positions at Google. There were 450 visits to the White House by Google representatives – about 10 times more than any other company.
I have real concerns about what the future will look like. Tech companies may consolidate their power in the next four to eight years. After that, we may not be able to fight them.
But we can still put in place the surveillance systems that will at least prevent them from rigging our elections. That is my vision: to put in place systems that will protect humanity, democracy and freedom of speech. I believe we can do that with private means, no matter who is in power.
To ensure they do their job properly, the watchdog organizations should be independent of the government. If they are controlled by the government, the ruling party will ensure that there is never another free and fair election.
I am thinking of large-scale, bipartisan monitoring systems that report irregularities as soon as they occur and preserve data that would normally be lost forever.
Question : You mentioned at the beginning that you received an email and a letter from a lawyer in DC telling you that for your own good, you should disappear for a while. Were you intimidated by anyone or anything to stop your work?
Dr. Epstein : I have not been intimidated. I have received these warnings before. They worry me. I had a reporter contact me about my research. He had a lot of questions, of course. Then he called me a few days later. He said he had called Google to get comments on my research. He said he was speaking to, he thought, the head of public relations.
He said, “She yelled at me.” He said, “That’s never happened to me before.” Then he said, “I have two things to say about that. First, you have her attention , and second, if I were you, I would take precautions .”
In 2019, I testified before Congress about my research and about my concerns. I also gave a private briefing to some of the AGs on these issues. Afterward, one of those AGs – I’ll never forget this – came up to me and said very seriously, “Dr. Epstein, I believe that you are going to die in an accident in the next few months.” Then he walked away. A few months later, it wasn’t me who died in an accident, but my wife – the day after Christmas 2019. I still wear my wedding ring.
I have some concerns. I mean, I have five children. I obviously want them to be safe. Google sent a private investigator to my house a few years ago, which caused quite a bit of concern for my wife and the people I worked with at the time.
Question : You talked about how thermostats now have cameras and microphones in them. Big Brother is becoming a reality. Has this not been exposed by Congress or the media, and if not, why not?
Dr. Epstein : First of all, this has gone so far that it’s almost terrifying. The fact is, if you have an Android phone, that phone is listening. If you disconnect from your service provider, the phone is still listening and tracking where you go throughout the day, what books you read on your phone, what music you listen to on your phone, and so on – all your emails, everything – the most sensitive personal emails you send, your phone tracks all of that. The moment you reconnect to the Internet or reconnect to your carrier, it uploads all of that information to Google.
Surveillance has gotten completely out of hand, and you say, “Well, what about Congress?” The problem, you see, is that many members of Congress get money from Google, and the Democrats get votes too.
As you may or may not know, many nonprofits also receive money from Google, including some well-respected conservative organizations. This is probably one of the reasons I found it nearly impossible to fund my 2020 monitoring project.
Google puts a lot of money into the pockets of members of Congress, and Google knows more about members of Congress than they do themselves.
It’s very hard for anyone – certainly any company – to compete against Google. You’re risking the future of your company. I had dinner with some friends from Breitbart the other day. (Many of my friends are conservative now, which is crazy.) They told me that Google has eliminated about 99% of their traffic. How do you fight that?
Members of Congress are largely immobile. There are very few who do what Ted Cruz does, and they take enormous risks when they do. Why doesn’t Congress act? Because Google controls Congress.
Question : The monster is so huge that nothing can be done to challenge or dismantle it?
Dr. Epstein : I wouldn’t say that exactly. For example, the day before I testified before Congress, I published an article in Bloomberg Businessweek explaining how Congress, the DOJ, or the FTC could quickly end Google’s search monopoly. All they have to do is explain that the database Google uses to generate search results is a public commons.
It’s a very old legal concept, and it’s a light-hearted form of regulation. It would result in the creation of thousands of competing search platforms, each targeting different audiences. Search would become just like the news media. It would become highly competitive, just like it used to be before Google became a monopoly, and search would also become much more innovative when that happens. Since Google took control, there has been no innovation in online search.
Congress could make Google’s database public. They could negotiate with Google and say, “This is what you need to do. We need your consent, and if you don’t do this, we’re going to do something much worse.” The EU could also enforce it. That’s a more interesting possibility because the members of the European Parliament, for the most part, are not in Google’s pocket.
Congress could also help us set up surveillance systems, but it’s important that those systems remain free of government control. If those systems are sophisticated enough, and if we can find ways to fund them long-term, I don’t think we need to rely on laws and regulations to protect humanity from new technologies.
Question : How much, please, is possibly budgeted to set up a permanent large-scale surveillance system?
Dr. Epstein : To set it up so that it’s credible and also large enough to keep these companies in check – that’s a $50 million project. $50 million allows us to set up a sophisticated system over 18 months that runs in all 50 states.
I also envision a for-profit spin-off that has access to the data the nonprofit collects. The for-profit company will provide commercial services to campaigns, law firms, candidates, researchers, and all sorts of others. It will also provide financial support to the nonprofit.
With me or without me, dead or alive, I do not see this project as optional. In other words, permanent surveillance systems must be put in place to protect democracy and humanity from the threats posed by new technologies.
The numbers in the experiments are extraordinary. We recently started a new line of research on what we call YME: the YouTube Manipulation Effect. 70% of the videos people now watch on YouTube around the world are suggested by Google’s “up next” algorithm. Think of the power that a sequence of videos has on the mind of someone who is impressionable, who is vulnerable, or who is undecided. Think of how a sequence of videos – selected by Google – can influence young children.
We are currently in the process of studying and rigorously quantifying this effect. By the way, at this point in our 2020 election monitoring, we have captured more than 7,000 YouTube sequences. We did not just track search results this time.
YouTube video sequences are also ephemeral, just like search results and search suggestions, meaning they leave no paper trail. But we’ve found ways to not only preserve them, but also study them.
Question : Can you tell us which search engines you consider safe?
Dr. Epstein: If you go to MyPrivacyTips.com , you’ll see what I use. My article is a little bit out of date, but the search engine I use is called Swisscows.com . It’s a terrible name, but a great search engine, and it doesn’t track you.
I also maintain a special link – PryvateSearch.com – “pryvate” with a Y. This link always leads to the search engine that I consider to be the safest. At the moment it is a link to Swisscows.
There are many tools that don’t track you. They have a different business model, not the deceptive surveillance business model. Companies obviously don’t need to spy on people to make money. Spying on companies is new, and it should be made illegal.
If you’ve been using the Internet for 20 years like I have, Google has the equivalent of about three million pages of information about you. They even have information about your DNA if you’ve ever been stupid enough to send some of your saliva to 23andMe. 23andMe is Google.
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple Computer, has gone on record saying he thinks the surveillance business model is “creepy.” It’s not a legitimate way to do business. It’s inherently deceptive. They think you’re using a search engine. They think you’re using an email service or a spreadsheet. That’s not what it is. These are just surveillance platforms. The function you think serves you is deceiving you. It’s about getting you to give up a large amount of personal data.
Dr. Robert Epstein is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine. He holds a PhD from Harvard University and has published 15 books on artificial intelligence, parenting, and other topics, as well as more than 300 scholarly and popular articles.
Captain Convey Comment
This is a good article from the past that explains how we are manipulated everyday with and without our knowledge.
At the time this article was written AI had not progressed to the point where it is today.
Google AI is still manipulating the population but in a much bigger way.
AI surveillance or AI search engines will only make are demise quicker.
Just be aware that the search results you get on google, swiss cows or any search engine is manipulated.
Swiss Cows is what I use because its a better choice but like google filters results also but not near as much.
Certain terms are not allowed by the algorithms.
AI knows best – remember –
If you rely on AI like you rely on your doctor to tell you the truth about the clot shot deadly covid-19 jab you will be deceived also because your doctors advice is filtered also, by the CDC, and the fact your doc could loose his or her license to practice if they said ANYTHING about the clot shot that would be true and possibly help you avoid your future demise!!!!
Example:
The truth about the deadly covid-19 clot shot “vaccine” bio weapon is hidden as much as possible.
Leaked Documents Confirm Pfizer’s COVID-Vaccine Was a Bio-Weapon.
Last year, Robert Kennedy Jr warned, “There are 138 companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of the Covid vaccine and they are all military companies – The Pentagon and the NSA directed the entire response to the pandemic.”
Fast forward to 2024, Dutch Health Minister Marie Fleur Agema admitted that COVID-19 was indeed a “military operation” orchestrated by NATO.
Fleur Agema said the Dutch pandemic policy in 2021 was “under the direction of National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) and Defense.”
Mass genocide perpetrated by our own Governments is no longer a “conspiracy,” it’s now “fact.”
The news comes after new explosive documents show that Pfizer was well aware of the dangers of its COVID-19 shots but pushed them on the world anyway.
One document shows Pfizer’s “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021”, with numbers referring to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
The document, which contains post-authorization safety data, notes that Pfizer’s safety database records adverse events reported to the manufacturer, health authorities, and other sources.
It contains disturbing chart, specifically highlighting adverse events following vaccination, including disorders of the nervous system, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, skin-related, and cardiac.
Events reported showed more than 2% of cases, including, tachycardia, myalgia, nausea, fatigue, and numerous others.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-11-04-pfizer-knew-serious-adverse-covid-vaccines.html