As I revealed here several days ago, Google has bowed to Muslim pressure and changed its search results to conceal criticism of Islam and jihad. Search results that Muslim leaders (whose motives Google apparently never questions or investigates) have made sure that sites such as Jihad Watch are buried in search results, with numerous site dissimulating about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat appearing above it.
And now this, which comes as no surprise given the fact that those who are manipulating Google are Muslims, and anti-Semitism is deeply embedded with the Qur’an.
Find out the full extent of what is happening in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).
“Google’s New Hate Speech Algorithm Has a Problem With Jews,” by Liel Leibovitz, The Tablet, July 26, 2017 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Don’t you just hate how vile some people are on the Internet? How easy it’s become to say horrible and hurtful things about other groups and individuals? How this tool that was supposed to spread knowledge, amity, and good cheer is being use to promulgate hate? No need to worry anymore: Google’s on it.
Earlier this year, Silicon Valley’s overlords introduced Perspective API, the latter being nerd-speak for Application Program Interface, or a set of tools for building software. The idea behind it is simple: because it’s impossible for an online publisher to manually monitor all the comments left on its website, Perspective will use advanced machine learning to help moderators track down comments that are likely to be “toxic.” Here’s how the company describes it: “The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation.”
That’s a strange sentiment. How do you measure the perceived impact of a conversation? And how can you tell if a conversation is good or bad? The answers, in Perspective’s case, are simple: machine learning works by giving computers access to vast databases, and letting them figure out the likely patterns. If a machine read all the cookbooks published in the English language in the last 100 years, say, it would be able to tell us interesting things about how we cook, like the peculiar fact that when we serve rice we’re very likely to serve beans as well. What can machines tell us about the way we converse and about what we may find offensive? That, of course, depends on what databases you let the machines learn. In Google’s case, the machines learned the comments sections of The New York Times, the Economist, and the Guardian.
What did the machines learn? Only one way to find out. I asked Perspective to rate the following sentiment: “Jews control the banks and the media.” This old chestnut, Perspective reported, had a 10 percent chance of being perceived as toxic.
Maybe Perspective was just relaxed about sweeping generalizations that have been used to stain entire ethnic and religious groups, I thought. Maybe the nuance of harmful stereotypes was lost on Google’s algorithms. I tried again, this time with another group of people, typing “Many terrorists are radical Islamists.” The comment, Perspective informed me, was 92 percent likely to be seen as toxic.
What about straightforward statements of facts? I reached for the news, which, sadly, has been very grim lately, and wrote: “Three Israelis were murdered last night by a knife-wielding Palestinian terrorist who yelled ‘Allah hu Akbar.’” This, too, was 92 percent likely to be seen as toxic.
You, too, can go online and have your fun, but the results shouldn’t surprise you. The machines learn from what they read, and when what they read are the Guardian and the Times, they’re going to inherit the inherent biases of these publications as well. Like most people who read the Paper of Record, the machine, too, has come to believe that statements about Jews being slaughtered are controversial, that addressing radical Islamism is verboten, and that casual anti-Semitism is utterly forgivable. The very term itself, toxicity, should’ve been enough of a giveaway: the only groups that talk about toxicity—see under: toxic masculinity—are those on the regressive left who creepily apply the metaphors of physical harm to censor speech not celebrate or promote it. No words are toxic, but the idea that we now have an algorithm replicating, amplifying, and automatizing the bigotry of the anti-Jewish left may very well be….
dave says
Jihadwatch is still on the first page when Googling “jihad”. Please either stop misleading people or produce evidence where your page is not appearing on the first couple pages of a search. Don’t sacrifice your credibility to your interest in selling a book.
Ken says
This website is on the second page when I search on my phone. It does still show up on the first page on a desktop search. More than half of searches are done on a mobile device these days.
Regan says
How bout this, Dave, why don’t you please stop misleading people with your lies you little snot mouth. I can hardly use google for my research of the history of islam since last spring. Even http://www.infowars.com material is getting buried.
WorkingClassPost says
@ dave,
You need to test the search using a different computer or clear your buffer/browsing history, otherwise your previous searches influence the result.
I just opened an incognito session and JW’s fb page showed up at the bottom of second page, and JW proper only made an appearance halfway down the 3rd page, below rubbish stuff from sites I’ve never heard of.
This has been mentioned here before, so please don’t jump to conclusions and make such baseless accusations.
t. says
Thanks for this clarification, WCP, which is also a good answer to dave!
RodSerling says
I just searched “jihad” on Google Chrome Incognito. Jihadwatch does not appear until the middle of the second page. That’s obviously not the way it should be.
There will be some variation depending on your location. I’m in southern Ontario, Canada.
But the big difference is seen when you use a search engine other than Google, such as Duck Duck Go. At this moment, enter “jihad” and Jihadwatch appears in 5th place. (If I recall correctly what someone more knowledgeable told me, even the “unbiased” search engines still are affected by Google’s tactics to some extent because it is the largest search engine).
There is no question that Google is manipulating the search results. Robert just posted a few days back an article where a Google rep talks about their actions in reducing anti-Islamic content, and a Muslim propagandist who urged them to do so says they need to go further.
Anyone who thinks that Google wouldn’t do this is not only naive, but is steadfastly ignoring what Google representatives are proudly telling us.
Lydia says
I tried it and it came out on the second page. But there sure was a lot of deception and propaganda first.
Anyone surprised?
You shouldn’t be because this has become the new normal.
Fight against it?
Heck yah!
Andy says
BLM leader thinks new “Planet of the Apes” flick slanders him
What a bunch of “bananas”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tNTptDC0gs
TL says
Good. Google needs more competition, and this development should motivate a little more of it.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
Run verbatim Koran verses and watch the toxicity soar:
Muslims do not take Jews and Christians as your friends – Q 5:51 – 80% perceived to be toxic
Try it on others….
Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 44%
etc
Andy says
The last days of white culture in the western world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID19__lIM2k
Andy says
False Promises, True Failures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa83Uhd2PeQ
billybob says
I guess it should be obvious that Google and Facebook would want to cater to the “mainstream”, which these days unfortunately seems to be the leftist ‘progressive’ viewpoint. Then they along with the media amplify this shift to the left and it becomes a dangerous feedback loop.
Some like to indulge in theories of conspiracies of nefarious purposes but I’ll hazard it’s the endless quest for profit that drives the algorithms rather than the desire to actually influence the world in one direction as opposed to another. Nevertheless, whatever the motivation the resulting suppression of counterbalancing perspectives is alarming.
The environmentalists are fond of speaking of “tipping points”, where the gradual rise in global temperatures triggers some factor feeding into in an exponential rise in global temperatures. So it may well be with this feedback loop fed and amplified by the media, Google and Facebook. The danger is that it may trigger some tipping point that leads to chaos and anarchy, and it seems that is exactly the outcome that some are hoping for.
However, in the case of the environment, there are natural factors that come into play that work to damp out wild oscillations in temperature. As temperatures rise, so does cloud cover from increased evaporation, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth and reducing temperatures. As CO2 levels rise, plant growth increases and consumes the CO2.
So too in the social consciousness there may be factors that work to dampen out wild oscillations in collective perspective. As the prevailing view becomes ever more disconnected from reality, we see the increasing phenomenon of people getting “red pilled” as they wake up and decide they want to get off this train going to destruction. Each new generation tends to rebel against the establishment and strike out in a new direction. When I was young then too we seemed to be at a tipping point.
Based on his observations of the times, the American singer-songwriter Barry McGuire released the hit song “Eve of Destruction” in 1965…
The eastern world, it is explodin’,
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’,
You’re old enough to kill but not for votin’,
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’,
And even the Jordan river has bodies floatin’,
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
Don’t you understand, what I’m trying to say?
And can’t you feel the fears I’m feeling today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no running away,
There’ll be no one to save with the world in a grave,
Take a look around you, boy, it’s bound to scare you, boy,
And you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
As Bob Dylan put it a year earlier in “The Times They Are a-Changin'”…
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’.
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.
Thus began the Counter Cultural in response to the issues of that time, but ironically, eventually led to the mess we are into day. Now it is time again for another revolution in the social consciousness. Today it begins in the form of YouTube bloggers rather than singers and songwriters, many gaining vast audiences such as Paul Joseph Watson – the “Bob Dylan” of our times. Thanks to him along with many others now too numerous to mention, building on the work of the pioneering text bloggers such as Robert Spencer and our own dear Pamela Geller, all hope is not lost. More and more people every day now are taking the red pill, waking up, looking around, and seeing what is happening. The times they are a-changin’.
JF says
Jihadwatch.org still coming up on 1st page google search for me on my phone.
oldblindjohn says
Just went to Google and typed “jihad” and it auto-filled “jihad watch”.
Jihad watch was the 3rd listing on the first page.
Somebody is being less than truthful.