September 2018

Creepy Line Film Poster

‘The Creepy Line’ Documentary Shows Tech Giants Influencing Voters

by Jan Jekielek and Nathan Su

When considering election interference, news of state actors such as Russia and China engaging in “fake news” campaigns on social media has dominated the headlines.

Largely missing from the discussion, until recently, has been the power available to tech giants—specifically Google and Facebook—to influence the behaviors of their users, including voting behavior, in ways that are extremely difficult to track or even perceive.

That’s a power with the potential to subvert democracy, and one that must be kept in check, according to “The Creepy Line,” the latest film by M.A. Taylor and Peter Schweizer, which premiered Sept. 17 in New York and Sept. 19 in Washington. The premiere coincides with President Donald Trump’s recent drafting of an executive order tasking federal agencies with examining online platforms for bias and antitrust issues.

The film gets its title from former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s now-infamous 2010 declaration, shown in the film: “There’s what I call the creepy line, and the Google policy about a lot of these things is to get right up to the creepy line, but not cross it.”

Watch: The Creepy Line Trailer

Watch: The Creepy Line Documentary

He goes on to say, “I would argue that implanting things into your brain is beyond the creepy line … at least for the moment.”

Yet this is exactly what is happening, the filmmakers contend, based in part on research by Dr. Robert Epstein, a Harvard-trained psychologist and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, who is featured in the film.

In 2015, Epstein published a study demonstrating that search results favoring a political candidate can dramatically influence undecided voters to vote for that candidate, and can be done in such a way that the voters are largely unaware they were influenced.

During the 2016 presidential election, he gathered search engine data using a “Nielsen-ratings-type network of confidants,” documenting what results their searches yielded. The resulting study showed a significant pro-Clinton bias in Google search results, which Epstein estimated could have influenced millions of voters in her favor.

In response, Google said it didn’t seek to manipulate political sentiment, or make “ranking tweaks” to search results. But Epstein said he’s not contending Google actively changed its rankings. The point, he told The Epoch Times, is “they have the power.”

“I don’t think they should have the power. … Wherever that statistical bias came from, it shifts opinions, it shifts votes, it changes decisions, it affects beliefs, it affects attitudes,” Epstein said. “Who cares—in a way—where it came from. You can’t allow that to happen, at least not with elections.”

From this comes Taylor’s motivation for making the film. “I believe there’s one day in America where we all get to be equal: billionaires, and businessmen, and baristas, and that’s Election Day,” he told The Epoch Times. “We all get one vote … so that day needs to be protected. At all costs.”

While it doesn’t show any deliberate efforts on Google’s part to bias voting-related search results, a leaked post-2016 election video of a Google meeting recently published by Breitbart includes co-founder Sergey Brin saying he is “deeply offended” by Trump’s election, and reveals that Google staff have strong biases against the administration.

“It’s a question of ‘convince me you’re not doing it if you can,’” psychology professor Jordan Peterson says in the film, in which he explores the ethical considerations around the film’s revelations.

Peterson believes that the onus is on the tech giants to prove themselves to the public and regulators. “There’s no reason for me to believe that you’re not subject to the same dark motivations of power and domination that are characteristic of any system that has the capacity for power and domination,” he says.

So what’s the solution? Schweizer, in the film, says regulation. Epstein, for his part, told The Epoch Times he believes that regulation takes much too long to enact, especially with the elections being mere weeks away. He is working with business partners and academics on three continents to create a monitoring system, involving the network of confidants he developed for 2016. If, while using this system, his team were to find evidence of bias or manipulation, they could report it immediately to all the stakeholders.

“I think it’s just a must. You have to set up these systems,” Epstein said.

The Epoch Times

Political Correct Minds Are Fragile Sharing

 

Politically Correct Minds Are Fragile, Fragmented Minds

Shafkat Sakeebur Rahman

Oh! What a world we live in! Everyone’s obsessed with labeling everyone else. In the 1980s, eminent physicist David Bohm addressed this particular fragmentation of our consciousness in which us, humans, have this natural proclivity to create distinctions among ourselves in terms of race, gender, nation, etc. These kinds of classifications lead to instabilities within political systems resulting in conflict. Recently our prime minister was criticized for mansplaining a woman in the audience during a town hall in Edmonton. On the other side an esteemed professor from the University of Toronto, Dr J B Peterson came under fire for refusing to use legislated gender neutral pronouns under Bill C-16 a bill that has now passed second reading in the House of Commons, which adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of attributes protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

So what’s actually happening?

These days everyone is so afraid of being called “sexist”, “racist”, “anti-Semitic”, “transphobic” or some other label that can end your career, that we are all treading too carefully around issues of diversity, avoiding them altogether if we possibly can. Such is the idea of political correctness (PC) and it has gained quite the traction lately. The term is usually associated with the censorship of policies, actions, and language seen to disadvantage or offend a particular group of people in society, and the development of ways to fix such social injustices.

So what’s the big idea?

Critical Theory and the PC Culture

The present counter-revolution against liberty has several battlegrounds amidst the North American society. The most graphic account of this can be seen on college and university campuses across the country, where the ideology of “political correctness” is suppressing freedom of speech and repressing intellectual controversy and debate. The most essential ingredient to this campaign is the capture of language. It is important to understand the fact that language shapes our reality.

A major contributor to the PC movement is the doctrine put forward by postmodernist academics such as Derrida, Foucault, and Marcuse. Derrida criticized the psychological process of categorization, suggesting that making any divisions is itself an act of motivated exclusion, serving the interests of maintaining power, an idea that got popular in the humanities department of universities. The central tenet of postmodernist philosophy being that there is no single description of reality but infinitely many. This being a valid claim has been misinterpreted and misused to a degree which has blurred the lines of what is true and false. Because there is a tremendous variability in the number of interpretations you can bring to bear on a situation then you can instantly jump to the conclusion that none of those interpretation should be privileged above any others. This makes postmodernism correct in its central claim but incorrect because even if there is a large number of potential interpretation of the world that doesn’t mean that there is an equally large number of viable interpretations of the world.

But long even before Derrida, there was Marxism from which the fundamentals of postmodern philosophy is derived from. Enter critical theory, also known as cultural Marxism, both terms which hold important historical origins.

Right after World War I, intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary concluded that the Marxist class theory didn’t play out because Western values were too religiously bound by Christianity and had more emphasis on the individual over the collective. These values had to be destroyed in order for the communist utopia to be achieved. A spinoff from this philosophy was used by a few intellectuals to create the Frankfurt School which introduced the idea of cultural marxism.

The members of the Frankfurt School Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important, arrived at was to replace class as the locus of struggle with culture. In other words, the traditional Marxist Klassenkampf (class struggle) was to be entirely repackaged with a new set of Marxist values of the Kulturkampf (culture struggle). This whole idea was imported to North America when Hitler came to power  and these intellectuals at the Frankfurt School fled and found themselves a new home in New York City’s Columbia University.

Marxism got rebranded and repackaged as Critical Theory and was propagated as the central theme for the ideology in transforming socialism to liberalism to progressivism. Now, there is no proletariat vs the bourgeoisie only the oppressor vs the oppressed. The progressives we see on the media are built on the ideologies of the same socialists a hundred years ago. Once socialism got a bad rap for central direction and command under what was likely to be a dictatorial political regime, it quickly transformed itself into “progressive liberalism” with a linguistic sleight-of-hand commonly known as “postmodernism”.

The new race collectivists and progressives have learned to use this philosophy as proper etiquette and good manners that acts as a weapon to silence and beat down anyone or anything not consistent with their worldview and political agenda. Anything said or done inconsistent with their ideas and ideology is “hurtful” to some oppressed minority or subgroup in society.

Networks, Beliefs and Antifragility

Our brains are complex systems that are made of neurons which network together and give emergence to conscious experiences. Just as our neurons form networks in order to give us a conscious experience, our T-cells form networks to keep our immune systems working, our organs form networks to keep the body working. All complex systems have this inherent need to form networks with other complex systems to achieve a higher level of organization. Since humans are complex systems they have social networks between themselves that give rise to an organizational structure we call society.

It is of immense importance to understand that our beliefs are an emergent phenomenon of networked perceptual experiences. The perceptual experiences we have communicate within themselves in certain recognizable patterns, what we call beliefs. All complex systems are subject to certain rules and one of them is anti-fragility.

Anti-fragility is a term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, to describe a system that gets stronger when subject to disruptions. Our beliefs are antifragile systems because they grow stronger when faced with examples that counter it. One such example is the belief in God for religious people. When faced with hardships or situations that are difficult, their belief in God increases. The same goes for our immune systems which is anti-fragile as well. When one is given a flu shot, a tiny amount of virus is introduced in the body which causes the body to produce a better defense system against the flu.

In my opinion, the West has a tremendous disgust towards discomfort. That goes for every aspect of life from eating habits to child rearing. Overprotective parents shielding their children from adversity, but also from hardships that help them mature, giving rise to hypersensitive adults as Jonathan Haidt points out in his essay in the Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind”. Doctors prescribe Prozac like candy: One in 10 Americans is on an antidepressant. If one looks at the statistics, Africa, where healthcare is almost next to nothing, people there are more resistant to diseases. But here in North America you will see that excessive germ-sensitivity has given rise to a phenomena in which their own immune system attacks the body resulting in autoimmune diseases.

The same goes for our sociocultural position right now. Certain groups of people have become so hypersensitive because of their upbringing that they have an immediate reaction towards anything that doesn’t match their current state of beliefs. Their beliefs are not prone to anti-fragility. Every now and then it’s okay to eat with a hand that has not been washed properly. We don’t want “safe spaces” in universities but instead we need the humanities departments to be humane enough that they empower people intellectually so that the students can foster in themselves the right kind of anti-fragility required to protect their belief systems from viral thoughts that result in negative ideologies. The need for a generative metalogue on this issue becomes a necessity.

  Source: Graphite Publications

 

 

New All The News Now Newspaper Share Graphic

All the News Now Newspaper

Updated hourly, we bring you the hottest news and analysis for conservatives, populists, the center-right, and patriotic liberals.

Rep. Billy Long

 

GOP Lawmaker Goes Into Auctioneer Mode to Drown Out Protester: WATCH

September 5, 2018

A Republican lawmaker on Wednesday used his talent as an auctioneer to drown out a protester who was interrupting a House hearing with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

Alt-right activist Laura Loomer disrupted the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing by accusing Dorsey of trying to influence the upcoming elections. Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., said he couldn’t understand her, and started conducting a mock auction to silence her.

 

 

 

Long’s approach elicited laughs from the audience.

“Somehow I think our auctioneer-in-residence is going to get tweeted about today,” said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon.

Long was the owner of Billy Long Auctions for decades before joining Congress.

“I yield back,” Long said to laughter when he was done.

Dorsey’s testimony comes as the social media giant tries to tamp down allegations from conservatives who claim they are being discriminated against on the platform. Republicans, including President Trump, have accused Twitter of purposely hiding tweets and accounts of prominent Republicans. Loomer accused Dorsey’s company of trying to turn the 2018 midterm election toward Democrats, to the detriment of Republicans running for their seats this year.

The company has denied it “shadow bans” conservatives.