Today it is once again time to rebuke the propaganda the following article is from
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/anti_vaccine_activists_9_11_deniers_and_google_s_social_search_.single.html
I have made my comments in bold and The hit piece from Morozov is worth a rebuttal or two for numerous reasons, so here goes
“Warning: This Site Contains Conspiracy Theories”
Perhaps Moronzov could have “warning: this article contains adhominem attacks and is likely to offend those that have not been brainwashed” He asks
Does Google have a responsibility to help stop the spread of 9/11 denialism, anti-vaccine activism, and other fringe beliefs?
Why should google or any other search engine provider have a responsibility to stop anything? The purpose of a search engine is to find particular subjects it is not to provide a moral compass and decide whether it likes the content or not. Anyway that’s just the start, check this out
By Evgeny Morozov|Posted Monday, Jan. 23, 2012, at 7:43 AM ET
In its early days, the Web was often imagined as a global clearinghouse—a new type of library, with the sum total of human knowledge always at our fingertips. That much has happened—but with a twist: In addition to borrowing existing items from its vast collections, we, the patrons, could also deposit our own books, pamphlets and other scribbles—with no or little quality control.
In other words ‘the sum total of human knowledge – minus the parts the author of the hit piece would prefer we do not discuss.’ Such insults could be more appropriately directed to both the educational establishments that push the globalists’ doctrine and the lamestream corporate media, which has driven everyday folk into filling the information vacuum created by the omission of so much vital information by such groups.
Such democratization of information-gathering—when accompanied by smart institutional and technological arrangements—has been tremendously useful, giving us Wikipedia and Twitter.
Yes we know all about how Wikipedia has been edited and censored too. Remember back when Max Keiser was told that he couldn’t edit on Wikipedia about Max Keiser because he wasn’t an authority on the subject? You get the point.
But it has also spawned thousands of sites that undermine scientific consensus, overturn well-established facts, and promote conspiracy theories.
Perhaps the reason could be something to do with the overwhelming evidence that emphatically highlights the propaganda, the lies, the unanswered questions, the bogus ‘consensus’ of claimed facts that are hyped up beliefs sold as irrefutable facts.
Meanwhile, the move toward social search may further insulate regular visitors to such sites; discovering even more links found by their equally paranoid friends will hardly enlighten them. Is it time for some kind of a quality control system?
The first adhominem - ‘paranoid’ ah yes, that old chestnut. In these Orwellian times that we live in it is apparently ‘paranoid’ to question according to the author of this blatant hitpiece.
People who deny global warming, oppose the Darwinian account of evolution, refuse to see the causal link between HIV and AIDS, and think that 9/11 was an inside job have put the Internet to great use.
Yes we have put the internet to great use and great effect. No apologies though and by the way Mr Morozov, until wanna be thought police pea brains stop with the adhominem attacks, more and more people are going to systematically dismantle all of the BS rhetoric every single time, thus ensuring the quickening of the crumbling credibility of such attempts by the globalists and their paid parrots which will also give a proportional rise in the credibility of all the people out there that have had to endure the endless crapola delivered as unequivocal facts by people like the writer of the attempted hitpiece. People who question the official lies have to also endure the double whammy of the personal insults as well as fact that 99 times out of 100, the questions asked go unanswered. If I am wrong, Mr Morozov, my email address is stuartedwards001@gmail.com and if you have the cahoonies to debate this matter further please contact me at your convenience.
In case you didn’t get that Mr Morozov, I challenge you to debate the issues raised. The chances of getting a reply are slim to none, but there you go another self appointed expert that doesn’t have what it takes to debate these matters. How sad. [ I will of course retract anything I say here if this globalist mouthpiece wants to prove me wrong.] I don’t see much point in stooping to the depths of returning the insults, and I am as always trying to be objective and not get upset or angry but I have already endured reading his article once and to be honest I am fed up listening to the sort of trash that these globalist slick talkers spout, but to let them get away with it without saying anything would be inexcusable so here I am standing up to the BS and having my say. I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist but Morozov and the like would have no hesitation in labelling me as one. I am a conspiracy factualist buddy, debate me or shut it.
Initially, the Internet helped them find and recruit like-minded individuals and promote events and petitions favorable to their causes. However, as so much of our public life has shifted online, they have branched out into manipulating search engines, editing Wikipedia entries, harassing scientists who oppose whatever pet theory they happen to believe in, and amassing digitized scraps of “evidence” that they proudly present to potential recruits.
The reason that the internet has ‘recruited’ so many like-minded individuals is because lots of people are not stupid and even if they are oblivious, eventually they will be able to see enough evidence that shows the situation for what it is. The manipulation that goes on has been documented here on this site alone, which may be largely bit and pieces of the bigger picture, but theres about 11 gig of information on this site alone that links to probably hundreds of gig of more information on the same subject. To claim that ‘conspiracy theorists’ do all the manipulation is ridiculous, how many examples of data manipulation, of deliberate fraud, cover ups by an ever increasing list of globalist minions and their think tanks that drive the agenda have we gone over here?
A new article in the medical journal Vaccine sheds light on the online practices of one such group—the global anti-vaccination movement, which is a loose coalition of rogue scientists, journalists, parents, and celebrities, who think that vaccines cause disorders like autism—a claim that has been thoroughly discredited by modern science.
‘Thoroughly discredited by modern science’ that is all that this academic can throw in there about ‘debunking’ the vaccine-autism link?
Is that it? No links, no examples of who exactly decided that the vaccine – autism link had done the thorough discreditation? Perhaps it was from an article in a Globalist owned magazine.
While the anti-vaccination movement itself is not new—religious concerns about vaccination date back to the early 18th century—the ease of self-publishing and search afforded by the Internet along with a growing skeptical stance towards scientific expertise—has given the anti-vaccination movement a significant boost. Thus, Jenny McCarthy, an actress who has become the public face of the anti-vaccination movement, boasts that much of her knowledge about the harms of vaccination comes from “the university of Google.” She regularly shares her “knowledge” about vaccination with her nearly half-million Twitter followers. This is the kind of online influence that Nobel Prize-winning scientists can only dream of; Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous working scientist, has only 300,000 Twitter followers.
The Vaccine article contains a number of important insights. First, the anti-vaccination cohort likes to move the goal posts: As scientists debunked the link between autism and mercury (once present in some childhood inoculations but now found mainly in certain flu vaccines), most activists dropped their mercury theory and point instead to aluminum or said that kids received “too many too soon.” “Web 2.0 facilitated the debate of these new theories in public forums before their merits could be examined scientifically; when they were studied, the theories were not supported,” notes the Vaccine article.
Actually, old chum the link between mercury and autism has not been ‘debunked’ although in all likelihood from all of the available evidence once it has been studied can reasonably conclude it is the combined toxicity rather than any one vaccine that causes autism.
There are of course particular vaccines that have caused death and permanent injury, for example Gardasil. They don’t tell you that on the telly do they? As anticipated the author of the attempted hitpiece refers to a quote by a bloke that wrote an article that said ‘the theories were not supported.’ How reassuring.
Second, it isn’t clear whether scientists can “discredit” the movement’s false claims at all: Its members are skeptical of what scientists have to say—not least because they suspect hidden connections between academia and pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the vaccines.
He then shrugs off the Big Pharma Gangsta Cartel influence presumably not having done any research for himself to see who has admitted links to decision makers, lets just have a couple of examples how about US Governor Rick Perry (who I thought had been chosen for the job of next Mr President, until I remembered oh no Soetoro hasn’t finished yet.) Governor Perry who mandated Gardasil shots for all girls whilst having financial ties to the manufacturer. No connections there? How about the number of advisors to the W.H.O during the 2009 swine flu trial run, that had actual financial interests in Big Pharma? Don’t believe me? Google it and see for yourself. Actually no you don’t have to bother I have already checked it out and will summarise some of the members of that ‘illustrious’ group and their advisors whose connections to Big Pharma include the following. {Noting that the W.H.O says that this of course doesn’t necessarily mean conflict of interest}
- Contract work for Sanofi Pasteur, CSL,IFPMA, Novartis and Powdermed relating to vaccines
- Funding from manufacturers of vaccines including Sanofi, Novartis, CSL, Baxter & GSK
- Consultant for Roche, Novartis and GSK
That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a provable fact regarding such a link that the hitpiece man wants you to shrug off like he did. The following is the link to the World Health Organisation that confirms the above facts.
http://www.who.int/ihr/emerg_comm_members_2009/en/index.html
Or from more recently in 2010 here have a look at one of the members of the wise S.A.G.E.s the W.H.O Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, Finnish member Juhani Eskola whose institute was paid 6.3 million Euros by Flu vaccine manufacturer GSK and here’s more on that one: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/07/who-advisor-secretly-pads-pockets-with-big-pharma-money.aspx
The attempted hitpiece goes on:
(This, in itself, is ironic: In 2006 the British investigative reporter Brian Deer revealed that Andrew Wakefield, the British scientist who famously “showed” the connection between vaccination and autism in a now-retracted 1998 article in the Lancet, was himself handsomely compensated by trial lawyers who were readying to sue the vaccine manufacturers.)
Oh really? Well actually Dr Wakefield is hitting back at Brian Deer and the BMJ http://www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html
‘In other words, mere exposure to the current state of the scientific consensus will not sway hard-core opponents of vaccination. ‘
Well lets see when you have seen an actual person that has been injured by vaccines its probably quite difficult for anyone to be swayed and of course looking deeper into it will give some further insight and cause for concern; I remember once working for an organisation that sent out an email to all employees to proclaim the benefits of getting the flu shot which I found to be yet another fine example of how easily this scam rolls on; the author of the email obviously hadn’t bothered to check what was actually in that flu shot, and I knew that he hadn’t since I contacted that organisation that had been paid to come into the workplace and give all the sheep their shot, but the provider advised that they hadn’t yet decided and so when I asked for the list of ingredients they sent me a list of six possible variants. The one that they ended up using contained ingredients including polysorbate 80 and formaldehyde a known carcinogen. I didn’t make that up it was listed in the ingredients. At least the uptake levels were low but you can call me a hard core opponent of vaccination if you like but the so called ‘consensus’ is nothing more solid than the BS hype they gave to ‘prove’ that ‘scientists agree’ regarding AGW as well.
‘They are too vested in upholding their contrarian theories; some have consulting and speaking gigs to lose while others simply enjoy a sense of belonging to a community, no matter how kooky.’
Too vested? What a joke. It is not contrarian to the truth, these ‘contrarian theories’are contrary to the deceitful propaganda and outright lies that are sold as unquestionable fact by the corporate media and all the globalist funded puppets.
He goes on.
‘Thus, attempts to influence communities that embrace pseudoscience or conspiracy theories by having independent experts or, worse, government workers join them—‘
We know all about pseudoscience, the IPCC have a good track record in that department.
Well Mr. propaganda pusher, since you consider it ‘worse’ that Government workers join them, I am happy to report that I have worked for half a dozen Government organisations and if that is worse from the globalist point of view then that’s a good thing for you and me.
‘the much-debated antidote of “cognitive infiltration” proposed by Cass Sunstein (who now heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the White House)—won’t work. Besides, as the Vaccine study shows, blogs and forums associated with the anti-vaccination movement are aggressive censors, swiftly deleting any comments that tout the benefits of vaccination.’
Cass Sunstein? Well since you mentioned him a reminder here http://www.infowars.com/dr-cass-sunstein-wants-to-turn-off-the-lights/
Furthermore, to claim that the average ‘conspiracy theorist’ aggressively censors is another reversal of what typically happens when any attempts are made to openly discuss any of the issues mentioned in the hitpiece. Try calling your local radio or newspaper and see how far you get.
‘What to do then? Well, perhaps, it’s time to accept that many of these communities aren’t going to lose core members regardless of how much science or evidence is poured on them. Instead, resources should go into thwarting their growth by targeting their potential—rather than existent—members.’
Did I read that last bit correctly? Is he suggesting that money – if so who will fund that ? – be spent on ensuring that people who might otherwise wake up get diverted via a deliberate campaign to keep them diverted from looking and considering any of the big questions that the globalists and their minions would rather not be asked. In other words this is a proposal for more of the same from the propaganda machine.
Today, anyone who searches for “is global warming real” or “risks of vaccination” or “who caused 9/11?” on Google or Bing is just a few clicks away from joining one of such communities. Given that censorship of search engines is not an appealing or even particularly viable option, what can be done to ensure that users are made aware that all the pseudoscientific advice they are likely to encounter may not be backed by science?
Yes what indeed can be done to ensure that users are made aware of the pseudoscience that they are likely to be fed by the hugely funded groups that have been set up to appear as decent and honourable, purely scientific outlets that tell massive lies in order to get the public playing along with their agenda. What can we do about that?
The options aren’t many. One is to train our browsers to flag information that may be suspicious or disputed. Thus, every time a claim like “vaccination leads to autism” appears in our browser, that sentence would be marked in red—perhaps, also accompanied by a pop-up window advising us to check a more authoritative source. The trick here is to come up with a database of disputed claims that itself would correspond to the latest consensus in modern science—a challenging goal that projects like “Dispute Finder” are tackling head on.
Perhaps we agree here that the options are not many. One way is to provide information for others to check out for themselves without being labelled as ‘nonsense’ or ‘paranoid’ because it doesn’t fit within the propaganda being pushed by club oligarchy. Oh and by the way,
“Dispute finder” ended two years ago http://ennals.org/rob/disputefinder.html
‘The second—and not necessarily mutually exclusive—option is to nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries? Thus, whenever users are presented with search results that are likely to send them to sites run by pseudoscientists or conspiracy theorists, Google may simply display a huge red banner asking users to exercise caution and check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds.’
Ah so now Morozov wants to have discrimination against any sites that they don’t like. If you take this site here, a lot of it does link to real scientists and real doctors amongst other things, and as I have said before even if I am wrong about 90 percent of what is here, I am happy to stand corrected and if that were the case the remaining 10 percent would still be enough to warrant further investigation. If I have interpreted the suggested solution above correctly the above is one step away from thought crime.
In more than a dozen countries Google already does something similar for users who are searching for terms like “ways to die” or “suicidal thoughts” by placing a prominent red note urging them to call the National Suicide Prevention Hotline. It may seem paternalistic, but this is the kind of nonintrusive paternalism that might be saving lives without interfering with the search results. Of course, such a move might trigger conspiracy theories of its own—e.g. is Google shilling for Big Pharma or for Al Gore?—but this is a risk worth taking as long as it can help thwart the growth of fringe movements.
Big brother, loving and caring, as always planning new and ever more ways of keeping the truth from you, whilst systematically and simultaneously eliminating freedoms and increasing the power of their control grid; As per usual under the guises of ‘keeping you safe’. Oh and don’t forget not to throw in a ‘fringe movement’ because, well the lunatic fringe, that’s a step away from ‘al-ciaduh’, bwoi.
Unfortunately, Google’s recent embrace of social search, whereby links shared by our friends on Google’s own social network suddenly gain prominence in our search results, moves the company in the opposite direction. It’s not unreasonable to think that denialists of global warming or benefits of vaccination are online friends with other denialists. As such, finding information that contradicts one’s views would be even harder. This is one more reason for Google to atone for its sins and ensure that subjects dominated by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are given a socially responsible curated treatment.
Yes the truth movement is strengthening as I mentioned recently as specialists in one field share what they know it helps others to put the pieces together and to all of you out there doing that good on ya! Keep up the great work. Don’t let attempted hitpieces like the one shown here get to you – but let them know that you are not going to sit back and listen to this kind of drivel without having something to say about it as I am doing here. The more people who do the better it will be for all of us because we have to teach these adhominem-ers that if they want to attack or insult us, that we will defend ourselves and the truth will prevail much more rapidly because of the combined effort made.
This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog and the Future Tense home page. You can also follow us on Twitter
The above was found on a website funded by the Washington Post, the same globalist outfit that has had contributing writers that have included such lowlights as refusal to provide open balanced reporting or asking any difficult questions about the attacks on the World Trade Center and constantly banging the war drum for the globalists. A couple more examples :
So to finish off the site also details that ‘Evgeny Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University, a fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing editor/blogger at Foreign Policy. ‘
Another Globalist mouthpiece that I have called out and I await a response…
over…. I also thought it worth sharing this from
http://www.infowars.com/soros-mouthpiece-calls-on-google-to-police-conspiracy-theories/
