Jack Dorsey was feeding some BS to people about how innocent he is of any of the things the Donald is intimating. This guy responded and it’s worth looking through – as a techie, in order to tell if he does know what he’s talking about … and as a layman, to be aware [a bit more perhaps] how it all works.
I’d suggest you click the screenshot and click again until it’s readable:
This is the video which appears in part four above:
• Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies has released 950 pages of Google documents that paint a comprehensive picture of how Google is manipulating public opinion and the political landscape
• Changes at Google first became noticeable in 2016, after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. Vorhies later discovered evidence suggesting Google was playing a role in the effort to remove President Trump from office
• Machine Learning Fairness is a Google project that replaces “unfair” search results — even when the “unfairness” is accurately reflecting worldly reality — with more “fair and balanced” search results, thereby artificially altering what people perceive as “reality”
• Google tools such as autofill search recommendations can be used to sway public opinion on political (and other topics), which can have significant political consequences
• Research shows biased search rankings can shift voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, and that people will be completely unaware of having been manipulated
As one who is shadow banned, if I go to drafts, there are all the tweets stretching right back for a couple of years – the ones which actually contained information. They also try the ‘you’ve already sent that’ trick but I’ve found a way around that.
There are some key people who retweet virtually everything I tweet except throwaway lines – two in America and a few over here. When I get zero response, if I check, which I don’t always do, it’s not been sent, it’s in the draft pipeline and then it might appear two weeks later when the relevance is over.
This is partly what he meant above by plausible deniability – just a glitch. Bollox – that is deliberate. And as the man says above, it’s a whole army of little Jack-offs who are doing this.
Why do we remain on Twitter? Because Gab and that other one are like our clubhouse where we all speak to each other but it doesn’t get out. Twitter at least gets out and it’s the closest we’d want to get to the left – see their hogwash and just let it ride. The mechanism can mean exponential views if a tweet is allowed through – we’re talking in the 90 thousands and that’s for a small player. When it is tampered with, that exponential reach disappears and there might be a few dozen reading it.
The censors decide that. It’s a good term, plausible deniability.