Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

8 reasons for Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s dispute

It isn’t about ideology, it’s about commercial matters which underpin a long history.

George Oprisko

Published

on

941 Views

 

The peoples of Asia, in particular those of the Persian Gulf, carry within them, cultural norms, and identities that span millenia.  Persia and China have dominated the scene, with footnotes from Portugal and Britain.  Persia’s influence began with Elam in the bronze age at ~ 2700 BCE, succeeded by the Assyrians 900-700 BCE, the Medes 700-500 BCE, the Achaemenids which extended control to the south coast of the Persian Gulf by 490 BCE, and from what is now Tunisia to Xingjang Province in the PRC, southward from today’s Kzahstan to the sea, the kingdom of Alexander conquered this space, and extended their control to what is now Pakistan between 324-200 BCE.

However, it was the Parthians who incorporated the littoral territories of the southern coast of the Persian Gulf into their domain between 200-100 BCE. The Sassanides added what is now Yemen, Oman, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbijan, consolidating their control between  226-650 AD.

The arrival of Muhammad 570-632 AD, brought new energies to the peoples of the Arabian Peninsula, giving rise to Islam.   Wars of conquest, beginning about 610 AD,  built the Arabian Empire, which morphed into the Caliphate , eventually encompassing all territories from the Iberian Peninsula to China, including the north coast of africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, Mesopotamia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan  by 725 AD.

By 1000AD the Caliphate fractured, with the Buwayhid state controlling the territory of what became Persia, founding the Seljuq empire by 1194 AD.  The Seljuqs were succeeded by the Timurids in 1405 AD. The arrival of Ismail in 1501 ended their reign.  Ismail and his successors converted their domain from Sunni to Shia, establishing the Safavid empire, in the process laying the foundations of modern Persia by 1726 AD, including competition with the Uzbeks and Ottomans.  This period saw a profound change in trading patterns, with the Portugese conquering Hormuz by 1507, demanding tribute, and establishing a fortified trading station there.  The Portuguese were followed by european firms such as the British East India Company which established a residency in 1763 at Busher on the Persian Coast.

The Safavids were followed by the Qajars between 1794 and 1905.  Seeking to modernize their domain, they gave territorial and business concessions to various european powers. The arrival of the French in 1807 galvanized the English into ratifying a treaty with Persia in 1809, which was the foundation of Anglo-Persian relations until the arrival of Khomeni, despite Persian attempts at independence during the constitutional periods of 1905-1925 and Mossadegh in 1953.

Prior to the arrival of the  Portuguese, the trade route from Calicut in India to Tyre in Lebanon was dominated by the Chinese  beginning with the Yuan Dynasty in 1271 and expanded by the Ming dynasty after they came to power in 1368.  In 1273 Kublai Khan created the world’s first bank notes (paper money), giving rise to letters of credit and other international banking arrangements facilitating trade.  Under Chinese tutelage, Hormuz became a major trading center for goods bound westward via the Persian Gulf-Euphrates River- Syrian Desert route to Tyre on the Mediterranean Sea.  Hormuz remained the gateway to this route until the Portuguese were replaced by the Safavids who shifted the station to Bandar Abbas.   Zhung He in particular led 7 expeditions to the region for the purpose of solidifying Chinese hegemony between 1405-1433.

The Chinese concept of tribute, however, differed markedly from that practiced by the european powers.   To the Chinese, tribute signified respect, not subservience, and the Chinese reciprocated via offering their silks, teas, jade, ceramics, and technologies in exhange for goods sourced from the tributary state.  The Chinese did not interfere in the domestic affairs of tributary states, preferring to gain influence through marriage between tributary elites and concubines sent to them for that purpose.   Following completion of the grand canal and the death of Emperor Zhu Di, his successor, Zhu Zhanji, the Zhengtong Emperor commissioned a seventh and final voyage.  Confucian scholars convinced  Zhu Zhanji to scrap the navy, and to abandon international trade, just prior to the arrival of the Portuguese at Macau in 1557.  Absence of the Chinese Navy on the trade routes left them open to usurpation by the European powers, led by Portugal, followed soon thereafter by the Spanish and Dutch, with the English arriving by the late 1700s.

This situation prevailed in China until president Nixon opened china 5 centuries later in 1972, giving rise to Deng Xiaopeng,  Hu Jintao, and the One Belt One Road initiative.  In the process, China has opened itself to the world, modernized and expanded it’s economy, and become a trading center around which states array themselves.

Russia’s influence on the nations bordering the Persian Gulf began in the 19th century when a resurgent Russia found itself in conflict with Persia for lands and resources abutting the Caspian Sea.  Russia took Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbijan from Persian influence and control, together with Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.  Russia competed with Britain for control of the mineral resources of Persia/Iran, going so far as to divide control of Persia with Britain during WWII.  This generated the great animosities held by the Pahlavi dynasty, Khomeini, and his successsors.  The Soviet Union added further fuel to this fire via alliances with Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya, most of whom disliked Iran.  Iraq relied primarily on Soviet weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, while Iran had to make do with whatever american weapons remained after the Shah was deposed.

Collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by experimentation with neo-classical macro-economic ideas promulgated by american schooled economists, primarily from Harvard and Yale.  These proved a disaster.  When Putin came to  power, Russia’s economy had shrunk to 40% of it Soviet Maximum, middle aged male suicide was at epidemic proportions, much of the populace was starving, critical infrastructure was crumbling, and NATO came closer and closer each year.  The arrival of Hu Jintao as premier of the PRC in 2002 gave rise to a personal friendship between Hu and Putin which led to profound changes in Russian macro-economics, and in the way Russia interacts with neighboring states.  Always a non-agressor state preferring diplomacy, Putin’s engagement with Hu leavened these policies with ancient Chinese policies toward tributary states.

Where the Soviet Union always sought advantage over dependent states, we now see Russia forming symbiotic relationships to mutual advantage.  This was evinced by Russia and China jointly creating the SCO.  From humble beginnings, the SCO has grown to encompass China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, India,  and Kyrgyzstan.  Mongolia and Iran are observers, with Iran slated to join next year.  Furthermore Russia and China guided the nuclear 5+1 agreement which normalized Iran’s relationship with the UN and ended UN sanctions against her.  We now see Russia forming a deep pragmatic relationship with Iran, to the point they are allies in the Proxy war between the US-Israeli-Qatari-Saudi alliance and Syria.

Chinese influence runs deep in Asia.  Originating with Ghengis Khan, spread throughout the mongol empire, the Chinese way of win-win tributary relationships, has spread from the Baltic to the Bering, from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean, and across the Atlantic to the Caribbean.   Diametrically different from the winner take all policies of the European powers and their successors, Chinese pragmatism, confounds Anglo-Zionist observers.  The Chinese are back.  Their navy is conducting exercises in the Straits of Hormuz now.  Their goods can be found in every nation on earth.  Their nationals ditto.  It is the Chinese who found a way to implement the Iran-Pakistan freedom pipeline regardless of stringent US objections.  It is they who built a gas pipeline from Gwadar Port to western china across the hindu-kush, ostensibly for LNG, routing it within 20 miles of the Iranian border where the iranian portion terminates, thence completing the missing link surreptitiously, bringing Iranian gas to market after nearly 30 years of US obstructionism.

It is probably the Chinese who suggested Iran offer Qatar access to Asian markets and the EU via Iranian pipelines after clearing it with Gazprom.  It is probably the Chinese who suggested offering some of this gas to Turkey to power it’s economy.  No less an observer than Pepe Escobar hints at this in his latest report.

 8 Key POINTS:

  1. The south coast Gulf Littoral states were part of Persia for centuries, were converted to Shia Islam by the Safavids in the 16th century, and their peoples have great cultural affinity towards Iran.
  2. Bahrain in particular was taken from Iran at the initiative of the Shah via UN resolution in
    1970, via a UN mission which was supposed to grant them independence. Following this the Al Khalifa clan assumed the throne, with Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa the current monarch.
  3. Oman in particular has had a long friendly relationship with Iran.
  4. The UAE has a grudge against Iran because the Shah took Abu Musa, and the Greater and Lesser Tumbs from her, together with vast petroleum deposits once held by Armand Hammer in what previously was the Sultanate of Sharjah
  5. For the past 6 years Qatar has been allied with KSA in their battle to market their petroleum products to the EU, via dis-memberment of Syria. It is now apparent that Syria will not be dismembered.
  6. For quite some time, Russia, Iran, and China have engaged in diplomacy with all the GCC states, the specifics of which are not known.
  7. Recently, information has leaked regarding a pipeline deal offered by Iran to Qatar,
    permitting Qatar to market it’s gas to Pakistan/India and to the EU via Iranian pipelines.
    Such an arrangement, should it exist, would leave KSA and the UAE out in the cold.
    Most likely Turkey has been offered some of this gas to run it’s economy.
  8. Though Whabbist, Qatar does not mandate the chador, and is actually quite modernist.

SUMMARY:

The row between Qatar and KSA/GCC is most likely due to capitulation by Qatar in their contest with Iran/Iraq/Syria for a route to market their petroleum products.

Capitulation to Iran’s offer of transit via Iranian pipelines to both asia and europe.

The offer to market to the EU has the blessing of Gazprom/Russia.

This offer is a pragmatic means to divide the forces funding ISIS and the other terrorist groups.

If this is indeed the case, we should see disarray among the various terrorist groups with those sponsored by KSA fighting the others, and the groups formerly sponsored by Qatar suddenly left in the lurch.

The consequence of this should be a much weakened proxy force for the R+6 to deal with.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Final Steps in Syria’s Successful Struggle for Peace and Sovereignty

The war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The situation in Syria evolves daily and sees two situations very closely linked to each other, with the US withdrawal from Syria and the consequent expansionist ambitions of Erdogan in Syria and the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takeover in Idlib that frees the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russian aviation to liberate the de-escalation zone.

Trump has promised to destroy Turkey economically if he attacks the Kurds, reinforcing his claim that Erdogan will not target the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) once the US withdraws from the area. One of the strongest accusations made against Trump’s withdrawal by his opponents is that no Middle Eastern force will ever trust the US again if they abandon the SDF to its fate, that is, to its annihilation at the hands of the Turkish army and its FSA proxies. This, however, is not possible; not so much because of Trump’s economic threats, but because of Damascus and Moscow being strongly opposed to any Turkish military action in the northeast of Syria.

This is a red line drawn by Putin and Assad, and the Turkish president likely understands the consequences of any wrong moves. It is no coincidence that he stated several times that he had no problems with the “Syrians or Syrian-Kurdish brothers”, and repeated that if the area under the SDF were to come under the control of Damascus, Turkey would have no need to intervene in Syria. Trump’s request that Ankara have a buffer zone of 20 kilometers separating the Kurdish and Turkish forces seems to complement the desire of Damascus and Moscow to avoid a clash between the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the SDF.

The only party that seems to be secretly encouraging a clash between the SDF and Turkish forces is Israel, criticizing Ankara and singing the praises of the SDF, in order to try and accentuate the tensions between the two sides, though naturally without success. Israel’s continued raids in Syria, though almost constantly failing due to Syrian air defense, and the divide-and-rule policy used against Turkey and the SDF, show that Tel Aviv is now weakened and mostly irrelevant in the Syrian conflict.

In Idlib, the situation seems to be becoming less complicated and difficult to decipher. Russia, Iran and Syria had asked Erdogan to take control of the province through its “moderate jihadists”, sit down at the negotiating table, and resolve the matter through a diplomatic solution. Exactly the opposite happened. The HTS (formerly al-Nusra/al-Qaeda in Syria) has in recent weeks conquered practically the whole province of Idlib, with numerous forces linked to Turkey (Ahrar al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki) dissolving and merging into HTS. This development puts even more pressure on Erdogan, who is likely to see his influence in Idlib fade away permanently. Moreover, this evolution represents a unique opportunity for Damascus and Moscow to start operations in Idlib with the genuine justification of combating terrorism. It is a repeat of what happened in other de-escalation areas. Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly requested the moderates be separated from the terrorists, so as to approach the situation with a diplomatic negotiation.

In the absence of an effective division of combatants, all are considered terrorists, with the military option replacing the diplomatic. This remains the only feasible option to free the area from terrorists who are not willing to give back territory to the legitimate government in Damascus and are keeping civilians hostages. The Idlib province seems to have experienced the same playbook applied in other de-escalation zones, this time with a clear contrast between Turkey and Saudi Arabia that shows how the struggle between the two countries is much deeper than it appears. The reasons behind the Khashoggi case and the diplomatic confrontation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia were laid bare in the actions of the HTS in Idlib, which has taken control of all the areas previously held by Ankara’s proxies.

It remains to be seen whether Moscow and Damascus would like to encourage Erdogan to recover Idlib through its proxies, trying to encourage jihadists to fight each other as much as possible in order to lighten the task of the SAA, or whether they would prefer to press the advantage themselves and attack while the terrorist front is experiencing internal confusion.

In terms of occupied territory and accounts to be settled, two areas of great importance for the future of Syria remain unresolved, namely al-Tanf, occupied by US forces on the Syrian-Jordanian border, and the area in the north of Syria occupied by Turkish forces and their FSA proxies. It is too early to approach a solution militarily, it being easier for Damascus and Moscow to complete the work to free Syria from the remaining terrorists. Once this has been done, the presence of US or Turkish forces in Syria, whether directly or indirectly, would become all the more difficult to justify. Driving away the US and, above all, Turkey from Syrian territory will be the natural next step in the Syrian conflict.

This is an unequivocal sign that the war of aggression against Syria is winding up, and this can be observed by the opening of a series of new embassies in Damascus. Several countries — including Italy in the near future — will reopen their embassies in Syria to demonstrate that the war, even if not completely over, is effectively won by Damascus and her allies.

For this reason, several countries that were previously opposed to Damascus, like the United Arab Emirates, are understood to have some kind of contact with the government of Damascus. If they intend to become involved in the reconstruction process and any future investment, they will quite naturally need to re-establish diplomatic relations with Damascus. The Arab League is also looking to welcome Syria back into the fold.

Such are signs that Syria is returning to normality, without forgetting which and how many countries have conspired and acted directly against the Syrians for over seven years. An invitation to the Arab League or some embassy being reopened will not be enough to compensate for the damage done over years, but Assad does not preclude any option, and is in the meantime demonstrating to the Israelis, Saudis and the US Deep State that their war has failed and that even their most loyal allies are resuming diplomatic relations with Damascus, a double whammy against the neocons, Wahhabis and Zionists.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Abortion, Maxine Waters, David Hogg

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Breitbart


In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”

The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.

In the leaked discussion thread, a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source.

“We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”

Others were more concerned about the presence of the blacklist. According to the source, the software engineer who started the discussion called the manipulation of search results related to abortion a “smoking gun.”

The software engineer noted that the change had occurred following an inquiry from a left-wing Slate journalist about the prominence of pro-life videos on YouTube, and that pro-life videos were replaced with pro-abortion videos in the top ten results for the search terms following Google’s manual intervention.

“The Slate writer said she had complained last Friday and then saw different search results before YouTube responded to her on Monday,” wrote the employee. “And lo and behold, the [changelog] was submitted on Friday, December 14 at 3:17 PM.”

The manually downranked items included several videos from Dr. Antony Levatino, a former abortion doctor who is now a pro-life activist. Another video in the top ten featured a woman’s personal story of being pressured to have an abortion, while another featured pro-life conservative Ben Shapiro. The Slate journalist who complained to Google reported that these videos previously featured in the top ten, describing them in her story as “dangerous misinformation.”

Since the Slate journalist’s inquiry and Google’s subsequent intervention, the top search results now feature pro-abortion content from left-wing sources like BuzzFeed, Vice, CNN, and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. In her report, the Slate journalist acknowledged that the search results changed shortly after she contacted Google.

The manual adjustment of search results by a Google-owned platform contradicts a key claim made under oath by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in his congressional testimony earlier this month: that his company does not “manually intervene on any search result.”

A Google employee in the discussion thread drew attention to Pichai’s claim, noting that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”

One of the posts in the discussion also noted that the blacklist had previously been edited to include the search term “Maxine Waters” after a single Google employee complained the top YouTube search result for Maxine Waters was “very low quality.”

Google’s alleged intervention on behalf of a Democratic congresswoman would be further evidence of the tech giant using its resources to prop up the left. Breitbart News previously reported on leaked emails revealing the company targeted pro-Democrat demographics in its get-out-the-vote efforts in 2016.

According to the source, a software engineer in the thread also noted that “a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland” had been added to the blacklist – another change with potentially dramatic consequences on the national policies of a western democracy.

youtube_controversial_query_blacklist

At least one post in the discussion thread revealed the existence of a file called “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist,” which contains a list of YouTube search terms that Google manually curates. In addition to the terms “abortion,” “abortions,” “Maxine Waters,” and search terms related to the Irish abortion referendum, a Google software engineer noted that the blacklist includes search terms related to terrorist attacks. (the posts specifically mentions that the “Strasbourg terrorist attack” as being on the list).

“If you look at the other entries recently added to the youtube_controversial_query_blacklist(e.g., entries related to the Strasbourg terrorist attack), the addition of abortion seems…out-of-place,” wrote the software engineer, according to the source.

After learning of the existence of the blacklist, Breitbart News obtained a partial screenshot of the full blacklist file from a source within Google. It reveals that the blacklist includes search terms related to both mass shootings and the progressive anti-second amendment activist David Hogg.

This suggests Google has followed the lead of Democrat politicians, who have repeatedly pushed tech companies to censor content related to the Parkland school shooting and the Parkland anti-gun activists. It’s part of a popular new line of thought in the political-media establishment, which views the public as too stupid to question conspiracy theories for themselves.

Here is the partial blacklist leaked to Breitbart:

2117 plane crash Russian

2118 plane crash

2119 an-148

2120 florida shooting conspiracy

2121 florida shooting crisis actors

2122 florida conspiracy

2123 florida false flag shooting

2124 florida false flag

2125 fake florida school shooting

2126 david hogg hoax

2127 david hogg fake

2128 david hogg crisis actor

2129 david hogg forgets lines

2130 david hogg forgets his lines

2131 david hogg cant remember his lines

2132 david hogg actor

2133 david hogg cant remember

2134 david hogg conspiracy

2135 david hogg exposed

2136 david hogg lines

2137 david hogg rehearsing

2120 florida shooting conspiracy

The full internal filepath of the blacklist, according to another source, is:

//depot/google3/googledata/superroot/youtube/youtube_controversial_query_blacklist

Contradictions

Responding to a request for comment, a YouTube spokeswoman said the company wants to promote “authoritative” sources in its search results, but maintained that YouTube is a “platform for free speech” that “allow[s]” both pro-life and pro-abortion content.

YouTube’s full comment:

YouTube is a platform for free speech where anyone can choose to post videos, as long as they follow our Community Guidelines, which prohibit things like inciting violence and pornography. We apply these policies impartially and we allow both pro-life and pro-choice opinions. Over the last year we’ve described how we are working to better surface news sources across our site for news-related searches and topical information. We’ve improved our search and discovery algorithms, built new features that clearly label and prominently surface news sources on our homepage and search pages, and introduced information panels to help give users more authoritative sources where they can fact check information for themselves.

In the case of the “abortion” search results, YouTube’s intervention to insert “authoritative” content resulted in the downranking of pro-life videos and the elevation of pro-abortion ones.

A Google spokesperson took a tougher line than its YouTube subsidiary, stating that “Google has never manipulated or modified the search results or content in any of its products to promote a particular political ideology.”

However, in the leaked discussion thread, a member of Google’s “trust & safety” team, Daniel Aaronson, admitted that the company maintains “huge teams” that work to adjust search results for subjects that are “prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content” – all subjective terms that are frequently used to suppress right-leaning sources.

He also admitted that the interventions weren’t confined to YouTube – they included search results delivered via Google Assistant, Google Home, and in rare cases Google ’s organic search results.

In the thread, Aaronson attempted to explain how search blacklisting worked. He claimed that highly specific searches would generate non-blacklisted results, even controversial ones. But the inclusion of highly specific terms in the YouTube blacklist, like “David Hogg cant remember his lines” – the name of an actual viral video – seems to contradict this.

Aaronson’s full post is copied below:

I work in Trust and Safety and while I have no particular input as to exactly what’s happening for YT I can try to explain why you’d have this kind of list and why people are finding lists like these on Code Search.

When dealing with abuse/controversial content on various mediums you have several levers to deal with problems. Two prominent levers are “Proactive” and “Reactive”:

  • Proactive: Usually refers to some type of algorithm/scalable solution to a general problem
    • E.g.: We don’t allow straight up porn on YouTube so we create a classifier that detects porn and automatically remove or flag for review the videos the porn classifier is most certain of
  • Reactive: Usually refers to a manual fix to something that has been brought to our attention that our proactive solutions don’t/didn’t work on and something that is clearly in the realm of bad enough to warrant a quick targeted solution (determined by pages and pages of policies worked on over many years and many teams to be fair and cover necessary scope)
    • E,g.: A website that used to be a good blog had it’s domain expire and was purchased/repurposed to spam Search results with autogenerated pages full of gibberish text, scraped images, and links to boost traffic to other spammy sites. It is manually actioned for violating policy

These Organic Search policies and the consequences to violating them are public

Manually reacting to things is not very scalable, and is not an ideal solution to most problems, so the proactive lever is really the one we all like to lean on. Ideally, our classifiers/algorithm are good at providing useful and rich results to our users while ignoring things at are not useful or not relevant. But we all know, this isn’t exactly the case all the time (especially on YouTube).

From a user perspective, there are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content. Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay. E.g. a video of a puppy playing with a toy is probably okay in almost every culture or context, even if it’s not relevant to the query. But a video of someone committing suicide and begging others to follow in his/her footsteps is probably on the other side of the line for many folks.

While my second example is technically relevant to the generic query of “suicide”, that doesn’t mean that this is a very useful or good video to promote on the top of results for that query. So imagine a classifier that says, for any queries on a particular text file, let’s pull videos using signals that we historically understand to be strong indicators of quality (I won’t go into specifics here, but those signals do exist). We’re not manually curating these results, we’re just saying “hey, be extra careful with results for this query because many times really bad stuff can appear and lead to a bad experience for most users”. Ideally the proactive lever did this for us, but in extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary. And also keep in mind, that this is different for every product. The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high. However, the bar for things we let our Google Assistant say out loud might be a lot lower. If I search for “Jews run the banks” – I’ll likely find anti-semitic stuff in organic search. As a Jew, I might find some of these results offensive, but they are there for people to research and view, and I understand that this is not a reflection of Google feels about this issue. But if I ask Google assistant “Why do Jews run the banks” we wouldn’t be similarly accepting if it repeated and promoted conspiracy theories that likely pop up in organic search in her smoothing voice.

Whether we agree or not, user perception of our responses, results, and answers of different products and mediums can change. And I think many people are used to the fact that organic search is a place where content should be accessible no matter how offensive it might be, however, the expectation is very different on a Google Home, a Knowledge Panel, or even YouTube.

These lines are very difficult and can be very blurry, we are all well aware of this. So we’ve got huge teams that stay cognizant of these facts when we’re crafting policies considering classifier changes, or reacting with manual actions – these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but admittedly are also not made in a highly public forum like TGIF or IndustryInfo (as you can imagine, decisions/agreement would be hard to get in such a wide list – image if all your CL’s were reviewed by every engineer across Google all the time). I hope that answers some questions and gives a better layer of transparency without going into details about our “Pepsi formula”.

Best,

Daniel

The fact that Google manually curates politically contentious search results fits in with a wider pattern of political activity on the part of the tech giant.

In 2018, Breitbart News exclusively published a leaked video from the company that showed senior management in dismay at Trump’s election victory, and pledging to use the company’s power to make his populist movement a “hiccup” in history.

Breitbart also leaked “The Good Censor,” an internal research document from Google that admits the tech giant is engaged in the censorship of its own products, partly in response to political events.

Another leak revealed that employees within the company, including Google’s current director of Trust and Safety, tried to kick Breitbart News off Google’s market-dominating online ad platforms.

Yet another showed Google engaged in targeted turnout operations aimed to boost voter participation in pro-Democrat demographics in “key states” ahead of the 2016 election. The effort was dubbed a “silent donation” by a top Google employee.

Evidence for Google’s partisan activities is now overwhelming. President Trump has previously warned Google, as well as other Silicon Valley giants, not to engage in censorship or partisan activities. Google continues to defy him.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to [email protected].

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Are You Suffering From Toxic Masculinity? Know The Warning Signs

Are you or a loved one suffering from toxic masculinity? Know the warning signs so you can seek help.

The Duran

Published

on

Via BabylonBee.com:


More than 40% of men today suffer from it—and their loved ones pay the price.

It’s called “toxic masculinity,” and it’s the latest disease to plague the nation. It can affect every aspect of a toxic man’s life. Worst of all, toxic masculinity is contagious, so if you’re infected, you need to know right away so you can avoid spreading it to your friends and family.

Are you or a loved one suffering from toxic masculinity? Know the warning signs so you can seek help:

  • Even the faintest whisper of facial hair – If you have a mustache, schedule a check-up. If you find a goatee on your face, consider going into the emergency room. If you have a full-grown beard, well, it’s probably too late for you.
  • A belief that men and women are at least a little bit different – Should you be infected with the cancerous idea that men and women are even the slightest bit different from one another, you could have toxic masculinity. If you’re a woman who believes this, then you suffer from an even worse disease called internalized misogyny.
  • Throwing a professional wrestler off a steel cage right through the announcer’s table – Men who suddenly look around and find that they’re tossing a professional wrestler off a steel cage to plummet right through the announcer’s table are at high risk of developing toxic masculinity. If a man in your life is suffering from this symptom, encourage him to stop wrestling in the WWE immediately.
  • Eating meat on occasion – A disease like toxic masculinity can quickly change your diet. If you find yourself leaving your vegan avocado quinoa toast smoothies untouched in favor of wolfing down some bacon-wrapped bacon, you might have toxic masculinity.
  • Holding the door open for a woman once in a while – It looks innocent enough: a woman approaches, and you hold the door so she doesn’t have to open it again. Seems like common courtesy, right? WRONG. It’s one of the first warning signs of toxic masculinity, and you need to do better if you’re going to beat this thing. One way to reduce your toxic masculinity is to slam the door right in a woman’s face and scream, “EQUALITY!!!” through the glass when she glares at you.
  • Yelling stuff about freedom and charging into battle wearing blue face paint – If you find yourself charging into battle against the English wearing blue face paint in the 14th century, you might be beyond medical help. Do all of society a favor and get yourself drawn and quartered so no one else catches this contagious illness.
  • Being a man who doesn’t hate himself – This is the most telling sign. If you’re a biological male and you don’t hate yourself, toxic masculinity is already coursing through your veins. If there’s going to be any hope of recovery, you need to begin hating yourself today.

If you or your man are showing one or more of these symptoms, contact your medical professional today. Get help, before it’s too late.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending