Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

BUSTED: The New York Times defends an act of child rape and lies about the details in attempt to smear RT and Sputnik

This is unethical beyond being poor journalism.

Published

on

4,651 Views

The New York Times recently released a heavily promoted (by the New York Times itself) piece which amounts to an emotional attack on the news outlets RT and Sputnik.

Russia Feed recently explained that on pure journalistic terms, the New York Times (NYT) piece amount to little more than a very long winded way of the the NYT saying ‘RT and Sputnik have a different editorial line to us and a more successful, more modern business model and therefore, they are wicked, rather than just a different kind of news source with a different editorial line’.

READ MORE: he New York Times drafts an ‘un-patriot act’ against RT and Sputnik

But what is even more sinister, is that the NYT exploited the actual rape of a child in order to promote a vendetta against RT and Sputnik. Again, one does not have to like RT or Sputnik to understand that exploiting the rape of a 13 year old girl is totally unethical, but this is what the NYT has done.

The story cited by the NYT is the rape case of a 13 year old German girl of Russian ethnicity who was raped in 2016.

Initially, it was reported that the victim was held and raped by multiple men fitting the description of ‘refugees’. According to a German court, a man was sentenced after admitting to an unlawful carnal act (aka statutory rape) upon a child. The man who was 24 at the time of conviction, also admitted filming the criminal act. Videoing a carnal act involving a child, means that the rapist also produced child pornography.

The New York Times article however does not explain this. Instead, the article deceptively states,

“She had left home, it turned out, because she had gotten in trouble at school. Afraid of how her parents would react, she went to stay with a 19-year-old male friend”.

First of all, the man sentenced by a German court was 24 at the age of sentencing. This meant that he could have been no younger than 22 at the time of the unlawful carnal act. Under German law, it is illegal for any adult to have a carnal relationship, irrespective of circumstance, with a child under the age of 18. It is sometimes legal for a person under the age of 21 to have a carnal relationship with a child of 14 years of age or older, but only if no physical or psychological abuse is involved. In any case, as the victim was 13 at the time and the perpetrator was over the age of 21. German law therefore defines the act as straightforward rape.

Most laws throughout the world, also define what happened to the victim as a criminal act of rape including Russian law, the law of all 50 States of the USA and Turkey. As the man involved was said to have a Turkic name by the German court, it becomes necessary to consider Turkish law as well, under which the man would also be defined as the rapist of a child. This helps one understand why the girl said that the rapist had a ‘southern appearance’ which in Germany is a term used to describe someone who does not appear to be Caucasian.

When it comes to understanding the situation on a purely logical level. The wisdom of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov must necessarily come into play. When asked about the incident, Lavrov stated that it is beyond comprehension that a 13 year old girl disappeared for such a long period of time voluntarily.

Sergey Lavrov is correct. The very reason so-called statutory rape laws exist is to protect vulnerable children from exploitation, in all its many guises. While the New York Times used the incident to try and sell newspapers and dwindling online subscriptions, a young girl was exploited, rape and possibly psychologically damaged for life and the NYT added insult to injury by publishing a fake news factoid about the age of the rapist in an attempt to lessen the seriousness of the vile act.

The only lesson to take from such a case is that societies need to do more to protect the young from harm.

But for the hacks at the New York TImes, the lesson is that RT and Sputnik were behaving badly for reporting a story which even the Russian and German Foreign Ministries commented on.

This is not just bad journalism on the part of the New York Times, it is purely unethical. There are many ways to say that one likes or dislikes fellow news organisations. Exploiting child rape and coming to the defence of a paedophile, are not acceptable options.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Karen Nicholas
Guest
Karen Nicholas

Oddly written piece…(please proof read before hitting “send”, grr) Having said that, the NYT hasn’t been a legitimate, unbiased, fact-based news source in decades!! Does ANYTHING they write, fail to write, exploit, or even LIE about, REALLY suprise anyone any more?!!

ooddballz
Guest
ooddballz

Every time I hear about the NYT, my first reaction is always, HUH? They are still in business?

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Bad habits die hard. Sometimes only with their owners. I know Jews who read it because they think it makes them look smart.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

“Please proof read”: time and time again, unfortunately, Adam’s texts are commented on as lacking proof reading, but to no effect. Pity, as it makes The article look unprofessional and yet, Adam has a lot to say where politics is concerned.

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

agreed, but it how much time is there in one day, for the most part we know what he is saying, i think the author is more interested in getting information out than winning awards for presentation which i can live with

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

Yes, it is not a big thing at all. I can live with it OK.

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

tats good, because there are enough reserves within NBD to counter any US pressure upon liquidity of currencies, thus protecting them from potential flash crashes regarding US dikheads sanctions. Venezuala just switched to Yuan, look at the 8b credit line iran just got for infrastructure projects, on top of the reported 7b ish worth last yr. NDB was set up as another choice to the World bank

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Why not offer to do it? *ew York Times budget 20 billion dollars but they publish pure (proofread 40 times) crap. Duran budget 2 thousand dollars. No proofreading but solid gold content.

Putin's baby
Guest
Putin's baby

Grammer Nazi? Give us a break, if you can’t get what he is writing, then you have the problem.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

I am not very cross about it, but to be called Nazi because of a remark or comment sounds a bit severe: do I have to go to the Gulags now? That would be a problem, but so far no problem in my mood or mind.

tjoes
Guest
tjoes

Andre, he was referring to the commenter, not the author.

Brian De Paolo
Guest
Brian De Paolo

The only truth you hear form the papers today is the “Date”…

Trauma2000
Guest
Trauma2000

“The only truth you hear form the papers today is the “Date”

Sometimes even that isn’t correct. I’m in Oz, and we’re a almost a day ahead of the exceptional country.

seby
Guest
seby

NYT has been trash for a long time. Decades.

However using bush the III as an opening headline flag of “integrity and non-attention seeking” is kind of silly.

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

Our commenst on news sites help fight corrupt M S M. look at DM comments and majority of the time you will find top comments totally disagreeing with the ‘official narrative’. I do not believe it is always just an ‘echo chamber’ on forums. People who are gaining a new interest into news feeds and politics etc, need the guidance given by hundreds of thousands of commentators everyday. just recently started adding more links to back up info, as it seems google searches are getting smaller and smaller

Jesper Larsen
Guest
Jesper Larsen

Let me just clarify some misunderstandings. 1. The girl was missing. When she came home she stated she had been raped but in fact she had stayed with a friend. 2. The police questioned her without her parents and issued a statement about her admitting she made up the rape story. Her next of kin then said the police forced her to admit this. 3. She did in fact have sexual relations to the person mentioned, which is a crime, but this was unrelated to the rape allegation. 4. Bear in mind that the “police cover up” story happened in… Read more »

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

… as they themselves cynically exploit a Russian minor for political and stimulation (sales) purposes. Perfectly stated by you. Thank you.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Who will protect people from the lying, dying, warmongering *ew York Times? And why is it 90% Jewish, just like the Bolsheviks who committed the genocide of Russian Christians between 1917 and 1953?

MonicaDWalker
Guest
MonicaDWalker

Google pays now $99 to each worker for working on computer.You can also avail this.
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!si296:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyConsumerAlertJournalsJobsReport1/Alert/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sd166l..,…

Helen B
Guest
Helen B

As you raised the J word, check what the Talmud has to say about the sexual use of a young child. It’s okay, apparently.
Kethuboth 11b: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it
is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, 6 it is as if one
puts the finger into the eye.
http://www.halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_11.html#PARTb
Sanhedrin 54b footnote 26: Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of
comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the
age of three.
http://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html#PARTb
Who can have a sane conversation with folk who follow this ?

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

I am frankly surprised that the *ew York Times does not openly promote pedophilia. I guess the time is not yet ripe.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

There has been a time like this before, President Trump. When your Jewish friends took over the Russian press at the end of the nineteenth century, lies and slander proliferated endlessly with the aim of destroying the Russian Empire. By 1917 the Jewish Lugenpresse did a brisk trade in ‘Royals porn’ especially targeting the beautiful and highly ethical Empress Alexandra.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

Jacob Schiff and his mates got rich and donated (loans against 10% interest, that is) their winnings form charity partly to the Jewish communities. The old Mossad motto of By Way of Deception we Make War (many times the figure 6 million came up from late 19th century to 1038, but luckily you know all that (but most of us are not allowed to think it even). Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno have set the record straight and exposed the lies.

Guy
Member
Guy

All about victimhood André.It is an art they have perfected if one can call it that .More and more it is being exposed .I actually feel sorry for the real Jewish people as they are being smeared unjustly.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

I share that sympathy: the real Jewish people only half realize how the abuse worked. Playing victim and bully at the same time was something the Nazis themzelves were good at (and Israeli government does today).

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

I know a lot of Jews and I do not know what is meant by ‘real Jewish people’. They are held hostage, almost all of them, by global Zionism.

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

Notorious “Fall Lisa” / Lisa Case. The New York Times piece (when exactly did it appear?) was not an “emotional attack.” It was coldly calculated and it feeds the “foreign agent resitration” BS campaign againt RT and Sputnik. This is — difficult to track this in Germany through the various tentacles of the media — straight Atlantic Council campaigning, and it even reaches into the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (“intelligence” arm of the German Foreign Ministry). Whatever: in a case where supposedly “nothing happened” because the real story of the kidnapping / or not may never come out, there is… Read more »

Ann Johns
Guest
Ann Johns

When Shillary Clinton tries to sell 1984 as a good model we should all live by, you know the world has gone officially insane.

dontlietome
Guest
dontlietome

The “Jew York Times” should just be re-named “The Daily Forward”, and printed in Herbrew…………….. everyone would be clear as to its bias. Personally I leave a copy in my toilet, just to wipe my a*** on. Its just not fit for anything else.

dago dingo
Guest
dago dingo

I have come to expect no less from the Jew York Slimes. Does anyone even bother to read their garbage? I suppose there’s loads of oxygen thieving morons in a country that can’t educate, feed or deliver free health care but can spend trillions of dollars illegally invading sovereign countries. Killing millions of innocent men, women & children along the way, Ah yes, to be American.

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

Permit me to translate: “what do NYT and ethics have in common? NOTHING… This is mouth-piece of modern day racism.” Agreed.

Latest

May survives ‘no confidence’ vote as UK moves towards March 29 deadline or Article 50 extension (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 168.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the ‘no confidence’ vote that UK Prime Minister May won with the a slim margin…meaning that though few MPs have confidence in her ‘Brexit withdrawal’ negotiating skills, they appear to have no problem allowing May to lead the country towards its Brexit deadline in March, which coincidently may be delayed and eventually scrapped altogether.

Meanwhile Tony Blair is cozying up to Brussels’ oligarchs, working his evil magic to derail the will of the British people, and keep the integrationist ambitions for the UK and Europe on track.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


The UK government led by Theresa May, has survived to fight another day, after winning a no-confidence vote, tabled by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, following parliament rejecting the PM’s Brexit deal, earlier on Tuesday evening.

The no-confidence vote was defeated by 19 votes – the government winning by 325 to 306. It’s a rare positive note for May’s Tory cabinet after the humiliating Brexit defeat.

Speaking immediately after the vote, a victorious May said she was “pleased” that the House expressed its confidence in her government. May said she will “continue to work” to deliver on the result of the Brexit referendum and leave the EU.

May invited the leaders of parliamentary parties to meet with her individually, beginning on Wednesday evening.

“I stand ready to work with any member of this House to deliver on Brexit,” she said.

Responding to the vote, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that the House had “emphatically” rejected May’s deal on Tuesday. The government, he said, must now remove “clearly once and for all the prospect of the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit from the EU and all the chaos that would result from that.”

Labour will now have to consider what move to make next. Their official Brexit policy, decided by members at conference in September, states that if a general election cannot be forced, then all options should be left on the table, including calling for a second referendum.

Liberal Democrats MP Ed Davey also called on May to rule out a no deal Brexit.

The way forward for Brexit is not yet clear and May’s options are now limited, given that the Brexit deal she was offering was voted down so dramatically on Tuesday.

Gavin Barrett, a professor at the UCD Sutherland School of Law in Dublin, told RT that May will now have to decide if her second preference is a no-deal Brexit or a second referendum. Her preference will likely be a no-deal Brexit, Barrett said, adding that “since no other option commands a majority in the House” a no-deal exit is now “the default option.”

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

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

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