THE EDGE: How To Change History With The Push Of A Button

Understanding 'the Streisand Effect'

How a private-property dispute birthed a web phenomenon.

In 2003, a picture of Barbra Streisand’s beachfront home hit the web as part of a public collection of images displaying coastal erosion. In response, in February 2003, Streisand sued the photographer for $50 million for invasion of privacy, claiming violation of a state law aimed at the telephoto lenses of paparazzi.

Ironically, the media attention surrounding the lawsuit made the photo of her house go viral (at least in 2003 terms). In the month before the lawsuit, the picture had been downloaded only six times, including twice by her lawyers—whereas the image was downloaded more than 420,000 times during the month following the lawsuit. This paradoxical result—where an attempt to silence, suppress, or stop something backfires—was dubbed the Streisand effect.

Let’s take a closer look at the Streisand effect.

Examples of the Streisand Effect

Here are three different times the Streisand effect was apparently reified by real-world examples.

In 2012, a Scottish schoolgirl named Martha Payne started blogging about her school lunches and included pictures of the meals, which, as could be expected by anyone who has ever been to school, were unappetizing.

Soon, celebrity chef and food activist Jamie Oliver tweeted out his support, and the blog garnered three million hits in two months. Consequently, local government authorities banned Payne from taking photos of the lunches because (they claimed) cafeteria workers were worried about getting fired. Even though the authorities quickly reversed this decision, for them it was too late, and the British national media and the Internet ran with the story.

In 2013, Buzzfeed ran a list titled “The 33 Fiercest Moments From Beyoncé's Halftime Show.” Although the intention of the list was likely laudatory, some of the still photos were considered "unflattering."

Consequently, Queen Bey’s publicist contacted Buzzfeed to request that the unflattering photos, which were cited, be switched out. Buzzfeed responded with a follow-up piece titled “The 'Unflattering' Photos Beyoncé's Publicist Doesn't Want You To See,” which included an email from the publicist and the cited shots.

Subsequently, the Internet did its thing, and a meme was born. Countless “unflattering” shots of Beyoncé as a zombie, powerlifter, anime cartoon, and so forth popped up.

In 2014, cab drivers from across Europe went on strike to decry the lack of regulation of the ride-hailing app Uber. Without cabbies on the roads, riders turned to Uber, with downloads of the app increasing more than eight times in London alone.

Deconstructing the Streisand effect

In an article published in the International Journal of Education, Sue Curry Jansen and Brian Martin explained how the Streisand effect is a consequence of failed censorship attempts. These outrage-management processes include cover-up, defamation of the target, reframing events, false justice, and intimidation or rewards.

The authors also argued that censorship is a process that requires active maintenance to conceal the actions of powerful people. Furthermore, they wrote that a clearer understanding of outrage-management processes “stimulates awareness of tactics for challenging censorship by exposing its existence, validating the censored information, explaining the importance of free expression, not relying on official channels for solutions but instead mobilizing wider awareness and support, and resisting intimidation and rewards.”

By the way, you may be wondering how Babs's court case turned out. The chanteuse not only brought viral attention to her bluff-top estate by bringing the suit in the first place but the suit was dismissed in December 2003.

Google, YouTube and Facebook have commercialized "The Streisand Effect" by deploying computerized processes to steer the public towards, or away from, one product, candidate or point-of-view using manually programmed directions.

Former motor racing boss Max Mosley is suing Google for continuing to display photographs he says breach his privacy. But does pressing for information to be kept private, or suppressed, often have the opposite effect?

At first sight not much unites Beyonce and Max Mosley. But they, and several other celebrities and organisations, have become victims of the "Streisand effect".

In 2005, Mike Masnick, founder of the Techdirt website, coined the term. Two years earlier singer Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman, who was documenting the coastline of California, for including her clifftop home in Malibu. The resulting publicity helped drive 420,000 visits in a month to the site where the photo was published. According to documents filed in court, images of Streisand's house had been downloaded only six times before the legal action.

It's not always a fight over privacy. In February last year the Buzzfeed website published a selection of singer Beyonce's "fiercest moments" - mocking her facial expressions while performing at the Superbowl. Her publicist reportedly contacted it to ask that seven of the most "unflattering" photos be removed. Buzzfeed refused and republished exactly this selection with the headline: "The 'Unflattering' Photos Beyonce's Publicist Doesn't Want You To See". The exposure of the unflattering photos was magnified.

A few months later it was reported that lawyers for Pippa Middleton, sister of the Duchess of Cambridge, had asked for the removal of a parody Twitter feed, which offered ridiculously obvious lifestyle advice in her name, such as "Avoid getting lost by consulting with a map" and "A party isn't much fun without people attending". Its following increased.

In 2008 the Church of Scientology reportedly tried to get a video featuring film star Tom Cruise talking about his faith, designed for viewing by its followers only, removed from websites after it was leaked. The publicity meant it became shared more widely.

In 2012, Argyll and Bute Council banned nine-year-old Martha Payne from taking pictures of her school meals and posting them, along with dismissive ratings out of 10, on a blog. Her family complained and this was overturned, amid much publicity. To date the blog has had more than 10 million hits and Martha has raised more than £130,000 for charity.

You don't need to be famous to suffer from the Streisand effect. Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez fought a long legal battle for the right to be forgotten. He complained that a search of his name in Google brought up newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed. He enjoyed a landmark victory to establish the right to be forgotten. But it is unlikely he will ever be forgotten. As of this moment, his name conjures up hundreds of thousands of Google search results.


The Streisand effect

  • Term first used in 2005 by Mike Masnick, founder of the website Techdirt
  • Denotes increased publicity as a result of attempts to remove embarrassing online content
  • Followed a failed attempt in 2003 by singer Barbra Streisand to sue a photographer who posted a picture of her seaside home on a website

But Max Mosley is arguably the greatest example. He is suing Google for continuing to display in search results images of him with prostitutes at a sex party, citing alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act and misuse of private information. Every time he makes a legal move in his crusade over privacy, there's a danger it becomes more likely people will seek out the very images he is complaining about.

The 74-year-old former president of Formula One's governing body FIA wants Google to block pictures first published in the now-defunct tabloid News of the World, which he successfully sued in 2008. "As the gateway to the internet Google makes enormous profits and has great influence, so I have not taken this action lightly," he has said in a statement. His lawyers add that the company should not be allowed "to act as an arbiter of what is lawful and what is not". Google says it has been working with Mosley "to address his concerns".

But is there a risk that Mosley will cause himself more embarrassment by bringing a fairly old, and perhaps half-forgotten, news story back to people's attention? A survey of Twitter shows some users are posting the pictures that he is keen to remove.

"Anyone trying to get something banned is always going to be of more interest than something that people don't seem bothered by," says Jenny Afia, head of talent at the law firm Schillings. "It's a spark for curiosity."

In previous generations there's no doubt it was more straightforward to attempt to suppress information or images. The ease of sharing now almost means that nothing can really be suppressed.

You could argue that the internet makes attempts to guard your privacy risky on a scale proportional to the likelihood of your privacy being meaningfully breached in the first place. If there was a danger that lots of people would circulate a private photo of you doing something embarrassing, it's very likely that trying to suppress it will have the opposite effect. If there was little danger that the photo would have been circulated, an attempt at suppression might not trigger the Streisand effect.

There are endless mischief-makers who would dedicate themselves to propagating information that someone wanted hidden, just for the very fact of the attempt to hide it.

Mosley is a wealthy man used to publicity. Yet suing could mean a stressful, drawn-out court case, covered in detail by the media.

"It's a horrible dilemma for people who are faced with horrible or untrue stories," says Afia. "That's where Max Mosley is very brave to keep fighting. Many people decide to let it go."

For the likes of Mosley and Costeja Gonzalez, the principle surely supersedes the actual effect of legal action. They effectively end up fighting for the right of others to more easily safeguard their privacy. Even at the de facto cost of their own.

And there's a clear difference between those fighting for a right to privacy and those, like Beyonce's representatives, who are merely trying to manage a reputation or public image. There the Streisand effect is potent. If your reaction to mockery is to try and squash it, there will be lots more mockery.

Google's and Facebook's servers are built and programmed to manipulate the The Streisand Effect for commercial goals. Should Congress allow that?

 

 

When The Silicon Valley Frat Cartel Tried To Bury Outsiders, They Discovered That They Were Seeds

By Andrew Cosgrove

When you bury a seed, it blooms, and blooms and blooms and millions like it fill the fields...

As American streets are flooded with protests so large that they have changed the course of history, eyes are now turned towards the exclusionary, misogynist, money-laundering, bribery-based, hooker-trafficking frat boys that run Silicon Valley.

In the latter half of the 19th century, before the advent of income tax, there existed a class of millionaires in this country who used many unscrupulous means to gain immense wealth, separating themselves from the working class of the country by previously unheard-of multiples.

The Vanderbilts, the Astors, the Carnegies, the Mellons, the Rockefellers and numerous other “industrialists” (today, we would call them globalists) were able to amass great fortunes and live like royalty, with much of their power enabled through the workings of the politicians they influenced via graft.

In their day and age, they were known as “robber barons,” after the wealthy lords of aristocratic Germany, where landowners charged commoners an illegal tax for passing over their land.

Historian Hal Bridges wrote that the robber barons were “business leaders in the United States from about 1865 to 1900… a set of avaricious rascals who habitually cheated and robbed investors and consumers, corrupted government, fought ruthlessly among themselves, and in general carried on predatory activities comparable to those of the robber barons of medieval Europe.”

Many students of history argue that America’s robber barons were only tamed by the introduction of antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act of 1890 and 1914, respectively, as well as the introduction of income tax in 1913 and the stock market crash of 1929. Until that time, the power of these business titans was left mostly unchecked.

Many politicians — especially in large cities like New York — were bought off by their riches and voted for (or even created) laws that would favor and broaden these men’s empires. Regulations, agreements, waivers and amendments were passed that allowed many of these wealth-hoarders to assemble legal monopolies that would almost certainly be outlawed today.

In fact, if one took the wealth of some of these men (like the Rockefellers) and adjusted it for inflation into today’s dollars, their riches would surpass those of even Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.

But it’s these latter figures who now belong to today’s equivalent class of men that can be considered the “robber barons” of our own era — the billionaires of high-tech Silicon Valley.

When the Internet boom first occurred in the 1990s, Silicon Valley was quick to tell Congress that Internet sales should not be subject to taxes and that the Internet should not be regulated, lest this burgeoning marketplace be trampled to death before it could fully blossom.

But that was then. In the interim, fortunes have been made, and a very small number of players (Amazon, Google, eBay, Facebook, Craigslist, Netflix, Airbnb, Uber) have dominated specific product niches and made certain savvy players such as the aforementioned Bezos and Gates — along with Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Pierre Omidyar, Craig Newmark, Brian Chesky, Steve Ballmer and Larry Ellison, among others — insanely rich.

In fact, these people’s extreme wealth, along with the relatively unregulated and untaxed industry that gave them that wealth, has convinced many of them that they have the innate right to tinker with markets and monopolies without undue fear of being legislated against or taxed as other industry leaders have been.

In many cases — Bezos, Zuckerberg and Gates being some of the most notorious examples — they’ve been falling all over themselves to enter still further niches — automated cars, robotics and drones, for example — in order to dominate those markets also by using their tremendous fortunes to either acquire the leading players in these industries or to drive them out of business through ruthless competition.

Along the way, the enormous power their market monopolies have given them in terms of the data they’ve been able to compile and the information they’ve been able to acquire on ordinary American citizens has enriched them even further — some would say dangerously so.

In many ways, these men (there are virtually zero women among their number) are the proper inheritors of the “robber baron” title today; they’ve become so wealthy, most often through unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities of timing and markets, that the rest of us can’t ever hope to come anywhere near their gargantuan fortunes.

Their companies have a permanent presence in Washington, D.C. and rank among the very top retainers of lobbying firms. Left unencumbered, these “masters of the universe” could have a very real potential of ruling over the lives of nearly everyone on the planet in some way for the rest of our lifetimes.

Even now, rumors have been floated that tech billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban might want to run for president in 2020 or 2024. Nearly all of these men are large contributors to the Democratic Party and have met with Democratic politicians, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris both one-on-one and in groups.

High among their concerns are that immigrants keep flowing across the country’s borders in order to keep their biggest costs — intelligent labor — low. Quick to outsource to foreign countries and even quicker to leave profits offshore to evade taxes, these billionaires are extremely adept at using the law and corrupt politicians to their advantage.

For most of them, the concerns of the common man (the users of their properties) rank far beneath whatever it is that will further expand and perpetuate their empires. The gap between their ilk and that of the working class has multiplied in the last two decades, at the expense of America’s middle class.

Like the robber barons of old, these men are addicted to money, and they can never have enough of it to satisfy their own egos. To them, the laws of the United States are just a tool to access more wealth, and whatever political levers and switches they need to throw in order to get their way are simply a means toward an ultimate end.

After more than 20 years in many cases, it’s now long past time to put the regulatory brakes on these people’s ventures and business power grabs before we turn into a society ruled by technology and a few men behind thin, oversized flat-panel displays. Companies that have too much power and too much wealth concentrated in too few hands may need to be broken up just as the railroad concerns, oil cartels and steel companies of the original robber baron days were by Washington. Trent Lapinski says: "Silicon Valley is run like a cartel, and they are essentially modern day robber barons....

"...I’ve actually been working on a similar article myself called “Is Silicon Valley A Cartel?” but I haven’t had a chance to finish writing it yet. Perhaps I need to revisit it and publish.

Most of the major tech companies are now using technology to segregate the masses, and social engineer the entire planet much like Hitler and the Nazis attempted previous to WW2, except now the technology exists to do this on a massive scale.

To understand Silicon Valley today, you have to look back to the past and understand how we got here. When Silicon Valley was first founded as a tech hub in the late 1940-50’s it was under the intention of developing computer technology for military industrial purposes. The intention was always to further America’s technological superiority over the rest of the world.

Many people do not realize that Google and Facebook were both initially funded with both VC and defense contractor money, and many of the tech companies like Amazon have contracts with the CIA and Deep State. Modern day Silicon Valley is the surveillance arm of the Deep State, and has always been an arm of the military industrial complex.

Meanwhile, social media has purposely been engineered to put people in echo chambers, and control the masses. Even Medium is guilty of this, I have nearly 13k followers, yet every time I publish I barely reach 10% of my following. Twitter and Facebook are even worse.

To make matters worse, it gets even more complicated politically. What a lot of people do not know or realize is that after the 2008 market crash Obama was financed by Silicon Valley to get him into office. Once he was in office he struck a deal with the Federal Reserve to bail the economy out and printed a bunch of money which was handed to the Silicon Valley VC firms and tech companies to rebuild the economy.

What those VC firms did with the money was inflate the current tech bubble with printed money by driving up housing costs, pricing out locals and Millennial’s outside the tech industry, and pretty much destroying the local economy in the Bay Area. While the Bay Area was arguably screwed anyway with the market crash, and the tech industry does provide many jobs, they ultimately didn’t give those jobs to the locals and brought in indoctrinated college grads to displace much of the local population and pay them just enough to survive but not enough to buy property.

They then invested in companies that either launder money to increase their power, collect everyones data, spy on their users, or distract and divide them with propaganda. They also invested heavily in machine learning and A.I. so that they can automate most jobs in the future, and we are now at a point where A.I. is advanced enough to censor the Internet (which Google/Youtube, and Facebook are already doing). This is enabling these companies to become complete and total monopolies, and push political ideologies on the masses with no basis in logic, reason, or reality.

Meanwhile, the billionaires, investors, and CEOs of these companies are so far disconnected from the struggles of every day Americans they actually believe what they’re doing is for the greater benefit of humanity. Many of them fancy themselves as superior to the rest of the country, and world, and all their political nonsense is mostly hypocritical virtue signaling rooted in identity politics. The very same identity politics the Nazis used so successfully to divide and conquer the masses during WW2 but with a hypocritical modern day left leaning political spin.

With all that said, what Silicon Valley billionaires are doing is wrong, and hypocritical. However, please don’t blame the people, even the tech bros, because even they’re all just brainwashed and trying to survive just like everyone else and most don’t even realize they’re slaves to a system that does not have their long-term interests in mind.

Source: Born and raised in the Bay Area..."

of globally published InfoWorld Magazine says: " Silicon Valley: Land of the 21st-century robber barons... Apple, Amazon.com, eBay, Facebook, Google, and the other technorati believe someone else should pay taxes, hire Americans, or support the society they sell to. When it comes to paying taxes, Apple doesn't "think different." Like every other global corporation, it does its best to pay as little as is legally permissible. The difference, though, is that Apple does it better than most and tries to convince the people who are stuck with the bills that this is a perfectly normal state of affairs.

In just three years, Apple's tax avoidance ("evasion" is such a tacky word) efforts shifted at least $74 billion from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service, according to an explosive report by a Senate subcommittee.

I'm no Apple hater; it makes great products I'm happy to use, and it employs tens of thousands of people directly and in its supply chain. But the more I think about its role in public life, the angrier I get. Apple, in its own way, is un-American. Sadly, it has plenty of company in Silicon Valley.

The new aristocracy lives in Silicon Valley, says Snyder. The princelings of technocracy aren't bad people, but their wealth insulates them from the shared experiences that create community. They are a class apart -- maybe even a nation apart. They're the 21st-century successors to the rail and banking tycoons that ruled in the late 19th and early 20th century: the robber barons.

Consider this anecdote told by George Packer in his thoughtful piece in the May 27 issue of the New Yorker: When state budget cuts threatened the quality of their local school, parents in Woodside, Calif. -- one of the wealthiest enclaves in Silicon Valley -- stepped up their fund-raising efforts. The Woodside School Foundation now brings in about $2 million a year for a school with fewer than 500 children. In a fund-raising auction, one parent bid $20,000 for a tour of the Japanese gardens of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, while others paid twice that much for seats at a Mad Men Supper Club dinner for 16 guests.

I'm sure that many of those people would be appalled and upset by the terrible conditions of the underfunded schools in nearby East Palo Alto, and they might even make donations to help out. But I doubt many of them connect the very obvious dots: When big companies and wealthy individuals fail to pay taxes, legally or not, the community suffers.

What makes this so galling in my mind is the hypocritical and egotistical belief in Silicon Valley itself that it is the most enlightened patch of real estate on the planet.

Silicon Valley won't pay fair share, then decries poor public results. As Alec MacGillis of the New Republic points out, it's a bit rich for Apple to argue -- as Steve Jobs did for years, and Tim Cook does now -- that the company needs more visas and green cards for foreign engineers because there aren't enough qualified Americans to fill tech jobs (patently false, by the way), while Apple does its damnedest to keep its contribution toward federal education aid as paltry as possible.

Comments Packer:

This is an example so blatant I couldn't have dreamt it up, of the self-deception that exists alongside the hard work, idealism, and engineering brilliance of Silicon Valley. It's the kind of blind spot to which young, self-confident, super-successful industries are especially prone.

One of the subsidiaries set up by Apple in Ireland has paid no corporate income tax to any nation for the past five years, although it reported $30 billion in net income from 2009 to 2012. Another subsidiary has paid a tax rate to Ireland of 0.1 percent or less in 2009, 2010, and 2011, far below the normal Irish corporate income tax rate of 12 percent, according to the Senate subcommittee's report.

Valley of the dolts

Silicon Valley's power brokers want you to think they're different. But they're just average robber barons.

Zuckerberg, of course, had not conquered Gaul. He had not scattered the German armies nor subjugated Britain, nor crossed the Rubicon and become first consul. He had not visited death and terror upon a continent, nor brought an end to an old republic, setting off a chain of intrigues that would birth the mightiest empire in the history of the world. No. Mark Zuckerberg had made a shit ton of money.

By April of this year, Facebook stock was worth more than $116 a share, up from its initial offering of $38. The social network had made its early investors even richer than they had ever anticipated. That same month, The Economist put Zuckerberg on its cover for the second time but now without detectable irony. His face appeared on a marble statue of Augustus, seated in cape and laurel crown beside a tiny globe. “IMPERIAL AMBITIONS” roared the headline. Mark’s outstretched arm gave the imperial thumbs-up. He liked it.

The press enjoys excitedly praising tech titans by comparing them to fantastical and mythical figures. Zuckerberg is Caesar. Elon Musk, a wizard. Peter Thiel, who believes that he lives in the moral universe of Lord of the Rings, is a vampire. I do not know if these men believe that they have the supernatural powers the media claims. Maybe they do. I do know that they do not mind the perception, or at least have done nothing to combat it, even among those critics who believe that they’re cartoon villains.

The press enjoys excitedly praising tech titans by comparing them to fantastical and mythical figures.

This might not be so bad if the phenomenon were limited to daft profiles by fawning magazine writers. But this Hegelian fan fiction is nowhere more potent than from the mouths of the Disruptors themselves. Mark Zuckerberg speaks in the voice of God. Shane Smith, by his own account, is the Stalin of Vice. Silicon Valley investor Carl Icahn was called “evil Captain Kirk” by fellow billionaire Marc Andreessen, before he was himself dubbed Dr. Evil by Rod Dreher, who has evidently not absorbed a cultural reference since 1999. When Elon Musk worries that Larry Page is hurtling toward AI without a sufficient appreciation of the risks, he calls it “summoning the demon.” Seamless CEO Jonathan Zabusky, a typical case, says his food delivery application for depressed millennials is “disrupting the paradigm” by showing people that “the era of the paper menu” is over. AirBnB’s mission statement laments “the mechanization and Industrial Revolution of the last century,” which “displaced” “feelings of trust and belonging”; their mission is to turn the world back into the “village” of simpler eras by encouraging longstanding residents of gentrifying areas to rent out their homes to monied travelers. Some firms are more modest: HubSpot, a marketing and sales platform, is merely on a mission to make the whole world “more inbound,” which is to say, more reliant on their blogging tips for small businesses.

Even President Obama speaks of Silicon Valley as if it were an industry for madcap geniuses alone, a land of such earth-changing potential that it’s somewhere he might find himself once he’s left the Oval Office. When he chides citizens of the Valley, he chides them like a Dr. Frankenstein warning his monster about hubris: “Sometime we get, I think, in the scientific community, the tech community, the entrepreneurial community, the sense that we just have to blow up the system or create this parallel society,” he told the Frontiers Conference last October. The president believes that sense is wrong, of course, but where did he get the idea that tech CEOs were capable of these feats in the first place?

Let us state the obvious: None of these men are Roman Emperors, and they haven’t got the wherewithal to “blow up” anything but a stock market bubble. They are not Lex Luthors or Gandalfs or Stalins. Their products do not bring about revolutions. They are simply robber barons, JP Morgans and Andrew Mellons in mediocre T-shirts. I have no doubt that many are preternaturally intelligent, hardworking people, and it is a shame that they have dedicated these talents to the mundane accumulation of capital. But there is nothing remarkable about these men. The Pirates of Silicon Valley do not have imperial ambitions. They have financial ones.

The vast majority of Silicon Valley startups, the sort that project lofty missions and managed improbably lucrative IPOs despite never having graced the cover of The Economist or the frontal cortex of the president, work precisely like any other kind of mundane sales operation in search of a product: Underpaid cold-callers receive low wages and less job security in exchange for a foosball table and the burden of growing a company as quickly as possible so that it can reach a liquidation event. Owners and investors get rich. Managers stay comfortable. The employees get hosed. None of this is particularly original. At least the real robber barons built the railroads.

Emily Chang, of Bloomberg, points out that sex trafficking and black-lists run Silicon Valley.

Like all slim ranks of oligarchy, the Silicon Valley billionaires hate and fear nothing more than ordinary people. This manifests itself in mundane ways, in their open, cartoonish class spite (why, they ask, must Innovators in San Francisco be burdened by the existence of homeless riff-raff?); it is revealed in their most contemplative moments too. Peter Thiel has said that when the history of the 21st century is written, René Girard will be remembered as one of its greatest intellectuals. Girard is best known for the contention that all human desire is mimetic, that not only aesthetic taste but even hunger and lust are modeled on the desires of others. Perhaps this is why Thiel does not believe that capitalism and democracy are compatible. We know which side he’s chosen. So long as he and his fellows can continue to exploit that same mimetic tendency to persuade people that they are superhuman and essential to their flourishing, his side will continue to win.

The sins of the prestige firms are no less mundane. While each at least can claim a real and viable product, their evil is nothing so spectacular as the demonic. As The New York Times, Guardian, and others have reported, even the well-compensated white-collar workers of companies like Amazon and Facebook face notoriously brutal labor conditions. For the warehouse workers and contract laborers required to keep those companies running, matters are even worse. “When you’re in shipping and they double or triple their workforce over the winter holidays, you’re working at times in below zero temps INSIDE the warehouse,” one Amazon warehouse worker wrote to Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan in 2013. Efforts to unionize employees have been met with duplicity beyond ordinary managerial resistance. Quartz reported in February on sinister attempts to thwart organization at Uber. Not content to resist their own employees’ efforts to unionize, Uber has also worked to undermine other labor guilds, including illegal operations in cities that have led to the destruction of local taxi businesses.

Like all slim ranks of oligarchy, the Silicon Valley billionaires hate and fear nothing more than ordinary people.

AirBnb, despite its Keatsian mission, has mainly succeeded in ravaging the housing market for low-income families. Seamless hasn’t disrupted the “paper menu world” half so much as it has disrupted tipping standards and wage prospects for its delivery workers.

The racist hiring practices of Silicon Valley prestige firms are an open secret, with only 5 percent of technical roles held by black or Latino workers. (“We are not where we want to be,” their diversity reports intone with all the sincerity of a Soviet bureaucrat adjusting potato projections down again). Their collusion with federal spy agencies, assisting in surveillance efforts and voluntarily turning over FISA-court-approved user data in exchange for cash, was a secret, until it wasn’t. Peter Thiel did not use magic to destroy Gawker; he used money.

In 2010, the Department of Justice exposed what it called an “overarching conspiracy” to suppress wages among companies like Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, eBay, and Pixar. The Silicon Valley supermen were aware as far back as 2005 that what they were doing was illegal. “[Google’s Eric] Schmidt instructed his Senior VP for Business Operation Shona Brown to keep the pact secret and only share information ‘verbally, since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?’” reported Mark Ames. “At times,” he said of the Disruptor’s behavior, “it reads like something lifted straight out of the robber baron era that produced those [anti-trust] laws. Today’s inequality crisis is America’s worst on record since statistics were first recorded a hundred years ago — the only comparison would be to the era of railroad tycoons in the late 19th century.” Although Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos takes only $81,000 in salary every year – barely more than the average Facebook intern! – he has managed to accrue a net worth in excess of $65 billion. Perhaps he really is a wizard.

The cultivation of power requires the projection of power in excess of its reality. When Julius Caesar – the real one – made up his mind to annihilate the German tribes who had once again invaded Gaul, he ordered his engineers to build a bridge over the Rhine as wide as a two-lane highway, big enough for 10 soldiers to march across side by side. He wanted the Germani “to experience fear… when they realized that the army of the Roman people was both capable of crossing the Rhine and brave enough to venture it.” It worked. When the bridge was finished, the Roman army marched across it as if on parade in the streets of Rome. They went slow with their horns blasting and their flags aloft, led by cavalry draped in ceremonial colors. They found no army on the other side. Terrified of the Roman engineering feat, the Germani had fled in terror, and for 18 days they cowered in the forest while Caesar pillaged every defenseless village he could find. When he was done he marched back to Gaul and ordered the bridge torn down.

If your enemies can convince you that they are an unprecedented species of madman, you will convince yourself that you need unprecedented weapons to fight back or that you may be better off just hiding in the forest. But you are not.

The rigged contracts and wage suppression, the racism and surveillance collusion (soon to be playing voluntary footsie with Donald Trump’s NSA, with further chicanery to follow), all these sins of Silicon Valley have come about and been overcome before in the short history of American capitalism. They require only the same weapons as before. Organization and agitation. Strikes and labor laws. The ordinary practice of radical politics. Some of these efforts have begun already, with militant organizing and unionization drives beginning to organize Silicon Valley laborers against their exploiters. But these movements require national and popular support, support that cannot begin until the pretense and terror of world-conquering wizards is abandoned and the truth is laid bare: These are only rich assholes, the same as they ever were. All that superman bullshit is just the cheap propaganda of the powerful, propaganda so thoroughly saturated in the American mind that its own inventors might believe it.

This fall, Silicon Valley Shakespeare (“Innovate • Illuminate • Inspire”) staged Julius Caesar for the first time in the company’s 16-year history. The press release promised that audiences would have a chance to “see this classic political thriller set in a modern world, showing the power and problem of the mob mentality, and how far people will go to rule a nation.”

This summary is instructive. To the entertainers of the Valley, Julius Caesar is a play about “mob mentality,” the dangers of unruly herds who upset the proper order of the world. This is an assessment that might surprise anyone who has read Shakespeare’s history and noticed that with the exception of a soothsayer and a single servant, every character in it is an aristocrat. But more than that, it is remarkable because as any high school student can tell you, Julius Caesar is not a play about the dangers of the mob; it is a play about the dangers of ambition and power. It is about hubris. You do not see the crowds that Brutus and Antony address because the crowds do not matter. They only exist to cheer the rivals as they sort out the pretense of the coming war. The fault that was not in their stars but in themselves has been corrected. They are underlings no more.

Julius Caesar is about a man believed to be a God, a man who cultivated divinity so well that he believed it himself. It is about a man who believed it until the mid-March afternoon when he discovered to his great surprise that even Caesar can be overthrown with old and ordinary weapons.

Per The United States Congress, The FBI and the FTC: The High-Tech Antitrust Black-Listing Litigation is a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for secret collusion agreements which targeted high-tech employees. This case was one of the most famous federal lawsuits in Silicon Valley. Scam fronts for Silicon Valley oligarchs are being exposed daily.

The tech Cartel is evil because: they steal any technology they desire; they run a prostitution ring and sexually extort young women and interns in Silicon Valley; they are 'rape culture' take-what-they-want misogynists, ageists and racists as their history of abuses has proven; their Palo Alto Cartel operates AngelGate-type collusion and stock market insider trading schemes that harm independent business and the public; their Cartel ran the "no poaching" CEO ring which was class-action sued by DOJ and tech workers; 90% of their divorce court files reveal horrific abuses and sex trafficking; They have an army of lobbyists that pay cash, stock market and revolving door bribes to U.S. Senators; They can even evade FBI & SEC investigations; They hire women to act as 'trophy wives' and 'beards'; they have lobbyists rig the U.S. Patent Office in order to block inventor patent rights because they are using stolen technologies; they have been caught on video and recordings beating, kicking and harming women hundreds of times; They have bought up all of the Tier-One tech law firms and order them to black-list, and never help, those who seek equal tech rights; they collude to abuse your privacy and make databases on the public for political control; they have to cheat to compete because they are only good with spread sheets instead of innovation; They run black-lists, character assassination attacks, collusion and other anti-trust violating acts in violation of RICO laws.

Silicon Valley has become the largest assemblage of douche-bags and yuppie frat boy criminals in human history. Theranos is not the exception, it is the standard. Tesla, Google, Theranos, Wework, Facebook are lies backed by famous political insiders to protect their insider trading and covered-up by fake news operators. They are also fronts to fund political campaigns via the ill-gotten profits from their endeavors.

When the bad guys, and their lap-dog politicians, attack you because your products are better than theirs they are proving that they are frat boy scumbags, from Stanford and Yale, that operate in a little pack, like dogs! Their Sandhill Road operation should be raided by the FBI! The best thing that could come from the COVID pandemic is that they all are forced into bankruptcy!

When your Senator holds stock market shares in companies that exist to profit on the backs of consumers, via corruption, then it is impossible for that Senator to ever do anything but be corrupt! We have reported this in writing to winklerm@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov and 30+ other federal officers but have yet to see our whistle-blower rewards...or any action! Do you wonder how big politician insider stock trading is? Take a look at how many TRILLIONS of dollars pass through the stock markets annually and then look at the reported, AND UNREPORTED, securities holdings of famous U.S. Senators and government agency staff. That is what Seth Rich and the people in the "In Memory Of" section, below, were disclosing. These are massive crimes!

The crooks at Google, Facebook, Tesla, Linkedin, Netflix, etc., broke felony laws and the basic principles of Democracy.

Google faces $5 billion lawsuit in U.S. for tracking 'private' internet use. Google WILL pay for their crimes or be killed off as a business because of their corruption!

They bribed your Senators, White House Staff, insider agency staff and operated a Silicon Valley Oligarch sociopath political Cartel.

What kinds of people were some of these high tech oligarchs? Read their divorce Court Records about their Jeffrey Epstein, NXIVM sex trafficking; Andy Rubin and Goguen sex slaves; tax evasions; money laundering; intern abuses; misogyny; racism; political insider-trading stock market bribes to U.S. Senators; a 'Silicon Valley Tech Mafia' and other horrors.

What would you do if you found out that Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Elon Musk, Sergy Brin, John Doerr and other dynastic elitist insider Stanford frat boys were running a mob-like Cartel? Over 60,000 engineers in Silicon Valley took the problem to Federal Court!

Ask Christopher Wray, John F. Bennett, Craig D. Fair and the other senior officials at the FBI, DOJ, SEC, FTC and other major federal investigation agencies: Organized crime in Silicon Valley is getting a harder look these days!

The defendants, in the first case, included Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay, all high-technology companies with a principal place of business in the San Francisco–Silicon Valley area of California where they collude together to harm competitors. It is a well documented fact that Facebook, Google, Netflix, Linkedin, etc. use sophisticated psychological testing on each applicant in order to filter out all but the most radical devotees of the founders ideologies. These companies then maintain an echo-chamber resonance, throughout the company, to reinforce their ideological message, much like Scientology does. In these companies one must praise Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and hate those who the founders target. The founders target their competitors, in violation of anti-trust laws.

The first civil class action was filed by five plaintiffs, one of whom has died in a curious incident; it accused the tech companies of collusion between 2005 and 2009. In Abolish Silicon Valley: How to liberate technology from capitalism we see another of thousands of insiders expose the fact that Silicon Valley is a pile of filth.

Additional cases are planned for filing. Formal complaints have been filed with The SEC, The DOJ, The GAO, The FBI, The FTC and The U.S. Congress. Active investigations into 'Angelgate' and related collusion and anti-trust matters are known to be under-way by federal, news outlet and private investigators as of 2020. U.S. Senators, and other politicians, who covertly own stock in these Silicon Valley companies, have been delaying enforcement against these corrupt companies. Consumer rights groups have pledged to take down each and every politician who owns these corrupt stocks and protects these corrupt companies!

Our alliance of investigators and agency staff have FBI-level investigated: Steven Chu, Larry Page, David Dummond, Lachlan Seward, Andy Rubin, Jeffrey Epstein, Elon Musk, Nicholas Guido Denton, Harvey Weinstein, Eric Schmidt and the rest of the RICO-violating "Club" and had them fired or removed from their positions. They will remain under public surveillance for the rest of their lives and their case files will be added to monthly via submissions to federal agencies and news entities.

What would an insane tech oligarch (Like Schmidt, Musk, Reid, Brin, Westly, Page, Khosla, etc.) do for trillions of dollars of criminal gain?

When you run the following query on the stock market volume for a single day, ie: "Select sum(Close*volume*0.001), count(*) from myTable where date = '9/27/2017'."..you get the following result: 7300 stocks were traded, Total Money flow: $271,072,334,824. This is how much was traded on that day.

The total world derivatives market has been estimated at about $791 trillion face or nominal value, 11 times the size of the entire world economy.

The World Bank publishes global data on stocks traded by $ value here. ie:

  • 2016 - $77.5 trillion for the year.

Most exchanges publish this stat. Here is the data for NASDAQ

  • Feb 6, 2018 - $192 billion for the day.

And the Indian stock market volume data (in Indian Rupees) is here.

  • BSE + NSE cash market, Feb 2018 - About Rs 40,000 crore daily. That’s about $6 billion per day.

Average estimates put daily stock movement between 5 to ten trillion dollars per day. You can buy lot's of Weinstein/Epstein-like private islands, private jets, sex parties, U.S. Senators and crony government contracts with that kind of money. Once an oligarch starts buying sex with underage girls, they don't stop. In fact, there is nothing that a corrupt tech oligarch and their owned Senator won't do to keep their little pig trough filled up.

The average murder/robbery in the United States is undertaken for an average amount under $100.00

Thus, an Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Steve Westly, David Drummond, Vinod Khosla, Reid Hoffman, Steve Jurvetson, Andy Rubin, Larry Page or similar oligarch, who is sociologically addicted to money and power, is most certainly capable of ordering and operating election manipulations, Presidential bribes, murders and engaging in other crimes to protect those greed-based assets. They have the full resources to do so, have federal records proving that they hire lobbyists and operatives who do these things for them and have a documented history of engaging in extremist actions.

 

The Silicon Valley Cartel Hires Gawker, Gizmodo, Jalopnik,
Black Cube, Fusion GPS, etc. to run "hit-jobs" on those who report their crimes!

 

 

 

TEAM1

Author: TEAM1

Stay in touch with the latest news and subscribe to the RSS Feed about this category

Comments (0)

Comments are closed


No attachment



You might also like