Pay the money you owe us for damages or be put out of business by the largest federal and private criminal investigation (currently already underway) in history!
As usual, Google, you laugh at such assertions because you bought a President, an FBI boss, an Attorney General and own most of the lobbyists in Washington and most of the Government in California...BUT...
... Larry Page, Sergy Brin, David Drummond, Eric Schimdt, Anne Wojcicki, Ruth Porat, Jared Cohen, John Doerr and the rest of your creepy Google/YouTube/Alphabet mobsters: you have nothing to worry about if you did not:
- Bribe any politicians
- Run hit-jobs on anybody
- Use taxpayer-paid-for intelligence resources for profiteering
- Rig the stock market
- Operate an anti-trust violating monopoly
- Lie to the public
- Run sex trafficking operations for your executives and owners
- Operate the largest violation of citizen privacy in global history
- Manipulation global server farms in order to harm billions of citizens and business owners
- Have Rajeev Motwani and those other guys killed with poisons and electro-cardiac stun guns
- Rape and sexually abuse your interns
- Steal most of your technology from small business start-ups
- and/or engage in those hundreds of other charges of sick, warped, delusional billionaire oligarchy...
We saw you do those things! So we know you are guilty! We have the hard evidence and we have already started distributing it to the FBI, OSC, FTC, Congress and the world!
Pay up or watch Google die a slow, awful painful, highly public demise!
The people you maliciously and intentionally screwed
PROOF THAT GOOGLE CAN DESTROY YOUR COMPANY OR LIFE IF LARRY PAGE DOES NOT LIKE YOU:
DAILY MAIL Traffic Drops 50% After GOOGLE Algorithm Change...
80% of “people” on Facebook and Google Are Fake People Created By Facebook and Google to Scam Advertisers
In recent news, Google and Facebook had to credit-back their advertisers because Google’s and Facebook’s user statistics had “calculation errors”. You may have heard that a few profiles on these sites were fake. The reality is that almost the entirety of these sites is fake.
The fact is: Google and Facebook are lying to advertisers in order to create billions of dollars of fraudulent ad invoices.
There are no “errors” in the calculations. Google and Facebook know that there is nobody home. For over a decade, Google, Facebook, Twitter and even the New York Times Online have been knowingly using fake people generators, many purchased as services from China via front companies.
We were in the room while Google and Facebook executives ordered these actions.
There are no “analysis errors’. There are no “rounding typos”.
There is absolute and indisputable fraud going on at Facebook and Google.
Google and Facebook are the companies whose executives rape and sexually coerce interns. They are the companies whose executives run tax evasion scams and bribe politicians. There can be no possible doubt in any person’s mind about the fact that the people who run Facebook and Google are scum and they will stoop to any depth for money and power.
Why should you care?
Because the “community” of people you think you are interacting with on the internet is all smoke.
Because the billions of dollars in fake ad billings are being used to bribe politicians to work against your interests.
Because you, and everyone else online, are being lied to.
Because Google’s and Facebook’s computerized propaganda exceeds even that of CNN, who Google and Facebook run the PR for.
You should care because crime is never good for the American public and social morality failures like this damage society as a whole.
Facebook and Google are full of “...we din’t do nuffin” hand wringing media responses but the fact is that they are liars and it can be proven in court and before Grand Juries.
Around 2010 or so Google and Facebook became “uncool” and the kids left them in the dust.
Google and Facebook had promised to steer election perceptions for all of the elections from 2008, forward, to the DNC. The DNC promised to send Google’s and Facebooks investors all of the government cash for the “climate change crisis.”
So you had a withering Google and Facebook with a trillion dollar payola deal with Obama and Clinton and no way to back up their end of the deal.
What could they do about their commitment to deliver 200 million voters to the DNC and advertisers? Make them up!
Clinton lost because Google’s and Facebook’s one trick pony only had a circus tent in California and New York. The rest of the world had written Google’s and Facebook’s relevance off long ago!
Advertisers should sue the crap out of Facebook and Google. The Government should bring charges against them. Google, Facebook and Twitter are the biggest scam in human history!
In its company filings published this week, Facebook revealed that more than 83 million of its users are 'fake,' CNET reports. Last week, in its first ...
Google’s Stock Market Pump & Dump Tech Fraud Partner: Tesla, sinks 20% from high—entering bear market territory—as concerns about 'bubble stock' mount
Technology crook and professional liar: Musk, ups the BS factor
The electric car maker's stock is down 20 percent from its all-time high in late June.
Disappointing deliveries, safety concerns, Volvo competition and negative Wall Street commentary are the factors driving the shares lower.
Tae Kim | @firstadopter
What a difference a couple of weeks make. After hitting an all-time high in late June, Tesla shares have collapsed 20 percent as of midday Thursday, due to mounting concerns about its sales results, competition and the safety of its cars.
Traders consider a 20 percent decline from an all-time high the technical definition of a bear market move.
The electric car maker's stock fell 5 percent midday Thursday, bringing losses for the week to 14 percent.
"Tesla's stock was pushed to ridiculous levels on the notion that the Model 3 would be a slam-dunk success," said Fred Hickey, editor of High Tech Strategist. The company's "$100,000+ models aren't selling as well and are piling up in inventory (the relatively small pool of potential buyers at these prices may be exhausted). This bubble stock is losing air rapidly, as it should."
Multiple Wall Street firms including Goldman Sachs, Bernstein, KeyBanc Capital and Cowen expressed disappointment over Tesla's second-quarter delivery results in notes to clients the last two days.
Goldman analyst David Tamberrino cited how Tesla's second-quarter deliveries number released Monday of approximately 22,000 cars missed his forecast of 23,500 and the Wall Street consensus of 24,200.
Tesla blamed a production issue with its 100 kilowatt-hour battery packs for the second-quarter deliveries shortfall.
"Tesla's Q2 production and deliveries report raised more questions than answers, particularly about Model S and X demand," Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi wrote in a note to clients Wednesday.
After the weaker-than-expected deliveries number, Volvo announced Wednesday that it will phase out combustion engine-only cars. The automaker's new cars will be all electric or hybrid by 2019.
"This announcement marks the end of the solely combustion engine-powered car," Volvo Cars Chief Executive Hakan Samuelsson said, according to a Reuters report.
The Volvo news came after a Handelsblatt Global article last week, which said BMW plans to introduce an electric version of its popular 3-Series line of sedans later this year.
In addition to the rising competition, one of the key selling points for Tesla's cars is now being called into doubt.
On Thursday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Dave Zuby questioned Tesla's claim that the Model S is the safest car in history after a series of new crash tests.
"If you're looking for top-line safety, we believe there are other, better choices than the Model S," Zuby told CNBC.
Tesla declined to comment on this story. Its shares are up 53 percent this year versus the S&P 500's 8.7 percent return through Wednesday.
The company's market value is about $50.7 billion, which is now below General Motor's $52.7 billion, according to FactSet and clear proof that Tesla is a smoke-and-mirrors scam
THIS IS WHAT GOOGLE IS (ABOVE)
GOOGLE IS A MASS MANIPULATION TOOL FOR SICK, TWISTED, SILICON VALLEY OLIGARCHS
Colombian music star Shakira had a court date this morning at 10am in Esplugues de Llobregat, a municipality in Barcelona, to testify over alleged tax fraud. Larry Page, Sergy Brin, David Drummond, Eric Schimdt, Anne Wojcicki, Ruth Porat, Jared Cohen, John Doerr are now being investigated financially over a hundred times deeper than Shakira was. The singer managed to avoid being seen by the press by having rented a space in a private parking garage located next to the courts, allowing her to escape the cameras but she can't avoid justice. Neither will the Google mobsters!
The judge in charge of the case had given an “express order” that she should enter via the front door, as any other defendant or witness would, according to a spokesperson from the Catalan regional High Court. But sources close to the defense deny that this was the case, and confirmed that Shakira had entered via a side entrance by making use of the parking space, which was hired by her lawyer.
A woman with a similar appearance to Shakira – with blonde hair and short stature – distracted the press for several minutes this morning when she appeared at the court. But the real Shakira managed to slip by the press almost unnoticed.
The singer gave carefully planned and highly measured statements on the alleged €14.5 million fraud she has been accused of defrauding by the Spanish Tax Office. Unlike with other celebrities involved in such cases, she did not attract many members of the public this morning to await her arrival at the courts. There were a few women waiting to catch a glimpse of her from a balcony, and a group of friends who had found out about what was happening via a TV show. “We thought, let’s go along and see if we see her,” one of them said.
But like the majority of the journalists who were waiting to see her, they left empty handed, apart from having seen the arrival of the singer’s lawyer, José Ángel González Franco.
Shakira is accused of evading €14.5 million in taxes
Backed by a team of consultants, lawyers and PR experts, Shakira is, for now, facing six different accusations of fraud alone. According to the public prosecutor, between 2012 and 2014 she was living in Barcelona, and was in a stable relationship with the FC Barcelona soccer player Gerard Piqué. There are invoices and other evidence that back this claim. If this was the case, she should have been filing tax returns in Spain.
The singer, however, claims to have been resident in the Bahamas during this time, thus allowing her to save a considerable amount on taxes. According to the public prosecutor, her consultants created a “web of companies” to hide her income from the Spanish Tax Agency.
Speaking in the court on Thursday, she opted to only answer questions from her lawyer, and during a 90-minute session claimed that her visits to Barcelona were only “sporadic” during the period in question, and increased as her relationship with Piqué progressed.
She gave details of her “professional commitments,” including her participation in the US version of the hit showThe Voice. That, she claimed, proves that she lived abroad. She also claimed not to have spent half a year plus one day in Spain, which is the criteria set for being a tax resident in a country. At the end of 2014, she explained, she put her son Milan in school in Spain, and from that point started to consider becoming a resident.
Shakira also stated that she “didn’t understand” why she was being investigated when she has repaid the amounts in question to the Tax Agency, and claimed that all of these affairs were in the hands of her consultants, who, she claimed, were “the best.” She added that she never could have thought that they would commit any kind of offense.
Shakira is the latest in a long list of high-profile celebrities in Spain who have had to face court proceedings over tax avoidance. These include former Real Madrid soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo, opera singer Montserrat Caballé, celebrity chef Sergi Arola and 1980s pop star Ana Torroja.
Behind the YouTube purge: Sergey Brin and Larry Page founded Google and control 56% of the stockholder voting power. Google's CFO Ruth Porat. YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki. (i.imgtc.ws)
GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE CORRUPT 1984-LIKE SPY BASTARDS
An entire library of articles about Big Tech is coming out these days, and I find that much of it is written so well, and the ideas in them so well expressed, that I have little to add. Except, I think I may have the solution to the problems many people see. But I also have a concern that I don’t see addressed, and that may well prevent that solution from being adopted. If so, we’re very far away from any solution at all. And that’s seriously bad news.
Let’s start with a general -even ‘light’- critique of social media by Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan for the Guardian:
Social media force us to live our lives in public, positioned centre-stage in our very own daily performances. Erving Goffman, the American sociologist, articulated the idea of “life as theatre” in his 1956 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and while the book was published more than half a century ago, the concept is even more relevant today. It is increasingly difficult to live a private life, in terms not just of keeping our personal data away from governments or corporations, but also of keeping our movements, interests and, most worryingly, information consumption habits from the wider world.
The social networks are engineered so that we are constantly assessing others – and being assessed ourselves. In fact our “selves” are scattered across different platforms, and our decisions, which are public or semi-public performances, are driven by our desire to make a good impression on our audiences, imagined and actual. We grudgingly accept these public performances when it comes to our travels, shopping, dating, and dining. We know the deal. The online tools that we use are free in return for us giving up our data, and we understand that they need us to publicly share our lifestyle decisions to encourage people in our network to join, connect and purchase.
But, critically, the same forces have impacted the way we consume news and information. Before our media became “social”, only our closest family or friends knew what we read or watched, and if we wanted to keep our guilty pleasures secret, we could. Now, for those of us who consume news via the social networks, what we “like” and what we follow is visible to many [..] Consumption of the news has become a performance that can’t be solely about seeking information or even entertainment. What we choose to “like” or follow is part of our identity, an indication of our social class and status, and most frequently our political persuasion.
That sets the scene. People sell their lives, their souls, to join a network that then sells these lives -and souls- to the highest bidder, for a profit the people themselves get nothing of. This is not some far-fetched idea. As noted further down, in terms of scale, Facebook is a present day Christianity. And these concerns are not only coming from ‘concerned citizens’, some of the early participants are speaking out as well. Like Facebook co-founder Sean Parker:
Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, gave me a candid insider’s look at how social networks purposely hook and potentially hurt our brains. Be smart: Parker’s I-was-there account provides priceless perspective in the rising debate about the power and effects of the social networks, which now have scale and reach unknown in human history. [..]
“When Facebook was getting going, I had these people who would come up to me and they would say, ‘I’m not on social media.’ And I would say, ‘OK. You know, you will be.’ And then they would say, ‘No, no, no. I value my real-life interactions. I value the moment. I value presence. I value intimacy.’ And I would say, … ‘We’ll get you eventually.'”
“I don’t know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and … it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other … It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”
“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, … was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'” “And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you … more likes and comments.”
“It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” “The inventors, creators — it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”
Early stage investor in Facebook, Roger McNamee, also has some words to add along the same lines as Parker. They make it sound like they’re Frankenstein and Facebook is their monster.
The term “addiction” is no exaggeration. The average consumer checks his or her smartphone 150 times a day, making more than 2,000 swipes and touches. The applications they use most frequently are owned by Facebook and Alphabet, and the usage of those products is still increasing. In terms of scale, Facebook and YouTube are similar to Christianity and Islam respectively. More than 2 billion people use Facebook every month, 1.3 billion check in every day. More than 1.5 billion people use YouTube. Other services owned by these companies also have user populations of 1 billion or more.
Facebook and Alphabet are huge because users are willing to trade privacy and openness for “convenient and free.” Content creators resisted at first, but user demand forced them to surrender control and profits to Facebook and Alphabet. The sad truth is that Facebook and Alphabet have behaved irresponsibly in the pursuit of massive profits. They have consciously combined persuasive techniques developed by propagandists and the gambling industry with technology in ways that threaten public health and democracy.
The issue, however, is not social networking or search. It is advertising business models. Let me explain. From the earliest days of tabloid newspapers, publishers realized the power of exploiting human emotions. To win a battle for attention, publishers must give users “what they want,” content that appeals to emotions, rather than intellect. Substance cannot compete with sensation, which must be amplified constantly, lest consumers get distracted and move on. “If it bleeds, it leads” has guided editorial choices for more than 150 years, but has only become a threat to society in the past decade, since the introduction of smartphones.
Media delivery platforms like newspapers, television, books, and even computers are persuasive, but people only engage with them for a few hours each day and every person receives the same content. Today’s battle for attention is not a fair fight. Every competitor exploits the same techniques, but Facebook and Alphabet have prohibitive advantages: personalization and smartphones. Unlike older media, Facebook and Alphabet know essentially everything about their users, tracking them everywhere they go on the web and often beyond.
By making every experience free and easy, Facebook and Alphabet became gatekeepers on the internet, giving them levels of control and profitability previously unknown in media. They exploit data to customize each user’s experience and siphon profits from content creators. Thanks to smartphones, the battle for attention now takes place on a single platform that is available every waking moment. Competitors to Facebook and Alphabet do not have a prayer.
Facebook and Alphabet monetize content through advertising that is targeted more precisely than has ever been possible before. The platforms create “filter bubbles” around each user, confirming pre-existing beliefs and often creating the illusion that everyone shares the same views. Platforms do this because it is profitable. The downside of filter bubbles is that beliefs become more rigid and extreme. Users are less open to new ideas and even to facts.
Of the millions of pieces of content that Facebook can show each user at a given time, they choose the handful most likely to maximize profits. If it were not for the advertising business model, Facebook might choose content that informs, inspires, or enriches users. Instead, the user experience on Facebook is dominated by appeals to fear and anger. This would be bad enough, but reality is worse.
And in a Daily Mail article, McNamee’s ideas are taken a mile or so further. Goebbels, Bernays, fear, anger, personalization, civility.
Facebook officials have been compared to the Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels by a former investor. Roger McNamee also likened the company’s methods to those of Edward Bernays, the ‘father of public’ relations who promoted smoking for women. Mr McNamee, who made a fortune backing the social network in its infancy, has spoken out about his concern about the techniques the tech giants use to engage users and advertisers. [..] the former investor said everyone was now ‘in one degree or another addicted’ to the site while he feared the platform was causing people to swap real relationships for phoney ones.
And he likened the techniques of the company to Mr Bernays and Hitler’s public relations minister. ‘In order to maintain your attention they have taken all the techniques of Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels, and all of the other people from the world of persuasion, and all the big ad agencies, and they’ve mapped it onto an all day product with highly personalised information in order to addict you,’ Mr McNamee told The Telegraph. Mr McNamee said Facebook was creating a culture of ‘fear and anger’. ‘We have lowered the civil discourse, people have become less civil to each other..’
He said the tech giant had ‘weaponised’ the First Amendment to ‘essentially absolve themselves of responsibility’. He added: ‘I say this as somebody who was there at the beginning.’ Mr McNamee’s comments come as a further blow to Facebook as just last month former employee Justin Rosenstein spoke out about his concerns. Mr Rosenstein, the Facebook engineer who built a prototype of the network’s ‘like’ button, called the creation the ‘bright dings of pseudo-pleasure’. He said he was forced to limit his own use of the social network because he was worried about the impact it had on him.
As for the economic, not the societal or personal, effects of social media, Yanis Varoufakis had this to say a few weeks ago:
Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has claimed capitalism is coming to an end because it is making itself obsolete. The former economics professor told an audience at University College London that the rise of giant technology corporations and artificial intelligence will cause the current economic system to undermine itself. Mr Varoufakis said companies such as Google and Facebook, for the first time ever, are having their capital bought and produced by consumers.
“Firstly the technologies were funded by some government grant; secondly every time you search for something on Google, you contribute to Google’s capital,” he said. “And who gets the returns from capital? Google, not you. “So now there is no doubt capital is being socially produced, and the returns are being privatised. This with artificial intelligence is going to be the end of capitalism.”
Ergo, as people sell their lives and their souls to Facebook and Alphabet, they sell their economies along with them. That’s what that means. And you were just checking what your friends were doing. Or, that’s what you thought you were doing.
The solution to all these pains is, likely unintentionally, provided by Umair Haque’s critique of economics. It’s interesting to see how the topics ‘blend’, ‘intertwine’.
When, in the 1930s, the great economist Simon Kuznets created GDP, he deliberately left two industries out of this then novel, revolutionary idea of a national income : finance and advertising. [..] Kuznets logic was simple, and it was not mere opinion, but analytical fact: finance and advertising don’t create new value, they only allocate, or distribute existing value in the same way that a loan to buy a television isn’t the television, or an ad for healthcare isn’t healthcare. They are only means to goods, not goods themselves. Now we come to two tragedies of history.
What happened next is that Congress laughed, as Congresses do, ignored Kuznets, and included advertising and finance anyways for political reasons -after all, bigger, to the politicians mind, has always been better, and therefore, a bigger national income must have been better. Right? Let’s think about it. Today, something very curious has taken place.
If we do what Kuznets originally suggested, and subtract finance and advertising from GDP, what does that picture -a picture of the economy as it actually is reveal? Well, since the lion’s share of growth, more than 50% every year, comes from finance and advertising -whether via Facebook or Google or Wall St and hedge funds and so on- we would immediately see that the economic growth that the US has chased so desperately, so furiously, never actually existed at all.
Growth itself has only been an illusion, a trick of numbers, generated by including what should have been left out in the first place. If we subtracted allocative industries from GDP, we’d see that economic growth is in fact below population growth, and has been for a very long time now, probably since the 1980s and in that way, the US economy has been stagnant, which is (surprise) what everyday life feels like. Feels like.
Economic indicators do not anymore tell us a realistic, worthwhile, and accurate story about the truth of the economy, and they never did -only, for a while, the trick convinced us that reality wasn’t. Today, that trick is over, and economies grow , but people’s lives, their well-being, incomes, and wealth, do not, and that, of course, is why extremism is sweeping the globe. Perhaps now you begin to see why the two have grown divorced from one another: economics failed the economy.
Now let us go one step, then two steps, further. Finance and advertising are no longer merely allocative industries today. They are now extractive industries. That is, they internalize value from society, and shift costs onto society, all the while creating no value themselves.
The story is easiest to understand via Facebook’s example: it makes its users sadder, lonelier, and unhappier, and also corrodes democracy in spectacular and catastrophic ways. There is not a single upside of any kind that is discernible -and yet, all the above is counted as a benefit, not a cost, in national income, so the economy can thus grow, even while a society of miserable people are being manipulated by foreign actors into destroying their own democracy. Pretty neat, huh?
It was BECAUSE finance and advertising were counted as creative, productive, when they were only allocative, distributive that they soon became extractive. After all, if we had said from the beginning that these industries do not count, perhaps they would not have needed to maximize profits (or for VCs to pour money into them, and so on) endlessly to count more. But we didn’t.
And so soon, they had no choice but to become extractive: chasing more and more profits, to juice up the illusion of growth, and soon enough, these industries began to eat the economy whole, because of course, as Kuznets observed, they allocate everything else in the economy, and therefore, they control it.
Thus, the truly creative, productive, life-giving parts of the economy shrank in relative, and even in absolute terms, as they were taken apart, strip-mined, and consumed in order to feed the predatory parts of the economy, which do not expand human potential. The economy did eat itself, just as Marx had supposed – only the reason was not something inherent in it, but a choice, a mistake, a tragedy.
[..] Life is not flourishing, growing, or developing in a single way that I or even you can readily identify or name. And yet, the economy appears to be growing, because purely allocative and distributive enterprises like Uber, Facebook, credit rating agencies, endless nameless hedge funds, shady personal info brokers, and so on, which fail to contribute positively to human life in any discernible way whatsoever, are all counted as beneficial. Do you see the absurdity of it?
[..] It’s not a coincidence that the good has failed to grow, nor is it an act of the gods. It was a choice. A simple cause-effect relationship, of a society tricking itself into desperately pretending it was growing, versus truly growing. Remember not subtracting finance and advertising from GDP, to create the illusion of growth? Had America not done that, then perhaps it might have had to work hard to find ways to genuinely, authentically, meaningfully grow, instead of taken the easy way out, only to end up stagnating today, and unable to really even figure out why yet.
Industries that are not productive, but instead only extract money from society, need to be taxed so heavily they have trouble surviving. If that doesn’t happen, your economy will never thrive, or even survive. The whole service economy fata morgana must be thrown as far away as we can throw it. Economies must produce real, tangible things, or they die.
For the finance industry this means: tax the sh*t out of any transactions they engage in. Want to make money on complex derivatives? We’ll take 75+%. Upfront. And no, you can’t take your company overseas. Don’t even try.
For Uber and Airbnb it means pay taxes up the wazoo, either as a company or as individual home slash car owners. Uber and Airbnb take huge amounts of money out of local economies, societies, communities, which is nonsense, unnecessary and detrimental. Every city can set up its own local car- or home rental schemes. Their profits should stay within the community, and be invested in it.
For Google and Facebook as the world’s new major -only?!- ad agencies: Tax the heebies out of them or forbid them from running any ads at all. Why? Because they extract enormous amounts of productive capital from society. Capital they, as Varoufakis says, do not even themselves create.
YOU are creating the capital, and YOU then must pay for access to the capital created. Yeah, it feels like you can just hook up and look at what your friends are doing, but the price extracted from you, your friends, and your community is so high you would never volunteer to pay for it if you had any idea.
The one thing that I don’t see anyone address, and that might prevent these pretty straightforward ”tax-them-til they-bleed!” answers to the threat of New Big Tech, is that Facebook, Alphabet et al have built a very strong relationship with various intelligence communities. And then you have Goebbels and Bernays in the service of the CIA.
As Google, Facebook and the CIA are ever more entwined, these companies become so important to what ‘the spooks’ consider the interests of the nation that they will become mutually protective. And once CIA headquarters in Langley, VA, aka the aptly named “George Bush Center for Intelligence”, openly as well as secretly protects you, you’re pretty much set for life. A long life.
Next up: they’ll be taking over entire economies, societies. This is happening as we speak. I know, you were thinking it was ‘the Russians’ with a few as yet unproven bucks in Facebook ads that were threatening US and European democracies. Well, you’re really going to have to think again.
The world has never seen such technologies. It has never seen such intensity, depth of, or such dependence on, information. We are simply not prepared for any of this. But we need to learn fast, or become patsies and slaves in a full blown 1984 style piece of absurd theater. Our politicians are AWOL and MIA for all of it, they have no idea what to say or think, they don’t understand what Google or bitcoin or Uber really mean.
In the meantime, we know one thing we can do, and we can justify doing it through the concept of non-productive and extractive industries. That is, tax them till they bleed. That we would hit the finance industry with that as well is a welcome bonus. Long overdue. We need productive economies or we’re done. And Facebook and Alphabet -and Goldman Sachs- don’t produce d*ck all.
When you think about it, the only growth that’s left in the US economy is that of companies spying on American citizens. Well, that and Europeans. China has banned Facebook and Google. Why do you think they have? Because Google and Facebook ARE 1984, that’s why. And if there’s going to be a Big Brother in the Middle Kingdom, it’s not going to be Silicon Valley.