Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts

Friday, February 14, 2025

Facebook, Google, et al., And DEI: Let's Not Forget Their Insufferable Sanctimony

F 34 Comments

A few days ago, Google announced that it had abandoned its targets for “diversity, equity and inclusion” for its workforce. Here is the February 5 New York Times article covering the announcement. According to the Times, Google attributed the change of policy to its need “as a federal contractor . . . to comply with President Trump’s executive orders opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies.” Google’s announcement came about a month after Facebook parent Meta had (formally) made the same change of policy. (See CNBC’s January 10 piece here covering the Meta announcement.). Google and Facebook are now two leaders in what has become a full-on parade of corporate giants making the same sudden 180 degree reversal of what had previously been broadcast as fundamental corporate policy. Among others in this group are Amazon, Goldman Sachs, McDonald’s, and even Disney.

Was the commitment to DEI of Corporate America, and particularly of the tech giants, really this shallow, that they would all reverse course completely and suddenly and in unison and without a peep of objection?

The truth is that these companies are all breathing a huge sigh of relief at having finally been let off the DEI hook. Their DEI promises were always a ludicrous fantasy. And they were all quickly running into an impossible situation where the promises they had made could not be continued.

Meanwhile DEI had become an increasingly militant and desperate racial spoils regime. As further progress toward its goals became less and less possible, maintaining the regime inevitably required ever more enforced agreement and silencing of dissent. The end of this mess is something we should all welcome. And I do welcome its end, which I certainly hope is permanent.

But I can’t just let the whole thing go as if it had never happened. We have all been subjected to a decade and more of insufferable moral preening from these people claiming to be our betters. Before moving on, it is appropriate to remind ourselves — and them — of some of the endless sanctimony, and of the hypocrisy that it covered.

I previously had two posts — this one in June 2020, and this one in September 2021 — reporting on the DEI promises of the big tech firms. The 2020 post provided some of the history:

[I]n the Spring of 2014, Jesse Jackson made the rounds of the annual meetings of many of the [big tech] companies; and suddenly the dominoes all quickly fell. Essentially all of these companies began releasing annual “diversity reports” starting in mid-2014.

And thus, starting in 2014, we have annual versions of these “diversity reports” for each of the tech giants. For today, let’s focus on Facebook and Google.

Facebook’s initial Report in 2014, “Building a More Diverse Facebook,” was not a long document, just a few pages. But it began with the obligatory moral sanctimony:

At Facebook, diversity is essential to achieving our mission. We build products to connect the world, and this means we need a team that understands and reflects many different communities, backgrounds and cultures. Research also shows that diverse teams are better at solving complex problems and enjoy more dynamic workplaces. So at Facebook we’re serious about building a workplace that reflects a broad range of experience, thought, geography, age, background, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and many other characteristics.

So OK, what was the percentage of blacks in the tech portion of the workforce? From a chart toward the end of the document, the figure is (drumroll!!!) 1%.

Fast forward seven years to 2021. Here is now the eighth version of Facebook’s Report. The sanctimony of course continues. Example:

Connecting the world takes people with different backgrounds and points of view to build products that work better for everyone. This means building a workforce that reflects the diversity of the people we serve.

And the percent of black workers in tech? Again, you will need to go to a chart at the end of the document. The answer is: 2.1%.

The 2022 version of the Facebook diversity Report seems to be suddenly reduced in size. Might that indicate that something is going on? Looking through the charts at the end, we find that the percent of black workers in the tech area is now up to all of 2.4%.

In 2023, as you may recall, Facebook underwent a first-time downsizing. According to StockAnalysis.com, total employment at Meta Platforms, Inc. went from 86,482 on December 31, 2022 to 67,317 on December 31, 2023. If this was like all other corporate downsizings, they obviously looked to eliminate first the unproductive employees and make-work jobs.

And suddenly, I can’t find any more annual diversity reports for Facebook for 2023 and 2024! If any reader can find them, kindly provide a link. Although Facebook only formally announced the end to its DEI regime in January 2025, it could well be that they had quietly and surreptitiously begun burying it a couple of years ago. Perhaps you are now starting to understand why Mark Zuckerberg was so quick to join President Trump in calling an end to the DEI regime.

Over at Google, they at least continued the diversity reports, and in the same format, through 2024 (although I would not expect to see another for 2025). There is plenty of swearing allegiance and loyalty to the woke DEI project. As a random example, this is from the intro to the 2020 Report:

Google has made progress in several areas of hiring and retaining talented professionals from underrepresented groups. We also continued our work to understand the identities, intersectionalities, and experiences of Googlers worldwide. More broadly, we made a wide array of investments to strengthen the diverse communities both within and outside Google. Looking forward, we will continue to use data-informed efforts to support diversity, equity and inclusion as we grow and scale . . . .

Google’s 2024 Report helpfully includes charts that track changes in the data by year since the initial Report in 2014. To find how the percent of black workers in tech jobs has changed over the years, you will need to go to a chart deeply buried on page 78 of the document. The answer is that that percent has gone from 1.5% in 2014 to 4.2% in 2024.

Back in my September 2021 post linked above, I referred to my own efforts over many years at a large law firm to help recruit, hire and retain increasing numbers of blacks and other minorities. My comment was that this was a “difficult, long-term and often frustrating process.” Google, Facebook and their brethren thought they were a lot smarter and better than the rest of us. Well, welcome to the real world.

 "Insufferable sanctimony"

Saturday, April 20, 2024

P&D and The Week That Was

Truth is the Sublime Convergence of History and Reality

De Omnibus Dubitandum (Everything is to be questioned)

 This Link will take you to My Commentaries.  This Link will take you to My Commentaries by topic.  This Link will take you to My Global Warming Commentaries

By Rich Kozlovich

 

We've seen a recent protest by Google employees that really backfired.  They took over Google offices disrupting the work and apparently even doing some kind of damage.  And they were fired.  Well, one of these nitwits was Google's child safety officer... whatever that means... but she's also a pro-rape propagandist, spewing out truly irrational, and I think incomprehensible blather, which I won't replicate here, so follow the link, but she wasn't fired for that, she was fired for being part of that protest.   You have to wonder what's wrong with the minds of Google's power structure, because none of this has anything to do with moral values or principles. 

Here's the real story.

Good riddance: Google boots 28 pro-Hamas employees who staged disruptive anti-Israel protest April 19, 2024 by Monica Showalter Given that so much of Google's talent is Israeli talent, Google knows which side its bread is buttered on......The protest was over a $1.2 billion cloud contract Google had signed with Israel several years earlier (with Amazon) called Project Nimbus. The protestors wanted Google to flush that money down the toilet and come join them for some virtue-signaling......The other thing is that Google, being a business, knows which side its bread is buttered on. Tech in particular is an industry that requires brainpower talent, and Google doing what these radicals want is bound to alienate the one thing Google values more than anything at all within its company, its Israeli brainpower, mainly used for its cutting edge research and development.......According to this 2012 Forbes magazine article, Google has sought out Israel for its critical research and development for quite some time and has a huge operation there:.......

The so-called backbone Google's executives demonstrated is in reality all about money and business, not morality.  At the end of the article the author states:

Google isn’t the real world; it’s more like a daycare for mentally sick adults. And it seems the inmates who were running the asylum are starting to realize that even the most unhinged corporations have their limits. It’s a shame that being pro-rape isn’t enough to get you fired from Google, which just goes to show the depth of the cesspool we’re dealing with. However, the good news is that they’re not too big to fall. Much like the US, Google is facing its own kind of internal demolition at the hands of radical left-wing crazies, like Dr. Kate S. Sure, it’s a slow burn, but one that could eventually lead to their downfall, God willing.

Let's start today's edition with John Droz, Jr's The Media Balance Newsletter: 4/15/2024, and he's right when he says you won't find what he's offering anywhere else in one place, followed by ten commentaries of my own, and thirty five well done and thought out commentaries by others, and four links total at the end. 

My Commentaries

  1. The Beast is Here
  2. NPR's Skin is Thin
  3. Club For the Galacticly Stupid Redux
  4. Sweden's Leadership Just Now Grasp Their Immigration Polices Are Disastrous
  5. Mike Johnson: The Mole Who Thinks Fake News CNN Reporter Jake Tapper is "Always Fair"
  6. My Gazette: Media Collapse and Corruption II
  7. Republican Control of the House
  8. FaniGate Seems to Be Another Leftist "NeverEnding Story"!
  9. American Infidels Beware!
  10. Defining Leftist Moral Boundaries. That's Easy, They Don't Exist!

Commentaries

  1. Migrants Bringing Measles and TB Across the Border By Kelli Ballard
  2. Links to CA News Sites Could Disappear from Google By Kelli Ballard
  3. Judiciary Committee Holds Free Press Hearing Sarah Cowgill
  4. Trump Looking Better in the Rearview Mirror Leesa K. Donner
  5. Could Israel Be Joe Biden’s Waterloo? By Tim Donner
  6. Saving K-12 Private Schools By John Droz, Jr.
  7. Johnson Won’t Raise the Bar to Oust a Speaker – And It May Save Him By James Fite
  8. The Unreal Politics of Unreal Men By Daniel Greenfield
  9. Majority of Young Muslims in UK Want Islamic Law  By Daniel Greenfield
  10. Launched from Iran, Made in America  By Daniel Greenfield
  11. No Cars for the Working Class  By Daniel Greenfield
  12. Swastikas Are Progressive Now  By Daniel Greenfield
  13. The Greenfield Gazette
  14. The Greenfield Gazette
  15. Is the Tide Turning to Freedom? By Robin Itzler
  16. GOP Leadership Ignores J-6ers By Robin Itzler
  17. Government Plays With Jobs Numbers By Robin Itzler
  18. Are We Now a Radical Socialist Nation? By Robin Itzler
  19. 2024 Election: Nine Swing States By Robin Itzler
  20. Minneapolis: When radical socialist Dems are in charge By Robin Itzler
  21. Criminal Illegals Squat Their Way Into Americans’ Homes By John Klar
  22. Ever More Audacious Efforts To Suppress Mainstream Conservative Speech By Francis Menton
  23. New York Shows Off Its Expertise In Central Planning: The Buffalo Billion By Francis Menton
  24. Illustrating The Absurdity Of New York's Energy Transition By Francis Menton
  25. The Drift to Statism in the Western World By Dan Mitchell
  26. The U.S., Argentina, and the Importance of Long-Run Growth By Dan Mitchell
  27. Dumb Idea of the Month: Currency Devaluation By Dan Mitchell
  28. Everything You Need to Know about the Value-Added Tax By Dan Mitchell
  29. In One Image, Everything You Need to Know about the Washington-Created Welfare State (Part II) By Dan Mitchell
  30. An Inaccurate – But at Least Not Hypocritical – Leftist By Dan Mitchell
  31. ESG Is Dead, Long Live DEI? By Andrew Moran
  32. Biden Begins the Spin on the Iran Attack By Dave Patterson
  33. Biden Warned Iran, but They Hit Israel Anyway – So Now What? By Dave Patterson
  34. Whatever happened to... (Part 3) By Michael D. Shaw
  35. Hypersonic Hype By Peter Zeihan

Links

  1. Daily Dose of Reason
  2. The Biden ‘Don’t’ Policy Fails Miserably Again

Permanent Links

  1. 45 Communist Goals to Destroy America as Listed in the1963 Congressional Record
  2. My Seven Rules of Geopolitics
  3. Free North Star Clipart, Download Free North Star Clipart ...
    Constant as the North Star
You know that little voice in your head that keeps you from saying the things you shouldn't say? Yeah, I don't have that.

Friday, December 1, 2023

Google Is An Invasive Cancer Infecting The Entire Internet

A Beacon Of Light In A Sea Of Censorship 

By ——--November 29, 2023 Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

This column is intended to warn struggling conservative/christian news outlets about the inherent dangers of offers for help from duplicitous Internet advertising operatives, such as InfoLinks. An InfoLinks offer of advertising help came at struggling CFP, out-of-the-blue in mid-November.  Canada Free Press IT guy Brian Thompson responded to InfoLinks by informing them that we had been ordered by Google, to take our front page offline, and have been harassed by them ever since daily over the past three years.

As powerful Google owns 90% of all Internet advertising, prospects of getting any kind of advertising are doomed to fail from the proverbial get-go.  When told that we could not work with them if they put Google ads on the CFP site, InfoLinks said not to worry because they could still satisfy our demands. One week later, all InfoLinks ads disappeared from CFP.....................

 Google is an invasive species and should be treated as such. Through their gmail platform, they will attempt to hijack all your password logins. Through search results they promote or suppress—they only drive their own narrative. They will deliberately choke off page views from search results. Page reviews drive revenue.

Through their Adsense “Community Standards” they will censor your website and choke off your advertising revenue. Not just from Adsense, but because of their nature of advertising and third party advertising on other ad company platforms, they deny that company from advertising with a web publisher. Google spreads like a cancer and infect the entire Internet........To Read More.....

 

Monday, January 23, 2023

Google Employees, Welcome to the World!

By Rich Kozlovich
 
If turns out there's trouble in paradise, as  Google employees scramble for answers after layoffs hit long-tenured and recently promoted employees.   The entitled, trophy-for-everyone, narcissistic generations with  little knowledge about how the world works, and a ton of opinions, have a bad case of "the sads".  
 
Imagine that!  Oodie boodie boo, poor little muff muffs.   
 
So they thought Google was better than the others?  Nah, what they thought is "they" were better than others, a common failing with leftists.  They either never understood, or kept forgetting, they weren't hired to direct company policy, determine values and share all their views and opinions with management.  They were hired to be techies.  Techies who were expected to do their jobs, shut their mouths and keep their opinions of how the company should be run to themselves. 
 
Welcome to the world!  
 
Shocking isn't it when lefties are forced to leave these left wing ivory towers and face reality, because the bosses at Google were no better than every other business owner, irrespective of all that clabber about diversity, inclusion and equity.  Remarkable!!!  And worse yet, their bosses were no better than.....watch out now here it comes..... here it comes ....Elon Musk!
 
And now Google employees are "demanding" answers.  It appears some long-tenured and recently promoted employees were let go and they, along with those who remain, are demanding to know what the criteria was for those lay offs.  Demanding mind you!
 
According to them the answers they've received thus far are inadequate, when the CEO says,  “I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here”, they want to know what that means.  Really?  Well, the only adequate answer they would accept is,  "okay, forget all the layoffs and everyone gets a raise." 
 
Well, that's not going to happen because here's what it means when the CEO says I take full responsibility.  I'm the boss and I laid off whomever it pleased me to lay off, and if you don't like it, quit. 
 
Who knows, maybe he really did have a values chart of some kind, and given that after only laying off 12, 000 people there are still 160,000 employees in the company, and maybe he had a lot of negative people that needed to be cut from the company like a cancer.  Maybe he got rid of people he just didn't like, just as Henry Ford II did when he fired Lee Iaccoca because, "sometimes you just don't like someone".  
 
Welcome to the world.
 
Here are some of the questions these snowflakes are demanding answers to, which I'm going to supply:
  • How were the layoffs decided? Some high performers were let go from our teams.
    • None of your business. 
  • This negatively impacts the remaining Googlers who see someone with high recognition, positive reviews, promo but still getting laid off.
    • Really?  I disagree and I don't care what they think, because this is just the beginning for layoffs, so please go public, it will help with decisions over who's next. 
  • What metrics were used to determine who was laid off?
    • None of your business. 
  • Was the decision based on their performance, scope of work, or both, or something else?
    •  Some yes, some no, and none of your business.  
  • How much runway are we hoping to gain with the layoffs?
    • Who exactly is this "we" you're worried about?  There is no "we" in the decision making department unless I say there is. And you're not among them. 
  • Would you explain clearly what the layoff allows Google to do that Google could not have done without layoffs?
    • I could but I won't, because you wouldn't understand or agree, and it's not your business, it's my business. 
  • Is leadership forgoing bonuses and pay raises this year?
    • No, and we may get raises.
  • Will anyone be stepping down?
    • Only if I fire them. 

Will that be their answers? Nah, they're weasels and will squirm, lie, obfuscate, attempt some kind of phony way to placate the snowflakes and soothe their little hurt feelings, Especially since some of them may have to go out and get real jobs.  Jobs that will not generate the benefits and pay they're used to since this is a trend throughout the internet businesses.

The author notes:  

Directors have been telling employees to hold questions for the town hall taking place next week.

Now that should be interesting to watch a menagerie of leftists managers explaining to a circus of leftist clowns why leftism isn't utopia, especially since employees are claiming the company made $17 billion dollars in profit last quarter.  

Okay, here's the answer.  Form a union, go on strike, and let the consequence fall where they may, and accept you're now just like all those middle Americans in fly over country, whose values you looked down of for so many years, and whose views "violated your community standards", so, welcome to the world! 

Oh, one more thing.   If none of that works out for you, perhaps you may wish to start practicing this: "Welcome to McDonald's". 



Thursday, November 3, 2022

Musk Was Right: Bombshell Leak Reveals Fired Twitter Exec Met with Biden Admin to Discuss Censorship Plans

By Mike Landry November 1, 2022 

Here is a disturbing story. It demonstrates intrigue, corruption and disdain for American principles at the highest level.  Perhaps the saddest thing about this story is that you probably won’t be surprised. Especially if you’ve been paying attention for the past few years.  The story is this: Twitter and other social media platforms have been cozy with the Department of Homeland Security to squelch what DHS calls “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “malinformation,” or “MDM,” according to an investigative report published Monday by The Intercept...........To Read More....

My Take - Recently it was reported that Musk fired all the top executives, and did it before November 1, 2022, which means he doesn't  have to payout tens of millions in golden parachutes to these leftist misfits, if they were fired for cause.  I think qualifies as "cause". 

Tuesday, October 25, 2022

If You Liked Big Brother, Meet Google’s Big MUM

October 24, 2022 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Forget Big Brother, Big MUM is Google’s new tool for suppressing conservatives.

MUM or Multitask Unified Model was hyped last year as the company’s new machine learning algorithm. MUM had been initially described as an innovative way to allow Google’s dying search service to answer natural language questions by drawing on multiple sources.

While MUM’s applications initially appeared to be apolitical, that quickly changed.

Google first unleashed MUM to fight what it considered COVID “misinformation” by making sure that everyone saw “high quality and timely information from trusted health authorities like the World Health Organization”. By reducing the number of sources to only those that agree with its agenda, Google is able to deliver fast results while getting rid of different points of view.

A Forbes article described how MUM would "check information across multiple reliable sources" to allow "the system to come to a general consensus". Google had once built its search around the vast diversity of a bygone internet, but it has spent the last decade draining the diversity and depth of the pool and replacing it with the shallow manufactured consensus of its agenda.

Google long ago ceased being a way to find different answers and its search results are deliberately repetitive. Search is an illusion. The user thinks that he’s browsing the internet when he’s actually spinning his wheels in Google’s walled garden. This is most obvious in shopping and in politics: two areas where Google has strong interests and tries to manipulate users into believing that they are exploring options when they’re being hand fed variations on a theme.

Or as Pandu Nayak, VP of search at Google, wrote in a recent post, “By using our latest AI model, Multitask Unified Model (MUM), our systems can now understand the notion of consensus, which is when multiple high-quality sources on the web all agree on the same fact.”

The last thing the world needs is another centralized computer system enforcing a consensus.

Google disagrees with many of its users about what “reliable sources” or “high-quality sources” entail. MUM helps the Big Tech search monopoly manufacture a consensus, on what it claims is a universal fact, and to promote snippets on its own site that promote that consensus.

The monopoly doesn’t see its search service as a way to rank sites. The Big Tech monopoly, like its counterparts, doesn’t want users actually leaving its sites, and wants to force a “consensus” answer on them in its search engine. MUM is another tool for keeping users on its digital plantation. The underlying notion behind MUM is a continuing redefinition of search, not as browsing an array of sources, but as a way of delivering a single instantaneous answer.

Googlers have long been obsessed with the idea of replicating Star Trek's fictional computer which would offer the answer to any question in a robotic female voice.

MUM is the next step in this Big Sister quest.

“The Star Trek computer is not just a metaphor that we use to explain to others what we’re building. It is the ideal that we’re aiming to build—the ideal version done realistically," Amit Singhal, then the head of Google's search rankings team, boasted.

Singhal was later forced to leave the company over sexual harassment allegations.

“It was the perfect search engine,” he gushed about the Star Trek computer. “You could ask it a question and it would tell you exactly the right answer, one right answer—and sometimes it would tell you things you needed to know in advance, before you could ask it.”

In 2022, Google’s search is hopelessly broken because the company no longer has any interest in providing the search service that made it a monopoly, giving a ranked list of diverse results, but wants everyone to speak into their phones and receive a single answer. The consensus.

Google’s snippets and knowledge panels displace links to actual sites and provide what the monopoly claims is the definitive answer. Its search assistant is similarly set up to provide a single answer. Google doesn’t want you to compare answers, but to listen to MUM.

And sometimes Google wants to give you the information before you ask it.

If you own an advanced Android phone, you may find that Google Assistant will interrupt conversations to offer its own “insights”. Google is also pursuing “prebunking” of what it considers “misinformation” with preemptive propaganda campaigns.

Jigsaw, the company’s most explicitly political arm, is researching what it calls "prebunking" or attacking views it opposes before they can even gain traction. Prebunking is currently being experimentally tested by Google's Jigsaw to fight "misinformation" in Poland and other Eastern European countries against Ukrainian migrants. This is only a test and Jigsaw expects there to be much wider application for the information techniques that its “researchers” are developing.

Google's YouTube already has a broad set of bans covering everything from questioning global warming, contradicting medical experts, and debating 2020 election results. These are a window into the company’s political agendas and how it seeks to enforce political conformity.

While it seeks to narrow the sphere of acceptable information in its platforms, Google is working with the leftist Poynter Institute, one of the most notoriously biased fact check spammers, to develop "media literacy.". The company claims to have spent $75 million on efforts to fight "misinformation." And who determines what misinformation is? He who controls the algorithms.

As the midterm elections approach, YouTube spokeswoman, Ivy Choi, promised that the video site's recommendations are “continuously and prominently surfacing midterms-related content from authoritative news sources and limiting the spread of harmful midterms-related misinformation.” The technical term for this is mass propaganda. That’s what Big Tech does.

The internet was revolutionary because it upended the central systems of mass propaganda which allowed a government and a handful of men to enforce their consensus on a helpless public through the mass media of newspapers, radio stations, movie theaters and television sets. Big Tech’s Web 2.0 killed the revolution and restored the oligarchy. Its monopolists see the internet as only a faster way to deliver more immersive propaganda to the masses.

The Big Tech monopolies took off by taming the web, shrinking its vast promise and diversity of content into smaller walled gardens that they could dominate and monetize. Facebook inhaled most of the social interactions on the internet and locked it up in its private platform. Google is determined to do the same thing to the bewildering parade of ideas of the entire internet.

When Google’s senior VP Prabhakar Raghavan first introduced MUM, he suggested that the goal was to “develop not only a better understanding of information on the Web, but a better understanding of the world." What happens on the internet doesn’t stay on the internet.

Conservatives are one of the cultural barriers because their existence is a marked reminder that Big Tech does not control everything. While its executives and employees are socially insulated wokes operating in major urban centers, they manage systems that extend around the country and the world. When they encounter different points of view, they seek to wipe them out.

MUM is yet another tool for enforcing a totalitarian conformity on the diversity of the internet.

Google doesn’t want you to think differently or to think for yourself. What it wants users to do is to shut up and listen to Big MUM.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. Thank you for reading. 

Tags: ,

Monday, July 4, 2022

The Google Cult’s Sex Abuse and Mandatory Abortions

July 03, 2022 @ Sultan Knish Blog 

When Texas intervened to protect vulnerable children against transgender child mutilation, Google was one of the companies to sign a letter warning that preventing child abuse was "against the values of our companies."

A recent lawsuit provides a small insight into just what the Big Tech giant’s “values” might be.

Recently a former Google employer filed a lawsuit accusing the company of discrimination.

“I was fired from my team there in February of 2021 because I raised alarm about a cult within Google, a group called the Fellowship of Friends. The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group,” Kevin Lloyd, a former video producer, blogged.

“The cult’s members dominate my former team at Google through favoritism and cronyism, not to mention direct payments back to the cult.”

When Lloyd complained, he was told to keep quiet or lose his job, and then he was finally fired.

Like so many California establishment figures, from Nancy Pelosi to Governor Newsom, the Fellowship of Friends has its own winery. But it also has a deeply troubling history that includes allegations of sex trafficking and forced abortions.

From Jim Jones to Scientology, cults have been a cultural feature of leftist life in California.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown, along with Harvey Milk, also accused of preying on underage minors, former Vice President Walter Mondale, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and former Mayor Willie Brown, who gave Kamala Harris her start in politics, were all fans of Jim Jones.

The murderous Marxist cult was able to operate for so long because it was protected by the highest echelons of California Democrats.

Rep. Karen Bass, now running for mayor, was disqualified as Biden's presidential pick over her support for Scientology and for lying about it.

The Fellowship of Friends is a good deal more obscure, but it fits neatly into the mold of California cults that promise enlightenment through the teachings of a guru. What it actually offers, according to former members, is something much more troubling.

A journalist covering the cult described being told about "sex rituals" in which its leader, Robert Earl Burton, would allegedly "attempt to have sex with 100 followers in a day."

A San Francisco Chronicle story discussed allegations of "Eastern European ex-members who said they received religious visas to come out to California, only to learn when they arrived that sex with Burton was an unwritten part of the deal."

Burton’s preference was for young men whom he included in his “male harem”.

In a seeming foreshadowing of the transgender movement, the cult leader reportedly believed that he was a “goddess in a man’s body” and allegedly “made it almost necessary for all men & young men to perform sexual favors for him.”

One lawsuit filed by a man who was 17 years old when he joined the leftist cult mentioned the cult leader boasting that "one hundred boys would not be enough."

Another former cult member describes being pressured to join the cult leader's "male harem" and then ordered to abort the baby he had conceived with his high school sweetheart.

Still another described hearing that Burton, the cult leader, had "asked married women not to have kids and if they already did to give them away", while a cult figure was "persuading pregnant women to have an abortion 'to follow the will of the Teacher"'.

A former member described her husband being told "that we had missed an opportunity to oppose our Catholic upbringing by not having an abortion."

Google is denying any connection to the cult and its abuses, but Lloyd describes a troubling atmosphere in the company.

When he brought up the issue with his manager, he was told, “Let’s go off campus.”

Google, like Facebook and other Big Tech companies, is notorious for the cult-like surveillance of employees on its compounds or campuses. Some workers have reported that their personal phones were wiped when they fell afoul of the Big Tech giant. Others worry that the monopoly, which is behind the Android mobile operating system, can spy on them through their devices.

Lloyd's manager told him that he was "horrified" by the cult's foothold in Google, but that "complaining could lead not only to the loss of his job" and that the department's cult figure was a "powerful guy".

The former Google employee "heard of new members regularly being added" and "saw how existing members excelled, further boosting the status of the Fellowship of Friends within our department. Conversely, it seemed the Fellowship members who were on the outs with the group were made to leave."

Google had become a cult.

“Why are you telling me this?” HR people told Lloyd. “Don’t tell me this.”

"Google knows about this problem," Lloyd concluded. "Managers know full well that a destructive cult, a group credibly alleged to be involved in the sexual abuse of possibly hundreds of followers, including children, has significant influence over an important team within the company. Yet they turn a blind eye."

Google covertly removed its old motto, "Don't be evil", from its corporate code of conduct. If the allegations are true, its corporate conduct shows why that’s no longer on the books.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Burton formed his cult "while living in a Volkswagen bus in Berkeley" by "convincing a circle of followers that he possessed the powers of a superior being."

Followers were told that only Burton and those who served him are actually "immortal conscious beings" while the rest of us are the "walking dead" who needed to cut ties with their families.

It's not hard to see why this mindset would take root inside Silicon Valley Big Tech companies where technocratic arrogance and megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur have convinced some that they represent a cultural master race destined to dominate the economy and the planet.

Much like Burton, Big Tech companies seek out young men, thoroughly exploit them, taking over their waking lives, and then drop them when they get too old. During this heady period, Googlers are immersed in cult-like attitudes, frantic shows of cultural virtue signaling, and outbursts of hate against outsiders, especially Republicans and conservatives.

At the Fellowship of Friends, cult members were banned from saying, "I", instead being forced to say, "It wants a cup of coffee."

This dehumanization is what Big Tech companies are inflicting on America and on the world.

In its letter denouncing Texas for protecting children from abuse by men who, like Burton, believe that there is a “goddess” in their bodies, Google claimed that Texas violated its “values”.

These are Google’s values.


Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: , ,
Author Image

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

 

Thursday, September 16, 2021

Google et al. Take Hypocrisy On Racism To Yet A Whole New Level

In the field of racial “equity,” the gap between the talk of woke American corporations and their actions grows wider every time you look. Nowhere is that gap wider than at Google.

As readers here know, I was involved for decades in the efforts of a major law firm to recruit, hire and retain increasing numbers of blacks and other minorities. From that experience, I know that this is a difficult, long-term and often frustrating process. A large dose of humility is in order. No one company or institution, no matter how big, will create utopia in a day.

Well, the giant tech companies don’t do humility. After all, they started from nothing just twenty or thirty years ago, and today they are worth trillions. Obviously, their leaders are geniuses, and therefore qualified to lecture everyone else about proper woke morality and how to perfect the world by some time tomorrow afternoon. And proper woke morality of this moment focuses on “antiracism” and “diversity, equity and inclusion.”

Christopher Rufo is the Manhattan Institute guy who is doing more than anyone else to shine light on the hysterical and racist “diversity” initiatives that are increasingly infesting American institutions. Yesterday he posted an article at City Journal on the subject of race training at Google. The title is “Don’t Be Evil: A Google employee program claims that America is a ‘system of white supremacy’ and that all Americans are ‘raised to be racist.’”

It seems that Rufo has gotten hold of materials currently being used at Google in a “racial re-education” program going by the name “Allyship in Action.” Included in the program is a series of interviews with stars of the Critical Race Theory movement, including Nikole Hannah-Jones and Ibram Kendi. Rather than characterizing the materials, Rufo mostly just quotes from them and lets them speak for themselves. Here are some choice excerpts:

From the Hannah-Jones interview: “If you name anything in America, I can relate it back to slavery” . . . “If you’re white in this country, then you have to understand that whether you personally are racist or not, whether you personally engage in racist behavior or not, you are the beneficiary of a 350-year system of white supremacy and racial hierarchy.”

From the Kendi interview: “‘To be raised in the United States, is to be raised to be racist, and to be raised to be racist is to be raised to almost be addicted to racist ideas.’ . . . Denying one’s complicity in racism, Kendi argued, is only further proof of a person’s racism. ‘For me, the heartbeat of racism is denial and the sound of that denial is “I’m not racist,”’ he says. Ultimately, Kendi argued that policymakers should deem any racial disparities the result of racist policies—and work to undo the deep-seated racism that permeates every institution in our society.”

And finally, from an internal Google document headed “Anti-racism resources” (created by Google diversity, equity, and inclusion lead Beth Foster): “One graphic in the document claims that ‘colorblindness,’ ‘[American] exceptionalism,’ ‘Columbus Day,’ ‘weaponized whiteness,’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ are all expressions of ‘covert white supremacy.’ Another graphic, titled ‘The White Supremacy Pyramid,’ advances the idea that conservative commentator Ben Shapiro represents a foundation of ‘white supremacy’ and that Donald Trump is moving society on a path toward ‘mass murder’ and ‘genocide.’”

Now you might think that before endorsing the statement that “any racial disparities [are] the result of racist policies” Google would have been sure that it had fixed the problem of “racial disparities,” at least within its own ranks. So let’s check. As I have noted in previous posts (including here), starting in 2014 Google and other big tech companies succumbed to pressure from Jesse Jackson to publish annual “diversity reports,” revealing the breakdown of their workforces by racial and gender categories. That June 2020 post linked to Google’s Diversity Annual Report for 2019. And here is Google’s Diversity Annual Report for 2021, that just came out in July 2021.

A good summary of the 2021 Report is dozens of pages of public relations happy talk all designed to snow you in the hope that you never make it to the damning statistical tables at the end. A few randomly selected quotes from the happy talk part: “We’re listening, learning, and taking action”! . . . “Hiring changes drove our best year yet for women in tech globally and Black+ and Latinx+ people in the U.S.”! . . . “We’re expanding access to hiring opportunities for underrepresented groups in many parts of the world by centering racial equity across every part of our hiring process.” Blah, blah, blah-de-di-blah-blah-blah.

On to the tables. Workforce representation of blacks, company-wide: 4.4%. That’s all the way up from 2.4% in 2014. Blacks among “leadership” (however they define that): 3.0%, up from 1.7% in 2014. And blacks among “tech” workers: 2.9%, versus 1.5% in 2014.

They don’t say how they define “tech” workers. You can be sure that they have taken every possible liberty with the definition to get as many blacks as possible into the pool. How about a category limited to software developers and programmers? They won’t tell you. You can be sure that that percent for blacks in that category would be way below the 2.9% for all “tech” workers.

Well, Google, you are the one who endorsed and promulgated the statement that “any racial disparities [are] the result of racist policies.” How can you even justify staying in business at this point?

While we’re at it, perhaps we should check into the annual diversity reports of the other big tech companies, like Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. Here is the Facebook 2021 Diversity Update, released on July 15. It’s shorter than the Google Report, but with the same basic approach — lots of PR baloney before getting at the very end to some charts that they hope you won’t read. In that chart at the end, in the teensiest possible print, it is revealed that the percent of black “tech” workers at Facebook is now 3.1%. Hey, it’s more than the 2.9% at Google.

Microsoft here says that it won’t publish its 2021 diversity data until “fall 2021.”

Apple? They may be the worst of the bunch. Here’s their most recent Report, which doesn’t have an issue date, but says that it includes data from January to December 2020. This Report is even more filled with PR platitudes than the others. (Excerpt: “Across Apple, we’ve strengthened our long-standing commitment to making our company more inclusive and the world more just. Where every great idea can be heard. And everybody belongs.” Excuse me while I puke.). When you finally get to the chart at the end, it does not display all data at the same time, but requires you to click various options to get different pieces one at a time. If you make the effort, here’s what you will find. The percent of black employees in “tech” was 6% in 2014. By 2016 it had moved up to 8%. And in 2020 it was back down to 6%. As with Google and the others, I would have no doubt that they have taken every possible liberty with the definition of “tech” workers to get the percentage as high as possible.

I would be inclined to have some sympathy for these companies if they would just have a little humility and stop lecturing the rest of us and accusing us of being “white supremacists” and “structural racists.” As it is, they deserve to be held to their own standards, as Saul Alinsky advised. The next Republican administration should investigate them all for racism. If they are proclaiming to the world and to their own workforces that “any racial disparities [are] the result of racist policies,” what is their defense?

 

Monday, January 18, 2021

Google Pledges to Assist Biden Administration Immigration Efforts

 

Search-giant Google has pledged to back as-yet unspecified immigration policies and legislation expected from the Biden administration.

According to Reuters, the company also said “it would pay for the application fees of about 500 young immigrants seeking employment under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.”

Joe Biden has promised to propose immigration legislation immediately after taking office.

The statement positioning Google for support of Biden administration immigration policies comes from a blog post by Kent Walker, Google SVP of Global Affairs.

Referring to the COVID pandemic, Walker said Google believes “it’s important that Dreamers have a chance to apply for protection under the program so that they can safeguard their status in the United States. But in the middle of a global pandemic that has led to economic hardship, especially for the many immigrants playing essential roles on the front lines, there is concern that many Dreamers cannot afford to pay the application fee.”

As a result, Google has pledged a significant grant to the group United We Dream...........To Read More.....

Thursday, October 15, 2020

DOJ Ready to Charge Google over Search Monopoly

Lucas Nolan 14 Oct 2020

I've totally given up on google searches - they're worthless at this point. Grossly and obviously biased. Years ago I tried a number of different searches on both Google and Duckduckgo and got very very similar results. Now, I get radically different results running the same search on both platforms - and the Duckduckgo results are far more useful and accurate. Google has gone full bore evil massive censorship of anything that doesn't meet the left's idea of how things should be viewed. 

 A recent report alleges that the Justice Department plans to charge Google with violating antitrust laws this week in the largest action taken against a U.S. tech firm in two decades.

Axios reports that insiders expect that the Justice Department will charge Google with violating antitrust laws as early as this week in what could be the biggest action taken by the government against a U.S. tech firm in decades............To Read More.....  

My Take - With all this corruption, something is bound to happen.  If Trump is re-elected.

Monday, September 14, 2020

Google is giving Joe Biden a very unusual and valuable in-kind campaign donation

September 14, 2020  By Andrea Widburg

Google is the world’s most popular search engine, accounting for 75% of all desktop internet searches and over 90% of all mobile phone searches. That’s why it matters tremendously that it’s using its power over what Americans know to limit searches that might lead to information about Biden’s suspected dementia. It also appears that Google isn’t listing articles that are critical of Obama in a way that could hurt Biden or help Trump................It’s long past time for Congress to investigate what Google is doing with its search results. This is not a matter of free speech. It is, instead, a case of Google’s circumventing campaign financing laws by giving Joe Biden an in-kind gift – hiding anything bad from Americans looking to learn more about him or the administration in which he served – that is hugely valuable............To Read More....

My Take - As this election cycle has progressed over the last two years I can honestly say I've found the same problems with Google as the author states. The problem existed before, but it's much worse now.

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

An Open Letter to Sergey Brin

Dennis Prager Oct 15, 2019

Dear Mr. Brin: Fifty years ago this week, when I was a 21-year-old college senior, I was in the Soviet Union, sent by the government of Israel to smuggle in Jewish religious items and smuggle out names of Jews who wanted to escape the Soviet Union and could then be issued a formal invitation to Israel.

I was chosen because I was a committed Jew and because I knew Hebrew and Russian. I was no hero, but the trip did entail risk. The Soviets did not appreciate people smuggling out names of Soviet citizens who sought to emigrate, information the Israeli government and activist groups in America used to advocate on their behalf.

My four weeks in the USSR were, of course, life-changing. This young American, lucky beyond belief to have spent his entire life in the freest country in the world, experienced what it was like to live in a totalitarian police state.............That has changed............The company that you co-founded, Google, the greatest conduit of speech in world history, is also suppressing speech. I have asked myself over and over: How could the company founded by a man whose parents fled the Soviet Union do this?...........To Read More.....



Monday, October 7, 2019

Is Google News legally liable for bias against conservatives?

By | October 5th, 2019 | Civil Rights, Technology |3  Comments

I recently wrote that Google News should be sued for bias against conservative sources, not regulated. Regulating Internet news aggregators is the last thing we want, but Google News is clearly doing something wrong, that needs to be corrected.

To further this line of thought, here is a specific legal argument for the Courts to order Google News to stop discriminating. The Courts might even impose penalties for past discrimination. The Federal Trade Commission could bring such a suit, as could the users of Google News. Mind you I am not an expert on this stuff, hence the question mark in the title.

We are looking for new law so should look at first principles. I posit a variation on the product liability principle called the implied warrant of merchantability. This says the product should work. It is a fundamental principle of product liability law.

As I understand the history of this legal principle, it goes like this. (I am sure this is greatly simplified and I hope the product liability lawyers will forgive me.) A new car malfunctioned, killing the driver. The family sued the car maker, but they argued that the family had no contract with them, just with the dealer they bought the car from. They had received no money from the purchaser.........To Read More..............


Sunday, September 15, 2019

Don’t regulate Google News, sue them

By | September 11th, 2019|Civil Rights, Technology|3 Comments

Now that we see the extreme anti-conservative bias in Google News search results (see my last few CFACT articles), it is time to think about what to do about it. In his July Media bias summit, the President alluded to using all the power of the American Government to address this issue, saying “Today I’m directing my administration to explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free speech rights of all Americans.”

In this case the free speech right is the right to read conservative news sources. Google’s position as a virtual monopoly, a public utility if you like, obligates it to serve this right with fairness, not with bias.

So what are some of the available approaches?

(Caveat. In some of what follows I know little about the topic. My goal is to start a conversation with those who do.)

To begin with, I would say that regulation per se is not suitable for single entity malpractice like Google’s bias. We don’t need or want to regulate all search engines.  This would be an administrative nightmare at best.  For single villain cases like this, litigation is the better strategy. In fact it is standard practice in regulatory enforcement actions...........To Read More....

Sunday, September 1, 2019

Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics

We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America

David Wojick

Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing outfit, which views things like skepticism of climate alarmism, and conservative views generally, as “disinformation.” The white paper explains how Google’s search and news algorithms operate, to suppress what Google considers disinformation and wants to keep out of educational and public discussions.

The algorithms clearly favor liberal content when displaying search results. Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.” The problem is, these sources are mostly “mainstream” media, which are almost entirely liberal.

Google’s algorithmic definition of “authoritative” makes liberals the voice of authority. Bigger is better, and the liberals have the most and biggest news outlets. The algorithms are very complex, but the basic idea is that the more other websites link to you, the greater your authority.

It is like saying a newspaper with more subscribers is more trustworthy than one with fewer subscribers. This actually makes no sense, but that is how it works with the news and in other domains. Popularity is not authority, but the algorithm is designed to see it that way.

This explains why the first page of search results for breaking news almost always consists of links to liberal outlets. There is absolutely no balance with conservative news sources. Given that roughly half of Americans are conservatives, Google’s liberal news bias is truly reprehensible.

In the realm of public policies affecting our energy, economy, jobs, national security, living standards and other critical issues, the suppression of alternative or skeptical voices, evidence and perspectives becomes positively dangerous for our nation and world.

Last year, I documented an extreme case documented an extreme case of this bias the arena of “dangerous manmade global warming” alarmism. My individual searches on prominent skeptics of alarmist claims revealed that Google’s “authoritative source” was an obscure website called DeSmogBlog, whose claim to fame is posting nasty negative dossiers on skeptics, including me and several colleagues.

In each search, several things immediately happened. First, Google linked to DeSmogBlog’s dossier on the skeptic, even though it might be a decade old and/or wildly inaccurate. Indeed, sometimes this was the first entry in the search results. Second, roughly half of the results were negative attacks – which should not be surprising, since the liberal press often attacks us skeptics.

Third, skeptics are often labeled as “funded by big oil,” whereas funding of alarmists by self-interested government agencies, renewable energy companies, far-left foundations or Tom Steyer (who became a billionaire by financing Asian coal mines) was generally ignored.

In stark contrast, searching for information about prominent climate alarmists yielded nothing but praise. This too is not surprising, since Google’s liberal “authoritative” sources love alarmists.

This algorithm’s bias against skeptics is breathtaking – and it extends to the climate change debate itself. Search results on nearly all climate issues are dominated by alarmist content.

In fact, climate change seems to get special algorithmic attention. Goggle’s special category of climate webpages, hyperbolically called “Your Money or Your Life,” requires even greater “authoritative” control in searches. No matter how well reasoned, articles questioning the dominance of human factors in climate change, the near-apocalyptic effects of predicted climate change, or the value and validity of climate models are routinely ignored by Google’s algorithms.

The algorithm also ignores the fact that our jobs, economy, financial wellbeing, living standards, and freedom to travel and heat or cool our homes would be severely and negatively affected by energy proposals justified in the name of preventing human-caused cataclysmic climate change. The monumental mining and raw material demands of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels and batteries likewise merit little mention in Google searches. Ditto for the extensive impacts of these supposed “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” technologies on lands, habitats and wildlife.

It’s safe to say that climate change is now the world’s biggest single public policy issue. And yet Google simply downgrades and thus “shadow bans” any pages that contain “demonstrably inaccurate content or debunked conspiracy theories.” That is how alarmists describe skepticism about any climate alarm or renewable energy claims. Google does not explain how its algorithm makes these intrinsically subjective determinations as to whether an article is accurate, authoritative and thus posted – or incorrect, questionable and thus consigned to oblivion.

Google’s authority-based search algorithm is also rigged to favor liberal content over virtually all conservative content; it may be especially true for climate and energy topics. This deep liberal bias is fundamentally wrong and un-American, given Google’s central role in our lives.

Google’s creators get wealthy by controlling access to information – and thus thinking, debate, public policy decisions and our future – by using a public internet system that was built by defense and other government agencies, using taxpayer dollars, for the purpose of ensuring the free flow of information and open, robust discussion of vital policy issues. It was never meant to impose liberal-progressive-leftist police state restrictions on who gets to be heard.

According to its “How we fight disinformation” white paper, Google’s separate news search feature gets special algorithmic treatment – meaning that almost all links returned on the first page are to liberal news sources. This blatant bias stands out like a sore thumb in multiple tests. In no case involving the first ten links did I get more than one link to a conservative news source. Sometimes I got none.

For example, my news search on “Biden 2020” returned the following top ten search results, in this order: CNN, the New York Times, Vice, Politico, CNN again, Fortune, Vox, Fox News, The Hill and Politico. The only actual conservative source was Fox News, in eighth position.

Of course conservative content would not be friendly to Mr. Biden. But if Google can prominently post attacks on skeptics and conservatives, why can’t it do so for attacks on Democrats?

The highest conservative content I found was one link in eight or 12 percent. About a third of my sample cases had no conservative sources whatsoever. The average of around 7% measures Google’s dramatic bias in favor of liberal sources, greatly compounding its 92.2% dominance.

The lonely conservative sources are more middle of the road, like Fox News and the Washington Examiner. Google never found or highlighted a truly conservative (what it would call “right wing”) source, like Brietbart, Townhall Townhall or the Daily Caller.  It just doesn’t happen, and the algorithm clearly knows that, as does Google. As do other information and social media sites.

Of course, I’m not alone in finding or encountering this blatant viewpoint discrimination.

When coupled with the nearly complete takeover of UN, IPCC, World Bank and other global governance institutions by environmentalist and socialist forces – and their near-total exclusion of manmade climate chaos skeptics, free market-oriented economists and anyone who questions the role or impact of renewable energy – the effect on discussion, debate, education and informed decision-making is dictatorial and devastating.

No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.



Friday, August 16, 2019

Whistleblower: American Thinker was on Google’s blacklist of news sites

August 15, 2019 By Peter Barry Chowka

Buried deep in the extensive trove of internal documents documenting Google’s onerous censorship policies is this gem: American Thinker was on the dominant tech giant’s list of “blacklisted” news websites.

The source of the leak is identified as “Google Insider Zachary Vorhies.” On August 14, Vorhies outed himself as the leaker in a video posted ay Project Veritas, which published the documents. Among the hundreds of documents is one identified as a news “blacklist” -- titled “Manual list of sites excluded from appearing as Google Now stories.” Sure enough, among the list of 400 or so sites (mostly from the conservative right but some on the left) -- under the subhead “sites with high user block rate” -- is americanthinker.com.(near the lower right corner in the photo below)

Vorhies had been providing Project Veritas with documents he downloaded as a Google engineer for more than a year. He decided to go public this week “after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a ‘wellness check’ on him.” The story, including a 20-minute long video of Vorhies, is a compelling one and is documented in the August 14 release from Project Veritas.

According to Vorhies:.....To Read More....

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Google Widens War With China On the Future

By Benny Avni , Special to the Sun | May 23, 2019

Google this week moved to restrict Huawei’s access to its Android operating system and apps. The big-tech tiff is also a major escalation in a war to determine which form of government will dominate our future.

Here’s the big-picture question behind the current cyber battles: If innovation and superiority in smart industries define global economic prowess, can a country that limits its population’s access to the Internet win?

Under President Xi, Beijing has made an aggressive push to dominate cyber. China is no longer the manufacturer of cheap, cute gizmos. Nor is it any longer merely a technology copycat, either.

Amazon innovators often nervously glance at their Chinese competitor, Alibaba, and at times borrow marketing ideas from Jack Ma’s shop, just as his Alibaba, er, borrows tricks from them.

Huawei’s chief, Ren Zhengfei, tried to allay his customers’ fears about Google’s move. His “What, me worry?” act carries some weight. Sure, being cut off from the Android system will hurt Huawei, but Ren’s company didn’t become the world’s second largest manufacturer of smartphones by mere chance. A force to reckon with, Huawei is big, advanced, and innovative.........To Read More....