💾 Archived View for gemlog.blue › users › petros_katiforis › 1696165543.gmi captured on 2023-11-04 at 13:55:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_.-~--~.
.'.:::::::`. Petros Katiforis (Πέτρος Κατηφόρης)
/.:::::: /
/.::: .---=*
;.:: / _~~_ Want to share your thoughts on what you've just read from here?
; | C ..\ Feel free to contact me! <pkatif@mail.com>
| ; \ _.)
\ | / \ This post was published on the 1st of October, 2023
*~. \ / \)\)
`-| ) /
'--*-*
Google, a technological giant when it comes to the management of huge chunks of data, has never ceased to invent new ways to profit from the contents of their databases that are daily enriched by their unsuspecting users. Targeted ads are producing them billions and billions of dollars, their brand name has been turned into a verb recognized by plenty of English dictionaries and their influence has yet to stop growing. It's no secret that in our modern age data is an eminent and direct source of power.
When it comes to internet censorship, most netizens visualize websites that are directly linked and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. The all-in-one app WeChat has in a way turned into a functional and rich operating system stained with real-time activity logging, tracking and content filtering. It is only recently that I've met tantamount practices being publicly implemented in the West:
Google's YouTube is the go-to app for uploading videos for the masses to consume so they can barter their time for cheap and non thought-provoking entertainment. Quite recently actually, YouTube's staff have implemented a strict filtering algorithm so that no slightly negative or superficially politically flavored comments end up on one's feed. Despite these comments being registered in their database, they can only be viewed by their actual author without them ever realizing that their comment will never reach somebody else's eyes. This anti-feature is being disguised as a method of bot prevention, but that's just not true considering that bogus accounts have only proliferated in recent years. That fact, combined with the also recent deletion of the dislike button, is nothing but an attempt of the company to increase their profits. Censoring opposing and/or thoughtful views has been scientifically proven to extend how much time one spends scrolling during their sessions, effectively converting them into a zombie with a mind of a sleep-deprived ten year old child.
Recently, I was browsing through Google Play Books with the goal of asserting myself of how evil their services are. As I had already anticipated, the main page's books could all be classified as either related to Romance, Thrill, Mystery, Self-Help or Comics. No signs of anything thought-provoking except the cliche 1984 which hardly kindles any doubts about our world's managers to most of its readers. Anyways, let me get to my point: When trying to search Richard Stallman's work "Free as in Freedom" I came across an entry of six reviews. Once I tried to view them individually I exclusively received a single-star review rightfully complaining about the proprietary format of the ebook, with all the other five of them however missing. That means that 5/6 entries (83% of the content) was deemed inappropriate for the public for reasons that I can only speculate...
Google's not the only one censoring content on the western and "civilized" world. Although their tactics can at times become hard to recognize, content filtering and the act of silently preventing people from expressing their views on the internet has turned out to be an essential part of all modern and popular web/mobile applications. Elon Musk is actively craving the creation of a Western version of WeChat, called X... Emancipate yourself and choose libre software instead!