Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

nan said:

 It goes beyond Facebook.  Google changed it's algorithm so it is more difficult to find left wing views.  Twitter shuts people down also.  Several independent media platforms have experienced sharp drops in views because of this. They don't turn up in searches as they used to.  Some of these platforms will not survive.   

The right makes the same allegation.

nan said:

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 Counterpunch is the first thing that came up when I googled "counterpunch". 

Same for truthdig. What were people searching for before?

ridski said:

nan said:

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 Counterpunch is the first thing that came up when I googled "counterpunch". 
Same for truthdig. What were people searching for before?

 I think the issue arises when people search for terms — say, “Russian collusion” or “Free Assange” or “arugula recipes” — and certain sites appear higher or lower in the results page.

DaveSchmidt said:

ridski said:

nan said:

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 Counterpunch is the first thing that came up when I googled "counterpunch". 
Same for truthdig. What were people searching for before?

 I think the issue arises when people search for terms — say, “Russian collusion” or “Free Assange” or “arugula recipes” — and certain sites appear higher or lower in the results page.

 I actually learned the other day that the reason why when you search for arugula recipes, and you click on one and instead of getting a recipe for a salad you get a 6 page story about the person's Greek grandmother, and their part in World War II, and how one of her sons was an extra in The Guns of Navarone, and that they perfected olive oil, but only had a single tree from which to make it so they were forever poor and then the story ends and there are the ingredients for arugula salad is because all that **** gets them a higher score in google's algorithm and just putting the recipe there like a useful website places it on page 9 or something so why doesn't counterpunch just do that.

Because the Atlantic Council hates arugula.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 And yet, not too long ago when the issue was raised that Google's practices should be examined, you cried "censorship!".

 I don't know what you are talking about and I think they should investigate Google's practices.  So please provide evidence.

dave23 said:

nan said:

 It goes beyond Facebook.  Google changed it's algorithm so it is more difficult to find left wing views.  Twitter shuts people down also.  Several independent media platforms have experienced sharp drops in views because of this. They don't turn up in searches as they used to.  Some of these platforms will not survive.   

The right makes the same allegation.

 Cause it is probably happening for them too.  

ridski said:

nan said:

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 Counterpunch is the first thing that came up when I googled "counterpunch". 
Same for truthdig. What were people searching for before?

 Not what they were complaining about.  They were talking about people searching for terms related to articles published.  Previously they would come up and now it is mainstream news coming up for the same terms.  They used to get a lot of people who were searching for news and then discovered them and became fans.  That is how I found Truthdig and Counterpunch.  Now I would be led back to CNN and never know there was a whole other world out there with much better insight.

Search results change all the time for the same search terms.  I'm sure the algorithm looks at when a site's domain was registered, how often it's updated, size of its traffic, which site scooped the story, etc. in addition to specific terms.  It can also penalize for too many Amazon ads, pop-overs, and the like, I think. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 And yet, not too long ago when the issue was raised that Google's practices should be examined, you cried "censorship!".

 I don't know what you are talking about and I think they should investigate Google's practices.  So please provide evidence.

 you know that google owns youtube, right? Do you remember the Mother Jones/youtube discussion?

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

dave said:
No one outside Google (and very few inside) knows Google's search algorithms.   

 Chris Hedges and several others have spoken about this.  The search has changed and they don't come up in results the way the used to.  Sites like Counterpunch and Truthdig have significantly reduced views.  

 And yet, not too long ago when the issue was raised that Google's practices should be examined, you cried "censorship!".

 I don't know what you are talking about and I think they should investigate Google's practices.  So please provide evidence.

 you know that google owns youtube, right? Do you remember the Mother Jones/youtube discussion?

 Yes, I know Google owns YouTube.  The rest I don't remember.  Why don't you give us a link?

In the meantime, here is an article from last August about Google suppressing content:

Google Censors Block Access to CounterPunch and Other Progressive Sites

excerpt:

Under its new so-called anti-fake-news program, Google algorithms have in the past few months moved socialist, anti-war, and progressive websites from previously prominent positions in Google searches to positions up to 50 search result pages from the first page, essentially removing them from the search results any searcher will see.    CounterPunch, World Socialist Website, Democracy Now, American Civil liberties Union, Wikileaks are just a few of the websites which have experienced severe reductions in their returns from Google searches.  World Socialist Website, to cite just one example, has experienced a 67% drop in its returns from Google since the new policy was announced.

This conversion of Google into a Censorship engine is not a trivial development.   Google searches are currently a primary means by which workers and other members of the public seek information about their lives and their world.  Every effort must be made to combat this serious infringement on the basic rights of freedom of speech and freedom of press.

How did you find that article?

.

ridski said:
How did you find that article?

 I half remembered it and googled Counterpunch with the topic.  

New threats to Julian Assange and an action plan being reported by Consortium News:

New Threats to Julian Assange; Consortium News to Broadcast Emergency Meeting Live on Saturday

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/02/new-threats-to-julian-assange-consortium-news-to-broadcast-emergency-meeting-live-on-saturday/

An alarming series of occurrences have unfolded this week that indicate serious, urgent threats to the physical well-being of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Those close to the publisher are swiftly moving to address the recent escalations.

Subsequently the Unity4J movement is calling an emergency meeting for all movement participants, supporters and the public. This will commence on Saturday November 3rd, 2018 at 3pm EST (midday Pacific), via https://unity4j.com/stream

At the meeting, details of these new threats to Julian’s life will be presented, along with the unveiling of a new action plan to secure and protect his life, human rights, and freedom.

nan said:

ridski said:
How did you find that article?

 I half remembered it and googled Counterpunch with the topic.  

 How difficult these days it is to find such censored material.

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:
How did you find that article?

 I half remembered it and googled Counterpunch with the topic.  

 How difficult these days it is to find such censored material.

 You are missing the point.  You can directly google anything that can be found.  However, these sites count on people finding them through random search, which is how I found and became a fan of Counterpunch, Truthdig, The Real News Network, etc. .  Now if you google the same topics, such as "US Imperialism, you will mostly get mainstream suggestions, so you are less likely to encournter alternative ideas.  

nan said:

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:
How did you find that article?

 I half remembered it and googled Counterpunch with the topic.  

 How difficult these days it is to find such censored material.

 You are missing the point.  You can directly google anything that can be found.  However, these sites count on people finding them through random search, which is how I found and became a fan of Counterpunch, Truthdig, The Real News Network, etc. .  Now if you google the same topics, such as "US Imperialism, you will mostly get mainstream suggestions, so you are less likely to encournter alternative ideas.  

 Is The Monthly Review considered mainstream? That's what I got (alongside wikipedia, some research papers, a NY Times book review and a retrospective article in The Nation) on my google front page when I searched for US Imperialism. 

I'm looking at the stats for counterpunch.org. They average just over 2 million readers a month (Monthly Review averages only 210,000 and that's dropping over time), and currently it gets 21.29% of its traffic from search engines and only a quarter of that comes from searching "counterpunch" or its variants. Obviously, without spending some cash or applying to work for them, I can't see what their traffic was like before the Google Censorship Event happened. Maybe they had 4 million hits a month or more, or a higher percentage of search engine traffic compared to direct landings or referrals. 

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:
How did you find that article?

 I half remembered it and googled Counterpunch with the topic.  

 How difficult these days it is to find such censored material.

 You are missing the point.  You can directly google anything that can be found.  However, these sites count on people finding them through random search, which is how I found and became a fan of Counterpunch, Truthdig, The Real News Network, etc. .  Now if you google the same topics, such as "US Imperialism, you will mostly get mainstream suggestions, so you are less likely to encournter alternative ideas.  

 Is The Monthly Review considered mainstream? That's what I got (alongside wikipedia, some research papers, a NY Times book review and a retrospective article in The Nation) on my google front page when I searched for US Imperialism. 
I'm looking at the stats for counterpunch.org. They average just over 2 million readers a month (Monthly Review averages only 210,000 and that's dropping over time), and currently it gets 21.29% of its traffic from search engines and only a quarter of that comes from searching "counterpunch" or its variants. Obviously, without spending some cash or applying to work for them, I can't see what their traffic was like before the Google Censorship Event happened. Maybe they had 4 million hits a month or more, or a higher percentage of search engine traffic compared to direct landings or referrals. 

 Here is some more information on the algorithm changes affecting viewership.  This is from last year, so I will check when I get a chance on the latest update.

Cowardly New World: Alternative Media Under Attack by Algorithms

Then, in April ’17, Google implemented ‘Project Owl,’ ostensibly aimed at reducing the prominence of “fake news” in its searches. The program utilized “algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content” (there’s some technonewspeak!) and to downgrade “offensive” material. In the weeks that followed, many leftist and progressive websites saw double-digit percentage declines in the traffic referred to them from Google searches. Among these were Alternet (-63%), Democracy Now!(-36%), Common Dreams(-37%), Truth-Out (-25%), The Intercept (-19%) and Counterpunch (-21%). The steepest decline was experienced by the World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org), whose search traffic fell by two-thirds.

So, it looks like there was an attempted break-in at the embassy.

Break-in Attempted at Embassy;  Fears Raised of Abduction

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/03/break-in-attempted-at-assanges-residence-in-ecuador-embassy/

An attempted break-in at Julian Assange’s residence inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on Oct. 29, and the absence of a security detail, have increased fears about the safety of the WikiLeak’s publisher.

Lawyers for Assange have confirmed to activist and journalist Suzie Dawson that Assange was awoken in the early morning hours by the break-in attempt. They confirmed to Dawson that the attempt was to enter a front window of the embassy. A booby-trap Assange had set up woke him, the lawyers said.

Scaffolding has appeared against the embassy building in the Knightsbridge section in London which “obscures the embassy’s security cameras,” the lawyers said.

On the scaffolding electronic devices, presumably to conduct surveillance, can be seen, just feet from the embassy windows.

Later on the day of the break-in, Sean O’Brien, a lecturer at Yale University Law School and a cyber-security expert, was able to enter the embassy through the front door, which was left open. Inside he found no security present. Someone from the embassy emerged to tell him to send an email to set up an appointment with Assange. After emailing the embassy, personnel inside refused to check whether it had been received or not.

nan said:
Looks like Julian Assange is losing his asylum in Ecuador, and being turned over to the UK.  

You wrote the above in July. 

nan said:
So, it looks like there was an attempted break-in at the embassy.

 Forgive me if I don't trust your looks-likes.

Citing human rights abuses, Assange is currently suing the Ecuadoran government for imposing a few house rules on him for skating in the hallways, not bathing, and not cleaning his cat's litterbox.   Moron is not a strong enough word to describe him.  

https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-robert-stone-ecuadorian-embassy-filth/

dave23 said:

nan said:
Looks like Julian Assange is losing his asylum in Ecuador, and being turned over to the UK.  

You wrote the above in July. 

nan said:
So, it looks like there was an attempted break-in at the embassy.

 Forgive me if I don't trust your looks-likes.

 That makes no sense.  I said, "looks like" because I did not have the evidence to say, "will happen."  I was cautious, as I should be and yet you slam me for telling the truth.  Sometimes things move slow and this new development supports what I said in July. From the account in the article, they are leaving him vulnerable without security which could easily lead to harm.  There was an attempt at a break in.  Also, the new president is not supportive as the last and there seems to be financial incentive for him to turn Assange over (which I have previously posted about).  So, what exactly do you mean by not trusting me?  Do you think everything is fine with Assange and nothing to worry about?

If you read the Wired piece I posted above yours, there is equal speculation that the Russians would try to rendition Assange to Russia, where he would be safe from the courts in the free world.

dave said:
If you read the Wired piece I posted above yours, there is equal speculation that the Russians would try to rendition Assange to Russia, where he would be safe from the courts in the free world.

That piece is one of a few floating around that smear Assange and come up with nutty theories, some related to Russia, of course, that feed into people's view as shaped by mainstream media.   So of course you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Nan criticizing others for buying nutty theories hook, line, and sinker:  Priceless!

Smear?  Here's a memo from the government of Ecuador to Assange.  Item 32.   

http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/protocolo-assange-final.pdf

nan said:

Do you think everything is fine with Assange and nothing to worry about?

 No, I don't think that. His anti-Semitism is deeply disturbing, as is his tacit support of Republicans.