How Evil Seduces The Good

evil leader

Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google and apparently quite the acolyte for fascism in the name of humanism, suggested in an editorial that algorithms should be used to find and remove hate speech from the internet, comparing such censorship to “spell-checkers”.

Google’s chairman wants algorithms to censor the internet for hate speech

Like many evil ideas, this has the superficial appearance of public good. After all, no one wants to be seen as a defender of murdering psychotics like ISIS, delusional hate groups like the KKK, or any other of a wide spectrum of nasty entities. Yet take a closer look at Schmidt’s modest proposal, and disquieting concerns emerge from the details. His algorithms, for example, would remove ‘hate’ wherever they find it, with no discretion or opportunity to appeal. These algorithms would be the epitome of soulless judges, with no sense of perspective, balance or moral ambiguity. They would eliminate all enemies as programmed, a program not open to the public and which takes no step at all to protect anyone’s speech rights or beliefs. Offending a person with power would see your words, ideas, arguments swept away in a single, relentless process.

Worse, Schmidt’s suggestion is not limited to a site or system, but would be implemented throughout the internet. A virus of some sort, perhaps, but one allowed by the defense systems since it is doing the ‘good’ work of hunting and eliminating ‘hate’ wherever it may be found. Your private thoughts could be erased wit h absolutely no recourse or defense … just because a large corporation found a virtual hit man and got the government to call it ‘good’.

Schmidt is also rather naïve about the response from real terrorists. Does he seriously believe that whacking sites and forums where these monsters spew venom means they would stop their hate or reconsider their malice? Far from it, the monsters already cover their tracks online and very few actually say anything online in advance that details their plans. So the net effect of such algorithms would be to censor free thought by honest citizens, eliminate debates which might produce better understanding of the underlying issues and causes, and deny the intelligence community a way to use open sources to determine networks and overt behavior, thereby working against the stated interests of protecting the public from future terrorist attacks.

In conclusion, it seems Herr Schmidt is a friend of Hillary Clinton, another individual who thinks government should punish anyone who stands against her vision of the ‘greater good’. Something else to keep in mind this election cycle.

Michael Mann's Assault on Honest Science
If King Hussein were still alive . . .
  • Walter_Cronanty

    He’s apparently a “progressive.” I would expect nothing less than fascism:
    “Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is pouring “several million” dollars into creating a digital analytics firm made up of Obama for America alums. The new consultancy, Civis Analytics, is being headed up by 30-year-old Dan Wagner and will be based in Chicago, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

    The new outfit plans to apply the same data strategies that produced a win for President Obama last year toward advancing other progressive causes—and only progressive causes:…” http://news.yahoo.com/googles-eric-schmidt-pouring-millions-progressive-big-data-122741343.html

    “Schmidt was an informal advisor and major donor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and began campaigning the week of October 19, 2008, on behalf of the candidate.[44] He was mentioned as a possible candidate for the Chief Technology Officer position, which Obama created in his administration,[45] and Obama considered him for Commerce Secretary.[46] After Obama won in 2008, Schmidt became a member of President Obama’s transition advisory board and has since become a member of the United States President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).[47] Schmidt has served on Google’s government relations team.

    Schmidt has proposed that the easiest way to solve all of the domestic problems of the United States at once is by a stimulus program that rewards renewable energy and, over time, attempts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.[48]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#President_Barack_Obama

    • Commander_Chico

      No replacement of fossil fuels until I can unload the XOM I bought at $84!

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I can get you a dynamite deal on Solyndra stock.

        • Commander_Chico

          Barring a sudden fusion breakthrough, oil will be back!

  • Commander_Chico

    We have a fascist algorithm here at Wizbang. It’s called “Rodney.”

  • Brucehenry

    Well it’s a dumb and dangerous idea, but not as dumb as Trump’s:

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/9869308/donald-trump-close-up-the-internet-bill-gates

    • Paul Hooson

      Trump’s narrow vision to ban all persons on the basis of religion is absurd on so many levels. Immigration does not even ask the religion of persons who want to enter the U.S., yet Trump wants to set a new standard that even offends most Republicans and conservative thinkers. If not for having a great deal of money, Trump would merely be another mental patient caseload client at some government-run social service organization.

      • Vagabond661

        You realize we had zero immigration for 40 years while the ones who came here assimilated right? Closing the borders seems like a sane idea. Allow those who want to become Americans to assimilate and keep out undesirables from entering….especially while we are at war.

        • Paul Hooson

          This is indeed difficult times, but we cannot lose sight that out of an estimated 130,000 Muslim immigrants a year only two radicals recently committed these terrible acts of terror. We are not facing a widespread threat from the vast majority of these immigrants.

          • Vagabond661

            Two people brought down one of the Twin Towers. Two people killed 14 people at a Christmas party. If you had a wife, daughter, relative or friend who was killed by those two, I bet you would feel a little different.

            Why let people we are at war with into this country? It’s insane. in past wars, would we have done that with Germans? Japanese?

          • G6loq
          • Paul Hooson

            My grandfather, a ship’s captain, was a prisoner of the Japanese and brutally tortured and beaten on a regular basis, only kept alive because he was high ranking. Another close relative was killed by a Kamikazi pilot who crashed his zero into his gun. Another relative was wounded be the Germans, while another relative was killed. A rabbi friend of mine in Israel had a scud missile slam into the side of his house in Eastern Israel, but he and his wife were unharmed by the blast.

            WWII is over, and we cannot harbor anger or hatred against the Japanese or Germans anymore than we can blame all Muslims for the acts of a small minority of extremists. There are many types of Muslims, and most are allies against terrorism.

          • Vagabond661

            Wow did that go over your head or did you just prove my point? Did we welcome Germans and Japanese into our country WHILE WE WERE FIGHTING THEM????

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Paul, the parents of Syed Farook and their attorneys claim they are moderates and just didn’t see it coming. Of course, Syed’s father saw something wrong and tried to calm his son down by assuring him Israel wouldn’t exist in two years, while his mother belonged to ICNA [read about that group here http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/05/shooters-mother-active-in-us-branch-of-pro-caliphate-islamic-group/%5D and “…Shooting targets, GoPro packaging, hammer and ‘vise grips’ found by FBI in car belonging to San Bernardino shooter’s MOTHER” [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350280/Shooting-targets-GoPro-packaging-hammer-Syed-Farook-s-mother-s-car.html].
            Sorry, Paul, but Trump is not far off. Muslims have done this to themselves.

          • Paul Hooson

            Sadly most Muslims are no friends of Israel or Jews. But, at the same time as a Jew I will treat all Muslims with fairness and not prejudge any as supportive of violence or evil. At the end of the day, most people are just people, whether they be Christian, Jew or Muslim.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            By your logic, Al Qaeda is our ally: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/severe-blow-al-qaeda-suicide-bomber-takes-out-leadership-key-isis-brigade/

            That’s the trouble with Muslims. They have one terrorist group after another which, when they’re not killing each other, focus their attention on non-believers.

            You say Iran is our ally, yet it supports Hamas and Hezbollah. The Saudis are one of the chief, if not the chief, sponsor radical Islam in the US. Quite frankly, I don’t trust any of them.

            I had a wonderful boss who was Muslim [sipped $60 a bottle wine, while smoking cigars, when dining with us after work]. He had a problem with women in authority, but with a Catholic wife and two daughters, he was “working through” that problem. Although he despised Jews, generally my experience with him was a good one.

            Sadly, that experience only reminds me of Churchill’s quote: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

          • Brucehenry

            Churchill, in addition to being the inspirational leader who saw Britain through the dark days of World War Two, was also an unrepentant racist and a devotee of Kipling’s concept of the White Man’s Burden. Some of his comments about the Muslims may, just MAY mind you, reflect an attempt to rationalize and justify the fact that Britain had for decades or even centuries, conquered outright, exploited, and intimidated (in order to steal the resources of) vast swaths of the Islamic world.

            It’s easier to steal from and exploit the wogs if one feels like they, you know, kinda deserve it, being benighted savages and all.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Do you disagree with anything in the quote? If so, what?

          • Brucehenry

            “It is a militant and proselytizing faith” says the guy who went on to lead the British Empire, the armies of which conquered a third of the world and whose monarch sent legions of missionaries into those conquered and exploited lands to attempt to convert the natives.

            Many many Africans are Christians today because of the efforts of those missionaries and those armies.

            I’m just clueing you in that Churchill was a racist and an imperialist and perhaps used language like that to rationalize the exploitation of their lands and natural resources. Consider that when weighing the substance of what he was saying.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            There are still missionaries in Africa, many in hospitals and schools that would not exist without them. They do not “proselytize” by beheading non-believers. Your moral relativism is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, fraudulent.

            Churchill was a product of his time, much like racist, progressive eugenicist Woodrow Wilson, only Churchill was blessed with wisdom.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes Churchill was a product of his time but you are quoting him now. I believe he made that remark roughly 100 years ago. And yes Wilson was a racist and a utopian fool and his reputation gets worse with every passing year.

            I do not mean to disparage the good work of Christian missionaries in Africa or elsewhere. I agree that their good works are often indispensable. However, in “Central Africa,” which is where Churchill was saying that Islam was “raising fearless warriors,” many of those Christian missionaries would never have been safely established without the British or French armies to protect them.

            In any event I’ve often seen that Churchill quote from “conservatives” appealing to authority who don’t seem to realize that he was indeed “a product of his time.” A time of imperialism and the heyday of the British Empire.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And you still haven’t stated what it is in the quote that you disagree with. So far you’ve faulted Churchill for being an imperialist whose armies protected Christian missionaries who brought schools, hospitals and Christianity to those most in need. Wow. What a bastard.

          • Wish we had more like him today.

          • Brucehenry

            Are you deliberately being obtuse? Churchill, a “product of his time,” was predisposed to disparage the culture of the people whose lands the British had conquered and the resources of which they were were busily exploiting. That’s all I’m saying.

            This is similar to calling native Americans “bloodthirsty savages” so as to justify the Trail of Tears. There is no doubt that there are now schools and hospitals and Christianity on the land from which the Cherokees were expelled — does that mean the expulsion was the right thing to do?

            All I am trying to get across to you is that Churchill, as a “product of his time,” was quite naturally predisposed to see the Muslims whom his Empire was dispossessing as deserving of that dispossession. He, like many people born in the 19th century, considered that racial and ethnic differences suited some “races” to be the rulers and some to be the ruled. And this quote is one of many that demonstrate this fact.

            One can sleep easier at night, having stolen and exploited from others, if one can rationalize that theft and exploitation. That’s what Europeans who believed in imperialism did.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’ve not identified anything in the quote you disagree with. Instead, you apparently hold in disregard what Churchill said because he’s an old, dead white guy who did things in the past you find to be bad under your current standards.
            You remind me of me when I was 20 and rebelling against who knows what. Out with old, only what complies with the thinking today is of any use – throwing the baby out with the bath water.
            I find what Churchill said in his quote to be true today. Simply because he did something else I may, or may not [Gallipoli comes to mind], agree with does not make his statement untrue or of no use today. Hell, I’m sure even Woodrow Wilson said some things, or had some insights, which would be useful today.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s fine and I see you didn’t use it this way but I often see that quote used as an appeal to authority, as if the fact a great man like Winston Churchill said it means it is “more true” than if it was just some schmo like Trump saying such a thing.

            So my only point was that Churchill was hardly unbiased, indeed had a motive to disparage the people who he thought it was perfectly fine to conquer and otherwise exploit.

            I take responsibility for dragging in tangential points not relevant to that one. My bad.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You also fail to realize the sheer number of Muslims who sympathize with radicals. As to ISIS, the sympathy is unbelievable [note, this is to ISIS only – and does not include those sympathizing with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.]:

            “The latest polling data show that while a majority of Muslims reject ISIS, extrapolating from the populations of polled countries alone shows that roughly 50 million people express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.”

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428146/more-than-few-islamic-extremists

          • Paul Hooson

            Sadly, while the governments oppose radicalism, many of rank and file public harbor some bad sentiments.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Iran’s government doesn’t oppose radicalism, neither does Saudi Arabia’s. Egypt’s strong man booted the Muslim Brotherhood out, so I’ll give you that. Jordan’s strong man has also kept a lid on things – but I wouldn’t put much money on that monarchy’s longevity. Other than that, the Middle East is an absolute mess.

          • Commander_Chico

            Egypt’s strong man is far worse than the democratically elected MB govt he overthrew. A brutal idiot.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Not buying it.

          • ohio granny

            So we commit suicide to keep from profiling muslims?

          • G6loq
          • G6loq
          • ohio granny

            Problem is we have no way of knowing how many more are here now nor how many more will be allowed in.

      • G6loq
      • Brett Buck

        There is absolutely NO fundamental requirement to permit any immigration at all. For foreigners, entering this country is a privilege, not a right. Selectively excluding people based on their background or situation is also perfectly acceptable, has been done throughout the history of the country, and is in progress even now. The Obama administration is going to great lengths to exclude any Christians from the current crop of “refugees”, in fact, looking for the most tortured logical interpretation of the definition of “refugee”. So you are just wrong.

        Additionally, there was a very long period during Democrat administrations where there was no legal immigration *of any kind*. It was that way until everyone’s favorite amateur submarine captain made a typically foolish and impassioned and/or drunken plea for it back in ’65.

        It is perfectly within the rights of the US to decide who comes here and who does not, and there has always been restrictions associated with who can legally immigrate here.

        It is perfectly reasonable to exclude a group that almost everyone concedes contains budding mass murderers, and that ISIS has clearly stated will be used to infiltrate the US to engage in massacres. Particularly when it is perfectly clear there’s no way and no plan to separate out the psychos from the regular people. That’s very unfortunate for the majority, but just like collateral damage in a conventional war, that’s the fault of ISIS and people trying to exploit this, not the US for implementing such a plan.

        In short, virtually everything you and the other commenters (including the media and other politicians) say about this is utterly wrong and ridiculous.

        I am not even much of a Trump supporter, due to the buffoon factor, But I also enjoy seeing him play all you guys like a fiddle.

    • Commander_Chico

      Trump has just identified the fact that about a third of the GOP primary electorate are drooling morons, and it’s easy to lock them up.

      See Dilbert’s Scott Adams on the subject of Trump’s tactics: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series

      • Brucehenry

        Well now I’ve heard everything.

      • Brucehenry

        I’ve never understood it when people say “ANYTHING would be better than Hillary” or Jeb. Or Rubio.

        Yes, they all suck, but it is absolutely not true that absolutely ANYTHING would be better. Lots of things could be worse. Like Trump. Or his mini-Me, Ted Cruz.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Short of the infamous dictators of the 20th century, nothing could be worse than what we’ve got.

        • Commander_Chico

          Cruz has said some sensible things about Syria, ISIS and Russia recently.

          One thing is for sure – the reign of lies from Hillary or Jeb or neocon puppet Rubio will wreck the country as surely as “madman” Trump.

          • retired military

            Someone give Cheeko an examination as his comments dont match his history. He must be doing drugs.

        • retired military

          I will take Trump over Obummer or Hillary the Liemaster

      • Rdm42

        Two thirds of the Democratic base are drooling morons. They elected Obama. Twice. They still approve of him> They nominated Al Gore, they Nominated John Kerry, they are about to nominate Hillary Clinton.

    • jim_m

      Actually it is radically more dangerous and stupid than Trump’s suggestion.
      Trump suggests closing off the internet to islamist groups. This presumably means shutting down individual sites.

      Schmidt on the other hand advocates programs searching for strings of test and deleting comments or web pages on line. He talks not about radical islam but “hate speech” which as we know is defined as any speech that deviates from the far left narrative.

      Yes, you think Trump is more dangerous because he targets a movement you want to see succeed. You support Schmidty because he furthers a fascist fantasy you deeply long to see fulfilled.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes calling an idea “dumb and dangerous” indicates support for it.

        You are an illiterate loony.

  • ohio granny

    I am posting this on Google. I will delete Google from my computer as soon as I finish posting. No one this tyrannical should be in a position to decide what is “hate speech” and what is not. Does he define “hate speech” as anything that disagrees with the democRAT playbook?