What is Selective Free Speech?

Selective free speech refers to a situation where the principles of free speech are applied inconsistently or selectively, typically based on personal bias, political beliefs, or the content of the speech itself. 

When Google is Wrong About Unreliable and Harmful Content

Google says our site is "Unreliable and has harmful claims and must fix".  This is an example of big tech censorship that has gone wrong.   Google is never specific about what it feels is harmful.  It makes broad generalizations about their claims with no specifics. 

Dr. Robert Epstein On How To Balance The Power of Big Tech Censorship

Brave Search without a trace

Suggestion #1 - Use Brave Search Engine

Suggestion #2 - Establish a Non-Profit To Monitor Google's Techniques & Other Big Tech Companies 

Dr. Robert Epstein is an author, professor, and Senior Research Psychologist at American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology: a non-profit, non-partisan organization that offers data regarding the power of Google and other Big Tech companies to censor dissenting opinions online and sway the outcome of elections. 

Brave Search is the world’s most complete, independent, private search engine. By integrating Brave Search into its browser, Brave offers the first all-in-one browser / search alternative to the big tech platforms. Brave Search is available as the default search engine in Brave or most other major browsers, or via search.brave.com.

Brave Search doesn’t track you or your queries. Ever. Private, independent, and transparent, Brave Search is the real alternative to Google. On mobile, desktop, and anywhere the web takes you. Search private. Search with confidence.

Brave Search doesn’t track you, your searches, or your clicks. It’s impossible for us to share, sell, or lose your data, because we don’t collect it in the first place.

Google tracks everything you do, sells your data to advertisers, and leaves you vulnerable to hackers. Brave serves the user first. Not big tech.

Even supposedly “neutral” or “private” search engines rely on big tech for results. Brave is different. We deliver results based on our own built-from-scratch index. We’re beholden to no one.

Brave Search doesn’t use secret methods or algorithms to bias or censor results. We rely on anonymous community contributions to refine results, and community-created alternative ranking models to ensure diversity.

Brave offers best-in-class integration between private search and a privacy browser. This means all-in-one protection online—both during and after your search.

"OSHA Suspends" & "Died Suddenly" Trending Google Search Terms

2 Examples Of How The FAKE LEGACY NEWS MEDIA doesn't cover the REAL NEWS anymore! 

Died Suddenly Has Been Trending in News Articles & Search Terms

Mainstream Media Outlets Won't Cover OSHA Suspends Federal Vaccine Mandate

Do a search on Google Trends here.

YouTube Hides "Dislikes" After Mass Down Votes of Biden Videos

Let's not forget this article 

Why Censorship Reveals Weakness On The Part of the Tyrant

YouTube has announced it will hide ‘dislikes’ from videos to curb “creator harassment,” with critics pointing out that this is merely a way of removing the huge amount of downvotes on videos posted by the Biden administration.

“YouTube has announced that it’ll be hiding public dislike counts on videos across its site, starting today,” reports The Verge.

“The company says the change is to keep smaller creators from being targeted by dislike attacks or harassment, and to promote “respectful interactions between viewers and creators.” The dislike button will still be there, but it’ll be for private feedback, rather than public shaming.”

Quite how viewer feedback in the form of a thumbs down icon represents “harassment” is anyone’s guess, but the immediate response to the announcement from many was that the Google-owned company was merely moving to protect the Biden White House from ridicule.

“Is this the reason?” asked one respondent, highlighting how Biden speeches and White House press briefings receive massive dislike ratios, sometimes at a rate of ten to one.

Gee, I wonder why they're about to hide dislikes.

It's a total mystery. pic.twitter.com/tCEwDDVdBY

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 10, 2021

Ivermectin Drastically Reduces COVID Deaths in India and Africa

Kim Iversen shares a special segment of the show that cannot be viewed on YouTube. Their 'Community Guidelines' specifically prohibit any mention of Ivermectin, a safe and effective drug that is being widely used in India and Africa to control COVID-19. Below is a look at the medicine's effectiveness and the smear campaign against it.

MSN Showcases the Amazing Uttar Pradesh Turnaround—The Ivermectin-based Home Medicine Kits

Impressive. Look at India's state of Uttar Pradesh this time last year compared to this year. This is one of the ONLY instances I have seen that looks like this...a solid decrease. Look at Vermont, the most vaxxed state in US. Delta in both. Vax in VT, Ivermectin in UT.... pic.twitter.com/Ev3253Kq4k

— Kim Iversen (@KimIversenShow) September 17, 2021

YouTube Has Censored 1 Million Videos For Having Opposing Views

YouTube has removed 1 million videos for dangerous COVID-19 misinformation (aka opposing views) since February 2020, according to YouTube’s Chief Product Officer Neal Mahon.

Mahon shared the statistic in a blog post outlining how the company approaches misinformation on its platform. “Misinformation has moved from the marginal to the mainstream,” he wrote. “No longer contained to the sealed-off worlds of Holocaust deniers or 9-11 truthers, it now stretches into every facet of society, sometimes tearing through communities with blistering speed.”

At the same time, the Youtube executive argued that “bad content” accounts for only a small percentage of YouTube content overall. “Bad content represents only a tiny percentage of the billions of videos on YouTube (about .16-.18% of total views turn out to be content that violates our policies),” Mahon wrote. He added that YouTube removes almost 10 million videos each quarter, “the majority of which don’t even reach 10 views.”

Facebook recently made a similar argument about content on its platform. The social network published a report last week that claimed that the most popular posts are memes and other non-political content. And, faced with criticism over its handling of COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation, the company has argued that vaccine misinformation isn’t representative of the kind of content most users see.

Both Facebook and YouTube have come under particular scrutiny for their policies around health misinformation during the pandemic. Both platforms have well over a billion users, which means that even a small fraction of content can have a far-reaching impact. And both platforms have so far declined to disclose details about how vaccine and health misinformation spreads or how many users are encountering it. Mahon also said that removing misinformation is only one aspect of the company’s approach. YouTube is also working on “ratcheting up information from trusted sources and reducing the spread of videos with harmful misinformation.”

Here are some YouTube video alternatives people are moving to. 

Rumble, DailyMotion, BitChute, DTube, PeerTube,Vimeo 

Why Is Google News Censoring The France Protests?

TWiT Tech Podcast Network - This video is from 2019 showing that France has copyright reform issues.  Google can't put up news snippets apparently because of some law according to the video above. 

4th straight week with over 200,000 people took to the streets of French cities to protest against a new "health pass" designed to prevent the spread of coronavirus.  Google News does not cover this story. 

The protesters waved French flags and held signs such as "No to the health pass" and "Liberty!" 

"We want none of this!" a 53-year-old female protester in Paris told French news agency AFP.  "It is a political crisis disguised as a health crisis."

The French Interior Ministry said nearly 215,000 people took part in the demonstrations nationwide, short of the 250,000 expected. In Paris alone, some 1,600 police officers were tasked with responding to three separate marches. 

As you can see below there are no search results when you search for France in Google News. 

Dr Bryan Ardis - Hospital Protocol Is What Is Murdering "Covid" Flu Patients

What Is Stakeholder Capitalism + COVAX + Big Tech + WHO + UN

What is stakeholder capitalism & how does big tech, COVAX, WHO, and UN play a role in coordinating to expand globalism. 

76 countries, including Japan, Germany and Norway, have now signed up to the COVAX scheme.  The COVAX initiative aims to “accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, and to guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world”. That, again, sounds wonderful, especially given the staggering inequalities in vaccination levels between rich and developing countries.

But why is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is part of the UN, not calling the shots? “Countries together, through multilateral agencies like the WHO, were supposed to make decisions about global health issues, with maybe some technical support by others,” says Sulakshana Nandi from NGO People's Health Movement, which has recently brought out a Policy Brief on COVAX.

Big Pharma investment opportunities

COVAX was set up as a multi-stakeholder group by two other multi-stakeholder groups, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), in partnership with the WHO. Both GAVI and CEPI have strong ties with the World Economic Forum (which was one of the founders of CEPI) as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and both are also connected to companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson through manufacturer partnerships (GAVI) or as 'supporters' (CEPI). Even though COVAX is funded predominantly by governments, it is these corporate-centered coalitions that are overseeing its roll-out.

The contrast between the multi-stakeholder approach and a 'classic' multilateral one came to the surface when South Africa and India proposed the so-called TRIPS waiver at the end of last year. They requested a temporary lifting of intellectual property rules on all COVID-19 technologies in order to boost the manufacturing and distribution of vaccines and other essential medical products in mainly developing countries. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a speech that he backed the proposal. “But GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – even Bill Gates himself – and Big Pharma opposed this proposal very strongly,” said Nandi. “It's more important for them to protect their interests and market mechanisms than to protect universal health or protect people from COVID.” The WHO was approached for comment but has not replied.

Again, there is a stark choice between a human rights-led approach carried out by the UN and a profit-led approach carried out by multistakeholder bodies representing the interests of corporations. In the case of COVAX – which is failing to meet its modest aim of vaccinating 20% of the populations of low- and middle-income countries – the former has won out.

Something fishy really is going on in the realm of global governance. If you value your right to public health, to privacy, to access healthy food or to democratic representation, be wary of the words 'stakeholder capitalism’ when they pop up at the next Davos summit.

Big tech governing big tech

Another landmark in the development of stakeholder capitalism can be found in the Big Tech sector. As a part of his 2020 Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, the UN Secretary-General called for the formation of a new ‘strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body’. Again it's not easy to find a list of stakeholders but after some digging a long list of ‘roundtable participants’ for the roadmap includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft and the WEF.

Although the functions laid out for this new body are quite vague, civil society organizations fear it will come down to Big Tech creating a global body to govern itself. This risks institutionalizing these companies' resistance against effective regulation both globally and nationally and increasing their power over governments and multilateral organizations. If the body comes to fruition, it could be a decisive victory in the ongoing war GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft) is waging with governments over tax evasion, antitrust rules, and their ever-expanding power over society.

More than 170 civil society groups worldwide have signed another open letter to the secretary-general of the UN – this time to prevent the digital governance body from forming. The secretary-general was approached for comment but had not replied at the time of publication.  Here is the full article. 

Stakeholder Capitalism by McKinsey 

The McKinsey Global Institute concluded that those with a long-term view—something that is essential to stakeholder capitalism—outperformed the rest in earnings, revenue, investment, and job growth. Other McKinsey research found that companies with strong environmental, social, and governance (ESG) norms recorded higher performance and credit ratings; other research has found that such companies perform better during crises.

YouTube's Censorship Is Totally Out Of Control

Censoring videos and deleting accounts of videos that have not even been published. They keep videos of mainstream media videos. Lawsuits are coming and the government is going to have to get involved with this unfair practice.  This artist is leaving YouTube for Rumble. 

If you think this is a problem then you will want to watch this video showing how censorship is working at the other mainstream media companies and big tech. 

YouTube, Google News Book A Must Read On Censorship

Former Google Employee Zach Vorhies Plans to End Big Tech Censorship By Revealing The Truth.

Zach Vorhies joins me to discuss his new book and the challenges we face in confronting the crushing power of big technology conglomerates that seem to control everything.

This young man is definitely a hero - been following him since he appeared on Project Veritas. 

TOP SECRET - Are Vaccines Creating A More Potent Virus?

Joe Rogan & Evan Hafer are skeptical because everyone is afraid to go public with the truth!

 

My God this is absolute gold. Gold. I'm surprised YouTube hasn't taken this down yet because it doesn't fit their narrative. If this was on Instagram it would come with one of those covid "false information" warnings. God bless Joe Rogan for being an actual voice of logic and reason in our world. It is truly insane to me how people just attach themselves to a side, and regardless of how ridiculous the opinion is of that side, they will fight tooth and nail for it to the death.

Twitter mob angry at podcast host after he blames jabs for virus mutations & blasts mandatory vaccination

Joe Rogan must be protected pic.twitter.com/QkqkipeeVF

— Carlos Del Valle 🇺🇸⚔️ (@cdelvallejr) August 7, 2021

CNN, CBS, Fox, Google, Fox News - Whistleblowers Town Hall

Project Veritas 

Freedom Forum July 28, 2021

Send a tip here or sign up on the email list here.

projectveritas.com

Investigate & expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical & transparent society. Listen to these former & current employees of Google, CNN, CBS, US Postal, Pinterest uncover recorded conversations and conference calls behind the scenes.   Read these other insider stories. 

This is a must-watch video that should disturb you no matter what your political ideology is.  I am an optimist that big change is coming as these brave whistleblowers come forward and tell what is going on in corporate America and government.  

I am disgusted with everyone in Government and the news media these days because they have become the cancer of our society.  However, I am an optimist and think these kinds of organizations like Project Veritas and brave people about going to educate the masses on what is really going on.  The change will be slow and painful but it is coming.  

Rand Paul Goes After Big Tech Censorship on Rumble.com

Rumble does not censor videos

Why Censorship Reveals Weakness On The Part of the Tyrant

President Joe Biden wants to suppress speech that discourages Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19. Because the First Amendment doesn’t allow him to do that, he is asking Facebook and other social-media giants to do it for him.

Vaccine skepticism has existed since the advent of the technology itself. However, the mass uptake of social media is blamed for the significant traction recently gained by the ‘anti-vax’ movement. A recent report found that 400 anti-vax social media accounts contain 58 million followers based primarily in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Government-based censorship laws & big tech censorship policies should not be implemented for three main reasons.

#1 - Many people have legitimate concerns around the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to factors including the speed of their development, the underrepresentation of ethnic minority groups in clinical trials and the unknown longevity of their immunological effects. The public must feel freely able to voice these concerns, raise challenging questions and expect transparent replies from trusted institutions. An unintended effect of shutting down anti-vax groups may be to silence those with legitimate questions for fear of shame or ridicule and lead them to harbor greater suspicion of public health authorities and sympathize with anti-vax rhetoric.

#2 - Emergency laws would enforce censorship and de-platforming and threaten the democratic cornerstone of freedom of speech. All ideas – even the bad ones – must be allowed a public airing, and their qualities debated in the marketplace of ideas. It is through this process that institutions foster influence, respect, and public trust, by presenting empirical evidence, reasoned arguments, and a scientific method based on critical thinking. Conversely, widespread de-platforming of anti-vax campaigners is unlikely to dissuade those sympathetic to these messages but rather reinforce their strongly held beliefs about vaccine conspiracies while deepening their mistrust of public health authorities. In addition, removing the social media stages of anti-vax campaigners is likely to drive them underground to adopt alternative stages that are more difficult to identify, monitor, and respond to with public health messaging. The lack of evidence to support censorship as a reliable means of producing desirable health behavior change should deter against the deployment of this strategy.

#3 - The features of an ‘anti-vax campaign’ are themselves undetermined and, depending on the breadth of the definition imposed, may include both the mere voicing of concern for vaccine safety and the intentional distribution of dangerous falsities. Governments will be without the substantial resources required to identify all online anti-vax campaigns and thus will be forced to hand over decision-making powers to social media platforms themselves. This is unlikely to be an optimal strategy for the delivery of public health messaging and risks triggering dangerous normative shifts in the ability of social media platforms to control what the public is and is not able to see.

In any event, all Americans should be alarmed that these giant firms are acting as judge and jury on enormously important issues, like our health or our elections. They must not be allowed to control our information, nor our country. Today, they are doing both.

Here are 4 legitimate health issues that are being censored by big tech and not be covered by the mainstream media: 

#1 - Bell’s Palsy Linked To Covid Vaccines? 

#2 - COVID-19 Vaccines Enlarged Lymph Nodes Suggest You Already Had The Virus

#3 - Women Having Menstrual Issues From COVID Vaccine

#4 - Guillain-Barré Linked To COVID-19 Vaccines?

Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Full Censorship Senate Testimony

These 3 companies are the single greatest threat to free speech! 

NY Post is the 4th highest circulated news media and was censored! 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a virtual Senate hearing on whether the technology industry enables bad behavior. Ted Cruz grilled Big Tech CEOs over bias concerns; 'The Five' weigh-in.  

Jack Dorsey perjured himself today lying about the NY Post being on Twitter regarding Hunter Biden. 

"Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear, and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?" Cruz asked.

Dorsey claimed that this was not the case. He also denied that Twitter has the ability to influence elections, a claim that Cruz derided as "absurd."

“You’re testifying to this committee right now that Twitter, when it silences people when it censors people when it blocks political speech, that has no impact on elections?”

“People have a choice of other communication channels,” Dorsey claimed.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, ripped into Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey during a hearing with tech titans on Wednesday, accusing him and his social media platform of improperly censoring reporting that reflected poorly on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, asking at the point, "Who the hell elected you?"

placeholder

The exchange comes as Republicans over the last several weeks have decried Twitter's actions to lock the New York Post's Twitter account, and censor links to the outlet's stories, on Biden's son, Hunter, and his overseas business dealings.

Dorsey said this was due to a policy regarding hacked materials because the stories were based on emails from Hunter Biden's purported laptop. Cruz noted that a New York Times article about President Trump's tax returns did not face the same treatment, even though the materials appeared to be leaked illegally.

What @jack told the Senate, under oath, is false. I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging Biden’s CCP corruption.

Still blocked.

18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate. https://t.co/BDHRB8CEzy

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 28, 2020

DOJ’s Antitrust Case vs Google is Biggest in 20 Years

After the DOJ's 1998 suit against Microsoft, this suit has the potential to be the most important antitrust case against a technology firm in over 20 years.

It is claimed that U.S. antitrust enforcers are crafting a complaint against Google (and its parent company, Alphabet). This week, the Justice Department and a broad group of state attorneys general are meeting and could file suit very soon. While it would allegedly concentrate on the dominance of Google in online advertisement and search, the lawsuit may cover many other aspects of the actions of Google, including its dominance in mobile operating systems and web browsers. After the DOJ's 1998 suit against Microsoft, this suit has the potential to be the most important antitrust case against a technology firm in over 20 years.

In other words, almost all Internet users have a stake in the results of this case, all users of Google Apps, and anyone who watches Google-brokered ads. That's why it has to be performed correctly. It should cover more than just advertisement markets and also concentrate on the consumer strength of Google's search, browser, and smartphone OS. And the antitrust authorities should seek intelligent solutions that go beyond money harm, including breakups and interoperability with competing goods, all while being vigilant in protecting the interests of free expression and privacy of consumers that will eventually be caught up in the mix. Like many, we worry that it might not go well if everything is hurried, so we advise the enforcers to take the time they need to do it right while understanding that there is continual harm.

The Significance of a “Big Case” Antitrust

U.S. government antitrust cases have an important place in the history of innovation, and there is a fair argument to be made that they provided breathing space for innovation even though they did not conclude with a court order to break up a company. The DOJ's case against IBM started in 1969, went to trial in 1975, and was withdrawn in 1982, for "monopolizing or threatening to monopolize the general-purpose market for electronic digital computer systems." While the case did not end with a court-ordered remedy, as it had squashed other rivals for decades, a decade-plus of a public investigation into IBM's business practices arguably stopped the company from squashing nascent rivals like Microsoft. That outcome probably helped start the 1980s personal computer revolution, fuelled by various companies' ideas beyond "Big Blue."

The government's suit against AT&T, which had for much of the twentieth century maintained a legally recognized monopoly on telephone service in the U.S., almost ended the same way as the IBM suit. US v. AT&T was filed in 1974 and by 1982 it had not reached a verdict. "But years of scrutiny, coupled with the emergence of potential rivals who were itching to enter telecommunications service and related markets, led the leadership of AT&T to consent to a split, allowing the" Baby Bells "and technology-focused spinoffs to innovate in data communications and Internet growth in ways that" Ma Bell "could not. With a monolithic AT&T still controlling who could link to telephone networks and what devices they could use, it is difficult to foresee the Internet entering mainstream use in the 1990s. Even though the AT&T heirs finally re-assembled themselves, we still have the creativity unleashed by the split.

Also, a boon to creativity was the 1998 lawsuit against Microsoft over its exclusion of rival Web browser applications from PCs. At the time, Microsoft's AT&T-style merger, perhaps breaking its operating system and software application divisions into different businesses, was a distinct possibility. The trial court actually ordered exactly that. D.C. On appeal, Instead, Circuit opposed a split and directed Microsoft to comply with existing restrictions on its conduct against rival software vendors and PC producers. Again, this appeared to be anything less than a shining accomplishment. But Microsoft shelved plans to smash a little-known search firm called Google in the face of ongoing surveillance of its actions against competitors.

Google grew into so many Internet-related markets two decades later that its place in many of them remains unassailable. Google has been able to buy out or push out almost any company that dares to compete in a number of markets with it. Once again, the engine of disruptive innovation has broken down, and a brave, thoughtful federal and state enforcers' antitrust challenge could be just the thing to help restart it.

Look at the entire Alphabet, not just advertisements

Look at the whole alphabet, not just ads. News reports indicate that Google's litigation will concentrate on the domination of web advertising by the corporation, which is alleged to depress publishers' ad revenues. The suit may also discuss the behavior of Google against rivals in search markets, such as travel and search for goods. In order to see how it contributed to the acquisition of monopoly control in different markets, it should also look at Google's history of mergers and acquisitions, such as the 2007 purchase of advertising company DoubleClick.

Antitrust enforcers will go high on the reach of the complaint. Consumers will not benefit much from a suit that questions Google's actions in the advertisement markets alone. Although the vast collection of Google data on the browsing habits and preferences of users, extracted from its ad networks, causes great harm to customers, it is not yet clear if hundreds of smaller rivals in the ad-tech market, some of which are extremely shady, would be better user privacy stewards. The response here includes both antitrust and much-needed new regulations on privacy. That's going to assist customers around the board.

Google's leveraging of its current market dominance in search, Web browsing (Chrome), and mobile operating systems (Android) should also be questioned by the DOJ and states to keep out competition. The lawsuit should also question whether the collection and control of user data by Google through so many applications and computers, plus data from millions of websites linked to Google's advertisement networks, gives it an advantage that causes anti-trust scrutiny in other markets. These are, in part, novel and challenging antitrust law arguments. Yet enforcers are expected to target hard. Success in keeping Google responsible for its use of monopoly power can help the courts and probably Congress adjust antitrust law for the digital era, even if it does not succeed entirely. It can also help create a bulwark against the Internet's further centralization. And as history indicates, even a suit that eventually does not lead to a split will help make room for creativity outside the walls of today's tech giant from different outlets.

Have a large remedies toolbox: interoperability, innovation follow-on, laws of conduct, and breakups

By now, it is clear that antitrust law enforcers ought to seek solutions beyond money damages. Without altering their actions drastically, Google and Alphabet are big enough to treat almost every fine as a cost of doing business. As part of the litigation, a court-ordered breakup of Alphabet could also be seriously considered, perhaps an order to separate parts of Google's advertising company or to unravel Google's most controversial acquisitions.

In the government's quiver of solutions, however, breakups should not be the only bolt. Asking Google to allow its rivals to create interoperable goods would strike at the root of Google's monopoly issue and could be an easier lift. As we've seen across several examples, building products that can link to current, dominant products, without permission from the incumbent vendor, can be a powerful antimonopoly tool. It can help bring users back into power.

That may mean ordering Google not to interfere with products that block Google-distributed advertising and monitoring in Google's case. Allowing ad- and tracker-blocking technology to thrive will allow consumers to shape the ad-tech industry by supporting businesses that obtain less user information and are more accountable for the information they have. It could also promote innovation in that market (note: one of those innovations is the Privacy Badger of the EFF, but this could benefit several services). Google will have to fight for users' views and clicks in that case by protecting their privacy.

Interoperability requirements implemented as an antitrust remedy or as part of a settlement mitigate many of the concerns that come with more generalized mandates for technology because orders can be crafted to accommodate the technologies and procedures of a particular organization. To ensure enforcement, it may require constant monitoring and help prevent security concerns or other problems that may occur from a one-size-fits-all approach.

A perfect chance to start solving the issues of the monopoly control of Big Tech is the pending litigation against Google. If enforcers act boldly, they will set new precedents for antitrust that will stimulate competition across high-tech markets. As a spur to progress and a monopoly solution, they should also use this opportunity to advance interoperability.

Who are Google's Lawyers?

Google has had a handful of familiar outside lawyers since the companies have dealt with several antitrust court appearances over the past few years. 

In a pending private antitrust lawsuit accusing the search giant of monopolizing the online search advertising market, Google has turned to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. When the department questioned the company's search activities, Wilson Sonsini also helped Google fight off the FTC back in 2011. Without penalizing Google, the FTC closed the case in 2013.

Google is also a client of Paul Weiss, who, during the DOJ's antitrust trial, represented Microsoft for Bill Gates' empire. 

For most foreign investigations, including the EU's nearly $ 3 billion antitrust fine accusing the corporation of rigging its search results to benefit its own goods, Google has relied on Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. In his almost 13-year antitrust case brought by the DOJ, Cleary also represented IBM Corp. In 1982, the government finally dismissed the lawsuit.

Google's likely lawyers will include: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Kasowitz Benson Torres, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Williams & Connonlly, King & Spalding

Twitter CEO Subpoena Over Blocking Content

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey next week to testify on allegations the company is stifling conservative viewpoints. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is leading the fight. He says Twitter blocked him from sharing a New York Post article about Hunter Biden.

The article alleged Hunter Biden introduced his dad, Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden, to Ukrainian officials. But Cruz says no one could share it on social media. “Suddenly Jack Dorsey and a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires are deciding that no criticism, no allegations, no evidence of corruption concerning Joe Biden are permissible,” Cruz said. “That is blatant election interference.”

“Facebook and Twitter have policies to not spread things that are utterly unreliable,” Coons said.  

Jack Dorsey CEO announced Twitter changed its policy Friday morning said in a tweet, “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong.”  This was likely pressure for lawsuits threatened.  

White House Chief Of Staff Warns Of Potential Lawsuit Against Tech Giants. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday suggested that the Trump administration would bring a lawsuit against the social media companies that have recently restricted and blocked news reports about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

 White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday suggested that the Trump administration would bring a lawsuit against the social media companies that have recently restricted and blocked news reports about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

In an interview on “Fox & Friends,” Meadows said that the online platforms try to censor conservatives and suggested that if the story about Joe and Hunter Biden was about President Donald Trump and his family, tech companies would have not blocked the story.

The Chief of Staff’s comments come in the wake of a report by the New York Post alleging to have obtained emails from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. Many Democrats have claimed the story is an effort to discredit Joe Biden and an attempt by Russia to help elect Trump. So far, neither of the Bidens have denied the authenticity of the emails.

The threat of a lawsuit was also prompted by the actions Twitter took to lock Trump’s reelection campaign account last Thursday for trying to share the New York Post story.

Meadows said he has not received any intelligence suggesting that the Russians were involved in the emails being extracted from Hunter Biden’s laptop as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has alleged.

NEW — U.S. Senator Josh Hawley has formally requested @Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and @Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism in a coming hearing titled "Digital Platforms and Election Interference.” pic.twitter.com/VlXBo17bX0

— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) October 15, 2020

Contact Tracing Legitimate or a Scam?

You’ve probably been hearing a lot about contact tracing. It’s the process of identifying people who have come in contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, instructing them to quarantine and monitoring their symptoms daily.

If you’re contacted about possible exposure to the coronavirus, make sure it’s legit. Scammers are masquerading as contact tracers, and it’s smart to verify calls or texts before giving out any information.

 A tracer’s job is to help contain the pandemic by reaching out to people who may be spreading the coronavirus. You could be called because your test was positive. Or perhaps someone who tested positive named you as someone they’d been in contact with, and now you need to be tested.

Scammers read the news, too, and are trying to capitalize on tracing campaigns. They’ve even made calls appear to come from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And yet actual tracers can’t do their work if we won’t pick up the phone.

Contact tracers are usually hired by a state’s department of public health. They work with an infected person to get the names and phone numbers for everyone that infected person came in close contact with while the possibly infectious. Those names and phone numbers are often kept in an online system. People who had contact with someone infected with COVID-19 may first get a text message from the health department, telling them they’ll get a call from a specific number. The tracer who calls will not ask for personal information, like a Social Security number. At the end of the call, some states ask if the contact would like to enroll in a text message program, which sends daily health and safety reminders until the 14-day quarantine ends. But tracers won’t ask you for money or information like your Social Security, bank account, or credit card number. Anyone who does is a scammer.