National Security Search Engine: Google's Ranks Are Filled with CIA Agents(mintpressnews.com)
mintpressnews.com
National Security Search Engine: Google's Ranks Are Filled with CIA Agents
https://www.mintpressnews.com/national-security-search-engine-google-ranks-cia-agents/281490/
15 comments
At this point, it's pretty silly that it is still considered "conspiracy theory" to aver that intelligence agencies have placed agents in major corporations throughout the world. Even mainstream limited hangout-type sources have started to acknowledge this. They discuss it on that Wind of Change podcast about the theory that the CIA wrote the Scorpions' song.
Or, to be more precise, it's silly that it is considered "conspiracy theory" in the way most people use the concept, as coterminous with "a false idea."
Or, to be more precise, it's silly that it is considered "conspiracy theory" in the way most people use the concept, as coterminous with "a false idea."
Do you really think that ppl owning the global data of gogol, facebook/meta, linkedin and more would not use this data to get an unfair advantage in one way or another?
Get real: It did happen, it is happening, and will keep to happen.
Get real: It did happen, it is happening, and will keep to happen.
This is a pet peeve of mine, but why not spell out the word “people” when you’re spelling out every other word in your post?
Because I chat and I use abbreviations all the time, I don't even notice them anymore.
To make text communication very hard for text scanner bots, you can use SMS style chat with high variations, namely based on sounds, must be hell for text parsers, unless they spend tons of time training some ML to decode it.
To make text communication very hard for text scanner bots, you can use SMS style chat with high variations, namely based on sounds, must be hell for text parsers, unless they spend tons of time training some ML to decode it.
Conspiracy Theory is shaping up to be a better predictive model of the way the world works, than whatever is broadcast from my local news outlet.
I mean, at this point even lizard people are on the table.
I mean, at this point even lizard people are on the table.
I vouched this because if this was KGB and a Russian company it’d surely be upvoted. In those cases referring to CIA and Google would be seen as whataboutism, if it can’t be discussed there this should not be flagged.
Surely this is an interesting topic we can have a mature conversation about.
Surely this is an interesting topic we can have a mature conversation about.
Whataboutism is not always a fallacy. I feel like it can be used as an appropriate response to hypocrisy.
After covering Twitter, Meta, Redit, and Google, I am looking forward to the next report from MintPressNews that I expect to be on Apple.
Swamp creatures certainly get around. It's no wonder Americans are so deluded about what's actually going on in Ukraine.
Don't worry everyone. Wikipedia says MintPress is a conspiratorial website spreading Syrian and Russian disinformation [1]. So even though all the claims in the article can be independently verified (through wikipedia itself [2], or if you go through LinkedIn's login wall), this article can be safely dismissed.
It is better to wait for a trustworthy news source, such as the New York Times [3], to verify this. I'm sure they'll get around to it just as soon as they report on the 3-year-old story of Gordon MacMillan, an active duty officer in the British Army’s online psychological operations unit, that was revealed to be the Twitter executive for the Middle East [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristie_Canegallo
[3] Why didn’t Snowden go to one of the big names at the Times? Could it be because one of the senior Times editors back then, Dean Baquet — now the chief — reportedly once killed a whistleblower’s story about a surveillance arrangement between AT&T and the NSA? Or because the Times had a history of sitting on damaging intelligence stories, including one about an analyst who doubted the existence of Iraqi WMDs that the paper held until after the 2003 invasion? - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-substack
[4] https://fair.org/home/media-ignore-unmasking-of-twitter-exec... - Searching "Gordon MacMillan site:url" to this day finds no relevant articles on theguardian.com, bbc.com, bbc.co.uk, nytimes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, latimes.com, theatlantic.com, washingtonpost.com, or foxnews.com
It is better to wait for a trustworthy news source, such as the New York Times [3], to verify this. I'm sure they'll get around to it just as soon as they report on the 3-year-old story of Gordon MacMillan, an active duty officer in the British Army’s online psychological operations unit, that was revealed to be the Twitter executive for the Middle East [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristie_Canegallo
[3] Why didn’t Snowden go to one of the big names at the Times? Could it be because one of the senior Times editors back then, Dean Baquet — now the chief — reportedly once killed a whistleblower’s story about a surveillance arrangement between AT&T and the NSA? Or because the Times had a history of sitting on damaging intelligence stories, including one about an analyst who doubted the existence of Iraqi WMDs that the paper held until after the 2003 invasion? - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-substack
[4] https://fair.org/home/media-ignore-unmasking-of-twitter-exec... - Searching "Gordon MacMillan site:url" to this day finds no relevant articles on theguardian.com, bbc.com, bbc.co.uk, nytimes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, latimes.com, theatlantic.com, washingtonpost.com, or foxnews.com
> even though all the claims in the article can be independently verified (through wikipedia itself, or if you go through LinkedIn's login wall)
Then link to those sources. Bad sourcing isn't sufficient for refutation. But it's more than enough for the reasonable to ignore it, and for experts to approach it with heightened qualification.
(That said, thank you for flagging the shady sourcing.)
Then link to those sources. Bad sourcing isn't sufficient for refutation. But it's more than enough for the reasonable to ignore it, and for experts to approach it with heightened qualification.
(That said, thank you for flagging the shady sourcing.)
However, the problem whenever one question this publicly, and the consequences/side effects, you get flagged as some sort of conspiracy theorist, which is unfortunate
They can do a lot of harm to favor their national giants over foreign ones, i'm pretty sure that's how Azure was able to penetrate in the EU despite having OVH
Maybe the reason why google favors instagram over tiktok, who knows at this point