HomeUncategorizedSocial Media Manipulation
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thanks for starting a thread here. I think many are out enjoying the long weekend.

I seldom drop-by KfS especially as M.Overdrive isn’t posting over there. Of the r/, I look for headlines out of WotB.


I decided to look at the HL at K4S and I did find this one interesting:

Is Big Tech Breaking Up With the Left?

Open Markets, a division at the public policy think tank the New America Foundation, had been an intellectual force in progressive circles in recent years, leading to a heightened awareness of the damaging effects that monopolization is having on both consumers and businesses. Its work focused on everything from hyper-consolidation in the airline industry to a growing concentration of book publishers, but where it really stirred things up was by targeting America’s giant tech companies, particularly Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet (the umbrella company for Google). Now, Google has apparently struck back, revealing a growing divide between progressives and an industry that has long claimed a home in the Democratic Party.

On Wednesday, The New York Times’s Ken Vogel reported that New America had parted ways with Open Markets following complaints from Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet, a major New America donor. (Schmidt has also made personal donations to New America, and was its chairman until 2016.) In an email reviewed by the Times, Anne-Marie Slaughter, who leads New America, informed Barry Lynn, the head of Open Markets, that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways.” Slaughter told Lynn that the decision was “in no way based on the content of your work,” but that Lynn was “imperiling the institution as a whole.” In a statement released after the Times published its story, Slaughter said Lynn has been let go for insubordination—for failing “to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality.”

What had Lynn done exactly? Under Lynn, Open Markets strenuously warned of the perils of Amazon’s growing clout, and pushed the Democratic Party to adopt a harder line on antitrust, with some significant success. But it appears the nail in the coffin was when Open Markets praised the $2.7 billion antitrust fine the European Union levied against Alphabet in June. The statement was briefly taken down from New America’s website, and “word of Mr. Schmidt’s displeasure rippled through New America,” according to the Times. The Times reports that Slaughter also objected to a 2016 Open Markets conference on consolidation in the tech sector, telling Lynn that it could hurt New America’s relationship with Google: “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points … just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Critics of New America say it’s easy to read between the lines here. To ensure that Google would continue funding New America, Slaughter axed the entire Open Markets program. In an interview with the New Republic, Lynn confirmed the account he gave to the Times, pointing to the EU statement and the 2016 conference as “the only two times there were ever tensions with my work.”

One can read the rest of it here: https://newrepublic.com/article/144617/big-tech-breaking-left

So I decided to look for tweets by Matt Stoller, who is a fellow at Open Markets and has been for over a year. Long time bloggers may remember Open Left, a site Stoller created with Chris Bowers. The site folded when Obama won the 2008 election, as Stoller obtained a job as an analyst for the Senate Budget Committee (specifically for Bernie Sanders) and Bowers took a position at TOP as Campaign Director.

Stellar claims Open Markets is on its own.


Decent discussion between Stoller and Tucker Carlson about Google’s monopolistic, anti-competitive tactics with data gathering.

Clip buried within tweet.

Took me a second try to post this as I was viewing the YT with Chrome. 🙁 And it stopped. No joke!


I’ve been resisting Chrome forever. I used it on one computer years ago and found that it was almost impossible to NOT use it after that. I didn’t like it at all.

But I’m getting more and more instances of seeing this message “Your browser is not supported on this website” (paraphrased).

Asked web dev hubby about it and he said that more and more web developers are not even bothering to develop for IE, he says it’s “so proprietary” and not used as much as before. Something about only being used by “legacy” computers.

Desktop Browser Market Share
Per netmarketshare.com
As of August 2017

59.38% Chrome
15.58% Microsoft Internet Explorer
12.28% Firefox
5.66% Microsoft Edge
3.87% Safari
1.23% Opera
1.23% Other
0.78% proprietary or undetectable


More about the Google’s practices with publishers and social media, this article was published by Gizmodo:

Google denied any role in Lynn’s firing, and Slaughter tweeted that the “facts are largely right, but quotes are taken way out of context and interpretation is wrong.” Despite the conflicting story lines, the underlying premise felt familiar to me: Six years ago, I was pressured to unpublish a critical piece about Google’s monopolistic practices after the company got upset about it. In my case, the post stayed unpublished.

I was working for Forbes at the time, and was new to my job. In addition to writing and reporting, I helped run social media there, so I got pulled into a meeting with Google salespeople about Google’s then-new social network, Plus.

The Google salespeople were encouraging Forbes to add Plus’s “+1″ social buttons to articles on the site, alongside the Facebook Like button and the Reddit share button. They said it was important to do because the Plus recommendations would be a factor in search results—a crucial source of traffic to publishers.

This sounded like a news story to me. Google’s dominance in search and news give it tremendous power over publishers. By tying search results to the use of Plus, Google was using that muscle to force people to promote its social network.

Read the rest here: http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-doesn-t-li-1798646437


FYI, Open Markets is now called “Citizens Against Monopoly: https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/.”

Josh Marshall explains how TPM worked with Google for its online publishing business model:

Let’s discuss the various ways we’re in business with Google.

It all starts with “DFP”, a flavor of Doubleclick called DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP). DoubleClick was one of the early “ad-serving companies” that Google purchased years ago. DFP actually started as GAM – Google Ad Manager. We were chosen to be one of its beta-users. This was I think back in 2006 or 2007. What’s DFP? DFP is the application (or software, or system – you could define it in different ways) that serves ads on TPM. I don’t know the exact market penetration. But it’s the hugely dominant player in ad serving across the web. So on TPM, Google software manages the serving of ads. Our ads all drive on Google’s roads.

Then there’s AdExchange. That’s the part of Google that buys ad inventory. A huge amount of our ads come through ad networks. AdExchange is far and away the largest of those for us – often accounting for around 15% of total revenues every month – sometimes higher. So our largest single source of ad revenue is usually Google. To be clear that’s not Google advertising itself but advertisers purchasing our ad space through Google. But every other ad we ever run runs over Google’s ad serving system too. So Google software/service (DFP) runs the ad ecosystem on TPM. And the main buyer within that ecosystem is another Google service (Adexchange).

Then there’s Google Analytics. That’s the benchmark audience and traffic data service. How many unique visitors do we have? How many page views do we serve each month? What’s the geographical distribution of our audience? That is all collected through Google Analytics. Now, that’s not our only source of audience data. We have several services we use for that in addition to our own internal systems. But we do use it for the big aggregate numbers and longterm record keeping. In many ways it’s the canonical data people on the outside look at to see how big our audience is. Do we have to share that data? No. Unless we want potential advertisers to see we have an audience.

Next there’s search. Heard of that? There’s general search and then there’s Google News, a separate bucket of search. Search tends not to be that important for us in part because we’ve never prioritized it and in part because as a site focused on iterative news coverage what we produce tends to be highly ephemeral – at least in search terms. We don’t publish a lot of evergreen stories. Still, search is important. For other publishers it’s the whole game.

One additional Google implant is Gmail, which we use to provision our corporate email. The backbone of the @talkingpointsmemo.com email addresses is gmail. Lots of companies now do this.

So let’s go down the list: 1) The system for running ads, 2) the top purchaser of ads, 3) the most pervasive audience data service, 4) all search, 5) our email.

But wait, there’s more! Google also owns Chrome, the most used browser for visiting TPM. Chrome is responsible for 41% of our page views. Safari comes in second at 36%. But the Safari number is heavily driven by people using iOS devices. On desktop Chrome is overwhelmingly dominant.

Read the rest here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm

This is exactly what LD was describing about TYT and how they haven’t worked out a business model beyond YT for viewing other than subscribers. And if TYT’s independent media branding is crushed by any critique of Google, they could be cut off. TYT has to worry more about content with us, i think.


Thanks for all of you comments on what went down with Google/Open Markets/think tank funding/think tank manipulation/corporate power/free speech/ all that stuff Benny!

Silicon Valley not getting any weaker and Democratic party seems to be capitulating to them. Not good.


What is so shocking about all this? Nothing. New silicone monopoly greedballs are the same as the old greedballs of the MICC, oil, health”care”, you name it. The monopolies have to be broken up. The laws are still there. Just have to flush out all the corporo-bribed “public servants.” As long as this kind of greed is tolerated and/or encouraged, the crap will continue. T and R!!



Thanks for the thread. I peeked in for a second yesterday before you posted, but had to dash back to job list. Soon will begin prep for bringing a carful of food over to family function. Am family cook.

I love it here at TPW, no one yells at each other, lol. 😉

On top of that I learn a lot. As more and more people pop in here and there it’ll get only better.

I see the amped up stuff on twitter. I try to limit the ‘menu’ for mental health reasons.

Good to see you!


Their are disagreement’s from time to time but its nothing like some of the other places I check into. The vitrol is HORRIBLE!! We get a lot of exchange of information here which is a big help of staying informed as the media AKA weapons of mass deception fails America greatly.


Oh sure! I would hope that we can have/would have some differences of opinions! But I suppose I like that we tend to express our differences of opinions without the vitriol that you mentioned.


I second this greeting to VOD. LD kept things cool and informative with the BNR. This site is a wonderful successor. Don’t work too hard @magsview!! 🙂


Hi VoiceOfDog!
Thanks for adding your voice!
I echo Magsview’s comment and add – thanks to LD’s “judicial temperament” and fair mindedness, this web site is a breath of fresh air, free of strident partisan ugliness and at the same time strong on democratic values including fairness and justice.

No heavy handed strident edicts – if you know what I mean, lol!
Chock full of information! And links to progressive political actions.

I didn’t understand what you were trying to tell us in your second paragraph regarding Russian interference and KFB on reditt.

A web site that has presented articles that try to tease out the facts vs the rumors on Russian interference, written by retired intelligence professionals, is investigative reporter Robert Parry’s Consortium News.
He features, among others, writers who are retired Intelligence professional who have expressed doubts about the MSM’s representations of the hacks/leaks.

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims

The Gaping Holes of Russia-gate

Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence


Speaking of manipulation, what the hell is that site verrit.com?

My understanding is that it was begun by the Daous and Hillary posted an endorsement of the site last night:

It appears to entice people in with some supposed quote or fact, posted on twitter or probably fb I imagine, then, near as I can tell, you have to go to their site and enter in a “verification code” to verify the quote or fact.

But when you go to their site it appears to be chock full of questionable, what appears to be twisted, information.

Here’s just one I grabbed just now:

Verrit’s caption –

“EPA Head Scott Pruitt Wants Science Out of Government Policy”

Scott Pruitt’s actual (I think, it’s all very confusing somehow!) quote –

“Science should not be something that’s just thrown about to try to dictate policy in Washington, D.C.”

Now I am NO fan of Pruitt! But Verrit’s caption is deceptive and misleading.

And when you click on for more info, you are lead into a veritable (pun intended) honeypot of more questionable news ‘interpretations’. It all feels off somehow.

And, of course, the fact that Peter and Leela Daou founded it was the first red flag.

Why do Hillary supporters need a “SANCTUARY IN THE MEDIA” anyway? We all just need the most accurate information and the most truthful media sources we can find. And I don’t get the impression that verrit is a source for truth.


Oh shit, what’s this? Kos! You’d better endorse verrit.com stat! 😉


Daou cannot be trusted, especially not as a source for accurate and truthful information!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verrit is a political news site by Peter Daou[1] that shows verified news facts for sharing in social media discussions.

On September 3, 2017, Hillary Clinton, lost candidate of 2016 Presidential Election, endorsed the service. The site then fell offline, with Peter Daou falsely stating it was offline from hackers.[2] Experts say it was likely that the web servers were unable to handle the traffic from Clinton’s advertisement.

See also

Am thinking that its wiki page will be undergoing some changes soon, lol.


Last one (looking like I should have done a proper post on this – sorry VOD!). These two tweets were literally right next to one another (vertically of course) on my twitter feed right now, from last night:

Two takeaways:
1) People are REALLY tired of re-hashing 2016
2) People are sick and tired of misinformation by grifters like the Daous and anything else to do with David Brock.

This crap is not helpful. We will not be in any kind of a strong position to pushback on the hurtful GOP policies if this kind of shit is sucking all the oxygen out of the room! (and yes, it pisses me off, we have important issues to address and we need all hands on deck, not clique-y bickering down below ignoring the storm!)


Here’s a ss of those tweets for more info

9-4-17 daou begins more deception twitter response.jpg
Skip to toolbar