Pages

Saturday, August 17, 2019

They don't think it's a bug

It's actually a feature designed to permit their ideological allies to exploit their infrastructure:
Tulsi Gabbard's email account went down right after the Democratic Debate and I believe I can provide assistance on where to focus your discovery efforts because I saw how other accounts, such as Jordan B. Peterson, was taken down. I'm going to recount how this happened to him so as to assist you in your legal discovery process.

During my tenor, Jordan B. Peterson had his gmail account deactivated and I had the opportunity to inspect the bug report as a full-time employee. What I found was that Google had a technical vulnerability that, when exploited, would take any gmail account down. Certain unknown 3rd party actors are aware of this secret vulnerability and exploit it. This is how it worked:

Take a target email address, change exactly one letter in that email address, and then create a new account with that changed email address. Malicious actors repeated this process over and over again until a network of spoof accounts for Jordan B. Peterson existed. Then these spoof accounts started generating spam emails. These email-spam blasts caught the attention of an AI system which fixed the problem by deactivating the spam accounts... and then ALSO the original account belonging to Jordan B. Peterson!

To my knowledge, this bug has never been fixed. When Google says an account was deactivated because of "suspicious" activity, this is how they often do it.

Proof of this exploit can be found by doing the following:

1. Go inside the Google corporate network.
2. Then go to the following url: http://b (yes the url is that short).
3. Search terms: jordan b peterson

Cheers and good luck in your lawsuit!
Lawfare is the way to defeat the social media giants. But you must be willing to fight them! Contrary to what most people believe, they are not set up for it, they do not anticipate it, they are not legally sophisticated, and they aren't even inclined to handle their own legal defenses with their expensive in-house lawyers. Their focus on diversity and inclusivity means that their lower-level executives and in-house counsel are almost astonishingly incompetent; look at the number of simple grammatical errors in the average Silicon Valley company's terms of use as evidence of that.

52 comments:

  1. I'm told by friends in IT that searches for Tulsi Gabbard after the debate were also de-activated by Google, which apparently supports Kemala...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Say Jordan B. Peterson one more time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "during my tenor".... what, he's an alto now?

    you would think someone PUBLISHING something for widespread distribution and reading would use the right word: tenure

    Or is this yet another sign of the sorry state of our schools.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @1... It should be fun to see 18 different DEM candidates, including Pete the Buttplug all suing Google for its... unscrupulous behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @David Ray Milton

    How many times in the mirror before he appears behind you? Haunting your dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dirk Manly wrote:"during my tenor".... what, he's an alto now?

    you would think someone PUBLISHING something for widespread distribution and reading would use the right word: tenure

    Or is this yet another sign of the sorry state of our schools.

    I'm not surprised, actually. I've noticed a very large decline in the use of language over the last 20 years, such that people can't even keep their/there/they're straight.

    When I see it I work all three into a sentence, "People keep their stuff over there when they're staying for lunch."
    Bad grammar and spelling is usually a sign that the person doesn't read enough books.
    -Unknownsailor-

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whaddayawant? My spell checker says tenor is spelt correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why do they hate Gabbard? She's a progressive, open borders, homo lovin liberal. She's also a female PoC, she ticks all the boxes but the white progressive left HATE her. Why? I'm genuinely mystified. Is it because she's hot? She served in the military? Oh yeah I almost forgot, coz Israel. Scratch the surface and the tribe always display their priorities. (((Google))).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it’s because her opinions are heterodox. Just far enough away from he current SJW narrative that they feel compelled to take down.

      Delete
    2. Also, she has declared opposition to the "invade the world" component in the "invade the world, invite the world" philosophy that informs so many globalists.

      Delete
  10. @9 Borsabil, yes, those three reasons. Leftists still think of themselves as anti-military, even while they plan to use the military against their enemies. She's attractive enough to make feminists hate her. And she's not a complete shill for Israel, though I think her separation from the herd on that issue is being overblown.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't forget she was mean to Kamel Toe at the debate. The Narrative is "they" brought in Gabbard specifically to "bring down Harris" and she must therefore be shunned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gregory the Great wrote:Whaddayawant? My spell checker says tenor is spelt correctly.

    Spell checkers drag illiterate, ignorant boobs out of hiding and yank their pants down.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gregory the Great wrote:Whaddayawant? My spell checker says tenor is spelt correctly.

    Yes, tenor is spelled correctly, but it's the incorrect word.

    Should be tenure, not tenor.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ominous Cowherd wrote:Gregory the Great wrote:Whaddayawant? My spell checker says tenor is spelt correctly.

    Spell checkers drag illiterate, ignorant boobs out of hiding and yank their pants down.

    The tenor's ten year tenure was cancelled because he sang the wrong tune.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Spell checkers drag illiterate, ignorant boobs out of hiding and yank their pants down."

    Wish there was universally a function to disable them. More than nineteen times out of twenty they result in more errors than otherwise on my behalf. Yet another reason I hate using phones for anything at all beyond verbal communication and GPS.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is a huge "bug" though. At the very least I wouldn't doubt for a second that they keep one or more such bugs around as excuses for if they get called out for finessing things later on.

    "Oh, it wasn't us blackout-jamming communications we didn't like, it was those darned Russian troll botnets!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. The tin-eared tenor's ten-year tenure!

    ReplyDelete
  18. WTF did I just read? A verified man of the right talking about exploiting the weaknesses of the Left/Establishment, that stuff is just not done. Here is our real script Outrage > Essays> Surrender > Ostracize the holdouts.

    I must go read some more NRO, this is bad folks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am a baritone, but I'll be a tenor for a tenner.
    Anyway back to the bug: this would mean anybody with a little money to spare could ask a professional spam company to inundate millions of email addresses with invitations to dating apps or life insurance proposals from 10 email addresses that are very similar to mine, and I will be blocked for a while. Who owns the institution that supervises this, flags the emails as spam and programs the AI? Does this only work with gmail or with any email address?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why do they hate Gabbard? ... Is it because she's hot?

    Yep, I realized that a while back when she wore a pantsuit to a debate and didn't need a pilot vehicle with a Wide Load sign in front. She reminds feminists they were never all that hot to begin with and haven't aged well. She body-shames them every time she goes surfing, and for those with husbands, they probably notice him looking at Gabbard.

    Poor kid, she's twenty years too late. An earlier era of feminists would support a pretty girl who was one of them, but if you notice, they've gone full bitter-crone now. Fat models and hatchet faced actresses.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Contrary to what most people believe, they are not set up for it, they do not anticipate it, they are not legally sophisticated, and they aren't even inclined to handle their own legal defenses with their expensive in-house lawyers.

    Exactly. When I was at Microsoft, the in-house lawyers were useless for anything other than process advice. They could tell you what the steps would be if we were sued, but had zero clue, interest or ability to understand the facts that a suit would be argued over. They were glorified clerks. They would never tell any manager "no, you can't do that" or even "Well, if you want to do that, here's how you do it without looking guilty in court."

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Mr.MantraMan: It is not just Google against the Right, it is them against almost everybody. Read the terms of service for gmail and find out that Google believes they own your content. Ask the owner of the only gym in a small village if he understands why he had to pay Google Adwords a few thousand before his keywords git into their Top Ten. There are many reasons for lawfare and many who would like to fight, not only cucks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Many big companies are vulnerable to lawfare and if you're able to file in small claims court the process is relatively simple, although you still may need to utilize discovery. The nice thing about suing a big company is that collecting your judgement is much easier.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Why do they hate Gabbard? She's a progressive, open borders, homo lovin liberal. She's also a female PoC,"

    You forgot "gun-grabbing, 2A hating, enemy of the American people", but she isn't dark enough or weird enough for Current Year.

    Like Jim Webb trying to run as a Scoop Jackson Democrat in 2016, her sell-by date passed before she even declared.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm surprised you have that much faith in the American legal system, Vox. Google can be pressured by the courts to curb the worst of their behavior, but there are too many people with vested interests to ever permit Google to be punished in a serious way. I appreciate what Project Veritas is trying to do, and I applaud them exposing Google, but I'm really surprised you think this will end in an outcome decided by legal briefs instead of rifles.

    Then again, the situation is probably very different in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @27
    It's not as if our enemy is in lockstep and have never ever cannibalized their own.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Poor kid, she's twenty years too late. An earlier era of feminists would support a pretty girl who was one of them, but if you notice, they've gone full bitter-crone now. Fat models and hatchet faced actresses.

    @21 Jack Amok

    Despite her usual stupid PC opinions, she, together with maybe Weird Marianne, also appears genuinely too nice to be a real female Democrat nominee. Kameltoe and Fauxcahontas are both stone-cold beotches in the Hilldawg mold; Klobuchar and Gillibrand appear more neutral but look like they'll turn into Hilldawg given a decade or two.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gillibrand is a confirmed witch. That's all you need to know about how fast she'll turn into Hillary if she comes anywhere close to real power.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm surprised you have that much faith in the American legal system, Vox. Google can be pressured by the courts to curb the worst of their behavior, but there are too many people with vested interests to ever permit Google to be punished in a serious way.

    Who said anything about AMERICAN? Google has already been fined more than $10 billion dollars in European courts.

    They are GLOBAL corporations. And you don't attack an enemy in its strongholds unless you're Bill Belichick.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Imagine the irony of Vox helping JP make the rubble bounce.
    But I don't expect JP to want retaliation. That would be blue on blue.

    ReplyDelete
  31. VD wrote:
    Who said anything about AMERICAN? Google has already been fined more than $10 billion dollars in European courts.

    They are GLOBAL corporations. And you don't attack an enemy in its strongholds unless you're Bill Belichick.


    When I said the situation was different in Europe, I thought of those fines. Are Europeans just bleeding Google for that sweet revenue, or are politicians getting ready to bring down the best? I thought the answer was the former, but then I remembered that most Western politicians hate the nations they rule.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I meant bring down the beast. Ahem.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Where are lawyers actually competent? Organized crime? High finance? Are the sharks above feeding on Silicon Valley because it's beneath them, or are they turned off by gross incompetence despite the money?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Their focus on diversity and inclusivity means that their lower-level executives and in-house counsel are almost astonishingly incompetent


    This rings true. I had an issue with AT&T, which is certainly less vocal about making diversity and inclusion priority one than many SV firms although in practice its diversity rot may run deeper.


    The company was attempting to charge me around $45,000 for a single month's home phone bill because some decision maker gave me the surreptitious boot off the Unlimited Canada plan, which I was using for a constant data connection. That portion of the bill should have cost $5 rather than $45,000. But after getting kicked up ever higher in the management hierarchy and spending maybe 20 hours on the phone, it seemed no one could fix the obviously absurd "mistake" that they had made.

    Most of the upper-level managers I talked to were of the Empty Suit persuasion, eventually culminating with Janeequa so-and-so, VP for North American billing or whatever. Turns out she couldn't handle things either. So, I ultimately ended up talking directly with none other than the president of AT&T's global legal department and his various minions. Counting my time on the phone with Vice President Rosacea, I probably spent 10 hours on the phone with C-level staff as we hammered out a "deal".

    They got nothing. The bill was reduced to $5 and I was barred from using AT&T for a year. I don't know what the people I was sparring with were getting paid, but the whole mixup probably ended up costing them $5k on the low end, considering they drafted a 10 page settlement granting essentially unconditional concession to resolve what should have been a clerical error.

    The top dogs were obviously competent. But if what amounts to Big Law friendly fire can stick a major corporation for $5k, strategically proficient lawfare against firms that are doubtlessly mired even further in the ideological muck is a lever whose full force should be exerted.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Slightly OT: Youtube seems to be introducing the "appeal by video" for people whose channels have been demonetized:

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/13/20803418/youtube-demonetization-appeals-pilot-program-creators

    They will probably have a half-literate "review team" that does not have the mental capacity to read and understand and respond to written submissions doing what they do all day: watch videos.
    If you publish such a video you had better do your research in advance and read from a well-prepared script that addresses all the relevant legal issues so that your video can be used in legal proceedings later.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Gregory don't become a train engineer.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What is so bad about it, Mr. Mantraman?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I was mocking the usual conservatism of whining, wailing and writing essays only to end up rationalizing defeat.

    Conservatives have in my long life never attacked a weak spot, it's never been done, but I understand why, we are lead by intellectuals whose ego spans the universe and just their brilliance shall shine TRUTH upon the lands and all will be good, this is a cargo cult for the desperate.

    Go ahead ask the intellectuals you follow on the web if their antagonists have a weak spot. Puzzlement will cross their faces. Go ahead and tell these intellectuals that you will attack this weak spot and exploit your gains against these antagonists. You will then gain these intellectuals' disdain at the very least.

    This site being a small exception to the general rule of conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Mr. Mantraman, sorry, I still do not understand the train engineer comparison. And: maybe one should ask a good lawyer if the opponents of those intellectuals have weak spots, and bingo.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I really don't think it takes a lawyer to find weak spots, in general Vox has done it with perhaps lawyers showing up to read the fine print and to file the paperwork.

    At fringes of right wing blathering it is autistic spergs talking to other autistic spergs about spergy shit and then frustration about lack of positive action.

    My advice to spergy autistic guys, get yourself under control go to a lefty website ingratiate yourself modestly and observe humanoid walking piles of shit and then wonder why we cannot defeat these clowns.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear Mantraman, I for one will spend the afternoon writing a complaint to police about several persons who are trying to defraud me out of a decent amount of money.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What is so bad about it, Mr. Mantraman?

    You're giving advice despite the fact that you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of the subject. Have you dealt successfully with a YouTube demonetization? If you have not, then do not talk about how to deal with one.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Point taken, but not happy.
    a. I had asked Mr.Mantraman for an answer. If he meant to answer my question somehow it was not in a way that I could relate to.
    b. Why should I not express my thoughts in public on how to deal with a legal situation even if if I have not experienced that particular situation myself? I have certainly done quite a lot of reading the fine print in my time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Why should I not express my thoughts in public on how to deal with a legal situation even if if I have not experienced that particular situation myself? I have certainly done quite a lot of reading the fine print in my time.

    Because your thoughts are totally irrelevant and utterly useless to everyone else. No one ever looks to children and rookies for advice, and for good reason; they simply don't know what they are talking about. You were telling people what to do despite your complete ignorance on the subject.

    I expect you didn't even read the YouTube terms of use before offering advice concerning what people should do to legally combat YouTube.

    Don't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Vox, I just said in extremely general terms what I thought should be considered when preparing a "video appeal" like the one described in the Verge article I quoted. I had just read the article a minute earlier, and all I was basically trying to say was: prepare yourself well and better read from a well-prepared script. I really hope I have not sent somebody down the wrong lane with that, if so it was not my intention. Above all I wanted to bring this new "video appeal" thing to the attention of the blog users (and hey, maybe you knew about it already, and I overlooked it when reading recent blogs).
    FYI: I am currently preparing a complaint against Google in a completely different matter, and for this I am in contact with a lawyer who has already won against another Big Tech company.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @17. Mary MacArthur--

    "The tin-eared tenor's ten-year tenure".. wasn't worth a tenner.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I had just read the article a minute earlier, and all I was basically trying to say was: prepare yourself well and better read from a well-prepared script.

    I understand that. And I am telling you what I have always told everyone for decades. If you have not done it, then shut the fuck up about it.

    We even discussed this on the Darkstream not all that long ago.

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.