Google's Little Helper, "Trusted Ratter"

Google is recruiting government agencies and NGOs to help them censor "wrongthink."

Siri, what is fascism?

Google is now recruiting gestapo hobbyists with a penchant for censorship from the ranks of government agencies and NGOs.

Very boldly, they are recruiting government agencies to enforce--no, not the local law--but Google's own "Community Guidelines," which is an arbitrary set of speech rules designed to benefit their top shareholders, who happen to be the same top shareholders who own every big company in every big industry in the world.

It‘s like, if I were to open a company selling contaminated experimental medications, and then bribe the government to approve them and mandate them and to censor anyone who says anything bad about my medications… and then open another company selling insane but lucrative "green" solutions to the crisis I have personally manufactured, and then bribe the government to censor everyone who says anything bad about my "solutions," etc. etc.

Siri…. answer me… what is fascism?

Here is the Trusted Ratter program:

"The YouTube Trusted Flagger program helps provide robust tools to government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These agencies and NGOs are particularly effective at telling YouTube about content that violates our Community Guidelines.

The YouTube Trusted Flagger program includes:

• A web form that government agencies and NGOs can use to contact YouTube directly
• Visibility into decisions on reported content
• Prioritized flag reviews for increased actionability
• Ongoing discussion and feedback about YouTube content areas
• Occasional online trainings"

Program eligibility:

Government agencies and NGOs are eligible to participate in the YouTube Trusted Flagger program.

The Trusted Flagger program exists exclusively for the reporting of possible Community Guideline violations. It is not a flow for reporting content that may violate local law. Requests based on local law can be filed following the instructions here.

And here are the top Google (Alphabet) institutional holders. See some familiar faces? Do you find it shocking that they are censoring not only their competition but also anybody whose journalism or expert opinion may tarnish their investors' entire product lines or geopolitical maneuvers?

Back 2015, when criticizing Google made you look weird, I wrote an essay about them, in which I said the following:

As a very irregularly-shaped human with zero Google-readable nanoparticles running through my bloodstream and no desire to put Google in charge of my immune system ever, I have no reason to be excited about their idea of my future, and no reason to buy into their carefully worded, self-serving publicity bullshit.

And here, for the sake of not giving in to bullies, is my art piece from April 2020, in which I did not at all mean to predict what would happen (source):

(Yes, I use the phrase "physical world" in juxtaposition with "screen world," as of course there is also a spiritual world in addition to the physical world. :)

Also for the sake of holding the line, here is a photo from the Festival in a Field this past weekend where I had the honor of speaking alongside some freedom movement heroes. The wonderful people in the photo are Sharon Johnston, the organizer of the festival, and Kevin Nathaniel, a dear friend and a powerful New York musician.