AI Generated low quality content, the new normal?

We’ve come to a new age, where A.I. generated ‘content’ will saturate the internet.

The worst part about it that it’s absolute garbage, low quality and low value to the user.

It's bad enough that Google has screwed the internet, where approximately 60% of one's traffic now is 'advertising' material, we the 'consumers' or products (if the service is 'free') have to contend with technologies to reduce that amount of unwanted/unnecessary advertising material that bombards our daily lives, and now we have to deal with this new 'fake news' like material.

The problem there is that this type of content will not be moderated, whereas conversely MANY people's posts are deleted if not in line with a political or medical agenda in play.

See the above 'content' within the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1jqj5B_4GA

Too bad, so sad, 'we' (the 'consumers') lose, again!

Consumer Warning: Possible data compromise from Bunnings’ products

Corporations (and governments) or rather people in corporations and governments truly do not care about the safety of ‘your’ data, period.

The only negligible care factor involved is when a data breach occurs how much it’s going to cost the organisation.

UNTIL governments enact harsh fines and implications against individuals, NOTHING will change.

The Court Services Victoria 'hack' was as a result of the government's pathetic I.T. policies in conjunction with low quality meaning cheap labour.

And who paid the ultimate price for the incompetence, the people did, with 'their' data being exposed, and not those in government.

Was the so called Sheriff of Victoria, Ms. Julie Brown's personal data exposed?

Of course not.

There is no lawful appointment for her in office, as the Sheriff, but that is another topic altogether.

See post: 

New Sheriff of Victoria, Julie Brown – SHOW US YOUR (LAWFUL) APPOINTMENT!

Corporations sell all sorts of ‘junk’ electronics imported from China in order to make high profit, with zero or no consideration for the ‘connected’ aspect of those electronics meaning the safety of the user’s/consumer’s data.

Google one of the world’s largest breacher of copyright just recently mandated that developers on its platform write a thorough assessment of where the user’s data goes, without employing the same for Google’s users or rather ‘products’.

See link:

THE 'Privacy Policy' that exposes Google's corrupt business dealings

Bunnings have listed a quite expensive smart door lock, the 'Philips' EasyKey Bluetooth Mortice Handle Lock for just under $600.

Whether it's a true Philips product endorsed and/or supported by the global giant is another story, but when it comes to the product information from Bunnings, it seems that technical support is via SMS/WhatsApp alongside placing a call, online video, product URL and PDF download sounding like a great Chinese-English spiel.

What's most concerning though is the lock's companion app.

Granted that 'outsourcing' is the name of the game in today's world, but in this case the app does not seem to come from any official Philips source like, the Philips Hue products do, that being Signify Netherlands BV. but rather Shenzhen Conex Intelligent Technology Co.,Ltd.

Will Bunnings guarantee the safety of your data?

Will 'Shenzhen Conex Intelligent Technology Co.,Ltd' disclose to you where your data goes?

Is Shenzhen Conex Intelligent Technology Co.,Ltd immune from prosecution outside of China?

China's industries, e.g. IT or automotive are huge copyright and intellectual property violators where the world's legal profession has stood silent on this huge multi-billion dollar rip-off, yet Hollywood will go after a 'pirate' that copied a DVD.

As always: "buyer beware"!

Suing the State of Victoria in the Supreme Court

Avraham Yemeni v STATE OF VICTORIA

"I’ve taken the Australian state of Victoria to the Supreme Court — the highest court in the state.

Just over a week ago, I was reporting the news from a peaceful protest in Melbourne, the most locked-down city in the world. 

I had all of my permits and papers in order and I had even been inspected and approved by a roadside police checkpoint. (That’s how crazy Victoria is these days — lockdowns, curfews and police checkpoints.)

I was reporting on an anti-lockdown protest by citizens fed up with China-style infringements on their civil liberties.

I wasn’t there to protest — I was there to report, with my camera crew. We were standing with other journalists and I was clearly holding my Rebel News microphone.

Suddenly, a police commander walked up to me, jabbed me in the chest, and ordered his troops to arrest me. You’ve probably seen the video — I was picked up, smashed to the ground and arrested, and led away in handcuffs.

For no reason whatsoever.

I was later grudgingly released by police without charges. But incredibly, late that same night, police came to my family home to threaten me — to tell me I had been put on a “list”, and that police were watching me. This really is like China, isn’t it?

Well, today I’m fighting back. Not just for my own rights and safety, but for that of all Australians.

Today I’ve taken the state of Victoria to the Supreme Court — the highest court in the state. In a 9-page Statement of Claim, my civil liberties lawyers outline the illegal misconduct of the police. "

See document:

Source:supplied

See also article of the following headline:

Has the Supreme Court of Victoria been validly established?

The Victorian Supreme Court was established in 1852 after the Colony of Victoria was officially created in 1851. Section 28 of "An Act for the better Government of Her Majesty's Australian Colonies" (the Australian' Constitutions Act)" initially provided for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Victoria:

 

XXVIII. And whereas under an Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales passed in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty, intituled An Act to provide for the more effectual Administration of Justice in New South Wales and its Dependencies, the Number of the Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales constituted under the said Act of the Ninth Year of King George the Fourth has been increased to Five, and One of such Judges is resident, and has such Power, Jurisdiction, and Authority within the District of Port Phillip, subject to such Appeal to the said Supreme Court as by the said Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales is provided : Be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to erect and appoint a Court of Judicature in the said Colony of Victoria, which shall be styled “The Supreme Court of the Colony of Victoria ;” and such Court shall be holden by One or more Judge or Judges, and shall have such ministerial and other Officers as shall be necessary for the Administration of Justice in the said Court, and for the Execution of the Judgments, Decrees, Orders and Process thereof ; and all the Provisions of the said Act of the Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, concerning the Appointment and Removal of Judges and Officers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and for the appointing Persons to act in the Place and Stead of Judges being absent, resigning, dying, or becoming incapable to act, and concerning Appeals to Her Majesty in Council from Judgments, Decrees, Orders, or Sentences of such Court, shall apply to the said Supreme Court to be erected in the said Colony of Victoria, but so that the Powers of the Governor of New South Wales in relation to the Matters aforesaid shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony of Victoria ; and from such Time as shall be mentioned in such Letters Patent all the Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and of any Judge thereof, over or to be exercised within or in relation to the said Colony of Victoria, including all Admiralty Jurisdiction exercisable within the Limits thereof, shall cease to be had and exercised by such last-mentioned Supreme Court and Judge respectively, and shall thenceforth be vested in and exercisable by the Supreme Court erected by such Letters Patent ; provided that in the meantime the said Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdiction of the said Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the Judges thereof, within and in respect of the said Colony of Victoria shall remain as if this Act had not been passed, unless or until the same shall be varied by Act of the Governor and Council of the said Colony of Victoria.

 

HOWEVER, no such letters patent has ever been received in Victoria... THE 1855 Constitution for Victoria was also silent on the nature and scope of Judicial Power within the newly established Colony. It was not until the 1975 Victorian Constitution the power of the Supreme Court was consolidated into statute, but under what power?

See document:

Australia the self governing colony

The 'colonialists' are in charge.

Australia is many things, but that is rather a large topic, which has many rabbit holes.

Also, MANY people are of the assumption that Australians live in a democracy, which they do not, but rather they're under control of a fascist state, that would make Mussolini proud, again another topic for another time.

MANY people are also taught a falsehood in many law schools, that the laws from England came to Australia in 1788, but in reality Martial Law was installed for the period of 40 years until the Australian Courts Act 1928 (UK) came into effect. 

The British Empire has given up many of its 'assets'  or rather cash cows, but has held onto this resource abundant land.

The (human) 'resources' aren't as cheap as within the East India Company, but none the less the cost of labour is getting cheaper as a result of a policy to mass import migrants slaves from the land of the East India Company, most of which are low quality humans.

MANY people are of the false assumption that once Australia has been federated, it obtained independence .

The colony's first legal document is the 'Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act' created on the 9th of July 1900, where it came into circulation after royal assent on the first day of January 1901.

So where does it state that Australia is a "self-governing colony"

If one has a very short attention span, one does not have to read too many pages to find this 'secret'.

It's in Section 8, at the end of the second page of the original document, where it is stated that:

"... the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of the Act"

See original document:

See also the book 'Australia The Concealed Colony' within the link:

Australia The Concealed Colony the book the federal police removed from bookshelves

Corrupt police fining drivers illegally

To say that Victoria Police is corrupt and dishonest is an understatement.

They lie under oath in court without consequences.

They falsify statements with impunity.

This is little piggy is corrupt, issuing speeding fines illegally.

According to the law, the measuring of distance in the velocity (ie distance/time) variable, of a vehicle must be measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane, something that cannot be done when measuring up or down a slope/hill/incline.

This is something that Victoria Police have been doing for decades now, ‘illegally’.

Realistically there should be a class action lawsuit, but there will not be one, that's a guarantee.

Will this illegal action be stopped?

MOST definitely not!

Victoria Police will still keep on deceiving drivers that they were ‘speeding’.

One of the ways to 'deal' with this is to expose the corruption.

That’s life in a colony.

THE 'Privacy Policy' that exposes Google's corrupt business dealings

Google, contrary to their earlier motto is 'evil', but is that against the law?

Google is a corrupt global behemoth, period.

Google is the epitome of corporate scum. 

Google, is the world's largest copyright breacher, yet governments do nothing about this, whereas a 'person' who would act in a similar fashion would have the heavy hand of corporations and government to deal with, with real prison time as a punishment.

Governments give Google a 'free ride' as Google aids the Five Eyes global surveillance network, plain and simply to the detriment of 'normal' citizens.

Is hoovering data from Joe Average truly for national security or the (alleged) global fight against terrorism?

How is this action even justified?

Google is vexatious towards its 'products', i.e. persons that use it platform which Google in turn profits from.

A developer was targeted by Google who makes a screensaver, a piece of software that "draws pretty pictures on your screen".

Google would not publish the app or program into the Google Play Store, until a 'privacy policy' statement was produced by the programmer.

This 'privacy policy' that Google mandated, exposes some of Google's corrupt trade practices, that government and the legal profession are aware of and have taken ZERO action against its (alleged) criminality.

So here it is, Google's corrupt business dealings hyperlinked within the privacy policy:

Source: https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/google.html

And the 'best' part about this, is that Google accepted this privacy policy.

The developer Jamie Werner Zawinski, commonly known as jwz, is an American computer programmer and entrepreneur. 

He was one of the founders of Netscape and Mozilla.org, meaning he's not a 'nobody'.

He is an advocate for open-source software, often voicing his criticism of various tech industry practices.

He also states that Google is “the most rapacious privacy violator on the planet,” where the rest of the over 70 indictments range from user tracking and data mining to partnering “with an authoritarian petrostate,” promoting misinformation, telling users to put glue on pizza, or baking “a user-tracking advertising platform directly into a web browser.”, indicating that Google also 'promotes' false information, something the serfs get reprimanded for.

How 'inconvenient' the truth is.

Credit Score, Social Credit and now Driving Score? WTF? Your Phone is Telling The Insurance Co How You Drive!

A safety feature of the Life360 app tracked the driving habits of Kathleen Lomax and her family, including her daughters, Bridget, left, and Morgan.Credit...Andres Kudacki for The New York Times

You know you have a credit score. Did you know that you might also have a driver score?

The score reflects the safety of your driving habits — how often you slam on the brakes, speed, look at your phone or drive late at night.

While you can see your credit score, you will have a harder time finding out what your driving score is. But auto insurance companies can get it — and that could affect the rate you pay.

For the last two decades, auto insurers have been trying to get people to enroll in programs, commonly called usage-based insurance plans, that monitor their day-to-day driving so rates better reflect the actual risk. But privacy-minded consumers have been reluctant to sign up.

So the industry has taken a different tack, getting data about how people drive from automakers or from apps that drivers already have on their phones. Experts say most people have no idea the insurance industry can track them this way.

After The New York Times revealed that General Motors was sharing driving behavior with LexisNexis, customers filed dozens of lawsuits and the carmaker ended its contract with the data broker. But data is still being collected from other automakers and it is still being collected from apps.

Driving behavior analysis, or telematics, as the insurance industry calls it, could be better for consumers, leading to personalized rates that are more fair. Plus, if people have to pay more for their risky driving, they may drive more cautiously, leading to safer roads. But this will happen only if drivers are aware that their behavior is being monitored.

According to the companies collecting and selling the data, consumers agree to share their information with the insurance industry. But the murky consent process means people may not realize what they are opting into.

“Most consumers are put off by the idea of an insurance company riding shotgun,” said Michael DeLong of the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America.

Smartphone Apps

The smartphone apps collecting driver data may not be obvious at first glance. One, Life360, is used by parents to keep track of their children. MyRadar offers weather forecasts. GasBuddy helps people save on fuel costs.

All of these apps also have opt-in driving analysis features that rely on sensor and motion data from the phone. You can turn on these features to get notifications if a family member crashes or suggestions for a more fuel-efficient route to work. Those features, though, are provided by an analytics company, Arity, which was founded by Allstate in 2016 and pays for access to the data. What is not made clear when people sign up for the features is that Arity also analyzes how risky their driving is for insurance purposes.

On GasBuddy, for instance, users can turn on a feature that rates the fuel efficiency of their drives, a feature “powered by Arity.” 

Brandon Logsdon, a spokesman for the company, said users “agree to Arity’s privacy statement before they opt in to the Drives function.”

But this agreement is in small gray font under a big red button labeled “Join Drives.” The tiny disclosure says simply that by clicking “Join Drives” you will share “certain information” with Arity and agree to Arity’s privacy statement, which is hyperlinked. The language does not explain what Arity is or does.

The company sells access to the driving scores of tens of millions of people. Auto insurance companies can “request a person’s individual driving score, which is delivered instantly,” according to Allstate’s website.

The scores “look at drivers’ performance behind the wheel, including how often they brake suddenly, speed or use their phones,” according to an Arity blog post aimed at insurance marketers, and can be used to target potential customers based on “10 different risk categories.”

Last month, Kathleen Lomax, a New Jersey mother who paid $100 annually for Life360 to track her husband and twin 18-year-old daughters, reached out to the company to ask if it was selling their driving data. An automated response, “crafted with the help of A.I.,” told her that Life360 did share driving behavior data with Arity.

“No one who realizes what they’re doing would consent,” said Ms. Lomax, who canceled her subscription.

A spokeswoman for Life360 wrote in an email that “personally identifiable driving data,” for Ms. Lomax and her family, were never shared with an insurance company, that a Life360 member must consent and that Arity was required to “take steps with its partners” to identify Life360 as data source when it was used to generate insurance quotes. In a statement, GasBuddy said Arity provides users “who choose to opt in with personalized offerings and enhanced services.” MyRadar did not respond to requests for comment.

Ms. Lomax ended up canceling her $100 annual subscription to Life360.Credit...Andres Kudacki for The New York Times

When a person shops around for auto insurance, the insurer needs to get consent to have access to the driving data collected by these apps, said Arity’s spokeswoman, Stacy Silver. But how explicit is that request? A spokesman for CSAA, a regional insurer for AAA members that uses Arity’s product in some states, said the consent to use smartphone data happened when it informed consumers that “we may collect third party data and reports.” That is standard language that insurers use to view a credit report, for example, and many consumers may click past it without reading closely.

Companies that create consumer reports are required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide them upon request. Not all of the millions of people in Arity’s database can get their individual driving report, though; the company provides a report to a driver only if an insurance company has requested it as part of a quote.

Not all insurers are using Arity’s driving data. Spokesmen for GEICO and USAA said they collected driving behavior only from people who downloaded a dedicated smartphone app to track how they drove.

Allstate said it planned to “soon offer consumers the choice to get a personalized rate based on their driving history,” as collected by Arity.

A New Metric

Auto insurance pricing is complicated. A number of factors go into determining it, including credit history, gender, marital status, age, what car you drive and where you live, said Dale Porfilio of the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group.

“We are trying to predict the future, which, of course, nobody can know with certainty,” Mr. Porfilio said. “It’s a core tenet of insurance that the price of the policy should reflect the risk of the policy.”

He said the insurance industry had access to lots of data, and he described telematics, when drivers granted access to it, as “just one of the most recent variables that has come into play as a tool to align price to risk.”

One reason it may be particularly appealing right now, Mr. Porfilio said, is that traffic citation data, which insurers have long relied on to predict risk, is not as reliable as it once was. Driving has gotten more dangerous, but the police are giving out fewer tickets, a decline that some attribute to a law enforcement pullback after the pandemic and widespread protests over George Floyd’s death four years ago.

But the bigger appeal of telematics is that it could more accurately predict risk for individual drivers and be a fairer way to set rates. Most insurers will charge a 24-year-old man who lives in a busy city more than a 50-year-old woman who lives in the suburbs, an Arity promotional document states, but what if this particular man is a cautious driver who rarely uses his car while the woman is a road-rager who racks up the miles?

Alan Demers, founder of InsurTech Consulting, predicted that everyone would eventually have a driving score, and that good drivers — which most people think they are — might well prefer it.

“Don’t judge me based on everyone else,” Mr. Demers said. “Judge me based on me.”

On this point, advocates for consumers agree with the industry.

“There’s a lot of unfair discrimination in auto insurance,” Mr. DeLong of the Consumer Federation of America said. “Auto insurance companies use a lot of socioeconomic factors, like your credit score or your job or your education level, like whether you went to high school or to college or whether you’re married.”

People with poor credit scores pay much more for auto insurance even if they have clean driving records, Mr. DeLong has found.

“Telematics has substantial promise for consumers, and it could be a way to better price auto insurance,” he said. Still, he had concerns that insurance companies could become overly invasive or use data in ways that lead to new forms of discrimination.

What time of day someone drives, for example, can be tracked. Significant time spent driving at night hurts a person’s score because of poorer visibility and drivers on the road who are more likely to be tired or inebriated. But that, Mr. DeLong pointed out, penalizes people who work the night shift and are more likely to be lower-income workers, such as janitors.

Mr. DeLong also objects to consumers’ being “unknowingly or unwillingly enrolled in these programs.”

Chi Chi Wu, a lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center, raised another concern: The law requires consumer reporting agencies such as Arity to make efforts to ensure that their data is accurate.

“They need to have procedures to figure out when the app is collecting data about you as the driver versus the passenger,” she said.

Ms. Silver, Arity’s spokeswoman, said Arity “uses advanced technology to determine if a person is driving or riding as a passenger.”

Unexpected Monitoring

Last year, Rob Leathern, a tech executive in Texas, got a seemingly innocuous email from Toyota: “Good news, Robert! You’ve been identified by Toyota Insurance as a safe driver.”

The email promised “big savings” from Progressive and invited him to get a quote for his 2023 Sequoia sport utility vehicle. When Mr. Leathern clicked the link in the email, it took him to a Toyota Insurance website that told him to enter his ZIP code and “get a quote.” If he clicked the quote button, the website informed him, he would authorize a company called Connected Analytic Services to send his contact information, vehicle identification number and “certain vehicle driving data” to Progressive.

Mr. Leathern wanted to know what information was being collected about him. After a month of phone calls, emails and data privacy requests to Toyota and Connected Analytic Services — which turned out to be an insurance data broker — he got a report in January from Connected Analytic Services that detailed the previous six months of driving in his S.U.V. (Corey Proffitt, a Toyota spokesman, said that Connected Analytic Services is a Toyota affiliate that anonymously shares location and driving data with partner insurers, and that customers can manage what is shared about them in the data privacy portal of the Toyota/Lexus app.)

The report had two parts. A driving summary included Mr. Leathern’s mileage, how many times his car’s safety systems had been engaged and the number of times he had braked and accelerated at a rate “that insurers view as harder than necessary for defensive driving.”

There was also a Microsoft Excel file with time-stamped lists of his every offending event and the latitude and longitude for where they occurred. In the speeding tab, for example, there were more than 200 second-by-second entries for the handful of drives during which Mr. Leathern had exceeded 85 miles per hour.

“I had no idea they’d be collecting this data, let alone using it this way,” he said.

Ronald Davis, a spokesman for Progressive, said the insurer got identified driving data from a carmaker only when customers provided explicit consent to use that data to determine their rate.

In a presentation for investors in 2022, Progressive said data about how people drove was improving its pricing accuracy. It included a screen that a potential customer would see when seeking a quote. “Get a personalized rate based on your driving behavior,” the screen read, with a yes-or-no option to “use my existing driving data.”

A 2022 Progressive presentation showed the screen that potential consumers would see to opt in to a program using driving data collected by carmakers (or O.E.M.s, for original equipment manufacturers) to set rates.Credit...Progressive

“When quoting a new policy with Progressive, we specifically inform eligible customers that driving data is available from their vehicle manufacturer and ask them if they would like us to use that data in determining their rate,” Mr. Davis said. He noted that 70 percent of people who had chosen to share their behavior had gotten a discount.

Driver, Beware

In April, Connecticut’s insurance regulator issued a consumer alert warning that new cars may track people’s driving and affect how much they pay for insurance.

George Bradner, an assistant deputy commissioner at the Connecticut Insurance Department, said his agency supported the use of telematics and the opportunity for people to be rated on how they drove.

But his agency issued the alert because many consumers aren’t aware of the use of the data. He said insurance companies needed to be transparent and disclose the information they were using to rate people.

And consumers, he said, “need to be more vigilant about their protection of their privacy.”

What You Can Do

• Check the privacy settings on your car’s dashboard system and in smartphone apps.

• If an app connects to your car, or gives you feedback about your driving, that’s a good place to start.

• In some apps, such as Life360 and MyRadar, you can select this option: “Do not sell my personal information.”

• Two apps you don’t have to worry about: Google Maps and Waze. Google, which owns both apps, said it doesn’t provide driving data that’s linked to individuals to third parties.

Source:NewYorkTimes

See also:

A National Disgrace! EXPOSED – The false agenda of male oriented domestic violence

Another false agenda is in play by the governments and ‘supported’ by the mainstream media.

The allegation that a ‘shocking’ amount of women die in the hands of their current (male) partner or (male) ex-partner.

See the following video for explanation:

Google is evil, lies on its search algorithm - massive leak REVEALED!

Governments and corporations lie to us, the people / consumers / their products, every single day, period.

Even if caught, their 'brethren' in government will sort it all out for these deceitful people in corporations.

Google is not what it used to be since its inception, where today it's one of the world's largest advertising corporations.

It's also the world's largest copyright breachers, but zero action/fines etc are handed out but rather easy targets are singled out, the being person from the general population pool, but that topic is outside the scope of this article.  

Governments also benefit hugely from Google as it is within the top tier spy network, that being the Five Eyes.

Google literally cannot be touched by the law.

Google had a massive data leak, on the technical ins and outs of its search algorithm.

Around 2,500 technical documents detailing the nuts and bolts of Google's ranking algorithms have apparently leaked. If the documents are real, it's an unprecedented look into the workings of the utterly dominant internet search engine. And one hell of an error, because it is stated that Google itself published the documents to GitHub before taking them down. But nothing published to the web disappears overnight, and the documents have been kept for posterity elsewhere.

This leak provides an interesting opportunity to compare the reality of how Google ranks its search results with the various claims the company has made about what has hitherto been largely a mysterious black box. The inner workings of Google Search have long been speculated upon but never really known outside of the company itself—or indeed inside the company by most Google employees.

The documents were shared with long-time SEO specialist Rand Fishkin by Erfan Azimi, an SEO advisor at EA Eagle Digital. Azimi says he shared the documents in the hope that they would reveal the "lies" propagated by Google in relation to its search platform.

That is obviously a very, very bold claim. Frankly, the documentation is incredibly dense and technical and covers a huge array of topics and systems. In really broad brush terms, it covers the type and character of data Google collects and uses, which sites Google elevates for sensitive topics like elections, how Google handles small websites, and much, much more. 

There are various areas where it's claimed that analysis of the documents throws up clear contradictions with Google's claims. For instance, in 2016 Google Search engineer Paul Haahr said that "using clicks directly in rankings would be a mistake."

But it's claimed the documents prove that Google uses a system known as NavBoost that directly incorporates various click count metrics into the page rankings and search results.

Other areas highlighted in contradiction to previous Google claims include the use of Domain Authority, sandboxing new websites while more data is collected, including user data collected from the Chrome web browser and more.

If these claims are all true, it's hard to be clear how much of this comes down to Google simply wanting to protect its search IP from potential competitors and how much can be chalked up to more cynical or even sinister motives.

Moreover, as far as we can tell the documents do not actually reveal exactly how Google currently ranks pages. In other words, it does not appear that this leak will make it straight forward to optimise a web page to improve Google search ranking, which is what a lot of observers would presumably have been praying for.

But if the documents are real, and the claims being made about the implications contained therein are broadly accurate, at minimum Google has a pretty major scandal on its hands in terms of the statements it has made in the past and its corporate credibility and ethics.

For now, that's a pretty big "if". This is a story that won't be resolved overnight. As far as we are aware, Google has yet to comment whether the documents are real let alone provide a riposte to the main critiques that have followed.

No doubt Google is formulating a detailed response as we write these very words. But we have a feeling that won't be the end of it and the full fall out from this alleged scandal will be measured in months if not years.

Source:supplied.

Google cannot be trusted, and your data in the possession on it servers is neither private nor confidential.

IF you value your privacy it is not recommended to use Google products.

See more within the following links:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/28/24166177/google-search-ranking-algorithm-leak-documents-link-seo

https://sparktoro.com/blog/an-anonymous-source-shared-thousands-of-leaked-google-search-api-documents-with-me-everyone-in-seo-should-see-them/

https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak

or if video is your preferred source:

Human Rights abuser Daniel Andrews ‘Companion of the Order of Australia’ award must be revoked!

You know the system is rigged when a Human Rights abuser, a man with over 800 deaths under his belt gets an ‘award’ or do you?

Maybe the ex Victorian premier Daniel Michael Andrews served his masters, the ‘faceless men’ well, you know one for team NWO, hence the award.

His order for Victoria Police to carry out shocking and horrific violence against the general population was unlawful, and Daniel Michael Andrews never saw court time for this.

The ex premier’s order to lock up the residence in North Melbourne public housing, with medical or food rations was Human Rights abuse, yet again he never saw any court time.

um, yes they do

The fact that Victoria Police acted under dictation is also unlawful, something the courts did not punish the police for.

Personally in a criminal act of a hit and run on a bicyclist, where his wife was 'allegedly' behind the wheel, Andrews again never saw any court time.

Andrews lied through his teeth regarding that accident, with zero repercussions.

A secret Patient Care Report developed by the paramedics who attended the crash scene was recently unearthed, revealing the teenage rider was struck by the Andrews’ Ford Territory.

“There needs to be a forensic analysis of the damage to the car and to see whether what’s said by both sides is consistent,” Mr Glare told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.

The ‘brotherhood’ irrespective of being Anglo-Masonic, Fabian or other looks after itself.

Daniel Michael Andrews is a well supported thug and an ‘alleged’ criminal that cannot be touched by the law, basically meaning he is literally above the law.

That’s life in a colony.