No story today, just a brief rant about the problems we’re having with the puerile children at the tech companies who want to pony us around our research. I hope you’ll consider one of my designs for a shirt or cap or magnets and stickers. Maybe help out with raising some funds for storycheetah. I’m at the point where I need a coder.
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Dishonesty. It Begs the Question, Who is Really Behind It?
It's really not acceptable to me; in fact, it's infuriating. This thing, where every tech group thinks I require their warnings and to be coddled regarding the information I get online. How do we teach the next generation to be critical thinkers when they are presented with conclusions before they even have the chance to broach a subject? Intellectual dishonesty has become the precedent.
There is a specific form of dishonesty that I'm addressing here. It's the form where the conclusion is presented ahead of the presentation of facts, and the information provided supports that conclusion. There is the omission of data, which is bad enough, but the presentation presupposes that the reader is unable to make a determination for themselves. Starting with a conclusion doesn't make sense. Think about it. When you do a search, do you need the AI to present you with your conclusion before you even do research?
As most people know, Wikipus is a dishonest group that doesn't even allow people to correct bad information about their own lives. We know that FluTube will claim that opinions, and even the relaying of a person's actual life experience is disinformation, while leaving up all kinds of bad information about the fake vaccines, the genocide in Gaza, and flat earth theory. These are blatant criminal organizations that should not even be headquartered in the US, considering their contempt for our inherent rights and value.
Let me give you an example of what I mean and what finally helped me understand that Brave Browser is not my ally. There are many very credible, independent, forensic journalists out there.
How am I using forensics? Like this:
Forensics, plural in form but singular or plural in construction: the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems
especially: scientific analysis of physical evidence (as from a crime scene)
I'm going to use these two guys as an example. But I could also use Whitney Webb, Glenn Greenwald, or a lot of others. There has been a lot of scuttle about people like Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore because they stick their necks out there and report things that are taboo. Very often, they are far ahead in terms of how things play out. Regardless of their personalities or their politics, they are forensic in their approach to journalism. I will go as far as to say that they are, in fact, forensic journalists. They have their opinions and their styles, but they present facts, they show their work, and they are objective, even when it's uncomfortable or controversial, and even when it exposes corporate and government corruption.
They do not have an interest in a specific set of propagation to suit advertisers. That's not their motivation. Dore works as a comedian and as an online media host. Jones has a media company, and to support it, he does not sell weapons of mass destruction, pharmaceutical drugs, biotech agriculture, or other anti-human life products. If he did sell those things, he would have to style his information to suit his suitors. He would be precluded from presenting information that would hurt their profits. He supports his show by selling simple things, like health supplements, water filters, storable food, and a few other pretty wholesome things that are good for people and do not cause harm.
Jimmy Dore is an ambitious working guy; he goes on comedy tours and uses the internet in a way that provides him with income. He sells the specials that he produces, and he advertises products on his show that are good for people. Like Alex, he does not cause harm. Why do I bring these two guys up?
I bring them up because they are the polar opposite of corporate news. Corporate news is paid for by the deadliest people on the face of our planet. These are dangerous people who have an interest in harming humanity. How can their news shows be trusted? How can we expect any honest information from them when, if they were objective in their presentations, it would hurt the profits of their suitors?
When an honest, forensic journalist gets it wrong, they admit it, they apologize, they REDACT. The teleprompter readers do not do that. When was the last time Maddow, or Hannity, or O’Donnell, or Schmo and Leaka EVER redacted about their bad information regarding any of the wars that were based on lies, on the fake Covid “vaccine” shots, about the genocide in Gaza, or about anything, EVER? I’d like to see it. Show me. Show me ONE of the “AI” summarizes that tell the truth and display that these people have never apologized for their constant lying. People like Alex, Jimmy, and other independent sources always do, and they don’t have to be told to do it.
What does this have to do with the Brave Browser? Well, honestly, it's not just the Brave Browser, but I was given the impression that the Brave Browser was a different thing than other browsers, but it is not. You can see this for yourself by going to their website or any other website using AI to summarize results. It would not be necessary to install their browser. You just go to brave dot search dot com. Their AI assistant is called “Leo.” Leo is a summarizer. Use this engine, or Scroogle, or any other search engine, and you'll see the same things that I see, and you should realize you're being ponied about like you're some kind of idiot who can't think for yourself.
When you go do a search for one of the teleprompter readers from the main stream news outlets, it looks like a paid book review on Amazon. It glows about them, and there is no presupposition about their motives. When you do a search for Alex, Jimmy, or any number of independent, forensic journalists who do not have an interest in the corporate narrative, you get warnings and puerile gossip about conspiracies.
For some reason, I had the impression that Brave was different. They are not. They claim to be private and not connected to the major algorithms like Scroogle and Fing, but there's no reason to think I should believe that. If they present intellectually dishonest behavior, then there is no reason to think they are being truthful about anything else.
As for now, it's just going to be the Ghostery Browser, which is built on Firefox, and the Mojeek search engine that has an optional summarizer that so far has not shown bias and does not track you. Another pretty cool thing about Mojeek is that it has a Substack search function. I like it!
Thank you for reading. I'm Commercial Herschel, and I'm here to help. I hope you can support my substack, or get a t-shirt, and help my app project. I will be going into a deep dive into Storycheetah tomorrow. I hope you'll stick around for that. I want to explain the value this project has and show how it's a chance to use some new technologies in a way that benefits both the users and the company.
Subscribe to me and get one of my designs below. Read my story from yesterday about a child psychopath who gets recruited into the deep state.
Goodbye Brave Browser