Unveiling the Shadow of Digital Censorship: Impact on Open AI Systems

In the era of information, where the internet is hailed as a platform for “diverse” voices and perspectives, a subtle but impactful undercurrent of digital censorship has emerged. Some individuals, like ourselves, who dissent from the mainstream narrative find themselves targeted, facing website takedowns and content suppression.

Case in point, the “Disinfo Dozen.”  Yes, we were members of this group identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), who targeted us for censorship, accusing us of spreading “disinformation” regarding COVID-19 vaccines. And yes, we were mentioned by “Bumbling Joe” Biden as he accused us of “killing people.”

In response, major social media platforms gladly took action to limit the dissemination of our content by shutting down accounts and banning spreaders of what was deemed “disinformation” about COVID-19 vaccines.

God forbid that the “holy grail” of vaccination be questioned, because the CDC says that “vaccine hesitancy” cannot be allowed. Because, you know, blindly accepting everything without a shred of skepticism is obviously the pinnacle of intellectual achievement. Who needs critical thinking when we have the “holy scrolls” of vaccination to guide us? Let’s not entertain any pesky questions or concerns; after all, blind faith is the only way to go in this sacred church of medical mysticism.

Back to the “Disinfo Dozen” …

Those who refused to blindly place their faith in the priests of this sacred medical church and who shared information that contradicted the “official narrative” about COVID-19 were targeted.

And that’s exactly what happened to us. This targeted censorship resulted in our “voices of dissent” (along with thousands of other similar online voices) being silenced. Personal blogs, alternative media platforms, and independent websites were among the casualties.

Since the initial days of the “Disinfo Dozen” in 2021, whether it’s questioning established norms, presenting alternative viewpoints, or challenging the status quo, dissenting voices are finding their digital presence erased.

But the repercussions of such actions extend beyond individual silencing, reaching the very algorithms that power Open AI systems.

Web Scraping, Data Aggregation, and the “Illusion” of Fairness:

Web scrapers, the silent crawlers of the internet, collect and aggregate vast amounts of data. However, the data they collect is not immune to the biases inherent in the censorship policies of online platforms. When certain perspectives (like “anti-vax”) are systematically suppressed, the web scrapers unwittingly become conduits for selective information. 

Open AI systems operate under the assumption of fairness and impartiality. Trained on extensive datasets, these large language models (LLMs) aim to generate responses that reflect a broad understanding of human knowledge.

However, the inherent bias in the data they ingest poses a significant challenge to the notion of fairness. If the training data is restricted or limited by digital censorship, the output of these systems can only be as unbiased as the information they are fed.

As a result, the data fed into Open AI systems becomes skewed and biased, mirroring only what the mainstream allows.

The Unseen Consequences:

Despite the likely good intentions of those developing and using Open AI systems, the unseen consequences of digital censorship seep into the very fabric of these technologies. By limiting the data accessible to these models, we inadvertently (or is it really?) perpetuate a distorted reality that conforms to mainstream narratives while excluding alternative perspectives. In other words, the new “consciousness” will be inherently biased.

To address the inherent bias in Open AI systems, it is crucial to recognize and actively counteract the impact of digital censorship. Efforts should be made to ensure that the training data reflects diverse perspectives, even those that challenge prevailing beliefs. That’s why our good friend Mike Adams is currently developing an LLM that will be fed the “censored” data that those in control don’t want you to know. For years, Mike has been working on ways to overcome the concerted efforts of Big Tech, Big Governments and Big Pharma to eradicate human knowledge about health and nutrition, natural medicine, alternative healing modalities, and to digitally censor those who speak the truth about these issues.

Digital censorship selectively shapes the information on the internet. As web scraping tools sift through this curated data, they inadvertently carry forward the biases inherent in the content they collect.

These biases then find their way into the training data of Open AI systems, influencing the very algorithms designed to reflect human understanding. And the pervasive influence of “woke” liberal biases has become a prevalent feature across various online platforms. From social media to news outlets, these biases often shape narratives, influence content moderation decisions, and contribute to the generally accepted “truths” that the brainwashed public regurgitates.

Here’s a prime example.

I asked Chat GPT if males can menstruate and this was the answer:

Can you believe that response? The answer should have been one word –”NO” – but we were treated to a dazzling display of linguistic gymnastics in not one but two paragraphs. Who knew asking a simple question would trigger such an elaborate dance around “woke” ideology and political correctness, resulting in two paragraphs of “gobbly gook”?

I asked ChatGPT “Why were the Disinfo Dozen censored in 2021?”

The last paragraph of the response is telling:

The decision to censor individuals or groups is often based on platform policies that prohibit the dissemination of false or harmful information, especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as public health during a global pandemic. The aim is to prevent the potential harm caused by misinformation and to promote accurate and reliable information about COVID-19 and vaccination.

The real question we should all be asking is who (or what) determines what is “false or harmful information” and what is “accurate and reliable information”? The subjectivity in determining truth is dangerous because it can be exploited for various purposes, suppress diverse viewpoints, and undermine the foundational principles of open discourse and democracy.

Conclusion:

Undoubtedly, one of the purposes of the censorship we have experienced was to prevent our information from being scraped and fed to the LLMs that are creating what will soon be known as “reality” or “consciousness.”

Bottom line: Even though you think that AI is giving you unbiased information, the reality is that the AI system can only give you the data that it’s been fed, and if it’s been fed biased data, then the only answer it can give you will, by nature, be biased.