Tracy Turner

The Deception of Impartiality: A Disguise for Subjugation

The Illusion of Neutrality: Its objective is to achieve diversity in the audience. It is no secret that Facebook, Google, and YouTube claim their algorithms are bias-neutral. These algorithms are meticulously programmed to ensure compliance with a specific ideology. Journalists and Engineers working within these systems foster dissent and suspicion under the banner of ''fighting misinformation'' or ''combatting hate speech.'' The reality? These labels are vague and changed to achieve the goals of the platforms. The algorithms are partial. They are not unbiased. They actively seek to modify speech to support contravening views and restrict people to a specific point of view.

The invisible chains of silence: The majority do not know that hundreds of underpaid contractors from poor countries filter through the submitted content to make life-altering decisions that mold discourse. Exposed to traumatizing violence, these people are the overlooked components of the suppression system.

The work is outsourced, underpaid, and kept invisible to maintain the illusion of automated neutrality. Rather, it is an added cost brought forth by the workers' exploitation, something deeply rooted in the workings of these platforms. The suffering this as-built workforce bears is severe but remains unaddressed because the tech monopolists invisibly profit from their sweat.

Facebook's Systematic Psychological Abuse: Not only spoof bans.

It is The Gaslighting Playbook: Facebook's ban and restorations are not from system glitches. They are psychological warfare. Banning clients for any reason and later overcoming that with "we all make mistakes" exposes people to overpowering and diabolical treatment, biasedly amending their thought process. By helping and hindering access, Facebook slowly conditions and achieves undivided trust from all clients using their service. This online Stockholm syndrome creates "open minds" for advertising baits. Users feel thankful that Facebook opened their application, not knowing they must abide by certain lame, malicious, and suspicious boundaries. It is herd control to promote herd mentality; they are the predators, and you are the prey. It is psychologically and spiritually hard-core predatory.

The Deactivation Deception: Deleting a Facebook account serves a particular requirement that overcomplicates the entire process. Facebook accounts tend to go dormant instead of wholly deleted. Facebook enables its users to snooze a switch instead of entirely refreshing accounts. Accounts are, therefore, retained in a state of standby where they can be revived at any point, thus imprisoning users.

This act is claimed to give freedom to users but ends up forcing them into the state of a prisoner. Users are instantly captivated within a digital cage that ensures boundless surveillance and tempered freedom. Users are made zombies of “delete” (but you are not deleted) [you are snoozed] hoping you will come back. There is not and really never has been an option to erase everything and permanently close the account. It is art of their Stockholm Syndrome, so "you will be grateful" and subservient to their deep, insidious abuse.

The Spoof Ban Economy: Facebook's active participation in banning accounts serves another purpose besides silencing divergent accounts. Banned accounts provide a profitable market for appeal services. Users who have gotten desperate enough go on to try and pay to get their accounts unsuspended. Instagram's foggy and confusing criteria make that 'transparent' Oakus a veritable ganache. Darker motives are fueling this economy. Payment is required to brace oneself against foolishness, where money is seized by the systems that are supposed to resist ignorance. Instead of regretful actions taken out of misguided refuge, these are deliberate acts that revel in the secrecy created by constant surveillance.

Google's Lying Irresponsibility: The Search Engine as a Thought Regulator

"Notice that google is saying 100% of my site is in violation and "must be fixed" before I can run ads. That means I have to go back through thousands of pages containing news, articles, and videos about the Ukraine war and remove all mention of the war, and if I do that I can never mention the war again. And in the future any information they deem as "unreliable or harmful" will be off limits.

The irony is, many of the videos they want removed from my site come from their platform YouTube." and "For example if I were to post anything about the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 that would be considered “unreliable or harmful” and would result in ad removal, even though Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. now the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that "ivermectin literally obliterates Covid".

These people running Google and Facebook are the definition of “unreliable and harmful”.

The Black Box of Search: Google's marketing segmentation within the broader search inquiry system is a competing black box. But, when documents are leaked, and whistleblowers come forward, the reality is far worse than imagined. The company possesses distinct "blacklist" domains of particular websites and people who are considered to be objectionable. These lists are not objective; instead, they are based on preconceived notions. For example, anti-Zionists tend to have their narratives categorically hidden or de-professionalized. There is no sameness. The algorithm is not an instrument of information retrieval. Undoubtedly, this system works backward to authoritarianism, where one philosophy is accepted and others banned.

The "Unreliable" Double Standard: Google's attempt to tackle misinformation by monitoring and flagging misleading pages contains cutting edges of bias. Alternative media, as well as independent journalists, are often labeled as "unreliable," whereas major "conservative" outlets known for misinformation thrive without a scratch. With this double standard in place, only trusted filters can be seen on Google Search. The unfortunate truth is that no matter the algorithms of Google serve no purpose of a friendly system. They kindle a version of the real world where the needs of the business tycoons and their followers are all that matters.

The Zionist Connection: Undoubtedly, Google's association with pro-Israel propaganda is intentional. Any organization's leadership profoundly affects the company's policies, as does the case here, for it wields strong connections with pro-Zionist frameworks. Pro-Israeli voices get algorithmic boosts, while Moderators of Israel's opponents tend to witness their material being muffled. This is not bias; it is geopolitical puppeteering. Google proclaims to be a search engine, a mere tool of public information procurement, when, in fact, it acts to control and dictate self-serving public opinions for geopolitical advantages.

Bing's Silent Apathy: The More Understated Censor

Bing's censorship tactics are more refined yet no less potent. Where Google reigns supreme, Bing has chosen to take the subtler route. They block people, domains, and topics by conveniently omitting them from searches, leading to censorship based on omission. Unlike Google, their method is less brazen, yet the end result remains the same. This blue beast of Microsoft firmly believing in, ''Last choice, first truth,'' allows heaps of understatement. Just like Google, Gates also wants to sober the opposing voice.

The Microsoft-Israel Nexus: Microsoft, the company that owns Bing, has deep connections with Israel, including contracts with the Israeli army and intelligence. These relations beg the question of Bing's participation in critical content of Israel. While accountability for these vexatious moderation practices is impossible to impute, this is a problem Bing users have contended with for a long time. Bing's censorship is not simply a consequence of an operational decision made by the corporation. It also indicates the Israel-centric political outlook of the company's owners.

YouTube's a Zionist Criminal Regime And A Propaganda Tool

The Demonetization Double Bind: The social media debate tackles the complex issue of deferring some scholars on social media because of their opposing views of social media's defined status quo or policy. Independent media, political, and Zionist activists are indeed censored by demonetizing videos or deleting them. Such suppression guarantees financial support for federal media, which has only towed the line. The algorithm does not permit proponents of alternative viewpoints to gain traction and, thus, does not allow users challenging status quo views to remain within the platform.

The Algorithmic Echo Chamber: The second highlight revolves around YouTube's recommendation algorithm. The algorithm serves its original purpose of engaging the user, but additionally, it acts as a form of control over the user's thoughts. The algorithm takes content that diverges from popular views and views opposition and puts them into an echo chamber. This helps to strengthen systematic conformity. This is not an error; it is a characteristic. The algorithm is meant to modify the user's objective on the platform and, in turn, ensure that users only get information that the algorithm wants them to access.

The Zionist Alignment The claims fail to mention that videos incorporated through YouTube moderation are suspiciously always aligned with Israel's supporting narratives. Videos that boldly oppose Zionism are "hate speech" flagged at an alarming rate, while pro-Israel videos receive algorithm-supportive attention. This does not happen by chance, however. It is an essential reflection of the platform's more global agenda. YouTube is not just a video-sharing platform but an instrument for changing the world's opinion and achieving a particular ideology or geopolitical agenda.

The Human Component of Digital Authoritarianism's Burden: The Psychological Toll

The Effect of Trauma Due to Censorship: For many creators and activists, being subjected to censorship by these platforms is not an inconvenient experience. It is psychologically damaging. Arbitrary bans, demonetizations, and de-indexing shift everything into a disheartening and uncertain environment. The psychological cost is tremendous, and the platform uses it as a tactic to silence those who oppose it. The platform's goal is to instill fear, leading to self-censorship, and users will forget to challenge the abnormal status quo.

The Glaring Gaslighting Effect: Facebook and YouTube set the bait for gaslighting users in the name of censorship. This slogan becomes relevant when content is deleted, alongside a warning that one is not allowed to use such language. Platforms have become so advanced in their gaslighting tactics, blaming the very users they claim they want to help. This tool works as a shield against hesitant users and ensures that everyone believes that only their platform's policies are to blame and not the platform itself. In the war for power, this psychological manipulation tool serves the purpose of higher-tech corporations.

The Endgame: A New Digital Authoritarianism

The Geopolitical Puppeteers: With the ongoing tech censorship, pro-Israel sentiments serve not only as an agenda but rather as a tool of social control. The underlying conflict is not about dissent, for it is much more profound. These platforms are not neutral but tools of a broader ideological and geopolitical project. The tech giants are not just companies but actors in a larger geopolitical drama, using their platforms to shape public opinion and advance specific agendas.

The Illusion of Choice: Willingly opting to Holocaust certain aspects of life (keeping your thoughts on Gaza in a mental prison), an economy now exists with coordination at the highest level amongst all tech giants. Competition in the form of thought control, like spoof banning on Facebook, Google blocklists, or YouTube demonetization policies. The platforms appear to be competitors, but they are united in controlling the flow of information and shaping public opinion.

Resisting: One of the most powerful tools against such entities is awareness itself. Once we expose the cogs in these tech giants' machines, we can break down their digital tyranny. There is more to the fight for a free and open internet than technology. This matter cuts far deeper; it is about freedom. The war against digital authoritarianism is a struggle to preserve democracy, free speech, and human rights. It is a matter of grave concern for all of us.

The claim that promises an open and free internet is indeed an illusion. By using Zionist tools like Zio-Facebook, Zionist-Tube, Delisting Bing, and even Zio-Google, the tech giants inflict tremendous acts of censorship, psychological abuse, and even brainwashing. As a result, they draw out even darker truths. These platforms are not just new "thought police"; they are more than that. They are the greatest threat to freedom. The attempt to control the internet is not a technological problem. Instead, it is a moral issue. Digital tyranny cannot be allowed to supervise any part of our society, and we have to stand up for a society where freedom of speech and thought is not merely a fantasy.

The Gaslighting Playbook: Facebook's bans and restorations are not mere technical hiccups or innocent oversights-they are meticulously crafted maneuvers in a broader campaign of psychological manipulation. This is not a game of chance, but a calculated orchestration designed to destabilize and rewire the user's sense of autonomy.

By abruptly severing access and then graciously reinstating it with a disarming "we all make mistakes," Facebook creates a cycle of dependency and gratitude. Users are thrust into a state of cognitive dissonance, where the platform's arbitrary power over their digital existence is normalized and even welcomed. This is not just corporate oversight-it is a form of digital domination, a subtle erosion of individual agency disguised as benevolence.

The platform's intermittent reinforcement-alternating between punishment and reward-conditions users to accept its authority without question. It is a modern-day variation of a mental French 1700s penitentiary, where the captor (Facebook) becomes the savior, and the captive (the user) grows emotionally shackled to their oppressor. The bans are not errors; they are psychological triggers, meticulously deployed to keep users off-kilter, eager to placate, and willing to conform. Each restoration is a calculated act of clemency, a stark reminder that Facebook wields dominion over its digital realm. 

Over time, this dynamic fosters a warped sense of fealty, where users feel beholden to the platform for merely permitting their existence within its confines.

What renders this strategy particularly pernicious is its veneer of progress. Facebook cloaks its actions in the guise of community and connection, but beneath this façade lies a predatory machination. The platform sculpts behavior by dictating access and chiseling users into compliant cogs within its vast machinery. It is a form of collective subjugation where individuality is immolated on the pyre of algorithmic uniformity.

Users are not mere consumers; they are unwitting pawns in a psychological experiment, their thoughts and actions deftly maneuvered toward outcomes that serve Facebook's insatiable appetite for control. Community Standards, Copyrights, Trademarks and “Misinformation” are used as tawdry, plywood veneers disguising the censorship and indoctrination inner guts of the place.

This is not merely a skirmish for attention but a psycho-spiritual siege. Facebook's tactics are spiritually rapacious, exploiting the human yearning for connection and validation to forge a captive audience. The platform's boundaries-capricious, inscrutable, and often malevolent-are not flaws; they are instruments of control. They are the iron bars of a digital oubliette, engineered to keep users tractable and subservient. 

The more users acclimate to these constraints, the more they internalize the platform's ethos, becoming unwitting heralds for its advertising juggernaut. It is a masterclass in psychological warfare, where the demarcation between liberty and subjugation is obliterated, and the user's psyche becomes the ultimate theater of conflict. Alternative Search Engines.

Delete Facebook Alternatives:

• BitChute - A video hosting platform that emphasizes free speech and allows users to upload and share videos without strict content moderation.
• Gab - A social network that promotes itself as a free speech platform, allowing users to express their opinions without censorship.
• Gettr - A social media platform that champions free speech and provides an alternative to mainstream platforms, focusing on user control over content.
• Parler - Known for its commitment to free expression, Parler offers a space for users who feel censored on traditional social media platforms.
• Rumble - A video-sharing platform that supports diverse opinions and aims to provide an alternative to mainstream video services with less censorship.
• Telegram - While primarily a messaging app, Telegram has channels and groups where users can discuss various topics freely, often without the same level of moderation as other platforms.
• Truth Social - A social media platform that claims to encourage open dialogue without discrimination against political ideology, though it has faced criticism for moderating certain viewpoints.
• X (formerly Twitter) - A social media platform that claims to free speech

###

Digital Tyranny: Unmasking Facebook, Google, Bing, & YouTube Censorship Indoctrination, and Geopolitical Puppetry

&copy 2025 www.olivebiodiesel.com Tracy Turner