The new mind control - Manipulated Search Results

I never realized just how important search really is, it’s been discussed here before…but how will search work?

Edit: A comment from David regarding development of search in SAFE:

Search though from a decentralised perspective can make use of lucene type indexing, with the indexes using using Immutable Data, this has to be arranged in a manner where it can append information as more links and data is found.As data can be referenced via a datamap hash then the end data will always be found (like way back machine inbuilt to the network).

So the research part if you like will be fitting this in a type of binary tree/Directed Graph where leaves can be updated to reflect new information that fits that part of the object (graph).

So very possible and a few whiteboard sessions could product a crude first attempt at this. If done correctly and without doubt in the open then I think we can have a decent, albeit crude search.

More interesting though will be the use of deep learning algorithms to provide more than search, so more like wolfram type question engines with larger data sets. I spoke briefly with Wolfram and I am sure there is a very long conversation to be had there, with the new data structures available in SAFE as well as their capabilities in domain specific languages in this field.

Article discussing rigged Google Search: The new mind control


The internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections and manipulate everything we say, think and do

Over the past century, more than a few great writers have expressed concern about humanity’s future. In The Iron Heel (1908), the American writer Jack London pictured a world in which a handful of wealthy corporate titans – the ‘oligarchs’ – kept the masses at bay with a brutal combination of rewards and punishments. Much of humanity lived in virtual slavery, while the fortunate ones were bought off with decent wages that allowed them to live comfortably – but without any real control over their lives.

In We (1924), the brilliant Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, anticipating the excesses of the emerging Soviet Union, envisioned a world in which people were kept in check through pervasive monitoring. The walls of their homes were made of clear glass, so everything they did could be observed. They were allowed to lower their shades an hour a day to have sex, but both the rendezvous time and the lover had to be registered first with the state.

In Brave New World (1932), the British author Aldous Huxley pictured a near-perfect society in which unhappiness and aggression had been engineered out of humanity through a combination of genetic engineering and psychological conditioning. And in the much darker novel 1984 (1949), Huxley’s compatriot George Orwell described a society in which thought itself was controlled; in Orwell’s world, children were taught to use a simplified form of English called Newspeak in order to assure that they could never express ideas that were dangerous to society.

These are all fictional tales, to be sure, and in each the leaders who held the power used conspicuous forms of control that at least a few people actively resisted and occasionally overcame. But in the non-fiction bestseller The Hidden Persuaders (1957) – recently released in a 50th-anniversary edition – the American journalist Vance Packard described a ‘strange and rather exotic’ type of influence that was rapidly emerging in the United States and that was, in a way, more threatening than the fictional types of control pictured in the novels. According to Packard, US corporate executives and politicians were beginning to use subtle and, in many cases, completely undetectable methods to change people’s thinking, emotions and behaviour based on insights from psychiatry and the social sciences.

Most of us have heard of at least one of these methods: subliminal stimulation, or what Packard called ‘subthreshold effects’ – the presentation of short messages that tell us what to do but that are flashed so briefly we aren’t aware we have seen them. In 1958, propelled by public concern about a theatre in New Jersey that had supposedly hidden messages in a movie to increase ice cream sales, the National Association of Broadcasters – the association that set standards for US television – amended its code to prohibit the use of subliminal messages in broadcasting. In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission opined that the use of such messages was ‘contrary to the public interest’. Legislation to prohibit subliminal messaging was also introduced in the US Congress but never enacted. Both the UK and Australia have strict laws prohibiting it.

Subliminal stimulation is probably still in wide use in the US – it’s hard to detect, after all, and no one is keeping track of it – but it’s probably not worth worrying about. Research suggests that it has only a small impact, and that it mainly influences people who are already motivated to follow its dictates; subliminal directives to drink affect people only if they’re already thirsty.

Packard had uncovered a much bigger problem, however – namely that powerful corporations were constantly looking for, and in many cases already applying, a wide variety of techniques for controlling people without their knowledge. He described a kind of cabal in which marketers worked closely with social scientists to determine, among other things, how to get people to buy things they didn’t need and how to condition young children to be good consumers – inclinations that were explicitly nurtured and trained in Huxley’s Brave New World. Guided by social science, marketers were quickly learning how to play upon people’s insecurities, frailties, unconscious fears, aggressive feelings and sexual desires to alter their thinking, emotions and behaviour without any awareness that they were being manipulated.

By the early 1950s, Packard said, politicians had got the message and were beginning to merchandise themselves using the same subtle forces being used to sell soap. Packard prefaced his chapter on politics with an unsettling quote from the British economist Kenneth Boulding: ‘A world of unseen dictatorship is conceivable, still using the forms of democratic government.’ Could this really happen, and, if so, how would it work?


on second thought, I’ll withdraw the comment

Yes we know all this…the article details it succinctly…but the question is:

Will the SAFEnetwork be able to resist this behaviour or will it be a seamless switch over of the hypnotized masses.

Maybe there is a window of opportunity to break the spell.

1 Like

You’re right, no need to be redundant. I deleted the response. That window is crucial. We need it now! But it can’t be rushed. I don’t think Google just gets to switch over. How does it even get to search SAFE? How does it work when it want’s to push ads and Millenials hate ads and reflexively distrust sponsored systems even as they seem to use FB. I think Millenials will take to SAFE see the possibilites, run with it and continue to lock the masters of the universe out of their narative.

I think the network has changed considerably since it was seriously discussed on here…hopefully there are more options now.

“David mentioned that Google might come over and do it on SAFE”

could you link to the source ?

In my opinion this would simply defeat the whole thing

this is worth reading too btw


haha got me, one comment made very early on that stuck in my mind when the question of indexing SAFE came up.

The comment below is more encouraging and it’s gotten better since then I think:

Continuing the discussion from The Cloud Conspiracy 2008-2014 - How the EU was hypnotised that the NSA did not exist:


An easy way to imagine this though is a mixture of consensus agreement on a computation that is requested via a Domain Specific Language (which may be Turing complete or not, likely it would not be though). Such DSL capability is provided in the boost libraries with fusion and spirit, then we can have domains specific to issues, such as robotics, AI, search (better than just search but you get the point), currency, company contracts, asset exchanges and so on

Davids personal blog is a good resource for where this network might be headed (if you haven’t read it yet)

1 Like

We will soon all belong to Google

Well that’s the plan of the technocratic elite, who believe they will live as a separate species on this rock.

Technocracy has gone all in on Blockchain tech I reckon, but then… from little things big things grew and we were SAFE from them. :sunny:

1 Like

That is a great article. Should be posted for discussion as its own thread I reckon.

I agree with a lot of what he says but he needs to know that there are other solutions being worked on like our network and guys like him need to stop complaining and start making the tough decisions to block Google-bots from some of their content and fish for readers through different channels like the ones on our network.

1 Like

First result first page:

Go to google trends and play with presidential search terms on that google service and see what you think.

I’m trying ughhh can’t ughhh too much aaaaaagggghgrgrgrhr too much ugh academy awards shit

1 Like

Hopefully with public inverted indices and open source search algorithms that fully run client-side. Anything less and we’ll back to square one. I think the real challange is how to realize decentralised (collaborative) web crawling and establishing consensus on the validity of the crawling results (preventing false data and spam from ruining the indices).

I looked at YaCe some months ago, but noticed several issues with copy/pasting that system on top of SAFE.


Yes, looks to be designed to search the current web in a distributed consensus kind of way.

Maybe were talking more in realm of ‘P2P Information Retrieval’ along the lines of: