[Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore likes some alternatives, eschews others. Why?

[J.B. Nicholson]

I'm suspicious that there's a new problem for Jimmy Dore & co. to face up to 
regarding which alternatives are recommendable and which are not to be taken seriously.

In https://youtube.com/watch?v=ySfGLCk_1hw ("Google CAUGHT Helping CIA Spy On You") 
he reviews a CBS News article which details how search engine giant Google and the 
CIA are working together; Google will remove from its search engine (misleadingly 
called "wiped from the web" in the article, a problematic conflation which The Jimmy 
Dore show doesn't critique[1]) articles which US agencies want to make harder to 
find. Around 14m17s into the recording, Jimmy Dore mockingly said:

> Jimmy Dore: So, big deal, there's alternatives to Google and to Twitter and 
> Facebook. There's alternatives! Just like there's alternatives from flying from 
> L.A. to New York -- you could walk. That's an alternative.


Yes, choosing another search engine may be less convenient. But hardly comparably 
arduous to walking thousands of miles. But, more to the important point, why not 
support alternatives that don't treat you so badly?

Popularity of Google can't be the reason. The Democratic Party receives a lot of 
support from many Americans but Dore has gone on his show multiple times to point out 
that people who think they'll elect self-styled progressives to office via the 
Democratic Party are "chumps" (to use a word Dore often uses).

Choosing to support something that treats you badly (the source of being called a 
chump) can't be the reason either. Dore, correctly, no longer finds the Democrats to 
be worthy of his support. He's said (in between segments one can either see in the 
live broadcast or via recordings available to paid subscribers) that that he has 
given money to The People's Party instead; a new political party one might think of 
as an alternative to the Democratic Party. People's Party founder Nick Brana has made 
repeated appearances on The Jimmy Dore show. But, for Jimmy Dore, pushing for people 
to use an alternative to Google is worthy of being mocked.

So perhaps alternatives, no matter how difficult the fight, are worth considering 
based on what they're attempting to do and the viability of their effort.

Hence it makes sense for progressives to do as Dore has recommended -- not vote for 
or fund Democratic Party politicians -- and instead support parties and independent 
candidates whose voting record (for those with a record) and plans (for those without 
a voting record) seem amenable. When it comes to web search engines, maybe it makes 
sense to use a search engine that purports not to track users (like Startpage.com and 
DuckDuckGo.com) or a popular search engine proxy which will help hide one's searches 
from being tracked.

Perhaps it's also worth considering not running proprietary software including 
Google's browser, Google's operating system Android, and it's worth avoiding Google's 
other services like GMail and YouTube, opt instead for hosting one's email oneself 
with another organization (or via the FreedomBox in one's own home) and using one's 
own domain name. Each of these will help develop one's profile with the proprietor 
(Google, in this case), something one should wish to avoid.

YouTube replacements include Invidious (for a YouTube front-end -- see 
https://github.com/iv-org/documentation/blob/master/Invidious-Instances.md for a list 
of Invidious instances), and a variety of other video hosters available online. Apple 
is problematic too: Apple's options are no better than Google's because Apple is a 
proprietor with a horrible security record (see 
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html for more) and history of 
partnership with the NSA (see and 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Prism_slide_5.jpg and 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Prism_slide_5w.png for more on 
Apple's joining the NSA's PRISM program in October 2012). A comparable story exists 
for Microsoft as well.

Technical replacements are difficult to evaluate and I don't recommend getting IT 
advice from Jimmy Dore. But even without IT expertise, Dore could do a better job 
understanding and conveying when it's good to consider another means of getting a job 
done and even when it's good to consider a job ought not be done at all.



[1] Hiding or burying pointers to published resources doesn't make the published 
resource go away, it only makes that resource harder to find in that search engine. 
One can get a lot of value from, for example, other people pointing to published 
documents like the article https://on.rt.com/b7q1 which points to 
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ANDREW_S-FIXER_SHE_S-THE-DAUGHTER-OF-ROBERT-MAXWELL-AND.pdf 
-- a now harder-to-find article which mentions a relationship between Bill Gates and 
Jeffrey Epstein which is likely highly embarrassing to Gates (hence the reason it's 
harder to find in popular search engines). As one can tell from the URL, MintPress 
still publishes the article.