The video link I provided in my other comment covers the broad strokes in an easy to digest way.

For the most part you have this right, but the true scope is at a level that is unthinkable to most people. As bad as you think it might be, it is far far worse, and the breadth and depth of the darkness there can no longer be effectively communicated.

People don't want to know just how bad it is, even when knowing allows them some measure of defense. Knowing the objective reality of the techniques, how susceptible everyone is, where they come from, etc, it is all nightmare fuel breeding demoralized hopelessness for the future.

If you want an example of what Google has said they are doing, take a look at the selfish ledger, it was leaked a few years back.

At first it seems like an altruistic thing, but be aware, there are a number of false assumptions made in that leaked video, as well as apples to oranges comparison that are easily refuted by counter example.

If you know how the mechanics involved actually work, its quite simple to come to the end result of the claims in that video.

Slavery and then death, but the type of slavery where you don't know you are a slave and have no agency or recognition of reality enough to self-direct. Seems like Sci-fi, but this is entirely possible (given the current state of the art in this subject matter). Its been thoroughly studied back during WW2 where it was called menticide, there were laws against some of the primitives for these things (subliminal advertising, now repealed).

Nothing good can come of it, and what they say in that video is just an extension through technology of subject matter developed under Maoist torture for thought reform (1950s), where they made this work and broke perception. [Robert Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism]

Its been a long winding progression from WW2 forward, where advances in science during that time included this dark subject matter.

Imagine this simple application to dating apps. You only see people who are not compatible with you. You go on dates, but never find a partner you are compatible with. You spend a lot of money, but as a result you don't have children.

You wonder where all the good men and women have gone when in reality they just stopped showing anyone that's compatible. They don't lose customers, and you don't have children, but you weren't given that choice.

This is how you can solve your global overpopulation problem in 20 years (through eugenics) by making it impossible for men and women to find compatible matches within the narrow time of their biological clock, powered by big data.

Increased interference in gender relations until it stops happening. Men go their own way. Women go their own way.

What can possibly go wrong when a company applies the biases which caused these changes to the perceptions of men and women interactions to the point where they stop and are incapable of having kids (the psychology pre-requisites aren't matched).

Then they find out after they've done it to everyone that its too late and that these changes like anything psychological are sticky and persist, and everyone thinks its their own idea. Will a fine cut it?

Imagine self-inflicted sterilization of your own race as a result of short-term profit and hubris... its almost biblical and psychotic but entirely possible.

This is the same basic pattern as what the USDA currently uses to eradicate a parasite called the screw worm, but this would have global reach.

Who can stop them when they don't advertise that they do these things and the capabilities aren't commonly known (and people don't want to know). The company only cares for short-term profit, but what about replacement birthrate.

Is the birth rate low? People just aren't choosing to have kids.... Food for thought.

Any species that is unable to adapt to their sometimes disadvantageous environments goes extinct. These tools being used, are basically mind viruses, cultural contagions that take advantage of blindspots we all have and it happens beneath perception.

Thanks, I didn’t realize they’d done it this way. Seems pretty clever, but does also seem like strict wiretapping.

You’re confusing left and right. Not breaking up google is a right leaning view. And that tracks with most of their other opinions.

Otherwise, spot on. The Economist has become garbage.

I am amazed by a worldview which considers The Economist "extreme left".

What extreme leftist views does the Economist have?

As an extreme leftist, I find this notion as offensive as I do absurd.