Google is facing its second antitrust lawsuit from the Department of Justice in two years, over its dominance in the digital ads market, which has seen the tech giant operate in both the buying and selling of ads in addition to running its ad exchange.
The DOJ is joined in its latest lawsuit by the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The new lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, alleges that Google has unfairly tried to control all sides of the digital ads market, operating on both the buying side and the selling side. Google, says the DOJ, sought to be “the be-all, and end-all location for all ad serving.”
“Website creators earn less, and advertisers pay more, than they would in a market where unfettered competitive pressure could discipline prices and lead to more innovative ad tech tools that would ultimately result in higher quality and lower cost transactions for market participants,” says the DOJ lawsuit.
Google’s strategy to dominate digital ads includes acquiring rival ad exchanges and servers, notably its 2008 purchase of DoubleClick. It also included the acquisition of yield management platforms, which allowed publishers to seek better prices outside of Google’s system. Google also changed the terms of its AdX platform to prevent participating publishers from using such tools.
A Google spokesperson defended the tech giant, arguing the DOJ is attempting to “pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”
The lawsuit comes amid tough times for Google. Last week, the tech giant announced plans to lay off 12,000 employees as the wider economic downturn in the tech industry. Morale is low among Google employees, who are complaining that their “psychological safety” is at risk.
As pregnancy centers, pro-life organizations, and churches all around the nation are under siege from pro-abortion criminal groups which are outraged that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, 21 congressional Democrats are demanding Google’s parent company Alphabet ban search engine results for crisis pregnancy centers so women will feel they have no options but to seek services from facilities that promote murdering preborn babies.
In a letter addressed to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai on June 17, Democrats such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Richard Blumenthal, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Bernie Sanders smeared life-affirming pregnancy centers, many of which offer free or discounted pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and other care to women in need, as “fake clinics” that don’t deserve a spot in Google’s top results.
The Democrats parroted data from the foreign dark-money group The Center for Countering Digital Hate which recently claimed that 11 percent of search engine results for queries such as “abortion near me” and “abortion pill” in at least 13 states where abortion will be effectively banned if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade redirected users to pregnancy centers. The same CCDH report allegedly found that 37 percent of Google Maps searches also ended at pro-life care clinics.
In the letter, Democrat signatories argue that these kinds of search engine results are “misleading” and could direct women to organizations that encourage and help them keep their babies alive.
“Directing women towards fake clinics that traffic in misinformation and don’t provide comprehensive health services is dangerous to women’s health and undermines the integrity of Google’s search results,” the letter states.
As noted by the senators and representatives, Google has already committed to banning and throttling pro-life advertisements on its pages by issuing its own “fact checks” of the sponsored content. The Democrats not only complained that these existing “disclaimers” slapped on top of the paid content are “easily missed” and have font that is too small, but also urged the Big Tech company to adopt similar censorship practices for non-sponsored pro-life content that may appear through its search engine.
The Democrats’ public push to stifle crisis pregnancy centers, even in states where abortion is or will be effectively banned, is just one of many of the abortion regime’s recent endeavors to reject the imminent SCOTUS Dobbs v. Jackson ruling which could very likely give decisions about abortion back to the states. The corrupt corporate media is also focused on promoting abortion propaganda.
The TODAY Show published a Father’s Day-themed article celebrating how “abortion shaped [fathers’] lives.”
“Eight dads are sharing how abortion has helped them become the fathers they are today, on what experts believe will likely be the last Father’s Day before the Supreme Court issues a ruling that would overturn Roe v Wade,” the article’s opening sentence reads.
An author for The Intercept recently shared how she sympathizes with the left-wing, anarchist-connected group Jane’s Revenge, which has taken credit for several firebombings and crimes against pregnancy centers, churches, and other pro-life facilities across the nation and threatened a violent “open season” against pro-lifers.
“Their rhetoric speaks to me,” she wrote.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Leaked material from Google provided exclusively to Breitbart News give a behind-the-scenes glimpse of a feature rolled out to business and enterprise users of Google Docs that suggests woke-approved replacements for words like “man,” “woman,” “white,” and “master” as users type.
In the examples below, Google’s curated list of non-woke words and their woke replacements can be seen, such as replacing “manhole” with “maintenance hole” and “whitepaper” with “report.”
In some cases, Google can be seen struggling to replace everyday words. “Motherhood,” for example, is replaced with the far less succinct “experience of being a parent or guardian.”
The feature is so clunky and riddled with errors, that Breitbart News’ source within Google, who wishes to remain anonymous, now says the company is going to roll it back.
“This was an amazingly ham-handed feature,” said the Google employee. “A crude (with at least one spelling mistake), manually curated but poorly vetted list of anything vaguely race or gender-related that led to an obviously bad user experience. It’s hard to believe it ever went through user research.”
Google announced the feature’s rollout in April, but gave scant details about how it operated, except to say that it would flag “discriminatory and inappropriate language” to users and recommend more “inclusive” alternatives.
The feature works by recommending new words to Google Docs users as they type in much the same way as a regular autocorrect function.
The pictures below give a glimpse at the backend of the feature and reveals some of the un-woke words Google wants its users to eliminate from their vocabulary.
In the image above, words that include the prefix “man” are the subject of an “inclusive warning.” The feature recommends that the word “mankind” be replaced with “humankind,” “humanity,” or “people of the world.” It recommends that “manhole” be replaced with “hole” or “maintenance hole” and that “manhunt” be replaced with “search.”
The image above shows the feature in action. In a manner identical to autocorrect, Google Docs suggests to a user that “motherhood” be replaced with “the experience of being a parent or guardian.”
In this image, Google Docs suggests that a user replace the word “cowboy” with “animal herder.”
In another example, Google recommends the word “clergymen” be replaced with “rabbis.”
The image above shows that Google also has a problem with the word “white.” According to the code above, it would recommend that the word “whitepaper” be replaced with more “racially inclusive” terminology such as “report.”
“Master” is another word that Google apparently believes does not have sufficient racial inclusiveness. It recommends replacing “master plan” with “grand plan,” and “mastermind” with genius.
It also identifies the word “masterpiece” as a problem, but it appears the masterminds at Google have yet to come up with a replacement.
Google recommends that the phrase “peanut gallery,” a euphemism for critics who are unfair or unreasonable, be replaced with “unsolicited critics.” The phrase origins lie in the rowdy “peanut galleries” of vaudeville theater, a genre which emerged at the end of the 19th century and sometimes included minstrel performances. This may be the source of Google’s objection to the phrase, even though many modern users of the term are likely unaware of its link to vaudeville.
In some cases, Google appears to be struggling to find woke replacement for words. According to the above picture, its woke employees have yet to find a replacement for “shaman,” although they have replaced “yeoman” with “royal servant.”
In this image, Google clumsily recommends replacing “motherhood” with “the experience of being a parent or guardian.”
Google’s preoccupation with eliminating any notion of separate genders (a biological reality that famously led to former Google engineer James Damore being fired after he acknowledged it in an internal memo) can once again be seen in the above pictures. Google suggests replacements for “middleman,” “manhandle,” and even “mannequin.”
As of 2020, Google reported that more than five million businesses were using the paid version of Google Workspace (formerly G Suite), giving the tech giant significant influence over white-collar professionals.
As the leaked material below reveals, Google is using that influence to push woke ideology on business users, nudging them away from language that points to basic realities that undermine far-left identitarian politics, such as the existence of two separate genders.
Though the feature is designed to advance progressive ideology, its clumsy execution has led to scathing reviews. Even far-left Vice, which trialed the feature, was not impressed. Vice noted the feature’s overzealousness, including flagging parts of Martin Luther King Jr. speeches for non-inclusive language.
A tearful Ruth Porat, Chief Financial Officer of the company, promised that the company would “use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values” in the Trump era.
In these pictures, Google can be seen doing exactly that: using its “strength and resources” to replace people’s everyday language with woke terminology sanctioned by progressives. Beyond the replacement of words, Google appears to want to influence the way its users think — rewriting our concepts of race, gender, and history.
Are you a source at YouTube, Google, Facebook, Amazon, or any other corporation who wants to confidentially share information about wokeness and political extremism at your company? Reach out to Breitbart Senior Technology correspondent Allum Bokhari at firstname.lastname@example.org. Use a free Protonmail to ensure your message is encrypted.
Trumps Adds 65,000 Americans’ Complaints in Class Action Lawsuit Against Big Tech Giants
The class action lawsuit led by Donald Trump against Big Tech censorship is being taken to the next level. On Friday, the American Policy Institute reported that the class action lawsuit is being amended to include the complaints of 65,000 Americans.
“Late last night, Amended Complaints were filed in the Big Tech lawsuits against Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter, Inc., Jack Dorsey, Google LLC, and Sundar Pichai,” the legal group said in an announcement on its website Wednesday.
“Since the initial filing on July 7, 2021, nearly 65,000 American people have submitted their stories of censorship through America First Policy Institute’s (AFPI) Constitutional Litigation Partnership (CLP) at TakeOnBigTech.com,” it added.
“The Amended Complaints include additional censorship experiences and incorporates additional class representatives, including Dr. Naomi Wolf and Wayne Allyn Root — individuals on opposite ends of the political spectrum who highlight the bipartisan need to protect the thoughts and voices of all Americans, regardless of political affiliation,” the statement continued.
“We’re demanding an end to the ‘shadow-banning,’ a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing and canceling that you know so well,” Trump said during a press conference announcing the lawsuit.
“One of the gravest threats to our democracy today is a powerful group of Big Tech corporations that have teamed up with government to censor the free speech of the American people. This is not only wrong—it is unconstitutional,” Trump wrote in an explainer earlier this month.
“To restore free speech for myself and for every American, I am suing Big Tech to stop,” he added.
“In recent years, we have all watched Congress haul Big Tech CEOs before their committees and demand that they censor ‘false’ stories and ‘disinformation’—labels determined by an army of partisan fact-checkers loyal to the Democrat Party,” the former president alleged.
“Further, Big Tech and government agencies are actively coordinating to remove content from the platforms according to the guidance of agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” he continued.
Donald Trump’s class action lawsuit comes at a time when censorship in the United States is at an all-time high. The former president is leading the way for tens of thousands of Americans to have their voices heard in federal court.
(TLB) published this article from Becker News as compiled and written by Kyle Becker
Header featured image (edited) credit: Trump/Twitter screen shot
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai are scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday.
The hearing takes place weeks after Republicans sent letters to the CEOs demanding transparency and accountability on censorship practices that have accelerated in recent months. A poll published on March 15 by Protocol notes that approximately 80 percent of Big Tech employees say their corporations are too powerful.
“House Republicans on Energy and Commerce will hold Big Tech accountable for failing to be good stewards on their platforms,” said a spokesman for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. “There are many reasons why they have broken the American people’s trust, including how they have abused their power to censor and control political speech they disagree with.”
A report in 2019 showed that Twitter was banning eight to 10 million accounts each week. In the weeks that have followed the Capitol breach, the platform permanently banned former President Donald Trump and thousands of others. According to Facebook, a team of 35,000 employees removed more than 1.3 billion “fake accounts” between the months of October and December 2020 — as well as removed 12 million COVID-19-related content.
Google, along with all of Big Tech, removed public access to free-speech platform Parler in January and employs comprehensive algorithms to remove conservative content.
Among other items, House Republicans are demanding answers from the CEOs on why now-Vice President Kamala Harris’ post urging people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out criminals was not in violation of terms and conditions that have been put in place to censor the right. The letter to Dorsey states:
On June 1, 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris posted “If you’re able to, chip in now to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota” and linked to an ActBlue Fund. Please explain how this post does not violate Twitter’s policies.
A spokeswoman for Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., told The Federalist that the congressman supports an alteration to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
“These tech giants’ refusal to be transparent about how they monitor content and restrict different users demonstrates their failed commitment to fairness,” Scalise’s spokeswoman said. “Democrats and Big Tech want to continue to project their left-wing partisanship on everyone and censor those who disagree. Unless Section 230 is changed, there is no protection of political speech or limit to the censorship conservatives will face in the future.”
In direct opposition to the GOP’s urging of Big Tech to cease its censorious measures, House Democrats sent letters to tech CEOs and 12 cable news outlets in February urging them to stop doing business with Fox News and other right-leaning outlets. This same week, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a “disinformation and extremism” hearing advocating for “hate-speech” restriction measures.
In July, Zuckerberg and Pichai joined Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Apple CEO Tim Cook in testifying before the House Judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee. The group dodged questions on censorship, reiterating sentiments in support of arbitrarily defined terms and conditions. Dorsey told the Senate Judiciary Committee in November that Twitter has never censored Trump in response to a question by Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.
“Just to be clear, we have not censored the president,” Dorsey said.
The House Republicans demand the CEOs explain their processes for removal of content, identify how content is allowed to be redistributed, and explain what is defined as “illicit content.”
“Freedom of speech is the keystone of American democracy, and there’s no question that it’s under direct assault by Big Tech. Vague and subjective ‘community guidelines’ are enforced with glaring political bias, often silencing or de-platforming conservatives,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas told The Federalist.
Additionally, the lawmakers seek to understand “coordination” processes between Big Tech companies as to what is removed, how algorithms are established, and learn about all, if any, efforts by the companies to back local and traditional free press media outlets.
“They better be ready to answer these questions completely and honestly at the hearing,” Crenshaw added.
War is brewing in Silicon Valley. A long-simmering fight between Apple and Facebook — two of the architects of Big Tech — spilled into the avenue this past week, with commercial and legal threats hitting the pages of both tech publications and broader media.
To read the Cult of Mac journalists who dominate Big Tech reporting, you’d think America had flipped the calendar back 10 years to a simpler time when Apple, Inc. was seen as some white knight fighting for innovation, user privacy, and a freer, hipper future. Facebook, on the other hand, you might read, stands for old-fashioned corporate greed.
But why fight now? Over these past few weeks, Apple has experienced something it isn’t used to: Bad PR in the wake of essentially banning popular social media app Parler from its phones without publicly providing any truthful explanation. As its carefully crafted rebel chic began to look a more and more like polished corporate liberalism, what did Apple’s Tim Cook do? He attacked Facebook’s privacy-last profit model.
At first glance this might seem strange, but it isn’t. Indeed, fake battles and shiny objects are the core of Apple’s PR strategy.
Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook have been feuding over business practices and reputation for years. After reports emerged this week that Facebook is nearing a launch point for an antitrust lawsuit against Apple’s controlling and greedy App Store, Cook struck back, successfully shifting the conversation from Parler, the App Store, and antitrust to Facebook’s commoditization of its users.
It’s ground Apple likes to fight on. Why talk about how we’re profiting from religious genocide in China? Instead, let’s talk about how Apple sued mean old North Carolina for saying men can’t use women’s bathrooms and little girl’s locker rooms.
Why talk about the suffocating control the App Store exercises to ban politically or financially troublesome nuisances like the app Hong Kong democracy protesters were using to escape arrest? Instead, let’s talk about how Apple stood firm in refusal when the U.S. Department of Justice asked for help accessing the phones of domestic Islamic terrorists targeting American soldiers and office Christmas parties.
Why talk about how Apple moved first (and very likely colluded with other companies) to destroy Parler for daring to think they could build a tech company that might compete and didn’t suppress Americans’ free speech? The important thing to remember is that Facebook is bad.
Perfectly enough, the first public shot fired in Cook’s longstanding battle with Zuckerberg’s business model was during a long 2014 interview with Charlie Rose after iCloud was reportedly hacked for hundreds of private naked photos of Hollywood actresses. Let that sink in a moment: In an interview about a massive, humiliating, and illegal breach of Apple customer’s privacy, Cook turned the subject to Facebook’s privacy policies.
To be clear, Facebook is no friend of the consumer either. As Cook correctly pointed out in his Thursday speech attacking the social media site, their business is mining our data with a deeply disturbing level of granularity and invasiveness obscured behind hundreds of pages of legal “privacy agreements.”
Their world is built around constant and mindless addiction to a flashing advertising platform, powered by short and empty endorphin bursts. Facebook, like all of its peers at the pinnacle of the Valley, takes more from us, our children, and our society than it gives back.
Of course, a company that profits from the vast Chinese slave state doesn’t really care if Facebook mines you for cash, and just behind the thin rebel veneer and corporate libertarian buzzwords lies Cook’s true motivation for war with Facebook: control. Here’s more from Cook’s speech:
What are the consequences of prioritizing conspiracy theories and violent incitement simply because of the high rates of engagement?
What are the consequences of not just tolerating but rewarding content that undermines public trust in life-saving vaccinations?
What are the consequences of seeing thousands of users joining extremist groups and then perpetuating an algorithm that recommends even more?
It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cost. A polarization of lost trust, and yes, of violence.
See, in addition to having a different but similarly unethical business model, Zuckerberg is the sole tech titan to push back on the woke left’s plan to control and censor speech and people deemed threatening to the woke left.
This doesn’t mean he’s come up with better solutions, though. Faceless foreign organizations performing external fact-checks on conservative American media, for example, are an outgrowth of Zuckerberg’s resistance to becoming the arbiter of which speech is true and which speech is not allowed — a role Cook, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Google’s Sundar Pichai, and their woke allies have enthusiastically embraced.
Influential tech journalist Kara Swisher perfectly laid out the left’s scorn for Zuckerberg not devoting himself fully enough to their new religion in a Jan. 16 edition of Politico’s Playbook, writing:
Most of all, they have tried to duck responsibility. I have always been amazed by Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg’s statement that he did not want to be an ‘arbiter of the truth.’ My question for him: Why then did he build a platform that requires it?
Got that? How could they not arbitrate truth? Facebook groups, these people claim, are why Americans rejected obvious moral choice Hillary Clinton and elected bad orange man Donald Trump. If Facebook were responsible little liberals, they would rush to become “arbiters of truth” just like their properly pious peers.
Shiny garbage fights like these are crucial to Apple. They allow the first publicly traded American corporation to earn $2 trillion in a single year to play the hip, innovative rebel in a black turtleneck. They allow a company that stubbornly refuses to shift manufacturing from a communist slave state to American states to play defender of the oppressed. They allow a sprawling monopoly committed to controlling your speech to play champion of your privacy.
If there’s a path to roll back and reconfigure Big Tech’s data-mining business models, we should absolutely take it. Just don’t let yourself be distracted — Tim Cook is not your friend.
This is the third suit against Google in recent months.
In October, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google, owned by Alphabet, for violating antitrust laws and actively enabling a monopoly in search engines and search advertising. The announcement followed a year’s worth of investigation by prosecutors, who “have spoken with Google’s rivals in technology and media, collecting information and documents that could be used to build a case.” The suit focuses on the tech giant’s illegal actions in creating exclusive contracts with companies such as Apple, to make Google the default search engine on their line of software products like Safari.
Just last week, 10 states led by Texas accused Google of colluding with Facebook to create and maintain an illegal monopoly on digital advertisements in which the big tech companies rigged ad auctions. The name for the deal was reportedly disguised using the names of “Star Wars” characters.
Earlier in December, Facebook was also named in an antitrust lawsuit filed by 48 U.S. attorneys general arguing that the social media giant engaged in anti-competitive practices by buying out smaller rivals. The group of state law enforcement executives was joined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filing a separate lawsuit.
While Google claims it “operates in competitive markets,” many have alleged that the company intentionally promotes its own service providers, stifling smaller competitors.
In a hearing in July, Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted that Google tried to monopolize the ad market.
Shortly after this hearing, 10 top senators demanded investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to evaluate the company’s anticompetitive practices, which were eventually rewarded with the aforementioned lawsuit.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey lied to Congress on Tuesday during a Senate hearing focused on Big Tech’s content moderation policies when he claimed that his social media company has never censored President Donald Trump.
“Just to be clear, we have not censored the president,” Dorsey said in response to Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. “We have not taken the tweets down that you’re referencing. We have added context with a label and we do the same for leaders around the world.”
Blackburn said Twitter has censored Trump and his campaign’s tweets and accounts at least 65 times, and but never once censored Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden. Dorsey maintained the company did nothing wrong by labeling the president’s tweets and adding more “context” to his statements.
“We have not censored the U.S. president,” Dorsey echoed. “We do not take down the tweets but we add context around it.”
Despite Dorsey’s false claims, there are numerous examples of Twitter censoring Trump and even taking down his posts.
Earlier in the year, Twitter removed access to an obviously fake “racist baby” video posted by the president after creating a platform-sponsored fact-check in the trending topics section of the website.
Twitter censored multiple Trump tweets raising valid concerns over mail-in voting and flagged Trump’s tweets about sending the National Guard to cities with violent rioting as “glorifying violence.”
Trump’s tweets likening coronavirus to the flu were also hidden by the big tech company.
In addition to their censorship of Trump, Blackburn also noted that, despite Twitter’s reported commitment to “adding more context” to world leaders’ posts, Twitter has not taken action against the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei for spreading misinformation.
“You said Holocaust denial and threats of Jewish genocide by Iran’s terrorist Ayatollah do not violate Twitter rules and it’s important for Iran’s leaders, like their terrorist leader, to have a platform on Twitter,” Blackburn said.
“You have testified you are worried about election interference. That is something we are all worried about,” she said. “For about 100 years, foreign sources have been trying to influence U.S. Policy and U.S. Elections. Now they are on your platforms. They see this as a way to get access to the American people.”
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.