FROM MERCOLA How the Virality Project Threatens Our Freedom

[carol ann parisi]

How the Virality Project Threatens Our Freedom

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

 

• March 29, 2023

• STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• We now have proof that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) partnered with a censorship consortium called the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to illegally censor Americans
• During the 2020 election cycle, the EIP and CISA worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-backed Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) to police political wrongthink on social media
• In February 2021, the EIP rebranded itself as the Virality Project, and went on to censor COVID-19 narratives on behalf of the government, even when they knew it was true
• The Virality Project targeted first-hand accounts of COVID jab injuries to prevent vaccine hesitancy, and posts that expressed fears about vaccine passports because being against vaccine passports was a “gateway to being anti-vax.” They also censored jokes and satirical memes on the basis that they might “exacerbate distrust” in public health officials, and made asking questions a punishable event because questioning is “commonly used by spreaders of misinformation”
• As bad as things are, they’re about to get a whole lot worse unless Congress puts a stop to it. In the last three years, the U.S. government has granted more than 500 contracts and/or grants aimed at tackling “misinformation”
• The Department of Defense is also focused on research involving AI and tech that can monitor internet conversations and deploy countermeasures before wrongthink goes viral. Congress must defund all of these programs, as well as any agency department or team involved in censoring Americans

As detailed in "Propaganda and Censorship Dominate the Information War," we now have proof, courtesy of the Twitter Files, that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) partnered with a censorship consortium called the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor Americans.¹

In an Atlantic Council interview, EIP head Alex Stamos also admitted that the partnership between the EIP and the DHS was set up to outsource censorship that the government could not do due to "lack of legal authorization."²

Stamos, a former chief of security at Facebook, is also director of the Stanford Internet Observatory — one of the four organizations that make up the EIP — and is a partner in the cyber consulting firm Krebs Stamos Group together with former CISA director Chris Krebs.

Virality Project Is EIP Rebranded

During the 2020 election cycle, the EIP and CISA worked with the State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-backed Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) to police political wrongthink on social media. The EIP coordinated the take-down of undesirable content using a real-time chat app that the DHS, EIP and social media companies all share.³

In February 2021, the EIP rebranded itself as the Virality Project, and went on to censor COVID-19 narratives on behalf of the government in the same way the EIP censored election narratives on behalf of the political Left.⁴

According to independent journalist Matt Taibbi, the Virality Project was essentially a dry run for President Biden's federal Disinformation Governance Board.⁵ In fact, the Virality Project proposed a federal "Misinformation and Disinformation Center of Excellence" just one day before President Biden announced the plan for this Orwellian outfit.

Public backlash forced Biden to reconsider, but all that means is that the government chose not to make its unconstitutional censoring of Americans official policy. They're still doing it through partnerships with the EIP/Virality Project and other third parties.

Virality Project Censored Truth

In a March 20, 2023, report (video above), The Hill host Robby Soave detailed the goals of the Virality Project, which "above all else were to protect the perceived integrity of the federal health bureaucracy, vaccine manufacturers and government vaccine policymakers, and to advance mainstream establishment narratives and interests in general."

As noted by Soave, the Virality Project frequently pressured social media companies to censor COVID-19-related information and/or label it as "misinformation" — even if the information was true.

"This coalition, which was working with government agencies, NGO's and the social media companies themselves, took the position that even true information could count as dangerous misinformation if its effect was to encourage a policy that clashed with the expert consensus …

If we still value the First Amendment, we must resist these pernicious calls for censorship. A call that is coming from a sordid coalition of 'truth czars' and ideological activists masquerading as fact checkers," Soave says.

The mere possibility of causing "vaccine skepticism" or "vaccine hesitancy" was enough of a justification to censor information about the deadly COVID shots, for example, even though the information was truthful and required in order to make an informed decision.

This even included true first-hand accounts of serious COVID jab injuries, which could have saved lives had they been allowed to be shared. As noted by Andrew Lowenthal, co-founder of EngageMedia and author at Brownstone Institute:⁶

"Rather than listening out for safety signals to protect the public, leaders in the 'anti-disinformation' field ran cover to protect Big Pharma, smearing and censoring critics.

The moral depravity is astounding and quite possibly criminal … [In] suppressing 'stories of true vaccine side effects' the Virality Project put people in danger. Rather than keeping people safe they exposed us to the depredations of Big Pharma."

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Wartime Logic

Best-selling author John Leake⁷ also commented on the Virality Project's censoring of truthful information, saying:⁸

"This reminded me of our recent trip to Australia in which we learned the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) led by Dr. John Skerritt, MD, PhD, made the decision to suppress accurate reports of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young people because such reports could cause 'vaccine hesitancy.'

As these policymakers and regulators see it, the incidence of grave and fatal side effects are sufficiently rare to warrant censoring ANY reporting of them, as such reporting could cause the greater harm of 'vaccine hesitancy.'

By their calculus, severe injuries and deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines are the price we as a society must pay for the purportedly greater number of lives saved by the vaccines.

Never in the history of medicine has this calculus been used to evaluate the benefit of a medical product. Only in a military context — that is, commanders in the field must accept a certain number of casualties in order to achieve the greater benefit of vanquishing the enemy — has this logic been applied."

No Concerns, Jokes or Questions Allowed

The Virality Project also targeted posts that expressed fears about vaccine passports — because being against vaccine passports was a "gateway to being anti-vax" — and censored jokes and satirical memes on the basis that they might "exacerbate distrust" in those targeted as the butt of the joke.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is one example of a public health official whose reputation was protected in this way. They even made asking questions a punishable event, because asking questions is a tactic "commonly used by spreaders of misinformation."⁹

Have You Heard of Pre-Bunking?

The Virality Project also invented "pre-bunking" strategies to "warn" the public about purported misinformation before it had time to spread.

For example, when the Johnson & Johnson COVID jab was temporarily suspended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in April 2021, the Virality Project issued a rapid response statement¹⁰ saying the number of incidents of rare and severe types of blood clots was "very small," especially considering the millions of doses given.

They also analyzed the narratives put forth "concerning the J&J suspension within anti-vaccine groups across social media platforms" and in foreign and international media, and how these narratives might affect "vaccine hesitancy," and proposed strategies to counter efforts to use the suspension as support for anti-COVID jab arguments.

Twitter Files Include Calls to Censor Me

As predicted, the Twitter files also contain correspondence with social media companies relating to yours truly. Taibbi points out the Twitter files "repeatedly show media acting as proxy"¹¹ for the NGOs in the censoring network.

As an example, he posted the email below,¹² in which the Financial Times used the shady NGO Center for Countering Digital Hate's fabricated "Misinformation Dozen" report to pressure Twitter into banning me, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the rest on its list.

Government Censorship Campaign Is Financed by Taxpayers

As noted by Taibbi in a March 9, 2023, Twitter thread:¹³

"Well, you say, so what? Why shouldn't civil society organizations and reporters work together to boycott 'misinformation'? Isn't that not just an exercise of free speech, but a particularly enlightened form of it?

The difference is, these campaigns are taxpayer-funded. Though the state is supposed to stay out domestic propaganda, the Aspen Institute, Graphika, the Atlantic Council's DFRLab, New America, and other 'anti-disinformation' labs are receiving huge public awards.

Some NGOs, like the GEC-funded Global Disinformation Index or the DOD-funded NewsGuard, not only seek content moderation but apply subjective 'risk' or 'reliability' scores to media outlets, which can result in reduction in revenue. Do we want government in this role? …

This is the Censorship-Industrial Complex at its essence: a bureaucracy willing to sacrifice factual truth in service of broader narrative objectives. It's the opposite of what a free press does …

This, ultimately, is the most serious problem with the Censorship-Industrial Complex. Packaged as a bulwark against lies and falsehood, it is itself often a major source of disinformation, with American taxpayers funding their own estrangement from reality."

Censorship Darling With a Shady Past

You can learn more about Taibbi's work on the Twitter files in the video above. In his Twitter Files No. 19 thread, Taibbi also highlights some of the shadier characters within this censorship-industrial complex, such as Renée DiResta, technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory (which, again, is part of the EIP and Virality Project):¹⁴

"Profiles portray DiResta as a warrior against Russian bots and misinformation, but reporters never inquire about work with DARPA, GEC and other agencies. In the video below … Stamos introduces her as having 'worked for the CIA.'"

"DiResta has become the public face of the Censorship-Industrial Complex, a name promoted everywhere as an unquestioned authority on truth, fact, and Internet hygiene, even though her former firm, New Knowledge, has been embroiled in two major disinformation scandals …

DiResta's New Knowledge helped design the Hamilton 68 project exposed in the Twitter files. Although it claimed to track 'Russian influence,' Hamilton really followed [Conservative] Americans … Hamilton 68 was funded by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which in turn was funded by the German Marshall Fund, which in turn is funded in part by — the Department of State.

The far worse scandal was Project Birmingham, in which thousands of fake Russian Twitter accounts were created to follow Alabama Republican Roy Moore in his 2017 race for US Senate. Newspapers reported Russia seemed to take an interest in the race, favoring Moore.

Though at least one reporter for a major American paper was at a meeting in September 2018 when New Knowledge planned the bizarre bot-and-smear campaign, the story didn't break until December, two days after DiResta gave a report on Russian interference to the Senate …

The incident underscored the extreme danger of the Censorship-Industrial Complex. Without real oversight mechanisms, there is nothing to prevent these super-empowered information vanguards from bending the truth for their own ends.

By way of proof, no major press organization has re-examined the bold claims DiResta/New Knowledge made to the Senate — e.g. that Russian ads 'reached 126 million people' in 2016 — while covering up the Hamilton and Alabama frauds."

US Government Is Building Vast Speech Suppression Web

As bad as things already are, they're about to get a whole lot worse unless Congress puts a stop to it. In a March 21, 2023, article,¹⁵ The Federalist's senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland details grants showing the U.S. government is "building a vast surveillance and speech suppression web around every American."

"Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet — the speech of journalists, politicians, religious organizations, advocacy groups, and even private citizens. Should those conversations conflict with the government's viewpoint about what is in the best interests of our country and her citizens, that speech will be silenced," she writes.¹⁶

"While the 'Twitter Files' offer a glimpse into the government's efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned, as the details of hundreds of federal awards lay bare.

Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover 'problematic' speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.

Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting 'misinformation' and 'disinformation.'"

In the last three years alone, the federal government has granted more than 500 contracts and/or grants aimed at tackling "misinformation" and "disinformation." The Department of Defense itself is also focused on research involving AI and ML tech that can monitor internet conversations for objectionable viewpoints and deploy countermeasures before they go viral.

A Catch-22

Unfortunately, many of those who have the greatest power to inform the public about what's happening, and those with the power to protect us by putting an end to this dystopian nightmare, don't want to because they have something to gain from it, or believe they do. As noted by Cleveland:¹⁷

"The threat is further heightened because those with the power to warn the public and demand the government stop silencing Americans' speech are complicit.

With Democrats, the legacy media, and many Republicans all in on the government's efforts to censor misinformation and disinformation, it will be extremely difficult for the public to recognize the risks free speech faces — especially since those trying to sound the alarm have already been falsely branded purveyors of disinformation.

A chance remains, though, that enough ordinary Americans will hear the message before it is too late and demand Congress close the Censorship-Industrial Complex."

Where Do We Go From Here?

Taibbi, in the video above, says the revelations about the Virality Project tell us two things:¹⁸

"One, as Orwellian proof-of-concept, the Virality Project was a smash success. Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging.

Two, it accelerated the evolution of digital censorship, moving it from judging truth/untruth to a new, scarier model, openly focused on political narrative at the expense of fact."

This is deeply problematic and will strangle democracy and end the republic that is the United States if allowed to continue. To quote Lowenthal:¹⁹

"Free speech and expression protect us from the most powerful actors on the planet, corporations, the State, and a growing plethora of international bodies. Ultimately, we need radically decentralized social media that is more immune to their capture. Our safety depends on it."

Decentralizing social media is just one necessary defense tactic though. We must also demand Congress take swift action to defund and dismantle the "censorship-industrial complex" that is using our tax dollars to deceive us and withhold truth. Nothing less will suffice. We can't invent enough privacy laws to protect us from what's coming.

For a time, many of us suspected that this massive surveillance and control system was primarily funded and built by private interests, but now we're finding that government funding is behind much, and perhaps most, of it.

Congress has, for many years, if not decades, approved funding for programs intended to destroy our constitutional rights. Now, they must defund all of them. They must also defund all government agency departments or teams involved in the federal censorship network, and that includes the FBI, CIA and DHS.

[carol ann parisi]

[carol ann parisi]

[carol ann parisi]

[carol ann parisi]

Most Baby Formula Claims Not Backed by Science

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

 

 

 

• March 29, 2023

Previous

 

Next

 

How the Virality Project Threatens Our Freedom

Vitamin D Insufficiency Linked to Irritable Bowel Syndrome

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• An international cross-sectional survey of 757 formulas sold in 15 countries found only 26% of the products used clinical trials and 90% of those carried a high risk of bias due to missing data or conclusions that were not supported by data
• A Lancet Series on breastfeeding calls for greater regulation over "predatory" marketing aimed at new mothers that have influenced families, scientists and policy makers
• The 2022 formula shortage highlighted a monopoly in the market that contributed to a disaster in which the lives of millions of babies were threatened, government regulations that effectively ban imports that meet or exceed FDA requirements and corporate greed that dictates infant nutrition
• Albertson’s grocery store app merges information about your food purchases, prescriptions and vaccinations in one place, aligning Big Food with Big Pharma and moving society one step closer to the globalist’s end goal — limiting your freedoms

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that breastfeeding is the best nutrition for newborns and infants, infant formula companies make claims that formula strengthens immune health and brain development and supports digestive health.¹ Similac also claims to have included prebiotics that are structurally identical to those found in breast milk. Yet, a 2023 study found the health and nutrition claims for formulas are “not supported by robust clinical trial evidence.”²

The World Health Organization,³ CDC⁴ and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)⁵ support exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life. The AAP’s 2022 policy statement includes:⁶

“Breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition. The short- and long-term medical and neurodevelopmental advantages of breastfeeding make breastfeeding, or the provision of human milk, a public health imperative.”

Evidence-based benefits of breastfeeding for mother and baby are experienced immediately and over a lifetime. For example, according to the CDC,⁷ mothers have a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, ovarian or breast cancer, and high blood pressure. Breastfed infants have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, ear infections, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants.

In addition to these physical benefits, science has also identified emotional benefits to mother and child.⁸ Mothers experience reduced stress in the early months of caring for their newborn and improved sensitivity to their infant’s needs. Breastfeeding improves cognitive performance in children and socio-affective response to their environment.

Infant Formula Claims Are Not Evidence Based

In a study published in February 2023, researchers sought to evaluate the nutrition claims made by infant formula companies in multiple countries. This international cross-sectional survey offers valuable evidence for parents, physicians and public health experts. Formula sold in 15 countries were surveyed, including those sold in the U.S., U.K., Norway, Nigeria, Russia, Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan and Australia.⁹

In total there were 757 formulas identified with a median of two health claims. There were 608 products that had at least one claim, the most common of which was that the formula helps support the development of the brain and/or nervous system and/or eyes. Other claims included strengthening or supporting the immune system or growth and development.

In many instances, the claims were made without referencing a specific ingredient responsible for the health effect. The most common ingredients cited in the formula claims included long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, pre-, pro- or synbiotics and hydrolyzed protein.

Only 26% of the products attempted to support the claim with a clinical trial or a review and only 14% used clinical trials in humans, 90% of which carried a high risk of bias. The challenges with the trials included missing data or conclusions that were not supported by the data.¹⁰ From the data, the researchers concluded:¹¹

“Multiple ingredients were claimed to achieve similar health or nutrition effects, multiple claims were made for the same ingredient type, most products did not provide scientific references to support claims, and referenced claims were not supported by robust clinical trial evidence.”

Daniel Munblit, a scientist involved with the featured study, told Newsmax that the researchers were not on a crusade against formula, as they thought it should remain an option for mothers who choose not to, or cannot, breastfeed. However, the marketing should not include misleading claims that cannot be backed by scientific evidence.¹²

The featured study followed a 2020 paper¹³ in the BMJ by Munblit and colleagues. In the paper, they argue that marketing claims for infant formulas should be banned since unfounded claims may undermine breastfeeding efforts. They write:

“The current regulatory environment allows claims to be made for food products with low levels of evidence, but the potential harms associated with claims are higher for infant formula than for other foods.”

Irresponsible Marketing Undermines Breastfeeding

The featured study was released just one week after a different group of scientists¹⁴ called for greater regulation over the “predatory”¹⁵ nature of the industry’s marketing campaigns aimed at new mothers.

Despite evidence that breastfeeding is best, less than half of infants are breastfed, while global formula sales have risen to $55 billion each year. The marketing techniques and strategies have influenced families, policy and science, according to a Lancet paper published in February 2023.¹⁶ The authors write that the sales and marketing strategies are:

“... driven by multifaceted, well-resourced marketing strategies that portray CMF [commercial milk formula] products, with little or no supporting evidence, as solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges in ways that systematically undermine breastfeeding.”

According to another paper in the Lancet series,¹⁷ the U.S. government prioritizes trade interests over infant health, which was evident in the 2018 threats to enforce trade sanctions and withdraw military aid to Ecuador unless the country dropped a proposed resolution to protect and promote breastfeeding.

Lobby groups that protect formula manufacturers have cautioned employers against improving parental leave. Yet, data demonstrate that longer paid maternity leave leads to a higher potential that breastfeeding will continue, thus negatively impacting formula companies’ bottom line. In the absence of paid leave, many mothers are forced to return to work.

Without a safe space to breastfeed or express milk at work or the appropriate space to store breast milk, many women are forced to turn to formula. Linda Richter is a distinguished professor at Wits University and a co-writer of two of the Lancet papers in the breastfeeding series. She commented in a press release:¹⁸

“The formula milk industry uses poor science to suggest, with little supporting evidence, that their products are solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges. Adverts claim specialized formulas alleviate fussiness, help with colic, prolong night-time sleep, and even encourage superior intelligence.

Labels use words like ‘brain’, ‘neuro’ and ‘IQ’ with images highlighting early development, but studies show no benefit of these product ingredients on academic performance or long-term cognition.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

2022 Formula Shortage Revealed Lack of Government Interest

One of the food shortages in early 2022 was infant formula. February 17, 2022,¹⁹ Abbott voluntarily recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare powdered formulas manufactured in Sturgis, Michigan, after five infants reportedly got sick with Cronobacter and Salmonella infections. Two of the babies died.

According to the FDA, the Sturgis facility failed inspection and was ordered to halt production until required sanitary measures were carried out. This came on the heels of a whistleblower report²⁰ submitted to the FDA in October 2021, alleging several health and safety compliance issues at the Sturgis facility, including falsification of records.

The compliance issues also included releasing untested formulas, lack of cleaning processes and hiding information during an FDA audit. The infant formula shortage highlighted three key factors that contributed to a disaster in which the lives of millions of babies were threatened.

The market had been allowed to be monopolized by so few companies that the takedown of a single plant created a disaster. Abbott is responsible for 43% of baby formula produced in the U.S. and a total of four companies control 90% of the market.²¹

The government has also implemented labeling regulations that effectively ban imports of formula, even if they meet or exceed FDA nutritional requirements. And finally, and far more importantly, is the fact that science has been ignored for decades and corporate greed has been allowed to dictate infant nutrition.

Most infant formulas contain a shocking amount of sugar, typically in the form of corn syrup and large amounts of dangerous linoleic acid from soy. In addition to the poor nutrition in infant formula, it appeared the U.S. government was unconcerned by the thought that babies were not being fed.

When asked at a press conference²² what parents should do if they don’t have enough formula to feed their babies, then Biden administration press secretary Jennifer Psaki said, "We certainly encourage any parent who has concerns about their child's health or well-being to call their doctor or pediatrician."

As Jimmy Dore notes,²³ it appeared that the press secretary was unaware that 91 million people are uninsured or underinsured and don’t have access to a physician. And yet another point is that physicians would also not have access to infant formula as there was not enough being produced.

Is this the same response the government will have when future food shortages threaten the lives of children and adults: If you can’t find food, then we encourage you to call your doctor?

Fake Foods Raise the Risk of Food Shortages

In June 2020,²⁴ Bill Gates announced he was funding the startup company BIOMILQ, which uses biotechnology to create lab-made human milk for babies.²⁵ BIOMILQ originally announced in May 2021²⁶ that they had successfully created human-like milk outside the breast.

The company boasted that it moved from proof of concept to producing human milk in just 11 months. While it acknowledges the product is not bioidentical to mother's milk, the company does claim that it's made in a sterile controlled environment, free of environmental toxins, food allergens and prescription medications that can be detected in breast milk.

In other words, they want you to believe that fake food produced in a lab just may be better than breast milk — or the same promise originally made by infant formula companies. Fifty years, and millions of people later, the evidence that formula is poor nutrition for babies is better understood, so it looks like the industry wants you to embrace the new kid on the block — BIOMILQ — to ensure their financial future.

BIOMILQ is another in a long list of fake foods that are promoted on the platform that they will somehow save the environment and the planet. Yet, they are ultimately ultraprocessed foods that science has demonstrated²⁷ increase your risk for chronic disease and premature death.

And, as the formula shortage in 2022 demonstrated, once there is a monopoly on fake food, it won't take much to increase the risk that millions will go hungry and potentially starve when one or two plants are taken offline.

Grocery Industry App Links Food and Drug Purchases to Jab

Fake meat and fake milk are ways to control the food supply and therefore your behavior. In yet another marketing and public relations coup, the grocery industry has aligned with Big Pharma to bring society closer to the globalists’ end goal — limiting your freedoms.

Grocery store conglomerate Albertsons, which owns chains like Shaw's, Safeway, Tom Thumb and Jewel-Osco, made a move into the digital health space when it announced its app, “Sincerely Health.”²⁸ The app encourages customers to connect data from wearable monitoring devices and track their prescriptions, grocery store purchases and vaccination appointments.

Albertsons is currently in talks to merge with Kroger, which would ultimately give the conglomerate control over 36% of the supermarket business. This is nearly the market share that Abbott holds over the baby formula market, which led to a critical formula shortage in 2022.

This merger between Big Food and Big Pharma also uses tracking technology to track your activity online and serve you ads and health advice they deem “relevant” content tailored just to you. Gathering this data about your activity gives the conglomerate details about your activities and a database of private health decisions they may use against you during the next public health emergency.

For example, if you are not up to date on your vaccinations or prescription drugs, the app may prevent you from purchasing food. Ultimately, data that pertains to purchases, such as food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, could all be tied to the app.

When your medical history is handed over to grocery store chains, it increases the risk of food insecurity in one of the richest countries on the planet. However, it's important to note that the grocery industry operates on low margins and retailers are dependent on customer purchases. You can vote with your dollars when you choose to take your retail shopping to small stores that resist technology.