The funniest part of the Google CEO Sundar Pichai testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was when Representative Lieu (D-CA) said that Google and other for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights—after Democrats were denying, protesting, and suppressing such rights for decades and had a derangement syndrome over Citizens United. Soon, they might figure out that bakers refusing to make cakes for a “gay marriage” ritual have First Amendments rights too.
Google does have First Amendment rights and exercise them on its corporate blogs, by speaking to the media, placing ads on the sites of third parties and its own site, and in many other ways. But Google Search, YouTube, and most other resources are services, not speech. They are not different from auto repair or accounting. This is how Google has been marketing them, and this is how users understand them. Continue reading Democrats Claim Suppression of Conservatives is Google’s Right
The following screenshots are examples of anti-conservative bias in the Google search engine:
The screenshot of Alexa info shows that Google sends to Vox 37% of its outside traffic, but only 12% to Breitbart. In the absence of intentional anti-conservative bias, both numbers would likely be close. Continue reading Google Google Pants on Fire
Updated. Recently, we learnt that in the time of mass de-platforming Infowars by Masters of the Universe, Robert Mueller was “investigating” Dr. Jerome Corsi, a long time Infowars editor. Google, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify simultaneously banned Infowars on August 6. Mueller subpoenaed Dr. Corsi on September 5. Twitter permanently banned Infowars on September 6. This is is either coincidence or coordination between the Mueller gang and Masters of the Universe to prevent Dr. Corsi from telling the public about his persecution. Of note, Mueller used to lecture in Stanford University and presented himself as an expert in cyber security. When he worked in WilmerHale, an unregistered lobbyist for China, he Muller also represented Facebook and Apple. Mueller’s former assistant director Shawn Henry is a co-founder and top officer of CrowdStrike, where Google Capital is an investor. This is something worth investigation. In March 2017, MSM reported that FBI was investigating Breitbart and Infowars because of the role assigned to them in the Russian interference conspiracy theory. Continue reading “Masters of the Universe” ban Alex Jones and other Dissidents
Google tends to push Wikipedia results to the top and to use them in snippets despite Wikipedia being unreliable, untrustworthy, biased, and unpredictable. This is not naivete but a ruthless anti-competitive strategy. Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia, a typical San Francisco nonprofit foundation, to which Google and its top officers donated millions of dollars. But most of its income is apparently derived from small donations by visitors, mostly referred by Google. The business relations between Google and Wikimedia go both ways. Continue reading Google Uses Wikipedia to Suppress Competition
Earlier, Google banned my SHFi AdWords account. After overcoming some obstacles, I created a personal account, intended to support Ted Cruz and Republicans. Google refused to display my messages and links with a message “Disapproved: Election advertising in the United States.” Continue reading Google, Twitter Suppress Conservative Voice in Election
More examples was added after the first publication on 2018-10-05. The last update was on 2018-10-10.
Google regularly deletes YouTube videos linked to and from conservative and libertarian websites. It deleted a Fox News video in which Pete Hoekstra was debunking Clapper claims about the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment. This video was referred to from Fox News opinion piece Was Friday’s declassified report claiming Russian hacking of the 2016 election rigged? by former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz (2017-01-08). Fred Fleitz and Pete Hoekstra debunked this so-called Intelligence Community Assessment, leaked to the media by Clapper and released (in a redacted form) few hours before Congress certified Trump as the next President of the United States. Continue reading Google Deletes Conservative Clips on Youtube, Creates Alternative Reality
GFT censors not only conservatives, but other dissidents from the EU left and anti-Trump narratives, as well as their own adversaries.
Twitter subjected to Quality Filter Discrimination (QFD shadowban) not only expected targets, such as @cernovich, but also Trump Republicans, a walking away liberal Brandon Straka (@usminority), and even Adam Carter (@with_integrity). Adam Carter is one of the leading researchers who refuted Hillary’s conspiracy theory that Russia had been behind the leaks of the 2016 election campaign. This conspiracy theory has been built on false claims by CrowdStrike, in which Google is a major investor. The QFD shadowbans were observed on Twitter from July 23 to 24. Continue reading Censorship by GOOG,FB, TWTR is Alive and Well
Update. A Google team, working under SVP Urs Hölzle of WWF, refused to implement a feature improving Google Cloud security necessary to bid on military contracts (according to Bloomberg). Earlier, Google announced it would not work with the US military on Artificial Intelligence projects. But this feature is not related to AI. Thus, Google refuses to aid the US military at all. Meanwhile, Google services (including Google Maps and Google AI) are available to terrorist organizations and hostile armed forces worldwide. In 2013, Google’s Chairman Eric Schmidt visited North Korea where he aided the North Korean military. Continue reading Google Aided North Korean Military, Spurns Pentagon
Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco!
In fact, it is much worse. Big Tech has committed much worse fraud on its consumers than the Big Tobacco has been accused. Worse, Big Tech funded groups intimidating its opponents, and even lawmakers and government officials. Big Tech also uses its control of the communications line to silence its critics.
Jun 4, 2018 – Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Facebook (FB), and Twitter (TWTR) use their internet gatekeepers’ positions to manipulate (inflate) their stock prices. Continue reading Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco, plus …
Google has interfered in the US Senate Elections on behalf of democrat Doug Jones, possibly on demand from a European government or political party. I know Google does such things because some of my AdWords messages were banned by Google in the U.S. after I had expanded targeting to the EU.
I know only a small part of this interference: on December 4, Google banned my paid message running on Google Adwords sites in Alabama. Below are the renderings of the message by Google Adwords.
Continue reading Google Aided EU meddling in the US Senator Elections in Alabama
This is a notice that you provide ad revenue to an organization or group that seems to attempt a violent and armed overthrow of the government, and recruits, indoctrinates, and trains mentally ill persons to carry it out. Similar activity might have been behind the murder attempt against Steve Scalise and other Republican Congressmen, committed by mentally ill James Hodgkinson in 2017. Continue reading Google Ads on a Terrorist and Violent Revolutionary Site
The Netroots Nation, a radical leftist organization, held its annual conference “drawing thousands of attendees from around the country and beyond” on August 11-13, 2017 (1a). Despite (or because) its radicalism, the conference has been attended by very high level democrat politicians, including DNC Vice Chair Keith Ellison, former Vice President Al Gore, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson. During one of the sessions the conference organizers raised and set in motion a hidden army aiding an enemy that will attack this nation. The session announcement says:
“THE PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE TO (PREDICTABLE) EMERGENCIES: NATIONAL SECURITY CRISES AND DOMESTIC CRACKDOWNS IN THE TIME OF TRUMP
Moments of crisis, such as extremist violence or an international crisis, create windows for seizing power, enacting racist repression of entire communities, restricting civil liberties, cracking down on domestic opposition and going to war. <H-word> used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; George W. Bush used 9/11. With Trump, Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.” (1b) Continue reading DNC is Involved in Possible Treason
Update. The controlling legal precedent seems to be the following quote from the Supreme Court Decision:
“To determine whether an actor’s conduct possesses “sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” the Supreme Court has asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.””
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)).
When Google eliminates climate realist or conservative websites from its top search results, the “message” is certainly not understood by those who view it. Further, this is the main purpose of this conduct – to suppress speech without other people understanding that. Google also flatly denies that it conveys any message in its search results. It claims impartiality and attempts to provide “the most useful and relevant” search results. Thus, intentional distortion of the search results by Google does not even bring the First Amendment into play. It is really fraud, not speech.
Google Search is a commercial service that Google provides to its users. Google must provide this service in good faith and in accordance with other applicable laws. Google search is service, not “speech.” Continue reading Google Search Fraud
I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much. Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy. For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them. I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.
The suppression of conservative websites in Google organic search results has been documented many times. Continue reading Google and Twitter Censor non-Leftist Views Under Pretext of “Extremist Propaganda”
Final update: Google has permanently banned me from AdWords:
“We’ve confirmed that your account is in violation of our AdWords policies. Since this decision is final, the account will not be reinstated. Please avoid creating additional AdWords accounts, as they will be subjected to the same suspension.
Our support team will not be able to give you any more specifics on the suspension.”
(Updated on January 9 after the initial publication on January 8.)
Google suspended my Adwords account two days ago. Continue reading Google Has Suspended My Adwords Account
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft (GFTM) and other companies that started as platforms or service providers and became content vendors are American companies subject to all U.S laws. Their directors and executives are American citizens and residents, and owe loyalty to the U.S. That stands true even if they derive most of their income from abroad. Continue reading US Tech Companies Must Remain Loyal
In 2015, in a vote along partisan lines, the FCC reclassified the Internet to be a telecommunication service subject to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act (the infamous FCC-15-24 Obamanet order). This was done under the pretext of net neutrality, but had nothing to do with net neutrality. Google participated in the preparation of this order, was fully aware of it, did not object. Rumor has it that Eric Schmidt personally wrote parts of the order, and broadened it. Then Google took full advantage of this reclassification and ignored its obligations stemming from it. Continue reading Google Liability under Title II
When I typed my name in the Google search on my smartphone Samsung S6, Google offered an auto-suggestion leo goldstein obituary. Continue reading Google Makes a Death Threat?
Case #13482. Fake debunking of the Oregon Petition.
The Oregon Petition (1998) against climate alarmism has been signed by 17,000+ qualified scientists. The same petition, circulated in 2007, have been signed by 31,000+ qualified scientists and other professionals. This is truth.
Climate alarmists, aided and abetted by non-critical media first, and by fake fact-checkers (like Snopes) and Google later, have spread and continue spreading various falsehoods about the Petition. The most sensational lie was that the Petition signers have not been verified, and included Spice Girls and other fictitious characters. This is not true, as explained in the email from Dr. Arthur Robinson. How could such lie receive so wide circulation? Continue reading Fake “Debunking” of Oregon Petition
Fake News peddlers noticed that they’re not trusted and found what they think of as an ingenuous way of re-establishing this trust – by marking their content with Trust Indicators, also called Truth Indicators (1). The notorious Poynter Institute, which oversees a group of self-appointed fact-checkers, says:
The project’s Truth Indicators will be placed on news sites as well as in search results. They are meant to provide a layer of assurance to readers about the content they’re looking at.
The Trust/Truth Indicators have computer codes that allow search engines and “social media” sites to recognize and give preferential treatment to that features these indicators. Each member of the GFTM (Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft) monopoly has started using them or openly threatened their customers and partners by announcing the intent to do so (Facebook, Google), in violation of the anti-trust laws.
Craig Newmark (founder of craigslist), Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Google, the Democracy Fund, the Knight Foundation, and the Markkula Foundation have taken the responsibility for funding this project (2). It’s hosted by publicly funded Santa Clara University but is global in its ambitions and includes participants from Germany, Italy, and other countries. The project claims being non-partisan but is a hyper-partisan in fact. Its participants span the gamut from far left publications like Mother Jones to the anti-Trump non entities like the Independent Journal Review, alleged by Wikipedia to be founded by former Republican staffers in 2012.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai: “I recognise that, in the Valley, people are obsessed with the pace of technological change… it’s tough to get that part right… We rush sometimes, and can misfire for an average person. As humans, I don’t know whether we want change that fast – I don’t think we do.”
Wise words, especially said in the context of the AI discussion. From an interview to The Guardian, October 2017 (https://archive.is/yEh1n). The Guardian is not worthy attention from such men.
Google has discontinued its Custom Search Engine (CSE) product. For a fee, Google CSE allowed its customers to query a degraded version of the Google search index. That enticed potential competitors to rely on Google CSE rather than building full search engines with their own indexing capacity. Now Google is shutting them down by pulling out CSE. I am not sure that it’s legal for a monopolist to handle its potential competitors in this manner.
I used Google CSE in the Sane Climate Search and Google shut me off a few days ago. The Sane Climate Search is out. I did receive a notice more than a year ago.
The Left implemented a novel technique of the Big Lie that I call a Flooding Fake. Continue reading How the Left Makes Fabrications that Convince even Conservatives
Today is November 2, 2017. I googled november 4th antifa and Google predictably returned links to the friends of antifa. The first result was from the Washington Post, which has published a full page ad for the RefuseFascism.org, promoting the November 4th riots. The second result was a surprise: Snopes, a fake fact checker, calling FALSE the opinion that “‘Antifa’ is planning a Civil War”. Continue reading Google Search Fact-checks the Future
Pretty much everything people think they know about Wikipedia they heard from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of information that cannot be trusted as facts. Amazingly, Wikipedia functions as a combination of tyranny, chaos, and opacity. Anybody can write anything in it (chaos) as long as what’s written is in harmony with the far-left politics of its San Francisco management (tyranny). But even in totalitarian countries the citizens know their rulers. The portraits of Stalin and Mao hung in every public place of the countries they ruled. This isn’t so in Wikipedia. The highest Wikipedia hierarchs (Stewards and ArbCom members) are totally anonymous and hidden behind usernames like Ks0stm. Wikipedia belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board currently consists of eight members (1). At least one of them (María Sefidari Huici, Spain) was appointed in open violation of the publicly posted bylaws. The only publicly known person on the board is Jimmy Wales, the founder. Other respected directors resigned or were pushed out years ago. Only two among the seven board members are American citizens. According to Wikipedia, it holds elections of its functionaries and power brokers but the election process is under control of a few (or even one) persons. These kingmakers are also anonymous. Most of the popularity and income (in small donations) is derived by Wikipedia’s relations with Google, which gives Wikipedia abnormally high prominence in its organic search results. However, the widely held opinion that Wikipedia is reliable on non-controversial subjects is wrong because Wikipedia regularly presents leftist opinions as non-controversial facts, making it hard to detect that a subject is in fact controversial.
Originally published on October 29, 2017. Minor updates on April 13, 2018.
Updated on 10/13/2017 and 10/15/2017
A Google search for Holocaust happened (and also for did Holocaust happen) returns the Wikipedia article Holocaust denial. This article entices readers to doubt the Holocaust and provides helpful reference information to Holocaust deniers. It is almost a dissertation in Holocaust denial that spreads over 45 pages showcasing multiple Holocaust denial theories while generously linking the profiles and books of many deniers.
To be clear, the Wikipedia’s Holocaust denial article (WHDA) does not explicitly deny that the Holocaust happened. It even criticizes Holocaust deniers and argues with them, but does that in such a way as to cast a strong doubt about the Holocaust. Continue reading Google is Still in the Holocaust Denial Business
Following the well-accepted paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Application in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse (WUWT, 09/08/2017), I checked the evolution of the intentional Google bias back to early 2015. The intentional Google anti-conservative bias in news & opinion has not noticeably changed since then. The intentional Google pro-alarmist bias in the climate debate has not noticeably changed since early to mid 2016. I could not get earlier data. The very low correlation between PGSTN and the popularity of the news & opinion domains in 2016 and 2015 confirms the validity of the PGSTN methodology.
Artificial Google bias, persisting over the long time, has been causing a vicious spiral: less traffic from Google search to demoted domains caused less sharing on social and traditional media and less traffic from other sources. That led even lower Google rankings, and so on. These effects further decreased Google ranking of the site, and so on. Finally, news & opinion websites artificially demoted by Google were not considered by many individuals as legitimate sources. This social component of the vicious spiral probably had a destructive social effect and significantly contributed to the political polarization of recent years. Continue reading Google anti-Conservative Bias Unchanged since 2015
“The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.” (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk in Global Catastrophic Risks, 2008)
What if the AI is taught to hate the atoms of which you are made? Google Search is an artificial intelligence system trained by some people that texts to hate carbon atoms, of which we are made. Other web AIs, with which Google Search AI interacts, share this trait. Their interaction creates another AI adverse to humanity – the “San Francisco AI.” Almost all new information received by journalists, politicians, bureaucrats, and many citizens is influenced by the San Francisco AI. Its contribution to climate alarmism and “the resistance” to Trump should not be underestimated.
The following table shows that the most visibility of neo-nazi sites dailystormer.com and stormfront.org came from formerly mainstream leftist news outlets. stormfront.org had PGSTN = 25.0%, and additionally received 6.9% traffic from Google’s Youtube and Wikipedia. No traffic from conservative, right, or even “alt-right” sites has been recorded. Continue reading Former MSM and Google have Lifted Neo-Nazi Sites
Papers Measuring Google Intentional Bias
Artificial bias has been found to be intentionally introduced by the Google team in addition to the natural bias caused by the media dominance of the Left and the influence foreign political entity websites.
Leo Goldstein, Google’s search bias against conservative news sites has been quantified (Sep 2017) – my latest paper. The full title is A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Applications in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse. Continue reading Recent Research into Google Search Bias
My new research paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Applications in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse is published in WUWT. Most people observe that Google search results on political topics are left leaning. But, it was hard to determine whether such leaning was a simple reflection of the left/liberal cultural dominance on the web or if the Google search team intentionally (or “artificially”) biased rankings. This paper demonstrates and even quantifies such intentional or artificial bias.
After publication, I found a 2016 study that also shows that Google results are artificially biased in favor of liberal ideology and Democratic Party candidates: Google bias in search results; 40% lean left or liberal (Matt Bentley / CanIRank.com). From the Matt Bentley study:
“Does it make sense, for example, that someone researching “Republican platform” should be presented only the official text of the platform and seven left-leaning results highly critical of that platform, with zero results supporting it?”
“… we would expect top ranked search results to have more external links compared to lower ranked search results. Instead, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. Pages with a right-leaning slant needed significantly more links to make it into the top results.”
“According to recent Google findings, online search is the resource that 87% of the population turns to first when a question arises. Online search plays a particularly prominent role in the democratic process during election season. During the 2012 election cycle, a survey of persuadable voters revealed that 49% get their news about campaigns and the election online, largely through search engines like Google, and that these voters generally trust the information they find online. Top search results are broadly perceived as being the most accurate and authoritative by members of the public with the first five search results accounting for an estimated 67% of all clicks and the first three results alone accounting for over 55% of all clicks. In their 2015 study, Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson concluded that the order of search results can have a big impact on voter behavior — and in the event of a close election, this effect could even be profound enough to determine the outcome of the election.”