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 order). This was done under the pretext of net neutrality, but had nothing to do with net neutrality. Google and most other service providers were probably shocked by this ruling as much as others, but Google participated in the preparation of this order, was fully aware of it, and did not object. It 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 have 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
Corrected on December 11, 2017. The initial version inaccurately identified a Democrat politician that accompanied Eric Schmidt to North Korea.
The fake-stream media is trying to resuscitate the conspiracy theory of the Trump-Russia collusion with headlines like “Google Identifies Russian Election Interference on Network” (1), only to admit that Google had identified only $4,700 in suspicious ad buys.
The Senate Intelligence Committee seems to be eager to swallow this nothing-burger. I would be more interested in substantial meddling by foreign powers (including NGOs), almost all of which benefited the Democrats.
Speaking to Google, I would ask about the secretive visit of Google Chairman Eric Schmidt to North Korea in 2013. Then, the North Korean regime was on life watch. Now, just four years later, North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile, a thermonuclear bomb, and a cyber-warfare corps. Continue reading Eric Schmidt in North Korea, Hillary Campaign, Foreign Meddling, #resistance – oh my…
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). Just 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. The others resigned or were pushed out years ago. Only two among the seven board members are Americans. 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. A similar opinion is expressed by a Wikipedia insider.
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
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 results are service, not “speech.” Continue reading Google Search Fraud
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.”
Where to put a comma? Recent expulsion of the neo-nazi domain DailyStormer from Google made news. The unusually high ranking that the DailyStormer website enjoyed in Google Search before this news completely escaped coverage. The following screenshot shows Google search results for Allum Bokhari (performed on August 10, 2017 in Anaheim, California, using the clean browser configuration; no prior search for the term from the same IP). Continue reading Google – DailyStormer: Love Not Hate
Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news. Facebook denies that but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.
Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users. Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years
If anybody missed, this is how Google congratulated us with the Independence Day: Continue reading Google Doodle on 4th of July Shows Mad Animals
Google unfairly promotes climate alarmist websites and punishes climate realist ones. The table shows that more external domains link to wattsupwiththat.com than to any of the four “Google darlings,” that make the first page in the results for ‘climate change’ (no quotes) search. Continue reading Google Search Engine of Climate Alarmism
For the sake of transparency, I have uploaded copies of letters that I mailed to Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo in September 2016. Continue reading Warning Letters to Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo
Google goes totally rogue, uses artificial intelligence to promote an ideological and political agenda: https://www.google.com/about/main/gender-equality-films/
This is promoted on the Google search home page.
This is a summary of When Silicon Valley Went Off the Cliff focusing on connections and parallels between the short lived “ban alarmism” and climate alarmism. From January 28 through February 8, a number of Silicon Valley and Washington state corporate executives participated in an attempt to topple President Trump, orchestrated by the Left after President Trump signed the original order, Executive Order No. 13769 Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States on January 27. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson, one of the Attorneys General United for Clean Power, filed a stinky lawsuit against President Trump and succeeded to halt implementation of the Executive order. 129 corporations, who hold monopolies in internet search, “social media,” TV and movie streaming, as well as other markets for speech and press, filed an Amici Brief supporting the rogue attorney general against the president. Their reaction to the Executive order was so out of proportion that an analogy with climate alarmism immediately sprung to mind. Here, I do not recite the original Executive order because I expect that readers did not trust to the fake stream media reporting about it.
Some of the social dynamics behind this overreaction are described in the essay When Silicon Valley Went Off the Cliff. This new low looks like a development of climate alarmism compressed in time from 30 years to 10 days and happening on the scale of corporations instead of nations. Like a small scale experiment with societal instability, one might say. Continue reading Who Leans Left, Falls Left. The Dirty 129
There are countless other reports of manipulation of conservative sites and blogs. With Google’s longstanding policy of favoring inbound links from .edu and .gov blogs, they’ve effectively created their own hard-Left political search engine.
Continue reading Google: A Hard-Left Search Engine?
Using Google or other general search engines to find reliable information on anything related to climate change has become almost impossible because the search results are dominated by alarmist nonsense. I estimate that the alarmist propaganda machine receives tens of billions of dollars annually. Our tax money at work! (As well as our pension savings, tuition payments, utility fees, etc.)
So, I created a modest Climate of Sanity and Freedom Search page to help everyone to find the needle of facts and reason in a haystack of con and nonsensus.
This is a work in progress. Opinions and suggestions are welcome.