Google punishes websites for merely hosting conservative authors and independent doctors. Worse, it penalizes websites for linking to content that it does not like.
Google and Microsoft continue choking independent thought on the Internet. The following are screenshots from SimilarWeb.com, showing traffic sources of Substack and Medium.com.
They have the same business model: hosting medium-sized articles of multiple authors, allowing access to free and to some of them for a fee. Substack hosts many conservative and non-conformist authors. Medium.com purged them a few years ago. The difference in the search traffic (mainly from Google) is enormous: Substack receives <12% of the traffic from the search, while Medium.com gets more than 57%. Take a look at the red columns in both figures. This percentage would be approximately the same if Google were honest.
Google’s intentional malicious bias was first calculated by the author in 2017. The bias can be determined as malicious because Google had promised its consumers the most relevant, helpful, useful, and authoritative (for each consumer) results. An intentional and significant departure from this promise shows actual malic. The bias has been getting worse since then.
Google de-ranks websites for merely hosting independent thought and is believed to do the same simply for linking to pages that Google does not like, calling them not credible or low authority. For example, SEO professionals recommend: “Make sure you link to credible sites though, because the websites you link to can also affect your authority. … If you are linking to a low authority site, the fact … might be questionable to search engines like Google.”
That suppresses independent thought nationwide, globally, in the most unexpected way on and off the Internet.
Google consumers do not know that. Most independent writers and reporters do not know that either. Internet users not using Google do not know how Google impacts what they read and view. Liberals are more likely not to understand that than conservatives. However, the Democrat political apparatus and owners and webmasters of large websites know that.
Google promises its users it will deliver results that are most relevant, helpful, useful, and authoritative (for each user) that is the most useful, relevant, and helpful for them but does not abide by this promise. “The user then receives results that are rank-ordered based on the search engine’s judgment of the likelihood that each result matches what the user was seeking in entering the search terms.” (Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt, Congressional Testimony, 2011)
Google also has obligations to the websites from which Google pilfered content. In light of the Twitter Files, we know that Google and its executives act on behalf of governments.
Originally published on May 29, 2023. Minor updates on July 23 & September 13,