I & I Editorial BoardDonald Trump may have overwhelmingly won reelection, but according to Google’s content police, saying anything nice about him is “demonstrably false” and a threat to the “democratic process.”
Do you think we’re exaggerating?
We received notice the other day that our article “Unburdened By What Has Been, Trump Is Poised To Deliver Bigly” contained, according to Google, “unreliable and harmful claims.”
What falls into this category? Content that:
- makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process.
- promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.
- contradicts authoritative scientific consensus on climate change.
Google didn’t, and never does, provide any specific information on what exactly violated these standards or what a “fix” would entail. But it did strip its ads from that page, costing us money.
So, we decided to try to figure out on our own what the violation was. There were no health claims or mention of “climate change,” so it has to be the first bullet above.
What was “demonstrably false”?
Could it be when we said that Trump is “off to an outstanding start and has the wind as his back to succeed”?
Or is it when we said he had a difficult start in 2016, failing to name hundreds of executive positions, had weak support, and was dogged by the Russia hoax? Or that he nevertheless accomplished much in his first term?
Is it our assertion that Trump won’t face these handicaps this time around? That he is off to a strong start and that this bodes well for his accomplishing even more in his second term than he did in his first?
Help us out here, Herr Google.
Maybe it’s one of the comments we posted from readers. But how can that be? Readers are expressing their own personal views – in other words, they are “participating” in the “democratic process.” Why should we be punished for letting readers express themselves in a (moderated) comment section?
No. The only reason Google blocked its ads from appearing on that article is because of anti-Trump political bias. (Google is still banning its ads from appearing on a nearly four-year-old editorial – “Trump’s Top-10 Triumphs: A Last Look At A Remarkable Presidency” – calling that one “dangerous and derogatory.”)
The leftist geeks who code whatever algorithm Google uses to sniff out “objectionable” content have programmed it to deem almost any conservative viewpoint as “unreliable and harmful” or “dangerous and derogatory.”
That’s why any time we challenge climate hysteria with facts, or dispute COVID dogma with facts, or talk about election fraud with facts, or criticize electric vehicles with facts, or bring facts to bear on any other item in the woke left’s canon, Google slaps one of those labels on it and strips its ads from those pages.
All in the name of protecting the “democratic process.”
This isn’t about shielding readers from obscene or violent content. It’s not about ensuring that companies won’t have their ads appear next to horrible stuff. It’s about starving conservative viewpoints of money. It’s about censorship by a monopolist, pure and simple.
That’s why we keep calling it out.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
See also:
- Google Sharpens Its Censorship Knives — Labels Trump Praise As ‘Dangerous’
- Google Doesn’t Want You To Know The Truth About Heat Waves And ‘Climate Change’
- Google Targets 2-Time Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Cartoonist
- Hey Google, Antisemitism Is A Feature, Not A Bug, Of The Left
- Google Tries To Silence A Castro Refugee As It Ramps Up Censorship Campaign
- Google Just Declared War On The Most Accurate Pollster In America — And On Most Americans
Google needs to be busted up.
Busting up Google might have some beneficial effects but most likely it would just cause a tech version of Tumor Lysis Syndrome; the dead and diseased cell material moves throughout the system and causes great harm. A healthy competitor to Google is a good start. The end of “gatekeepers” like Google is the better outcome. With blockchain properly deployed, who really need middle men like Google?
Trumpists claim to believe in freedom, but they prefer authoritarianism.
could you be any more stupid
When ?
That’s why I use nothing “google.” Not their search engine, not their browser, not the phones with their operating system and not their email. If everyone did that we could put google out of business. Unfortunately getting conservative America to act as a block is like herding cats, it’s a Herculean task.
Far from winning the election “overwhelmingly”, Trump got 49.9%, to Harris’s 48.3%. That’s just the first misleading statement in this editorial, in the first part of the first sentence.
That’s overwhelmingly for a Republican numbnuts(who swept every swing state)
The initial percentage was 52/48. The last number that I saw an hour ago was 50.1 for Trump. No idea where he got those numbers. Out if his “left ear” maybe? 😂
In 2016, the Left became mobilized against Trump in spite of his many supporters who were treated as right-wing fringe even though there were enough of them to get Trump elected. Now, any 2024 election map you study declares loudly that the Left is no longer mobilized against Trump but against a clear majority of American voters and I think that makes things profoundly different from 2016.
“A clear majority”? Both of Trump’s wins were by very slim margins. But true enough, it is not a “fringe,” the Right wing has chosen to support Trump in spite of his long list of baggage. But does this say something bad about the Left or the Right? Do you believe that “popularity makes right”?
Call it what you will. Hard as it is for the Left to swallow, the Dems were turned out, their policies rejected across the country. That’s not just a “Trump thing” per se. That’s a repudiation of the Left and it is richly deserved. They went crazy.
The Democrats carried the Senate seats in several states that Trump won. It’s hard to argue that this election reflects a deep ideological change.
Maybe you should recommend that your readers use a different search engine instead of G. The only way they are going to change is if enough users switch away and it affects their bottom line.
Seriously. Why is anyone trusting Google with their searches? Duckduckgo and other alternatives work just fine.
I was not a fan of anti-trust action against Google, and potentially forced unbundling of web browser from search default, but the left wages an economic and legal war and it’s institutional tools deserve counterattacks.
Marxist socialist have openly used censorship in an effort to shape political thinking while protecting their odious ideology. There must be a pathway for them to go to jail for violating the Bill of Rights.
How can an individual, who is not an office holder, violate the Bill of Rights?
Clearly monopolist and google should no control search and content…
Google. Vanguard of the liberal propaganda media.
For those who are using outdated or incorrect data to claim I’m wrong:
From factcheck:
On election night, it seemed that Trump had won a majority of votes. But as more votes were counted, Trump’s vote total fell to 49.9% of all votes cast and Harris received 48.3%, as of Nov. 26.
Confirmed in a graphic by the BBC, titled: Just how big was Donald Trump’s election victory?
From The Washington Times:
As of Tuesday morning, Mr. Trump had roughly 77 million votes banked compared with nearly 74.5 million for Vice President Kamala Harris. That works out to 49.9% of the vote for Mr. Trump and 48.3% for Ms. Harris.
The NY Post is just a tad different:
President-elect Trump won the popular vote by about 1.7 percentage points (49.9% to 48.2%).
Google, as a private actor, is entitled to its opinions just as you are, and is under no obligation to help you make money by publishing content it objects to for any reason whatsoever. But do you stand by the factual basis of all these assertions? “Weaponized Justice Department”? “Russia Hoax”?
If the Google team disagrees with the labels “Russia Hoax” for the Mueller Report and “Weaponized Justice Department” for the Trump cases, that shouldn’t depend on the election results. Point out the thing in the report that you think is a hoax, or the alleged crime that they should have let pass without an indictment. The fact that the Republicans are willing to tolerate such scandals mostly proves something about the Republicans. Trump wasn’t their only option, and none of the other candidates had similar scandals.
I can understand why I&I keep publishing using Google (I expect it’s because the ads on Google provide revenue). What I don’t understand is why I&I believes the editorial policies of Google will change.
It is obvious to me that Google has designed its algorithm to deter conservative viewpoints. This also allows the leftist point of view (which leads to nothing but fascistic and anti-free speech thoughts) to be the “only customer allowed in the store.”
Google will never change, I hope I&I never does, but I do wonder why I&I believes that a company that believes in leftist progressiveism and fascistic behavior for itself-and so is anti-free speech-will ever play fair in the free market of ideas?
Your are no doubt right. But they are a monopolist and need to be called out on their abuses.
It would be nice to get a, tour of Google’s facilities to see who is making these outrageous decisions. I’m thinking young skulls full of mush in their pj’s.