• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results

Search Engine Optimization, directories & backlinks

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results

Postby smix » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:00 am

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results
Daily Caller

URL: https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/09/goog ... ipulation/
Category: Politics
Published: April 9, 2019

Description: Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate. Two official policies dubbed the “misrepresentation policy” and the “good neighbor policy” inform the company’s “XPA news blacklist,” which is maintained by Google’s Trust & Safety team. “T&S will be in charge of updating the blacklist as when there is a demand,” reads one of the documents shared with The Daily Caller. “The deceptive_news domain blacklist is going to be used by many search features to filter problematic sites that violate the good neighbor and misrepresentation policies,” the policy document says. That document reads that it was, “approved by gomes@, nayak@, haahr@ as of 8/13/2018.” Ben Gomes is Google’s head of search, who reports directly to CEO Sundar Pichai. Pandu Nayak is a Google Fellow, and Paul Haahr is a software engineer, whose bio on Google’s internal network Moma indicates that he is also involved in, “fringe ranking: not showing fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or science/medical/history denial unless we’re sure that’s what the user wants. “The purpose of the blacklist will be to bar the sites from surfacing in any Search feature or news product. It will not cause a demotion in the organic search results or de-index them altogether,” reads the policy document obtained by the Caller. What that means is that targeted sites will not be removed from the “ten blue links” portion of search results, but the blacklist applies to most of the other search features, like “top news,” “videos” or the various sidebars that are returned as search results. In a section of the memo entitled “Eligibility for GNP [Good Neighbor Policy] enforcement,” the types of search results impacted by the policy are described:
“If your product shows any of the following, Misrep and GNP would apply to your PA.
* Shows content from users and news publishers (percieved 3P voice). Ex: UGC, News corpus, etc.
* Outputs single answers (perceived to come from the open web). Ex: Web answers, Video answers, etc.
* Shows content owned, licensed, or edited by Google (perceived to come directly from Google). Ex: Knowledge panels, News summaries, Oneboxes, Munin carousels, etc.”

The “ten blue links” may not be impacted by the blacklist, but virtually every other kind of Google search result is. While hard numbers are not available for how much traffic is directed through the 10 links versus the other search blocks, since the latter appear so high on the results page, the impact could be significant. “Focus on the user,” said a source at Google who described the program to the Caller. “Users need to trust any content that Google shows them, whether it’s the 10 blue links or other special search results.” Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11 of last year. Democratic California Rep. Zoe Lofgren asked why a search for the term “idiot” returned a photo of President Trump. In response, Pichai said, “This is working at scale, we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result.” A memo about the deceptive news blacklist was also obtained by the Caller, showing its last edit as Dec. 3, 2018, a week before Pichai’s congressional testimony. This document, which describes the process by which a site can be blacklisted for deceptive news, clearly shows that there is a manual component:
“The beginning of the workflow starts when a website is placed on a watchlist which is used for monitoring of sites to determine if they violate the Good Neighbor Policy. This watchlist is maintained and stored by Ares with access restricted to policy & enforcement specialists working on the Good Neighbor Policy. Access to the listing can also be shared at the discretion of pcounsel and legal investigations on a need to know basis to enforce or enrich the policy violations. The investigation of the watchlist is done in the tool Athena, the Ares manual review tool, and intakes signals from Search, Webspan, and Ares in order to complete reviews. … Once a domain is determined to be violating the misrepresentation policy or the Good Neighbor Policy, such patterns are then added to deceptive_news_blacklist_domains.txt by the Trust & Safety team.”

The document indicates that there is, among other things, a “manual review tool” involved in maintaining the blacklist. On the blacklist are a number of conservative sites, including Gateway Pundit, Matt Walsh’s blog, Gary North’s blog “teapartyeconomist.com,” Caroline Glick’s website, Conservative Tribune, a property of The Western Journal and the website of the American Spectator. “You can’t trust the human judgment of Google’s Trust and Safety team,” said the source at Google with knowledge of their practices. Requests for comment from Google’s press team have gone unreturned as of publication time.
Update: A Google spokesperson provided the following statement to the Daily Caller after this story was published: “We do not manually determine the order of any search result, nor do our algorithms or policies attempt to make any judgement on the political leanings of a website. Our Google News inclusion policies are publicly available online. They provide guidelines on content and behaviors for matters like sponsored content, deceptive practices, and more. Sites that do not adhere to these policies are not eligible to appear on news surfaces or in information boxes in Search. These policies do not impact the way these sites appear in organic blue-link Google Search results.”



EXCLUSIVE: Google Employees Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search
Daily Caller

URL: https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/goog ... ive-media/
Category: Politics
Published: November 29, 2018

Description: Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal. The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal. Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win. Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again. “This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF. Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results. “How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote. “I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued. “Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.” Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures. One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take. “Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer. “I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added. “Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples. “That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added. “What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested. “Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added. “We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google. “We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote. Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017. Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims. Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision. A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes. “This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email. “Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.” The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends. After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order. A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.” Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes. “I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook. “I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added. “Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued. Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.” Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks. Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies. Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.



FORMER GOOGLE ENGINEER: How Google Discriminates Against Conservatives
Daily Caller

URL: https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/19/wack ... riminates/
Category: Politics
Published: August 19, 2019

Description: How does Google discriminate against conservatives? As a software engineer who used to work for Google, I could point to many examples, but let’s start with YouTube’s “Restricted Mode.” Targeted at libraries, schools, and public institutions, Restricted Mode filters out “videos containing potentially adult content,” effectively censoring videos in places where it’s enabled. In October 2016, several publications wrote about how Restricted Mode worked to hide educational videos from conservatives. A few years later, a Google vice president would not even concede to Congress that a PragerU video on the Ten Commandments had been restricted by mistake. The explanation was so absurd — Google said the video’s discussion of the commandment against murder constituted a “reference” to murder “and potentially Nazism” — that founder Dennis Prager joked he would re-release the video as the “Nine Commandments” to remove the commandment against murder. In March 2017, publications such as TechCrunch, Gizmodo and The Guardian wrote about how Restricted Mode was hiding educational videos from the LGBT community. A few days later, YouTube responded on Twitter: “Sorry for all the confusion with Restricted Mode. Some videos have been incorrectly labeled and that’s not right. We’re on it! More to come.” Sadly, this example fits a larger pattern of discrimination: when the same problem affects multiple demographics, Google only fixes the problem for some demographics, often ignoring other demographics such as conservatives (and also Christians). In June 2017, Google was asked whether it welcomed conservative perspectives during its annual board meeting. Then-chairman, Eric Schmidt, responded that Google was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusion and science-based thinking. To that point, Google’s diversity curriculum does cite a number of scientific studies on racial or gender bias. Interestingly enough, similar studies using the same techniques have also provided scientific evidence for political bias; one such study found that political bias distorted the evaluation of resumes. Since then, additional studies have discovered that learning others’ political beliefs can negatively impact your ability to evaluate their expertise in nonpolitical domains. For a company that emphasizes science-based thinking, you would think that Google would start promoting those studies in its diversity programs. Instead, they frequently promote far-left theoretical approaches such as intersectionality and critical theory, citing “experts” like Robin DiAngelo. One Google-endorsed talk promoted DiAngelo’s book “White Fragility.” In that book, DiAngelo wrote, “Whites control all major institutions of society and set the policies and practices that others must live by. Although rare individual people of color may be inside the circles of powers⁠ — Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Marco Rubio, Barack Obama⁠ — they support the status quo and do not challenge racism in any way significant enough to be threatening.” During my first week at Google, Google became the first major tech company to publicly release its diversity data for racial and gender diversity. When I and others started pushing Google to collect and publish data on viewpoint diversity, though, we consistently ran into a brick wall. Google’s own book, “How Google Works,” says that you need data: “You cannot be gender-, race-, and color-blind by fiat; you need to create empirical, objective methods to measure people. Then the best will thrive, regardless of where they’re from and what they look like.” Yet time and time again, Google has taken the exact opposite approach on political diversity, declaring that they are politically neutral by fiat, yet never providing the data to prove it. Even Google CEO Sundar Pichai took this approach when he testified before Congress. Google’s selective application of its principles has become so endemic that it affects Google’s products as well, including the very definition of algorithmic unfairness: “unjust or prejudicial treatment of people that is related to sensitive characteristics such as race, income, sexual orientation, or gender, through algorithmic systems or algorithmically aided decision-making.” In congressional testimony, one Google director said, “We build for everyone, including every single religious belief, every single demographic, every single region, and certainly every political affiliation.” Google’s definition of algorithmic unfairness, which was leaked to Project Veritas, tells a different story. Google does not build products for “every single demographic.” Instead, it selectively builds products for demographics with “sensitive characteristics.” At Google, all demographics are equal, but some demographics are more equal than others. Of course, that leads to this inevitable question: what characteristics are considered sensitive? The leaked document later says that sensitive characteristics “are especially likely to include characteristics that are associated with less privileged or marginalized populations.” For those who are familiar with the language of intersectionality, you know what that means. If you are treated unfairly because of your race, that would qualify as algorithmic unfairness. If you are treated unfairly because you are a conservative, that would not qualify as algorithmic unfairness. If you are treated unfairly because of your religion, it would depend on whether it’s a “privileged” religion such as Christianity or a “marginalized” religion such as Islam. Yes, it’s true that if you’re training a machine to recognize faces, but your training data lacks racial diversity, your product will perform worse with minorities. It’s also true that if you’re training a machine to detect hate speech, but your training data lacks political diversity, your product will perform worse on conservative content. Both are legitimate problems, but the decision of which problems meets Google’s definition of algorithmic unfairness, of which problems are more equal than others, is a decision that’s made by Google’s employees, not by Google’s algorithms. Google’s “Machine Learning Fairness” initiative highlights a number of vanguard projects, including one familiar project: Restricted Mode. If Restricted Mode runs into a problem that affects women, minorities, or people who use the pronoun “zie,” you can rest assured that Google will fix it. If you’re Dennis Prager, though, it looks like you’ll have to keep avoiding the Ten Commandments.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Research: Google Search Bias Flipped Seats for Democrats in Midterms

Postby smix » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:14 pm

Research: Google Search Bias Flipped Seats for Democrats in Midterms
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/ ... -midterms/
Category: Politics
Published: March 22, 2019

Description: New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.

google-what-bias.jpg

The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge. The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings. Epstein says that in the days leading up to the 2018 midterms, he was able to preserve “more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked.” Analysis of this data showed a clear pro-Democrat bias in election-related Google search results as compared to competing search engines. Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results. As Epstein’s previous studies have shown, this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters, who often assume that their search results are unbiased. Epstein has called this the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). According to Epstein’s study, at least 35,455 undecided voters in the three districts may have been persuaded to vote for a Democrat candidate because of slanted Google search results. Considering that each vote gained by a Democrat is potentially a vote lost by a Republican, this means more than 70,910 votes may have been lost by Republicans in the three districts due to Google bias. In one of these districts, CA 45, the Democrat margin of victory was just over 12,000 votes. The total Democrat win margin across all three districts was 71,337, meaning that bias Google searches could account for the vast majority of Democrat votes. Extrapolated to elections around the country, Epstein says that bias Google results could have influenced 4.6 million undecided voters to support Democrat candidates. Moreover, Epstein’s findings are based on modest assumptions, such as the assumption that voters conduct one election-related search per week. According to Epstein, marketing research shows that people typically conduct 4-5 searches per day, not one per week. In other words, the true impact of biased search results could be much higher. Epstein’s study may also understate the level of liberal bias in Google search results, due to its use of a 2017 study from Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center to rank sources by their bias. The study assigns conservative sources like Breitbart News a far higher bias rating than ostensibly centrist but in fact highly liberal sources like the New York Times. The study also gives online encyclopedia Wikipedia a non-liberal bias rating, despite the fact that its most controversial pages are typically hijacked by its cabal of left-wing editors to push partisan liberal narratives. As the Los Angeles Times notes, Epstein is not a Republican and publicly supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nevertheless, Democrats and liberals continue to ignore or doubt his findings. House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has repeatedly called claims of big tech bias a “conspiracy theory,” as have other congressional Democrats. And left-wing academics interviewed by the Los Angeles Times also heaped doubt on Epstein’s work. Dr. Robert Epstein is featured in the 2018 documentary The Creepy Line, which was produced by Breitbart News editor-at-large Peter Schweizer and explores the bias amongst the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley. Breitbart News continues to expose left-wing bias at Google. Recent reports reveal that company managers have told employees that the tech giant must stop “fake news” because “that’s how Trump won,” that Google-owned YouTube adjusted its algorithms to push pro-life content off its top search results, and that the company’s own internal researchers describe the company’s changes in policy since 2016 as a “shift towards censorship.”



Google Lawsuit: Senior Engineer Alon Altman Wanted to Sabotage Trump’s Android Phone, Ban His Gmail Account
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/ ... l-account/
Category: Politics
Published: April 19, 2019

Description: Alon Altman, a senior software engineer at Google, pressured the company to sabotage President Trump’s Android phone, according to new evidence released via James Damore’s class-action lawsuit against the company. Calling on the tech giant to use the “full economic force [of] Google for good”, Altman also suggested deleting the gmail accounts of Trump, his administration, and his aides for “abuse.” Altman – who is still employed by the tech giant – also called on Google to blacklist “alt-right’ sites on the Google ad network (she falsely included Breitbart News in this category — an assertion refuted by a Harvard and M.I.T. study), and take down all “alt right videos” from YouTube. She also called on the tech giant to remove “neo-Nazi sites such as ‘The Daily Stormer'” from the Google search index. Altman has been employed at Google for seven years, and according to inside sources, is one of the most radical leftists at the company. She was named as one of the key architects of political discrimination at Google by a whistleblower we interviewed last August. As we have reported, she has previously called on the company to discipline or terminate any employee who agreed with James Damore’s viewpoint diversity manifesto, which argued that there was an atmosphere of political intolerance at Google. Google seemed to follow at least one of Altman’s suggestions, effectively kicking The Daily Stormer off the internet in August 2017, a move that was condemned even by the left-leaning Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). While Google did not follow Altman’s suggestion to remove Breitbart News from its ad network, its employees have begun advising clients to steer clear of Breitbart News, as we exclusively reported in February. More evidence that Google’s ad departments are trying to undermine the revenue of conservative sites has just been released via the Damore lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, when Google’s “Large Customer Sales” (LCS) team learned that the Canadian conservative news site The Rebel Media had been targeted by the far-left group Sleeping Giants, they used this as an excuse to advise clients to remove ad placements from conservative websites. In a template email to Google clients, Marshall Self, Director of Agency at Google, recommended that clients take advantage of Google’s “wide number of controls, including placement exclusions and filters for political content” to remove ads from specific sites, apps, YouTube channels and videos. This is the latest information that has been released as part of the Damore lawsuit. Yesterday, we reported that Google cautions many of its managers against rewarding behavior that caters the values of “white-male dominant culture,” including “meritocracy,” “individual achievement” and “avoiding conflict.” Three new plaintiffs have joined Damore’s lawsuit against Google, which alleges that the company discriminates against white, Asian, male, and conservative individuals.



STUDY: The CNN Search Engine — Google Search Results Overwhelmingly Favor Mainstream Media
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/ ... eam-media/
Category: Politics
Published: May 12, 2019

Description: According to data compiled by Northwestern University, Google search results overwhelmingly favor CNN compared to other news sources, followed by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Of the top 20 news sources promoted by Google in its “top stories”, the top results on its News Search feature, just one was somewhat right-wing, Fox News. But Fox accounted for just three percent of the stories that appeared in “top stories,” compared to 10.9 percent for CNN, 6.5 percent for the New York Times, and 5.6 percent for the Washington Post. Other mainstream or left-wing media sources which represented the top 20 sources include ABC, CBS, NPR, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, BBC, The Verge, Al Jazeera, Politico, and the LA Times. 86 percent of all results in Google’s “top stories” came from the top 20. Of those, all but the three percent of Fox results came from left-wing or establishment news sources. Even mainstream media sources with a reputation for a right-of-center editorial line, like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post do not appear in the top 20. Lead researcher Nicholas Diakopoulos, an assistant professor at Northwestern University, explained his methodology in a story for the Columbia Journalism Review:
To audit Top Stories, we scraped Google results for more than 200 queries related to news events in November, 2017. We selected the queries to test by looking at Google Trends every day and manually choosing terms related to hard news events. These included names of people in the news such as “colin kaepernick,” breaking news events such as “earthquake,” and issue-specific queries such as “tax reform” or “healthcare gov.” We set up our scraper to minimize the potential for result personalization (the process by which Google tailors its search results to an account or IP address based on past use), and ran each query once per minute for a full 24 hours. In total, we collected 6,302 unique links to news articles shown in the Top Stories box. For each of those links we count an article impression each time one of those links appears. The data shows that just 20 news sources account for more than half of article impressions. The top 20 percent of sources (136 of 678) accounted for 86 percent of article impressions. And the top three accounted for 23 percent: CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. These statistics underscore the degree of concentration of attention to a relatively narrow slice of news sources.

Recent stories have highlighted the left-wing bias of Google’s search results. Leaks from the company reveal that it deliberately blacklisted mainstream conservative sources like Conservative Tribune from its news search results. It also adjusted its search results on YouTube for politically charged search terms like “abortion” to promote mainstream media sources. Democrats have labeled the idea of anti-conservative bias by tech giants a “conspiracy theory” — but the evidence that Google does indeed discriminate against conservative viewpoints is becoming overwhelming.



Google Insider to Project Veritas: Company Will ‘Never’ Let Somebody Like Trump Come to Power Again
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/ ... wer-again/
Category: Politics
Published: June 24, 2019

Description: A Google insider who spoke anonymously to Project Veritas claims the company is devoted to preventing anything like the 2016 election of Donald Trump from happening again. The insider who spoke to Project Veritas also drew attention to the covert suppression of non-progressive voices on YouTube, a Google-owned platform, said that stopping President Donald Trump and other politicians like Trump has become a priority for the tech giant. The insider claimed that the company did a “complete 180 in what they thought was important,” abandoning earlier ideals of self-expression and “giving everyone a voice” in favor of crackdowns on “hate.” Previous leaks from Google support the insider’s account of a dramatic shift in thinking following the election of Trump. An internal company document titled “The Good Censor” leaked to Breitbart News last year admits that the company has undergone a “shift towards censorship,” in part as a response to the events of 2016. Earlier in the year, recently-fired Google software engineer Mike Wacker spoke of a colleague who informed him that a manager at the company said the tech giant “need[s] to stop hate [speech] and fake news because that’s how Trump won.” Via Project Veritas’ interview with the insider:
There’s this façade about what they’re doing, but what they’re actually doing, what the employees are actually seeing inside the company is different. And, people need to know what’s going on with Google, and that they are not an objective piece – they’re not an objective source of information. They are a highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again. Right after Donald Trump won the election, in 2016, the company did a complete 180 in what they thought was important, before they thought self-expression, and giving everyone a voice was important, but now they’re like, “Hey, there’s a lot of hate.” And because there’s a lot of hate and misogyny, and racism, that’s the reason why Donald Trump got elected. They started talking about the need to combat hate and racism online, and also at YouTube. They had the same talks by the CEO, Susan, and they talked about combating that and getting rid of unfairness.

Project Veritas also obtained undercover footage revealing yet another Google executive declaring the company’s intention to intervene in its products to stop Trump in 2020. “Responsible innovation” head Jen Gennai was recorded stating that Google shouldn’t be broken up because smaller companies couldn’t prevent “another Trump situation.”



Project Veritas – Google Exec Decries Trump’s Election: ‘How Do We Prevent It from Happening Again’
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/ ... ing-again/
Category: Politics
Published: June 24, 2019

Description: Undercover videos recorded by Project Veritas reveals that Google is determined to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump in 2020, and is altering its products with this aim in mind. The report includes undercover footage featuring a top Google executive, Jen Gennai, discussing how Google might prevent an electoral outcome like 2016 from happening again. Here’s what Gennai says in the undercover video:
We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again. We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?

Gennai also declares her opposition to Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to break up Google. Why? Because, says Gennai, if Google is broken up it can’t prevent another “Trump situation.”
Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.

Gennai also declared that no amount of soft pressure from Congress or the White House will make Google change its ways. In other words, talk won’t help — if politicians want to change Google’s behavior, they’ll have to go beyond committee hearings and actually change the law.
We got called in front of Congress multiple times, so we’ve not shown up because we know that they’re just going to attack us. We’re not going to change our, we’re not going to change our mind. There’s no use sitting there being attacked over something we know we’re not going to change. They can pressure us but we’re not changing. But we also have to be aware of what they’re doing and what they’re accusing us of.

According to her professional profile, Gennai works on “responsible innovation” in the Global Affairs division of Google — the same division run by Kent Walker, the Google VP who has declared his intention to make the populist-nationalist movement represented by Donald Trump a “blip” or “hiccup” in history, which he said “bends towards progress.” Walker made these statements just days after the 2016 election, in a confidential video recording that was leaked to Breitbart News.



Robert Epstein: ‘Google Is a Totalitarian Entity,’ ‘Way Beyond’ Monopoly
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/06 ... -monopoly/
Category: Politics
Published: June 25, 2019

Description: Google’s shaping of people’s attitudes and behaviors through its control of internet searches amounts to something “way beyond” a monopoly, determined Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. He joined Monday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak to discuss Project Veritas’ undercover investigation documenting Google executives’ stated commitment to avoid another “Trump situation.” “What we have here is yet another confirmation of what I and some other people have been trying to warn the world about for years. Google has been amazing in just keeping to itself and never allowing anything to leak, but this is probably the fourth or fifth major leak [within the past year] of materials again confirming what we could call my worst fears about the company.”



“This has been happening for years,” said Esptein of Google’s manipulation of its services to advance left-wing and partisan Democrat politics. “This is happening now. This is happening every single day, and it’s not just happening in the U.S, which is why I’m speaking up, because politically, I’m closer to Google than I am to Breitbart. “ Epsitein continued, “I’m speaking up because this is happening now. This is not something they’re planning to do next year. This is something they’re doing right now. They’re training the algorithms to do this better and more effectively, more comprehensively. This is happening right this minute. This is happening today.” “Google algorithms are having a dramatic impact on the thinking, behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, purchases, and voting preferences of two-and-a-half billion people, right now,” stated Epstein. “That’s the power they have. That’s the power they’re exercising.” Google’s status is beyond that of a monopoly, explained Epstein. “This is what a totalitarian regime does,” said Epstein of Google’s leveraging of its power in pursuit of political ends. “This is not a monopoly. A monopoly fixes prices. That’s not what this is. This is way beyond that. This is a repressive government. This is a totalitarian, authoritarian government that at this point rules much of the world.” Epstein recalled, “I had calculated back in 2015 that Google’s search algorithm — even by that time — was determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world. This is because a lot of elections are very close, so it’s very easy to flip them. Epstein went on, “Ninety-two percent of the searches in the world are conducted on Google’s search engine, and people trust the results they’re getting because [they believe] they’re getting them from an algorithm, and algorithms are objective and impartial. That shifts the opinion very rapidly and dramatically of people who are undecided.” “Google is not a monopoly,” repeated Epstein. “Google is a totalitarian entity — a government-like entity — the likes of which the world has never seen, and no, I am not exaggerating. If anything, I am underplaying just how creepy this situation is.” Epstein assessed the worldview of Google’s executives as politically messianic in its paving of the metaphorical road to hell with good intentions. “The logic behind these creepy terms [such as “algorithmic unfairness”] is utopian,” stated Epstein. “In other words, these are people who see themselves as do-gooders. For the most part, I see them as do-gooders, also, because politically, I’m not a conservative. But the point is they see themselves as do-gooders. They see themselves as utopian, as people with a mission to create a better world.” Epstein continued, “So they use language — the way they use the terms ‘fairness’ and ‘unfairness’ is so creepy — which on its surface looks really good, right? ‘Let’s have fairness in what we show people. Let’s have fairness in our algorithms.’ Except when you look more carefully, what they’re really saying is ‘Let’s promote one particular set of values. Let’s promote one particular political party. Let’s suppress material that contradicts the values that we hold and the politics we believe in.'” “They’re hiding all that, which is a very simple straightforward political agenda,” added Espitein. They’re hiding that behind this very highfalutin utopian language. We’re here to make the world better.” Epstein teased a forthcoming proposal of his which he said will “solve the Google problem.” “I’ve figured out how to solve the Google problem, and I will be publishing on that within the next two weeks, or so,” said Epstein, noting his invitation to testify before Congress on political matters related to technology companies in July. “There is a way that’s quite viable to really end Google’s worldwide monopoly on search. It actually can be done, and because it can be done, I think it’s actually going to happen. I think Google’s going to go the way of the dinosaurs.” “I really think there’s a way to end their worldwide monopoly on search, and that’s what you really have to do so that Google is no longer a threat to democracy and a threat to humankind,” concluded Epstein. “You have to end their monopoly on search. I finally came up with a way to do that. I will be publishing fairly soon. The article is now being edited. It will be very, very mainstream.” “As always, I will give my friends at Breitbart a heads up so that you can cover this,” noted Epstein. Epstein shared an anecdote in which fear for his safety was expressed. “I did have someone who’s in law enforcement approach me after I had presented this idea to a small group of people and he told me he thinks I’m going to get killed sometime in the next week or two in an apparent accident,” Epstein remarked. “I’m thinking, ‘Wow, these law enforcement people have a great sense of humor, I guess,’ but he didn’t seem to be joking.”



Bokhari: Google Denies Political Bias to the Senate – Yes, Really
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/ ... es-really/
Category: Politics
Published: June 26, 2019

Description: You have to admire Google’s sheer brazenness before the Senate. Just a day after more leaked documents — as well as undercover footage of a top company executive — exposed Google’s determination to never let an election result like 2016 happen again, Google’s representatives told a Senate hearing that the company considers itself a “neutral public forum.” The company has said similar things before — one of its favorite lines is that it doesn’t let political bias affect its products. Note that Google never claims that its company culture isn’t politically biased. How could it, when its executives all expressed uniform dismay at the results of the 2016 election? Or when it fires talented software engineers for expressing mainstream political opinions about gender, while distributing U.C Berkeley-esque guidelines to its managers warning them about the dangers of “white dominant culture”? Or its lax attitude to support for the violent ‘Antifa’ movement within its workforce? The bias is widespread. That’s clear, and even Google isn’t mad enough to deny it. Their claim that the political bias doesn’t affect their products, though? Do they think we’re idiots Yes, they do think we’re idiots — and bigots, sexists, racists, etc etc. And they’re determined to make sure that stupid, bigoted voters are manipulated to make fewer stupid, bigoted decisions. That’s why the company created its YouTube blacklist, first exposed by Breitbart News earlier this year. By adding “controversial” terms (like “abortion” and “abortions”) to the list, they rearrange search results so that content from the likes of CNN, BuzzFeed and Vice rises to the top, where more people will see it. They hope that by doing so, users won’t be as likely to encounter dangerous, conservative opinions. As Project Veritas recently revealed, this search-result meddling went as far as election interference. Before the Irish referendum to decriminalize abortion last year, the tech giant made over 120 additions of search terms to the blacklist. Almost all the terms, like “repeal the 8th”, were related to the referendum. Google’s own researchers have admitted, in a document called “The Good Censor”, that it has “shifted towards censorship” since 2015-16. What happened in those years that caused such a dramatic change in policy? Could it have been the rise of populism, which Google executive Kent Walker says he wants to relegate to a “blip” in history? There have been so many leaks from Google revealing its manipulation of its own products to undermine conservatives that it’s difficult to keep track. From labeling Breitbart News a “fringe domain” to kicking the Gateway Pundit and Conservative Tribune out of news results, the company’s bias against conservatives and conservative media is clear. For Republican senators, the time for asking questions is over. Google isn’t planning on giving you any straight answers, and one of their top employees is on record stating they’ll ignore your demands anyway. Sen. Josh Hawley has the right idea — don’t come up with questions, come up with legislation.



Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Censorship of Ads
Breitbart News

URL: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... ip-of-ads/
Category: Politics
Published: July 25, 2019

Description: Presidential candidate and military veteran Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google after the tech giant blocked her ads account shortly after the first Democrat presidential debate, when Gabbard became the most-searched-for candidate in the Democrat field. Gabbard’s complaint accuses Google of censoring the candidate at the very moment when millions of Americans wanted to learn more about her. It also accuses Google of sending Gabbard’s campaign emails to people’s Gmail spam folders at a “disproportionately high rate.” The campaign seeks a legal injunction against Google to prevent further election meddling, as well as $50 million in damages. Via Gabbard’s legal complaint against Google:
At the height of Gabbard’s popularity among Internet searchers in the immediate hours after the debate ended, and in the thick of the critical post-debate period (when television viewers, radio listeners, newspaper read-ers, and millions of other Americans are discussing and searching for presidential candidates), Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account without warning. For hours, as millions of Americans searched Google for information about Tulsi, and as Tulsi was trying, through Google, to speak to them, her Google Ads account was arbitrarily and forcibly taken offline. Throughout this period, the Campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension; to get through to someone at Google who could get the Account back online; and to understand and remedy the restraint that had been placed on Tulsi’s speech—at precisely the moment when everyone wanted to hear from her.

The Gabbard campaign’s legal complaint cites Breitbart News reporting to highlight Google’s interference in the democratic process. The complaint cites the Google Tape, an hour-long recording of Google executives’ reactions to the 2016 general election obtained by this reporter and published by Breitbart News last September, and Google employees’ campaign to ban Breitbart from Google Ads, an effort that was revealed by Breitbart News last year. The legal complaint argues that Google could have a nefarious impact on American democracy if its behavior is allowed to continue unchecked. This is the viewpoint of Dr. Robert Epstein, who says the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe will “go all out” to influence the 2020 election. In a series of Tweets, the Hawaii Democrat said Google’s actions “reveals the danger of their dominance & how the dominance of big tech over public discourse threatens core American values.”
TULSI2020: In the hours following the 1st debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to our democracy that big tech companies can’t affect the outcome of elections
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) July 25, 2019

3/3 – Google’s discrimination against our campaign reveals the danger of their dominance & how the dominance of big tech over public discourse threatens core American values. They threaten our democracy & #Tulsi will fight back on behalf of all Americans.
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) July 25, 2019

According to the complaint, “Google could unilaterally and decisively end a presidential candidate’s bid for office if it chose to, for example by tweaking its search algorithm to disfavor the candidate; or blocking the candidate from its ad platforms; or keeping the candidate’s communications from getting to interested voters who use Gmail for email communications.”
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The Pernicious Impact of Google Search Bias

Postby smix » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:46 pm

The Pernicious Impact of Google Search Bias
Liberty Nation

URL: https://www.libertynation.com/the-perni ... arch-bias/
Category: Politics
Published: May 14, 2019

Description: Shocking research on the skewed-to-left Google algorithms.
At first glance, the headline of this piece might seem like one of those articles that simply tells you what you already know. After all, everyone is aware of Google’s left-wing bias, right? But no, this is not another “water is wet” article. Most people on the right have seen how the company’s search engine favors progressive sites. But many don’t understand the extent to which its algorithms skew the traffic and how this could potentially influence elections beyond 2020. The Columbia Journalism Review conducted an audit of Google’s search results and discovered that the company’s bias might be having a more pernicious impact than expected. With the decline in the level of traffic referred by social media companies, it is apparent that Google quickly is becoming the digital entity that will have the most influence on the opinions of the American public, and conservative voices are on the chopping block.
Google Becoming New Face of Censorship?
According to the Columbia Journalism Review’s study, Google’s search engine “accounts for nearly half of external referral traffic — traffic, that is, that comes from platforms, apps, and other outside sources — to news sites.” This means that Google provides more referral traffic to news sites than Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets. It is also important to point out that Facebook, in particular, gradually is withdrawing from circulating news reports. This essentially makes Google the most powerful digital entity in existence with its ability to decide what information the American public sees at any given time. The researchers analyzed the “Top Stories” box on Google’s search results. These stories appear at the very top of the page when you type in a query and news articles relevant to the search term are displayed. They explained how they came to their conclusions: “In total, we collected 6,302 unique links to news articles shown in the Top Stories box. For each of those links we count an article impression each time one of those links appears.” The data revealed that more than half of the impressions went to only 20 different news sources. The top 20% of these sources represented 86% of the total number of impressions while the top three outlets accounted for 23%. Prepare to be shocked: The top three news organizations were CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. To put it in plain English, Google directs the bulk of its users to progressive establishment media outlets. The table shows the rest of their results. As you can see, Fox News is the only non-leftist organization on the list. This chart has chilling ramifications for the conservative movement, which already struggles to have its voice heard amid unfair censorship and other initiatives designed to suppress right-leaning views. Google has not been forthcoming about the inner workings of its algorithms. But given these findings, it’s difficult to believe that the company is not deliberately skewing its search results to favor a particular political agenda. So what is happening here?
Google’s Becoming More Powerful
Google has become one of the most powerful companies in the world, and it appears that its ability to affect opinions is also on the rise. Because of this, it is likely that the company will become more brazen in its campaign to magnify progressive views while minimizing conservative ideas. Studies have shown that search engines have a profound impact on voting, and the leaders of Google understand this. Facebook and Twitter recently banned several right-leaning figures, many of whom did not engage in hate speech or extremism on their platforms. But this does not come as a surprise since many on the left still blame Facebook for Trump’s 2016 victory. Perhaps Google will ensure that it does not earn the same level of ire that social media faced in the aftermath of the election. Of course, nobody can forget the leaked video showing leaders within the company weeping because the Big Bad Orange Man won the election. It is evident that Trump derangement syndrome has completely infected Google; for this reason, conservatives must find a way to subvert its efforts. Progressives already have a hold on most of how Americans communicate. Conservatives have found another way to make their views known through alternative media. But if Google is going to step up its efforts to snuff out right-leaning opinions, conservatives must find out how to fight back. Pushing for regulations on tech companies might seem like a viable solution, but the long-term consequences might backfire. Instead, the right must figure out other means to counteract the left’s attempts to shut down opposing views.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Yet Another Study Reveals Bias in Google’s News Search

Postby smix » Sun Jun 23, 2019 8:10 pm

Yet Another Study Reveals Bias in Google’s News Search
National Legal and Policy Center

URL: https://nlpc.org/2019/05/16/yet-another ... ws-search/
Category: Politics
Published: May 16, 2019

Description: The evidence that verifies allegations of Google’s search bias against conservative resources continues to accumulate. Two researchers, Daniel Trielli and Nicholas Diakopoulos at the Computational Journalism Lab at Northwestern University, examined results from a large sample size they extracted from Google News in November 2017. They searched on 200 current news terms of the time (such as “Colin Kaepernick” and “tax reform”) and accumulated 6,302 links to articles shown in the search engine’s “Top Stories” box – the most desirable outcome for Web publishers, to gain traffic from curious readers. The results: Only 20 news organizations’ sites were represented in more than half of “Top Stories,” according to Diakopoulos’s explanation in the Columbia Journalism Review, and 86 percent of article impressions in those results came from just the top 20 percent of sources. According to the study’s findings, CNN received nearly 11 percent of impressions in “Top Stories,” the New York Times 6.5 percent, and the Washington Post 5.6 percent – collectively accounting for 23 percent of the best outcomes a news organization can hope for from Google. “These statistics underscore the degree of concentration of attention to a relatively narrow slice of news sources,” Diakopoulos wrote in CJR. While not surprising, the fact that these three left-leaning legacy media sources, which are among the most hostile to conservative perspectives and President Trump, is disturbing. “Prior research has shown that search engines can affect users’ attitudes, shape opinions, alter perceptions and reinforce stereotypes, as well as affect how voters come to be informed during elections,” Diakopoulos wrote. “As such, media diversity is an important aspect to the way that Google—or any news aggregator—curates sources and perspectives.” He further explained, based on findings from Web analytics firm Parse.ly, that about 23 percent of all news site traffic is derived from searches, with Google accounting for approximately half of those referrals. It is widely known that Google wields outsized influence over commerce, which is increasingly moving to the Web with the advent of Amazon and its highly efficient and speedy home delivery capabilities. Retailers are increasingly driving sales to their websites and shuttering their brick-and-mortar locations, because fewer shoppers are showing up there. Many businesses have employees or teams dedicated solely to “search engine optimization,” for the specific purpose of making sure their companies show up at the top of search results for potential customers. These workers focus almost entirely on Google’s platform (as opposed to other lesser-used ones such as Bing or Yahoo!). The same goes for the news business. And while the respected Northwestern researchers didn’t set out to produce a “biased against conservatives” study (of which there are already many), their findings produced that expected outcome that favored CNN, New York Times, and Washington Post and other liberal media. Beyond those well-known sources, the researchers also found that 62.4 percent of “Top Stories” results were from left-leaning sites, and 11.3 percent were from right-leaning sites (26.3 percent had no identified political leaning based on another study). The Northwestern research confirms other reports about Google’s alleged news search bias favoring liberal outlets and outcomes. During the 2016 campaign research psychologist Robert Epstein confirmed earlier findings revealed in a viral YouTube video that showed Google’s auto-complete search function (when you start typing and Google recommends various search terms) offered only positive suggestions when beginning a search on “Hillary Clinton,” but no negative ones. Google-owned YouTube has now censored that damning video. PJ Media conducted a similar Google News search project focused on the term “Trump,” and found that 96 percent of the results were from liberal outlets. Then there were the documents given to The Daily Caller that showed the Google maintains a manually controlled blacklist against conservative websites, which determines how and where their content appears in search results. There are many other examples, and each time evidence is uncovered, Google spokespersons insist that everyone is imagining things and that there’s really nothing to it, because the company operates with no bias at all. CEO Sundar Pichai even testified to that claim before Congress. So Google responded similarly to the Northwestern findings. “We have no insight into the methodology these researchers used,” a Google statement said. “Other researchers have found exactly the opposite. The fact is that like Google search and Google News, our top stories feature has absolutely no signal for a story’s political point of view and simply reflects the overall corpus of news and information on the web.” The fairly objective Northwestern researchers say if that’s the case, then Google should serve its users (both the searchers and those searched) better with greater transparency, because the company operates as the Internet gatekeeper and traffic director for most Web surfers. “What we do know is that Google’s algorithmic curation of news in search converts to real and substantial amounts of user attention and traffic,” Diakopoulos wrote in CJR. “News source concentration on Google implies an unequal capture of attention and its benefits, including any advertising or potential subscription revenue that might result. “If they are serious about supporting digital-first newsrooms, algorithmic news curators, including Google and others, might be more explicit in articulating the inherent design tradeoffs between the relevance desirable for individuals, the diversity desirable for society or democracy, and the fair competition desirable for news organizations.”
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Google Admits It Wants to ‘Prevent The Next Trump Situation’

Postby smix » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:14 am

Google Admits It Wants to ‘Prevent The Next Trump Situation’
Human Events

URL: https://humanevents.com/2019/06/24/goog ... situation/
Category: Politics
Published: June 24, 2019

Description: An undercover investigation by Project Veritas unmasked Google’s efforts to suppress conservative content creators across its platforms in a bid to manipulate the 2020 election.

veritas-google.jpg

Google has the means to prevent another “Trump situation” in 2020 by throttling conservative voices across its platforms. Executives at the firm seem willing to exercise it, according to new footage released by Project Veritas. A Google insider blew the whistle on the search giant’s suppression of conservative content creators on YouTube and Google News. The Project Veritas investigation unmasked the Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections. It is backed up by testimony from the insider, leaked internal documents, and an undercover video of a senior Google executive. “They’re going to redefine a reality based on what they think is fair and based upon what they want, and what and is part of their agenda,” the Google insider said. In the video, Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation Jen Gennai criticizes Elizabeth Warren’s “misguided” suggestions on “breaking up Google”. She explains “smaller companies don’t have the resources,” unlike Google, to “prevent the next Trump situation.” The Google executive appears to hold the company partially responsible for the election of President Donald Trump. Gennai works in the same division run by Kent Walker, a Google VP who assured employees “history is on our side”. Walker urged Google staff to work against the rise of populism and nationalism. “Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided. Like that will not make it better it will make it worse. Because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It’s like, a small company cannot do that.” “We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us. It was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like. Everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, ‘what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?’” “We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?” Gennai’s department monitors and evaluates the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in the company’s search algorithms. It provides recommendations on altering search results and content curation. Crucially, the department provides Google with an editorial direction. The insider says the company uses Machine Learning Fairness as one of its “many tools” to promote a political agenda. He provided documents to back up the allegation. The insider provided search examples that shows how it works. Typing “women can” into the search engine provides auto-completed results empowering to women. Conversely, typing “men can” provides results intended to break gender stereotypes. “Men can get pregnant,” “men can have periods,” and “men can cook” are some of the new results. Other leaked documents claim Google actively prioritizes content from some news publishers over others. They even show how the company makes these determinations. One document titled “Fake News-letter” promotes a goal of establishing a “single point of truth” for the definition of “news”. Google says it removes “low-quality sources” and “misinformation”. This point is backed up by Gennai’s remarks to Project Veritas investigators: “We have gotten accusations of around fairness is that we’re unfair to conservatives because we’re choosing what we find as credible news sources and those sources don’t necessarily overlap with conservative sources …” The insider alleges establishment-unfriendly content creators like Dave Rubin are routinely suppressed by YouTube’s recommendation algorithms. YouTube is wholly owned by Google. “What YouTube did is they changed the results of the recommendation engine. And so what the recommendation engine is it tries to do, is it tries to say, well, if you like A, then you’re probably going to like B. So content that is similar to Dave Rubin or Tim Pool, instead of listing Dave Rubin or Tim Pool as people that you might like, what they’re doing is that they’re trying to suggest different, different news outlets, for example, like CNN, or MSNBC, or these left leaning political outlets.” The insider’s remarks have been backed up by content creators like Lauren Chen, who remarked on Twitter that since March, she noticed that her usually popular videos were “not only getting fewer views, but they weren’t getting recommended by the system anymore.” Chen backed up her observations with data showing a severe drop in recommended views—from a peak of 40.7 per cent in May 2018 all the way down to 9.2 per cent in May 2019. “As it stands, channel[s] like mine are in YouTube purgatory,” remarked Chen. “Our channels aren’t deleted, but we’re not growing since our content isn’t being offered to new viewers. YouTube is filtering what it recommends through an ideological bias. This is NOT how ‘platforms’ behave.” Amid evidence that Google exercises a political bent, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley is currently fighting to strip social media platforms like YouTube of their Section 230 protections. Google and YouTube hold a virtual monopoly on both search engines and online video, respectively, with zero oversight to ensure political or social equity. Some users are moving to privacy oriented search engines such as DuckDuckGo. The findings of this latest investigation raises major concerns about Google’s influence on the upcoming 2020 U.S. elections.



Cernekee: Google’s Red Guard.
Human Events

URL: https://humanevents.com/2019/08/05/cern ... red-guard/
Category: Politics
Published: August 5, 2019

Description: How the tech giant censors conservatives and punishes thought crime.
When I joined Google in 2015, I had no interest in bringing my politics to the office. I was a conservative and I knew that the company was a pretty liberal place, but I expected that we could all set our differences aside and concentrate on building great products for our users. Whatever the personal beliefs of its leadership, I assumed that Google had both a financial interest and a legal obligation to treat their employees fairly, and to serve as a neutral content provider for its diverse and global user base. I figured that I would have to sit through a few trite diversity seminars and standard trainings, but would otherwise focus on contributing to a company that I truly admired. Sadly, that was not the case. I discovered early on that Google employees were very active in politics, and the company encouraged this through discussion boards and lists. I initially avoided these discussions, but decided to jump in when I saw my peers being treated unfairly. In August 2015, there was a massive debate (which I did not participate in) on a Google employee message board over the causes of female underrepresentation in the tech industry. This debate went on for several weeks and spanned hundreds of pages. After a few conservative posters politely shared their opinions in the thread, left wing activists began viciously harassing and threatening them. The activists called for the conservative posters to be fired from Google and blacklisted from the tech industry for the crime of having a different opinion. Rather than calling for civility, Urs Holzle, a senior executive at Google, stepped in to rebuke the conservative posters and falsely accuse them of making the company an unwelcoming place for women — a completely disingenuous and uncharitable take on the situation. This mistreatment of my conservative peers struck me as fractally unfair, and I made the decision to speak up. “Many Googlers have claimed that it is ‘harassment’ or some other rule violation to critique articles that push the Social Justice political agenda,” I asked. “A few Googlers have openly called for others to be fired over it. Do you support this viewpoint, and if so, can we add a clear statement of banned opinions to the employee handbook so that everybody knows what the ground rules are?” I had hoped that Mr. Holzle, who once wrote a treatise on workplace civility called the “No Jerks Policy,” would encourage employees to set their political differences aside and treat each other in a professional way. But alas, merely asking those simple questions of a Senior VP led to a massive campaign of harassment and a formal rebuke from Google. Progressive co-workers smeared me, called me 4-letter words, and flooded my management with specious complaints. Google HR summoned me to a meeting and issued me a Final Written Warning letter claiming that my question was discriminatory and that it violated multiple company policies. When pressed on why Google felt that was the case, the company was unable to offer anything resembling a cogent explanation. Many libertarian employees at Google looked on in horror as this played out, wondering how the company they loved had turned into such a toxic and intolerant environment. They established a mailing list called “freespeech@” to promote the cause of free expression inside Google, in Google products, and on the internet at large. As someone who experienced the early days of the Web in the 1990s, my view on free speech is simple. I believe that a robust marketplace of ideas is absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of our Republic, and that both government and corporate censorship undermines this objective. I believe that every American, from Communists to Nazis to everybody in between, deserves free speech so long as they are not advocating violence or breaking the law. Free speech is near and dear to my heart, and I quickly became an active participant in the nascent Free Speech movement at Google. To that end, I occasionally defended the free speech of extremists, and I frequently spoke out against Antifa mobs who supported shutting down political expression through force. When the infamous white nationalist leader Richard Spencer was sucker punched in the face during an interview, several Googlers openly defended the violent act and took to internal company forums to promote the idea that “Nazis deserve to be punched.” While I strongly disagree with Spencer’s views, I found this precedent absolutely horrifying, and I spoke out. I also spoke out against a masked gang of Antifa thugs who violently attacked a skinhead group. I would have unabashedly defended far-left activists if violent right wingers had attacked them. I have been steadfast in maintaining that the rule of law and the right to peacefully protest are cornerstones of our society. Unfortunately, very few Googlers adhere to the maxim “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say.” Instead, they believe that defending free speech of despicable fringe characters means you must agree with them. For merely opposing Antifa violence, I was routinely accused of being “Alt Right” despite never endorsing those positions. I firmly believe that once political violence and censorship are normalized as acceptable tactics, there is no stopping point and America’s political situation will turn extremely ugly. In just the last few days, three Democratic presidential candidates have described the President as a White Nationalist. Antifa have justified attacks on mainstream conservatives such as Tucker Carlson and Andy Ngo on the grounds that they are fascists. Conservative gatherings are routinely attacked by masked thugs, who operate with impunity and shut down the debate by force. In the wake of the violent despicable, horrific, and racist mass murder in El Paso, the media will undoubtedly advance a narrative that concerns about Antifa violence should be disregarded. There is no question that murdering dozens of innocent people due to their race is exponentially worse than dousing politicians with sticky milkshakes. Yet this doesn’t make the latter an acceptable form of protest. And of course, no Googler or sane person would ever defend right wing mass murderers either. As a nation we desperately need to relearn how to disagree with each other in a civil manner and to advance our political arguments through peaceful public debates, not acts of violence or censorship. This same slippery slope affects how Google employees make decisions over search ranking algorithms and content moderation. Activists within the company started by attacking the most extreme provocateurs and trolls, knowing that no one will be willing to defend the most objectionable and horrid speech on the internet. But within months, the censorship expanded to target the mild-mannered Dennis Prager and comedians like Steven Crowder. At this rate it will not be long before everyone to the right of Bill Kristol is purged from social media. The nature of censorship at Google is as insidious as it is dangerous. While official company policies grant broad latitude for the squelching of conservative voices and are often used to that end, ordinary engineers often play a role themselves. When I worked at Google I saw numerous instances in which a liberal journalist or media figure would contact the company about a perceived issue. In every single case, Google jumped on it immediately and made it a top priority. By contrast, Google usually ignores requests from conservative media outlets. I noticed during the 2016 election cycle that a Google Image search for the name of President Trump’s book, Crippled America, would return pictures of Mein Kampf instead. I made a good-faith effort to get this problem fixed, filing a bug and escalating it up the chain. But Googlers were not the slightest bit interested in addressing it. It took nine whole months before they corrected the problem. There was no rush to fix a bug that was portraying President Trump in a negative light. This type of bias does not require orders from on high. Sundar Pichai and Larry Page do not need to make personal demands to censor conservative pages. By granting left wing employees a heckler’s veto and terrorizing anyone who disagrees with their groupthink, Google will continue to use its monopoly power over the control of information to impose a narrow ideological agenda on its users and employees.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Google Executive Admits Election Meddling to Prevent Trump Winning in 2020

Postby smix » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:43 am

Google Executive Admits Election Meddling to Prevent Trump Winning in 2020
Infowars

URL: https://www.infowars.com/google-executi ... g-in-2020/
Category: Politics
Published: June 24, 2019

Description: Brags: Congress “can pressure us but we’re not changing”

jen-gennai.jpg

A Google executive has been caught on camera admitting that the search giant is manipulating its algorithm to prevent Trump winning re-election in 2020. Jen Gennai, head of responsible innovation at Google, was filmed by Project Veritas admitting that Google is using AI and algorithmic manipulation to meddle in the next presidential election. She speaks of “putting that line in the sand” to ensure “fairness,” before acknowledging there are, “People who voted for the current president who do not agree with our definition of fairness.” “We’re also training our algorithms if 2016 happened again….would the outcome having been different?” asked Gennai, adding, “We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.” Speaking about the 2020 presidential election, Gennai said “they’ve been working on it since 2016 to make sure we’re ready for 2020,” with the implication clearly being to prevent Trump from winning re-election. Gennai even dismissed the power of Congress to keep Google in check, bragging, “We got called in front of Congress multiple times….like they can pressure us but we’re not changing.” Gennai then challenges any attempt to break up Google by explaining, “It will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.” “There’s this facade about what they’re doing, but what they’re actually doing, what the employees are actually seeing inside the company is different,” a separate anonymous whistleblower told Project Veritas. According to the whistleblower, Google is a “highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting someone like Donald Trump come to power again.” According to Robert Epstein, Google algorithmic manipulation can shift millions of votes in national elections. Google is clearly engaging in massive election meddling and should be investigated by lawmakers immediately.



Resist@Google: Leaked Doc Shows Company Encourages Employees to Stage Anti-Trump Protests
Infowars

URL: https://www.infowars.com/resistgoogle-d ... -protests/
Category: Politics
Published: June 27, 2019

Description: What political bias?
Google employees are encouraged to stage protests against the policies of US President Donald Trump, a document unearthed by Project Veritas shows. The internal document, titled “The Beginner’s Guide to Protesting (#GooglersUnite)” and made public Thursday, contains a number of tips on how to protest effectively, and gives numerous examples of anti-Trump signage and chants employees might consider. “Ideas for signage include ‘#NoMuslimBan #NoWall’ ‘Don’t Be Evil’ ‘Refugees Welcome’ ‘Immigrants Welcome’ ‘Make America Welcome Again’ ‘#GooglersUnite’ ‘Resist’ ‘Never Again’ ‘No Ban No Wall’ ‘This is not who we are’ ‘Muslims cure cancer.” The document also includes an “Expert’s Guide to Chanting” featuring a number of familiar anti-Trump chants overheard at leftist protests. The document comes as Google has had to deny it is meddling in the upcoming 2020 election after a bombshell Project Veritas exposé caught employees admitting they manipulate algorithms so users form the desired leftist opinions.



Former Google Engineer Warns: Google Will Try to Stop Trump 2020 Reelection
Infowars

URL: https://www.infowars.com/former-google- ... eelection/
Category: Politics
Published: August 3, 2019

Description: ‘They have quite a bit of control over the political process — that’s something we should really worry about,’ he says

googleengineertucker.jpg

Former Google engineer warned Friday that Google was rife with political bias and is determined to prevent President Trump from getting reelected in the 2020 election. During his appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Kevin Cernekee claimed he was fired from Google for his conservative views and will exert their anti-Trump bias during the presidential election. “It’s highly ideological. You can see bias at every level at the organization,” Cernekee told Carlson. “One thing that I noticed that just handling routine issues is plagued with bias. Like they will get a report, an email with a liberal reporter complaining about something and they will jump on it and they will fix the issue very, very quickly.”



But when it comes to errors pertaining to conservatives, Google will slow-walk fixing the problem for months, Cernekee said. “In contrast, one thing that I saw when I worked there was if you do a Google search for ‘Crippled America,’ which is Donald Trump’s book you would get results that would show ‘Mein Kampf’ instead of ‘Crippled America,'” he said. “And I reported that I filed a bug, I escalated it, I tried to run it up the chain. They took nine months to fix that bug. They just stalled at every opportunity. They assigned it to people who no longer work there. They made every excuse in the book to avoid taking down something that made Donald Trump look bad. And I saw a number of incidents just like that.” When asked by Carlson if he thinks Google will use its bias to meddle in the 2020 election, Cernekee responded, “I do believe so.” “I think that’s a major threat,” he continued. “They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake. They thought Trump should have lost in 2016. They really want Trump to lose in 2020. That’s their agenda. They have very biased people running every level of the company. They have quite a bit of control over the political process. That’s something we should really worry about.”



Google Whistleblower Exposes Big Tech’s Agenda
Infowars

URL: https://www.infowars.com/must-see-inter ... hs-agenda/
Category: Politics
Published: August 21, 2019

Description: Find out how the tech elite want to control you in this groundbreaking discussion

top-google-engineer.jpg

Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies joined Alex Jones in-person to bring to light the nefarious agenda of big tech. Zach touched on how people can take action against big tech censorship and election meddling, saying, “Call your radio stations, call your senators, call your representatives and tell them they need to stop tech censorship.” Vorhies also exposed big tech’s election meddling methods and revealed specific ways they use their control of information to brainwash the public. For example, a Google executive once claimed in testimony to Congress that the company doesn’t “utilize blacklists in search results to favor political outcomes,” but Zach used Google’s internal search engine “Moma” and found a 40-page blacklist for YouTube. Explaining why censorship has become such a large issue in the Trump era, Vorhies told Jones, “The establishment was in power in the United States, so they didn’t really need to apply all this control because they had control and when they started to lose control is when the mask got ripped off.” “As a result, now we’re seeing what they truly are and it’s a really nasty, ugly beast that is fighting for its life. They’re in a total war for the American mind,” he added. In the next show segment, Zach detailed the conformity experiment methods Google uses to control the public’s decision making. Cultural Marxism is the key force big tech uses to curb free speech in the name of political correctness as peer pressure reaches a point that people will go along with things they know to be wrong in order to avoid the backlash of the mob. Alex Jones asked Zach, “Isn’t that what leadership is? To do the right thing even when the masses aren’t for you?” “Yes, absolutely,” Zach responded. “Every society that has had an allegiance to truth is one that’s been strong and every country that has fallen into Marxism has established, first, this political correctness and this control over speech.” In this final show clip, Vorhies and Jones examine the dilated pupils of Apple’s Tim Cook and dive into the microdosing culture Silicon Valley considers a “brain hack.”
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million

Postby smix » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:33 pm

Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million
The New York Times

URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/tech ... oogle.html
Category: Politics
Published: July 25, 2019

Description: In her lawsuit, Tulsi Gabbard asserts that Google muffled her free speech rights when it briefly suspended her ad account after the Democratic debate in June.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard, the long-shot presidential candidate from Hawaii, said in a federal lawsuit that Google infringed on her free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign’s advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a federal court in Los Angeles, is believed to be the first time a presidential candidate has sued a major technology firm. In a twist that reflects Ms. Gabbard’s unorthodox political views, the claim that her speech was stifled by Google is similar to complaints made over the last year in Republican circles. Few Democrats have raised similar concerns. Big tech companies like Google are getting increasing scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators around the world for a wide variety of issues, including their influence on political debate, their handling of consumer data, and the aggressive way they compete with smaller companies. A day before the Gabbard lawsuit was filed, Facebook said the Federal Trade Commission had opened a formal antitrust investigation into its business practices. Earlier in the day, the F.T.C. announced that Facebook was fined a record $5 billion for deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal data. Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. After the first Democratic debate, Ms. Gabbard was briefly the most searched-for candidate on Google. Her campaign wanted to capitalize on the attention she was receiving by buying ads that would have placed its website at the top of search results for her name. The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. “Google’s arbitrary and capricious treatment of Gabbard’s campaign should raise concerns for policymakers everywhere about the company’s ability to use its dominance to impact political discourse, in a way that interferes with the upcoming 2020 presidential election,” the lawsuit said. Ms. Gabbard and her campaign are seeking an injunction against Google from further meddling in the election and damages of at least $50 million. Google has automated systems that flag unusual activity on advertiser accounts — including large spending changes — to prevent fraud, said Jose Castaneda, a spokesman for the company. “In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” he said. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.” No other campaigns have publicly claimed that Google has suspended their advertising accounts. Interest in Ms. Gabbard, who has served four terms in the House and is an Army National Guard veteran, spiked after the debate. She entered the presidential race as a relative unknown and is still polling at less than 1 percent, according to New York Times polling averages. But her appeal has crossed traditional party lines. She has drawn support from both the right and the left because of a staunch antiwar message. She has also received favorable coverage from influential conservative news media like Drudge Report, Fox News and Breitbart. Ms. Gabbard’s campaign is historic even in a race with many potential firsts. She was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives when she was 21, becoming the youngest woman to join a United States state legislature. When she was elected as representative for Hawaii in 2012, she was the first Samoan-American and first Hindu member of Congress. Her political views are unusual among Democratic candidates. She has a history of making anti-gay statements and worked for an anti-gay advocacy group run by her father. (She has since apologized and said her past views were wrong.) And she has tapped into increasingly bipartisan passion: wariness of big tech. The lawsuit filed Thursday said Ms. Gabbard had joined Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is also vying to be the Democratic Party nominee, in calling for large tech companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon to be broken up. “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Ms. Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections, and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.” While assertions of tech firms tipping the scales against political opponents are largely unproven, the lawsuit taps into concern that tech companies aren’t transparent about how decisions are made and they aren’t held accountable when things go wrong. Last week, senators homed in on Google in a subcommittee hearing about censorship in search. The hearing aired many largely unproven claims that Google tilts search results against conservative viewpoints. “Google’s control over what people hear, read, watch and see is unprecedented,” said Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas who led the subcommittee. “With that market power, Google can and often does control our discourse.” Gabbard campaign workers sent an email to a Google representative on June 27 at 9:30 p.m. once they realized the account had been suspended. In emails reviewed by The New York Times, the campaign sent Google a screenshot of a notice of suspension for “problems with billing information or violations of our advertising policies.” The account was reactivated at 3:30 a.m. on June 28. In the email announcing that it had reinstated the account, Google wrote that the company temporarily suspended the campaign’s account to verify billing information and policy compliance, but offered no other explanation for what had happened. The campaign said it had opened the Google advertising account in February and had bought ads on Google search before the suspension. It said there was no problem with its billing information and that it had not violated Google’s terms of service. “To this day, Google has not provided a straight answer — let alone a credible one — as to why Tulsi’s political speech was silenced when millions of people wanted to hear from her,” the lawsuit said. Without the ads, the Tulsi 2020 website, which has links for donations and information about the goals of her candidacy, appears in the first page of search results for “Tulsi Gabbard.” But it is below stories and videos about her — selected by a Google algorithm — and after her Wikipedia page, her Twitter profile and her congressional website. Roughly half of the candidates who participated in the first Democratic debates have bought ads to appear at the top of search results for their names. With the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, who is one of the leaders in fund-raising among the Democrats, the candidates buying Google search ads are polling in the low single digits, suggesting that the ads are more important to candidates with less name recognition.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech is "dangerous," "taking sides"

Postby smix » Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:47 pm

Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech is "dangerous," "taking sides"
Youtube - Project Veritas

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8
Category: Politics
Published: July 24, 2019

Description:
* Insider: “It’s time to decide, do we run the technology, or does the technology run us?”
* “I really don’t buy the idea that big tech is politically neutral.”
* “Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?”
* “I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated. It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true.”
* “I have a PhD, I have five years’ experience at Google and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to do what we want them to do.”



Project Veritas
URL: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/07/ ... ing-sides/

(New York City) Project Veritas has published an on-the-record interview with an insider who works at Google named Greg Coppola. This video interview follows a series of insider Google reports, including internal Google documents, recently published by Project Veritas which exposed political bias, “algorithmic unfairness,” and the use of “blacklists” at YouTube. Coppola is a senior software engineer at Google who works on artificial intelligence and the Google Assistant:
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Google has 'political agenda,' wants to make sure Trump loses 2020 election, says ex-employee

Postby smix » Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:41 pm

Google has 'political agenda,' wants to make sure Trump loses 2020 election, says ex-employee
Fox News

URL: https://www.foxnews.com/media/google-tr ... r-employee
Category: Politics
Published: August 5, 2019

Description: A former Google engineer who claims he has been blacklisted by the tech giant for his conservative views said he believes the company will try to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. "When President Trump won in 2016, Google executives went on stage right away and cried -- literal tears streaming down their faces. They vowed that it would never happen again and they want to use all the power and resources they have to control the flow of information to the public and make sure that Trump loses in 2020," Kevin Cernekee said on "Fox & Friends" Monday. Cernekee said Google will "ramp up the censorship" as a method to ensure Trump loses the election -- including the censoring of political advertisements, and the filtering of search results to promote its political agenda. "Google has a huge amount of information on every voter in the U.S.," Cernekee explained. He claimed the company will use it to "build psychological profiles" in an attempt to change the minds of voters across the country. The former Google worker said he noticed early on that the tech giant was mistreating its conservative employees, and he raised his concerns with human resources. In response, he received an official warning, which he took to the labor board. Cernekee was eventually fired in 2018. Google told him he was terminated for misuse of the company’s equipment, including its software system for remote access. However, Cernekee, who describes himself as a whistleblower, maintains he was terminated for his outspoken conservative views. "They are very biased. There is bias at every level of the organization...there are a lot of activists working for Google...and if you disagree with them even one iota, they will come after you, they'll target you, they'll make you an example," he explained. Cernekee, who now works at a different Silicon Valley company, called for the intervention of lawmakers and government agencies to investigate the history of labor complaints against Google, claiming that the issue exists in many of the large social media companies -- but that they are better at "keeping it under control." "I think President Trump needs to know that there are a lot of potential whistleblowers in these companies," Cernekee said. "And they will speak up if they know he has their back."
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Trump, without evidence, accuses Google of 'very illegal' action ahead of election

Postby smix » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:00 pm

Trump, without evidence, accuses Google of 'very illegal' action ahead of election
Reuters

URL: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-goog ... SKCN1UW1AM
Category: Politics
Published: August 6, 2019

Description: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday stepped up his accusations against Google, claiming without offering evidence that the technology company worked to subvert his 2016 presidential campaign and warning he was watching it “very closely” ahead of the 2020 election. Trump, in a series of early posts on Twitter, also slammed Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai, and again raised questions about the search engine’s work with China, despite his administration’s earlier comments that any such work was limited. Trump, who is seeking re-election in 2020, has repeatedly slammed Google and a host of other technology companies, echoing conservative critics’ claims of unfair treatment and raising the specter of regulation. Lawmakers have also raised the possibility of regulating the industry, in part over security and misinformation concerns following the 2016 election, and findings of Russian interference in that vote that relied heavily on leveraging technology and social media. Trump on Tuesday accused Google of “very illegal” acts but offered no evidence, and no formal charges have been announced. Representatives for the White House did not be immediately respond to a request for comment on what steps the administration was taking toward the company. Representatives for Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc, also could not be immediately reached. Trump and Google’s Pichai had met at the White House last month. Following the meeting, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said they both had been assured that any of Google’s work with China was “very, very limited.” Days later, Trump warned Google with a post on Twitter.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1845925
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Search Engines, SEO


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement