We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America
David Wojick
Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing outfit, which views things like skepticism of climate alarmism, and conservative views generally, as “disinformation.” The white paper explains how Google’s search and news algorithms operate, to suppress what Google considers disinformation and wants to keep out of educational and public discussions.
The algorithms clearly favor liberal content when displaying search results. Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.” The problem is, these sources are mostly “mainstream” media, which are almost entirely liberal.
Google’s algorithmic definition of “authoritative” makes liberals the voice of authority. Bigger is better, and the liberals have the most and biggest news outlets. The algorithms are very complex, but the basic idea is that the more other websites link to you, the greater your authority.
It is like saying a newspaper with more subscribers is more trustworthy than one with fewer subscribers. This actually makes no sense, but that is how it works with the news and in other domains. Popularity is not authority, but the algorithm is designed to see it that way.
This explains why the first page of search results for breaking news almost always consists of links to liberal outlets. There is absolutely no balance with conservative news sources. Given that roughly half of Americans are conservatives, Google’s liberal news bias is truly reprehensible.
In the realm of public policies affecting our energy, economy, jobs, national security, living standards and other critical issues, the suppression of alternative or skeptical voices, evidence and perspectives becomes positively dangerous for our nation and world
Last year, I documented an extreme case of this bias the arena of “dangerous manmade global warming” alarmism. My individual searches on prominent skeptics of alarmist claims revealed that Google’s “authoritative source” was an obscure website called DeSmogBlog, whose claim to fame is posting nasty negative dossiers on skeptics, including me and several colleagues.
In each search, several things immediately happened. First, Google linked to DeSmogBlog’s dossier on the skeptic, even though it might be a decade old and/or wildly inaccurate. Indeed, sometimes this was the first entry in the search results. Second, roughly half of the results were negative attacks – which should not be surprising, since the liberal press often attacks us skeptics.
Third, skeptics are often labeled as “funded by big oil,” whereas funding of alarmists by self-interested government agencies, renewable energy companies, far-left foundations or Tom Steyer (who became a billionaire by financing Asian coal mines) was generally ignored.
In stark contrast, searching for information about prominent climate alarmists yielded nothing but praise. This too is not surprising, since Google’s liberal “authoritative” sources love alarmists.
This algorithm’s bias against skeptics is breathtaking – and it extends to the climate change debate itself. Search results on nearly all climate issues are dominated by alarmist content.
In fact, climate change seems to get special algorithmic attention. Goggle’s special category of climate webpages, hyperbolically called “Your Money or Your Life,” requires even greater “authoritative” control in searches. No matter how well reasoned, articles questioning the dominance of human factors in climate change, the near-apocalyptic effects of predicted climate change, or the value and validity of climate models are routinely ignored by Google’s algorithms.
The algorithm also ignores the fact that our jobs, economy, financial wellbeing, living standards, and freedom to travel and heat or cool our homes would be severely and negatively affected by energy proposals justified in the name of preventing human-caused cataclysmic climate change. The monumental mining and raw material demands of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels and batteries likewise merit little mention in Google searches. Ditto for the extensive impacts of these supposed “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” technologies on lands, habitats and wildlife.
It’s safe to say that climate change is now the world’s biggest single public policy issue. And yet Google simply downgrades and thus “shadow bans” any pages that contain “demonstrably inaccurate content or debunked conspiracy theories.” That is how alarmists describe skepticism about any climate alarm or renewable energy claims. Google does not explain how its algorithm makes these intrinsically subjective determinations as to whether an article is accurate, authoritative and thus posted – or incorrect, questionable and thus consigned to oblivion.
Google’s authority-based search algorithm is also rigged to favor liberal content over virtually all conservative content; it may be especially true for climate and energy topics. This deep liberal bias is fundamentally wrong and un-American, given Google’s central role in our lives.
Google’s creators get wealthy by controlling access to information – and thus thinking, debate, public policy decisions and our future – by using a public internet system that was built by defense and other government agencies, using taxpayer dollars, for the purpose of ensuring the free flow of information and open, robust discussion of vital policy issues. It was never meant to impose liberal-progressive-leftist police state restrictions on who gets to be heard.
According to its “How we fight disinformation” white paper, Google’s separate news search feature gets special algorithmic treatment – meaning that almost all links returned on the first page are to liberal news sources. This blatant bias stands out like a sore thumb in multiple tests. In no case involving the first ten links did I get more than one link to a conservative news source. Sometimes I got none.
For example, my news search on “Biden 2020” returned the following top ten search results, in this order: CNN, the New York Times, Vice, Politico, CNN again, Fortune, Vox, Fox News, The Hill and Politico. The only actual conservative source was Fox News, in eighth position.
Of course conservative content would not be friendly to Mr. Biden. But if Google can prominently post attacks on skeptics and conservatives, why can’t it do so for attacks on Democrats?
The highest conservative content I found was one link in eight or 12 percent. About a third of my sample cases had no conservative sources whatsoever. The average of around 7% measures Google’s dramatic bias in favor of liberal sources, greatly compounding its 92.2% dominance.
The lonely conservative sources are more middle of the road, like Fox News and the Washington Examiner. Google never found or highlighted a truly conservative (what it would call “right wing”) source, like Brietbart, Townhall or the Daily Caller. It just doesn’t happen, and the algorithm clearly knows that, as does Google. As do other information and social media sites.
Of course, I’m not alone in finding or encountering this blatant viewpoint discrimination.
When coupled with the nearly complete takeover of UN, IPCC, World Bank and other global governance institutions by environmentalist and socialist forces – and their near-total exclusion of manmade climate chaos skeptics, free market-oriented economists and anyone who questions the role or impact of renewable energy – the effect on discussion, debate, education and informed decision-making is dictatorial and devastating.
No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.
David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I installed DuckDuckGo just now and compared the results with those from Chrome for a search on Climategate. The Chrome search had about 7 or 8 “consensus” sites such as Wikipedia and skeptical science in the first 10, but also included Christopher Booker and Forbes.
The DuckDuckgo search was more representative of useful sites such as Wattsupwiththat. However, a box appeared to the right of the actual returns. This box consisted of a quote from Wikipedia with a lie about “external hackers” and a report from the Penn State “investigation” with a summation of Exoneration (see below).
Who put this box there? Did Google do that? Can somwone without Chrome repeat that search and see if this misleading box shows up?
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.Wikipedia
Date:
17 November 2009
Inquiries:
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK), International Science Assessment Panel (UK), Pennsylvania State University (US), United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US), Department of Commerce (US)
Verdict:
Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges
Using Opera, the first listing is for Conservapedia, but that Wikipedia box is prominently displayed to the right of the search results.
Climategate – Conservapedia
Search domain http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategate
https://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate
The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.
Remember this article?
Global Cooling and Wikipedia Fake News
Andy May / December 25, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/25/global-cooling-and-wikipedia-fake-news/
I can personally attest to the fact that Conservatives and Climate REALISTS cannot successfully post items at Wikipedia and expect them to remain as entered. They will be edited and/or removed and replaced.
[PERSONAL CONFIRMATION of WIKIPEDIA UNAUTHORIZED EDITING]: I was asked by a non-political organization to enter peer-reviewed information into Wikipedia regarding their organization and facts it wished to be entered into the online information repository. They asked for outside assistance because every time they entered it themselves, someone edited it and changed it dramatically, often making it say exactly the opposite from what they had entered or simply inserting outrageous lies. I was given source data as well as external links to authorities I was invited to contact who confirmed the entries to be made and to publications that also confirmed the information I was entering. Each time I entered information, within hours, often within MINUTES, it was gone and/or had been highly edited to say things I had not entered and that contradicted the verified information I had entered. Often even the external links had been removed or edited to create dead links or redirected to links with opposing views to those to which I had linked. Lesson learned: Do not trust Wikipedia at face value. Verify everything you find there….or use Conservapedia… ( https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page )
If my comment comes out of moderation, I meant to include that I used Opera and DuckDuckGo. The first listing was Conservapedia, but the Wikipedia box was prominently displayed to the right of the search results. The search results included a mixture of “left” and “right” sources.
I have tried several more searches using DuckDuckGo on climate-related topics, such as “global warming,” “sea level rise” etc. In all cases, the Wikipedia quote is prominently displayed to the right of the search results. It may be the case that DuckDuckGo produces better (more balanced) search results, but the unwanted Wikipedia reference is evidence of some sort of editorial decision. It appears that DuckDuckGo, at least from my Chrome operating system, is subservient to Google.
In Aus we get the wiki sh*t but nothing re hackers, just smear of denialist which is par for wiki wackers
this site came up so i looked
https://www.mywot.com/scorecard/wattsupwiththat.com#comment-90711490
oh golly 🙂 it says wuwt is safe and rated a Positive 4.7 of five;-)
About the few conservative sources favored by Google being middle of the road rather than truly conservative sources such as Breitbart and Daily Caller: The liberal sources favored by Google for top right or ten hits are middle of the road left-leaning ones such as CNN and the New York Times, as opposed to Mother Jones or The Atlantic. The NYT is comparable to the Wall Street Journal, not Breitbart or Daily Caller.
CNN and MSNBC are not “middle of the road”. They are both solidly left-wing, and much more comparable to Breitbart and WaPO than Forbes/WSJ. Hell, half of CNN’s staff and all of their anchors either worked directly with/for or strongly supported the DNC. Fox, Forbes, and WSJ are legitimately the only major news outlets that could honestly make a claim of being middle of the road.
The DNC isn’t that far left, merely left of center. They support the least progressive of the Democratic presidential candidates.
You forgot the /sarc> tag….or maybe you were thinking of the DNC 100 years ago.
I could easily give up all things Google except Google maps. Which I consider a modern miracle.
I had Google Maps leading me around a circle in an industrial park one night while the hotel I was looking for was about a quarter of a mile from the industrial park. My new car came without a nav system but allows me to use Android Auto for navigation. What a piece of junk that is, it always crashes within an hour. Along with the Android operating system, I’ve never seen such bad software. The reason Google makes all it’s money from ads is that it’s products never work.
Trying to Play Nice: I had Google Maps leading me around a circle in an industrial park one night while the hotel I was looking for was about a quarter of a mile from the industrial park.
In a case like that, if you are alone, you have to get off the road and study the map to find the route from “here” to “there”. When I have been driving with my wife, she has gotten excellent spoken directions from Google Maps through her Android phone — sometimes alerting us to traffic jams and construction to avoid — even when the only appropriate routes have been indirect.
Collectively, my extended family and I have had hundreds, maybe thousands, of successful interactions with Google Maps.
Garmin is pretty good too.
I prefer news that says the New York Yankees are a better baseball team than the Red Sox. Is it possible that the Red Sox are really in first place and Google is only showing me what I want to see?
Classic liberalism is ‘live and let live’; new liberalism is its opposite: fascism, an Orwellian whopper. Nobody likes a fascist so they use psychological projection to stay in disguise and call the rest of us ‘Fascists!’ while we keep calling them ‘Liberals!’ It’s just a game of smoke & mirrors, but they can win the world if we don’t get wise as serpents and shatter it.
So we should shut down Google to teach them how to ‘live and let live’?
No Nick – in every other field society recognises that with power comes responsibility. eg:- Financial advisors have power and society rightly sets rules to ensure they behave responsibly. We put regulations on food shops to ensure the weight stated on the container is correct, the goods have a use by date, the checkout price cannot be higher than the marked shelf price and so on. We impose statuary warrantee requirements on goods sold to ensure purchasers of defective goods have a redress. We certainly do NOT accept the buyer beware approach because we recognise that in many cases buyers have no way of realistically identifying shady practices.
Recognise that suppliers of information have great power and therefore we similarly need to ensure they act ethically and responsibly. Gross bias masquerading as no bias is not responsible because it seeks to deceive. Thus it is imminently reasonable to set requirements to ensure gross bias does not occur . If google states openly they impose a strong leftwing bias and are in fact a supplier of leftwing information then that is OK and your comment is reasonable just as it is reasonable for a not quite right shop to sell goods close to their use by date – the title not quite right makes it clear. However Google do NOT state that, on the contrary they seek to give the impression that the provide unbiased information and that is unacceptable.
“We put regulations on food shops to ensure the weight stated on the container is correct”
But we don’t regulate to require that you’ll like the food. That is left to customers to decide. And that is the complaint here, that Google doesn’t return the listing priority that locals would like. But a lot of people do like it – hence the 92%. And folks here want to vary that by government enforcement. Imagine if someone wanted to require Fox News to change its bias?
No, Nick, the customer asks for potatoes and Google returns ONLY Sweet potatoes, PURE RED inside, and says that is ALL that exists.
That is a matter of whether Google is giving people what they want. If they don’t get it, they will go elsewhere. In fact, they go to Google. You’re saying that the government should step in to say that Google can’t give them what they want; they’ll get what you want.
Nick, that reply is not worthy of you. The problem is NOT that people who know what they are looking for cannot find it on Google. The problem is that Google presents itself as an unbiased source of data which leads people to assume that the data provided via Google searches is representative of both sides of the issue under debate. Except it isn’t and thereby people who do not know better are being misled. By not presenting the opposing points of view it suggests there is no opposing point of view. That is the very basis of indoctrination. You say 92% of people like the Google point of view. That is clearly rubbish, 92+% of people don’t know that Google is biased and assume Google to fairly represent the whole issue.
The problem could be completely solved by Google putting out a prominent disclaimer stating that they aim to give predominantly the left wing view of any issue. If they do that and 92% of people still go to Google for their data then no complaint but they don’t.
Fox news makes no secret of the fact that they have a right wing bias which means they are not misleading people. But by Google not issuing such a disclaimer they are deliberately misrepresenting issues which amounts to propaganda.
Your analogy about regulating that you’ll like the food is absurd. If the container states what is in the food then you have the data and it is indeed your decision. A better analogy would be if the container stated some of the ingredients but conveniently omitted other – maybe more controversial – ingredients. Imagine they omitted to mention that the food contained peanuts because they thought it might put people off buying it and then someone with an acute peanut allergy ate it and died. Do you really think an adequate defense would be to claim – well no one said you had to buy it, if you don’t like it dont buy it.
The point is Google claim to provide all the data (or at least a representative cross section) yet they actually only provide that data which supports their point of view while suppressing data that may contradict with their point of view. That is deceitful and governments are not only justified but even morally obligated to address deceitful business practices.
“Google presents itself as an unbiased source of data “
Does it? The complaint here is that they say
“Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.””
And they choose what they regard as authoritative sources, and folks here don’t like that. But most people do, and they agree with Google’s definition. You call that a bias, but it isn’t unstated. It’s Google’s core business; discriminating among sources on the internet to figure out what people want. And a lot of people freely choose what they offer.
A regulator can measure the lead content in paint, the number of calories in “zero-calories” drinks, etc. You can measure those things a hundred times and the result will be almost exactly the same regardless of who’s doing the measuring.
But nobody can provide a universal measure of bias because the issue is inherently subjective. Least of all politicians, who have a conflict of interest so obvious it’s almost unnecessary to mention.
(Even in cases in which objective measures exist, it’s not clear that regulation or certification should be the task of government. Just consider the USB standard, or Underwriters Laboratories, or any other example of private regulation)
The irony for Google could be that they help get Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren elected as President… and she has said she believes Alphabet (Googles parent parent company) is too big and should be broken up.
“Be careful what you wish for Libtards.”
– me
Thank you David Wojick for a good essay.
No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.
Past eras gave us the Sedition Act and other restrictions on the free press. Past eras gave us W.R. Hearst, H. Luce and other biased news purveyors with great influence. (The effect of Luce’s influence on US China Policy post WWII was disastrous.) Breaking up Google’s near monopoly may be a good idea, but the only effective antidotes to Google’s bias are persistent attention to that bias, and dedication to alternatives, not some sort of control.
“the only effective antidotes to Google’s bias are persistent attention to that bias”
No, the effective antidote is to find something with a bias that you like. Or create it. Do something positive.
Google has no natural monopoly. The reason people complain about it here is that it provides a service that a lot of people want, and does it very well. Breaking up Google wouldn’t help; the demand will still exist, and new entities would meet it. People actually like information.
Leftist, Totalitarian, Stockholm Syndrome is strong in you, isn’t it?
Totalitarian is wanting to break up Google because you don’t like their search results. Go find something else.
Defending Google’s use of bait and switch to hook users to depend on their services as a trustworthy search engine then completely changing their product to be a political propaganda machine without notifying the public and then LYING to Congress when they were called to answer for their actions says a lot about your values, and it isn’t good.
Their dishonesty and misuse of the public trust should be investigated by a regulatory agency. They should be required to place a large disclaimer on every page they create stating that they are a biased LEFT propaganda service that only returns Leftist sources for items requested in searches and not an objective search engine. The fact that you support Leftist censorship of what has become a virtual public utility the way the old telephone companies became public utilities says a lot about you. I would be equally against Google if they censored any other content.
“Google has no natural monopoly.”
It has patents on its revolutionary search algorithms. And it has fine-tuned its system over the past years, sparing no expense, to the point that no start-up could compete. Bing is not nearly the equal of Google. (I remember reading an article three years ago about how comparatively feeble it was.)
Whatever Google or any other organisations with huge influence do, climate change sceptics will still prevail just by virtue of being right. No amount of censorship can hide the truth forever, in the internet age this is even more true. Reality is catching up with the alarmists, not a single one of their doomsday predictions has come true and people are starting to notice.
It’s not just Google, Yahoo! is following the same practice.
https://twitter.com/Dragineez/status/1164613212970586112
duckduckgo
https://jmm.nu/un-eu-censorship-hate-speech/
My experience of search engines now is that 95% of all listings are MSM, rapidly having very little to do with your search terms. This is not how things were 15 years ago, when the internet was truly a learning medium and search engines were at its forefront.
Now all the internet search functions are brainwashing operations.
This teaches yoû that DJ30 corporations do not deliver consumer value when they earn monopoly profits, something capitalists are entirely comfortable trying to achieve.
It might make right wingers ask whether capitalism as it occurs in real life actually delivers value to consumers outside the small window when markets are unconsolidated and consumer choice truly exists.
This is not about socialism, it is about neoliberalism…
The statement that Google “controls” 92.2% of online searches is absurd. It’s like saying Toyota controls 10% of car purchases. More accurate statement: users freely choose Google when carrying out 92.2% of online searches. They could just as well use Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, Bing, and others; for many searches there is also the option of bypassing search engines and heading straight to Wikipedia, Craigslist, etc.
Users who dislike Google have other options; if they don’t, it must be because the issues mentioned by Wojick are unimportant to them. So, even if his allegations regarding Google’s bias are true, it doesn’t matter to the people who matter – consumers. To quote David French, this isn’t a market failure; it’s a market verdict.
“When coupled with the nearly complete takeover of UN, IPCC, World Bank and other global governance institutions by environmentalist and socialist forces – and their near-total exclusion of manmade climate chaos skeptics, free market-oriented economists and anyone who questions the role or impact of renewable energy – the effect on discussion, debate, education and informed decision-making is dictatorial and devastating.”
This is just hyperbole and cannot be taken seriously. Of course the aforementioned institutions are biased, but the idea that this has “dictatorial and devastating” effects on debate is ridiculous. And the same applies to “capitalist” “biases”. As an example, nearly all global institutions are overwhelmingly in favor of free (or at least freer) trade, yet that doesn’t stop commentators, citizens and politicians pretty much everywhere from calling for trade protections and restrictions of all kind.
Now, read a bit below for some irony…
“No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.”
So, the UN and other global governance bodies had a dictatorial effect on (global?) debate. But just leave it to legislators, regulators and judges; they’ll know how to handle online content and debate!
Yes, I realize Wojick also mentioned “citizens” but guess what, consumers are citizens too! Citizens are already exerting their rights – and they’re mostly fine with Google.
Addendum: the above shouldn’t be taken as defending free speech at all costs. There is one obvious case of speech the law should’t (and doesn’t) allow: threats of violence, including speech that is intended to provoke violence (i.e. the speaker does not threaten to carry out a violent act himself but incites others to do it).
A more blurry issue is slander / defamation; however, this issue doesn’t relate to Google either, as the company itself publishes and says almost nothing (it simply links to content creators). By the way, I consider Europe’s “right to be forgotten” decision not a disaster, but certainly a step in the wrong direction. Google is being asked – and in some sense forced – to remove content that has not been proven defamatory. In any case, if the content were proven defamatory then judges would force *the defamer* to remove it from the internet.
“They could just as well use Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, Bing, and others;”
No they can’t “just as well”—those engines are considerably inferior to Google. See my longer comment a bit upthread.
“That sound good…..” Please fix to:
That sounds good.
It turned me off right away.
Maybe a question mark rather than a period would work….
I’ll still read the rest of the article…..
JPP
But after my initial criticism, I read the article and it is great !!!
JPP
I’m certain it is important with propaganda to tell the truth (facts) or in the long run you will fail.
Censorship might work 99% of the time and for the 99% of the time people may be happily deluded, but when it fails and people discover that they’re being lied to, their reaction is all the more hostile and you get a backswing against the censors.
Indeed, the more Google censors, the quicker alternatives will spring up. So, e.g.I I’m writing this using a new browser called dissenter … and so I can and … just for fun, I will make the same comment on this article without any censorship at all.
The way to address this legislatively is to mandate that any social media network that serves more than 10% of the American population needs to adhere to a new set of rules. (1) Clear and concise user rules with a process for appeals, (2) Open up the algorithms to public scrutiny and most important, (3) allow anyone, anywhere, to write their own user interface & search algorithm. And allow people to share, sell, or otherwise market their own search algorithm. For youtube, for twitter, for linked in, for facebook, etc.
This article popped up right at the top of my Google newsfeed…the algorithm has discerned that i am interested in articles about climate warming skeptism.
Did the Google Divorce on all my devices recently, including my Google-enslaved Samsung Galaxy tablet, because of their bias. Uninstalled any app related to Google and changed all my homepages and default search engines. Good search engine, terrible politics. And I loathe monopoly anyway.
The Google bias is so bad, I’ve blocked google from searching my own website (Scottishsceptic.uk).
If everyone being downrated did the same, everyone who moans about the bias, would be forced to stop using google to find their favourite sites and google would stop being a credible search engine (even alarmists sometimes want to find our sites if only to attack them).
Leaked audio, via Allum Bokhari at Breitbart:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/07/leaked-audio-google-discusses-steering-the-conservative-movement/
“Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.””
My wife had a very strange thing happen with her gmail account. I have a Yahoo email account, and received an important email from my church 2 days ago. My wife should have received it the same day. She did not. She checked trash and spam folders and could not find it. I forwarded it to her. She received my forward, and then moments later received the original email from the church.
This makes me suspect that Google is filtering email from religious organizations, particularly Christian organizations. If this sounds like a conspiracy theory, so be it. I have no other explanation for this really strange, coincidental behavior.
Hi Dan,
the explanation for “really strange coincidental behavior” is probably just a really strange coincidence.
After all while the odds of you winning the lottery might be millions to one the chance of someone winning the lottery is fairly close to one. Really strange coincidences happen all the time.
You’re not the only one who’s noticed odd behaviour with emails. It would be interesting for 100 sceptics (who have never corresponded) to send each other emails and to see how many get through.
“The algorithm also ignores the fact that our jobs, economy, financial wellbeing, living standards, and freedom to travel and heat or cool our homes would be severely and negatively affected by energy proposals justified in the name of preventing human-caused cataclysmic climate change. The monumental mining and raw material demands of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels and batteries likewise merit little mention in Google searches. Ditto for the extensive impacts of these supposed “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” technologies on lands, habitats and wildlife.”
Sounds like disinformation to me!
It’s almost as if Google have a blacklist with David Wojick on it.
Try a google search for “heartland Wojick google“, and compare it to the same search with duckduckgo.com
In Google, the top 6 hits are activist journalism. Which is essentially: opinion dominated character assassination. These are from:
newscientist.com
desmogblog.com
sourcewatch.org
theguardian.com
phylogenomics.blogspot.com
washingtonpost.com
With duckduckgo.com, the first activist article is 8th inline. David’s CFACT article was entirely filtered out from the google.com search results.
This is more than just weighing the search results. It actual censorship by google.
Correction. Filtered not censored. With duckduckgo.com search the CFACT article David wrote is number 1. With Google it is number 30.
Censor comes from the Latin censere “to appraise, value, judge,”. There is no real difference between filtering and censoring.
Catastrophic Climate Change Skepticism is NOT “CONSERVATIVE.” It is an issue of SCIENCE, not politics. Please don’t fall into that trap. Science is a “winnable” discussion. Politics is not.