Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [SEE UPDATE AT THE END]
For some reason, I couldn’t find my post entitled “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“. I wanted to track it down, in part because I think it’s one of my better posts. But when I looked on Google, it wasn’t there. Instead, I found an oddity. Here’s the top of the list of results from Google:
The list goes on below what’s shown above. I was glad to see that there are about twenty complete copies of my post floating around on various websites. And another fifteen or so links to my post.
But nowhere in that Google list was there a link to my actual post here on Watts Up With That. I looked through every Google result. No link to the Watts Up With That original version of my post.
Puzzled, I looked on Bing … where the post here on WUWT was first on the list, as you’d expect.
Below that, as with Google, are links to a bunch of other copies of my post on various skeptical websites.
Moving on, here’s DuckDuckGo … again, WUWT is first on the list, with the copies on other websites listed below it.
Hmmm … I moved on to more obscure search engines …
Same thing in all of them except Google. Google shows everything all the other sites show, all the copies, but it doesn’t show the original.
Computer “glitch”? Deliberate censorship? Unintended consequence of artificial intelligence? Cosmic ray damage? Sergei Brin found out about me and his wife? Accidental invocation of artificial stupidity? God decided to squash me like a bug for my insufferable arrogance in challenging the climate status quo? Some pinche tiranito chiquito has it in for this website?
No idea, but I certainly have seen enough ugly censorship and strangely unidirectional “accidents” and “computer glitches” to have a healthy and well-justified suspicion of the motives and actions of the social media robber barons …
w.
[UPDATE] Friday November 20 11:30AM Just tried it again, and magically Google has found it … top of the list now.
I suspect that the change might have been all of the searches from folks who read about it … without that it might have sunk into Google oblivion.
You left out the other possibility—suck up to Dems week in DC.
That’s it for me. Finally switching to Duck Duck Go.
Use it love it. Duck duck go.
Just like others, DuckDuckGo brings the WUWT post up at the very top for me.
GOOD! Easy to install, easy to use.
I have lots of ducks on the lake at the bottom of my garden. I shall try asking them. They always take a lot of notice of me especially when I am carrying pieces of bread.
Life is ducky with Duck Duck Go. Goofy with Google.
Sounds like quacking advice Ken. Thanks. Regards Peter
I switched to Duck Duck Go when Google started having a hissy fit every time I switched to my VPN. (Microsoft did much the same, blocking my Outlook email account until they could confirm who I was. They sent the email demanding this confirmation to the account they had blocked!)
I survived just three months on Outlook email until I was locked out of my account for three months. No idea why. Abandoned it although it was a considersble nuisance.
At no point in trying to get the ban lifted could I interact with a human being.
I always use DuckDuckGO. I gave up on Google years ago and have never looked back.
Colloquially known as “F**K f**k no”, which at least makes sense, and summarizes my attitude to Google.
I switched to DuckDuckGo on Firefox years ago (advice from this site) +ad-away & ghost… no problems.
Going to look at the new ‘Avast Secure Browser’ anyone know anything about it ?
I use the Tor Browser, which is quite secure. It can be slow, however, and it can also exclude content censored in other countries – quite benign content in the US, but politically suppressed even in Western-style nations. That’s because it sets up your home server to appear to be in one of those countries.
It used to circumvent the “free” article limit from places like the Washington Post, because it never presents the same identity to a destination site. But it does always operate in “private” mode, and WaPo and others began denying free articles to such hits.
Tor also has some interesting peripheral software, such as a light operating system. You can have it on a thumb drive, and put it in any computer anywhere. You boot the computer into this O/S, and can run Tor and do any kind of internet search. None of your keystrokes are logged, and no one ever knows you were on that computer – even if a malware keylogger has been installed on the machine. The Tor O/S bypasses the installed O/S, and everything associated with it.
If you’re interested in on-line anonymity, Tor is the place to go.
“If you’re interested in on-line anonymity…”
Ha, ha, ha…
Also, have you heard the one about the duck that walked into the bar? Ouch!
To be serious about retaining anonymity, use a VM and chain at least two VPNs. Ideally, the server for the first VPN you connect to should be in a location where your home country has no jurisdiction. So even if they figure out where your traffic is going, they can’t legally get hold of the server logs.
Pro-tip: If you’re going to use Tor, run an exit node. That way, your traffic to the Tor network is buried in traffic transiting through to other Tor nodes, and you have plausible deniability if the government attempts to hang any “you visited such and such a site which is illegal” charge on you… you can just claim that it wasn’t you visiting that site, it was traffic exiting your Tor exit node.
Back in the day, I ran a Tor exit node using software I’d customized. It allowed more than the standard 3 hops to an exit node.
State-level interception of that traffic would (since it was Tor) assume the third hop was the destination node, but not so… the software randomly picked anywhere from 3 to 12 hops before it hit a randomly-chosen exit node.
The extra hops slowed things down a bit, but the extra security was a benefit, considering that I was going up against an international organized crime outfit at the time. Ran them out of 3 countries (US, Canada, Britain), shut down their operations in 4 countries (US, Canada, Britain, Ukraine), got a $37.5 million court judgement against them in the US, and the ringleader was thrown in the klink in Russia for 40 years for renting little girls from orphanages and starring in CP films with them. If he ever gets out alive, he’s wanted in three other countries. Taunted them the whole while via Tor, had them running scared.
At the time, they had servers they’d co-located in China… I sent an anonymous email via the remailer network to all the Chinese government officials, and I’d altered the email headers to make it seem as though the email was from that crime outfit, and I was a ‘concerned Chinese citizen’ reporting it by forwarding it. In the email, I intimated that they were funding an insurrection. The Chinese government seized all their servers.
Ah, good times. LOL
About 2 years ago, in an effort to de-Google-ify my life, I began using the Brave browser instead of Chrome. I absolutely love it.
Recently I also switched my default search over to DuckDuckGo.
Anyone have suggestions on a good free replacement for gmail?
Proton Mail (https://protonmail.com/) via NordVPN (apparently no logs)? Fully encrypted out of Switzerland and growing.
Mr Harmsworth, it was also on its sister search
quackquackgo.
I switched to DuckDuckGo 6 years ago to not be tracked everywhere I go on the internet. I used Chrome until 4 years ago when I finally go feed-up with losing 1/3 rd of my desktop to ads pushed to me. Switched to Firefox & IE.
If you like Chrome but don’t like all the Google-added corporate spyware cruft, check out SRWare Iron. It’s Chrome, with all that cruft stripped out. I’ve been using it for years.
Being a paranoiac, I monitored the traffic of the browser for weeks as I browsed news websites, before I used it in earnest, just to be sure it wasn’t connecting to some server somewhere and spying on me. It wasn’t.
Oh, and if you don’t like ads… uBlock Origin and AdBlock Plus.
I haven’t seen an ad in years. It even blocks Youtube ads in the videos.
I especially like uBlock Origin… you can block any element on a web page. So those pop-ups which block you from reading a web page until you sign up? Yeah, those are gone.
The big blue bar across the bottom of Disqus comments (on the Disqus site) pleading with you to sign up or sign in via Twitter, Facebook, etc? Gone.
Don’t like that big graphic ad on your favorite website? Right click, select ‘Block Element’, ensure the big graphic ad is highlighted, click the ‘Create’ button, and that big graphic ad is gone and that screen real estate is recovered like that big graphic ad was never there.
And DuckDuckGo has a browser!
That’s it for me. Finally switching to Duck Duck Go.
The little animated falling leaf and “carbon neutral since 2009” by Google got me to make the switch to ddg.
I switched a couple of years ago!
Willis, happy to see you are being read widely! Check a random selection of your other pieces.
The only way to pressure the GooFaced Twits and Yahoos to be honest is to write their sponsors and theaten to boycott unless they stop sponsoring dishonest censorship.
When all else fails I MAY try google. Been Duck Duck Go for three years. Google is not trustworthy.
I have never had to ‘try’ Google’. Everything I need to look up I find on DuckDuckGo. The problem is that Google keeps slithering it’s way back into my browser, (Brave) so I have to watch it and make SURE I’m using Duckduck!
I use Brave as well, but haven’t had googoo mess with it. Might happen though, as Brave is chrome based.
The Kraken has been released.
This type of censorship can only last so long.
The system is breaking before our eyes.
Donald Trump will be president.
You may be right. A few patriots are standing up, and it doesn’t take that many.
Dan – As you place THE Kraken statement into your post, ala’ DONALD Duck, it may look like a DOT in the ocean, but you are still a WINner!
See if you can decipher the ‘hidden’ message!
See ya,
MCR
He lost, get over it.
Better still, get some decent politics & politicians.
get some decent politics & politicians.
that goes for both parties. Dementia Joe and Crooked Hillary were the best the Dems could put forth the last two elections? Really?
CW2 is coming for YOU! Over one-third of Dems say Trump election was stolen. 70% of Republicans agreed 10 days ago, now it is 75% and growing. We need a guillotine style elimination of the Ruling Class to Take Our Country Back. Bloody revenge is coming
I want Trump to get un-cheated as much as anyone, but we are getting late in the innings now.
I have wondered all along if this whole effort is mostly for show.
Nothing like this many votes has ever been reversed, although it is probably also true that nothing like this level of cheating has ever occurred.
The problem comes down to particulars.
Evidence.
Fraudsters go to great lengths to conceal their acts, and unravelling even a mediocre level con has taken the FBI years, even after they know someone is a con artist.
And of course there is no such luxury of time in this case.
And the FBI is almost certainly MIA and part of the deep state at this point in time.
I know they have affidavits, dozens of them, and more than enough statistical and circumstantial evidence to at least open an investigation.
But even the language in these affidavits is usually less than declarative of fraud. They say things like “irregularities” were observed. Or that a batch of ballots appear different than others.
Many of them are compelling, but almost none of them seem to prove a damn thing.
Why are there no videos or photographs from any of these people?
It may be they are not allowed to use them, and if that is the case, that is one place to start to fix this broken and corrupt process.
They should be counting ballots in elections like a bank teller counts out money.
Imagine if they took your deposit into a back room when you put it on the counter, and every once in a while someone opened the door a crack and peeked out, and after a while they came back and told you you did not have as much money as you thought, hereisyourrecieptthankyoubye!
Who would aceppt that?
Recounts only recount fake votes for the most part, and the same people that cheated to begin with are the ones in charge of any recounting, as we have seen in Georgia now.
In the past when evidence of voter fraud on a large scale has been uncovered, it has almost always been quickly brushed aside.
I can think of lots of reason for this, and not all of them are sinister in motivation.
Example: A revelation of the actual true extent of voter and election fraud and dishonestly could only serve to undermine the ability of anyone to believe their vote matters.
And votes and ballots are anonymous by design. Even with mail in votes, once separated from the envelopes, verification is impossible.
Bad votes cannot be unsorted from the good ones.
And no court has ever been willing to assume every bad vote is for one candidate in particular.
The details of the 2016 recount that Jill Stein demanded, and what was revealed about how such recounts work when they got to Detroit, makes me very dubious that anything can be done to reverse the results of an election when the amount of votes separating the two is this large.
But there is always the electoral college.
The state legislatures are the ultimate deciders of what slate of electors to send to vote on who will be President.
And even if none of the legislatures can find the political will to pick electors that are not the ones the election went to, individual electors, so called “faithless” electors, can in the end vote for whom they want. The thing is, these people are typically party stalwarts, and few ever vote contrary to the way it is expected they will vote.
I don’t really care about reversing the outcome, though it wouldn’t bother me if Trump won.
Getting the count RIGHT is more important than getting an anonymous vote. If the election cannot be properly verified it is meaningless.
I expect the Biden(as long as it is Biden’s) Administration is very likely to get very little done, much like Obama. Everything will be held up in the Senate.
It will be very bad for the Dems if the 2022 election resets both House and Senate to Republican, a usual outcome in the past.
But actually, very unproductive law producing is good. There are too MANY LAWS already.
It may be time for an amendment that all laws have to be written by the legislators on the floor at the time. No Show, No imput.
If the poll watchers didn’t observe for reason beyond their control, the vote is illegal and should be rendered null and void.
“And no court has ever been willing to assume every bad vote is for one candidate in particular.” True. If you cannot determine who got the most votes, which this case seems to imply, then you cannot give the elctoral votes of given state to any candidate, not Biden not Trump.
Maybe the Trump team will tell you that a phony truck pulled up at 4:30 am and dunped hundred thousand phony ballots. Then they will refer to count tallies before 4:30 am…
The same things seem to happen on You Tube to similar content. And, blow me down, You Tube is owned by Google. Obviously a corporate wide ‘glitch’!
Thanks for raising these important issues relating to google and youtube. I have a similar experience with my materials on those two platforms. Probably it is another secret policy to hide important, contrary thoughts.
Now you are being paranoid. If coincidence didn’t ever happen there wouldn’t be a word for them. Ergo, this is nothing more than a deeply suspicious mind examining a deeply suspicious circumstance. Wait, I don’t think I said that quite right.
Alphabet is EVIL. VIMEO is – for now – a bit better behaved than You boob Tube
Vimeo is not financially nor politically strong enough to resist the forces that corrupted Alphabet.
Just tried to find it on Google and was successful. I have taken a screenshot just in case it vanishes.
I tried on Google – and it didn’t work for me. Checked some of your other titles and found some worked, some didn’t. It looks like the older the post, the less likely it is to work on Google (“Subsidizing The Epocalypse” didn’t work, but “Top and Bottom of the Atmosphere” showed up).
Didn’t work for me either. I’ll try to search for Google failures investing in self driving car tech and Ivanpah solar next.
Not from Google search:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/17/fail-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-not-producing-enough-electricity-may-be-forced-to-close/
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/02/how-a-22-billion-solar-plant-became-a-money-pit.aspx
https://www.wsj.com/articles/DJFVW00120140923ea9nak6oa
It doesn’t filter out everything, but “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“ will not take you to the WUWT story, but many associated stories, including some on WUWT.
Google is EVIL
Peter F Gill
November 19, 2020 at 10:13 am
Willis’ WUWT reference came up as entry no. 10 (third item on page 2) from here in New Zealand using Google on Firefox. Quite well hidden…it’s absurd that the WUWT post isn’t the first of the ‘70,000’ results!
Interesting. Perhaps it’s geo-location specific. From here in the US, it’s not showing up at all.
It was second in the Google search list at my location in the UK
Alastair Brickell
November 19, 2020 at 11:20 am
Interestingly and a bit worryingly is the fact that the google link to WUWT above did not take me to Willis’ post but instead this page:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/page/175/?iframe=true&preview=true%2F%3Fcat%3D246314168
with a list of other WUWT posts, but not the one on Gavin. Strange…
That’s what you get from scrolling down on the home page, thought 175 “pages” of summaries. I’m surprised Google fell for that.
Sounds like Google results gave you a WUWT link just not one that was a direct link to the specific WUWT page. Some of my attempts have yielded such results as well. Pages here at WUWT that contain a link to the desired page as a “related link” as well as WUWT scroll pages – at the time Google scanned WUWT, the link was on scroll page 175, since then more articles have been adding pushing the article we’re talking about future down (as I type this if you scroll down from the page that link gives you, you’ll find it on scroll page 189).
Interestingly, as I’m typing this, the article is now showing up at #1 when I do the “site:” search or the search on just the title without any quotes, where it wasn’t showing up at all before. Perhaps someone at google (or their AI) noticed all the searches people have been doing and realized hiding the articles was generating bad publicity.
Can others who were having no luck seeing the article try their google searches again and verify if it’s coming up for them now or not.
For some reason, I think Google search responses are specific to the individual and what they think your interests and priorities are. i.e. kind of unpredictable.
In my case, the search doesn’t return Willis’ article at WUWT if I put the apostrophe in “Gavin’s”, But returns the article number one (with the apostrophe in the title) if I leave the apostrophe out. My best guess is Artificial Stupidity, or a simple logic bug, not malice. But …
I just did a Google search. This page was the 4th hit and the original the 5th.
I put it in quotes and the original was first in the list.
I tried the search on Google, and it didn’t come up, but interestingly enough, this web page did.
Willis, I have used DuckDuckGo for a number of years and have never had any problems such as you found with Google.
Duc duc go removed (conservative blog) Citizen Free Press from it’s results a week ago.
Duck Duck Go uses the Google database, so it might not be their choice.
They only use google search for their videos, because it points to YouTube only.
The death engine is theirs otherwise.
yet if you type citizen free press into duck duck it takes you staight there
We have to keep pointing out these “accidents” as loudly as we can. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and they can’t disappear everything out there in today’s times.
Pravda strikes again.
Just out of curiosity, would this query have success on Google:
site:wattsupwiththat.com “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“
Yes, WUWT comes up
That’s the trick I use when looking for specific WUWT articles. In fact all I add is “WUWT ” and it usually does the job.
I wrote a number of articles for WUWT several years ago. After my divorce, I started dating again, and one of the comments I got was “I googled you and couldn’t find anything”. Well I’m not on social media, but I thought that was odd. The only thing I could find was Sour Sue belittling something I wrote for WUWT. So I started googling myself . Sure enough, I couldn’t find me unless I added WUWT to the search and then, voila! I’m not exactly at Willis’ level when it comes to notoriety in the climate debate, I’m several orders of magnitude less important , yet still they suppress searches on my name lest someone find out something about climate change that Google doesn’t like.
They just haven’t gotten around to “fixing” the addition of the site prefix to WUWT (yet).
That’s not the way I generally search for what ever 😀
Chris, you’re right, you can devise a search string to find anything.
My point was that the same search string found the original post everywhere but Google.
w.
Even Carl’s string isn’t directly finding that article on Google (at least when I try it on my laptop). It find several WUWT articles which themselves contain a related article link to the WUWT “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“ article, but no actual google link to the article itself.
WUWT links come up, but none of them are for the specific article. Normally site: should bring up the specific article, but for some reason Google has placed it in the memory hole.
Same here. Even with the site specifier that article does not come up in the results, just few other posts that themselves have links to the original post. Clearly something in their algorithms, scoring, indexing, etc., have caused that article to not be returned.
Same here. The original link didn’t give direct links to WUWT, but your extended link does. Right at the top there were direct links to Willis’ article and to other WUWT articles.
I’m in the UK, using Firefox.
Having said that, overall, what I’m seeing in the media and in big tech companies such as FaceTwit is truly terrifying. The amount of power they have and the way they use it to censor stuff they don’t like is, well, terrifying.
I passionately hope that Donald Trump is president for the next four years, despite his (relatively trivial) failings. He’s probably our best hope. I hope he will be able to take robust action against this attack against freedom and democracy. Seeing many election officials going to jail for massive election fraud (if proven) would be a good start.
Chris
Welcome to Wokebanistan, Willis….
Well, we know Google is thoroughly corrupted/biased, so I don’t think it’s at all surprising. What’s a bit surprising is your WUWT post showing up so quickly on the other engines….
They call it the information age, it seems that’s true as long as the information has passed censorship. We live in a free world comrade,
If you add WUWT on the end, then it appears. Shouldn’t have to, though. That’s why they get called “Goggle” though.
Just another arrow in the “like to see Google explain this to Congress while maintaining that it is NOT a publisher…” quiver.
I moved off of Google and over to DuckDuckGo, and am I glad I did.
“Tiranito” is already a diminuitive, so “chiquito” is redundant, besides itself also being the diminuitive of “chico”, so is triply redundant. Thus “little, little, little tyrant”. Maybe that’s what you meant. Google is loaded with little tyrants, and is itself one big one.
Gracias, Juanito, and yes, that’s exactly the meaning I intended … see La Insoportable Necesidad Del Pinche Tirano.
w.
Apparently it was fixed in Google Search. Now it shows the correct result with WUWT site first.
Perhaps a problem with WordPress, who knows ?
Willis please allow me to set your mind at ease. Here’s the real issue.
Google gets millions and millions of searches. Because GOOGLE is so damn important it goes on 24/7/365.
Of course, this torrent needs moderation, or it would quickly fall to the lowest level, and allow people to see what they shouldn’t be allowed to see. At this volume, unmoderated search engines just simply won’t be up to that task. Fortunately, GOOGLE is a big highly important deal and has moderators coming out of their ears. Which leads me to the key point. All of the Moderators are well paid and know exactly what it is that they are supposed to find and censor.
So yes, your posts are carefully scrutinized and dispatched as GOOGLE sees fit being the big deal that it is. I hope this clarifies your concerns.
My best to you, and thanks your great posts here at WUWT
S.
The world’s most viewed site on global … – Watts Up With That?
wattsupwiththat.com › page
Diese Seite übersetzen
Gavin’s Falsifiable Science. Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Gavin Schmidt is a computer programmer with the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (GISS) and …
On page one last item
The world’s most viewed site on global … – Watts Up With That?
wattsupwiththat.com › page
Diese Seite übersetzen
Gavin’s Falsifiable Science. Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Gavin Schmidt is a computer programmer with the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (GISS) and …
on page two, third item
I searched on gooogle for:
Gavin’s Falsifiable Science
Political google?
I searched Google for “What was global wealth in 1950?”
The results seemed…odd. One word stuck out ‘inequality”
I searched duckduckgo, same search string.
Google – 14 occurrences of “inequality” on 1st page
Duckduckgo – zero
https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat/status/1134000878724272129
I’m thinking that the editorial vigilantes who infest Wikipedia have also infiltrated the ranks of Google, Twitter, Facebook etc in order to stamp out “wrongspeak”
I suspect that even the number “1984” is soon to be banished from text on those platforms.
“1984” (old calendar) will be rebranded as a textbook on how the world should work since the year 0 (new calendar, starting from 1988, when Google was launched).
Interesting. When I searched simply for “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” I replicated your results. When I searched “Willis Eischenbach Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” – the original WUWT location came up #3.
I am not sure what to make of it. It certainly seems odd.
Not for me. When I cut and paste exactly hat you typed (including the quotes) I get exactly 1 results, and it’s to politicsandprosperity.com › climate-change (which itself contains a link to the WUWT article).
without the quotes I get lots more “hits”, none to the original article, though a few are to WUWT pages that contain a link to the original article.
Willis, did you try it in another browser? What about in private mode or incognito mode? Sometimes that top search result can be driven by your prior search history. Also, try it on a different device (and in a different browser and private/incognito mode on said device).
Yes. I tried on Chrome, same result as Willis. But then I tried incognito mode, and WUWT came out top.
Interesting, Nick … I just tried incognito, and still didn’t find WUWT.
w.
Results might be varying by location. I’m in the US and not getting a direct link. Upthread someone from New Zealand reported finding it on the 2nd page of results, and Nick (who is also outside the US) claims to see the link when in incognito mode.
Apologies, I thought I was using Google, but somehow ended up in Yahoo. Yes, Incognito with Google did not give better results.
Nick, was it a link to the specific article or was it a link to a different WUWT article that happens to contain a mention of the article Willis was looking for? because, so far in all my attempts, the closest Google will give me is the later. The former doesn’t show up on Google no matter what I try.
What’s incognito mode?
We NEED that in today’s world of info bubbles.
With a browser open, you can usually open another copy of the browser in a special mode that does not keep history, cookies and other site data, and form data. In Chrome, it’s called an “Incognito window”. In Firefox, Brave, and Safari, it’s called “private window”. In Edge, it’s called “InPrivate window”, I believe.
I tried it on Firefox, Chrome, and Chrome in incognito mode. Same result everytime: no direct link to the article in question.
Yes, see correction above. Properly invoked, Chrome incognito did not help me.
“Falsifiable” in the headline was probably the word that kicked you out. We have found you need to be careful constructing titles and definitely keep certain words out of the document. In today’s search environment keywords can make or break you.
Oh, man, I suppose I gotta self-censor but really? This is not the 21st century I was promised in the fifties …
Thanks, rbabcock,
w.
I’ve found you cannot use the correctly spelled word “gen o ci de” on this blog comments. The comment just disappears, not even sent to in moderation. I think there are other terms/words.
I once found “Si li con Val ley” did it too. Haven’t tired that one in a while though and the list of banned words probably changes with time. These are disappearing comments are different from words like “k1ll” that send the comment to moderation.
There’s probably a lot of “shenanigans” that goes on under the hood at the webhost filtering and metering that Anthony has no control or even any owner awareness of.
#4 when I searched for it.
#1 was iowaclimate.org, then followed by 2 reddits, then WUWT.
I have no use for Google search, although I have heard that it is better at locating porn than the other search engines, once you diddle with the settings.
Anybody want to copy the what’s her name Senator from Hawaii on this? She was saying there’s no bias against conservative thought on Google at a hearing the other day. Probably go farther if a Hawaiian resident sent it.
aka Crazy Mazzi by conservative senate staffers.