Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BeAChooser

Google illegally interferring in the election. Clear Proof!

Recommended Posts

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/28/election-interference-google-purges-breitbart-from-search-results/

 

Quote

 

Election Interference: Google Purges Breitbart from Search Results

 

A few days after the 2016 election, at an internal meeting later leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, lamented President Trump’s victory, comparing Trump voters to “extremists” and discussing their desire to make Trump’s election and the populist movement a “blip” in history.

 

True to their word, four years later, Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020.

 

There are several ways in which Google is interfering in the 2020 election, but this article will focus primarily on one of them: political search bias.

 

Google Has Been Purging Breitbart Content from Search Results Since the 2016 Election

 

Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher’s content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart’s search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.

 

On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top 100 search positions for only 55 search terms.

 

Moreover, organic Google search traffic to Breitbart (measured by unique visitors) is down 63 percent when comparing the first half of 2016 with the first half of 2020.

 

The following chart shows the visibility of Breitbart content in the Google search engine since 2011. It shows that Google has nearly eliminated Breitbart content from its search results.

 

BBNStrx_final-Copy.png

The SISTRIX Visibility Index ranks a website’s visibility in Google by looking at its ranking in a million search terms. 

 

May2020sstrx-Copy.png

A close-up of the visibility decline following Google’s May 2020 core update.

 

This foregoing graph also shows three major drops in Breitbart’s search visibility (these drops are highlighted by the bright red lines). The first drop took place shortly after (and inferentially in response to) the 2016 election. The second took place in July of 2019. The third took place in May of this year, after which (1) unless a user types “Breitbart” into the search bar (and even then), they are highly unlikely to get any Breitbart content search results, and (2) Breitbart search results for “Joe Biden” and other Biden-related search terms have gone to zero. Even if you specifically search for Breitbart News headlines, you are unlikely to find them in Google search.

 

Google Just Killed All Search Traffic to Breitbart for Joe Biden and Joe Biden-Related Searches 

 

After Google’s May core search update on or about May 5, 2020, Google search impressions and search traffic to Breitbart for “Joe Biden” and other Biden-related search terms has gone to zero. Zero. The following graph clearly illustrates the foregoing.

 

biden1_edited-Copy_2.png

On May 1, Google searches for “Joe Biden” generated approximately 30,000 impressions (views, used as a metric for advertisers) for Breitbart links. After May 5, both impressions and clicks went to zero. 

 

Breitbart News spoke to an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) expert, a 25-year industry veteran, whose job consists of analyzing traffic data from Google’s own website performance portal, Google Search Console.

 

The expert, who wished to remain anonymous, said he had never seen anything like this graph — and that it indicates highly probable manipulation on the part of Google.

 

“I’ve never experienced such a wholesale removal of rank and visibility on specific concepts on a site as I have seen being applied to Breitbart,” said the expert. “Removal is the key, not dropping in rank, which would be an organic devaluing. These ranks are just simply gone, overnight, while other topics have been untouched.”

 

“The sheer fact that there are thousands of pages of Breitbart content that reference Biden that were ranking before May 6, that now have no rank or impressions on search is a sign of manipulation, not algorithmic devaluing.”

 

JoeBiden12m-Copy_2.png

A longer view: Google search traffic to Breitbart News from the search term “Joe Biden” from July 2019 to the present. A regular heartbeat followed by a flatline as the election grows closer.

 

The Percentage of Traffic to Breitbart from Google Search (9%) Is Just a Fraction of the Average Publisher’s (30-50%); Expert Believes Breitbart Being Blacklisted

 

Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist and former Hillary Clinton supporter who has spent the last half-decade studying the effects of search engine bias on voters, said he believes Breitbart News is currently on one of Google’s blacklists, a topic on which he has written extensively.

 

“For news websites large and small, Google — in combination with its YouTube offshoot — typically drives between 30 and 50 percent of the traffic to those sites,” Dr. Epstein told Breitbart News via email. “For the New York Times, the percentage is currently 39.3%. At the moment, Google is responsible for just 9 percent of Breitbart’s traffic, and YouTube is sending a negligible amount, if any.  Given the size of Breitbart’s audience, this suggests to me that Breitbart is listed on one or more of Google’s blacklists.”

 

“Those are the lists that Google denies having — even under oath in Congressional hearings — even though two of those blacklists were leaked from the company last year by whistleblower Zach Vorhies.”

 

“How many blacklists they actually maintain is unknown, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s a hundred or more,” continued Epstein.

 

Dr. Epstein recently told Breitbart News’s Alex Marlow that Google is likely to shift ten percent of voters away from Trump to fulfill its executives’ stated goal of avoiding a repeat of 2016.

The psychologist has previously explained how Google’s search bias can affect undecided voters by offering them selective information about political candidates. This is because voters are not inclined to suspect search results of bias in the same way that they might suspect a CNN or New York Times report to be biased.

 

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, Epstein warned lawmakers that big tech could influence an extraordinary number of voters without any trace.

 

“In 2020 — if all these [big tech] companies are supporting the same candidate — there are 15 million votes on the line that can be shifted without people’s knowledge, and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.”

 

In a comment to Breitbart News, a Google spokeswoman denied allegations of political bias.

 

“There is no validity whatsoever to these allegations of political bias,” said the spokeswoman. “Our systems do not take political ideology into account, and we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products for everyone in an apolitical way. Anyone can easily cherry-pick a range of conservative, progressive or non-political sites that have seen traffic changes over time. The improvements we make to Search undergo a rigorous testing process and are done to provide helpful information for the billions of queries we get every day.”

 

Google Search Rankings Suggest More Wholesale Suppression of Conservative Publishers

 

Breitbart News isn’t the only conservative news site that has an unusually low position in Google’s search rankings. Alexa data shows that the percentage of traffic to conservative websites that come from Google is far lower than that of corporate media sites.

 

alexachart_red_1.png

Percentages of website traffic from Google, via Alexa web rankings. Red = media sources with conservative or libertarian-leaning editorial stances. Data is a six-month average as of July 7, 2020.

 

Eight of the ten lowest-ranked sites (Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Blaze, Reason, The Federalist, The Daily Wire, the Washington Examiner) in the chart above are conservative.

 

Meanwhile, all ten of the top-ranked sites, with the arguable exception of heavy.com, are from the corporate, liberal-leaning, or leftist media. Far-left Vox.com is placed third.

 

The highest-ranking conservative-leaning news publishers — the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the British Daily Mail are all newspapers and part of the media establishment and are relatively centrist. Yet even they are far behind leftist outlets like Vox and the Guardian in Google traffic. The top online-only conservative outlets — Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, and The Blaze — are all near the bottom.

 

Last week, several conservatives on social media recently noticed that their articles were not appearing at all in Google search. Breitbart News was similarly affected. Google claimed to have investigated the issue, which the company has attributed to an error, and conservative journalists and websites have reported their search results returning. What last week’s incident shows is Google’s incredible power to control what people do and do not see with the flick of a switch.

 

But the data in this article shows that Google’s manipulation of search results, and its systematic undermining of conservative media, has been far more long-running and pervasive than this one incident.

 

Takeaways

 

Google has stated its intention clearly: to make sure the 2016 election of President Trump was a “blip” in history. Sure enough, with less than five months before the election, Google is manipulating election-related search results. The scope and audacity (and hubris) make any alleged foreign interference in the 2016 election pale by comparison. And, it will surely warrant an even greater post-election congressional scrutiny. It will greatly strengthen the contention of Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and of Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), that search result manipulation ought to be a major subject of the Department of Justice’s antitrust investigation into Google. Not surprisingly, when recently asked about political search bias, Vice President Pence told Breitbart News that “we’re going to watch it closely.”

 

 

"F" GOOGLE and the democRAT Party.

 

What they are doing is an in-kind contribution to the democRAT Party.    The FEC states (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/ ) that "A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election."  Furthermore, regarding in-kind contributions, the FEC states "The contributor needs to notify the recipient candidate committee of the value of an in-kind contribution. The recipient needs this information in order to monitor the contributor’s aggregate contributions and to report the correct amount."   I'll bet that the DemocRATS are NOT reporting what Google is doing as an in-kind contribution.  And note there are only limited exemptions to this.  "For example, when services are volunteered—not paid for by anyone—the activity is not considered a contribution."  I'll bet that the people doing this at google are paid for the work ... so that exemption does not apply.  Furthermore, the FEC states (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/making-kind-contributions-candidates/ ) that "The dollar value of an in-kind contribution is subject to limits and must be reported."  Here are the limits (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/contribution-limits-nonconnected-pacs/ ).  I'll bet that the effort in doing what Google is doing exceeds those limits.  

 

Note that even the democRAT Party acknowledge the need to do this in their training of their staff.   https://traindemocrats.org/in-kind-contributions-explained/  states ...

 

Quote

 

The important thing to remember is that any in-kind contribution given to your campaign is subject to the same laws and limits as monetary contributions. You have to file reports on them just like you do for donations.

 

This means if you cannot accept corporate contributions, you cannot accept an in-kind from a corporation. It also means that the value of the in-kind cannot exceed the contribution limit for your race.

 

Here’s an example.

 

Quote

 

Let’s say you’re running for city council in Pawnee and by law there is a $2,000 contribution limit. Let’s also say you have a friend who charges $500 for catering events in your district. They want to cater your event for free and do so. Wonderful! You would report a $500 in-kind contribution from the individual on your next campaign finance report.

Let’s keep the same example and say your friend caters 4 more events for you. That’s $2,500 in total in-kind contributions. Now we have a problem. Your friend is over the legal contribution limit. You must pay (actually refund) $500. It would be no different than trying to accept a check for $2,500.

 

 

 

And here's the biggest kicker of all. Citizens United allowed corporations and labor organizations to spend funds "to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate or to engage in electioneering communications" (https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download ).   But in this case Google is not "expressly" advocating.   It's in fact pretending to be unbiased.    It's ILLEGAL for corporations to make these sort of vague contributions to campaigns or candidates.   The FEC states (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ ) that campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations.  PACs can contribute but I'll bet that what Google is doing is NOT being handled through or by their PAC.   I'll bet what google is doing is clearly a violation of campaign contribution laws.  The FEC also says that to be judge a criminal violation, the act must be committed “willfully.”  This is CLEARLY a willful act on the part of Google.

 

So ... Barr should go after Google over this (BEFORE THE ELECTION) and evetually break the damn company up.  They've just become too big and powerful.   They have too many ties to democRATS, foreign companies (like Communist China) and communist in general to be allowed to exercise this sort of power in this country.   NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Whatever said:

Breibart will only run news it feels fit but expects another free enterprise company to not play by the same ruies?

Comparing Return on Investment (ROI) for paid traffic (PPC) vs. blog and organic traffic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whatever said:

Nope.  Both commercial companies.

 

There's more to the comparison than that coward and you know it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/28/election-interference-google-purges-breitbart-from-search-results/

 

 

"F" GOOGLE and the democRAT Party.

 

What they are doing is an in-kind contribution to the democRAT Party.    The FEC states (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/ ) that "A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election."  Furthermore, regarding in-kind contributions, the FEC states "The contributor needs to notify the recipient candidate committee of the value of an in-kind contribution. The recipient needs this information in order to monitor the contributor’s aggregate contributions and to report the correct amount."   I'll bet that the DemocRATS are NOT reporting what Google is doing as an in-kind contribution.  And note there are only limited exemptions to this.  "For example, when services are volunteered—not paid for by anyone—the activity is not considered a contribution."  I'll bet that the people doing this at google are paid for the work ... so that exemption does not apply.  Furthermore, the FEC states (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/making-kind-contributions-candidates/ ) that "The dollar value of an in-kind contribution is subject to limits and must be reported."  Here are the limits (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/contribution-limits-nonconnected-pacs/ ).  I'll bet that the effort in doing what Google is doing exceeds those limits.  

 

Note that even the democRAT Party acknowledge the need to do this in their training of their staff.   https://traindemocrats.org/in-kind-contributions-explained/  states ...

 

 

And here's the biggest kicker of all. Citizens United allowed corporations and labor organizations to spend funds "to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate or to engage in electioneering communications" (https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download ).   But in this case Google is not "expressly" advocating.   It's in fact pretending to be unbiased.    It's ILLEGAL for corporations to make these sort of vague contributions to campaigns or candidates.   The FEC states (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ ) that campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations.  PACs can contribute but I'll bet that what Google is doing is NOT being handled through or by their PAC.   I'll bet what google is doing is clearly a violation of campaign contribution laws.  The FEC also says that to be judge a criminal violation, the act must be committed “willfully.”  This is CLEARLY a willful act on the part of Google.

 

So ... Barr should go after Google over this (BEFORE THE ELECTION) and evetually break the damn company up.  They've just become too big and powerful.   They have too many ties to democRATS, foreign companies (like Communist China) and communist in general to be allowed to exercise this sort of power in this country.   NOW!

 

This is a monopoly issue. These companies have a monopoly of the free flow of information on this media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redoctober said:

 

This is a monopoly issue. These companies have a monopoly of the free flow of information on this media. 

 

YES.   That's another reason to break them up.   There are MANY ...  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always amusing to watch Cons prove that they don’t know the difference between “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Whatever said:

Nope.  Both commercial companies.  Breitbart can advertise on many sites and is not restricted to google.  Apples to apples bubba.

but google gets special protection for supposedly be a neutral information service.

 

Need to at least remove special privileges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theLion said:

Always amusing to watch Cons prove that they don’t know the difference between “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”. 

 

Always amusing watching you ignore the facts presented in a post, Lion.  

 

I linked and quoted number FEC and DOJ documents regarding what's allowed as far as contributing *something* of value to a political party or candidate.  

 

What Google is doing is pretty clearly them deliberately helping one political party and candidate in a way that is not allowed.

 

They and the democRATS should be fined for violating FEC campaign contribution laws.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Always amusing watching you ignore the facts presented in a post, Lion.  

 

I linked and quoted number FEC and DOJ documents regarding what's allowed as far as contributing *something* of value to a political party or candidate.  

 

What Google is doing is pretty clearly them deliberately helping one political party and candidate in a way that is not allowed.

 

They and the democRATS should be fined for violating FEC campaign contribution laws.

 

 

Proving my point, thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals are retarded traitors to this country.... they can not accept facts and they hate anyone that disagrees with them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Duck615 said:

Liberals are retarded traitors to this country.... they can not accept facts and they hate anyone that disagrees with them...

Republican are war hawks who never serve in the military as generally speaking they are cowards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 7:05 PM, Whatever said:

Breibart will only run news it feels fit but expects another free enterprise company to not play by the same ruies?

What? LOL! They are a news outlet. LOL Is this your first time at trying logic? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, theLion said:

Always amusing to watch Cons prove that they don’t know the difference between “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”. 

This doesn't have anything to do with freedom of the press. It has to do with controlling the flow of information. A couple of companies are doing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Google can contribute to a politician because of the Citizens' United decision

 

False, COMMIE.  As pointed out in the OP, according the DOJ, Citizens United allows corporations to spend funds "to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate or to engage in electioneering communications  (BAC - meaning paying for ads in favor or against a candidate)."   But Google isn't doing that in this instance.  They are claiming they are impartial.   They aren't paying for or explicitly advertising Biden.    They aren't even explicitly saying vote for Biden.   They are claiming impartiality.    Yet they are quietly (i.e., not expressly) silencing websites that support Trump and conservative ideas, AND posts that would inform the public about Biden's real condition.   That's what the Breitbart data in the OP article clearly shows.    By doing that, they are in fact violating the rights given to other companies by Citizens United.   And the cost of doing it is in effect a LARGE in kind contribution to the democRAT Party and Biden's campaign.   And that's a clear violation of FEC regulations, XO.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Whatever said:

Republican are war hawks who never serve in the military as generally speaking they are cowards,

 

Hey, W, want to discuss the War in Kosovo?  Discuss who was the "war hawk" there?   And who, leading the effort, didn't serve in the military?  Hmmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

False, COMMIE.  As pointed out in the OP, according the DOJ, Citizens United allows corporations to spend funds "to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate or to engage in electioneering communications  (BAC - meaning paying for ads in favor or against a candidate)."   But Google isn't doing that in this instance.  They are claiming they are impartial.   They aren't paying for or explicitly advertising Biden.    They aren't even explicitly saying vote for Biden.   They are claiming impartiality.    Yet they are quietly (i.e., not expressly) silencing websites that support Trump and conservative ideas, AND posts that would inform the public about Biden's real condition.   That's what the Breitbart data in the OP article clearly shows.    By doing that, they are in fact violating the rights given to other companies by Citizens United.   And the cost of doing it is in effect a LARGE in kind contribution to the democRAT Party and Biden's campaign.   And that's a clear violation of FEC regulations, XO.   

Good thing for us the Republicans have rendered the FEC completely ineffectual.lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, slideman said:

Good thing for us the Republicans have rendered the FEC completely ineffectual.lol

 

Are you admitting I'm right about the facts, GED?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Users are not compelled to use Google, there are dozens of browsers. If you do not like Google, use another browser.

Where is it written that Google must be impartial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

There are other browsers that don't cater to liberals, or remove information that would upset the snowflakes. Believe it or not, the truth is still out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...