Google Verifies President Elect Trumps claim of Bias

A Google spokesperson, told CNN news according to an article in Wired Magazine that 

 “Our autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name,” a Google spokeswoman told CNN."

"In building an algorithm that won’t suggest offensive searches connected to people’s names, Google is making an editorial decision about the search results it publishes, much as Facebook inscribes its own editorial values into which news stories are prioritized in users’ News Feeds. These platforms can never be truly neutral, since engineering a system to display one thing necessarily means something else remains hidden. Those choices may not represent political biases, but they are biases toward one value over another—civility versus abuse, say, or serious news versus tabloid trash."

Google Filtering Censorship

What does that mean to you if you're looking for unbiased, unfiltered information when you do a search?  It means you can't get it.   Google is making "subjective" decisions for you on what is civil, what is abusive, what is tabloid trash and what is not.

For example, if you enter in the search Crooked Lying Hillary you will not get the number of returns that you should for this search and the results will be ordered with articles the "refute" the implication of your search term, i.e. articles which try to debunk the fact that she lies or for example, articles about Donald Trump calling her, "Crooked Lying Hillary and decrying how unfair of him it is to do so.

Conversely, if you entered in the search term "Psycho Trump"  you will get an over abundance of results, consisting of not just text, but videos, YouTube, and Pictures of a Psycho Trump  all of which confirm and expand and expound on the fact that Mr. Trump is, in the opinion of the left, a Psycho.  

This Wired article by  Mr. Marcus Wohlsen justifies this censorship by stating that, "Google has a right to an editorial point of view."  the problem is Wohlsen conflates Google's function as a search engine and that of a journalist.  Google is not a Journalist.  Google is a search engine which claims to be committed to Search Neutrality.  Search Neutrality that Google claims to be governed by directly contradicts Mr. Wohlsen's assertions that Google has a "right to an editorial POV." and the definition of Search Neutrality would seem to be at odds with the algorithms Google is currently using to restrict conservative, libertarian and other forms of speech.

It's obvious that Google no longer supports the concept of "Search Neutrality" by the use of their new filtering algorithms.

I will have more to add to this missive later but I will publish today while it's still possible.  I want to  just briefly comment that Google's politics and "filtering" of words and phrases it deems offensive has had a direct impact on my own Blog Naam Bplah  in that they have removed links to videos I posted years ago showing Obama and Kahild Mohammad calling for "Death to all White People"   They have done this under the guise that it was offensive, which it was,  But it wasn't posted to be offensive it was posted to demonstrate what hate speech is and to prove that Obama is associated with that faction of people.  What is curious is that other videos showing radical racists spewing hate speech is left untouched on google.  It is not removed because it supports the narrative of the left.  Only videos that contradict the narrative of the left are removed from Google.  Keep your eyes open people.  

Our Republic, what remains of it, if anything

Today a friend send me an article that appeared in the Ultra Liberal Publication called VOX. The writer claimed to be a student of democracies. The article written by Shaun Bowler can be found here. Vox 

Mr. Bowler, although a self proclaimed "Student of Democracies" was apparently unaware that America was founded not as a Democracy but as a Republic.   Big, Big difference. As Benjamin Franklin said in response to a question of whether we had a Republic or a Monarchy as he was leaving the constitutional convention of 1787. He replied "A Republic if you can keep it."

Sadly, we are now living in a post constitutional era where the checks and balances in the constitution have all been eroded, where the executive branch rules by executive orders and both houses of congress have been emasculated and too weak to object. They have abdicated their constitutional power and authority. What we have now is a plutocracy of wealthy corporate elites and wealthy elite big government Democrats. America as it was founded is effectively gone. Franklin's premonition in his response was far sighted. "...if you can keep it." We haven't. It's lost regardless of the outcome of this election.