Is Google Home blocking music with Christian content?

  Least you think I'm a conspiracy theorist you should check out this article in Us News and World report.  Hardly a right wing magazine. US News and World Report  Or just Google the phrase "google has become the internet  censor"  The results are pretty conclusive.  

Additionally, I do know that Google Home isn't or wasn't designed to work outside of the US, Canada or the UK.  My "Google Home" informed me of that when I hooked it up and it detected my IP address.  It said something like, "I might not work or I wasn't designed to work..." but it does work pretty well. However the censorship part about music, really has less to do with Google Home and more to do with who your Google Home is "linked" to,  Pandora, Spotify, or Google Play.  In my case Google Play,  (Which IS designed and advertised to work in Thailand)   I didn't make that clear in my initial post.  The Google Home is just a conduit through which Google Play provides "content". and I think, as I've demonstrated elow also censors that content based on location and, as far as I can tell not for copy-write or licensing issues. I'm pretty sure, "Jesus Loves Me" is public domain. 

Google Home not so friendly to Christian Homes

Fake News or just old fashioned Propaganda?

Update: I wanted to update my article on "Fake News" with a link to an article I read by a liberal blogger today that very articulately and much more thoroughly reflects my own position. The article by John Laurits can be found Here.  John highlights the dangers of what organizations like Google and Facebook are doing in including legitimate news sites like Breitbart, RedFlag, Info Wars, Red State and others. in their ban on Fake News when these sites are clearly NOT Fake News anymore than CNN is.  However, these sites do express a political viewpoint that Google and Facebook don't agree with.  The question is who decides what is "Fake" and what is Not.  Who determines it?  What criteria is used?

There have been a recent spate of articles on "Fake News". From CNN last week and now from PC World. Both outlets pretending to be the unvarnished, unbiased neutral third parties on what is and what isn't "Fake News. The PC World article on "Fake News" is so fake and misleading I almost had to vomit. How do they think they can get away with the blatant propaganda they put out? Didn't they learn anything from the election? Who's checking the Fact Checkers? And what's up with this PC World's pathetic excuse for an editor, Mark Hatchman? This individual is no journalist or editor. He admittedly conned his way into his current position. He claims to be an enthusiastic hiker but but one look at him and you can determine he hasn't been hiking in 10 or 20 years. If you can't trust his assertions about his own personal life, how can you rely on his published reporting?

Note: Update note. I noticed that the link to the photo I had in this article of Mark Hatchman was bad, i.e., no longer existed. Much to my chagrin and amazement it appears that Mr. Hatchman and or his agents and or Google systematically searched the web for all images of Mr. Hatchman and removed them. (Especially the ones showing him in his current state of as a rotund bloated, left wing, social justice warrior bloviate. So I was left with no recourse than to hurriedly draw a likeness of him. (See below) I know. I know. It's juvenile and pathetic. I'll make improvements in the not too distant future but this will act as a placeholder until that time.

Also, what's up with the term "Fake News" itself. Is that some spiffy new Leftist politically correct term? What's wrong with calling it propaganda, opinion or even wistful thinking? Who is going to be the arbitrator of what is fake and what is real? CNN? PC World? Zuckerberg's FaceBook staff or God help us, Mark Hatchman?

Look, most people are smart enough they don't need some "self appointed, ivy league, politically correct, adjunct professor of "human studies" to tell them what's propaganda and what isn't. The proof of my assertion is the result of this election. Despite a relentless and massive misinformation campaign by the democrats, and the Media (Same organization really.) The America people figured out for themselves that the Media and the Democrats, RINO Republicans, and Never Trumpers were lying to them. As the 1970's Rock and Rollers, The Who, once cried, We Don't get Fooled Again.  But it now appears that Google and Facebook and the Federal Government under Obama and the Democrats are determined to make sure we don't have free and unfettered access to any news or information we are interested in.  They want to "control" our access and determine for us what is and what isn't news.   This is never a good thing.

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.  

IT World Canada, Supports View The EU Should Prevent a Google/Motorola Merger

IT World Canada Spreads the Word, 

"Google is Evil".

Evil Google copyright Naam Bplah by Troy

Friday, IT World Canada published a story on a so called "Consumer Advocacy Group" that is petitioning the European Union, supposedly, on behalf of "World Consumers" to prevent Google from acquiring Motorola.  We're not privy to who these "consumers" are or how many of them Consumer Watchdog represents.  That fact is not stated in the "IT World Canada" article or at "Consumer Watchdog's" web site. 

It is perfectly legitimate for IT World Canada to publish this story.  I only draw attention to it here on Naam Bplah because they fail to properly identify this so called "consumer advocacy group" for what it really is.   It is a radical leftist organization. The current president, Mr. Jamie Court is an avowed leftist progressive, who wrote "The Progressives Guide to Raising Hell" and who makes Saul Alinski look like a piker.


These people are way, way out on the fringe far left and by failing to properly identify them as such "IT World Canada" misleads its readers into thinking this is some kind of main stream unbiased, apolitical group.   "IT World Canada" gives, "Standing and legitimacy" to "Consumer Watchdog" by failing to tell their readers its agenda and background.   


It might have been more appropriate if "IT World Canada" had raised the issue of how or why a US based group like "Consumer Watchdog" even has legal standing to file a brief with the EU and to explain why the EU would even allow the brief for consideration. "IT World Canada" fails to bring up either of these points.


Every member of the staff of "Consumer Watchdog" supports the US Democrat party, radical factions of the labor unions including the self professed communist SEIU, Obama Supported, union.   Several of the leaders and founders of "Consumer Watchdog" are self professed members of the socialist and communist party. I would provide as an example, the founders Harvey Rosenfield and Chic Wolk. The former is an old Ralph Nader radial hack and the later is a card carrying member of the ACLU.   In addition to "Consumer Watchdog's political agenda they are also just flat wrong and deliberately inaccurate in their charges against Google as documented here in Wired.

These leftist organizations, (Hiding in sheep's clothing as "consumer advocacy groups") are trying to kill the most successful, job creating and economic work horses we have in America. The main stream media in America and Canada aids and abet's them by coyly pretending they don't know what's going on.  

If this was a conservative organization "IT World Canada" and all the other main stream media publications would take great pains to point out it's political affiliation to their readers.   Why don't the same standards apply when they report on the initiatives and actions of their liberal friends? Well we both know why don't we? It's because educating their readers to the ubiquitous and pervasive radical leftist agenda would undermine it.


What can be done?  I urge you to write the author, Ms Jennifer Baker of IT World Canada and call her on her failure to appropriately inform her readers.