RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/11/29/election-be-damned-googles-anti-trump-bias-is-alive-and-well/

Donald Trump may have overwhelmingly won reelection, but according to Google’s content police, saying anything nice about him is “demonstrably false” and a threat to the “democratic process.”

Do you think we’re exaggerating?

We received notice the other day that our article “Unburdened By What Has Been, Trump Is Poised To Deliver Bigly” contained, according to Google, “unreliable and harmful claims.”

What falls into this category? Content that:

• makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process.
• promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus.
• contradicts authoritative scientific consensus on climate change.

Google didn’t, and never does, provide any specific information on what exactly violated these standards or what a “fix” would entail. But it did strip its ads from that page, costing us money.

So, we decided to try to figure out on our own what the violation was. There were no health claims or mention of “climate change,” so it has to be the first bullet above.

What was “demonstrably false”?

Could it be when we said that Trump is “off to an outstanding start and has the wind as his back to succeed”?

Or is it when we said he had a difficult start in 2016, failing to name hundreds of executive positions, had weak support, and was dogged by the Russia hoax? Or that he nevertheless accomplished much in his first term?

Is it our assertion that Trump won’t face these handicaps this time around? That he is off to a strong start and that this bodes well for his accomplishing even more in his second term than he did in his first?

Help us out here, Herr Google.

Maybe it’s one of the comments we posted from readers. But how can that be? Readers are expressing their own personal views – in other words, they are “participating” in the “democratic process.” Why should we be punished for letting readers express themselves in a (moderated) comment section?

No. The only reason Google blocked its ads from appearing on that article is because of anti-Trump political bias. (Google is still banning its ads from appearing on a nearly four-year-old editorial – “Trump’s Top-10 Triumphs: A Last Look At A Remarkable Presidency” – calling that one “dangerous and derogatory.”)

The leftist geeks who code whatever algorithm Google uses to sniff out “objectionable” content have programmed it to deem almost any conservative viewpoint as “unreliable and harmful” or “dangerous and derogatory.”

That’s why any time we challenge climate hysteria with facts, or dispute COVID dogma with facts, or talk about election fraud with facts, or criticize electric vehicles with facts, or bring facts to bear on any other item in the woke left’s canon, Google slaps one of those labels on it and strips its ads from those pages.

All in the name of protecting the “democratic process.”

This isn’t about shielding readers from obscene or violent content. It’s not about ensuring that companies won’t have their ads appear next to horrible stuff. It’s about starving conservative viewpoints of money. It’s about censorship by a monopolist, pure and simple.

That’s why we keep calling it out.