Google
heeft in 2016 willens en wetens presidentskandidaat Hillary Clinton
gepromoot en berichten over Trump en andere conservatieve
republikeinen die achter hem stonden, zo ver mogelijk weggestopt, ofwel dat je dat soort
berichten pas na heel lang zoeken kon vinden…..

Hetzelfde
wat Google nu doet met linkse of alternatieve berichtgeving, zelfs
berichten van jouw Azijnpisser kom je nog maar zelden tegen op een
eerste pagina als je zoekt naar een onderwerp of persoon op Google.

Hiermee
heeft Google zich opgesteld als de grote bestrijder van critici die
de reguliere (massa-) media aan de kaak stellen als brenger van fake
news (nepnieuws), ofwel Google censureert het internet…… Dit nog bovenop de geïnstitutionaliseerde geschiedvervalsing die Google hanteert met het verwijderen van berichten over bepaalde personen als zij vinden dat dit wel eens vergeten mag worden, te schunnig voor woorden! Je snapt waarschijnlijk wel dat het daar niet gaat om ‘pubervergissingen’ op het internet (die moeten vooral verwijderd worden), maar vooral over personen die op wat voor manier dan ook machtsmisbruik hebben gepleegd en daar op hun oude dag niet aan herinnerd wensen te worden (niet zelden politici en grote ondernemers)…… Naast geschiedvervalsing is dit pure censuur!

De vraag
blijft over of Google willens en wetens Hillary Clinton heeft
gepromoot tijdens de democratische voorverkiezing, ofwel heeft Google
ook de berichten over/met Bernie Sanders begraven? (Immers hij lag niet lekker bij de top van de democraten) Van belang voor
het hele gelogen verhaal over Russische manipulaties, genaamd
‘Russiagate’, daar juist de uiterst smerige machinaties van Clinton
en haar campagneteam uit het nieuws verdwenen……. Eén en ander door het bliksemsnel
ingevoerde sprookje dat de Russen ‘Clintons computers’ zouden hebben
gehackt en zo de uiterst belastende emails die Clintons ware gezicht
lieten zien, hebben toegespeeld aan WikiLeaks, terwijl dit door een
terecht gefrustreerde medewerker van Clinton werd gedaan…….

Het volgende bericht werd geschreven door Tyler Durden en verscheen eerder o.a. op Zero Hedge, ik nam het over van Activist Post:

Leaked
Google Emails Reveal Internal Discussion On Burying Articles From
Conservative Outlets

TOPICS:Censorship Google Tyler
Durden

DECEMBER
1, 2018

By Tyler
Durden

Google
– which was exposed trying to help
Hillary Clinton win
the 2016 election, and who were beside
themselves after
she lost – discussed whether to bury conservative media outlets in
the company’s search function after Donald Trump became president,
according to the Daily
Caller News Foundation’s
Peter Hasson.

Internal
communications obtained by the Caller reveal
that The Daily Caller and Breitbart were
specifically singled out for potential censorship.

Communications
obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond
expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing
ways Google could prevent
Trump from winning again.

“This
was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand
in it,”
Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by
TheDCNF (The Daily Caller News Foundation)..

Byer
falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs”
and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How
many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion
blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news
organizations? That’s
something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I
think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness
of sources –
because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he
continued.

“Beyond
that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit
of that would go a long way. Let’s
make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will
be on our side.”
–DCNF

Not
all Google employees agreed with the notion of censoring conservative
outlets; engineer Uri Dekel – a self-described Clinton supporter,
argued that manipulating search results was the wrong approach.

Thinking
that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is
contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is
partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than
Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less
deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel
wrote Byer in a reply, adding “I follow a lot of right wing folks
on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed
off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in
the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the
media doesn’t do it’s job.
I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided
dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off.
By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy
theories.

Another
engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested that the company could avoid
“accusations of conspiracy or bias” by using technology to “trace
information to its source, to link to critiques of these sources, and
let people decide what sources they believe.”

“Give
people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the
information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-byte,” added
Brauwerman.

Other
Google employees also advocated for providing context to sources in
order to “help” users consume information. Unfortunately, the
search giant’s solution was to employ fact-checking organizations
with a liberal bias that “target conservative outlets almost
exclusively,” according to the Caller.
Google eventually pulled their fact-checkers in January, crediting
an investigation by the Daily
Caller in
their decision.

Google
claims that the email conversation did not lead to the manipulation
of search results for political purposes.

This
post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we
surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows
that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a
variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

Google
has never manipulated its search results or
modified any of its products to promote a particular political
ideology. Our processes and policies do
not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political
ideologies.
–DCNF

Right
– then why does a Google search for “Idiot” return pictures
of the Trump family, while the same search in DuckDuckGo is
completely different:

This
isn’t the first time Google employees have sought to alter search
results either:

After
Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google
employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to
push back against the president’s order.

A
group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic,
algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’,
‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced,
algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’,
‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

Meanwhile,
President Trump suggested to the Daily
Caller in
September that Google and Facebook are trying to manipulate election
outcomes.

“I
think they already have,” said Trump. “I mean the true
interference in the last election was that — if you look at all,
virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor
of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe
I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good
at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s
side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with
Google and all of it, they
were very much on her side.”

This
article was originally
published by
Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge and
was sourced from SHTFplan.com.