Project Veritas Exposes How Google Gives Billions of in-Kind Value to the Democrat Party

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

[crusty old prospector]

Try DuckDuckGO. I have used them for years. Desktop, phone, pad. It works well on all of them.

[StormEye]

"She is Canadian."

She's a citizen of Canada and is interfering in
the American electoral process. Why aren't the Feds paying
her a visit at Google? I assume she's working in the USA.
Does she have permission to work in the USA?
Is she even in the country legally?. Are her actions in
in violation of the terms of her visa?

[eyeamok]

I fail to see why any of this matters in a Nation of Men, The Public Masters are exempt from all those laws you peasant serf’s keep bringing up. Now if we lived in a Nation of Laws your petty accusations and evidence might mean something, but we Don’t. Get Over It

Sig Heil!

[butlerweave]

Den Google Collusion

[cdpap]

Get the f’in army to drive a tank through their front door. Arrest everyone in the building. Hold them as enemies of the state. Put them in guantanamo while you search their hard drives. Then maybe they will get the point that they cannot treat americans this way and get away with it. The time for drastic action is well past.

[wjcsux]

I have noticed the same thing, particularly with Google. You have to sort through pages of crap to find what you were initially searching for.

[Shady]

I use it a lot. Excellent alternative!

[Political Junkie Too]

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

"Charged" by whom?

That's the whole point of anti-trust break-ups, isn't it?

“As you know, Google enjoys a special exemption under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The predicate for that immunity was that Google and other big tech media companies would be neutral public forums.”

If a product's marketing is deceptive, it should be investigated.

If Google's contract is that, for the "price" of letting Google mine your data you get a service that let's you get superior search results, and then Google reneges on that by tilting those results in their favor to manipulate you, that's deceptive.

It's almost like old-time subliminal advertising where you think you are paying for a movie, but you don't know that frames of product were spliced into the film such that you were being manipulated into wanting the product.

In the Google case, you're being manipulated into thinking you're getting a true search result, when in fact you're being socially manipulated by those results.

It's subliminal, and it was made illegal in the past.

-PJ