Tech tyrants at Google do their best to obscure no indictments of Mueller Report

American Thinker ^ | 03/25/2019 | Thomas Lifson

[SeekAndFind]

If the internet search monopolists at Google are trying to build a case that they are a dangerous threat to democracy in need of antitrust remediation, they are doing a good job of it. We already know that Google is run by leftists for leftists, and fired software engineer James Damore for political reasons – because he dared question PC orthodoxy. But there is an accumulating body of evidence that Google attempts to manage the public’s access to information so as to bias it in favor of Google’s friends and against those Google decides are its enemies.

Paul Crookston of The Free Beacon spotted the rascals quietly doing their mischief by doing a simple auto-fill test, seeing what Google would suggest as a customer typed in a subject.

Using Google search on multiple browsers and on private-browsing mode, the Free Beacon found Google search had an aversion to the search term "indictment."

Using either "Trump" or "Mueller" as the subject, the following word "indictment" was not suggested even after spelling out most of it. For example, putting "Trump indi" into Google’s search bar does not lead to "Trump indictment" but rather to "Trump India," "Trump India Pakistan," Trump India tariffs," and "Trump Indiana."

Bing has no such reticence:

Read the whole thing to see other amusing takes on Google’s squeamishness about leading users to the real story. But this one, to me, takes the cake:

I think the word "suppression" is appropriate.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

They control content so they should subject to defamation lawsuits.

[ClearCase_guy]

1) First Amendment indicates that government shall not censor speech
2) Corporations, on the other hand, have some control over speech, and may censor some things.
3) What happens if we prove that Google and Face Book and the rest are at least partially government shadow entities? That would be unconstitutional censorship, right?

[fruser1]

Perhaps the best approach to take is that if it’s on google you know it’s not true.

[goodnesswins]

Bookmarked under Google Sucks

[DiogenesLamp]

ping.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[RightGeek]

See also https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3735146/posts?page=3065#3065

[red-dawg]

[TennesseeProfessor]

Trump exo....
gives Trump exonerated in Bing and “Trump expo” in Google

[DaxtonBrown]

Try these in Google and Bing and see what they auto suggest:
Trump innocent
Trump vindicated
Trump Russia
Trump collusion

[hollywood]

Try the same experiment with “Trump exo” (for exonerated). Only three show up on google, all from FR!

[gibsonguy]

Do not use google. I use duck duck go. Idiotic name but pretty good.

[thoughtomator]

The executives at Google are co-conspirators in a coup against the United States and ought to be included when the charges are doled out.

[Openurmind]

“Trump indictments so far”

Bing isn’t being quite honest either offering this one as a suggestion. Trump hasn’t been indicted on anything “so far” has he? lol

[USS Alaska]

Bing/Firefox is my homepage and duckduckgo is my 2nd preferred search engine. I use google rarely, chrome almost never and have no facebook {did sign up for gab but am inactive} never used twitter or instagram, but I am an old fogey that still uses a flip phone.

[nitzy]

I can’t verify this directly, but I have an acquaintance who was a tradesman working on a huge new Facebook data center. He said all of the tradesmen needed to pass extremely rigorous background checks to work on the project. Even more so than most highly secure government jobs he worked on. He also seemed to think it was because there were intelligence offices in the same complex.

Again, I can’t verify any of that but it would interesting if true.

[mumblypeg]

This morning, my phone’s default newsfeed (att.net) was loaded with nothing but CNN stories.
They’re not even trying to be sly about it anymore.

[Reily]

You have the same sort of security at banks!

Of course they are going to have that type of security because they have something worth a lot of money they need to protect - their subscriber information. Oh they’re not doing this because they want to help & protect you & your information. Its what they sell! Its where the company gets its valuation from. The they commodity sell -YOU! Why wouldn’t they protect it like gold? Its better then gold. It’s easier to store. You the subscriber are digital pork bellies to them.

As far as intelligence agencies office being there, why would they need to physically be there when all they would need is a pipe from there to HQ? A large capacity high throughput VPN would do nicely! There’s no need to physically be there. Stop think spatially in the internet world! Any way to the social media giants the government is just another customer and not a very important one at that. They make far far more of their money selling “you” to marketing services. You would not believe how large that market is! It utterly dwarves the government business area.

[nitzy]

You have the same sort of security at banks!

No you don't. I am talking about a tradesman at a new datacenter that is under construction. You don't need background checks and security clearances to put toilets, electric outlets, plumbing, lighting and cooling systems into new bank buildings that are under construction.

As far as intelligence agencies office being there, why would they need to physically be there when all they would need is a pipe from there to HQ?

Maybe they are doing more than just collecting the data?

[Reily]

Yes you do !
I’ve worked in data security for banks & government. Banks are no different then a government high security center. Same concerns on physical, communication & data security if anything they’re more concerned. Why real money! If your bank is not similarly concerned my advice is find another bank!