A new analysis notes that search and tech behemoth Google is not only working to suppress conservative voices and opinions, but also anyone who disputes the Left-wing “climate change” hoax, which is really nothing more than an attack on capitalism.
That’s a problem, writes David Wojick for Capitol Hill Outsider, because Google’s market dominance is such that it essentially qualifies as a “monopoly” on the kind of information the public is allowed to see.
And monopolies, according to U.S. law, are illegal. Here’s some background.
On July 2, 1890, after Congress passed the Sherman AntiTrust Act, President Benjamin Harrison signed it into law, thereby creating the first federal legislation outlawing monopolistic business practices.
Named after Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, a onetime chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Secretary of the Treasury under President Rutherford B. Hayes, the law was designed to enhance competition among American businesses and corporations and prohibit single firms from completely dominating an industry or economic sector.
“The Sherman Act authorized the Federal Government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them,” according to this government website. But because the law loosely defined key terms like “trust,” “conspiracy,” and “monopoly,” it was eventually “dismantled” by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that wasn’t the end of the law. Presidents and administrations have used it frequently since to bust up real-life monopolies including Standard Oil, the American Tobacco Co., and — as recently as the 1990s — the Microsoft Corp.
Now, argues Wojick, Google — which The Washington Times notes dominates the online ‘search’ function with more than 92 percent of traffic — constitutes a monopoly on information that must be broken up.
He notes that several months ago Google released a white paper titled, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” While that sounds like a noble cause, because the tech giant “is a decidedly Left-wing outfit,” it classifies as “disinformation” conservative views and “things like skepticism of climate alarmism.”
He also says that Google’s search results when it comes to topics or news stories favor “authoritative sources” which the algorithm has been designed to identify as “mainstream” media, “which are almost entirely liberal.”
And since these are the biggest news sites, Google’s algorithm essentially filters out any site that is smaller and not as well-read, regardless of the validity of its content. That means conservative sites who argue against the climate change narrative are screened out intentionally.
As The National Sentinel reported in February 2017, a former U.N. official actually admitted in a private setting that the objective of pushing the ‘climate change’ narrative was to destroy individual liberties and capitalism. But anyone challenging the Left’s version of climate change — that it’s real and it’s going to destroy the planet unless we all give up our modern lives — is suppressed. Wojick notes.
While conducting research in 2018, Wojick documented extreme bias when he searched for “dangerous manmade global warming” information.
“My individual searches on prominent skeptics of alarmist claims revealed that Google’s ‘authoritative source’ was an obscure website called DeSmogBlog, whose claim to fame is posting nasty negative dossiers on skeptics, including me and several colleagues,” he wrote.
While conducting searches, Wojick found three things:
— Google linked to DeSmogBlog’s dossier on the skeptic though the information often was years old or “wildly inaccurate.”
— About half of the results consisted of links to negative attacks, “which should not be surprising, since the liberal press often attacks us as skeptics.”
— Climate skeptics are very often described as being “funded by Big Oil,” whereas funding of climate alarmists by “self-interested government agencies,” renewable energy companies and far-Left climate figures like Tom Steyer were “generally ignored.”
This is why the Brighteon video platform exists — so that people can post their materials without worrying about being censored by political special interests.