Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Google the Bigot


For those of you out there who don't believe all those Internet complaints that Google is bigoted, and censors out sites which aren't conventionally Liberal, I propose the following experiment.  First, do you know -- or can you admit -- that there really are racist Black organizations?  After all, even the Southern Poverty Law Center (which has all the objectivity of a Stalinist bureaucrat) admitted a few years back that certain "Black Separatists" belonged on the domestic-terrorist list.  Okay, that's a subject that's terribly embarrassing to the dominant political movement in the US today.  So, now go to Google's search-page and type "Black hate groups" or "Black racist groups" or Black nationalists" -- or any combination thereof -- into the search-box.  See what you get.  Every other listing either is or refers to the SPLC, many of them are editorials by the discredited Huffington Post, and most of them insist on also referring to White "hate groups" as worse, and an excuse.  Dr. King must be spinning in his grave at several hundred RPMs.  One thing none of them claim is that White "hate-groups" are more numerous or powerful than Black ones, because even the SPLC can't pretend that.  Still, it would be hard to doubt the political attitudes that Google is pushing. 

(Sidenote: the FBI was the first government agency to define and track specifically racial and religious hate-groups, back before World War Two.  After that war, the Anti-Defamation League also took up the task from the civilian side;  they began by detecting specifically religious (particularly anti-semitic) hate-groups, and moved outward from there.  They made a point of carefully verifying their data in preparation for legal cases, and were hesitant to accuse a group or individual without solid proof.  The SPLC began in the 1970s, supposedly to provide legal defense for poor Blacks in the south, but it soon made itself the civilian expert on hunting up White racist organizations, despite numerous complaints of slander against it.  In that role, it's become one of the major fund-raisers on the political Left.  What the FBI knows, it doesn't  tend to reveal.)

Now, go to Yahoo's search-page, and plug in the same topics.  Note the differences.  Note the number of other different links and other sources than SPLC.  Note that more of the links are willing to mention the numbers, attitudes, and activities of real Black hate-groups.  On the leading page, there's only one link (to Time magazine, of all places) making excuses for them.  The political attitude is still distinctly Left-wing, but noticeably more balanced.

Using Startpage, which is famous for its privacy and security, as your search-engine you'll see the links much more widely varied in source -- running as far out as Al Jazeera and The Root.  It generally tends more toward Left attitudes than Yahoo, but makes some effort toward balance.

It's difficult to get into DuckDuckGo's search engine, but well worth it.  Along with a cluster of the usual sites, its downright enormous first page lists sites with sources and attitudes all over the scale (including a mild Christian website which tackles SPLC directly -- and reveals the interesting fact that " the FBI, among other law-enforcement agencies, no longer relies on the SPLC’s data").  It covers a wider and more balanced range than any we've seen so far.

There are plenty of other search-engines for the seriously interested, many of which can be found at http://www.hacker10.com/internet-anonymity/list-of-privacy-search-engines-for-anonymous-internet-search/, though their focus is on user privacy rather than avoiding political censorship or propaganda, and I leave it to more experienced users than I am to compare them.

Point is, comparing just the four search-engines mentioned above, the effect of political bias is obvious and worrisome.  Google, as (AFAIK) the world's largest search-engine, has no business being the most persistently biased of them. 

Internet censorship has been the universal bogeyman of all users, not to mention hackers, since the concept was first formed.  What made the company sell out?  Was it the simple corruption of power?  Or just another part of the steady degeneration of the modern Liberal movement?  

It's sad watching The Peter Principle work its way through a political/philosophical movement as inevitably as through a manager's career.  


--Leslie <;)))><   


      



      

No comments: