Google and Its Pals Are Worse than Anyone Thought

Is it true that Google suppresses conservative voices branding them as ‘conspiracy theories’?

- No, this is a conspiracy theory (an imaginary conversation with Google PR)

The liberal anechoic prison looks like an alternative reality (“AR”), created by Internet Gatekeepers – Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Apple. This is not the same as an old-style echo chamber, in which inhabitants were still aware that there are people with other views outside the chamber. The prisoners of the AR are not aware of their status. After all, it is confirmed by all their information sources: all the news channels (except for the vilified Fox News), Google searches, anti-social mediaWikipedia, and the fact checkers. Ironically, all these outlets continually espouse that Trump supporters are the ones living in an alternative reality.

Gatekeepers Cause Polarization

This goes a long way to explain the growing polarization in the country. The Gatekeepers seem to be the main cause of liberal self- delusion and of mass confusion for everybody else, in addition to their hate-mongering. They synchronize messaging among various left-liberal outlets and suppress or distort conservative views. I have been warning my readers as to the dangers of these Internet Gatekeepers for more than two years, but the recent revelation by Google whistleblowers exceeded all my worries. The MSM-Gatekeepers collusion is illuminated by the indifference and hostility that MSM and tech news media display toward Google whistleblowers. Instead of reporting on the bombshell material that Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies released, they aggressively smeared him. Google has not disputed the authenticity of the documents released nor anything Zach has said.

Gatekeepers Aid Coup Attempts

Remember the simultaneous deplatforming of Infowars and Alex Jones by Apple, Google, Facebook, and followed by Twitter, two weeks later? It was done for political reasons in response to a third-party request. This is how Facebook refugee Brian Amerige describes this incident: “a team of (human) employees [was] scouring months of Jones’ historical Facebook posts to find borderline content that might be used to justify a ban. In practice, the decision was made for political reasons...”

I wrote that de-platforming Infowars had been initiated by somebody close to the Mueller team as a means to pressure Dr. Jerome Corsi into giving false testimony against Trump. Dr. Corsi had been a long time Infowars editor and could defend himself on it, in the court of public opinion.

Gatekeepers Target the Central Subjects of Public Debate

Gatekeepers supposedly act against perceived hate speech, white nationalists, or conspiracy theories, and this injury to free speech is enough to cause controversy. However, in reality, the main casualties of Gatekeepers suppression are people and speech supportive of Trump and opposing strong left-wing agendas, which have recently become almost one and the same. The evidence of Spygate, the coup attempt (continuation of Spygate after Trump’s inauguration), climate realism, the racism and anti-Semitism of the Democrat-Socialist party, and the evidence of this collusive tech suppression itself are among the most suppressed topics.

The Gatekeepers suppress conservative opinions and evidence, under the pretense of fighting conspiracy theories and false news. In addition to direct deplatforming of the opposition, the Gatekeepers' behavior has a chilling effect on speech because speakers and publishers are afraid to associate themselves with people and views targeted by the Gatekeepers.

Gatekeepers Collude with MSM

The Gatekeepers work in tandem with the MSM. Most people have already figured out that MSM has become the Fake News, but the Gatekeepers continually prop them up my sending them web traffic and ad revenues and denying those same services to Trump supporting publications. In return, MSM provides the Gatekeepers with political support and guidance from the Democrat-Socialist establishment.

Did Gatekeepers’ Executive Intend to Go This Far?

I don’t know to what extent Gatekeepers’ executives are aware of what their companies are doing. They are under pressure from foreign governments and from leftist activists, both outside and inside their companies. Censorship decisions are frequently based on input from shadowy external organizations, who often clandestinely work with Gatekeepers’ employees. There are also cases in which the Gatekeepers themselves advise outside groups on the best ways to manipulate their systems. For example, Google refers to search terms, which return results that its far left allies don’t like, as data voids. It then teaches activists how to fill in these “voids” in order to bury unwanted results. Look no further than the Google’s search results for ‘Spygate’. Google employees also use their system access or knowledge to de-platform conservatives bypassing management at all.

Mission Impossible: Domestic and International Aspects

The Gatekeepers attempted to be everything for everybody, everywhere in the world. This is impossible, even if it were legal. Even within the U.S., they could operate either as common carriers, removing only content universally accepted as bad (malware, spam, maybe porn, etc.), or as publishers with editorial discretion and limited audiences.

Worse, they act as transnational entities operating a global informational space. In that space, Americans are not only a small minority, but also lack representation and are powerless before foreign governments, political parties, and even terrorist organizations. Further, Gatekeepers explicitly submitted to European Commission demands to act against what EC deems misinformation and hate speech. They then applied these foreign laws and policies here in the U.S. All these Gatekeeper platforms also expose the U.S. itself – consider how much information is available on the internet about our internal social mechanisms, institutions, and important individuals compared to what is available, for example, about Somali. Every country has equal access to the internet information but is not equally exposed by it. But it is another huge topic.

Gatekeepers Editorial Ambitions and Delusions

Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act grants the Gatekeepers broad immunities when they choose to act as interactive service providers (ISPs) rather than as speakers or publishers protected by the First Amendment. Contrary to popular belief, Section 230 isn’t a one-sided shield for the providers, but a tradeoff: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” As a means of protection, Section 230 compares to the First Amendment as glass to steel. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Even Gatekeepers’ broad privileges to moderate content are conditional on their actions being both voluntary and in good faith. Any other content manipulation without viewers-understood intent “to convey a particularized message” is not protected speech (the Supreme Court of the US, Texas v. Johnson, 1989). The Gatekeepers are liable for each and every lie or misrepresentation of their services.

Leo Goldstein has a background in software and internet industry. His recent and current research focuses on anti-social media and cyber-security

Update: An earlier version of this piece had a passage on "covfefe" which appears to have been written in error. It has been deleted.

If you experience technical problems, please write to