More than 10 months ago, I was thinking about the topic of Internet censorship, and the reason for this was the increasing incidence of suspended user accounts on Facebook due to “violation of Community Standards.” Then I assumed that if some users have been banned not by a moderator, but by an algorithm, it would turn out that we live in some digital version of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” where some words have been thrown out of the acceptable Facebook user glossary from the very beginning. Or, to put it more simply, censorship had already implemented, not by real people making decisions, but automatically by the system, which in practice doesn’t allow “inappropriate” thoughts to be expressed.
Almost a year later, it turns out that this terrible prediction is about to come true. But the evidence for this comes not from Facebook, but from another major IT company—Google. Last week, the website “Project Veritas” revealed Google’s intentions to influence the United States’ presidential elections in 2020 by introducing technologies which manipulate the information that the search engine provides to Internet users. Jen Gennai, a senior official of the company, stated directly that Donald Trump or anyone like him should not be allowed to win the presidential election, and an algorithm called “Machine Learning Fairness” will be used for this. This algorithm determines what is good and what is bad, and when you specify a search query it pushes the “good” information to the front pages and suppresses the “bad.”
A simple experiment clearly shows what is good and what is bad, according to the company’s understanding, which is already imposed by the new algorithm. If you search for images of white, heterosexual couples, the search engine displays photos on the first page mostly of either a couple from a different race, or a white couple who had adopted a child from another race. If you start typing in the search engine “can men,” the system automatically offers suggestions such as “conceive,” “give birth,” “breastfeed,” and so on. In a similar situation, if you start typing “can women,” the system offers “do everything,” “vote,” “fly,” “fight,” and so on. In short, the ideas of the far left are placed with the highest priority.
The scandal led to a hearing of Google representatives before the U.S. Senate, during which it became clear that the company’s officials had donated an overall amount of $1.3 million to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. At the same time, donations to Donald Trump’s campaign from Google’s officials equal … $0.00. This very fact alone cries out for a federal investigation, which will give answers to the following questions:
To what extent were these donations made entirely voluntarily, without the presence of corporate pressure and without using workplace-related dependencies?
Were there any Google employees who initially wanted to donate funds to Donald Trump’s election campaign, but later refused because they feared they would be sanctioned by the company they work for?
How much of that $1.3 million was indeed employees’ personal funds, and not company’s money?
Is there a hidden corporate funding scheme for Hillary Clinton’s campaign at Google that bypasses the company’s annual shareholders meeting and hides the dependencies between business and politics that should be known to the public?
The answers to these questions could cause a public storm, in the face of which our local scandals related to the “corporate vote” would pale in comparison. But that’s not the point.
One IT company usurps the right to decide who will be the president of the most powerful country in the world. De facto, Google dares to denounce the Constitution of the United States of America, which proclaims that the American nation is a sovereign one, and as such, it decides who will be the president.
Of course, this is not the first and only case where a large corporation has interfered in the political life of the United States. Very often, the presidential elections are practically like a battle between corporations. George W. Bush was elected with the help of gun-lobbying groups, Donald Trump with the help of oil-lobbying. But nevertheless, these are clear, visible connections, and the final decision is that of the voters.
In this case, things look different. Google’s market share among Internet search engines in the U.S. amounts to 63.2% (in July 2018). If we add the fact that YouTube’s platform belongs to Google, it is now clear what sort of monstrous manipulation we are talking about.
What’s even more scary is the fact that this bolshevik censorship extends far beyond the borders of the United States. Google’s global market share amounts to 92.74% (in October 2018), which is 3.5 billion visits per day. With all these search requests, the engine promotes left-wing ideas in the online space and ignores right-wing ones.
Suspicions about Google ’s multicultural, politically correct, left-wing tendencies emerged when the search engine’s homepage greeted Muslims on their main religious holidays, but forgot to do the same at Christmas and Easter. Now there is no doubt that this was not accidental.
Google is about to succeed in what Lenin and Stalin had failed—imposing communism around the world. In the 20th century, wherever the communist regime was established, it took control of mass media—press, radio, and later television. No alternative information was allowed within the country, but it was still possible for it to get to people who lived in the “free world.”
And now? Google is practically a monopolist, as far as the Internet search engines are concerned, but left-wing ideology is also firmly rooted in other large online corporations (and why large corporations support the far left is another interesting question). Facebook’s situation continues to look grim. Recently, a user was looking for an explanation from a Facebook moderator as to why several Facebook pages had been taken down and got the following answer: “It is not the 90s any more, you cannot write what you want!”. Another user writes a “politically incorrect” comment under someone else’s status. His comment was reported and removed by the moderators, because it violated “Community Standards”. The subsequent comments by other users which include personal insults, however, were not penalized. Obviously, insulting someone is not against “Community Standards” when the insult is directed at a person with right-wing beliefs.
In fact, the news is not that certain circles want to censor the Internet in order to impose their left-wing views as the only possible point of view. The news is that they are already doing it.