LEAK: One thousand Google employees sign petition to REMOVE Breitbart from Ad program

Project Veritas has a trove of leaked information from Google and among those documents they just found a 2017 petition, from within the company, to remove Breitbart from Google Adsense:



Google Adsense, for those of you who don’t know, is the biggest ad revenue platform out there. It pays the best which is why it’s the most popular.

O’Keefe says that in early 2017 a thousand Google employees signed this petition within the company to have Breitbart removed from the Adsense program and thus kill their ad revenue. They were apparently very unhappy with Trump winning the election and were lashing out at his supporters.

Now thankfully this never came to fruition, as O’Keefe points out, but it does reflect the leftist culture inside Google that seeks to “silence, defund, and de-platform those with whom they politically disagree”, as Breitbart pointed out in a new statement about this leak.

Watch the video for more…

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

103 thoughts on “LEAK: One thousand Google employees sign petition to REMOVE Breitbart from Ad program

  1. I would love to know where Google or any of these techs do most of their applicant recruiting. Do they go to Commie/Marxist states/countries only?

          1. @zombiewoof not really the same thing. My point is they specifically target far leftist Universities which by the way isn’t the same as a technical college for example. Technical Colleges tend to be more Conservative.

          1. Technically, it’s not correct as I pointed out. Many people don’t understand the difference between a “College” and a “University” and apparently you are one of them.

      1. @atomicsentinel Indeed they do because they know full well that our institutions of higher learning are incubators for leftist dogma and ideology.

  2. It was just a trial run for radical progressives. They’ll learn from it, regroup, and continue to work maniacally towards their goal.

  3. Ok…a thousand employees out of how many that came across the petition? They have more than 100,000 employees, so I can’t jump on Google as of yet. They haven’t entertained this petition, and there may be no intention of doing so.

  4. It was just a trial run for radical progressives. They’ll learn from it, regroup, and continue to work maniacally towards their goal.

  5. Hmm, I left Breitbart years ago. Oh, stupid Google people. You really have no clue what’s conservative, do you? Nope.

  6. I would love to know where Google or any of these techs do most of their applicant recruiting. Do they go to Commie/Marxist states/countries only?

          1. @zombiewoof not really the same thing. My point is they specifically target far leftist Universities which by the way isn’t the same as a technical college for example. Technical Colleges tend to be more Conservative.

          1. Technically, it’s not correct as I pointed out. Many people don’t understand the difference between a “College” and a “University” and apparently you are one of them.

      1. @atomicsentinel Indeed they do because they know full well that our institutions of higher learning are incubators for leftist dogma and ideology.

  7. Ok…a thousand employees out of how many that came across the petition? They have more than 100,000 employees, so I can’t jump on Google as of yet. They haven’t entertained this petition, and there may be no intention of doing so.

      1. My post is related but not completely on topic.

        Also removing revenue for political reasons is also censoring those views. You keep the ads and revenue if you have the proper views.

        1. How is it censoring them? They are literally still right there for everyone to see and read/watch.

    1. In fact, this is more than just censorship, but a desire to penalize a media company for its views.

      1. If an advertiser pulls their support from a television show, have they censored that television show? Penalized it somehow?

        Or, flip it the other way around. I have a message I want to get out, but I can’t get any advertisers to financially back me. Am I owed that? Do I have a right to earn revenue through google adsense?

        (The answer to all those questions is no.)

        1. You are really good at comparing two totally different things hence your intellectual dishonesty. You create a straw man and proceed to destroy it. What is false about what I said. NOTHING!!!

          1. You’re not censoring anyone by not facilitating them to make money off their speech. It’s not a straw man, it’s a direct response to your argument.

            What is false about what you said is that “it’s censorship.” It’s not.

  8. Well here we go again. Let’s hear all about the constitutional right to google adsense.

    Sigh.

    1. Can you point to a single person who ever claimed that there is a “constitutional right” to anything Google? Not a single person?! So you’ve been caught making stuff up again for the umpteenth time?! Additionally, you continue to support Google having special immunity from lawsuits under Section 230?! Consider yourself owned for the umpteenth time. Now go away!

      Sigh

        1. I love how much effort you put into shutting down discussions in the comments.

          Have you thought about just quitting the internet? You don’t seem to like it very much.

        2. @dr-strangelove Ya, I’m pretty convinced she/he/it/they is a TROLL, but I would hate to see her fallacious non-sense all over the place without getting corrected.

          1. You’d have to actually correct it for that. Most of the time you just go into hysterics as you get thumped with that book learnin’ you seem to eschew.

          2. @Abe I no longer reply to her, but she continues to stalk me. Just talk about her as if she’s not here. She’ll claim not to care, but she’ll respond because it drives her nuts.

            1. Actually, I’ll do it just to correct you.

              If you’re going to insist on scribbling that 2+2=5 all over the place, then someone needs to respond and point out the inaccuracy. Call it stalking if you want. It is, in fact, correcting the record.

              And I’m pleased as punch that you don’t respond. Spending hours explaining basic things like simple math problems over and over and over to you gets old.

              This way you just say something dumb, I correct you, and we can all move on being smarter. (Except for you of course, who will just move on elsewhere to repeat the bad math.)

            2. @dr-strangelove that’s a good strategy. I guess I should follow some good Internet advise of not feeding the TROLL.

                1. @dr-strangelove I get the impression she gets a kick out of getting chided. I sure hope it’s not a sexual thing for her, but it’s like she’s addicted to it and keeps coming back for more. A glutton for punishment I suppose?

                2. @Abe People used to ask me why I didn’t break up with my sadistic girlfriend and I’d say, “Beats me.”

                3. @Abe. Ever notice how some people can say more in one sentence more than others can in several paragraphs?

                4. That’s a big part of the reason you’re really weak at argument. You just say stuff and expect it to be accepted ad populum. You never actually explain or substantiate anything you say. Actually fleshing out your position, relating it back to the principles in which it’s based, and explaining how it all leads to your conclusion – you just skip that completely and declare, “It is as it is because it is and most folks agree.”

                  You’ve always been very intellectually lazy that way. It’s something you should work on.

                5. @dr-strangelove agreed. Unfortunately, some people (AT perfect example) think that the more words they use, the more brain cells they have, but in fact it’s more often the other way around. Even Justice Scalia used to say that the hardest part in writing a good opinion is to make it concise. Usually it’s the air heads that just ramble non-sense without explaining a thing and the geniuses that can explain a heck of a lot in one short sentence.

                6. Yes, but Scalia would never leave an argument unsubstantiated, or just assert “We rule this way because most of us agree.”

                  Being concise is not an excuse for being lazy. Especially intellectually.

                7. @Abe Agreed. I’m concise, but I wouldn’t call myself a genius. Especially after all of that partying, I’m lucky I have two brain cells to rub together.

      1. You did. Based on the “it’s not f-f-faaaaair!” doctrine. You can’t participate in the market place of ideas, remember? Because that didn’t exist before google.

          1. That is what you said. Your entire argument was that it wasn’t fair, therefore government should do something. You rationalized this nonsense on the nonsense notion that if the government doesn’t do something, then people are being excluded from the marketplace of ideas.

            This is demonstrably false.

            1. That is what you said. Your entire argument was that it wasn’t fair, therefore government should do something.

              lol. you are so dishonest, it disgusts me. I’m gonna have to go shower after talking with you and I totally understand why so many hate to talk with you. Do you see what you did here? This last post is different than original in which you brought up “fairness doctrine”.

              When I speak about “fairness”, I am specifically talking about Section 230 which has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine, but somehow the word causes you to have a trigger and you spout out about the “fairness doctrine”! Let’s get this straight. Fairness doctrine is about radio. Section 230 is about Big Tech. In fact, Section 230 is like a one-sided “fairness doctrine” because under that rule, Google is treated completely differently then any other publisher. So Yes, I am for making the marketplace fair so that all publishers whether it be WSJ or Google, are treated the same way and subject to lawsuits. So YES the government must act to correct this mistake to make things fair. What is your rationale for Google having special protection or like Cruz said it, “a subsidy”? He argued this well when he said that when Congress passed Section 230 previously, it was under the pretext that Big Tech would be neutral in regards to how they handle content, but as we see over and over again, this is definitely not the case, so Section 230 needs to be revised among other things. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction and repeat your “government intervention” mantra, you need to look at this more deeply. If the automotive industry was getting government subsidy or some special protection, will you be against stopping such subsidy because according to you, it would amount to, “government intervention”?

    2. Yep. You don’t have a right to use banking services, credit services, telephones, or internet. So just sit there quietly while you lose all access to anything but cash or the public library. Because that’s the American Dream in useless, snowglobe Conservatopia.

  9. The spoiled children have infected corporate America. Staging walkouts and such. I was hoping the real world would’ve whipped these children into shape but that never materialized. The spoiled children took over the real world and replaced it with their delusions.

    1. Agree. My company recently had an all employee meeting to discuss restructuring and relocation of corporate HQ. It was interesting to hear the execs talk about how many jobs will be “sun-setted”……just say let go or fired!

      Also of note was a question by one of the millenial new hires who won’t be “sun-setted”…….”Will the company be purchasing a ping-pong table for the new HQ site?”……lots of dirty stares from the old guard.

    2. @ryan-o I think that the ones who actually work for a living have a little better attitude.

  10. Hmm, I left Breitbart years ago. Oh, stupid Google people. You really have no clue what’s conservative, do you? Nope.

      1. My post is related but not completely on topic.

        Also removing revenue for political reasons is also censoring those views. You keep the ads and revenue if you have the proper views.

        1. How is it censoring them? They are literally still right there for everyone to see and read/watch.

    1. In fact, this is more than just censorship, but a desire to penalize a media company for its views.

      1. If an advertiser pulls their support from a television show, have they censored that television show? Penalized it somehow?

        Or, flip it the other way around. I have a message I want to get out, but I can’t get any advertisers to financially back me. Am I owed that? Do I have a right to earn revenue through google adsense?

        (The answer to all those questions is no.)

        1. You are really good at comparing two totally different things hence your intellectual dishonesty. You create a straw man and proceed to destroy it. What is false about what I said. NOTHING!!!

          1. You’re not censoring anyone by not facilitating them to make money off their speech. It’s not a straw man, it’s a direct response to your argument.

            What is false about what you said is that “it’s censorship.” It’s not.

  11. Well here we go again. Let’s hear all about the constitutional right to google adsense.

    Sigh.

    1. Yep. You don’t have a right to use banking services, credit services, telephones, or internet. So just sit there quietly while you lose all access to anything but cash or the public library. Because that’s the American Dream in useless, snowglobe Conservatopia.

      1. Banks, credit services, telephone companies, and internet providers all have to provide you something. If someone has to provide it to you, by definition you cannot have a right to it.

    2. Can you point to a single person who ever claimed that there is a “constitutional right” to anything Google? Not a single person?! So you’ve been caught making stuff up again for the umpteenth time?! Additionally, you continue to support Google having special immunity from lawsuits under Section 230?! Consider yourself owned for the umpteenth time. Now go away!

      Sigh

        1. @dr-strangelove Ya, I’m pretty convinced she/he/it/they is a TROLL, but I would hate to see her fallacious non-sense all over the place without getting corrected.

          1. @Abe I no longer reply to her, but she continues to stalk me. Just talk about her as if she’s not here. She’ll claim not to care, but she’ll respond because it drives her nuts.

          2. You’d have to actually correct it for that. Most of the time you just go into hysterics as you get thumped with that book learnin’ you seem to eschew.

        2. I love how much effort you put into shutting down discussions in the comments.

          Have you thought about just quitting the internet? You don’t seem to like it very much.

      1. You did. Based on the “it’s not f-f-faaaaair!” doctrine. You can’t participate in the market place of ideas, remember? Because that didn’t exist before google.

          1. That is what you said. Your entire argument was that it wasn’t fair, therefore government should do something. You rationalized this nonsense on the nonsense notion that if the government doesn’t do something, then people are being excluded from the marketplace of ideas.

            This is demonstrably false.

            1. That is what you said. Your entire argument was that it wasn’t fair, therefore government should do something.

              lol. you are so dishonest, it disgusts me. I’m gonna have to go shower after talking with you and I totally understand why so many hate to talk with you. Do you see what you did here? This last post is different than original in which you brought up “fairness doctrine”.

              When I speak about “fairness”, I am specifically talking about Section 230 which has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine, but somehow the word causes you to have a trigger and you spout out about the “fairness doctrine”! Let’s get this straight. Fairness doctrine is about radio. Section 230 is about Big Tech. In fact, Section 230 is like a one-sided “fairness doctrine” because under that rule, Google is treated completely differently then any other publisher. So Yes, I am for making the marketplace fair so that all publishers whether it be WSJ or Google, are treated the same way and subject to lawsuits. So YES the government must act to correct this mistake to make things fair. What is your rationale for Google having special protection or like Cruz said it, “a subsidy”? He argued this well when he said that when Congress passed Section 230 previously, it was under the pretext that Big Tech would be neutral in regards to how they handle content, but as we see over and over again, this is definitely not the case, so Section 230 needs to be revised among other things. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction and repeat your “government intervention” mantra, you need to look at this more deeply. If the automotive industry was getting government subsidy or some special protection, will you be against stopping such subsidy because according to you, it would amount to, “government intervention”?

              1. Blah blah blah sec 230 bla blah blah i love big government bla blah bla fair marketplace.

                I’ve already shut down and refuted this crap from you a dozen times over.

  12. The spoiled children have infected corporate America. Staging walkouts and such. I was hoping the real world would’ve whipped these children into shape but that never materialized. The spoiled children took over the real world and replaced it with their delusions.

    1. Agree. My company recently had an all employee meeting to discuss restructuring and relocation of corporate HQ. It was interesting to hear the execs talk about how many jobs will be “sun-setted”……just say let go or fired!

      Also of note was a question by one of the millenial new hires who won’t be “sun-setted”…….”Will the company be purchasing a ping-pong table for the new HQ site?”……lots of dirty stares from the old guard.

    2. @ryan-o I think that the ones who actually work for a living have a little better attitude.

Comments are closed.