WATCH: Insider blows whistle on Google plan to PREVENT “Trump situation” in 2020

A Google whistleblower has come forward to reveal how Google is trying to use all of their resources to prevent Trump from getting re-elected in 2020. Project Veritas exposes leaked documents and they get a Senior Google Exec on hidden camera admitting it:

Wow.



Here’s the highlights via Project Veritas:

Project Veritas has released a new report on Google which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider. The report appears to show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and “prevent” the next “Trump situation.”

  • Insider: Google “is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.”
  • Google Head of Responsible Innovation Says Elizabeth Warren “misguided” on “breaking up Google”
  • Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”
  • Insider Says PragerU And Dave Rubin Content Suppressed, Targeted As “Right-Wing”
  • LEAKED Documents Highlight “Machine Learning Fairness” and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results “fair and equitable”
  • Documents Appear to Show “Editorial” Policies That Determine How Google Publishes News
  • Insider: Google Violates “letter of the law” and “spirit of the law” on Section 230

They also quote this Senior Google Exec as saying:

“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”

Project Veritas’ full video exposing all of this runs 25 minutes:

If you prefer here’s a Youtube version of the video but it’ll probably get deleted:

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.

307 thoughts on “WATCH: Insider blows whistle on Google plan to PREVENT “Trump situation” in 2020

  1. To say that Google and Facebook must be prosecuted and broken up with anti-Trust Laws is an understatement of enormous and immediate magnitude.

    Leftists in govt, more specifically Leftist of the Internet Social Media Big Tech world, more specifically-Google, is the single greatest internal threat to America, to our very Freedom and Liberty, our Constitutional Republic.

    Google is literally a high tech social media brain-washing machine, who’s ideology and agenda are priority 1, ie; Destroy Free Thought, Critical Thinking, Facts of Reality Truth that refutes their ideology and agenda, that does not align with their ideology and agenda.

    Leftists-Progressives-Liberals, whatever they want to call themselves, are indoctrinated ideologues, who are taught-indoctrinated to believe their leftist Socialist Globalist ideology is superior to American Constitutional Republicanism-Limited govt Of, By, For We the People Free Market Capitalist Lincoln Republicans, ie; Western Civilization, are taught to be blind loyal obedient ideologue servants of the party and agenda cause, and anyone who dares to step out of line is immediately crushed, as exemplified, represented by Google’s management, as well as the School Systems-Public and Universities, are irresponsive to, will not acknowledge and accept Facts, Truth, Reality, historical or present day, that contradicts and refutes their indoctrinated ideology, policies, positions, etc., and when confronted with such facts, truth, reality that refutes them, they more often than not react with emotional tirade outbursts, even physical violence.

    This is exactly what and how “brain-washed cultists” think, act, and behave. It’s basic Freudian analysis.

    Leftist’s religion is their ideology, agenda, and political party loyalty is their God, more stronger than facts, reality, and truth, thus inherently dangerous to free and enlightened western civilized society and humanity.

    “Nonconformists will be deemed intolerant, and will not be tolerated.”
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568889/posts

    Leftists are not just annoying anti-American liberals who’s policies and ideology is detrimentally wrong, they have morphed into deviant subversive insidious intolerant extremists-aka social fascists, who’s virulent indoctrinated ideological driven hate and violence is self-evident everyday, have become a direct existential threat and danger to our very Freedom and Liberty, our Constitutional Republic, which they actively work to destroy from within.

  2. But but but Google is a private company and should be able allowed to do whatever it wants. Uh no, not when it has the power and intentions to sway national elections. Researcher Dr. Robert Epstein has said “When search results favor one candidate, or one cause for that matter, it shifts opinions and it shifts votes. And I mean dramatically so… It can shift voting preferences among undecided voters by 20 percent or more easily, and up to 80 percent in some demographic groups.”

    These big tech companies are all walking in lock step to censor conservative voices, alter algorithms to their benefit, and crushing any and all dissent to ensure Trump, or really any Republican, never gets elected president again. The old robber baron tycoons conspired together to buy the presidency, and nearly succeeded. The new tech tycoons (with the media) are essentially trying to do the same thing.

    1. There comes a time when a private entity becomes so big and powerful they pose a direct threat to representative government and individual liberty.

      Either they will eventually coopt the government, with the corporation acting as the wizard behind the curtain of figurehead leaders or government will have to break them up.

      They need to be broken up now, before they have a chance to corrupt the next election.

      1. This is definitely a new phenomena. The private sector becoming a political/governmental tyrant to evade the constraints of the Constitution.

  3. Her reason for not wanting to break up Google is because smaller companies won’t be able to stop Trump. Uh…what makes her think they will want to?

    The arrogance behind it is if it’s common sense that Trump shouldn’t be President. That he somehow got elected magically. They think that Trump is the fringe or something.

  4. “small companies … will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

    WHAT?!?!?!?!?! I did not vote for this president, but what in the H E double hockey sticks gives them the right to determine who wins the presidency?

    That is the strongest argument in favor of breaking up the tech giants I’ve ever heard.

    Downloading now because we all know these videos will be pulled and even blocked by courts like the Deleiden videos exposing planned murderhood hocking baby body parts.

    1. @pmb88 Yeah, but they’ve vamped the programming to be much more of an influence apparently.

  5. So Google is colluding against the American people.

    Libertarianism fails to understand the problem with “muh private company”

    Privatized. Tyranny.

    1. @Tracy I wouldn’t even say it’s “libertarianism”. I think I’m more libertarian than most here, but I think that Google shouldn’t have special protection. True libertarianism is about individual liberty not some super liberty for one giant company that gobbles up the liberty of the many!

    2. Libertarianism is right. The weapon you forge to break up Google today will be used on Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-a, and Masterpiece Cakes tomorrow.

      1. Chris – if Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakes had the monopolized power to affect elections or attempt to at such a level then they should be.

        Come on, they are nothing alike.

  6. I know people can be lazy relaying on their devices to search for information, but neither Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are going to influence my vote. What am I missing?

    1. You are an informed voter. What they do is supress conservative views when normal people search out subjects.

    2. @landscaper good for you. You’re an informed voter like many here, but not everyone is like that.

    3. That’s because you still retain the ability to think for yourself. As do most of us here. But the lefty Twitterclones just go with what they are told to think. They mostly do not know how to think for themselves and seem to hate, as they’ve been taught, anyone who doesn’t see things the way they do.

    4. You know to come to TRS for the news. The low information voter doesn’t so they go to Google and the mainstream media for propaganda.

    5. GOVERNMENT CONTROL. That’s what you’re missing. That’s what we’ve all been missing and we never realized it. People can’t be trusted to make the right decision. We need people in power to make it for them.

    6. It may not affect yours or our vote, but many people do use these platforms, and they have more influence than I think most people realize. Look up Dr. Robert Epstein, he has done research on this and says they can shift upwards 15 million votes without anyone knowing they’re being manipulated or leaving a paper trail. And the thing is they’re ALL in cahoots, including the media.

    7. You’re missing nothing. If people want to find the truth, it’s easy. Google is one of many search engines out there. They can do whatever they want and it doesn’t matter at all.

      I don’t know whom is more ridiculous — Google thinking they have power or the fever-swamp right who thinks that the common man is so incompetent that he must use Google.

      1. Like you, the left thinks they can just pretend human nature doesn’t exist. Of course, they’re wrong which is why socialism kills so many people every time it’s tried. You’re wrong too.

        I don’t know if it’s incredible naiveté, willful ignorance, or malicious deception, but the tech giants exercise tremendous power which is proven by the fact they generate so much income. Oh, and Google has 89.1% of the search engine market.

  7. Sheesh!!! Been away for a few days and come back to see that the insanity of the left and TDS has reached epic proportions!! My TV service has been out for a month, the booster allowing my cell service in my cabin went out last Wednesday, and something is interfering with my radio reception so I’m REALLY out of touch with what’s going on. Oh, and my blood pressure is way down!! Hmmmm……… 💡

    1. I want to come live there @lillie-belle 🙂 sometimes out of the loop is the best place to be

  8. “I’m like a high level executive and like, I’m like telling you all how it like is and stuff. We can’t have like another Trump or like it’d be like bad.”

    Not to many high level execs of major corps use like that much. I wonder if their “new algorithms” would prevent that for a D accidentally. Would the adjusted algorithm take down a 2008 Obama like candidate?

  9. Bust these communist pukes into a thousand tiny pieces. Google is and always has been an enemy of the constitution and the United States. Bust them up and throw the founders in prison where they belong.

    1. If everyone on the right stopped using these companies they would collapse. But in spite of the way people on the right are treated by them they hang on. I just don’t get it.

    2. No. Don’t bust them up, simply remove their 230 protections and force them to operate as publishers. The lawsuits alone will bankrupt them.

  10. As someone who would like to see conservatives develop their own alternative companies with a right to be biased in favor of liberty I’m still against the regulation route, but this is making it difficult.

    Google needs an epic slapdown.

  11. Note to the right scoop, we don’t prefer youtube. With their and others like twitters censorship I will never click on them. I dropped my accounts and will never click on them so expect zero funding from traffic movement there at least from me.

    That goes for all clicks even non-political traffic for me.

  12. We don’t need foriegn interference……..the Lamestream Media is our biggest enemy! But don’t be fooled into thinking you are successful LSM, we see what you are! Keep it up, no one is buying your snake oil anymore!

  13. Boy. Talk about Russian Collusion/Conspiracy to influence the outcome of a U.S. Election: Sergey Brin is a Russian born, naturalized American that is attempting to influence a U.S. election via extraordinary and extra-legal means. WTF is the outrage amongst Congressional Democrats over this?

  14. “1984 should not be a user manual of how to run a society.”

    :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

  15. Did it bother anyone else but me that the two people they “caught” in the video talking about how they were working to make sure 2020 isn’t a repeat of 2016 were IMMIGRANTS? The woman was Irish and the man was from India. Both had pronounced accents indicating they came to this country as adults, who knows how recently?

    I assume they immigrated here legally, that’s not my point, but who are they to monkey around with our elections??? Who is anyone? But especially someone whose allegiance many not even be exclusively to America.

    Just sayin.

    1. So it bothers you that people with accents work for a large company with global reach? Really?

      And do you really think that this woman and the software engineer the responsible for setting google policy?

      1. Yes when they dont adopt the values of the country that took them in and instead work against them.

        1. What values of the United States have they not adopted? And which are they working against? From my understanding these two employees don’t have much of anything to do with determining Google’s policies.

          But shall we have all private employees with foreign accents (whether citizens or not) take a values/loyalty test of your liking? To me that sounds like it would be a wholesale rejection of the American “values.”

  16. Prima facie evidence far too much power is in too few hands — unelected, unaccountable hands, not beholden to a Constitution and not constrained by a Bill of Rights.

  17. “We all got screwed over”, says the Senior Google Exec”. I would guess the 62,979,636 million voters who cast their vote for him don’t agree. Some of us that didn’t vote for him then would now if we had a chance. So the “Senior Google Exec” is full of crap.

    I really don’t loathe these arrogant pricks who think that what they want is what must be. 😡

  18. Like when your, like senior executive, like talks like a like 13 year old, like you know you’re like in trouble.

  19. Are there any more questions about why the silicon valley mega software and social media corporations need to be reigned in? No one and I mean, no one is safe from the prying eyes of Facebook, Twitter, Google, (Which owns youtube) Amazon, etc. It’s long past time to remove the over two hundred protections and break up their all consuming monopoly. The social media giants have been openly violating the very definition of what allows them to have the special exemptions in the first place.

    It is imperative that these evil marxist corporations are busted into pieces.

  20. These companies are too big and have too much power and control. Scary, and there won’t be any investigation into their meddling.

    1. Exactly…far too much power in too few hands — unelected, unaccountable hands that are not beholden to a Constitution and not constrained by a Bill of Rights.

      1. I keep thinking about the currency that FB is now starting up. I’ve seen it talked about as a cryptocurrency but have also seen it’s more than that. While this is just a beginning of such a thing for them, how big does it get and what effect will that have if they control information and finances?

  21. What is going on? Over the weekend a knitting site i’ve been a member of for years made a statement about not allowing support for Trump or his administration because of his “unambiguous support of white supremacy.” Just now I was on a quilting site and there was a long message about crying in the middle of the night because of the rapes and child abuse in Trump’s concentration camps on the border. Seriously? Now they want to keep old women off crafting sites? They really want to turn granny into a subversive?

    1. These people are so unhinged, I have been battling some on Twitter on that Ravelry announcement.

      1. I believe they are deleting comments, and only allowing gay and anti Trump messages. They are foul mouthed, hateful and delusional.

    2. These people are so unhinged, I have been battling some on Twitter on that Ravelry announcement.

  22. James O’Keefe of Project Claritas and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch are outstanding patriots.

  23. Well now you have a senior official in Google saying their “mission” is to actively interfere in the flow of information online & silence commentators & citizens with the “wrong opinions” & to make sure “Trump never happens again”.

    Hey Democrats, you want to see collusion & election interference….HERE IT IS!

    1. 1) Interfere in A flow of information online. Not THE flow. They are not the gatekeepers of the information highway.

      2) They’re not silencing anyone. All those commentators and citizens still have a voice and free speech and assembly. What they don’t have – and never did have – was the right to be provided the means by which to use their voice, at someone else’s expense.

      3) “Collusion and interference” are really the wrong words to use here, because they imply some connotation of wrongdoing. There is none. There’s asshattery, but there’s no wrongdoing. Just one company being a jerk.

      4) They’re allowed to want “Trump never happening again.” Why is that a problem for anyone? A few years ago, we all got in bed with the worst candidate we could in order to make sure Hillary would never happen again. Was that wrong too?

      1. A few years ago, we all got in bed with the worst candidate we could in order to make sure Hillary would never happen again

        I seem to remember it was Democrats voting in open primaries in a tight race that pushed Trump over the edge state by state thinking that he was the easier candidate to beat. I seem to remember big media corporations giving Trump a lot of free air time and press because that would help Hillary become President. When the primaries finally came to CA, the race was practically decided, and I voted for [email protected]#$% (redacted), the most conservative candidate.

      2. AT, Google IS the flow of information at this point, and their competition is nonexistent because they don’t have the capital or political connections that Alphabet & these other monster tech companies have. Bing is awful, Yahoo is garbage because Google has shut them out of relevance. That is a fact. I’m also disappointed that you’re trying to make an argument of private corporations deciding what opinions are worthy & which opinions are “hate speech’ from their search engine because “they’re private companies”. Do you think that’s going to stop or get worse as Google becomes a bigger monopoly than it already is?

        Also, what’s going to stop this monopoly from buying out their competition one-by-one & imposing their groupthink even farther on the internet? You think your opinions are safe from shadowbanning or outright censorship in the future? Google has stated they believe their mission is to “create & change the future” You think these radical SJWs in Silicon Valley are going to allow you to express an opinion contrary to theirs and their worldview when they control even more share of the net?

        I recommend you watch Tim Pool on YT (He has two channels: Timcast & Tim Pool). The issue of tech companies trying to controlling what you see & what you don’t is his specialty & his channel is already getting demonetized for having the wrong opinions like Crowder was. He’s not a right-wing guy either (he’s center-left like Dave Rubin) and his arguments are convincing. I’d also recommend listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast #1258 linked below where he debates (and destroyed) Jack Dorsey & Vijaya Gadde of Twitter on how Twitter’s entire business model is not only naturally biased towards conservatives, but how Twitter, Google and Facebook are forcing conservatives off of social media altogether, by design while preaching their vision of “free speech & expression for all”

    2. 1) Interfere in A flow of information online. Not THE flow. They are not the gatekeepers of the information highway.

      2) They’re not silencing anyone. All those commentators and citizens still have a voice and free speech and assembly. What they don’t have – and never did have – was the right to be provided the means by which to use their voice, at someone else’s expense.

      3) “Collusion and interference” are really the wrong words to use here, because they imply some connotation of wrongdoing. There is none. There’s asshattery, but there’s no wrongdoing. Just one company being a jerk.

      4) They’re allowed to want “Trump never happening again.” Why is that a problem for anyone? A few years ago, we all got in bed with the worst candidate we could in order to make sure Hillary would never happen again. Was that wrong too?

  24. It’s pretty scary when a huge platform that is supposed to be a “free speech” platform actively censors and suppresses speech they don’t like. They’re supposed to be the “town square” where all speech is welcome. They need to have the platform protections afforded them by the government removed, and be held responsible like any other on the internet if they continue to act as publishers and censor/suppress free speech.

  25. Off topic. I really like this guy but why does James O’Keefe always look like a sweaty, bloated, pink eyed mess? Dude needs to lay off the sauce.

    1. He’s a coke head. It is completely obvious. Not from my own experience but several others close to me; including my exwife. I personally can’t stand him and find his entire schtick revolting. And for his content and so called contribution….I say whatever captain obvious.

      1. Show some actual proof. It means nothing that you “don’t like” his look – his facts are what they are. If you don’t like it then refute it with proof.

    2. Everyone under camera lights looks shiney. They apply a de-shine to remove this. Also, he needs better lighting, less harsh.

  26. If it is interference when Russia buys an ad, how is it alright for big tech to rig elections. The problem is inconsistency in what is and isn’t undue influence.

  27. I have also geared my company in the direction of preventing another Trump situation. I just… I really would prefer a conservative president, is all. What’s it to you?

    You going to tell me what I can and can’t do with my business to support the candidates I prefer?

    1. Yes, I will tell you that you can’t if you are doing it by spreading lies, exploiting stupidity to frighten low info people, and inciting hatred of your fellow citizens. These are the tactics of the left and if you indulge in it then you and your imaginary company need to be shut down. Engaging in that sort of activity makes you a lowlife, treasonous piece of sh*t, just like them.

      How is that difficult for you to grasp?

      1. Engaging in that sort of activity makes you a lowlife, treasonous piece of sh*t, just like them.

        But is it wrong? Have you deprived anyone’s rights in doing so?

        It’s not illegal to be a POS. It may not be very nice, but we don’t formally censure people for it. Because that would be an affront to liberty. The right to be an asshole, so long as you’re not depriving anyone of their rights.

    2. Does your company control 89.1% of the global search engine market? Does your company have more subscribes in the US than voters who cast a ballot in the last election?

      Too much power in too few hands…it’s almost like…privatized tyranny. HT @tracy

      1. Oh, so, if I have a particularly influential company, I shouldn’t be allowed to operate my business to support the candidates I prefer? I know the left was pretty pissed about Koch Industries doing that. I guess now we’re the same, huh?

        What’s the cut-off point for that? At what point in particular does a company get so influential that we strip their liberties and freedom to participate in elections?

        1. Hey Troll, Koch brothers weren’t deceptively manipulating their business processes to insure Republicans won–they contributed legally via campaign donations. Go away with your silly comparisons and make a valid argument when you’re done trolling.

          1. Well, A) they can’t ensure anything (see 2016 election), and B) you’re sidestepping the argument (again).

            If I have an influential company, am I allowed to operate my business to support the candidates I prefer? Yes or no?

            1. You aren’t making a valid argument for me to sidestep, troll.

              If I have an influential company, am I allowed to operate my business to support the candidates I prefer? Yes or no?

              As usual, your arguments and questions are very simplistic. Society/law isn’t that simple. In anycase, the answer to your question is yes and no depending on the circumstance, the methods, degree of influence, etc… From a libertarian position, are you gonna be ok with ONE BIG highly influential media company deceptively and effectively influencing policy out of and in addition to the standard lobbying process?

      1. Ahh, so freedom is only allowed to the companies who are impotent to do anything meaningful with it insofar as participating in American voting.

        1. Yes freedom comes up against corrupt monopolies that are harming the marketplace. Thanks for finally understanding.

  28. Why does Google care so much? Which Trump policy has been bad for them? (No not tariffs, being in the “service sector” the tariffs don’t affect them.)

      1. Because in the real world huge swaths of the electorate are heavily influenced by Google. You can wish it weren’t so, you can offer your own search engine or video streaming service, but the fact remains their influence is massive — orders of magnitude beyond what the ABCBSNBC triumvirate had in the 80’s.

        1. @txgrunner I care because the marxist democratic party represents a failed ideology that is the antithesis of what the founders of this country intended for us to be.

          Every legal law abiding citizen should have a personal interest because, (1) it is our civic duty to be engaged in the political machinations of those we elect to represent us. (2) Our lives and our uniquely American Constitutional existence depends on those we elect to adhere to their sworn duty to uphold our laws and the Constitution. (3) Any individuals, groups businesses, or political entities that refuse to adhere to our laws and Constitution should not be allowed to be in positions that are adverse to and negatively affect the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Marxists hide behind the Constitution as long as doing so suits their nefarious intentions.

          1. What happens when the citizens abdicate that responsibility, and whose fault are the consequences of that?

            1. When we declared independence, only around 30% of the public in the colonies supported independence. Roughly a third were fence-sitters, while others actively opposed independence.

              In the Texas revolution, there was a sizable number of Texans, of all backgrounds, who simply stuck their head in the sand, or high-tailed it deeper into Mexico or back into the US.

              There is no reason a responsible minority (plurality) should be victimized because a large group of low-information voters and indecisive fools think they can negotiate with a tiger about what’s for dinner.

              BTW, thanks for finally admitting there is an issue with serious consequences.

              1. There is no reason a responsible minority (plurality) should be victimized because a large group of low-information voters and indecisive fools think they can negotiate with a tiger about what’s for dinner.

                Why not? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If you’re trying to break that chain, you attack that link. If you’re trying to conserve that chain, you shore that one up.

                BTW, thanks for finally admitting there is an issue with serious consequences.

                No problem. But remember that the consequences are borne of the American people. Not of a few companies.

                This is our fault, not theirs.

        2. That’s not what I asked (though I can see how I might have been vague, apologies).

          My question was: why do YOU, you personally Tex, care about the elections and who wins and what policies follow? Why does anyone? Why should anyone have any personal interest or stake in how elections play out?

          If you can answer that question for yourself, you can also answer it for Google. Why do you care? Same reason they do.

          1. I’m one man. I get one vote. Now I can donate, which is reported to the FEC, and I can electioneer, which is public, open, and above-board.

            I don’t reach into other’s mailboxes to steal their political mail. I don’t filter their TV/internet to block messages I don’t like. I embed messages I do like into totally unrelated, apolitical material.

            I also don’t have an 89.1% of the search engine market share I can use to shape the world other people see.

            Too much power, too few hands, just like Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

    1. @michelle-lee you are thinking about this in a logical way. It’s not about policy, but about emotions–SJW and leftist idealogy.

    2. The tariffs do affect them, but only nominally. When they order servers for their server farms, then they may have to pay extra depending on where that server is made. It’s not breaking their bank enough for this kind of disgusting action – but the expense could be in the hundreds of thousands more for their given budget.

  29. Note to the right scoop, we don’t prefer youtube. With their and others like twitters censorship I will never click on them. I dropped my accounts and will never click on them so expect zero funding from traffic movement there at least from me.

    That goes for all clicks even non-political traffic for me.

  30. We don’t need foriegn interference……..the Lamestream Media is our biggest enemy! But don’t be fooled into thinking you are successful LSM, we see what you are! Keep it up, no one is buying your snake oil anymore!

    1. Of course. The left doesn’t like free speech so they ban what they don’t like online – just like fascists would do. And this Google exec wants to influence the 2020 election as well but that is “meh” according to the media, it’s ok to do that as long as it helps out the Democrats after all.

    1. “Unfortunately, I now know that these people … … selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer…”

      I know there have been many claims but I’m not aware of any credible evidence of Project Veritas editing videos that they have put out. She spoke willingly to people about her and her employers ideology and plans. If the Left wants to secretly discuss plans or recruit new members to undermine a federal election they should be limited out of fear of being exposed.

  31. I am glad the fact that google is not objective, but is actively supporting leftist politicians and policies, is being exposed. I hope this information will open the eyes of conservatives to look for alternatives and to not trust google. Abandon them!

    1. Of course. The left doesn’t like free speech so they ban what they don’t like online – just like fascists would do. And this Google exec wants to influence the 2020 election as well but that is “meh” according to the media, it’s ok to do that as long as it helps out the Democrats after all.

    1. “Unfortunately, I now know that these people … … selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer…”

      I know there have been many claims but I’m not aware of any credible evidence of Project Veritas editing videos that they have put out. She spoke willingly to people about her and her employers ideology and plans. If the Left wants to secretly discuss plans or recruit new members to undermine a federal election they should be limited out of fear of being exposed.

      1. Probably not. But ANTIFA probably still is, along with all of the leftists who promote attacks upon children like what was done to the Covington Catholic children.

  32. I am glad the fact that google is not objective, but is actively supporting leftist politicians and policies, is being exposed. I hope this information will open the eyes of conservatives to look for alternatives and to not trust google. Abandon them!

  33. DuH! Who the F was thinking this wasn’t in the works? You’re either dumber than a box of rocks or living under one of those rocks.

  34. Did it bother anyone else but me that the two people they “caught” in the video talking about how they were working to make sure 2020 isn’t a repeat of 2016 were IMMIGRANTS? The woman was Irish and the man was from India. Both had pronounced accents indicating they came to this country as adults, who knows how recently?

    I assume they immigrated here legally, that’s not my point, but who are they to monkey around with our elections??? Who is anyone? But especially someone whose allegiance many not even be exclusively to America.

    Just sayin.

    1. So it bothers you that people with accents work for a large company with global reach? Really?

      And do you really think that this woman and the software engineer the responsible for setting google policy?

      1. Yes when they dont adopt the values of the country that took them in and instead work against them.

        1. What values of the United States have they not adopted? And which are they working against? From my understanding these two employees don’t have much of anything to do with determining Google’s policies.

          But shall we have all private employees with foreign accents (whether citizens or not) take a values/loyalty test of your liking? To me that sounds like it would be a wholesale rejection of the American “values.”

  35. “1984 should not be a user manual of how to run a society.”

    :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

  36. What is going on? Over the weekend a knitting site i’ve been a member of for years made a statement about not allowing support for Trump or his administration because of his “unambiguous support of white supremacy.” Just now I was on a quilting site and there was a long message about crying in the middle of the night because of the rapes and child abuse in Trump’s concentration camps on the border. Seriously? Now they want to keep old women off crafting sites? They really want to turn granny into a subversive?

    1. @debw Wow. There are no “safe spaces” anywhere, not even knitting clubs?!

    2. These people are so unhinged, I have been battling some on Twitter on that Ravelry announcement.

      1. I believe they are deleting comments, and only allowing gay and anti Trump messages. They are foul mouthed, hateful and delusional.

  37. Off topic. I really like this guy but why does James O’Keefe always look like a sweaty, bloated, pink eyed mess? Dude needs to lay off the sauce.

    1. He’s a coke head. It is completely obvious. Not from my own experience but several others close to me; including my exwife. I personally can’t stand him and find his entire schtick revolting. And for his content and so called contribution….I say whatever captain obvious.

      1. Show some actual proof. It means nothing that you “don’t like” his look – his facts are what they are. If you don’t like it then refute it with proof.

    2. Everyone under camera lights looks shiney. They apply a de-shine to remove this. Also, he needs better lighting, less harsh.

      1. Probably not. But ANTIFA probably still is, along with all of the leftists who promote attacks upon children like what was done to the Covington Catholic children.

  38. Well now you have a senior official in Google saying their “mission” is to actively interfere in the flow of information online & silence commentators & citizens with the “wrong opinions” & to make sure “Trump never happens again”.

    Hey Democrats, you want to see collusion & election interference….HERE IT IS!

    1. 1) Interfere in A flow of information online. Not THE flow. They are not the gatekeepers of the information highway.

      2) They’re not silencing anyone. All those commentators and citizens still have a voice and free speech and assembly. What they don’t have – and never did have – was the right to be provided the means by which to use their voice, at someone else’s expense.

      3) “Collusion and interference” are really the wrong words to use here, because they imply some connotation of wrongdoing. There is none. There’s asshattery, but there’s no wrongdoing. Just one company being a jerk.

      4) They’re allowed to want “Trump never happening again.” Why is that a problem for anyone? A few years ago, we all got in bed with the worst candidate we could in order to make sure Hillary would never happen again. Was that wrong too?

      1. A few years ago, we all got in bed with the worst candidate we could in order to make sure Hillary would never happen again

        I seem to remember it was Democrats voting in open primaries in a tight race that pushed Trump over the edge state by state thinking that he was the easier candidate to beat. I seem to remember big media corporations giving Trump a lot of free air time and press because that would help Hillary become President. When the primaries finally came to CA, the race was practically decided, and I voted for [email protected]#$% (redacted), the most conservative candidate.

        1. Nah, after the primaries it was all, “I don’t care if you hate him and he just murdered your children, we have to stop Hillary. Vote against your interests, you traitors!”

      2. AT, Google IS the flow of information at this point, and their competition is nonexistent because they don’t have the capital or political connections that Alphabet & these other monster tech companies have. Bing is awful, Yahoo is garbage because Google has shut them out of relevance. That is a fact. I’m also disappointed that you’re trying to make an argument of private corporations deciding what opinions are worthy & which opinions are “hate speech’ from their search engine because “they’re private companies”. Do you think that’s going to stop or get worse as Google becomes a bigger monopoly than it already is?

        Also, what’s going to stop this monopoly from buying out their competition one-by-one & imposing their groupthink even farther on the internet? You think your opinions are safe from shadowbanning or outright censorship in the future? Google has stated they believe their mission is to “create & change the future” You think these radical SJWs in Silicon Valley are going to allow you to express an opinion contrary to theirs and their worldview when they control even more share of the net?

        I recommend you watch Tim Pool on YT (He has two channels: Timcast & Tim Pool). The issue of tech companies trying to controlling what you see & what you don’t is his specialty & his channel is already getting demonetized for having the wrong opinions like Crowder was. He’s not a right-wing guy either (he’s center-left like Dave Rubin) and his arguments are convincing. I’d also recommend listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast #1258 linked below where he debates (and destroyed) Jack Dorsey & Vijaya Gadde of Twitter on how Twitter’s entire business model is not only naturally biased towards conservatives, but how Twitter, Google and Facebook are forcing conservatives off of social media altogether, by design while preaching their vision of “free speech & expression for all”

        1. Google also buys a lot of their competition, so they do make an effort to control information flow.

        2. AT, Google IS the flow of information at this point

          It’s really not though. It’s the Mississippi River. Yea, it’s big. One of the primary means of going south in that area.

          But you can also take the highway.

          Bing is awful, Yahoo is garbage because Google has shut them out of relevance. That is a fact.

          So what you’re saying is that there ARE alternatives, but you just don’t prefer them.

          I’m also disappointed that you’re trying to make an argument of private corporations deciding what opinions are worthy & which opinions are “hate speech’ from their search engine because “they’re private companies”

          I don’t see why you have a problem with it.

          Also, what’s going to stop this monopoly from buying out their competition one-by-one & imposing their groupthink even farther on the internet?

          Their competitors could refuse to sell.

          You think your opinions are safe from shadowbanning or outright censorship in the future?

          Doesn’t mean I don’t still have them and can share them with whomever I want.

          You think these radical SJWs in Silicon Valley are going to allow you to express an opinion contrary to theirs and their worldview when they control even more share of the net?

          On their platform? Probably not. But their platform is just a tiny iota of the internet, let alone the rest of our world.

          Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.

        3. If we all stopped using Google search, DuckDuckGo or Yahoo! or another search engine, or multiple search engines (probably the best way to keep everyone honest) could overtake them as the leading search provider overnight.

          1. Donald Trump could singlehandedly kill Twitter overnight, simply by quitting it and letting America know what alternative platform he’ll be on from here out. Literally everyone – media, supporters, haters – would follow him.

            He could also deal a huge blow to Facebook/Youtube by doing the same. “From here out, not one ounce of news from the White House will be communicated through Youtube or Facebook. You will now find it delivered first and exclusively to X.” Probably not a lethal blow, but one they wouldn’t soon forget.

            Buuuuut… he’ll never do that.

  39. James O’Keefe of Project Claritas and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch are outstanding patriots.

  40. DuH! Who the F was thinking this wasn’t in the works? You’re either dumber than a box of rocks or living under one of those rocks.

  41. It’s pretty scary when a huge platform that is supposed to be a “free speech” platform actively censors and suppresses speech they don’t like. They’re supposed to be the “town square” where all speech is welcome. They need to have the platform protections afforded them by the government removed, and be held responsible like any other on the internet if they continue to act as publishers and censor/suppress free speech.

  42. I have also geared my company in the direction of preventing another Trump situation. I just… I really would prefer a conservative president, is all. What’s it to you?

    You going to tell me what I can and can’t do with my business to support the candidates I prefer?

    1. Does your company control 89.1% of the global search engine market? Does your company have more subscribes in the US than voters who cast a ballot in the last election?

      Too much power in too few hands…it’s almost like…privatized tyranny. HT @tracy

      1. Oh, so, if I have a particularly influential company, I shouldn’t be allowed to operate my business to support the candidates I prefer? I know the left was pretty pissed about Koch Industries doing that. I guess now we’re the same, huh?

        What’s the cut-off point for that? At what point in particular does a company get so influential that we strip their liberties and freedom to participate in elections?

        1. Hey Troll, Koch brothers weren’t deceptively manipulating their business processes to insure Republicans won–they contributed legally via campaign donations. Go away with your silly comparisons and make a valid argument when you’re done trolling.

          1. Well, A) they can’t ensure anything (see 2016 election), and B) you’re sidestepping the argument (again).

            If I have an influential company, am I allowed to operate my business to support the candidates I prefer? Yes or no?

            1. You aren’t making a valid argument for me to sidestep, troll.

              If I have an influential company, am I allowed to operate my business to support the candidates I prefer? Yes or no?

              As usual, your arguments and questions are very simplistic. Society/law isn’t that simple. In anycase, the answer to your question is yes and no depending on the circumstance, the methods, degree of influence, etc… From a libertarian position, are you gonna be ok with ONE BIG highly influential media company deceptively and effectively influencing policy out of and in addition to the standard lobbying process?

              1. See, that’s a sidestep. Whine about simplicity all you want – but it IS a simple question:

                Can a business support a candidate by using their power and influence to convince other people to adopt their position (even if only by misleading them)?

                Big Tobacco did it for decades. They downplayed the dangers of smoking, suppressed research/science that was unfriendly to them, and actively worked to get the guys they wanted elected. (Anti-Tobacco did the same thing, just in the opposite direction. Overhyped the dangers, pushed junk science, and actively worked to get their guys elected.) Was that wrong too?

                How is this any different from either?

                1. “Big Tobacco did it for decades. They downplayed the dangers of smoking, suppressed research/science that was unfriendly to them, and actively worked to get the guys they wanted elected.”

                  Ya and big tobaco lost a massive 500 billion dollar lawsuit and got massive regulation because of it! Thanks for helping make my point, dimwhit!

        2. The same cut-off point we always use when trust-busting and breaking up other monopolies. When an entity becomes so large as to pose a threat to representative government, then the government has no choice but to break them up or risk becoming subservient to the entity.

      1. Ahh, so freedom is only allowed to the companies who are impotent to do anything meaningful with it insofar as participating in American voting.

        1. Yes freedom comes up against corrupt monopolies that are harming the marketplace. Thanks for finally understanding.

          1. The marketplace.

            But we’re not talking about the marketplace. We’re talking about elections.

              1. A monopoly is a concern for the market. They screw with prices, quality of goods/services, and competition.

                What does any of this have to do with elections?

                1. No they don’t.

                  They don’t control it at all. They might be an access point to information, but there’s lots of those. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of those.

                2. No, they don’t. I went to my local library this weekend and I picked up some information and learned it.

                  No googles necessary. They don’t control anything but what you ALLOW them to control.

        1. No, I just disagree with you. And you’re too busy hyperventilating into paper bags to make a valid argument for your position. So instead you just shriek hysterically at me, and then call me a troll when said shrieking fails to change my mind on anything.

          1. I disagree with your trolling methods. You don’t present a valid argument. You just give these over-exaggerated non-applicable comparisons, so you’re obviously not serious about making a valid argument hence I consider you as a troll. And I don’t use that label often.

            1. They’re not “trolling methods.” You’re just using that as an excuse to not defend your own bogus argument.

              Just give it up, Frank. You’ve got no leg to stand on with this issue. You’re just irrationally angry at some big company for operating in ways you don’t like, screeching that some kind of “unfairness” is a threat to justice and the republic. It’s not.

              But yet again – how progressive of you.

    2. Yes, I will tell you that you can’t if you are doing it by spreading lies, exploiting stupidity to frighten low info people, and inciting hatred of your fellow citizens. These are the tactics of the left and if you indulge in it then you and your imaginary company need to be shut down. Engaging in that sort of activity makes you a lowlife, treasonous piece of sh*t, just like them.

      How is that difficult for you to grasp?

      1. Engaging in that sort of activity makes you a lowlife, treasonous piece of sh*t, just like them.

        But is it wrong? Have you deprived anyone’s rights in doing so?

        It’s not illegal to be a POS. It may not be very nice, but we don’t formally censure people for it. Because that would be an affront to liberty. The right to be an asshole, so long as you’re not depriving anyone of their rights.

  43. If it is interference when Russia buys an ad, how is it alright for big tech to rig elections. The problem is inconsistency in what is and isn’t undue influence.

  44. Why does Google care so much? Which Trump policy has been bad for them? (No not tariffs, being in the “service sector” the tariffs don’t affect them.)

    1. The tariffs do affect them, but only nominally. When they order servers for their server farms, then they may have to pay extra depending on where that server is made. It’s not breaking their bank enough for this kind of disgusting action – but the expense could be in the hundreds of thousands more for their given budget.

    2. @michelle-lee you are thinking about this in a logical way. It’s not about policy, but about emotions–SJW and leftist idealogy.

      1. Because in the real world huge swaths of the electorate are heavily influenced by Google. You can wish it weren’t so, you can offer your own search engine or video streaming service, but the fact remains their influence is massive — orders of magnitude beyond what the ABCBSNBC triumvirate had in the 80’s.

        1. That’s not what I asked (though I can see how I might have been vague, apologies).

          My question was: why do YOU, you personally Tex, care about the elections and who wins and what policies follow? Why does anyone? Why should anyone have any personal interest or stake in how elections play out?

          If you can answer that question for yourself, you can also answer it for Google. Why do you care? Same reason they do.

          1. I’m one man. I get one vote. Now I can donate, which is reported to the FEC, and I can electioneer, which is public, open, and above-board.

            I don’t reach into other’s mailboxes to steal their political mail. I don’t filter their TV/internet to block messages I don’t like. I embed messages I do like into totally unrelated, apolitical material.

            I also don’t have an 89.1% of the search engine market share I can use to shape the world other people see.

            Too much power, too few hands, just like Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

            1. I don’t reach into other’s mailboxes to steal their political mail. I don’t filter their TV/internet to block messages I don’t like.

              Nobody’s stealing mail, and they’re only blocking things on a services THEY provide. Which they’re within their rights to do.

              I also don’t have an 89.1% of the search engine market share I can use to shape the world other people see.

              Why wouldn’t you, if you could? If I had that market share and it were my property to control, I’d use it to encourage conservatism and discourage progressivism. Wouldn’t you?

        2. @txgrunner I care because the marxist democratic party represents a failed ideology that is the antithesis of what the founders of this country intended for us to be.

          Every legal law abiding citizen should have a personal interest because, (1) it is our civic duty to be engaged in the political machinations of those we elect to represent us. (2) Our lives and our uniquely American Constitutional existence depends on those we elect to adhere to their sworn duty to uphold our laws and the Constitution. (3) Any individuals, groups businesses, or political entities that refuse to adhere to our laws and Constitution should not be allowed to be in positions that are adverse to and negatively affect the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Marxists hide behind the Constitution as long as doing so suits their nefarious intentions.

          1. What happens when the citizens abdicate that responsibility, and whose fault are the consequences of that?

            1. When we declared independence, only around 30% of the public in the colonies supported independence. Roughly a third were fence-sitters, while others actively opposed independence.

              In the Texas revolution, there was a sizable number of Texans, of all backgrounds, who simply stuck their head in the sand, or high-tailed it deeper into Mexico or back into the US.

              There is no reason a responsible minority (plurality) should be victimized because a large group of low-information voters and indecisive fools think they can negotiate with a tiger about what’s for dinner.

              BTW, thanks for finally admitting there is an issue with serious consequences.

              1. There is no reason a responsible minority (plurality) should be victimized because a large group of low-information voters and indecisive fools think they can negotiate with a tiger about what’s for dinner.

                Why not? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If you’re trying to break that chain, you attack that link. If you’re trying to conserve that chain, you shore that one up.

                BTW, thanks for finally admitting there is an issue with serious consequences.

                No problem. But remember that the consequences are borne of the American people. Not of a few companies.

                This is our fault, not theirs.

  45. They believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    But not those people!!!

  46. I am sure the DOJ makes arrests for conspiring to commit a crime.How about the DOJ doing some investigations of the executives at Google for voter tampering laws.There night be enough there to prevent something from happening,maybe a Democrat President

    1. @bigsir74 The NSA knows all since they collect data from every electronic communication devise in existence.

      1. Do you believe that if NSA discovers illegalities occuring at Googles and those other mentioned sites,they could provide that information to the DOJ,or is that considered spying on American Citizens.Thanks Conserve

  47. Prima facie evidence far too much power is in too few hands — unelected, unaccountable hands, not beholden to a Constitution and not constrained by a Bill of Rights.

  48. “We all got screwed over”, says the Senior Google Exec”. I would guess the 62,979,636 million voters who cast their vote for him don’t agree. Some of us that didn’t vote for him then would now if we had a chance. So the “Senior Google Exec” is full of crap.

    I really don’t loathe these arrogant pricks who think that what they want is what must be. 😡

  49. Like when your, like senior executive, like talks like a like 13 year old, like you know you’re like in trouble.

  50. These companies are too big and have too much power and control. Scary, and there won’t be any investigation into their meddling.

    1. Exactly…far too much power in too few hands — unelected, unaccountable hands that are not beholden to a Constitution and not constrained by a Bill of Rights.

      1. I keep thinking about the currency that FB is now starting up. I’ve seen it talked about as a cryptocurrency but have also seen it’s more than that. While this is just a beginning of such a thing for them, how big does it get and what effect will that have if they control information and finances?

  51. Are there any more questions about why the silicon valley mega software and social media corporations need to be reigned in? No one and I mean, no one is safe from the prying eyes of Facebook, Twitter, Google, (Which owns youtube) Amazon, etc. It’s long past time to remove the over two hundred protections and break up their all consuming monopoly. The social media giants have been openly violating the very definition of what allows them to have the special exemptions in the first place.

    It is imperative that these evil marxist corporations are busted into pieces.

  52. Her reason for not wanting to break up Google is because smaller companies won’t be able to stop Trump. Uh…what makes her think they will want to?

    The arrogance behind it is if it’s common sense that Trump shouldn’t be President. That he somehow got elected magically. They think that Trump is the fringe or something.

      1. @kenoshamarge Exactly. They totally disregard all of those people.

        I don’t know if my point was very clear. They act like no one has a problem with getting rid of Trump. There is no “we have to get our message out so we can defeat him”. It’s like a spider in the bathroom that no one in the house wants to be there. Trump supporters are totally disregarded as not deserving a voice.

  53. To say that Google and Facebook must be prosecuted and broken up with anti-Trust Laws is an understatement of enormous and immediate magnitude.

    Leftists in govt, more specifically Leftist of the Internet Social Media Big Tech world, more specifically-Google, is the single greatest internal threat to America, to our very Freedom and Liberty, our Constitutional Republic.

    Google is literally a high tech social media brain-washing machine, who’s ideology and agenda are priority 1, ie; Destroy Free Thought, Critical Thinking, Facts of Reality Truth that refutes their ideology and agenda, that does not align with their ideology and agenda.

    Leftists-Progressives-Liberals, whatever they want to call themselves, are indoctrinated ideologues, who are taught-indoctrinated to believe their leftist Socialist Globalist ideology is superior to American Constitutional Republicanism-Limited govt Of, By, For We the People Free Market Capitalist Lincoln Republicans, ie; Western Civilization, are taught to be blind loyal obedient ideologue servants of the party and agenda cause, and anyone who dares to step out of line is immediately crushed, as exemplified, represented by Google’s management, as well as the School Systems-Public and Universities, are irresponsive to, will not acknowledge and accept Facts, Truth, Reality, historical or present day, that contradicts and refutes their indoctrinated ideology, policies, positions, etc., and when confronted with such facts, truth, reality that refutes them, they more often than not react with emotional tirade outbursts, even physical violence.

    This is exactly what and how “brain-washed cultists” think, act, and behave. It’s basic Freudian analysis.

    Leftist’s religion is their ideology, agenda, and political party loyalty is their God, more stronger than facts, reality, and truth, thus inherently dangerous to free and enlightened western civilized society and humanity.

    “Nonconformists will be deemed intolerant, and will not be tolerated.”
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568889/posts

    Leftists are not just annoying anti-American liberals who’s policies and ideology is detrimentally wrong, they have morphed into deviant subversive insidious intolerant extremists-aka social fascists, who’s virulent indoctrinated ideological driven hate and violence is self-evident everyday, have become a direct existential threat and danger to our very Freedom and Liberty, our Constitutional Republic, which they actively work to destroy from within.

  54. “small companies … will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

    WHAT?!?!?!?!?! I did not vote for this president, but what in the H E double hockey sticks gives them the right to determine who wins the presidency?

    That is the strongest argument in favor of breaking up the tech giants I’ve ever heard.

    Downloading now because we all know these videos will be pulled and even blocked by courts like the Deleiden videos exposing planned murderhood hocking baby body parts.

  55. Boy. Talk about Russian Collusion/Conspiracy to influence the outcome of a U.S. Election: Sergey Brin is a Russian born, naturalized American that is attempting to influence a U.S. election via extraordinary and extra-legal means. WTF is the outrage amongst Congressional Democrats over this?

  56. This is election and vote tampering pure and simple. It’s not Google’s job to tell me how to vote, who to vote for or determine what I must know or think. Google, along with other media, has set itself up as a competing de facto government entity that thinks that it has a mandate to sway over the electorate by robbing them of the freedom to make up their own minds. This is borderline if not outright treason because it can be seen as mounting a form of coup by trying to manipulate the outcome of a legitimate election process. If Google is taking this step then, I’m sorry, they need to be punished to the fullest extent. They’ve been allowed like spoiled brats to run rampant and unchecked too long and are now way too big for their britches. They no longer are acting in a trustworthy manner in regards to the free dispersal of information but in a clandestine subversive manner to force people to see the world as they see it. They are trying to rob the people of the right to come to their own conclusions and to think freely. That is the very definition of tyranny.

    1. @pmb88 Yeah, but they’ve vamped the programming to be much more of an influence apparently.

  57. It isn’t Russia that we should be worried about……….election interference from progressive private companies is a much bigger issue.

    Break them up!!!!!

  58. But but but Google is a private company and should be able allowed to do whatever it wants. Uh no, not when it has the power and intentions to sway national elections. Researcher Dr. Robert Epstein has said “When search results favor one candidate, or one cause for that matter, it shifts opinions and it shifts votes. And I mean dramatically so… It can shift voting preferences among undecided voters by 20 percent or more easily, and up to 80 percent in some demographic groups.”

    These big tech companies are all walking in lock step to censor conservative voices, alter algorithms to their benefit, and crushing any and all dissent to ensure Trump, or really any Republican, never gets elected president again. The old robber baron tycoons conspired together to buy the presidency, and nearly succeeded. The new tech tycoons (with the media) are essentially trying to do the same thing.

    1. There comes a time when a private entity becomes so big and powerful they pose a direct threat to representative government and individual liberty.

      Either they will eventually coopt the government, with the corporation acting as the wizard behind the curtain of figurehead leaders or government will have to break them up.

      They need to be broken up now, before they have a chance to corrupt the next election.

      1. This is definitely a new phenomena. The private sector becoming a political/governmental tyrant to evade the constraints of the Constitution.

  59. Google is going to use it’s monopolistic power to influence election outcomes… That’s not fair to the poor Russians as they will be out of work.

      1. It would never work out. Google wants to see itself controlling everything and Putin wants to control everything.

    1. Every day my decision to use DuckDuckGo seems wiser. Why people on the right continue to use Google, who hates them, when there is an alternative I just can’t figure out.

        1. I can’t understand it either. One thing if there is no alternative. Why give your business, and information, to those that hate everything you stand for and believe in?

          I have had no problems whatsoever with Duckduckgo. So I’ve lost nothing by using them instead of Google and it’s lefty scumbags.

  60. “I’m like a high level executive and like, I’m like telling you all how it like is and stuff. We can’t have like another Trump or like it’d be like bad.”

    Not to many high level execs of major corps use like that much. I wonder if their “new algorithms” would prevent that for a D accidentally. Would the adjusted algorithm take down a 2008 Obama like candidate?

  61. Bust these communist pukes into a thousand tiny pieces. Google is and always has been an enemy of the constitution and the United States. Bust them up and throw the founders in prison where they belong.

    1. No. Don’t bust them up, simply remove their 230 protections and force them to operate as publishers. The lawsuits alone will bankrupt them.

    2. If everyone on the right stopped using these companies they would collapse. But in spite of the way people on the right are treated by them they hang on. I just don’t get it.

  62. I know people can be lazy relaying on their devices to search for information, but neither Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are going to influence my vote. What am I missing?

    1. You are an informed voter. What they do is supress conservative views when normal people search out subjects.

    2. @landscaper good for you. You’re an informed voter like many here, but not everyone is like that.

    3. You’re missing nothing. If people want to find the truth, it’s easy. Google is one of many search engines out there. They can do whatever they want and it doesn’t matter at all.

      I don’t know whom is more ridiculous — Google thinking they have power or the fever-swamp right who thinks that the common man is so incompetent that he must use Google.

      1. The “common man” is LAZY and just believes what is stuck right in front of their faces. They only read headlines, and buy it. GOOGLE knows this and will capitalize on it.

      2. You are living in a dream world and just don’t know it. You can’t paint over this problem using your sole perception of reality as the basis for “how the world works”. Google, Twitter, and Facebook control a vast majority of the world’s consumable news and information whether you want to believe it or not. If we don’t stand for free speech and neutral platforms (230 protections) now then we’re going to be relegated to the darkest parts of the internet and silenced all together. These companies need to be de-regulated, have their 230 protections removed, and allow the flood of lawsuits to bury them and their stock prices.

      3. Like you, the left thinks they can just pretend human nature doesn’t exist. Of course, they’re wrong which is why socialism kills so many people every time it’s tried. You’re wrong too.

        I don’t know if it’s incredible naiveté, willful ignorance, or malicious deception, but the tech giants exercise tremendous power which is proven by the fact they generate so much income. Oh, and Google has 89.1% of the search engine market.

    4. It may not affect yours or our vote, but many people do use these platforms, and they have more influence than I think most people realize. Look up Dr. Robert Epstein, he has done research on this and says they can shift upwards 15 million votes without anyone knowing they’re being manipulated or leaving a paper trail. And the thing is they’re ALL in cahoots, including the media.

    5. That’s because you still retain the ability to think for yourself. As do most of us here. But the lefty Twitterclones just go with what they are told to think. They mostly do not know how to think for themselves and seem to hate, as they’ve been taught, anyone who doesn’t see things the way they do.

    6. You know to come to TRS for the news. The low information voter doesn’t so they go to Google and the mainstream media for propaganda.

    7. GOVERNMENT CONTROL. That’s what you’re missing. That’s what we’ve all been missing and we never realized it. People can’t be trusted to make the right decision. We need people in power to make it for them.

  63. As someone who would like to see conservatives develop their own alternative companies with a right to be biased in favor of liberty I’m still against the regulation route, but this is making it difficult.

    Google needs an epic slapdown.

  64. Sheesh!!! Been away for a few days and come back to see that the insanity of the left and TDS has reached epic proportions!! My TV service has been out for a month, the booster allowing my cell service in my cabin went out last Wednesday, and something is interfering with my radio reception so I’m REALLY out of touch with what’s going on. Oh, and my blood pressure is way down!! Hmmmm……… 💡

    1. I want to come live there @lillie-belle 🙂 sometimes out of the loop is the best place to be

        1. @ruthiedoggiemom They great thing about when I lived out in the country was that I was 10 miles from anything. The main drawback was that I was 10 miles from everything.

          1. Got you beat there my friend heading out the door to do a little food shopping it will be a 40 mile R/T Have a great day @dr-strangelove

  65. So Google is colluding against the American people.

    Libertarianism fails to understand the problem with “muh private company”

    Privatized. Tyranny.

    1. I’m sick to the teeth of people repeating like zombies “conservatives are against regulation of private businesses”.

      No.

      Conservatives are against OVERregulation of private businesses that cause the free market to be stifled. Banks are private businesses too and we regulate the ever-loving crap out of them. Anyone who’s against regulating Google/Facebook/Twitter needs to point to where they’ve come out against banking regulations or else be mocked as a hypocrite.

      1. I’m against unconstitutional banking regulation.

        But understand the gravity of what that means. I’m against the Fed, paper money, fractional reserve banking, FDIC, and all direct taxation.

        The scope of congressional power over money is limited to 1) gold and silver coin, 2) setting the weight and measure of said coin, and 3) taxing the use of said coin. Nothing else. And paper money is strictly, specifically forbidden.

        Modern banking is an abomination to constitutional government.

    2. @Tracy I wouldn’t even say it’s “libertarianism”. I think I’m more libertarian than most here, but I think that Google shouldn’t have special protection. True libertarianism is about individual liberty not some super liberty for one giant company that gobbles up the liberty of the many!

    3. Libertarianism is right. The weapon you forge to break up Google today will be used on Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-a, and Masterpiece Cakes tomorrow.

      1. Chris – if Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakes had the monopolized power to affect elections or attempt to at such a level then they should be.

        Come on, they are nothing alike.

        1. Google isn’t a monopoly. You have Bing, Duckduckgo, Yahoo…?

          Look, we’ve got to stop suggesting government take more power. We always lose in that transaction. And we have to stand on principle, even when it’s hard, even when it may not go in our favor, because otherwise we’re no better than the Democrats. Whatever we do, we must first be moral, and moral means we are what we say. We’re either small-government, or we’re basically Democrats.

          1. @texas-chris YT and Twitter have so little competition they can be considered monopolies, though.

            1. Twitter is a dead man walking. What a cesspool.

              YouTube has already drawn serious pressure. They’re their own worst enemy. They keep banning, deplatforming, and demonetizing folks, and eventually people will leave like I have.

            1. Anyone can start a new search engine at any time. There’s no need for government meddling.

        1. Not all of it, admittedly.

          But taking the claim on its face – well, Trace – the American people have the freedom and ability to inform themselves. They can be lazy about it, and allow themselves to be steered by Google; or they can be responsible citizens and not allow that. I can tell you right now, that no outside force has ever swayed me in an election. It’s always the merits – whether it’s a candidate, a ballot initiative, or anything else.

          Google has zero control over me or my vote. It is impossible for them to collude against me. I am insulated against such efforts because I am informed.

          Now, maybe other people aren’t informed and easily manipulated. Why is that Google’s fault? How is that collusion? It’s a failure of the American people, Trace. Not because Google has hypnotized them or somehow taken away their ability to be informed or vote responsibly.

          Lay the blame where it belongs. On the American sheeple.

          1. Google doesnt shape my vote either, but then again I’m not a conservative attempting to get elected and having my constituents be unable to get anything to show up that helps me gain support.

            They determine what I see when I google up information. Now, I know about duckduckgo and use it exclusively but Google still has a huge stranglehold on information for the average American.

            They should get neutral results. Google is admitting to making sure that Trump doesnt get elected again nor any other Trumpy candidate that could up end their cozy status quo.

            1. Google doesnt shape my vote either,

              Then what’s your problem?

              I’m not a conservative attempting to get elected and having my constituents be unable to get anything to show up that helps me gain support.

              And it’s Google’s responsibility to provide people that, such that they should be compelled to act against their own interests?

              They determine what I see when I google up information.

              There are plenty of sources of information. Why are you insistent on relying exclusively on this one?

              They should get neutral results.

              Why?

              If I give you – free of charge – a calculator that tells you 2+2=5, do you scream that it’s a conspiracy against math, or do you just throw out the broken calculator?

              1. AT you bring up meaningless examples because you refuse to understand the difference between you doing insignificant dumb crap and a monopoly that controls 89% of the market.

                1. Again, you keep vacillating between a market complaint and an election complaint. One has nothing to do with the other.

                  If you have a broken calculator, Trace – just throw it out. Why is this so difficult for you? You don’t HAVE to use the calculator! Nobody is making you!

  66. They believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    But not those people!!!

  67. I am sure the DOJ makes arrests for conspiring to commit a crime.How about the DOJ doing some investigations of the executives at Google for voter tampering laws.There night be enough there to prevent something from happening,maybe a Democrat President

  68. This is election and vote tampering pure and simple. It’s not Google’s job to tell me how to vote, who to vote for or determine what I must know or think. Google, along with other media, has set itself up as a competing de facto government entity that thinks that it has a mandate to sway over the electorate by robbing them of the freedom to make up their own minds. This is borderline if not outright treason because it can be seen as mounting a form of coup by trying to manipulate the outcome of a legitimate election process. If Google is taking this step then, I’m sorry, they need to be punished to the fullest extent. They’ve been allowed like spoiled brats to run rampant and unchecked too long and are now way too big for their britches. They no longer are acting in a trustworthy manner in regards to the free dispersal of information but in a clandestine subversive manner to force people to see the world as they see it. They are trying to rob the people of the right to come to their own conclusions and to think freely. That is the very definition of tyranny.

  69. It isn’t Russia that we should be worried about……….election interference from progressive private companies is a much bigger issue.

    Break them up!!!!!

  70. Google is going to use it’s monopolistic power to influence election outcomes… That’s not fair to the poor Russians as they will be out of work.

      1. It would never work out. Google wants to see itself controlling everything and Putin wants to control everything.

    1. Every day my decision to use DuckDuckGo seems wiser. Why people on the right continue to use Google, who hates them, when there is an alternative I just can’t figure out.

Comments are closed.