Google And Facebook Have A Psychological Trick To Make You Do Things You Wouldn’t Believe You Might Do

By Conner Lewis For The Congressional Report

Most of the U.S. Senators and government agency heads own stock in, get their political campaigns financed by and party with, the owners and executives of the Silicon Valley big tech companies.

That is why those public officials fail to halt the mass societal abuses of those companies. Above all others, the California politicians are in bed with the same criminals they are supposed to regulate.

While politicians shrug off any attempt to bring the oligarchs into line, they provide lip-service, window-dressing pretend actions that have impressive titles but zero bite.

The authors of this report were in private meetings with the investors and founders of the Silicon Valley “Big Five”, at the inception of their companies, and hereby testify that those owners planned, with malicious intent, the use of their business licenses for the purpose of manipulating, harming and restricting the public interest, and DEMOCRACY, for profiteering purposes.

Big tech’s “green-washing”, false-savior, “we-are-your-mother” fake “do-gooder” facade is a sham to sucker everyone.

They hide behind a curtain of false altruism and do the darkest deeds any industry can undertake behind that contrived screen.

One of Google , Youtube and Facebook’s most insidious technologies can even get you to engage in riots, murders and other crimes, even though you might, otherwise, never do those things. Here is how that technology works:

Since the early 20th century, the name of the Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov has been associated with the idea of brainwashing. Pavlov’s experiments, in which he trained dogs to salivate in response to a signal such as a bell, showed that the mind could be conditioned to react automatically to stimuli. But he looked forward to a time when science could manipulate the brain directly. In a passage eerily accurate in describing today’s neural imaging, he wrote: “If we could look through the skull into the brain of a consciously thinking person…then we should see playing over the cerebral surface a bright spot with fantastic, waving borders, constantly fluctuating in size and form, and surrounded by a darkness, more or less deep, covering the rest of the hemispheres.”

We still don’t have a precise topography of the brain in terms of specific thoughts or feelings. It’s hard to imagine where one would begin if one wanted to surgically force someone to reveal a particular secret, or to persuade him or her to vote for a certain candidate. But since Pavlov’s time, science has moved much closer to enabling direct physical control of the brain. In this century, neuroscientists’ insights into memory, cognition, pleasure and pain may make coercive “mind control” a reality.

The psychologist James Olds (1922-76), one of the founders of modern neuroscience, conducted an experiment at McGill University in 1953 in which he implanted electrodes deep in the brains of rats and started observing their responses to electrical stimulation at various sites. His key observation resulted from an accident: He missed the desired anatomical site slightly on one particular rat. After recovering from surgery, the animal was placed in a special chamber. Every time it went to a corner of the chamber, it received a small electrical stimulus to the brain, with each corner stimulating a different site. The rat kept returning to one specific corner, even skipping eating to hang out there and get the brain stimulation. Olds inferred that there was something pleasurable about receiving a shock at that site in the brain. Next he started training the rat to go to different parts of the box or to turn right or left before it could receive the desired electrical stimulation. Using this technique, Olds could elicit complex behaviors easily; Pavlov would have been envious about this shortcut to behavioral conditioning. Olds observed that “Left to itself in the apparatus, the animal…stimulated its own brain regularly,” up to 5,000 times an hour.
The mind-control possibilities for this intervention sounded almost limitless, but would it work on people? Psychiatrist Robert Heath (1915-99), of Tulane University, performed studies with human patients, including one code-named B-7, a 28-year-old man with severe narcolepsy. Heath implanted a series of electrodes in various areas of his brain and asked the patient what he felt after each area was stimulated. One area was so aversive that the patient intentionally broke the stimulus button so that he would never have to experience that sensation again.

However, the feelings evoked by stimulating a different site were intensely pleasurable. The patient learned that he could block an incipient narcoleptic attack by self-stimulating; he was able to control his symptoms so well that for the first time he was able to get a job. On the rare occasion that he fell asleep too rapidly to press the button, his friends knew that they could promptly wake him up by pressing it for him.

Neurosurgical techniques have continued to evolve to be less invasive, less risky and applied to very specific areas of the brain.

At one point the CIA approached Heath, asking if he would work with the agency to study the brain’s pleasure and pain system. He spurned the invitation, he told a New York Times reporter in 1977: “If I had wanted to be a spy, I would have been a spy. I wanted to be a doctor and practice medicine.” This kind of work, most of which was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, has largely been shut down because of ethical concerns.

However, the underlying neurosurgical techniques have continued to evolve. Fifty years after Heath’s studies, procedures are less invasive, less risky and can be applied to very specific areas of the brain. Implanted deep-brain stimulators (DBS) are used by thousands of people with Parkinson’s disease to help control their muscle movements, as well as for other conditions such as pain and epilepsy. There is ongoing interest in using such interventions on different sites in the brain to treat patients with psychiatric disorders, particularly patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Deep-brain stimulation requires painstaking surgery and expensive equipment, suitable for an individual but hardly appropriate for group interventions. Is there a way of stimulating a group of people without implants? In her 1996 book “Cults in Our Midst,” Psychologist Margaret Singer described love bombing,” an indoctrination technique used by some cults in which recruits are given so much flattery and adulation that they feel welcome and safe.

The neuroendocrine equivalent involves a hormone called oxytocin that is manufactured deep in the brain. People release oxytocin when they are bonding with another; it is sometimes nicknamed the feel-good hormone. Early research found that it is increased during breast-feeding and during sexual intimacy. Subsequent research showed that oxytocin is also produced in other situations of closeness—prayer, team sports, even when dog owners interact with their pets.

But there is a darker side to oxytocin. Experiments have found that it can stoke trust and cooperation within a group at the expense of distrust of people outside the group. Currently, the most effective way of administering oxytocin is through a nasal spray, but if it were possible to administer it orally or via aerosol, it could conceivably be used in group settings to increase attachment and thereby recruit new potential members of a cult or party. People might willingly join a group or adopt a new belief if it allowed them to receive pleasurable stimulation—after all, addicts aren’t particularly squeamish about what they need to do to obtain their drugs.

On the other side of the coin, people might repudiate their old beliefs or identities to turn off painful stimulation, the way patient B-7 broke his stimulus button. When the dystopian movie “A Clockwork Orange” was released in 1971, audiences were stunned by its portrayal of the power of aversive conditioning. The advance of neuroscience means that such techniques are no longer just fantasies. So far they have been kept in check only by government regulation and medical professionals’ sense of ethics. But governments are always seeking new weaponry, and history suggests that there will always be some researchers who close their eyes to the implications of their work or justify it as a way to protect society from looming threats. Their self-restraint may not always protect us from the dark potential of Google and Facebook’s scientific coercion. This report goes deeper into those contrived and manually steered tech manipulations operated by Big Tech’s executives.

Google is manipulating your internet searches, your elections, your perceptions of the news, your democracy, your ideologies and your school curriculum’s. Google and their cartel (including FACEBOOK, NETFLIX, LINKEDIN, YOUTUBE, et al ) collude to manipulate social dynamics.

White House executives, Federal Agency Executives and U.S. Senators including Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, John Podesta, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid own, control and finance “The Deep State” because they own, and their families, own the stock in the companies comprising The Deep State, they tell those companies what to do, they fund those companies and they social communicate with each other through covert channels, they engage sexually with each other and they exchange stock market tips and strategies, and that forensic accounting shows that the politicians and the corrupt companies are all the same organization. This, in part, proves that the “Deep State” is “State Sponsored”.

Google, and The Deep State’s, socialistic, anti-Christian bias is invisibly reflected in the suppression of ideological content from appearing in some search results.

In shocking research that has spanned the past 6 ½ years, Dr. Robert Epstein – former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today and now Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology – has found that by controlling search results, Google possesses unprecedented power to sway the thinking of undecided voters during an election campaign.

How is it done?

Google can manipulate its search engine algorithm to display one-sided search results that decidedly favor one political candidate over another.

Dr. Epstein gave a grim prediction in recent congressional testimony…

He said that “democracy as originally conceived cannot survive Big Tech as currently empowered.”

Dr. Epstein is a registered Democrat. He supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. He has no hidden agenda … and no axe to grind for President Trump.

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, he captured and analyzed “more than 13,000 election-related searches conducted by a diverse group of Americans on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in the weeks leading up to the election…”

During the 2018 midterm election cycle, Dr. Epstein captured 47,000 election-related searches – plus nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results were linked.

The results of his scientific analysis in both cases were disturbing…

The Google search results in 2016 – which account for over 92% of worldwide internet searches – were significantly biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in all 10 positions on the first page of search results in both blue states and red states.

In 2018, the first-page search results heavily favored web sites and articles favoring Democrat candidates rather than being evenly split between Democrat and Republican candidates.

Very few people who do spontaneous searches ever scroll past the first page of search results. And Google knows this.

Dr. Epstein has conducted dozens of controlled experiments in the U.S. and other countries to precisely measure – through before-and-after questionnaires – how opinions and votes shift among undecided voters when search results strongly favor one candidate over another.

He calls this shift “SEME” – Search Engine Manipulation Shift.

“SEME is one of the most powerful forms of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences,” Dr. Epstein said in his congressional testimony, “and it is especially dangerous because it is invisible to people – ‘subliminal’ in effect… Bottom line: biased search results can easily produce shifts in the opinions and voting preference of undecided voters by 20% or more – up to 80% in some demographic groups.”

I can tell you, this is enough voters to change the results of any election.

Dr. Epstein calculated that Search Engine Manipulation Shift likely persuaded at least 2.6 million undecided voters to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016 …and perhaps as many as 10.4 million.

In the 2018 midterm elections, Epstein’s evidence suggests that as many as 78.2 million votes may have been shifted to Democrat candidates due to Search Engine Manipulation Shift.

These effects are far more meddlesome and interfering than fake news stories or ads placed by Russians on social media…

While these acts of interference are troubling and unacceptable, they don’t shift very many votes because they are competitive and visible. Search Engine Manipulation Shift – on the other hand – is invisible and non-competitive.

Dr. Epstein explains: “SEME is an example of an ‘ephemeral experience,’ and that’s a phrase you’ll find in internal emails that have leaked from Google recently. A growing body of evidence suggests that Google employees deliberately engineer ephemeral experiences to change people’s thinking… My recent research demonstrates that Google’s ‘autocomplete’ search suggestions can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split without people’s awareness.”

As expected, Google, Hillary Clinton, and progressive media outlets have all disputed Dr. Epstein’s research and his claims…

They all say in unison that this 2016 study of election-related search results has been “debunked,” and that Epstein’s results aren’t valid because he made “weird methodological choices” in an earlier 2010 study.

But they haven’t debunked his methodology or his results at all…

They’re just saying this to try to discredit him and convince people to not take his work seriously. They haven’t refuted him either by conducting their own comparable studies … or by addressing his explanations of his methodology.

Incidentally, the number one Hillary Clinton financial supporter in the 2016 election was Alphabet Inc. – the parent company of Google.

You can read Dr. Epstein’s testimony and study the methodology of his experiments here.

He is eminently qualified to conduct the type of research he’s been conducting with Google search – having been a research psychologist for nearly 40 years.

He received his Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1981 and has published 15 books and more than 300 scientific articles on artificial intelligence and other behavioral topics.

Dr. Epstein believes the solution to Google’s search engine manipulation is to end its monopoly over its “black box” algorithm operation.

By requiring that the database they use to generate search results must be available in the public domain – accessible to all – many new search platforms will spring up and compete with Google, providing the same excellent search results.

Incidentally, I find that every time I run a Google search on a topic, I am served biased viewpoints…

Usually a CNN report is first on the list, followed by:

  • The New York Times
  • The Washington Post
  • MSNBC
  • Other pro-socialist media

I often have to scroll to page 7 or 8 to start finding conservative viewpoints.

Since 2012, Google has discriminated against and marginalized our editorial content. If they are doing it to us, they are certainly doing it to conservative web sites with higher numbers of subscribers. See these videos:

https://youtu.be/rNvgl38TLvI

and

https://youtu.be/csye_Jkp4eI

There were allegations raised that Google was manipulating the news to help Hillary. They allegedly steered 2.6 million votes to Hillary and had far more of an impact upon the 2016 election than Russians. A whistleblower at Google has come out and warned that things are getting worse. Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies came out and provided documents and warnings. He said:

“Before Trump won, Google had this mission statement to organize the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful.”

“After Trump won, they said ‘Well, Donald Trump won because of fake news and Russia hacking the election, so what we need to do is … protect our users from fake news; we need to protect our users from the damaging effects of Russian trolls and bots.”

What is interesting is that Elizabeth Warren has been a longtime critic of the economic power of Amazon, Google, and Facebook. She is making their break-up under Anti-Trust Laws a key component of her presidential platform.

Google’s ubiquitous search engine, Google Search, is the backbone of the tech giant’s business.

In many ways, Google Search is the backbone of the modern internet — the way much of the web is sorted and organized and located. Given how crucial it is to daily internet use for billions of people around the world, it’s a particularly ripe target for manipulation.

Google denies doing as much, and insists that Google Search is built on algorithms and data gleaned from use.

But a new Wall Street Journal investigation found that Google manipulated search algorithms in some worrying ways, including prioritizing large businesses over smaller ones, removing autocomplete results that involve sensitive topics like immigration and abortion, and even outright blacklisting some websites.

In one such change to Google’s search algorithms, the service guided search users to more prominent businesses over lesser-known ones, the Journal reported. That change reportedly helped to boost Amazon’s store in search results.

In another example cited in the Journal’s report, autocomplete search results for sensitive subjects were replaced with safer results than those found on competing search engines like Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.

Google is known for refusing to share specific details on how its search algorithms operate, which it attributes to a measure of operations logistics: If the algorithms were public, then they could be gamed, Google argues.

“Extreme transparency has historically proven to empower bad actors in a way that hurts our users and website owners who play by the rules,” Google spokesperson Lara Levin told the Journal.

When reached for a response to the report, a Google spokesperson offered the following statement:

“We have been very public and transparent around the topics covered in this article, such as our Search rater guidelines, our policies for special features in Search like Autocomplete and valid legal removals, our work to combat misinformation through Project Owl, and the fact that the changes we make to Search are aimed at benefiting users, not commercial relationships. This article contains a number of old, incomplete anecdotes, many of which not only predated our current processes and policies but also give a very inaccurate impression of how we approach building and improving Search. We take a responsible and principled approach to making changes, including a rigorous evaluation process before launching any change — something we started implementing more than a decade ago. Listening to feedback from the public is a critical part of making Search better, and we continue to welcome the feedback.”

If you use Google’s search engine, “There’s no way of knowing what you’re missing,” says Gabriel Weinberg, CEO and founder of search engine DuckDuckGo, whose company released a study Tuesday claiming that Google is manipulating Americans’ search results.

The study concludes that Google is editorializing and providing different search results for different users who search for identical terms, within seconds and minutes of each other.

“The editorialized results are informed by the personal information Google has on you, like your search, browsing and purchase history,” the study says.

“What we’re seeing is intense amounts of variation,” Weinberg told Yahoo Finance. “Most of the people in the study saw results completely unique to them.”

By unique, Weinberg means that inconsistent source links appeared in search results, and some of the same links appeared in varying hierarchical order.

Seventy-two U.S. participants in the study entered three independent Google search terms — gun control, immigration, and vaccinations — using a desktop Chrome browser at 9 p.m. eastern time on July 24, 2018.

Unique results were returned for 68% of private searches for “gun control,” 57% of searches for “immigration,” and 92% of searches for “vaccinations.”

According to the study, Google returned these filtered results, regardless of whether participants searched in private “incognito,” or non-private mode.

“It’s exactly opposite of what people would expect,” Weinberg said.

In non-private mode, unique search results were generated for 59% of searches for “gun control,” 63% of searches for “immigration,” and 92% of searches for “vaccinations.”

“Our proposition is that if you search in the U.S. you should be seeing the same things, especially when you search major political topics,” Weinberg said.

DuckDuckGo decided to run the new study after a previous version examined Google search results in connection with the 2012 presidential campaigns. A Wall Street Journal study, commissioned around the same time, mirrored DuckDuckGo’s findings, showing that Google’s personalized search results inserted tens of millions of more links for then-candidate Barack Obama than for his primary challenger Mitt Romney.

“Search personalization doesn’t actually help search results, it really hurts in the aggregate, making people more politically polarized,” Weinberg said.

In his experience, Weinberg says when consumers think of search personalization they’re really expecting search localization for services like local weather, local restaurants, and maps, rather than national or international political issues.

“You can do that all without a filter bubble because it’s not based on your search history,” he said, adding that search-based ad revenue is not dependent on search personalization.

DuckDuckGo’s study controlled for local results by designating all local search results as equal and accounting for no variation if the local links appeared in the same hierarchical order. A result showing an LA Times link, for example, was treated the same as link to the Chicago Tribune.

For critics who dispense with the importance of result order, Weinberg says they’re mistaken.

“The first link gets about 40% of the clicks, the second gets about 20%, and it drops off by half with each [subsequent] link,” he said. “If you switch the second and first link, that’s actually a huge difference” because the one is now getting twice as many clicks as the other.

Yahoo Finance reached out to Google for a response to DuckDuckGo’s study and didn’t receive a response.

“I’m really not on any particular side,” Weinberg said when asked about his political ideology.

He says he’d like to see Congress question Google CEO Sundar Pichai about search result bias when he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on December 11.

“We understand [the study] is coming from a competitor and there’s an inclination to believe [the findings] less so. That’s why we made it all public, the data, the code, the directions, and we are basically saying we believe other people should study this,” he said.

Weinberg says editorialized results may be crafted depending on the level of privacy, and the number of Android products you use.

“They may have all your email, they may have all your text messages, have all your photos, all your contacts, so [editorialized content] can be based on all of those things. It’s a completely black box and opaque to consumers.”

A few people in the study were given a much broader range in search results from what the majority of participants were seeing, Weinberg said.

“You would just have no idea if you were one of those people. And you also would have no idea, even if you know you’re seeing something different, why you’re seeing it.”

The rise of renewed and vociferous social movements for every non-white and non-cis male group can be seen as paralleling the rise of social media and the domination of technology platforms. In time, at least in the Western world, when blacks, women, gays, and most other populations have won equal rights, and even preferential rights, under codified federal law, and when their social currency has never been higher, it seems now that their voice has never sounded more pained or aggrieved.

Without a doubt, the ease of emoting through a tweet has certainly affected how individual users can set off maelstroms of irrational fury. Whether calling out real hurt, self-deluded hurt, or pure schadenfreude, there is no shortage of bored and usually meaningless lives attempting to drag down a crab that has nearly escaped the barrel of life.

The other side of the same coin is how the tech giant themselves can influence the narrative. We see this play out with not-so-alleged shadow banning practices of conservative social media accounts, and most people are by now aware of YouTube demonetizing conservative channels. We can add a new wrinkle: The representation of Google Image searches to advance a social narrative.

Let’s break down what we saw in our own online queries, and then we can analyze it afterward. Try it out for yourself and leave a comment at the end of the article.

Google Search: “White Men”

The top three rows of the search produced a total of sixteen results. Of those, there were:

  • One result featuring a woman of color
  • Three results featuring exclusively black men, either as a victim of white brutality or as a successful black man. Each image is a well-dressed black man wearing a tuxedo or suit.
  • Five results featuring either a mug shot of some kind or simply an angry visage.
  • Visible taglines for the images including phrases like “Dear White Men, We Need You,” “White Men Are Bad,” “An Angry White Man” and one begins “White Men Aren’t Thrilled When Women”
  • Only two results showing white men smiling

Google Search: “Black Men”

The top three rows of the search produced a total of seventeen results. Of those, there were:

  • All seventeen results featuring black men
  • Eight of the results featuring black men smiling
  • At least six of the results explicitly expressing victimhood. A few others are vaguer but allude to it.
  • Visible taglines for the images including: “The Young Black Men Caught,” “Why Do White People Feel,” “Photo Campaign That Celebrates Black” and “Resilience Of Black Men.”

Google Search (see feature photo): “White Women”

The top three rows of the search produced a total of fifteen results. Of those, there were:

  • Five results featuring women of color
  • Two results featuring black men
  • Four featuring white women smiling
  • Visible taglines for the first five results including: “The Trouble with White Women,” “White Women Need To Talk About Race,” “White Women Aren’t Allies At Work,” “Dear White Women, No More,” and “White Women: It’s Time To Be…”
  • Other taglines including “White Women Were Southern Slave Owners,” “Being Exoticised By White Women,” “Black Women Are Paid Less Than White,” and “White Women Benefit Most (from white privilege).”

Google Search: “Black Women”

The top three rows of the search produced a total of sixteen results. Of those, there were:

  • All sixteen results featuring black women
  • All sixteen results featuring well-dressed and well-groomed women
  • Fourteen of the results featuring black women smiling or projecting happiness (the other two project strength)
  • Visible taglines including: “How Women Have Shaped,” “Studies Suggest Black Women Are More,” “My Heroes Are Black Women,” and “20 Millenial Black-Owned Brands.”

Google Search: “White People”

The top three rows of the search produced a total of fifteen results. Of those, there were:

  • Seven results featuring people of color
  • Four additional results featuring white people protesting in solidarity with black people
  • Just one result featuring a white person smiling (a white woman with dreadlocks)
  • Visible taglines including: “Dear White People,” “Dear White People (again),” “A Letter To White People,” and another features the deplorable Robin DeAngelo.

Google Search: “Black People”

The top three rows of the search produced a total of fifteen results. Of those, there were:

  • All fifteen results featuring black people
  • Eleven results featuring blacks smiling
  • Visible taglines including: “What’s Life Really Like For Black,” “Being Black In America,” “Racism Grows in Places,” and “Facebook Has Problem With Black People.”

An Analysis of Search Results

An aggregate of the three “white” searches is unflattering for white people. Of the forty-six total results, a full eighteen (39%) of them depict non-whites, sometimes in roles of victimhood but usually in portrayals of independence and success. In and of itself, this is not bad, but it is misrepresentative of the intended search, and as we see, it is not replicated in reverse for other searches. For the whites themselves, just seven (15%) were represented in a positive light as indicated by smiling. Put another way, more than twice the amount of blacks were shown than whites in a positive way – in a search designed to produce white results, to begin with.

The taglines are especially egregious. Just two taglines suggest something positive (“Employment Helps White Men’s Health,” and another is assumed to be positive because it shows white women rallying against the death of a black woman at the hands of police). Two others are neutral in that they advertise white shirts. That leaves a full twenty-four taglines (52%) under an image of white people that states something negative or dangerous about them.

An aggregate of the three “black” searches has a different outcome. Of the forty-eight total results, fully 100% of those results came back with images of black people. In the same vein, none of the taglines suggest that blacks are dangerous or that anything blacks do is harmful to others (as is the case especially with white women, more on that anon).

Amazingly, twenty-nine taglines portray blacks as victims. Despite the overall happiness of blacks as seen through imagery, the titling of the pictures nevertheless contends that blacks must be seen as victims. The taglines refer to the problems being black in America, and several refer to their killings (always at the hands of whites or police, not other blacks, even though black homicide victims are killed by other blacks 90% of the time according to the FBI).

As it relates specifically to the query of white women, something striking is happening. There is clearly a concerted effort to portray white women as comfortably and cunningly subversive (Where is the feminist outrage, by the way?). Most headlines call out white women for a combination of their insincere efforts at allying with blacks, benefiting from white privilege, and to really hammer home a negative stereotype, fulfilling the role of a “Karen.” In the intersectional rat race, the irony is that a significant majority of all women marchers in January 2017 were white and championing leftist causes. Two immalleable rules in life: You can’t please everyone, and the left always consumes its own.

It is obvious that the Marxists at Google have an agenda to pursue, namely that the narrative must be alive and well. White men and women are evil? Check. Are blacks simultaneously victims of white oppression and strong individuals? Check. The more subtle displays arise when looking at the positive and negative dispositions. In Nazi propaganda, Goebbels only had to compare Jews to rats for so long before most Germans went along with the lie. How long before a similar lie is believed here? More concerning, what happens after that?

The Wall Street Journal has undertaken a thorough investigation into how Google, despite its denials and disavowals, manipulates search results to influence what you learn and find online.

For years Google executives have insisted that they do not use human intelligence to arrange the results of online searches. Yet, the Journal found that, “Google’s algorithms are subject to regular tinkering from executives and engineers who are trying to deliver relevant search results, while also pleasing a wide variety of powerful interests and driving its parent company’s more than $30 billion in annual profit.”

The Journal also found that, “Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results.”

The tech giant also influences search results through its auto-complete feature prior to searching the internet. “In auto-complete, the feature that predicts search terms as the user types a query, Google’s engineers have created algorithms and blacklists to weed out more incendiary suggestions for controversial subjects, such as abortion or immigration, in effect filtering out inflammatory results on high-profile topics.”

In response to the investigation, a Google spokeswoman, Ms. Levin, told the Journal, “We do today what we have done all along, provide relevant results from the most reliable sources available.”

Google, which has more than 90% of the market share for online searches, is an extremely powerful company capable of controlling what people know and what they can learn online.

The Journal tested the word “abortion” in Google’s search engine and compared the results to Bing and DuckDuckGo’s results. According to the test, Planned Parenthood was featured in 39% of the results on the first page of Google’s results compared to 14% for Bing and 16% for DuckDuckGo.

Ms. Levin responded to the test by claiming that Google does not promote Planned Parenthood through its algorithm, but the available evidence suggests otherwise.

Google has also been exposed by a former staffer who spoke with the undercover investigative organization Project Veritas. The staffer, Zachary Vorhies, claimed that Google has a “news blacklist” document which censors conservative websites such as LifeNews.com, Newsbusters and the Media Research Center.

According to one researcher, Google even has the power to influence the results of an election. Indeed, they have already done so.

Dr. Robert Epstein, Ph.D., a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, is one of the lonely voices that has been speaking out about Google’s manipulation of search results. Dr. Epstein’s research has focused particularly on the impact of Google’s search result manipulation on elections.

In a testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June of 2019, Dr. Epstein claimed that, “In 2016, biased search results generated by Google’s search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported).”

Dr. Epstein also claimed that, “On Election Day in 2018, the “Go Vote” reminder Google displayed on its home page gave one political party between 800,000 and 4.6 million more votes than it gave the other party. In other words, Google’s “Go Vote” prompt was not a public service; it was a vote manipulation.”

The evidence Dr. Epstein provides is disconcerting, though not surprising.

In a leaked video following the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, Google executives held a staff meeting in which they conveyed significant remorse about the election results.

In the video, Google co-founder Sergey Brin states, “I know this is probably not the most joyous TGIF (weekly meeting) we have had. Let’s face it, most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad because of the election.”

Brin goes on to say, “Myself, as an immigrant and refugee, I certainly find this election deeply offensive and I know many of you do too. And I think it’s a very stressful time, and it conflicts with many of our values.”

In the same meeting, Google CFO Ruth Porat broke down in tears recounting Hillary Clinton’s loss that Tuesday evening. After texting a friend who was at what would have been Clinton’s election night victory party, Porat said her friend responded, “People are leaving. Staff is crying. We’re going to lose.” With her voice trembling, Porat says, “Uh… that was first moment I really felt like we were going to lose, and it was this massive kick in the gut that we were going to lose.”

Numerous other examples of liberal bias among Google’s top executive team was demonstrated in the video, and what’s remarkable is that there is not a single moment of conservative opinion expressed. The support for Clinton and the sense of dread seemed to be unanimous.

It couldn’t be clearer that Google is an enormously influential company run by an entirely liberal executive team. And the Journal’s excellent investigative work further exposes their manipulative practices.

I think it’s past time we consider whether using Google as our primary search engine, which most Americans do, is wise.

Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.

The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.

When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.

If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.