Websites now shadow-banned and not found on Google Keyword Searches?

[holistic1]

A list of web sites you now wont find when you search on google
https://thomasdishaw.com/bookmark-400-links-google-doesnt-want-visit/

[Valerie Villars]

That list of blocked sites reads like a who's who of my education for the last five years.

[gs_powered]

Is this something that is happening on Canada? I seem to find every site on that list through Google, although I may just quit Google anyway :)

[Bill Ryan]

Is this something that is happening on Canada? I seem to find every site on that list through Google, although I may just quit Google anyway :)

Yes, they work for me, too. :thumbsup:

Meaning, if I search for Drudge Report, I get http://drudgereport.com. If I search for Rense, I get http://rense.com. Both first on the results list. I've not yet found any anomalies. (For reference, in case anyone doesn't know, I'm in Ecuador.)

[norman]

Is this something that is happening on Canada? I seem to find every site on that list through Google, although I may just quit Google anyway :)

Yes, they work for me, too. :thumbsup:

Meaning, if I search for Drudge Report, I get http://drudgereport.com. If I search for Rense, I get http://rense.com. Both first on the results list. I've not yet found any anomalies. (For reference, in case anyone doesn't know, I'm in Ecuador.)


That's not how shadow banning works.


If you search directly for a site, or even a page on a site, it will show up.


What doesn't show, or is cranked right back to a very low percentage hit rate in the google algorithm, is when you are doing a general search for phrases or news headlines etc, the results you get will have zero or very low percentage results from shadow banned sites.


They started doing it a long time ago at a very slight level of interference but they've increased the effect now.

[Hervé]

96 percent of Google search results for 'Trump' are from liberal media outlets (https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/)


Paula Bolyard PJ Media (https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/)
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:17 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s23/476528/large/5b3bc0f1fc7e93902f8b45d0.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s23/476528/full/5b3bc0f1fc7e93902f8b45d0.jpg)
© Dado Ruvic / Reuters


Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump? It sure looks that way based on recent search results for news on the president.

Conservatives and Trump supporters have for the last several years questioned whether Google was deprioritizing conservative news sites, hiding them from users who utilize their search engine. Google has maintained that all outlets are treated fairly, but nevertheless, conservative sites have reported reduced search traffic and, in the case of Google-owned YouTube, content creators have been banned and demonetized (https://pjmedia.com/trending/sadistic-youtube-deletes-channels-demonetizes-censors-content-refuses-respond-press/). Google's high-profile firing of conservative James Damore (https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/employee-lawsuit-reveals-google-intolerant-race-cult/), purportedly over his conservative political views, only reinforces the idea that Google is picking winners and losers.

To test the premise, I performed a Google search for "Trump" (https://www.google.com/search?q=trump&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4tvnSxYfdAhWR14MKHVq8C9wQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=649) using the search engine's "News" tab and analyzed the results using Sharyl Attkisson's media bias chart (https://sharylattkisson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-23-at-1.43.33-PM.png).


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485190/large/Screen_Shot_2017_04_23_at_1_43.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485190/full/Screen_Shot_2017_04_23_at_1_43.png)


I expected to see some skewing of the results based on my extensive experience with Google, but I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today (the last two outlets on this list could arguably be considered more centrist than the others).

Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results.

But it got much, much worse when I analyzed the first 100 items that Google returned in a search for news on "Trump."

CNN, by a wide margin, appeared most frequently, with nearly twice as many results returned as the second-place finisher, The Washington Post. Other left-leaning outlets also fared well, including NBC, CNBC, The Atlantic, and Politico. The only right-leaning sites to appear in the top 100 were The Wall Street Journal and Fox News with 3 and 2 results respectively.

PJ Media did not appear in the first 100 results, nor did National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State, or any other conservative-leaning sites except the two listed above.

Here are the sites that appeared most frequently in the top 100 results.


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485189/large/chart_3.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485189/full/chart_3.png)
Google search results for "Trump." © PJ Media


As you can see, CNN has a disproportionate number of articles returned when searching for "Trump" - nearly 29 percent of the total. In fact, left-leaning sites comprised 96 percent of the total results.


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485188/large/chart_4.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485188/full/chart_4.png)
Google search results for "Trump." © PJ Media


I performed the search a multiple times using different computers (registered to different users) and Google returned similar results. While not scientific, the results suggest a pattern of bias against right-leaning content.

Google is secretive about its algorithm, although the company does say that a variety of factors - around 200 of them, according to Google - go into how pages are ranked. In fact, a whole science has developed - called search engine optimization (SEO) - that purports to help sites become more visible in Google search results. Factors such as the relevance of the topic, the design of the website, internal and external links, and the way articles are written and formatted all can affect a site's Google traffic. Google is constantly tweaking their algorithm, and a website's traffic prospects can rise or fall depending on the changes. PJ Media's Google search traffic, for example, dropped precipitously after a May 2017 algorithm change. We have yet to recover the lost traffic. Other conservative sites have reported similar drops in traffic.

"Can I Rank," an SEO company in San Francisco, also found an anti-conservative bias in Google search results (http://www.canirank.com/blog/analysis-of-political-bias-in-internet-search-engine-results/). The company studied over 1,200 URLs that ranked highly in Google search results for politically-charged keywords like "gun control," "abortion," "TPP," and Black Lives Matter" and then assessed whether there was a political slant to the articles.
"Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a 'Left' or 'Far Left' slant than they were pages from the right," Can I Rank found.

"Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results."
They sampled 2,000 results and found that searchers are 39 percent more likely to be presented with left-leaning articles.

For some keywords, the disparity was even more pronounced. Someone searching for "Republican platform," for example, would see the official text of the platform followed by seven left-leaning results that were critical of the platform.

The company's research turned up no right-leaning sites in the top results for keywords like "minimum wage," "abortion," "NAFTA," "Iraq war," "campaign finance reform," "global warming," "marijuana legalization," and "TPP."
"The proportion of results with a left-leaning bias increased for top ranking results, which typically receive the majority of clicks," the company found.

"For example, we found that search results denoted as demonstrating a left or far left slant received 40% more exposure in the top 3 ranking spots than search results considered to have a right or far right political slant."

"Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint," the report found.

"Though Google would like to portray itself as a fair and balanced arbiter of facts - a role it has recently tried to strengthen with the launch of a fact checking mechanism (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/14/google-to-fact-check-online-news-stories/) - searchers should be aware that ranking algorithms don't currently incorporate an assessment of political bias or even factual accuracy," the company warned.

"No attempt is made to present multiple viewpoints on controversial political issues, and the algorithm in its current form does not return results equally distributed across the entire political spectrum."
Google denies charges that the company is manipulating the algorithm to prioritize news from left-leaning sites.
"Google does not manipulate results," Maggie Shiels, a representative from Google's corporate communications and public affairs, told PJM in an email.

"There are more than 200 signals taken into account when someone does a search which include freshness of results."

"These stories are put into clusters to organise the news and to make them easy to search through," she said, explaining that they have "labels like highly cited, in-depth, etc." (https://support.google.com/news/answer/1217612?hl=en-GB)
She said her personal search for Trump returned results from BBC, the New York Times, CNBC, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal.
"When I click on 'view all' I get full coverage -- I get CNN, Reuters, Axios, Washington Examiner," she said.
Following those results, she sees her subscriptions, video from Fox and CNN, a timeline, opinion pieces, Twitter, and "all coverage which covers a lot of different publications and is an endless stream of stories from a wide variety of sources."

Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky wrote about the problem of bias earlier this year (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-09/if-google-is-biased-so-are-its-algorithms), reacting to the news of James Damore's treatment at Google.
"Google's search algorithms are a black box (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609338/new-research-aims-to-solve-the-problem-of-ai-bias-in-black-box-algorithms/) to the public," he explains.

"People inside the company can mess with them without telling us, potentially imposing their internal culture on millions of searchers who have no reason and no desire to share it. This world includes Trump supporters and Antifa activists (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/), creationist pastors and evolutionary biologists, climate change deniers and people who consider them evil. It's not up to an internet search company to try to level these differences."

"But if that company fosters a work culture in which a certain worldview dominates, can its products be trusted to be neutral?" he asks.
It appears not.

My colleague Roger L. Simon is asking the same questions. He wrote here at PJM earlier this week (https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/social-media-companies-the-most-dangerous-monopolies-ever/) that social media companies are the most dangerous monopolies - ever.
"Facebook, Twitter, and Google are far worse than the original monopolies like International Harvester and Standard Oil and far more dangerous because they monopolize not just our industries but our brains," he explained.

"They control, or at least inordinately influence, how Americans and even much of the world think."
As more and more people turn to Google and other social media outlets for their news, it may not be hyperbolic to suggest that the biases inherent in human-created algorithms have the potential to affect the fate of democracy. Certainly they can - and likely do - impact the outcomes of elections both here and abroad. With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability - and perhaps even desire - to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image.


Related:


House intel chair Nunes says balanced media 'is dead' in America (https://www.sott.net/article/379122-House-intel-chair-Nunes-says-balanced-media-is-dead-in-America)



Google executive, Eric Schmidt, says new algorithm will hide RT, Sputnik articles (https://www.sott.net/article/387738-Google-executive-Eric-Schmidt-says-new-algorithm-will-hide-RT-Sputnik-articles)



Study shows Google search manipulation can swing up to 80 percent of undecided voters (https://www.sott.net/article/384017-Study-shows-Google-search-manipulation-can-swing-up-to-80-percent-of-undecided-voters)



Real 'fake news' sites are being exposed; CNN's app getting hit with 1 star reviews (https://www.sott.net/article/334658-Real-fake-news-sites-are-being-exposed-CNNs-app-getting-hit-with-1-star-reviews)

===========================================

I guess the title of this thread should be reworded so as to reflect that a search for news from a keyword won't show any of the listed sites but beyond the 10th or 100th search result page if at all.

In that case, it would be advised to use the trick explained in this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91021-Advanced-Google-search-techniques&p=1243816&viewfull=1#post1243816) (<---) to get real news directly from one's trusted sites. [I just modified the title; open to better suggestions :)]

[norman]

In that case, it would be advised to use the trick explained in this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91021-Advanced-Google-search-techniques&p=1243816&viewfull=1#post1243816) (<---) to get real news directly from one's trusted sites. [I just modified the title; open to better suggestions :)]





The trouble is, WE are not what this is all about. It's about the innocent googlers out there who don't suspect a thing !

Every one of them has a vote.

edit:


Herve, the title could include the term 'Shadow Banning', because that seems to be the working title of this problem as discussed by Alex Jones and some of his guests, especially.

[holistic1]

That list of blocked sites reads like a who's who of my education for the last five years.

Same here, Valerie.

[Carmody]

"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." --Matthew 13:12

I'm not religious, but it is indeed a good line.

It tells you quite clearly, even for me, one who is nominally liberal and left leaning in the classic real world sense*, not the weirded out pear shaped meme that is used in US mental spear chucking slang..it tells you that google really needs to be broken up, or shut down..

*a real liberal is a progressive moderate - nothing more.

[holistic1]

Thank you all for your comments and for changing the thread title.

[holistic1]

It's still the "how to boil a frog" situation. We ALL still continue to support the system. We (the informed) are the problem if we do nothing.

[ichingcarpenter]

Is this something that is happening on Canada? I seem to find every site on that list through Google, although I may just quit Google anyway :)

no problem here in NM either

[KiwiElf]

No probs in KiwiLand either, but... entirely different results using different browsers on different computers (ie PCs vs Macs)

[Omni]

But it got much, much worse when I analyzed the first 100 items that Google returned in a search for news on "Trump."

CNN, by a wide margin, appeared most frequently, with nearly twice as many results returned as the second-place finisher, The Washington Post. Other left-leaning outlets also fared well, including NBC, CNBC, The Atlantic, and Politico. The only right-leaning sites to appear in the top 100 were The Wall Street Journal and Fox News with 3 and 2 results respectively.

PJ Media did not appear in the first 100 results, nor did National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State, or any other conservative-leaning sites except the two listed above.

Here are the sites that appeared most frequently in the top 100 results.


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485189/large/chart_3.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/485189/full/chart_3.png)
Google search results for "Trump." © PJ Media


As you can see, CNN has a disproportionate number of articles returned when searching for "Trump" - nearly 29 percent of the total. In fact, left-leaning sites comprised 96 percent of the total results.
This appears to be society spanning social engineering attempts. They are controlling the flow of information and like many have predicted are attacking the sanctity of the internet. Negating net neutrality (and the pilfering of a once free internet), social media algorithmic bias, truth packaged as fake news, rights taken away with clever uses of hate speech language, censoring of search results that expose conspiracy, the social media purge of the alt right, the Youtube demonetizing of alternative channels, shadow banning of black ops crime syndicate opposition, opposite branding of alternative multimedia, an army of mkultra asset foot soldiers in alt media ready to destroy the reputation of the whole (e.g. flat earthers), the destruction of Infowars and Alex Jones, the neutralizing of Julian Assange, and the full spectrum microwave warfare cointelpro of content creators.

It is plain to see that the internet is under attack by the shadow government.

[Hervé]

96 percent of Google search results for 'Trump' are from liberal media outlets (https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/)

Paula Bolyard PJ Media (https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/)
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:17 UTC
[...]

Trump noticed:

Trump calls out Google for ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship, vows to take action (https://www.rt.com/usa/437054-trump-google-censorship-news/)

RT
Published time: 28 Aug, 2018 15:18
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9d8e)


https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.08/article/5b8555f1dda4c8d7688b45d7.jpg
President Donald Trump © Joshua Roberts / Reuters


President Donald Trump has accused search giant Google of deliberately highlighting negative news about his administration, and “controlling what we can and cannot see.” Trump vowed that the situation “will be addressed.”
“Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” the president exclaimed via Twitter on Tuesday morning.
Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of...
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034371152204967936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
“Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good,” he continued. “They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!”
....results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034373707047882759?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)In one of his early-morning tweets, Trump pondered whether Google’s apparent search bias, which he claims shows 96 percent of results from ‘National Left-Wing Media,” is “Illegal.” He did not elaborate on what kind of action he may be considering taking, but his sentiment is in line with earlier statements on censorship.

Last week, Trump tweeted his concern (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032954224529817600) that
“Social media giants are silencing millions of people,” but ruled out intervening, “even if it means we must continue to hear Fake News like CNN.”
Trump’s Tuesday rant comes following a report by conservative news commentary site PJ Media. The report found (https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-search-results-show-pervasive-anti-trump-anti-conservative-bias/) that when searching for ‘Trump News’ on Google, the first page of results was entirely dominated by articles from left-leaning American media. Out of the first 100 results, only five were from right-leaning sites; two from the center-right Wall Street Journal, and three from Fox News.

The outlets that Trump often feuds with feature prominently in the first 100 results. CNN appeared most frequently, followed by the Washington Post, and then by NBC. Right-wing news sites like Breitbart, National Review, OAN, and the Daily Caller were all completely absent from the results.

Last year, a Harvard study (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/) found that 93 percent of both CNN and NBC’s coverage of the Trump administration was negative in tone. The Washington Post was slightly more positive, but 83 percent of its stories about Trump were still negative.

Google and other tech giants have been repeatedly accused of censorship by conservatives in the US. Whether it’s Twitter’s ‘shadowbanning (https://www.rt.com/usa/434988-twitter-testimony-shadow-banning/)’ of Republicans, Facebook’s ranking (https://www.rt.com/usa/425661-facebook-trusted-media-sources-ranking/) of news sources by an opaque ‘trust’ score, or Youtube’s ‘accidental (https://www.rt.com/usa/420099-youtube-conservative-media-block/)’ removal of conservative channels; the American right feels mistreated by liberal-leaning Silicon Valley.

But Google has denied any accusations of political bias. Responding to Trump's allegations of censorship on Tuesday, the company said that search results are not ordered according to any political preferences.

"When users type queries into the Google Search bar, our goal is to make sure they receive the most relevant answers in a matter of seconds," Google said in a statement, adding that results are not skewed toward any "political ideology" or "political agenda".
Anti-war movement feels the pressure
While calls to regulate the increasing dominance of the tech titans have come mostly from the right, censorship is increasingly a threat to the left (https://www.rt.com/news/436058-censorship-left-right-facebook-google/) too. Earlier this month, Telesur English – a Latin American news network partly funded by the Venezuelan government – found its page abruptly removed from Facebook. No explanation was given, and the page was eventually restored. However, the removal fit in to a wider trend. Another Venezuelan news site was removed a week previously, as was a Facebook page belonging to leftist group Occupy London.

The World Socialist Web Site reported last year (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html) that changes to Google’s algorithms had negatively impacted left-wing socialist and anti-war websites. An analysis by WSWS found that 13 such websites had seen their traffic plunge by a whopping 55 percent in the six months since Google had changed its algorithms. WSWS itself experienced a 74-percent drop in traffic between April and July last year. The changes also affected sites like Alternet, which saw its traffic plunge by 71 percent between April and September, Democracy Now (50-percent drop) and Truth-out.org (49-percent drop).

What could Trump do?
One of the actions Trump could take would be to have the Justice Department threaten Google with antitrust legislation. First seen in the US with the introduction of the Sherman Act of 1890, antitrust legislation targeted the railroad and oil monopolies at the time, allowing the federal government to step in and take legal action to keep the market competitive.

This idea has been touted by New York attorney general candidate Zephyr Teachout, who promised a “major antitrust investigation” if elected. It has also been discussed in the editorial pages of the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the Guardian, all of whom expressed concern at the ever-expanding reach of the nascent tech monopolies.

The George W. Bush administration threatened (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-department-justice-antitrust-division-its-decision-close-its-investigation-internet) Google with antitrust action in 2008, as Google sought to form a search advertising partnership with competitor Yahoo, a move that would have seen the potential partnership control 90 percent of the search market.

Today, Google does control 90 percent (http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/worldwide/2016) of that market. However, in prosecuting an antitrust case, the onus would be on the government to prove that not only is Google a monopoly, but that it acted maliciously to reach that position. In 2000, the Department of Justice convicted Microsoft of an antitrust monopolization offense for illegally requiring manufacturers to pre-install the Windows operating system, and for pre-installing Internet Explorer as the default web browser.

In Europe, Google has already been fined billions of euros (https://www.rt.com/business/433576-eu-google-antitrust-fine/) this year for antitrust violations. EU regulators found that by forcing Android users to rely on Google’s search engine, it was unfairly restricting competition. In a addition, Google was fined $2.7 billion last year by the EU for manipulating search results to favor its own shopping services.


Related:
Atlantic Council accuses RT of pro-Republican bias in midterm election coverage: That’s fake news

(https://www.rt.com/op-ed/436989-atlantic-council-rt-bias/)Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify before House committee over ‘shadow banning’ & bias claims (https://www.rt.com/usa/436798-twitter-dorsey-testify-house/)
(https://www.rt.com/op-ed/436989-atlantic-council-rt-bias/)

[norman]

Anti Trust won't work. Competition won't work. Google will win the competition and carry on doing what it's doing.

Trump is going to have to step outside his comfort zone on this issue. Search results are a far more serious issue than something like foot-fall through the doors of a chain store.

The Internet is a 'university', and the basis of the next generation's world view. An approach similar to what needs to be done in schools would suit this problem too. Google's skewed algorithms are the same as having "communist" teachers in classrooms.

[KiwiElf]

Just in... "Q" post #1948 - see Twitter link in post:

https://qanon.app/
-------------------------------------------------------------
1948

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 20cc45 No.2769078 📁
Aug 28 2018 14:34:03 (EST)
https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1034522244121276416
Q
-------------------------------------------------------------

Trump: "Google has taken advantage of a lot of people...if you look at what is going on at Twitter, look at what is going on in Facebook, they better be careful..Google and Twitter and Facebook, they're really treading on troubled territory"

[norman]

How many wheelbarrows would it take to remove the cash from google if they are caught having been involved it human rights abuse, people trafficking or corruption [as defined by executive order] ?



Treading on troubled territory . . . . .

[Mari]

Does anyone here use 'Ixquick'? I do & its PRIVATE & imo, works just as well as that other behemoth....

[David Trd1]

A list of web sites you now wont find when you search on google
https://thomasdishaw.com/bookmark-400-links-google-doesnt-want-visit/

Well either way I'm going to bookmark this and use it as a replacement for newsblok which I miss...

[Valerie Villars]

How many wheelbarrows would it take to remove the cash from google if they are caught having been involved it human rights abuse, people trafficking or corruption [as defined by executive order] ?



Treading on troubled territory . . . . .

Well, I have two. I'll help.

[holistic1]

When a wheelbarrow will buy a loaf of bread, we'll need a lot of wheelbarrows.
We could just boycott them. There are alternatives. What about starting a list.
https://peepeth.com Peepeth is a blockchain-powered social network that encourages positive contribution, both online and in the world.

We can change the world or the world can change us

[ExomatrixTV]

How many of the Top 500 Biggest Alternative Media Youtube Channels are Down? ... See WhyNotNews.eu (http://WhyNotNews.eu)



I need to update that site ... it is now more relevant than ever :sherlock::rant::typing::ban::closed::argue:

[ExomatrixTV]

idea :chess:: we can make a list too to "shadow-ban" them ... did you know that you can create your own filter in the settings of google search ... like search everything except these sites and all content on that site ... in this way we can look how much is left if we create our own reverse algorithm ... you can also create a search engine that ONLY looks at that list we have now ... a good friend of mine is already working on an alternative site search engine!

[KiwiElf]

The White House has a petition to allow the internet to be free from banning.

White House Petition - Protect Free Speech in the Digital Public Square
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/protect-free-speech-digital-public-square-0

(Cross posted)

[Mari]

How many wheelbarrows would it take to remove the cash from google if they are caught having been involved it human rights abuse, people trafficking or corruption [as defined by executive order] ?



Treading on troubled territory . . . . .


Well, I have two. I'll help.

I can get hold of half a dozen skips - Large Maxi size, each measuring 12 cubic yards (13 x 6 x 6 feet), each enough to hold 110 bin bags of loot. How's that for starters? :idea::

[TomKat]

A list of web sites you now wont find when you search on google
https://thomasdishaw.com/bookmark-400-links-google-doesnt-want-visit/

Haven't used Google in years

[holistic1]

Stone has some good Trump tweets on the subject
http://82.221.129.208

[holistic1]

Henry always is on the money. Aug 31
https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/08/We-Live-in-a-Shadowbanned-Society.html

[happyuk]

idea :chess:: we can make a list too to "shadow-ban" them ... did you know that you can create your own filter in the settings of google search ... like search everything except these sites and all content on that site ... in this way we can look how much is left if we create our own reverse algorithm ... you can also create a search engine that ONLY looks at that list we have now ... a good friend of mine is already working on an alternative site search engine!

Excellent idea and no I'd overlooked that search filter option. Does that mean I can permanently exclude the drivel on BBC, CNN, Huffington etc in all my subsequent Google searches. If more people did this...

[norman]

purplelama posted this in another thread but it definitely belongs in this thread too.


The Social Media Purge And How It Affects Everyone

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/picture-5.jpg?itok=LY4e264- (https://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden)
by Tyler Durden (https://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden)
Sat, 09/22/2018 - 19:30



Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog, (https://www.theorganicprepper.com/social-media-purge/)
Just about every website owner I know is feeling personally victimized by the recent social media purge that has been going on. But here’s an interesting fact: it isn’t, as is widely perceived, just conservative voices that are being silenced. It is dissenting voices.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/The-Social-Media-Purge.jpg?itok=OMmck3dY


It’s the voices of critical thinkers whose ideas run the gamut of philosophies who find that they no longer have much in the way of reach.
This social media purge affects everyone, even people who are not on social media. It does so in several ways:


Dissenting information is silenced which stifles discussion
Young people who are avid consumers of social media are being literally brainwashed because they only see one side of the story – any story
The social media purge harms websites that post non-establishment information because it stamps out their ability to reach readers who would be interested in their content.
The unfairly biased search results show people who are trying to learn more about a topic only one side of the information.

You don’t have to be on a Twitter feed to see how this is an overwhelmingly anti-American problem. Like it or not, social media is a monumental source of information these days, and when it’s censored to only show one point of view, the future of our republic is in peril. We are well on our way to peak censorship and this has been carefully orchestrated.
Non-establishment websites are in trouble.

Their website traffic is plummeting because they no longer show up anywhere near the top of search results. Their posts on social media are not presented to the public – or even the people who deliberately opted to “follow” them. Here’s an example from my own page. I have more than 30K people who chose to follow my page, as you can see in the top image. But in the bottom image, you can see how many of those people were actually shown my post. And this was actually a more successful one than many.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-09-22_7-04-46.jpg


Continue reading here:


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-22/social-media-purge-and-how-it-affects-everyone