So they really are clearing the nutters out of the search engines then

Liberal and progressive sites appear to be among the victims of a policy Google announced on April 25, designed to boost “reliable sources” of information, after Google and other technology companies were criticized for allowing low-quality and even fraudulent websites to proliferate during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Utilizing tools from Google, a web analytics company called SEMrush and other methods, Damon calculated that since April, search result traffic to the World Socialist Website has dropped 45 percent as of Sept. 16. He found similar declines at several other left-leaning sites, including AlterNet, Democracy Now!, Common Dreams, and Truthout, all of which have editors who review articles before they are published.

WSW is owned by the International Trots so that seems like a good set of nutters to down play.

But, of course, that’s not what the snowflakes have been calling for. We want the other set of nutters banned, not us!

25 thoughts on “So they really are clearing the nutters out of the search engines then”

  1. Nobody hates those red bastards more than me but this is censorship pure and simple. Piss on Google for being a part of it.

    We need a new technosecure Internet that the scum of the state can’t touch or influence let alone control by proxy.

  2. That’s a funny result given the statistical reality…….

    As ZMan said: if a mixed-race couple is being used in an advert for camping gear, what’s being sold are mixed-race couples not camping gear.

  3. Google is on that extreme Left (what Rod Liddle in a great Spectator article called the ‘PC dwarves of death’) which dominates public discourse. Alternate search engines struggle to gain traction in the face of general inertia and people’s inability to utilise alternatives. I seldom use google (albeit Bing is afflicted by the same virus to a lesser degree) but I do agree with Ecks an alternate needs to be set up and marketed aggressively to like minds.

    God knows I am in favour of ‘Socialist taxes’, the reintroduction of bills of attainder for prominent Corbynites, assisted emigration to Venezuela and the like but as Ecks said once you start going down the censorship line you are playing their game.

  4. Finally it dawns of the cretins of the left what happens if you have “free speech for only things I agree with”

  5. The real Trots at the World Socialist Website are an embarrassment to the champagne socialists in the Guardian and the NYT. Nobody in Islington actually wants a revolution; they just want to keep wringing tithes from the workers to fund their lifestyles. Banning the nutters is fine by them.

  6. “american couple”

    That’s a funny result given the statistical reality…

    —-

    “american inventors” is even funnier

  7. Private companies cannot be guilty of censorship. Only government can censor. Google/Yahoo/et al proffered search “results” are strongly edited, but that is not censorship. It is another problem.

  8. Private companies cannot be guilty of censorship. Only government can censor.

    The government is simply outsourcing it, leaning heavily on the tech giants to impose restrictions on what people can and can’t say or view on their platforms.

  9. “The government is simply outsourcing it, leaning heavily on the tech giants to impose restrictions on what people can and can’t say or view on their platforms.”

    Quite an assertion. You have any evidence for it?

  10. @Gamecock

    Really? Endless parliamentary committees on the digital giants role in combating jihadist propaganda? Is that not censorship?

  11. @Gamecock, October 19, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    Try a search on Merkel EU Facebook google twitter
    and also May Rudd Facebook google twitter

  12. ‘Try a search on Merkel EU Facebook google twitter
    and also May Rudd Facebook google twitter’

    If you have evidence, present it. I’m not going to go search for YOUR evidence.

  13. “Really? Endless parliamentary committees on the digital giants role in combating jihadist propaganda? Is that not censorship?”

    Perhaps things are different there in UK. Different countries do have different rules. Though committee meetings aren’t the same as rules and regulations.

  14. “american inventors”

    This could just be because minority groups are more likely to add their group name e.g. ‘african – american’, to whatever the profession is, and google just picks up the ‘american inventor’ bit off that. If you just type in ‘inventor’ then the results are more in line with what you would expect, although still with an SJW tilt.

  15. Richard West - Up with Glasgow Celtic

    Racists, bullies, bigots, homophobes, child abusers, and wife beaters should be banned from publishing on the net. We have to suppress NAZIs and other racists. If we do not they will rise again, and kill more innocent people.
    The NAZIs killed children and women. The NAZIs gassed and burned good people to death.

  16. @Gamecock, October 20, 2017 at 2:52 am

    If you have evidence, present it. I’m not going to go search for YOUR evidence.

    You wanted evidence, means to find it provided. If you’re too lazy or don’t want it, your choice.

  17. “You wanted evidence, means to find it provided. If you’re too lazy or don’t want it, your choice.”

    That’s not how the internet works, dumbass. YOU LOOK IT UP, and tell us what you found.

  18. Richard West . . . the new conscience of the internet.

    So, Ritchie, what do you think of the communists killing 150,000,000 people?

  19. @Lamecock

    I looked. I found plenty of evidence to support Tim Newman’s statement

    The internet doesn’t have a “that’s how it works” for content. It’s a load of servers sharing files connected to a backbone. How one uses it is a personal choice.

    Be a good little boy and do your homework and stop being lazy & rude.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *