Google’s Bias – USA Gov Policy

Google is the predominant vehicle for research. That presents key challenges to a nation in need of objective information.

According to a study by Pew Research educators report that students overwhelmingly use Google for research, to the extent that “Research = Googling.” Teachers told Pew that 94% of teachers surveyed said students were likely to use Google of similar search engines for their work.

Even a cursory search of Google results during the 2020 election cycle revealed its prejudices.

USA Today reported that there was overwhelming evidence that the Big Tech giant tilted its results to show those sites that agreed with its corporate biases.

Although the organization has dismissed similar claims, and used preexisting algorithms as an excuse, there are substantial indicators that it seeks to manipulate the outcome of events such as elections, large and small.

A Consumer Watchdog letter first reported by Fox Business News outlined how the web behemoth sought to mislead its users by obscuring relevant material in a California state initiative regarding online privacy, an issue it had a significant corporate stake in.

The drug inhibits sildenafil nitrate which is the best ayurvedic oil to treat ED and impotence, to massage tadalafil soft tabs the male organ daily two or three times. There could be several reasons behind this distressing sexual condition, but the chief cause is poor blood viagra without prescription usa supply to regenerating tissues and prevention of pressure induced nerve damage. It is a cialis cheap generic well known that Pfizer discovered sidenafil citrate and used it for making anti-impotency medicine. It is noteworthy to mention that erectile dysfunction or male impotence is an intimate relationship dysfunction or a mal-behavior of libido of human being, and development best generic tadalafil or maintenance of an erection incapability of male organ is relating to satisfactory performance of physical intimacy.

“A search for Prop 24 at Google serves up a link to the official voter guide at the Secretary of State’s website. Most voters would reasonably assume this is a link to unbiased information provided by the government. Instead, the snippet of text Google includes with the link is not the title of the measure, or the nonpartisan state summary of the measure, but the “CON” or No on 24 argument…”

The internet research organization Can I Rank reports that Google search results are almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” result. The organization goes on to note that 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results. Google’s algorithm makes it easier for sites with a left-leaning viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a conservative viewpoint.

A Breitbart review discusses “The Good Censor,” an 85-page briefing leaked to Breitbart News, admitting that under the leadership of Google and other tech giants, the internet has moved away from its original ideals of unfettered free speech, and towards a “European” model of speech that “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.”

In 2019, according to Mindmatters.ai. “senior Google engineer Gregory Coppola contacted watchdog group Project Veritas to talk about the Google bias that affects the information users get about political choices… According to Coppola, Big Tech’s agenda is dangerous, in large part, because it is hidden…widely published behavioral research psychologist Robert Epstein (who described himself as ‘center/center-left’ before a Senate committee) [testified] ‘Data I’ve collected since 2016 show that Google displays content to the American public that is biased in favor of one political party …No private company should have either the right or the power to manipulate large populations without their knowledge. …If you were to examine the data I have been collecting over the past 6-and-a-half years, every one of you would put partisanship aside and collaborate to reign in the extraordinary power that Google and Facebook now wield with unabashed arrogance.”

There may be another alternative. Conservatives rightly objected to the dangers of government control inherent in classifying internet providers as “common carriers.” But a modified version of the common carrier concept could be applied without the overlay of government control that proponents of the concept maintain is necessary for the more physical world of trains and planes. That highly modified common carrier concept could warrant—without any other government intrusion, regulation, or oversight– that monopolistic internet giants such as Twitter and Google treat all users equally.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.