tommyzax
tommyzax
Aug 9, 2017 · 3 min read

I would respond this way. A “bigot” is not someone who doesn’t want to hear someone’s opinion because it’s different. A bigot is someone who hates you for what you are, not WHO you are. A bigot hates all blacks, but it’s not bigoted to hate savages who set fire to the streets (whatever color), or play “knockout” and so forth.

The problem with Google is not technically legal, which is why a technical term like “bigot” doesn’t apply here, or even matter. The problem with Google is that it KNOWS it affects public opinion, not just like Jon Stewart or Alex Jones, i.e., through communication, but by behavior modification while browsing. I think THIS is the cornerstone of Google’s chutzpah and threat.

It’s brainwashing. The question is, does a communication company have a responsibility to refrain from injecting its own opinion onto the collective consciousness, and, in this case, onto research materials available. Specifically, when gathering facts off the Internet, does Google drive an individual to certain ways of viewing facts? For example, if you type “American inventors” into Google search, a collection of black inventors will pop up, mixed with a few whites like Edison and Howe. Much to the surprise of people older than 10, Google wants you to look at black inventors. To one group of people, this is awesome. To another group of people, this s confusion. To another group of people, this is reprehensible. It’s not so much they’re black, it’s the focusing power of Google to direct energies to things not necessarily desired.

When one goes to the library, the Dewey Decimal System is not white or black or any other color, it’s set up so that when you visit that section of the DDS, you get that result, and only the bias of the head librarian or buying council puts a spin on your book browsing. When one goes on Google expecting this objective and generally-unbiased DDS, one is shocked to find out that Google is subversive to that process.

It’s not just a matter of old ways vs. new. There are other search engines which do not have such bias. There are places to research which carry no such force. Google, however, has the power of a Wal-Mart or Amazon, and therefore dwarfs these other places. The kick in the groin is that we feel we ought to be unfettered and uncensored when we browse and search. We forget that we are also being spied on, advertised to, followed, hacked, phished, and any other number of nefarious things. Some of these things Google allows, some they do not. Still, the Internet is dangerous, is it not?

Let this then be a warning: Don’t go on Google expecting to be treated fairly. They can’t subsist if you don’t visit. You visit freely. You avoid Yahoo. You avoid MSN. You avoid these : https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/02/25/say-goodbye-to-google-14-alternative-search-engines/

So it really is up to us. Is Google a monopoly? No. Do we treat it like the greatest thing since sliced bread? Yes. So Google abuses us and we take it. Stockholm Syndrome. There are ways to avoid abuse. Don’t go there.

Thanks for listening!

    tommyzax

    Written by

    tommyzax

    Musician. Businessman. Writer. Anti-communist. #MAGA PRESIDENT Trump. Ask me anything.