Internal emails show Google employees sought to manipulate search results to combat President Trump’s controversial travel ban by muting conservative viewpoints.
Two days after Trump the Jan. 27, 2017, ban was signed, the employees suggested ways to “leverage search,” or manipulate the algorithm, arguing “this country and Google, would not exist without immigration.”
The emails were reported by the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and the Wall Street Journal.
The staffers wanted to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘Iran,’ etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results” regarding the words “Mexico,” “Hispanic” and “Latino.”
One staffer wanted to make it easier for users to donate to the ACLU.
“Overall idea: Leverage search to highlight important organizations to donate to, current news, etc. to keep people abreast of how they can help as well as the resources available for immigrations [sic] or people traveling,” said an email sent by a marketing employee.
A product manager responded: “I know this would require a full on sprint to make happen, but I think this is the sort of super timely and imperative information that we need as we know that this country and Google, would not exist without immigration.”
Other Google employees responded with “we’re absolutely in” and “excellent initiative.”
A Google spokesman responding to the reporting, insisting the emails “were just a brainstorm of ideas, none of which were ever implemented.”
Google maintained it “has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology — not in the current campaign season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President Trump’s executive order on immigration.”
“Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies,” the spokesman said.
However, WND reported earlier this month a newly unearthed video shows Google executives at their first weekly meeting after the election of Donald Trump in 2016 exhibited panic and dismay while expressing their determination to thwart the new administration’s agenda as well as the emerging global populist movement.
Google declined to answer Fox News regarding whether or not employees involved in the email chain were disciplined in any way.
“It is our policy to not comment on individual employees,” a spokesman said.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to meet with state attorney generals this month regarding Google and other tech giants, and the Justice Department has indicated that antitrust action is under consideration.
WND reported last month the recent wave of censorship of conservative voices on the internet by tech giants mirrors a plan concocted by a coalition of George Soros-funded, progressive groups to take back power in Washington from President Trump’s administration.
Trump recently accused Google of rigging its news searches against him. And as WND reported, a new film contends Google has crossed its executive chairman’s self-described “creepy line,” not only invading the privacy of millions of users but using its monopolistic stature to suppress conservative views and influence elections.
Peter Schweizer, the producer of the film, “The Creepy Line,” noted Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s role in the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 and the “massive revolving door between Google and the Obama administration.”
“Life After Google” author George Gilder also has documented the Google founders’ utopian vision, which he describes with terms such as “neo-Marxist.”
“They are very much steeped in the tradition of Burning Man and what Burning Man represents,” Schweizer said of Google’s top executives, including Schmidt, and their participation in the annual Bohemian-style festival in the Nevada desert known for its principle of “radical inclusion.”
Schweizer emphasized that Google is certainly entitled to its worldview and can run the company as it wishes, but it can’t continue to insist that it’s a neutral platform and therefore immune to the requirements that publishers face under the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Google is not a neutral platform, like a telegraph company, he said, that merely relays information from one point to another.