The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Googled, Gobbled, and Throttled
The Road to Samizdat
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Cometh the censor. Sort of.

My site,, has, or had until a few minutes ago, several Google ads, which served to bring in a modest amount of money, perhaps $200 a month. Many sites carry Google ads to make beer change, and some depend on them. Recently (so far as I now) Google has begun censoring sites in a curious way. This raises non-trivial questions.

This morning I got the following email from Google AdSense, after which I removed the Google ad-code. I write this column. Google does not. Anyway:

Google AdSense: Action required to comply with AdSense program policies.


This is a warning message to alert you that there is action required to bring your AdSense account into compliance with our AdSense program policies. We’ve provided additional details below, along with the actions to be taken on your part.

Affected website:

Example page where violation occurred:

Action required: Please make changes immediately to your site to follow AdSense program policies.

Current account status: Active

VIOLENCE: As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with violent content. This includes sites with content related to breaking bones, getting hit by trains or cars, or people receiving serious injuries. More information about this policy can be found in our help center ( ). How to resolve:

If you received a notification in regard to page content, we request that you immediately remove Google ads from the violating pages. If you are unable to, or unsure of how to remove the ads from these pages, or would like to continue monetizing the page with Google ads, please modify or remove the violating content to meet our AdSense policies.

If you received a notification in regards to the way ads are implemented on your site, please make the necessary changes to your implementation.

You do not need to contact us if you make changes. Please be aware that if additional violations are accrued, ad serving may be disabled to the website listed above. You should immediately take time to review your pages with Google ads to ensure that they comply with our policies.…..

To reduce the likelihood of future warnings from us, we suggest that you review all your sites for compliance. Here are some useful resources you might be interested in.….

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.


The Google AdSense Team

What should one make of this? To begin, I suspect that it is simply fraudulent. Much of the news involves violence: Princess Diana’s death, the Rodney King beating, the bombing of Gaza, the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson. So sites have ads removed for covering these?

If Fred On Everything dealt in gore-porn, in grotesque photos of dismembered bodies, Google’s behavior might make sense. However, in over 700 posts spanning more than a decade, FOE has one shocking photo, of a victim of American torture at Abu Ghraib.

The picture is there to make a legitimate political point, that the government of the United States was behaving barbarically, torturing prisoners and turning female soldiers into sadists in the mold of Ilsa Koch. This is a matter of importance to citizens in whose name this is done, and to the parents of soldiers. It is something that cannot be nicetized. Prettying it up would–not incidentally, I begin to suspect–serve only to hide the government’s behavior from the public.

Why did Google object to the picture? Was it just mindless automated political correctness? The tone of the writing in the email—it is prissy high-school prose—suggests a recent and censorious female graduate of one of our dismalized universities. So maybe only reflexive sophomorism is involved.

However, there is a pattern in the pulling of ads. In all three cases that I know of, the content of the sites has been of a sort objectionable to the government. Start with FOE, which has been highly critical of Washington’s wars and racial policies.

Earlier, had its ads pulled by Google, again for posting a photo of an Abu Ghraib victim.

Hmmmm. The endless wars are important to Washington and fill a lot of rice bowls. The feds cannot be happy with an articulate site of large circulation that opposes military adventurism. Since Antiwar depends (I think) on contributions from angels and its readers to stay afloat, pulling ads plausibly seems an attempt to cripple it.

The third site to have ads pulled was American Renaissance, another political site. It opposes mass immigration from the Third World and the sorts of misbehavior by blacks that is reported daily on Drudge, Breitbart, Worldnet Daily News, and European papers.

It is here worth noting that American Renaissance, though invariably painted as a site of extremists, isn’t. For example, the explosive popularity of Donald Trump’s opposition to immigration attests to the very large numbers of Americans who agree with him, and thus with American Renaissance. AmRen is not the home of some fringe. It represents the views of a large number of people whose politics are not acceptable to the politically correct.

Now, it may be that Google with its huge numbers of clients does not really know that FOE exists (though I find this shocking). I’m lucky if I get as many as a combined couple of hundred thousand visitors a month on my home site,, plus sites that sometimes or always pick the column. (E.g., The Unz Review and Lew Rockwell.) Maybe the thought-management department at Google has fallen into the hands of huffy and marginally literate Berkeley girls, and one of them stumbled cross FOE and didn’t like it. This happens.

But is another thing. It is a big site, and enough noise was made over the pulling of its ads that higher-ups a Google must have known about it. Further, AntiWar never says anything about the usual forbidden categories of race, feminism, homosexuality, and such. Since I cannot readily imagine that Larry Page and Sergey Brin would on their own want to protect the endless wars, it is perhaps not unreasonable to suspect Washington’s hand. Companies like Google become de de fact quasi-governmental entities. Google’s policies look an awful lot like political censorship disguised as protecting the public from disturbing photos.

But I don’t know.

Since Google is not actually altering the content of these sites, it is not, technically speaking, engaging in censorship. Yet if a site makes $200 a month from Google ads, pulling them amounts to charging the site $200 a month for keeping its content and, if the site depends for survival on the income, it amounts to shutting it down.

In effect, Google is a gigantic ad agency. It is as if one or two big agencies controlled the advertising in all the newspapers in the United States. When you know that Google is watching everything you write, and you need the ads, you per force find yourself thinking “Will Google like this?” You may not admit that you think it, but you do thihk it.

Which raises interesting questions. Google started as the project of a couple of kids in grad school at Stanford. It has become one of the most important organizations on the planet. If France disappeared, it would be of interest chiefly to venders of exotic cheeses. Tourists would look at the hole where it had been. If Google disappeared, chaos would result.

Google is essential. It is the card catalog of the world library, more powerful than the governments of many nations. It is virtually the only game in a very important town. It can subtly, or not so subtly, determine what entire populations can easily know. France cannot do this.

To me it is unnerving that such a phenomenally powerful entity should be unsupervised, unaccountable, and probably deeply in bed with Washington . But there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it. Except remove their code.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: Censorship, Google 
Hide 61 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Julian Assange, after meeting with Eric Schmidt who for some reasons later made clear wanted to visit him, came to the conclusions (which were so well documented that Newsweek published his expose) that there’s a revolving door between high level State Department positions and Google perches, and that there are tight mutual political interactions with Hilary Clinton as well. Google chieftains openly cooperated in and suggested themselves modifying content to further State’s agenda.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  2. So, what if the pictures aren’t hosted on the site, but are links to pictures hosted elsewhere?
    What if you make them too small to be particularly objectionable, but clicking on them leads to a larger picture showing the truth hosted on another site?

  3. Pete1215 says:

    The FOE article about the uh, teens who near beat the white guy to death because he objected to people fighting on top of his car, it had a brutal picture of the assault victim.

  4. memorials says:

    Google is not essential. If some virus were to cripple them permanently tomorrow, there are several other competitors who would serve the vast majority of search queries with a level of responsiveness and utility that would be virtually unchanged. Google is as frangible as any piece of the the rest of the highly redundant intrawebzthingamabob. I would mourn their passing with the same level of energy any corporate behemoth would mourn mine – not at all. This is not in any way to imply that they are not complicit in the harm generated by the system they are a part of.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    , @Bill Jones
    , @Clyde
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This occurred to me over a dozen years ago. Rather than cut and paste the story, you can read about it on the website I maintain for our rifle club here:

    The above contains a listing of the email correspondence between myself and Google wrt their censorship–as Fred rightly calls it. I noticed some time afterwards, that their policy application was inconsistent as well, since I found several firearms related websites that indeed were running AdSense.

    I suspect Fred is correct in that there are a variety of Google employees who check sites and administer policy as to their own interpretation/biases. And like Fred, I had better things to do with my time than go back and forth with Google.

  6. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the interesting article, Fred. This is very unfortunate, because I see ads on really terrible filthy websites where people use foul language and there is a lot of nudity and other inappropriate content, but to target your site and Amren, is clearly politically motivated.

    However, before Google, there were other search engines, and doing fine. Then suddenly, 2 Jewish kids started a small company Google, and, in no time, it becomes #1 and toppled the giants of the industry, such as bing and yahoo and other search engines (older, more established ones).

    And then there was myspace, very popular. Then a Jewish kids stole some ideas and started facebook. Suddenly, facebook becomes #1, and myspace is or almost bankrupt.

    What is the explanation?

    How are Judaists able to enter a well established field, and take it over in no time?

    I suspect they are people in power who work with them to bring them into power, make them #1 and dismantle the opposition.

    Judaists work together as a team. They have a very strong sense of shared identity and paranoia towards outsiders, the goyim. The Oligarchs probably met and decided they wanted Judaists to control search results, not goyim. So they financed Google, the Jewish media promoted it, the Jewish regulators blessed it and, in no time, the Judaists were telling us search results.

    The reason they probably wanted to monopolize search engines and social media is not just for money, but more to control the goyim.

    Google knows all the websites the Judaists do not like (such as patriotic websites or anti-Israel websites) from its database and can effectively shut down all of them, by removing them from its search results.

    I suspect it will do that after other search engines have been bankrupted out of existence. Once Google is the only search engine in town, there will be a total black out of all patriotic and conservative websites or those who dare speak against Israel. A police state on the Internet is coming with Google in charge.

    Solution? Start building databases of websites and we must work with other countries which are free from Israeli influence, such as China, Russia, Iran, to develop search engines run on their servers. A meta search engine, which searches multiple search engines located in different countries, might be the way to go.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @Wally
    , @David
  7. AnalogMan says:

    I see ads on really terrible filthy websites where people use foul language and there is a lot of nudity and other inappropriate content

    This is ironic, because I recently caught some flak over a link that I posted to an un-PC but not obscene or violent image. I use Adblock Plus, so I was not aware that, on the same page, there were obscene advertisements. I have no idea whether they were placed there by Google, but I suspect they were deliberately placed by someone who didn’t like the political stance of the page or the site.

    Back when I still had ads in my browser, I noticed things like ads for interracial dating agencies coming up on sites like Amren. These ads are supposed to be targeted, so I concluded that they were probably placed there maliciously (Hanlon’s Razor notwithstanding). I would be quite unamazed to learn that Google is sabotaging right-wing sites with inappropriate advertising.

  8. Tom_R says:


    Fred, I want to add the following. Google purchased youtube and started censoring videos critical of Israel or Judaists.

    For example, Youtube allowed ISIS videos showing beheadings, but when a pastor posted a video simply talking about killing of Christians in the Middle East, youtube banned it:

    (Bill O’ Reilly does not understand why youtube would do that. This is because the Judaists hate Christians the most, more than Muslims, or any other religious group, and try to use Muslims to subjugate and oppress Christians and keep them down).

    “Many Jews therefore view enthusiastic Christian believers—no matter how reliably they support Israel and American Jews—as enemies by definition,” – Michael Medved, 2009.

    So Reverend Kapner started hosting his own videos and others started new video hosting sites, such as The same ideas can be used to deal with Google’s censorship in other areas.

  9. Hrw-500 says:

    Good point. Long before Google, I used Yahoo, Alta-Vista, Excite, anyone remember these other search engines like Infoseek, Magellan, Lycos? And when was known as Ask Jeeves?

  10. Google is only good for Youtube. I use duckduckgo now for pretty much everything else:

    It is like Google before Google began to suck.

    • Replies: @veritas
  11. veritas says:
    @Johnny F. Ive

    Yes, ‘duckduckgo’ is the how one wants to search with a chance at some privacy.

  12. KA says:

    Interesting information.

  13. Priss Factor [AKA "AOL"] says: • Website

    Google also messes with search results.

    I wrote about it here.

    Google rigged things so that if you search for something using my name and some topic I discussed at length, it won’t show up in the search.

    So, I transferred much of my stuff onto wordpress, but google isn’t good with finding that stuff either.

  14. rod1963 says:

    I remember what one wag said about evil. It went something like this: Evil is usually committed by well manicured and impeccably educated men in air conditioned offices, speaking in soft tones. That pretty much defines Google or your average Capitol Hill drone.

    I don’t trust Google given the fact that principals of Google are allowed to park their private 747 at a military base and use it’s facilities. You don’t get that perk without doing some serious favors for uncle Sam.

    I don’t trust Google because of the back doors it inserts in it’s code for Android and it’s open admission that it reads gmail and routinely tries to steal other companies IP.

    I don’t trust Google because of their collusion with the USG in monitoring the internet on the behalf of the NSA, so they don’t have to get their hands dirty.

    If someone torched their server farms and the chocolate factory, they wouldn’t be missed.

    I don’t trust any company whose motto is ” don’t do(be) evil”. If you have to say that, you’re probably quite evil.

  15. the United States was behaving barbarically, torturing prisoners and turning female soldiers into sadists in the mold of Ilsa Koch. This is a matter of importance to citizens in whose name this is done, and to the parents of soldiers. It is something that cannot be nicetized.

    Why fixate on Ilsa Koch? She was an aberration.

    John Sacks recites how Jews like Lola, who was commandant in a Polish revenge camp run by Jews, tortured German civilians, including children and babies, who were abused by Jewish doctors.

    Lola who went on to a career in Hollywood, ran a Jewish prison where, among other things, they captured a 14 years old boy on the steps of St. Peter’s Church … they poured gasoline on his hair and set it afire … he went insane…

    Sacks states that Jews raped Germans in the revenge camps, a behavior that was never experienced by Jews in German camps; German soldiers were severely punished if they abused prisoners or raped them.

    Justice for Germany

  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This happened to as well.

    Read about it here:

    • Replies: @SeanK
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    So Google is “too big to fail”?

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You are the product for Google ad services. The companies who advertise are Google’s customers. The customers do not want truth or anything that might taint their saintly images.

  19. elmer says:

    Yet Google promotes the racist anti-white website Salon. Many of the essays published daily in Salon violate Google’s own corporate policies regarding race, gender, and providing a safe place to work for its diverse staff.

  20. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    They’re in with the government. Things are videoed and photographed like never before. They want what they do to be hidden so they have to step up their censorship policy. The population could be suckered into thinking the wars their children were going off to were like the movies they saw. It was easier to bamboozle the public back then. Nowadays thanks to the internet more people are becoming aware of what the reality is. If the government doesn’t want pictures of it torturing those who fall into it’s hands to come out then the solution is clear: don’t torture. If something is embarrassing were it to become known then don’t do it. Makes a person wonder what’s been going on that we don’t know about yet.

  21. Aside from the suspicion, the very strong suspicion, that entities like Google willingly play their part in controlling the way “Americans” (here meaning also Canadians, Brits, Dutchmen etc.) think – in fact they tell us what we are thinking; in case we thought otherwise. Aside from this, is the assertion that certain images are “too graphic” for the general public. This is the official excuse that Google will give in Fred’s case.

    Now I am of the opinion that the General Public needs to see those sights and be reminded of what its own money and votes have enabled – and, indeed, be reminded of what policemen, paramedics, forensic technicians etc. have to deal with daily on their behalf. If they are adults, they should not be spared from viewing horrible images: provided only that the presentation is relevant to a narrative and not just gratuitous. If they are so sensitive then they better just shut their eyes.

    And kids? Yes, well it’s a good question, but kids need to be prepared for the world in which they are going to live and, usually, kids are a good deal less squeamish than adults – in fact adults teach kids to be squeamish.

    As a four year old I was in an archaeic hospital bed one time and to the next bed was brought a young boy with horrible injuries – flesh torn off and white bone exposed – I can still literally smell those wounds. Although I vividly recall it, I was in no way horrified; just sort of fascinated – until a nurse saw me looking and hastily pulled a curtain.

  22. Ex Machina says: • Website

    Saying Google is essential is like saying CNN is essential. I.e., it’s only dominant amongst the cattle; those who can think have long since moved elsewhere for search and ad revenue (as can be seen in the comments above).

    But the point is still important: Internet censorship is only going to get worse. There is a crack in the State’s propaganda machine, and that is the internet–hence they’re going to use every tool in their toolkit to suppress dissident voices here. It’s happening softly now; as they lose more and more control of the narrative, it will become more and more overt.

    I’ve argued elsewhere that beyond removing one’s self from Google’s sprawling tentacles, one should also be getting ahead of the censorious curve by getting used to traversing the dark web (e.g., .onion and eepsites). Isn’t that the domain of druggies, hitmen, and child abusers? Yes, it is. But, in my estimation, it’s also shortly going to be the only place where dissidents will continue to have a voice.

  23. Ragno says:

    Makes you wonder: if you ran a website that relentlessly beat the drum for snatching up/imprisoning/torturing Assange (frantically waving one of those made-in-China mini-American flags the whole time, of course), I’ll bet you could run Google ads utilizing publicity stills from CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST w/o ever getting your hair mussed by Leviathan’s purity patrol.

  24. Ragno says:

    “Many Jews therefore view enthusiastic Christian believers—no matter how reliably they support Israel and American Jews—as enemies by definition,” – Michael Medved, 2009.

    If only Christians could be encouraged to return the favor. Or, God forbid, figure it out for themselves.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  25. Biff says:

    I just hope Fred doesn’t cave.
    In fact, do what you can to get some more of those wonderfully entertaining letters.

  26. I’m both ignorant and naive on internet technology but am I correct in thinking that certain images can be fingerprinted for tell-tale features and so identified by web-crawlers? Thus, any of those proscribed Abu Ghraib images could be picked out by Google and flagged for possible action – such action could be done entirely robotically including Fred’s.

    I am in no way suggesting that Google’s activity here is anything other than a collusion with the US government to suppress unwelcome images – Google has to be considered as part of the Media Monolith and used with guarded skepticism: but whatever you say it is still a most valuable search engine for general research.

  27. Can anyone confirm or deny that Google Earth protects Israel (and only Israel) from revealing street scenes and other data?

    • Replies: @Tom_R
  28. @rod1963

    I remember what one wag said about evil. It went something like this: Evil is usually committed by well manicured and impeccably educated men in air conditioned offices, speaking in soft tones. That pretty much defines Google or your average Capitol Hill drone.

    Maybe if it’s Halloween and James Bond villains are fashionable, sans the White Persian cat.

    I don’t trust Google given the fact that principals of Google are allowed to park their private 747 at a military base and use it’s facilities. You don’t get that perk without doing some serious favors for uncle Sam.

    Are you talking about Moffett Federal Airfield? If so, it’s not military, but NASA-owned and its usage is leased to several entities, not just Google. That’s not a perk, that’s just a landlord/tenant relationship.

    I don’t trust Google because of the back doors it inserts in it’s code for Android and it’s open admission that it reads gmail and routinely tries to steal other companies IP.

    Like what? Android as provided by Google is open source code and completely reviewable. No, what you have to worry about is all the “back doors” the tech vendors put in. Samsung and HTC are two that immediately come to mind with vendor back doors. Usually they’re used to access the phone when normal technical means fail, like you brick your phone and the technician has to figure out what needs fixed.

    I don’t trust Google because of their collusion with the USG in monitoring the internet on the behalf of the NSA, so they don’t have to get their hands dirty.

    Oh, wait a minute here, “collusion” isn’t the same thing as “compel”. The USG’s use of the Patriot Act is infamous is in pressuring data aggregators like Google and Facebook to give access to he NSA. The collusion you mentioned is the NSA developing close relationships with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Google to have access for what became PRISM. Considering the NSA’s main function is electronic information gathering, and what Snowden revealed of the program, thats not the NSA avoiding dirtying it’s hands, it’s the agency up to its eyebrows in this shit.

  29. Tom_R says:
    @Mark Green



    I am sure the ulterior motive is to protect the Judaists from a possible attack, but the goyim whose homes can be seen from a distance by anybody who dislikes them are okay targets.

    Also, the Jewish controlled media has never raised an outcry about Google earth showing photos of people’s homes, despite the dangers thereof (such as loss of privacy, possibly being targeted by criminals), and instead promoted it in positive terms.

    Other Israeli connections with big Internet companies:

  30. guest says:

    “it is prissy high-school prose”

    No, it’s corporatese, with a bit of legalese. It is as stilted as the writings of a high shooler, but what high schooler writes about “program policies” and “actions to be taken”? Unless by high school you mean high school administrators, and surely it does bear some resemblance to bureaucratese.

  31. Wouldn’t it be the big test for Google to use one or more of the workarounds that might come to mind and then see if Google took steps to prevent them being effective. For example if that picture of the tortured Iraqi was replaced by, say, a box with bold blood coloured text saying “For truly horrible picture of US army depravity that you wouldn’t want your war widow grandma to see: Click here” it would the first stage of the test. Refinement would be possible including the use of links to separate and separately controlled websites.

  32. @rod1963

    That was no wag, that was Clive S. Lewis

  33. Wally says: • Website

    Here are the control freaks, Jews, worst nightmares:

    It is Jews who push for internet censorship, it is Jews who insist on hate speech laws.

    Because they benefit from the lies they have spread.

    It is Jews who are intolerant. They the real hate mongering racists.

    Just look at ‘Israel’

  34. tbraton says:
    @Fran Macadam

    It was an open secret that Google (as well as other high tech companies such as Facebook) played a big role in fashioning Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. I know because I read about it in various MSM articles. It is also no secret that many Obama administration officials go to work for Google and Facebook upon leaving government service. So there is a revolving door of sorts. One reason for Google to play so closely with the Obama administration is concern over application of the federal antitrust laws against Google. They saw what that did to IBM in the late 60’s and Microsoft in the late 90’s (both cases brought by Democratic Administrations and ultimately settled under Republican Administrations). See Add to that concern the vast expansion of the surveillance state after 9/11, and you may be able to understand Google’s actions. That doesn’t make their actions justifiable—just understandable. Personally, as a believer in free speech, I find their actions in this case utterly appalling.

  35. David says:

    Google blew the pants off the other “older more established” search engines. Do you have any first hand memory of the pre-Google net? Bing didn’t exist then, so maybe you don’t. Google was obviously the better product from its debut. Any chance the coincidences you’re noticing could be explained by smarter people making better software?

    • Replies: @Nico
  36. Clyde says:

    I use Bing, the Microsoft search engine. I will admit it is only 90% as good as google. For crucial searches I revert to google once or twice a week.

  37. The letter appears to request the removal of ads only from the page with that particular photo – not from the entire site.

    This is probably necessary to protect Google’s image. Their ad selection is so boneheaded that it would probably post ads for band-aids or personal injury lawyers next to the photo.

    It isn’t hard to jump through Google’s hoops. If they were to refuse advertising for the entire site, that would be a different story, and it could be construed as censorship.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @JohnnyWalker123
  38. if google disappeared from the planet (and should) someone would step in an fill the void. hopefully, in a more responsible manner than the aforementioned brin, page, and the execrable eric schmidt.

  39. If you think samizdat is going to happen, here are two words to ponder: JADE HELM.

  40. Jack_W says:

    “Fungible”, maybe?

    adjective: fungible

    1. (of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

    “money is fungible—money that is raised for one purpose can easily be used for another”

    potatoes, corn, wheat, precious metals, gasoline is gasoline.

    Anyway, got this definition from Google.

  41. Hibernian says:

    Or, God forbid, if some professional anti-Semites could figure out that the vast majority of Jews are a lot more like Michael Medved than they are like Leon Trotsky.

    • Replies: @Ragno
  42. QC says:

    May be part of Fred’s persona, but why the repeated mentions that managing or writing AdSense policies is left to women, or (lefty, young) girls?
    Last I checked, Google is run by men, or women acting like men – it’s tough out there in Silicon Valley, and to survive, senior women have to show cojones, examples abound.
    Much more likely, the prose was entered once, and it’s run by an algorithm (neither male or female). It just displays the standard features of Hypocrisy, the hallmark of our times. No need to be Orwell to recognize it.
    Keep up the good work.

  43. tbraton says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks for posting that link, Mr. Unz. I had not read the article, and it was very informative. In the course of the article, there appears the following question from Google: >> No Results for “US War Atrocity.”Did You Mean “US War Awesomeness”?<< The alternative suggestion is so ludicrous that it is very funny, but I am sure humor was not the intention. That got me thinking. I have been using Google for several years now. I often Google my name, "tbraton," when searching for something I previously posted on a particular subject. Every time I do that I get asked "Did you mean "triton"? Triton bears little resemblance to tbraton, and I thought it a very strange question. I started posting in 2010 on the site you were the publisher of for several years, The American Conservative, and was a very prolific poster, making clear my opposition to the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, the "kinetic action" against Libya, and so on. I am simply a private individual and do not rely on Google directed ads. Am I being too paranoid in thinking I may have somehow made Google's "list"? I never thought anything about it until I just read the article you posted the link to, but the constantly recurring question "did you mean "triton"? has always struck me as odd. Google is supposed to have a very sophisticated algorithm that makes Google such a good search engine, but the relationship of "tbraton" and "triton" is so tenuous that it makes me wonder what's going on, as in the case of pairing "war atrocity" and "war awesomeness." Or should I just chalk it up to paranoia induced by the article you posted? If that's the case, thanks. Now I know how it must have felt to live in East Germany under the Communists.

  44. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for the link.

    Google’s YouTube recently targeted Luke Rudkowski’s anti-regime alternative media project WeAreChange by, without notice, disabling ads on most of its YouTube videos and clearly suppressing their rate of appearance for users. This almost completely demonetized his account and obliterated his business model.

    A bigger scandal than disabling ads is “suppressing their [videos’] rate of appearance for users”. If Google is manipulating search results and content feeds, that is disgraceful. I suggest that it will be easier to shame Google into fixing this than the problems with AdSense.

    It would be interesting to search for well-known distressing images, such as Phan Thi Kim Phuc, and see if the pages carry Google ads – especially when the image is hosted by the MSM. It is likely that Google is not so fussy when dealing with large AdSense accounts. (My own browser runs multiple ad blockers, so I can’t try this myself straight away.)

  45. Ragno says:

    Not just a majority, mind you….a VAST majority. Got it.

    The odd thing is that, years ago, I might have agreed with you but – just as with everything else, including micks – they ain’t making Jews like they used to.

  46. Borachio says:

    I suppose that all the anti-Semitic troll comments (probably made by the same person) are to change the subject from Fred’s point:

    Google, like most giant corporations, serves the government.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Google is essential.

    No, it is not. Even if Youtube disappears tomorrow, its existing competitors will fill the hole very quickly. Everything else Google does is already done my someone else – and better.

    I read somewhere that Google valuation is higher than all air flight companies in the USA combined. Think for a moment how insane that is! If all commercial flight disappear tomorrow, the country’s economy will grind to a halt. OTOH, if Google disappears, it will be a minor inconvenience. Whatever are the forces that overprice Google this much, they are not serving the long-term interests of our society.

    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
  48. map says:

    Gents, Google is relying on the hash values of certain images to determine what is or is not censored. In the case of Fred, the images that he is using is probably “stock” in the sense that it had been spread so often that he is using a common copy.

    To get around this problem, use a hex editor to alter one byte inside the image itself. This will cause a radically different hash value to appear, effectively removing it from Google’s hash database.

  49. denk says:

    why do u think wiki is the first hit every time u do a search on something ?

  50. abj_slant says:

    It is as if one or two big agencies controlled the advertising in all the newspapers in the United States.

    Just the advertising?

  51. SeanK says:

    Next time try reading the article before you post a comment. Fred mentions in the body of his column.

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, any criticism directed towards the jews should be syrstrictly verboden. Jews are perfect and they never make mistakes.

  53. @Anonymous

    H.L. Mencken on Laws Public Sanction of Law.

    If history shows anything at all, it shows that laws which have not the sanction of an overwhelming majority of a community are not and can not be enforced; and the promises and practices of politicians do not alter the situation. [Unimportant: in the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 17, 1928.] Regulating Minorities]

    The strange American ardor for passing laws, the insane belief in regulation and punishment, plays into the hands of the reformers, most of them quacks themselves. Their efforts, even when honest, seldom accomplish any appreciable good. The Harrison Act, despite its cruel provisions, has not diminished drug addiction in the slightest. The Mormons, after years of persecution, are still Mormons, and one of them is now a power in the Senate. Socialism in the United States was not laid by the Espionage Act; it was laid by the fact that the socialists, during the war, got their fair share of the loot. Nor was the stately progress of osteopathy and chiropractic halted by the early efforts to put them down. Oppressive laws do not destroy minorities; they simply make bootleggers. [A.M.; Editorial; May, 1924, p. 26.]

    Fred may be out of the loop on the loot. He has options and could serve as a chiropractic doctor or bootlegger. Don’t feel oppressed by being a minority of one. In reality we are all minorities, which is why racism isn’t real. It was made in the United States.

  54. Nico says:

    Google WAS a superior product. And its base search engine for sites, videos, archival content (books) and images remains fundamentally solid. However, its ergonomic utility with respect to Maps and News has degraded considerably over the past two years (this former now a bloated piece of eye-sugary mess and this latter unintuitive from the main site and barely accessible from the mobile version) and its “Froogle”/products feature gone from a short-lived useful clearinghouse to a useless sponsor repository. Even its videos section is hardly a picnic: the marriage of YouTube with Google+ destroyed the comments feature of the former and made maintaining channels confusing, counter-intuitive and highly intrusive. Conspiracy theories are tempting, but in the end Google is simply another victim of late-lifecycle feature creep, revenue grasping and power politics.

    • Replies: @Jeff Albertson
  55. @Nico

    Google translate, from my limited perspective (Greek/Russian>English) seems to have degraded, as well. Fortunately, Yandex has more than made up the difference in about the last year. I had an informal test involving sending some translated text back through to see how closely the output resembled the original, Yandex translate seems to be head-and-shoulders superior, at least in Russian. Actual milage may differ, of course.

    Google seems to throw out a lot of stuff that it quickly abandons. It also buys up promising tech, seemingly just to kill it. I guess they know what they’re doing, and really, my own motto is “If at first you don’t succeed, try something else.” It keeps me out of casinos, at any rate.

    • Replies: @Nico
  56. Alieu says:

    Google are in bed with the US Government. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have revealed this already. Google works closely with the NSA for PRISM. It is considered a Tier 1 provider to the NSA and collaborates with them above and beyond the law. It is an essential part of the NSA’s surveillance program. When the US Government was attempting its “regime change” in Iran in 2009 they successfully pressured Youtube to postpone scheduled maintenance to allow “opposition activists” to post videos of anti-government “protests” and the “brutal crackdown” by the government. Of course this took place after Google bought Youtube in 2006. The fact that Google is Jewish-owned and run adds another element to this. What reason would Jews have in wanting the Iranian Government to be overthrown? They can throw around the word “anti-semitic” all they want but it’s not going to change the obvious fact that the Jews are the ones pushing for war with Iran. It couldn’t be any more obvious. Netanyahu openly comes to the US Congress to try to sabotage the peace agreement. The MSM openly admits that Israel is unhappy with the deal and pushing for war. Jewish billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban openly bribe politicians with attacking Iran as their No.1 (and virtually only) priority.

    I realise that Mr. Unz is Jewish himself but I respect him for allowing freedom of speech and for drawing attention to issues of Jewish power that need to be discussed. But unfortunately the vast majority of Jews seem incapable of any critical self-analysis and their automatic reaction is to scream “anti-semite” at anyone who criticises them no matter how justified the criticism. If they continue along the current path I think it’s going to end up bad for everyone (including them). It’s not an accident that virtually all media in the US is owned and run by Jews and that they follow the same pattern everywhere they go. Even in countries like Sweden there is huge Jewish over-representation in the media. There clearly is a Jewish “conspiracy” to monopolize media control so they can filter the public’s access to information. Google is just an extension of this into the internet. They abuse this position to instigate disastrous wars (e.g. Iraq) as well as instigate strife within the country itself (e.g. Baltimore riots). In Jewish publications they openly boast about how they control the media in America and that they want it to stay that way. But if any non-Jew points it out they call them an anti-semite. This level of dishonesty and abuse of power can only lead to resentment and an eventual backlash. It’s not anti-semitic to tell the truth.

  57. woodNfish says:

    The google letter was a request. I don’t see where you had to comply, so why did you. Just tell google to go fuck themselves and keep the code and the money. Why am I wrong about this? (I don’t blog, so I could be wrong.)

  58. Nico says:
    @Jeff Albertson

    Remember that the Google products its end users generally think of are free, and that its profitability comes from the ads that it sells specifically targeted to said users through the information it has combed. If a quality user product is for whatever reason incompatible with this goal, they will logically not go the quality direction.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave