Posts

Is Google Working With Liberal Groups to Snuff out Conservative Websites?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Google revealed in a blog post that it is now using machine learning to document “hate crimes and events” in America. They’ve partnered with liberal groups like ProPublica, BuzzFeed News, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to make information about “hate events” easily accessible to journalists. And now, there are troubling signs that this tool could be used to ferret out writers and websites that run afoul of the progressive orthodoxy.

In the announcement, Simon Rogers, data editor of Google News Labs, wrote:

Now, with ProPublica, we are launching a new machine learning tool to help journalists covering hate news leverage this data in their reporting.

The Documenting Hate News Index — built by the Google News Lab, data visualization studio Pitch Interactive and ProPublica — takes a raw feed of Google News articles from the past six months and uses the Google Cloud Natural Language API to create a visual tool to help reporters find news happening across the country. It’s a constantly-updating snapshot of data from this year, one which is valuable as a starting point to reporting on this area of news.

The Documenting Hate project launched in response to the lack of national data on hate crimes. While the FBI is required by law to collect data about hate crimes, the data is incomplete because local jurisdictions aren’t required to report incidents up to the federal government.

(Read more from “Is Google Working With Liberal Groups to Snuff out Conservative Websites?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google Insiders Warn ‘Outright Censorship’ of the Internet Is Google’s Top Priority… and Everyone Has Been Intimidated Into Silence

/0 Comments/in , , /by

If the right to bear arms is the most important right outlined in the United States Constitution, then the freedom of speech is a close second. The Founding Fathers understood better than anyone that those who are in positions of power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree, and that tyranny will come to America unless those with authority are restrained. One way we restrain these authoritarian figures (namely the politicians in Washington DC) is by practicing our First Amendment rights to speak about, praise or criticize the direction in which the country is going. The freedom of speech allows us to hold politicians accountable, elect leaders that will govern in our best interests, and expel those who don’t. Without the ability to speak freely and openly, none of this is possible.

Currently, and sadly, the freedom of speech is under attack in America. The mainstream media, Hollywood and leftists on college campuses across the country have been the main culprits of the assault on free speech, however recently it has also been undermined on the Internet. More and more frequently, stories are emerging of conservative voices being suppressed or even silenced by various social media websites, search engines, and even Google.

Recently, a Google employee who goes by the alias “Hal” spoke to Breitbart News about the political bias that allegedly runs rampant throughout the company. Hal’s interview with Breitbart is the first in a series entitled “Rebels of Google,” which will be published in full within the next few days.

In the interview, Hal, who understandably chose to use a fake name out of fear of losing his job, spoke about the ongoing effort within Google to suppress certain content that the company doesn’t want the public to have easy access to.

“Many people now fear that Google, Facebook and other companies are moving to control and censor their content. Are these fears justified?” asked Breitbart reported Allum Bokhari. “That is absolutely what Google is trying to do,” Hal replied. “The pro-censorship voices are very loud, and they have the management’s ear. The anti-censorship people are afraid of retaliation, and people are afraid to openly support them because everyone in their management chain is constantly signaling their allegiance to far-left ideology. Our leadership (Sundar in particular) is weak, so he capitulates to the meanest bullies on the block.”

The news is particularly damning to conservatives, who in recent years have been working to establish a stronghold on the Internet considering the fact that all other outlets, from the mainstream media to Hollywood, are run by leftists. A prominent example of this is Mark Levin’s LevinTV, which is an Internet-based conservative program launched last year that puts out new episodes every weeknight. If Google is actively working to censor ideas and information that do not align with the progressive ideology, conservative voices on the Internet could be in serious trouble. Related: Google and Facebook algorithms create a whole new kind of censorship, warns News Corp CEO.)

Another area of the Internet where widespread censorship is occurring is on the Google-owned video sharing website, YouTube. Just days ago, YouTube revealed on their official blog that they would be taking action to censor what they consider to be “hate speech” and “violent extremism.” YouTube also plans on launching a “trusted flagger” program, which will help the video sharing website identify videos that contain hate speech and extremism. Unsurprisingly, one of the organizations tasked with identifying which videos are to be censored is the left wing No Hate Speech Movement, as well as the Anti-Defamation League.

With liberal censorship running rampant in the mainstream media, in Hollywood, on college campuses and across the Internet, our country needs pro-First Amendment voices now more than ever. Once the freedom of speech is gone, it is only a matter of time before an all-powerful authoritarian state is established and individual liberty in America ceases to exist. (For more from the author of “Google Insiders Warn ‘Outright Censorship’ of the Internet Is Google’s Top Priority… and Everyone Has Been Intimidated Into Silence” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Social Justice Warriors Furious as Internal Google Manifesto Slams Company for Political Intolerance

/0 Comments/in , /by

Following the circulation of an internal memo criticizing Google’s restrictive PC workplace environment, employees have freaked out, calling for the memo’s author to be fired.

A software engineer at Google published a ten-page memo where he criticized “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” resulting in controversy amongst employees within the Google+ internal social network. The author argues within the memo that women are underrepresented in tech fields not because of discrimination, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women, echoing a similar argument made by former Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016. When discussing Google’s educational guidelines for young women, the memo’s author writes, “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.”

The allegations of political intolerance come shortly after YouTube, a Google-owned platform, announced it would manipulate search results, artificially promote socially progressive videos, and censor non-rulebreaking content that is considered “potential hate speech.” The company is also partnering with the ADL and other left-wing organizations to identify “hate speech” on the platform (Read more from “Social Justice Warriors Furious as Internal Google Manifesto Slams Company for Political Intolerance” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Did Google Freak out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The tolerance police at Google just struck another blow against increasing diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an employee who wrote a memo critiquing the company’s politically correct culture.

Now, let’s be clear: While the Google software engineer who authored the memo had the right to say and write what he did—it’s called free speech—Google is a private company and has every right to fire an employee it deems not in line with its mission or culture.

But it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so negatively to an employee who, in a 10-page memo, laid out a case for why Google’s diversity programs weren’t working and how it might rethink its attempt to reduce the gender gap.

Could it be that Google is feeling just a little bit paranoid?

For all the talk about inclusiveness and diversity, here’s the reality:

If you’re not white or Asian, that means there is only a 5 percent chance you’re part of Google’s leadership team.

And while 31 percent of Google’s employees are women, only 20 percent of its technical employees are—and it was primarily the memo’s focus on this gender gap that seems to have caused the recent unpleasantness in Silicon Valley.

In addition to bad PR, perhaps what the larger left-leaning community there doesn’t want to admit is that for all its diversity programs and safe spaces, and who knows how many millions of dollars spent promoting them, they have done very little to change the outcomes.

When it comes to computer and mathematical occupations, the numbers clearly show that women and men are not equally represented.

Women held 27 percent of such jobs in 1960. Thirty years later, they held 35 percent. But fast forward to 2013, and the number of women in computing and mathematical occupations had fallen back to 26 percent.

And it’s not because fewer women are going to college.

In fact, a Department of Education study from 2014 shows more women than men are attending and graduating from college, and they are receiving the majority of bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees.

But when it comes to college majors, women and men choose differently. A recent Georgetown University study showed over 80 percent of petroleum engineering majors are male. So are almost 70 percent of those majoring in mathematics and computer science.

Women, on the other hand, tend to major in what might be called more people-oriented professions, such as counseling, education, and social work.

Why men and women make such different choices is not 100 percent clear cut, but the idea that biology plays no role and it’s all because America is a sexist culture seems like an outdated and disproven theory.

And it was hiring and personnel practices based on that politically correct theory that the now-former Google employee was criticizing.

As he stated in the memo that got him fired: “If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”

Apparently at Google, and much of Silicon Valley, the discussion is over. (For more from the author of “Why Did Google Freak out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google and YouTube Target ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in New Quality Control Update

/0 Comments/in , /by

Google continues to make George Orwell’s book 1984 a reality by censoring free speech and free flow of information.

On July 27, 2017 Google updated their quality raters guidelines.

The latest update to its rating guidelines brings many changes, but the biggest are focused on conspiracy theory websites and query results in the non-English language and satirical pages that don’t make it clearly known they are satire.

Months before, Google updated their guidelines for raters twice – once on May 11, 2017 with some smaller changes, and then again on March 14th with bigger controversial changes classifying what “offensive, upsetting, inaccurate and hateful web pages,” defines.

The new guidelines giving a search giant so much control over the free flow of information is extremely worrying.

The guidelines instruct raters to directly confront “unsubstantiated conspiracy theories” by looking for a source that debunked them, The Sem Post reported.

The Post noted that the rules don’t specifically target and go after all “conspiracy theory” websites, only those that present a “conspiracy theory as factual information without basis.”

However, who decides what is and what isn’t real?

Who are the companies behind this valiant effort to police Google’s search engine, and who watches the watchers?

Well according to Search Engine Land, “Google contracts with over 10,000 search quality raters worldwide to evaluate its search results. Raters are given actual searches to conduct, drawn from real searches that happen on Google.”

None of the companies it contracts with were named.

Under section 7.10, Google goes on to crucify “unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.”

Lowest: Deceptive page purpose – unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Google added an example of “unsubstantiated conspiracy theories” choosing the most wild and crazy ones out there but also labeling “the existence of aliens,” to be low-quality content.

The example they used was the alleged existence of the Sumerian 10th planet Nibiru and the conspiracy the Vatican knows about its impending crash into Earth. But then, after that, the document defined what it considers “unsubstantial conspiracy theories” which includes those challenging “well established historical facts.” But the connotation of what those historical facts would entail is not included.

“The MC on this page contains factually unsupported theories related to the Vatican’s knowledge of the planet Nibiru, the existence of aliens, and upcoming world events. Although various Vatican officials and scientists are quoted in the article, the quotations do not support the article’s claims, and in some cases do not seem to come from the person quoted. The Nibiru cataclysm and related events have also been thoroughly debunked by authoritative sources ( Reference 1 , Reference 2 ). The demonstrably inaccurate content on this page can misinform users.

“Pages that directly contradict well ­established historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint

A non­satirical webpage or website presents unsubstantiated conspiracy theories or hoaxes as if the information were factual,” Google wrote.

The example in the PDF continues to show that raters should be able to find credible sources that have debunked the conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, YouTube a Google parent company, is planning on crucifying anyone who doesn’t upload fuzzy cat videos and puppies; in other words, all their controversial content creators under the guise of getting rid of “extremist content.”

These organizations to police YouTube’s content include the No Hate Speech Movement, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the Anti-Defamation League.

But don’t worry, Google won’t ban controversial conspiracy content altogether only if you’re not looking for it. As the document noted, “unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.”

We are further witnessing the YouTube, Google and Amazon adpocalypse against the alternative media and it’s far from over. (For more from the author of “Google and YouTube Target ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in New Quality Control Update” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google and Jigsaw Get Serious About “Extremist” Content

/0 Comments/in , /by

Faced with fines in Europe, Google will enforce four new steps to identify “terrorist-related content” on its YouTube subsidiary.

“We are working with government, law enforcement and civil society groups to tackle the problem of violent extremism online. There should be no place for terrorist content on our services,” writes Kent Walker, general counsel for Google.

Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all. Google and YouTube are committed to being part of the solution. We are working with government, law enforcement and civil society groups to tackle the problem of violent extremism online. There should be no place for terrorist content on our services.

Walker says Google has “developed partnerships with expert groups, counter-extremism agencies, and the other technology companies to help inform and strengthen our efforts.”

Who are these expert groups and counter-extremism agencies? The Pew Research Center, the Anti Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. In March, Google said they are “reputable sources that can be used for reputation research.”

The SPLC considers the “radical right” extremist. It also considers Donald Trump a lightning rod for xenophobia and racism. “Trump’s run for office electrified the radical right, which saw in him a champion of the idea that America is fundamentally a white man’s country,” Mark Potok wrote in February.

Potok believes the alt-right is a racist movement. It is a “rebranding of white supremacy for public relations purposes, albeit one that de-emphasizes Klan robes and Nazi symbols in favor of a more ‘intellectual’ approach.”

Potok and the SPLC are a reputable source?

While the focus now appears to be on Islamic extremism, it may soon include groups and individuals deemed extremist by the SPLC. It considers “antigovernment groups” extremist. These include the Oath Keepers, Lew Rockwell, the John Birch Society, the Eagle Forum, the Constitution Party, We Are Change, WorldNetDaily, Genesis Communication Network, What Really Happened, Infowars, Natural News, and hundreds of others.

Jigsaw is Google’s technology incubator. According to Google boss Eric Schmidt, the the team’s mission “is to use technology to tackle the toughest geopolitical challenges, from countering violent extremism to thwarting online censorship to mitigating the threats associated with digital attacks.”

For more on this, see the Newsbud video I produced last year:

(For more from the author of “Google and Jigsaw Get Serious About “Extremist” Content” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google’s Power to Censor the World

/0 Comments/in , /by

Google, as the world’s predominant online search engine and conduit for online advertising, possesses tremendous power to dictate what information people are exposed to on a daily basis.

Last summer, it was widely reported that the auto-complete function in Google seemed to suppress negative stories about Hillary Clinton.

Robert Epstein, writing for U.S. News in a piece titled “The New Censorship,” noted that last summer during the presidential campaign when a Google searcher typed “lying T…” Google would auto-complete “lying Ted,” while a similar search for “crooked Hillary” by going even farther, typing “crooked Hill …”, would not bring up any negative results. Meanwhile both Yahoo and Bing searches would immediately call up “Crooked Hillary.” A search on Google currently will generate Crooked Hillary.

Epstein explained that the auto-complete “blacklist” is just one of nine ways Google can censor and suppress information.

Another is through its Adwords and Adsense programs. Many political (and non-political) websites derive a significant portion of their revenue from working with Google to use key words in their content for ad placement.

Epstein explained, “The way it works is simple: Businesses worldwide bid on the right to use certain keywords in short text ads that link to their websites (those text ads are the AdWords); when people click on the links, those businesses pay Google.”

Google then turns around and pays a portion of that revenue to the host site on which the business ad was placed. Western Journalism and its sister site Conservative Tribune generate revenue this way.

As the one-stop and dominant shop for placing online ads, Google can in effect blacklist views it does not support by cutting off a company’s revenue stream. It can do this for specific stories or ban an entire website from generating ad revenue through Google, if it determines the policy violations to be egregious or consistent enough.

Examples of prohibited material include dangerous or derogatory content (threatens or advocates harm to oneself or others or promotes hatred or discrimination against people based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.), adult content (pornography, etc.), illicit drug use, irresponsible alcohol use, the sale of weapons, and violent content.

Western Journalism and Conservative Tribune both recently received notices about stories not being in compliance with Google Publisher Policy, due to violent content. In both cases the stories were about ISIS.

The Western Journalism piece flagged was about ISIS releasing an execution video. The story–published over two years ago, in March 2015–contained a warning to readers that the descriptions and images in it were graphic.

The full video was not included in the story, only an edited version, which did not show the moment the terrorists blew up 10 captive victims whose crime was “apostasy” or the aftermath of the blast. The article also pointed out that ISIS has released multiple videos of gruesome killings including the drowning of their victims in a cage, beheading them using explosive cord, and firing an RPG into a group of them locked in a car.

Another story by Conservative Tribune from Feb. 2016 was also flagged by Google as being in violation of its content policy. The story dealt with ISIS beheading a 15-year-old Iraqi boy for listening to Western-style pop music.

Western Journalism contacted Google for comment on its decision to pull its ads from the articles.

Suzanne Blackburn, with Google’s public affairs office, stated the company adopted its publishing policies with an eye to balancing the needs of all interested parties.

“We have to consider the impact on the advertiser, the user and the publisher,” Blackburn said. “So we’re considering those three groups and how we can protect each one in terms of our policy. So policy and policy enforcement is always a balancing act.”

She said Google’s decision to pull ads from a story is not a comment on the quality of the journalism.

“We’re just saying it is not appropriate to be monetized. We don’t want to make money on it, and we don’t feel our advertisers want to appear on it.”

When asked why the stories were just being flagged now, given that they were published a year or more ago, Blackburn could not comment directly, but stated that Google relies heavily on users to report potential content violations to the company. Judging by this information, it would seem likely in these instances that a third party contacted Google, which then decided to pull the ads down.

Liftable Media CEO Patrick Brown expressed concern that Google’s enforcement against ISIS articles disincentivizes covering the group’s true nature.

“If Google is automatically removing ads from any article or video that mentions ISIS or their atrocities, I find this very troubling,” he said.

Brown added, “Of course they are free to remove their ads from any news source they like. But my concern is that if publishers don’t get paid to write or create videos about ISIS, the financial incentive to cover news about them is removed, which in turn could mean less journalism and less awareness of their crimes.”

Brown further promised that Western Journalism and Conservative Tribune would continue to report on ISIS even if there is little or no financial return.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, also demonetizes content it finds objectionable, meaning the video creator’s revenue stream is cut off.

Joe Miller — publisher of the most popular political site in Alaska, Restoring Liberty — told Western Journalism that YouTube demonetized a number of his videos that included experts in the field discussing Islamic extremism, and that Google pulled ads from his site entirely last month.

“I think this is a lesson to anti-establishment sites that they have to develop a means of support from outside of these establishment-controlled internet giants,” he said.

As reported by Western Journalism, conservative commentator Steven Crowder claims YouTube is trying to silence conservative viewpoints by both restricting who can watch the content and by shutting down providers’ revenue streams.

In March, the host of Louder With Crowder — which airs via YouTube, podcast and Conservative Review’s CRTV online streaming service — noted on his program the different treatment his program receives from YouTube versus that given the liberal The Young Turks show.

Some of the Louder With Crowder programs that were restricted included subjects like socialism and the history of single-payer health care which, the host argued, would be informative for younger and older viewers alike.

Crowder said his programs are all FCC-compliant, with any foul language bleeped out, unlike the liberal political show The Young Turks, which he described as “far more profane” and which would be designated an R-rated film.

YouTube was also charged with unfairly targeting conservative views last fall when it put 21 of Prager University’s videos in restricted mode. The organization was founded by radio talk show host Dennis Prager and seeks to promote “the principles that have made America great.”

The organization responded to YouTube’s decision by saying, “There is no excuse for Google and YouTube censoring and restricting any PragerU videos, which are produced with the sole intent of educating people of all ages about America’s founding values.”

Blackburn admitted Google does not always get it right when deciding whether to pull ads from articles or videos.

“Every now and then we make mistakes. These are human reviewers. There are channels both for Adsense publishers or content creators on YouTube to push back if they feel their videos have been unfairly demonetized,” she said. (For more from the author of “Google’s Power to Censor the World” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Study shows Google was biased toward Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Which came first, the bias or the search results? That’s a question worth asking after reading a (PDF) by a group of researchers looking at how search results could have affected the 2016 election.

In a short paper presenting their preliminary work, the social scientists showed that search results from Google, in particular, showed bias toward Hillary Clinton in the month leading up to the election. The same scientists, in 2015 (PDF), that biased search results may sway the results of elections. A further question in this case is, “Were the results skewed, or was the media reporting from which they sprang?”

Late last month Robert Epstein, of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), Ronald E. Robertson, of Northeastern University, with Samantha Shepherd and Shu Zhang of AIBRT presented a paper that showed there was systemic bias in favor of Hillary Clinton in search results about the 2016 election. Here are some of the findings of the study:

1) Issue: Were search results provided by search engines in the U.S. biased toward one candidate or the other? Yes. Based on a sample of 4,045 election-related searches conducted during a 25-day period from October 15 to November 8 (Election Day) using the Google and Yahoo search engines through the Firefox browser, we found that search results were, on average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days.

The authors answer another question regarding the bias: Were the native Google and Yahoo results, on their respective websites, equally biased in favor of Clinton? According to the research, the level of bias toward Clinton on Google, “was more than twice as high as the level of pro-Clinton bias we found on Yahoo.” This data seemingly proves what those in conservative circles have been saying about Google —that it overwhelmingly shows pro-leftist results in search. These criticisms predate the 2016 election.

The authors go on to show that the level of bias was dependent on a number of demographic factors, including gender; whether the search was in a blue, red, or swing state; age; and voting preference. While there were changes in the level of bias, all groups saw a pro-Clinton bias in their search results.

The researchers didn’t go into what could have caused the biased search results. That, of course, is the central question. Once bias is established, the next step is trying to figure out how that bias came about. There are a number of ways the bias could have come about. Here are a couple:

Algorithm programming … Search engine algorithms are ultimately programmed by people. Those algorithms could have filters which weigh non-mainstream news sources with a lower degree of importance. When Donald Trump accused Google of bias in their auto-complete in June of 2016, Google said they do not program bias into that feature. However, giving left-leaning or mainstream sources preference over conservative outlets would account for the bias.

Underlying bias of the media … Another, more probable, cause is the underlying bias of the mainstream media. Leading up to the election, the media reported that it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would win. There have been numerous self-reflections on the election by the media, including this in The New York Times. Many of those reflections talk about group-think and confirmation bias. Based on how the media have treated now-President Donald Trump, however, it is doubtful they learned their own lessons.

In the upcoming months, the group of scientists will be expanding upon their findings. It will be interesting to watch what they report. The important thing they have shown is that there is a problem. The next step is watching to see if Google and Yahoo will admit they have a problem in order to correct it and identify the underlying source.

The mainstream media, and technology companies, have great power to shape the national narrative. As Epstein et al. have shown, that power can sway elections as much as anything the candidates themselves do. It is important to hold those who wield such power accountable. Bravo to the authors for attempting to do so. (For more from the author of “Study Shows Google Was Biased Toward Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google, Facebook Are Super Upset They May No Longer Be Able to Sell Your Internet Data Without Permission

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Google and Facebook are actively trying to stop a proposed law that would force them to acquire consent from users before collecting their personal information.

The “Browser Act,” introduced May 18 by Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, mandates that people must explicitly give permission to internet service providers (ISPs) and websites wanting to use their browsing history and other data for business purposes.

“I think it is necessary to get our consumers the strongest toolbox possible to allow them to control their virtual presence,” Blackburn told The Daily Caller News Foundation (TheDCNF) in an interview. “Individuals in the physical world have the opportunity to hold personal information private and they should have that same opportunity in the virtual space.”

The legislation’s primary focus is sectored into two categories. User information considered sensitive would be subjected to an opt-in approval system, meaning the data would only be permitted for company use if the person gives clear approval. In contrast, user information deemed non-sensitive would be subjected to an opt-out approval system in which data is automatically permitted for business operations unless notified otherwise.

Blackburn said she came up with this arrangement after talking with both members of the affected industry and consumers. (Read more from “Google, Facebook Are Super Upset They May No Longer Be Able to Sell Your Internet Data Without Permission” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google Asked to Label Anti-Fracking Websites as ‘Fake News’

/0 Comments/in , /by

An oil and gas drilling advocacy group published an open letter to Google asking the search engine giant to consider “purging or demoting” websites spreading misinformation about hydraulic fracturing.

Google rewrote its search engine algorithm to bury “fake news” websites in the wake of the 2016 presidential election. Now the industry-funded Texans for Natural Gas wants Google to include anti-fracking websites.

“We believe many of the most prominent anti-fracking websites have content that is misleading, false, or offensive – if not all three,” the group wrote in an open letter to Google published Monday.

“As a result, we urge you to consider purging or demoting these websites from your algorithm, which in turn will encourage a more honest public discussion about hydraulic fracturing, and oil and natural gas development in general,” the group wrote.

Google raters “assess search results — to flag web pages that host hoaxes, conspiracy theories, and what the company calls ‘low-quality’ content,” Bloomberg reported in April. (Read more from “Google Asked to Label Anti-Fracking Websites as ‘Fake News'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.