Comments on: Mike Adams’ Natural News restored by Google after massive takedown

By: Shellee-Kim

Shellee-Kim — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 11:17:10 +0000

Many thanks for this much-needed show of support for Mike Adams!
We also need to be cognisant of the fact that the same media-controlling shadow operatives behind many of the world’s mainstream and alternative media sites are one and the same! Their job involves mass censoring of article commentors too. So, who knows, maybe there was much more support for Mike Adams that was ‘removed’ from various sites – just like mine and many other comments were. […]

By: Ozzie Thinker

Ozzie Thinker — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 05:42:56 +0000

I think you will find the “independent news” (if there’s such a thing) sites that have worthwhile rankings wouldn’t want to rock the boat with Google and lose “position”. The rest probably don’t give a bugger either way. Why should they care? They had no position and aren’t likely to get one.

If anything, Natural News knocked off top spot might be deemed a “blessing in disguise”.

Best
OT

By: Star Messenger

Star Messenger — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 23:49:12 +0000

Nothing cures you like a good dose of your own medicine.

By: Greg C.

Greg C. — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 14:53:01 +0000

Sometimes a parallel example is better than an explanation – here is a good one. Say I have a Yellow Pages publishing business. (Or had one, maybe 10 or 20 years ago – who uses them these days?) And I list all businesses, whether they pay for an ad or not, in my directory. I get my list of businesses from state public records. But let’s say, as I compile my directory from those public records, I decide to skip some of the guys I don’t like – maybe I want to punish them for their politics, or because they didn’t buy an ad when they could easily afford it. Anyone who uses the directory will think that it is complete, and make buying decisions based on it. Yet they didn’t pay a dime for the directory. However, the publisher is making a profit from publishing public records and distorting them through omission. Through their omissions, they are basically saying, “The XYZ company does not exist – they are not in business.” Which is false. A lie by omission is still a lie, and it hurts the XYZ company. I’d say they have a good case if they sued.

By: JB

JB — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:15:11 +0000

“The action by Google follows the largest and most vocal backlash against Google’s de-listing of any website in the history of the company [Google], and it has sparked many new discussions and debates about search engines, censorship and free speech.”

What better way to pull the objectees out of the woodwork. Now Google has a wider database of people to “persecute.”

By: Greg C.

Greg C. — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 04:20:19 +0000

I think you misunderstand, Rixta. I”m arguing from the point of view of the website owners, not the end users. True, they do not pay money for the service, but they pay by providing the content for Google to use and profit from. It’s not an ordinary contract business model, but it’s easy to see how the concept of payment could easily be extended under this new model.

And just because Google never promised to be fair or accurate, doesn’t release it from its obligation to be fair and accurate. Once you take on an performance obligation to the public, and profit from doing so, you are obligated as long as you continue to do business under the appearance of meeting that obligation. The only way to absolve yourself is to provide a public disclaimer, clearly visible on every search.

Yes, we need to boycott them, but we also need to recognize that this new business model has the power to hurt people’s livelihood and to silence them. The law must begin to recognize this power and to allow legal claims against it.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:35:10 +0000

Other than getting this information out, what can we DO to promote this work? And thanks, Jon….

By: Rixta Francis

Rixta Francis — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:27:36 +0000

That would be true with a paid service. But Google is free and you don’t need to use it. Every time you want to search for something you can use a different search engine. So how can that possibly be fraud?

You can call it deception. You can call it wrong. You can call it unethical. But it’s not fraud, because Google never promised anyone to show every website. We have started to believe that and put false trust in Google. But Google never promised it.

I will try to not to use Google anymore where there are other options. And there seem to be plenty of those.

By: dunc

dunc — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:23:48 +0000

IMO good observation it being private .but? bust the trust? these have turned into a monopoly on a new kind of venue.they have more money and power than many countries.the distinction ? now utility?

By: fauxscienceslayer

fauxscienceslayer — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 02:42:16 +0000

After hints at exposing Podesta pedophile connections, Andrew Breitbart ‘mysteriously’ dies, soon after the LA pathologist who examined Andrew dies and his widow sells naming rights to straw buyers. While there is some investigative content, and some latitude in the comment section, there is extreme censorship. Click Discuscuser name for mod squad “Removed” content.

Breitbart, and most of the ‘alternative media’ is MSM LITE.