There’s no shortage of content on GraniteGrok about Chinese influence-peddling. They spend money in the US on everything to shape policy and perception. Google does that too, as do most businesses that can afford it, but Google is allegedly buying off voices on the right while the tech Giant works to suppress our speech.
Related: “…Democrat Accuses us of Carrying “Mainstream Republican” Water”
Big Tech’s liberal bent is legion. They are called technofascists because of the bias applied to their censorship tactics. Terrorist groups like ISIS, ANTIFA, the Mullash’s, pour an endless stream of partisan anti-American opinion into social media without fear of being fact-checked or shadowbanned (along with most US media) while any voice on the right should expect to be tagged, flagged, fact-checked, accused of hate, and otherwise limited for their speech.
It hardly matters what the speech is; there is zero parity in how it is treated. There are apparent bias and viewpoint discrimination issues, and into that battle comes a list of ‘influencers’ on the right alleged to have received money from Google. Money spent or invested that might result in the massaging of the Tech-Censorship message to Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservatives.
The National Pulse is today publishing a previously undisclosed “go to” list of “conservative” influencers that Big Tech firm Google uses to influence the political dynamics in Washington, D.C. …
Featured in the list are high-profile “conservative” organizations which solicit conservatives in the public for donations, all the while promoting Big Tech talking points, and/or taking grants from Big Tech companies which continue to censor conservatives online.
The Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, R Street, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and more were named.
We’re not talking Baghdad Bob; this messaging comes as a softening of the perception. Sure, there are some rough edges, but Big Tech’s not so bad. Okay, maybe there’s some speech suppression, but there’s so much more speech!
Sure, and no.
Again, the issue is deliberate left-wing viewpoint discrimination, corporate censorship, de-platforming, and doxxing. Hey, it is not “hate speech” if yours takes down someone the thought police have tagged as a hater.
It’s the language equivalent of another left-wing tactic, dehumanization. Blacks were slaves because the powers-that-be decided they could not be human. The modern Democrat abortion industrial complex justifies ending pre-born lives that have barely begun by insisting they are not people.
Ideas and policies with which the Left disagrees are labeled as hate or hate speech, and the Technofascists step in and silence it. And now we have a list of groups or individuals on the right who are alleged to have been paid and may have soft-sold that threat.
The author provides a few examples, and you can view their list yourself. There is also a link to a third party list maintained by Google (I have a local copy saved here).
This document is updated biannually and includes a list of politically-engaged trade associations, independent third-party organizations and other tax-exempt groups that receive the most substantial contributions from Google’s U.S. Government Affairs and Public Policy team.
If this were a list of organizations associated or given money by the Koch Foundation, they’d all be right-wing shills, so let’s assume these are all (or at any time when called upon could be) shills for Google. And to be clear, that’s fine as long as we know. We are then free to assess any content through this filter and judge it accordingly.
And for the thousandth time yes, private companies can suppress any speech at their discretion. But when the do that or add their own message (or third party content) they become publishers. We would be right to challenge their Sec. 230 immunity.
