General New Search Protocol Is Restricting Access to 13 Leading Anti War and Leftist Sites

[megatherium]

I thought this was probably worth noting here just in case anyone has been noticing their favorite sources not coming up in their searches lately.

New data compiled by the World Socialist Web Site, with the assistance of other Internet-based news outlets and search technology experts, proves that a massive loss of readership observed by socialist, anti-war and progressive web sites over the past three months has been caused by a cumulative 45 percent decrease in traffic from Google searches.

The drop followed the implementation of changes in Google’s search evaluation protocols. In a statement issued on April 25, Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive” sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content.”

The World Socialist Web Site has obtained statistical data from SEMrush estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows:

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
* theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

Of the 13 web sites on the list, the World Socialist Web Site has been the most heavily affected. Its traffic from Google searches has fallen by two thirds.

The new statistics demonstrate that the WSWS is a central target of Google’s censorship campaign. In the twelve months preceding the implementation of the new Google protocols, the WSWS had experienced a substantial increase in readership. A significant component of this increase was the product of Google search results. The rapid rise in search traffic reflected the well-documented growth in popular interest in socialist politics during 2016. The rate of growth accelerated following the November election, which led to large protests against the election of Trump.

Search traffic to the WSWS peaked in April 2017, precisely at the point when Google began the implementation of its censorship protocols.

Another site affected by Google’s action has provided information that confirms the findings of the WSWS.

“In late May, changes to Google’s algorithm negatively impacted the volume of traffic to the Common Dreams website from organic Google searches,” said Aaron Kaufman, director of development at progressive news outlet Common Dreams. “Since May, traffic from Google Search as a percentage of total traffic to the Common Dreams website has decreased nearly 50 percent.”

The extent and impact of Google’s actions prove that a combination of techniques is being employed to block access to targeted sites. These involve the direct flagging and blackballing of the WSWS and the other 12 sites listed above by Google evaluators. These sites are assigned a highly negative rating that assures that their articles will be either demoted or entirely bypassed. In addition, new programming technology teaches the computers to think like the evaluators, that is, to emulate their preferences and prejudices.

Finally, the precision of this operation strongly suggests that there is an additional range of exclusion techniques involving the selection of terms, words, phrases and topics that are associated with socialist and left-wing websites.

This would explain why the World Socialist Web Site, which focuses on issues such as war, geopolitics, social inequality and working class struggles has experienced such a dramatic fall in Google-generated searches on these very topics. We have seen that the very terms and phrases that would under normal circumstances be most likely to generate the highest level of hits—such as “socialism,” “Marxism” and “Trotskyism”—produce the lowest results.

This is an ongoing process in which one can expect that Google evaluators are continuously adding suspect terms to make their algorithm ever more precise, with the eventual goal of eliminating traffic to the WSWS and other targeted sites.

The information that has been gathered and published by the WSWS during the past week exposes that Google is at the center of a corporate-state conspiracy to drastically curtail democratic rights. The attack on free speech and uncensored access to information is aimed at crippling popular opposition to social inequality, war and authoritarianism.

The central and sinister role of Google in this process demonstrates that freedom of speech and thought is incompatible with corporate control of the Internet.

As we continue our exposure of Google’s assault on democratic rights, we demand that it immediately and unequivocally halt and revoke its censorship program.

It is critical that a coordinated campaign be organized within the United States and internationally against Google’s censorship of the Internet. We intend to do everything in our power to develop and contribute to a counter-offensive against its efforts to suppress freedom of speech and thought.

The fight against corporate-state censorship of the Internet is central to the defense of democratic rights, and there must be a broad-based collaboration among socialist, left and progressive websites to alert the public and the widest sections of the working class.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/googles-new...es/5604403

 

[SC MMA MD]

I was under the impression that google was pretty progressive. I am surprised to hear they have been directing traffic away from left wing sites.

 

[megatherium]

I was under the impression that google was pretty progressive. I am surprised to hear they have been directing traffic away from left wing sites.

It likely depends on the type of left wing commentary that predominates on the each. Modern 'progressive' fake left sites that favor the myriad regime change operations overseas, the never ending expansion of NATO and a belligerent stance vs Russia are possibly safe as long as they toe the globalist line.

 

[megatherium]

I was under the impression that google was pretty progressive. I am surprised to hear they have been directing traffic away from left wing sites.

There are some right leaning libertarian anti war sites included in the list. They key ingredient seems to be the stance on war and global expansion rather than right/left.

 

[jason73]

all the sites i go to still work fine

 

[megatherium]

all the sites i go to still work fine

Oh of course they do, it's just that apparently the search engine doesn't send you there when you enter certain topics into it anymore.

And we're not in the USA either, are we

 

[jason73]

Oh of course they do, it's just that apparently the search engine doesn't send you there when you enter certain topics into it anymore.

And we're not in the USA either, are we

i dont believe i ever entered anything into my search engine that could be considered left

 

[Deleted member 1]

Filtering news is unlikely to purge the net of fake news and is much more likely to further radicalize all of us into tribes.

I'd argue that presenting news with crowdsourced commentary + spam/abuse prevention would allow you to make a good judgement.

If I read something on Digg, Reddit, etc. I often find competing or supporting data in the top handful of comments. This isn't good for conversation, contrary thought, etc. But it is likely as good as wikipedia (pretty good!) for verifying claims with out-links for more reading.

Simply blocking out opinion removes the opportunity for dissent.

 

[Limpy]

all the sites i go to still work fine

Porn and weed!

 

[megatherium]

i dont believe i ever entered anything into my search engine that could be considered left

It's not just leftist sites though Jason73, it's libertarian anti war sites as well, a couple that I use regularly in fact. Take a look at that list carefully and then go back to Yoshida's and look at BC and my Syria thread.

Just for fun. You'll see where I'm coming from.

 

[Deleted member 1]

i dont believe i ever entered anything into my search engine that could be considered left

First they came for my antifa counterinformation, then they came for my au natural blue haired hippie porn, then they came for me...

 

[jason73]

Porn and weed!

midget nazi donkey porn and mail order weed services

 

[megatherium]

Filtering news is unlikely to purge the net of fake news and is much more likely to further radicalize all of us into tribes.

I'd argue that presenting news with crowdsourced commentary + spam/abuse prevention would allow you to make a good judgement.

If I read something on Digg, Reddit, etc. I often find competing or supporting data in the top handful of comments. This isn't good for conversation, contrary thought, etc. But it is likely as good as wikipedia (pretty good!) for verifying claims with out-links for more reading.

Simply blocking out opinion removes the opportunity for dissent.

I guess there are a couple of right wing anti war sites that fail the Snopes test but for the most part these are relatively mainstream leftist or libertarian sites on that list. I'm frankly a little shocked to find Counterpunch and Democracy Now included. It's like they've degraded everyone right and left that still has serious anti war cred. I'm not a fan of it to say the least.

 

[jason73]

we are living in a shitty time where pc culture is limiting discussion and censorship is trying to quiet unpopular opinions. opinions are being manipulated with fake news and propaganda.it is crazy

 

[megatherium]

we are living in a shitty time where pc culture is limiting discussion and censorship is trying to quiet unpopular opinions. opinions are being manipulated with fake news and propaganda.it is crazy

By the way I found the article on the proud Snopes check failure and otherwise essential go-to Global Research


http://www.globalresearch.ca/googles-new...es/5604403

 

[kneeblock]

This "article" has been shared with me several times and I think it's probably BS. They attribute algorithmic manipulation, which is a very real danger with search engines and other referrers, but fail to control for other factors, including the most obvious one: 2 open socialists in Sanders and Corbyn were running elections in the last year. Searches likely spiked as a result, as did traffic from google. Failing to list their historical numbers is a pretty glaring sin of omission in leveling a claim like this. They also are pretty unspecific with what search strings were getting people to their sites and whether there's a clear depreciation in those specific strings.

I'm pretty red, but this seems like a viral campaign to whitelist these sites more than anything.

 

[megatherium]

This "article" has been shared with me several times and I think it's probably BS. They attribute algorithmic manipulation, which is a very real danger with search engines and other referrers, but fail to control for other factors, including the most obvious one: 2 open socialists in Sanders and Corbyn were running elections in the last year. Searches likely spiked as a result, as did traffic from google. Failing to list their historical numbers is a pretty glaring sin of omission in leveling a claim like this. They also are pretty unspecific with what search strings were getting people to their sites and whether there's a clear depreciation in those specific strings.

I'm pretty red, but this seems like a viral campaign to whitelist these sites more than anything.

Since the list includes sites on the left and the right perhaps the folks at google have a particular sensitivity to anti war and anti globalist material. This is the one glaring common denominator that comes immediately to the surface for me.

Or perhaps the article is BS, always a possibility when sourcing material online. Still I thought it merited sharing with the folks here anyway..

I do doubt that traffic for sites like Democracy Now, Counterpunch and Global Research, wikileaks, consortium news etc suddenly fell through the floor post this past April without some 'assistance' especially since election season continues on in so many ways. These are not sites that attract a ot of casuals I don't think.

*actually strike that -- the article says that the viewership for the socialist site peaked in April, well post the US election and just as the new google protocols came into place.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I'm pretty red, but this seems like a viral campaign to whitelist these sites more than anything.

 

[kneeblock]

Since the list includes sites on the left and the right perhaps the folks at google have a particular sensitivity to anti war and anti globalist material. This is the one glaring common denominator that comes immediately to the surface for me.

Or perhaps the article is BS, always a possibility when sourcing material online. Still I thought it merited sharing with the folks here anyway..

I do doubt that traffic for sites like Democracy Now, Counterpunch and Global Research, wikileaks, consortium news etc suddenly fell through the floor post this past April without some 'assistance' especially since election season continues on in so many ways. These are not sites that attract a ot of casuals I don't think.

*actually strike that -- the article says that the viewership for the socialist site peaked in April, well post the US election and just as the new google protocols came into place.

It's a thought provoking share. I think it's useful to start critiquing Google's use of algorithms to manipulate opinion. But this story has all the hallmarks of dubious tech claims based on something they recently learned was possible. The sites in question invoke a supposed algorithmic shift that lacks specificity. The US election was well over in April, but the UK election was still in full swing. They allege there was a significant traffic dip, but don't really show the numbers. I want to believe, but at this point can't.