Google 86es NaturalNews.com

[Isgrimnur]

Google Site Search

Their gnashing of teeth

Now, Google, which aggregates fake news via its “Google News” service, has decided to up the ante and go all in for FAKE SEARCH.

Earlier today, Google delisted all 140,000+ pages of NaturalNews.com from its search engine, instantly wiping out a treasure trove of truly lifesaving knowledge about disease prevention, nutritional therapies, avoidance of toxins and the dangers of chemical medications (among other topics that also include opinion pieces, political analysis, health warnings and more).

Not surprisingly, every fake news page of the Washington Post, CNN and New York Times remains prominently ranked in Google’s search index, despite the irrefutable fact that all three news organizations now routinely fabricate fake news designed to discredit or destroy President Trump.

According to the mainstream media, any news that harms Trump is REAL news, while any news that helps Trump is FAKE news:
...
Now, Google has become “fake search,” deliberately silencing NaturalNews.com content on important issues such as mercury in vaccines, the mammogram scams of the cancer industry, the criminal racketeering of Big Pharma and the toxic effects of herbicides and pesticides. Now, users of Google no longer see the “natural” side of the debate on these issues and are, instead, subjected to the barrage of official disinformation regurgitated by corporate-infiltrated news fakers that really function as nothing more than corporate P.R. fronts.

Tens of millions of people will be negatively impacted each month by Google’s blacklisting of NaturalNews.com content, denied the choice to view articles that could help them prevent cancer, avoid a medical scam or learn something amazing about superfoods and healthy eating.
...
In this way, Google has raised digital book burning to a whole new level of efficiency only dreamed of by fascists of the Third Reich. Now, an entire library of human knowledge can be obliterated in an instant, with no justification, no warning and no recourse. By blacklisting all NaturalNews.com content, Google has just proven it is a de facto Orwellian Ministry of Truth which shall decide the fate of entire organizations based on nothing more than the internalized hatred, bigotry, biases or corruption of its own employees.

[Paingod]

It's funny that they call it censorship. Google is in no way impacting their ability to publish bullshit. They're just not helping them push it to the masses anymore.

Do we know what provoked Google into this?

From a different article, they have no idea why Google did this, but they responded with the following:
YouTube Video

[Isgrimnur]

Nothing I can find that's official.

[Paingod]

Maybe a Chinese filtering rule that slipped the leash and ended up in worldwide?

[Smoove_B]

Nothing I can find that's official.

You're out of practice then, old man. I'm guessing the site is collateral damage because of the ads they host and/or the products they promote. Also, because they're fake news.

EDIT: Straight from Google.

[Isgrimnur]

I see at best a tenuous connection. Taking down advertising is a bit different from putting an entire site's search results down the memory hole.

[Max Peck]

It appears that Google's policy regarding why specific sites are delisted is "No comment."

Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons, such as if the sites detract from users' ability to locate relevant information. We cannot comment on the individual reasons a page may be removed. However, certain actions such as cloaking, writing text in such a way that it can be seen by search engines but not by users, or setting up pages/links with the sole purpose of fooling search engines may result in removal from our index. Please read our Webmaster Guidelines for more information.

[Paingod]

I see at best a tenuous connection. Taking down advertising is a bit different from putting an entire site's search results down the memory hole.

Not really. They've taken action against 50,000+ websites they claim provide false or misleading information - not just ads. It's not a far stretch to see a host of junk articles being flagged and the end result being that the website is blacklisted. Weight loss scams, counterfeit consumer goods, malware - all removed. Lying about vaccines, healthcare, and other things? Why not.

[hepcat]

Google is providing a service with their search engine. They aren't a monopoly in the world of search engines, although they are a juggernaut. They also don't provide a vital service with their search engine. I feel they have the right to pull the history of a company they deem irresponsible or dangerous.

[Max Peck]

I see at best a tenuous connection. Taking down advertising is a bit different from putting an entire site's search results down the memory hole.

Not really. They've taken action against 50,000+ websites they claim provide false or misleading information - not just ads. It's not a far stretch to see a host of junk articles being flagged and the end result being that the website is blacklisted.

The action taken, as described in the above links, was refusing to run Google ads on those websites, not delisting the websites from search results.

[stessier]

I see at best a tenuous connection. Taking down advertising is a bit different from putting an entire site's search results down the memory hole.

Not really. They've taken action against 50,000+ websites they claim provide false or misleading information - not just ads. It's not a far stretch to see a host of junk articles being flagged and the end result being that the website is blacklisted.

The action taken, as described in the above links, was refusing to run Google ads on those websites, not delisting the websites from search results.

That is what the links say, but I don't think that is what has happened. Try to find NaturalNews using Google. I get a lot of articles about it, but no link to the actual site. Using Bing, however, it's the first result.

[Blackhawk]

Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if [...] detract from users' ability to locate relevant information.

It can't be this. When I search for certain things I still get 'whitehouse .gov' results.

[Paingod]

I'm sure the administration has a ticket submitted to have that offically redirect to Mar-a-Lago, roughly translated to English as "Ugly Laggard"

[stessier]

I've never been to NaturalNews before. Wow. Just...wow. It explains a lot when you realize those people can vote.

[Smoove_B]

I've never been to NaturalNews before. Wow. Just...wow. It explains a lot when you realize those people can vote. have already been elected to positions of influence.

Sorry, had to update that a bit.

[Max Peck]

I see at best a tenuous connection. Taking down advertising is a bit different from putting an entire site's search results down the memory hole.

Not really. They've taken action against 50,000+ websites they claim provide false or misleading information - not just ads. It's not a far stretch to see a host of junk articles being flagged and the end result being that the website is blacklisted.

The action taken, as described in the above links, was refusing to run Google ads on those websites, not delisting the websites from search results.

That is what the links say, but I don't think that is what has happened. Try to find NaturalNews using Google. I get a lot of articles about it, but no link to the actual site. Using Bing, however, it's the first result.

And I'm agreeing with you? The site has been delisted, but as Isgrimnur said there is no direct evidence that Google delisted naturalnews as an extension of the ad-related action they've been taking to combat scammers. There are a lot of reasons that Google delists sites from search results, and absent a specific reason being given by Google (which they aren't going to provide) then it seems most probable that naturalnews violated one of Google's guidelines.

[Holman]

Outrage! It's like when they failed to Google Doodle Bowling Green!

[hitbyambulance]

NaturalNews is also a known Russian propaganda front

[Enough]

OMG, this is so hilarious. Natural News has plagued my search results before, I appreciate Google helping to declutter. And I'm going to guess those crying 1rst Admin violations have no idea how ugly search results would be without Google's magic sauce algorithms.

[Max Peck]

OMG, this is so hilarious. Natural News has plagued my search results before, I appreciate Google helping to declutter. And I'm going to guess those crying 1rst Admin violations have no idea how ugly search results would be without Google's magic sauce algorithms.

Or that Google isn't the government.

[Enough]

OMG, this is so hilarious. Natural News has plagued my search results before, I appreciate Google helping to declutter. And I'm going to guess those crying 1rst Admin violations have no idea how ugly search results would be without Google's magic sauce algorithms.

Or that Google isn't the government.

Of course. Though I will freely admit I have concerns on the effects of concentrated media ownership and see the resulting detrimental effects are often very similar to state censorship. I'm just waiting for the Alt Right to start reading Chomsky to assail Google's actions, hah.

And it is intriguing how the rise of the internet has pushed back against concentration by allowing massive decentralized (often fake news) media to flourish once more. But if Google were to take a more active roll in policing deceptive sites, it could default on having its algorithms place more trust in sources from the MSM, thus at least partially returning us back to the age of more concentrated/monopolistic news sources or maybe it will erode Google's search dominance? No idea, but this is a subject area I feel gets too easily glossed over on OO. Sure it's not state censorship but that doesn't mean it doesn't censor or create a chill on speech.

[Max Peck]

Their website is still there and they are still free to publish anything they wish on it. Google has done nothing to stifle their speech whatsoever.

[Enough]

Their website is still there and they are still free to publish anything they wish on it. Google has done nothing to stifle their speech whatsoever.

Ok, let's not have an interesting intellectual conversation about this that doesn't rely upon absolutes and we should avoid topics that get into more interesting and uncertain ground in the land of nuance. Glossed over confirmed. Go read some Chomsky and Bagdikian and let's try again lol.

And to be 100% clear I am not saying this is any form of state censorship and for me personally it rocks for the case at hand. But it's ignoring the meaning of the word to claim that Google isn't censoring content, that's what Google search exists to do and why we all chose to use them, to pare down the nearly infinite forest of potential results. If we are to limit all discussions of censorship to state actors that seems asinine from any scholarly viewpoint.

[Max Peck]

Google is the worst censor in the world, then.


They are not suppressing information about NaturalNews.com, they are simply exercising their right not to index the site, for reasons that they have not disclosed.

[Enough]

Wow search screenshots, you've cracked this case wide open. Clearly Google in no way has blacklisted any sites as your amazing screenshot proves unequivocally. Fascinating analysis on media consolidation and it's potential effects on our democracy. Maybe we should start a seminar series.

I hope you do realize the story isn't about the site itself being de-listed and you're just teasing or something. Obviously the story is about their 140,000 pages of horrid content that were de-listed from search results. So yeah, if I search Natural News I have a winner. But if I search for how Zika is a government conspiracy (it's not) I will no longer see Natural News in the tinfoil lineup.

[Max Peck]

Well, your condescension has certainly won me over.

On the on hand, you seem to value the service that Google provides by indexing the web, but you don't like the fact that they have to enforce quality guidelines in order to make their results meaningful. You're not an SEO, are you?

P.S. You could have avoided this entire sidetrack if you hadn't conflated "1rst Admin violations"[sic] with censorship. By definition, the 1st Amendment only applies to American government interference with freedom of speech. Hence the little joke that you totally didn't get regarding Google not being the government.

[YellowKing]

Speaking of conservative news outlets, I find it fascinating that Drudge has completely embraced the lambasting of mainstream media as fake news, even as he posts several UFO articles a week.

[Enough]

Well, your condescension has certainly won me over.

On the on hand, you seem to value the service that Google provides by indexing the web, but you don't like the fact that they have to enforce quality guidelines in order to make their results meaningful. You're not an SEO, are you?

P.S. You could have avoided this entire sidetrack if you hadn't conflated "1rst Admin violations"[sic] with censorship. By definition, the 1st Amendment only applies to American government interference with freedom of speech. Hence the little joke that you totally didn't get regarding Google not being the government.

I really didn't think it was that condescending, yikes. I do find you are completely missing the plot here and I have no problem calling that out. Please don't take it as a personal slight (at least not any more of one than your debasing SEO quip lol). You're a great poster and contribute much here.

And for the love of god I didn't conflate this with the 1rst in any way. I don't know how to make it more clear than saying this isn't an example of state censorship, ie it's NOT a 1rst violation. The only 1A mention I made was to poke fun at the Alt Righters mistakenly crying it is and jokingly waiting with baited breath for them to start regurgitating Chomsky-- that's not saying I think it has anything to do with the price of tea in China.

What I was saying it appears you completely missed. OO tends to gloss over the potential deleterious effects of private censoring decisions especially when massive media outlets like Google and FB are in the picture that have an outsized influence on what we see. And it also has potential positive effects as well. This isn't some absolutist partisan post, it's an exposition of interest.

If I'm a researcher looking at why fringe conspiracy theories get going now I'm not going to get some of the most juicy results for my study. And who knows, by customizing search results based on my profile, it may lead me to become even more partisan and living with blinders on with my customized search results. Can this effect the functioning of the marketplace of ideas and what impacts do these sorts of things have on a democratic society? I don't know the answers to these questions but I find them damn interesting and am saddened OO is so quick to gloss over them. Is it such a hard concept to get that there are a few basic forms of censorship? State sponsored (the sort with 1rst Admin implications), private (no 1A implications) and personal (again no 1A link). All three have serious potential to shape our society (hello fake news) and I think exploring that is 100% valid.

[Max Peck]

You are assuming that Google is censoring the site, but there is no evidence that disapproval of the site content has anything to do with the delisting. Google has a set of quality guidelines that they require a site to abide by if they want Google to index their site. Those guidelines are content-neutral, and they're set up to prevent entities (such as SEOs) from gaming the search rankings. Google has to enforce them in order for the search engine to produce useful results; if they didn't, <hyperbole>literally every search result would redirect you to a Russian malware-laden goatse mirror</hyperbole>. If NaturalNews violated Google's guidelines, all they need to do is cut it out and they can apply to be restored to the search index.

When all the other alt-Reich fellow-traveller fake-news freedom-hating Trump-loving sites are also delisted, then I'll start to worry that Google is trying to curate the web. Until then, lex parsimoniae says that it is most likely that NaturalNews got caught trying to game the search rankings, and they're paying the price for trying to cheat the system. I'm willing to let them pay that price if it means that I can rely on the search engine to produce useful results.

[Enough]

You are assuming that Google is censoring the site, but there is no evidence that disapproval of the site content has anything to do with the delisting. Google has a set of quality guidelines that they require a site to abide by if they want Google to index their site. Those guidelines are content-neutral, and they're set up to prevent entities (such as SEOs) from gaming the search rankings. Google has to enforce them in order for the search engine to produce useful results; if they didn't, <hyperbole>literally every search result would redirect you to a Russian malware-laden goatse mirror</hyperbole>. If NaturalNews violated Google's guidelines, all they need to do is cut it out and they can apply to be restored to the search index.

When all the other alt-Reich fellow-traveller fake-news freedom-hating Trump-loving sites are also delisted, then I'll start to worry that Google is trying to curate the web. Until then, lex parsimoniae says that it is most likely that NaturalNews got caught trying to game the search rankings, and they're paying the price for trying to cheat the system. I'm willing to let them pay that price if it means that I can rely on the search engine to produce useful results.

I have read up on how all of this works too. Believe it or not I have produced insane hits for my photography business partially based on staying up to date on SEO and also hate rule-breakers just like the next guy. I am heavily engaged in web projects at my day job as well. Plus I just like being an uber geek.

I would hope my posting history here would make it abundantly clear I got your "little joke ... regarding Google not being the government." Which by the way didn't come across to me as a joke at the the time but more like you were scolding me for not bringing it up in my prior post. It seems like a new mood you've been in recently though I still typically love your posts.

I remain intrigued to continue to broadly explore how private censorship/content control (which I never conflated with the 1A) may have both positive and negative consequences worth exploring particularly in the context of heavy media consolidation. Perhaps I failed at posting these thoughts and I apologize if I came across as condescending. I used words like explore and exposition with a purpose in my post to invite less debatey/lecturey and more open pro/con discussion. But you already know the answer apparently and that's not the convo I was looking for, I'm out. But if you want to have a broader discussion with an open mind that private censorship may have significant influence that is worth studying-- awesome-sauce I will engage.

[Max Peck]

You still haven't explained why being removed from Google's search index constitutes censorship. If a book exists in a library, but one librarian can't tell me where it is, that doesn't mean that that the author has been censored. At worst, it means I should check with a better librarian or use other means to locate it. The book is still there and I can still read it once I track it down.

On the other hand, if you've been playing around with SEO techniques to elevate your site's search rankings, I can understand why you're leery about Google's policies.

[gbasden]

You still haven't explained why being removed from Google's search index constitutes censorship. If a book exists in a library, but one librarian can't tell me where it is, that doesn't mean that that the author has been censored. At worst, it means I should check with a better librarian or use other means to locate it. The book is still there and I can still read it once I track it down.

On the other hand, if you've been playing around with SEO techniques to elevate your site's search rankings, I can understand why you're leery about Google's policies.

That seems a bit facile. If the worlds search engines decline to index a site, how is one supposed to find it out of the infinite sprawl of the web? The hope would be that someone would carry it, but as far as I know all search engines make decisions about delisting sites. If a book exists in one library somewhere in the country and nobody can tell you where, what's your chances of stumbling across it?

[Max Peck]

You still haven't explained why being removed from Google's search index constitutes censorship. If a book exists in a library, but one librarian can't tell me where it is, that doesn't mean that that the author has been censored. At worst, it means I should check with a better librarian or use other means to locate it. The book is still there and I can still read it once I track it down.

On the other hand, if you've been playing around with SEO techniques to elevate your site's search rankings, I can understand why you're leery about Google's policies.

That seems a bit facile. If the worlds search engines decline to index a site, how is one supposed to find it out of the infinite sprawl of the web? The hope would be that someone would carry it, but as far as I know all search engines make decisions about delisting sites. If a book exists in one library somewhere in the country and nobody can tell you where, what's your chances of stumbling across it?

Google isn't every search engine in the world. If all the world's search engines decline to index a site, I'd need to know why they took that action before I could assess whether or not it was warranted. In this case, only one search engine has delisted this particular site, and we don't know why they did it aside from what we can deduce from their policy for delisting sites.

[gbasden]

You still haven't explained why being removed from Google's search index constitutes censorship. If a book exists in a library, but one librarian can't tell me where it is, that doesn't mean that that the author has been censored. At worst, it means I should check with a better librarian or use other means to locate it. The book is still there and I can still read it once I track it down.

On the other hand, if you've been playing around with SEO techniques to elevate your site's search rankings, I can understand why you're leery about Google's policies.

That seems a bit facile. If the worlds search engines decline to index a site, how is one supposed to find it out of the infinite sprawl of the web? The hope would be that someone would carry it, but as far as I know all search engines make decisions about delisting sites. If a book exists in one library somewhere in the country and nobody can tell you where, what's your chances of stumbling across it?

Google isn't every search engine in the world. If all the world's search engines decline to index a site, I'd need to know why they took that action before I could assess whether or not it was warranted. In this case, only one search engine has delisted this particular site, and we don't know why they did it aside from what we can deduce from their policy for delisting sites.

True. Of course, two search engines make up the vast, vast majority of all searches made, and Google is by far the dominant player. If Google delists something, how are you going to know that maybe you should try Bing or Ask Jeeves or whatever?

[Isgrimnur]

That being said, there's nothing stopping other companies from starting search engines. The dyed-in-the-wool members could certainly throw their weight behind an existing player. Whether or not that's enough to tilt the scales in any meaningful way is up for debate (yeah, right).

[Paingod]

I'm surprised that 7.15% of computer users are too lazy to find an alternate browser over IE. That's actually lower than I imagined.