Google is being accused of altering their website results when certain words are keyed in. Such corrupt search results include the word “jihad” and the Free Speech Defense and Jihad Watch are now pursuing legal action.
Google has always been a predominantly left-sided company, but it has recently also been accused of monitoring search engine results to show those that favor Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
In their defense, they claim that when Google customers search for the word “jihad”, the first article to come up is one that defends the Muslim faith, which is not their main concern. The article was made by the Islamic Supreme Council and it defends Jihad as a misunderstood concept, but shockingly, the post historically had very low internet traffic.
The first article to come up when searching for the term “jihad” is a Wikipedia article, which is to be expected. Wikipedia is one of the most popular and trafficked sites on the internet today, with millions of visitors daily. Comparatively, the article by the Islamic Supreme Council has an ‘Alexa’ rating of 567,527. An Alexa rating measures the amount of internet traffic on a website and a “popular” rating is typically in the millions or billions per website click. The third website showcased is the Jihad Watch website itself, with an incredibly low Alexa rating of just 25,092.
Both websites defend the Jihad faith and try to rationalize the religion to outsiders.
“Anyone doing a search for jihad, will think they are seeing an opposing, authoritative view of Jihad Watch’s, but the ‘Islamic Supreme Council’ is of no authority, its poor in every way, but the Googler will read about all this peaceful unrepresentative Jihad, trusting Google,” wrote Free Speech Defense in their claims.”
The statement also went on to talk about other options that would be better suited for the top hit of a search for “jihad”.
“So how about another site which might be more of an authority on Jihad in the US, cair.com (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is constantly being updated, is far more popular at 149,590th place, actually probably even more so as it has a vast network of sites, a search for jihad site:cair.com gives 342 results, and is mentioned and linked to a whopping 60 million times, and it’s mobile friendly and has HTTPS enabled, and it’s not even on the top 10 pages of results for a search on Jihad. Oops.”
The motive behind why the company would alter search engine results such as the word “jihad” is unclear; however it has everything to do with its political ties and support of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Interestingly enough, Google has been accused of altering search engine results in favor of the Democratic Party and nominees in the past. When doing a Google search during the election, nominees such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein would show up, leaving the Republican Donald Trump out of the mix, as well as the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.
Google claimed this was due to a “technical bug” rather than a corrupt search engine.
Furthermore, there have been claims that info about Hillary Clinton and negative reviews of the Presidential candidate have been pushed back dozens of Google pages or ruled out from Google searches altogether. Comparatively, the negative views and criticisms of Clinton show up as top hits on other search engines such as Bing, which are traditionally unbiased or Republican-based in viewpoint.
At a journalism forum in June, Wikileaks founder and Editor Julian Assange claimed that Google was directly a proponent of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“Wikileaks founder and Editor Julian Assange claimed that Google was ‘directly engaged in Hillary Clinton’s campaign’ at a journalism forum in June, adding that should Clinton be elected, many high-ranking Google employees would be ‘placed into positions around the new Clinton presidency”.
What are your thoughts? Is Google changing our search results to show us exactly what they want us to see? Or is it merely a result of faulty computer algorithms?
Please leave us your thoughts in the comments section below.