Select Page

Google Attempts to De-monetize Punching Bag Post

Google Attempts to De-monetize Punching Bag Post

Publishers rely on advertising to stay in business. The company with the biggest share of website advertising in the world providing the best monetization is Google.

Except of course when Google disagrees with your political views.

Then, of course, they “demonetize” you. This means that on pages where you have expressed an opinion that their California liberal censors don’t like or they disagree with your facts – no matter how well documented – their ads simply do not show up.

The method is actually pretty clever. If you print something they like, you get rewarded with their wonderful ads. Obviously, everyone wants this, it is an incentive to modify your behavior to conform with the Google view of the world. Very much like parents patiently teaching a child. Thanks, Google!  In actual fact, this is an insidious propaganda technique.

You will note the reasons they cite. “Unreliable and harmful claims”?? Seems like someone is expressing an opinion about us over at Google.

“Dangerous or derogatory content”?? Wow! I didn’t realize we had enough power to be “dangerous.”  And God forbid that any political news site express something “derogatory” in an election season.

And by the way, the Constitution protects “unreliable”, “harmful”, “dangerous” and “derogatory” speech. All of it.

But you are about to say that Google is a private company and they can censor whoever they want. But with a company this big, controlling this much of the information we experience, is this too much political power in the hands of a few? Is Google a significant force in purposely influencing elections so that they can push America to conform to the beliefs of the few powerful people in the Google oligarchy?

One might think this is a threat to our democracy, perhaps even the greatest threat.  We are dealing with not only the forcing of the liberal viewpoint, but also accepting the premise that censorship is fine.  It is NEVER fine.

By the way, this is not the only way that I am being harassed by Google, it is just the most blatant.

Have a look at the articles below. These are the articles currently being censored by Google. Please let us know in the comments what you think – should any of these be censored? Are any of them more “unreliable”, “harmful”, “dangerous” and “derogatory” than what you might see in the New York Times or on Fox?

And feel free to be angry, I certainly am.

————-

Unreliable and harmful claims

Dangerous or derogatory content

Unreliable and harmful claims

Dangerous or derogatory content

Unreliable and harmful claims

Unreliable and harmful claims

Dangerous or derogatory content

Dangerous or derogatory content

Dangerous or derogatory content

Unreliable and harmful claims

Dangerous or derogatory content

Dangerous or derogatory content

Dangerous or derogatory content

Unreliable and harmful claims

Unreliable and harmful claims

About The Author

15 Comments

  1. Frank stetson

    Did google block those stories from other sites running them, or just you?

    Cuz I picked a number of them from other sites from google, similar or same story..

    Reply
    • Joe Gilbertson

      Hard to say, now that I am looking, Fox, Epoch Times, NYPost, Newsmax, WND.com don’t use google. But we have worked with a couple of dozen other conservative sites over the past few years, and all of the conservative sites have been hit with Google penalties. But in the past, no reasons were given.

      Reply
  2. Frank stetson

    Well, reasons are improvement I guess. Hope they have arbitration, cuz some if these should fly.

    I find fox, nypost but not sure the others. Don’t use them much since there are more trustworthy sources.

    You don’t appear in the media bias and fact check sites either.

    But yeah, private business, tough luck or comply. Elon Musky fired Don Lemon for asking him ten questions. Guess free speech was not why he bought twitter cuz private ownership fired lemon.

    FYI:,when I say busted, it’s usually spot on. But it’s not for reasons of censorship. I honestly hope the writers will correct. But on pbp, they NEVER do. So far, I stand by every one. They are not frivolous.

    Frankly, I’m at a loss over free speech, the lies, public and private air waves, bulgar discourse, threats etc. i mean newspapers get free speech but journalists must comply with editors and the publisher. TV is regulated, cable not. And the internet is the wild west.

    You claim extreme free speech advocacy but I can’t do song bytes. parodies, or rhymes. When I sarcastically accused you of a great evil, it got zapped.

    Would love to see Horists ideas about this if he could leave out liberals and democrats. Personally, I’dclike to see it all regulated like tv, see liars and their publishers sanctioned and clean up the crap. But disinformation police isn’t the answer either

    I don’t mind a gory mess of ideas, but what we have today is crap. Don’t have a good answer, but the status quo is not good either.

    But if they can’t google you, if they can’t media-bias /fact check you; you really don’t exist and it’s go to limit your revenue stream.

    Reply
    • Joe Gilbertson

      No, you can never talk to anyone at Google about this, no mechanism for arbitration.

      Evidence of my commitment to free speech is the fact that you are still allowed to post.

      Its still a no on the song bytes.

      Reply
      • Frank stetson

        That’s called a free speech ban, Joe. And I’ve had others. I honestly don’t give a shit. You ban does not affect my free speech here that much and it’s your right.

        It’s stupid and unprofessional though not to list the rules, guidelines, and bans.

        And if I say Joe is a dog ducking mother fucking dick sucking sob and your rules say cool, I say that’s sad and not what the founders intended. There is a need for decorum. There is no need for vulgarity and ad hominem to protect free speech. It’s a choice you made.

        And I wasn’t asking to set my sound bytes free. Your loss.

        Google should have arbitration.

        Reply
  3. FRANK STETSON

    Using the title “Who runs AI, Big Brother or Dr. Frankenstein,” the google search returns PBP, although like number 10 in the list which is odd given I used the exact title.

    Same for “Black Senate Candidate: “You Gotta Treat White People Like Sh*t”

    Batting three for three with “China Opens Police Offices in US, Canada to Monitor Nationals” although PBP is in the weeds since the entire right blogosphere and then some ran it, or something like it.

    What’s going on Joe? Clearly you are in google’s search and these stories can be searched? What am I missing? Don’t want to apply my tagline (busted) without hearing from you how I messed this up?

    Reply
    • Frank stetson

      Yo Joe, u went mum. I hit three for three on your supposed banned google hits. What’s up pup?

      Seems I can search you in google. Bottom of pile, but u b there.

      Reply
  4. Jjb-54

    NEWS FLASH:
    IF anyone did NOT see this coming by now .. had their heads berried in the sand.

    I’m sorry – but if you are looking to Google – YouTube and such to “play fair” – “play nice” – and thought the Constitution meant anything to them, you actually deserved to be cut off.

    Sorry – but this has been happening now since before 2020.

    Thus you and other’s like you should have been making a PLAN B and building on it so you could tell Google / YouTube where to shove it!

    You have only yourselves to blame.

    Reply
    • Joe Gilbertson

      Yes, we have known this for a long time, it is more blatant now and getting worse. And we already have Plan B, Plan C and Plan D, otherwise we would not exist.

      Reply
      • Frank stetson

        to most trackers of things, you don’t exist Joe.

        Neither do your writers, except for the Horist, of course. (not a song byte joe, honest, wink wink nudge nudge.) I could be humming though….

        Well, maybe the Machine turns up and Demosey, under his real name.

        Reply
  5. Americafirst

    I don’t have Go gle (you read that correctly) I have Microsoft Bing which is also AI. I’m glad to not have Go ogle. However, I have seen much about them. They are in serious criminal trouble even if some of you may disagree. I cannot wait for them to be broken up or better yet, taken down with their top idiots put in prison. I firmly believe they are trying to rule the world along with the WEF, WHO and many other criminal organizations. They are nothing but little toddlers that cannot take anything they think is against them, yet that’s what they do to us. There is nothing they can do to me because I don’t use them. I am sorry they think the Punching Bag Post should be banned. I think Go ogle should be banned – forever! PBP is not in any way criminal but Go ogle is. Oh, Frank – shut up!

    Reply
  6. R. Hamilton

    Small private entities having a code of conduct that limits legal speech is not unreasonable. In some, the established doctrine should simply not be up for debate, although how to apply it might be.

    Large private entities esp. that interact with public speech not in their platform with indirect ways of exerting their influence need to be held to a higher standard.

    Something is not derogatory just because it’s said about a non-white or a Democrat, if it’s substantially true.

    Anything that is not itself illegal content nor inciting let alone conspiring to specific illegal action is legal, and by large private entities as well as government should generally be treated equally short of endorsing it; although if it’s publicly accessible and a worsening pattern is observed that fits a well-established profile of those who previously completed their pattern with criminal conduct, closer observation (with due process as applicable) and even warnings might not be out of order.

    Given Google as an advertising service used on many sites, specific advertisers could reasonably choose to opt out of having their ads appear on categories of sites substantially contrary to their views I suppose; or better, simply choose to favor categories of sites likelier to be visited by potential purchasers (so an advertiser of goods or services likelier to be bought by conservatives could favor that, too). But that should be the advertiser’s choice, and generally not by default nor by AI. And it still leaves the question of who defines the categories, which should ultimately be the advertisers and not the advertising service; as a simplification, an advertiser might provide some minimum number of sites as samples of what they wish to target or avoid, and the advertising service possibly with human-reviewed AI assistance could determine what matched those samples. But as a counter-argument to even that, I think such practices amplify echo chamber effects, which is probably not desirable; no reason leftists shouldn’t want to buy survival food, or conservatives buy scholarly books about typically left-wing issues.

    Reply
  7. FRANK STETSON

    Study Finds: Google Interfered in US Elections 41 Times: I googled this and found it. Even has your PBP icon. You are very far down the list though —- I think that placement has money involved possibly.

    Reply
  8. FRANK STETSON

    Got it Joe.

    SEO tools should help you climb the priority tree to a higher place. You be sw guy, you can do it.

    Reply
  9. FRANK STETSON

    BUSTED

    everyone of these stories are searchable — at least I am five for five so far.

    The issue might be “prioritization,” but the articles are searchable, as are similar ones noted as banned publishers by Joe.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *