Select Page

Google’s Algorithms are Still Biased – Cost Republicans 2 billion

Google’s Algorithms are Still Biased – Cost Republicans 2 billion

Google executives are testing a new program that would exempt all federal political emails from spam filtering algorithms. Commonly referred to as SFAs, spam filtering algorithms are automated systems that decide which emails are flagged as spam.

The program is a direct response to a North Carolina State University study that exposed shocking political bias in the way Google’s Gmail filters incoming messages. As I wrote in early July (click here to read), the study found that Gmail’s SFAs were blocking roughly 70% of fundraising emails from GOP campaigns and 10% from Democratic campaigns.

Given the fact that Gmail is the most popular email platform in the United States, Google’s spam filtering bias is estimated to have cost the Republican Party up to $2 billion in fundraising since 2019. 

Not surprisingly, Google insists neither it nor its systems are biased and claims the high percentage of GOP fundraising emails being blocked is simply a result of SFAs adjusting to users’ preferences. 

This claim, however, does not explain additional findings outlined in the report – including the propensity for the percentage of GOP emails being blocked by SFAs to increase during the weeks leading up to an election or a donation deadline. 

“Big Tech’s bias is out of control,” argues Ronna McDaniel, Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC). “Every single month – for seven months in a row – Google has systematically attacked the RNC’s email fundraising during important donation days at the end of the month.”

During these key fundraising periods, the RNC regularly sees its success rate for email delivery drop from over 90% to nearly 0%. 

Moving forward, Google is seeking advice from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on how best to prevent SFAs from interfering with federal political campaigns.

“We want Gmail to provide a great experience for all of our users, including minimizing unwanted email, but we do not filter emails based on political affiliation,” stated Google’s Policy Communications Manager, Jose Castaneda. “We recently asked the FEC to advise us on a potential pilot for political bulk senders that would provide more transparency into email deliverability, while still letting users protect their inboxes by unsubscribing or labeling emails as spam.” 

Understanding that the idea is almost guaranteed to wither and die as a low-priority project for Google, Senator John Thune (R-SD) is among a group of 20 Republican lawmakers pushing a bill that would ban all major email providers from using algorithms to sort emails sent by federal political campaigns. The bill is unlikely to garner support from Democrats – whose emails are already being delivered – but could succeed if Republicans win control of Congress in November. 


GOP accuses Google of sending emails to spam despite company insisting algorithms are unbiased 

Google’s blatant and unlawful political bias is something about which we have written at length. You can view more examples by exploring the links below:

Google claims not to be biased, and yet…

Google search bias: Hillary passed wonderful crime bill, Trump is a pile of poop

Google blacklist blocks conservative sites

Google Exec: I certainly find this election deeply offensive

About The Author


  1. Miles collins

    It seems that everything is getting political these days. It was predicted some years ago that someday we wouldn’t recognize our country. It’s here. But it’s ok. My family and I are prepping for the worse and hoping for the best.

  2. Ben

    I like your brother Tom better. He’s more fun. Debbie Downer you are, harshing my mellow. Just go on with your prepping-eration h. You obviously need a lot.

    • Miles collins

      Laugh all you want and kiss the government ass. I’m a citizen. Not a subject. Nobody owns me. I realize that we’re a nation of laws but it seems like the laws are being used to bully people into submission. Not on my watch. And I’m not alone. We aren’t the idiots who stormed the capital. A very dumb idea. I knew that shit wouldn’t end well. But prepping or preparation h or whatever is going to be needful sooner rather than later. It’s clear what the government is planning. Federal thugs are more interested in gathering information about the everyday lives and political views of the citizens than enforcement of laws. So keep laughing. I think it’s funny too. You idiots are not going to like the outcome of the government trying to back the country into a commie corner.

      • Ben

        It’s good to be busy with a hobby you love.

  3. Frank stetson

    I think we’re getting down to there ought to be a law. Email has become US mail and therefore we probably should regulate it just as we do the US mail.

    Maybe what we need is a “disinformation agency“ where the government or other third-party reviews email spam programs to make sure everything is fair and equal.

    On a technical sense, I’m not sure exactly how all this works, but if the majority of it is at the Client, then Google mail actually is second in market share behind Apple. Apple was not reviewed in this. I have Google mail, but all of my mail is read via the Apple Client. The other email systems on a client basis, fall way lower in market share so that Yahoo! mail etc. really don’t matter even though they lean to the right, and not to the left. And certainly they don’t leave as hard as Google mail, not even close. I have Yahoo mail to intend to use that client or them Google mail. I have Comcast mail to and I do not use that client at all.

    But all email clients lean, and they should be level and fair.

    I am not sure how much of this happens at the server level, but there much of it is determined by the actual server owner and not necessarily the mail system provider.

    So again, I am not sure whether the problem evidenced is a Client problem, a server problem, both (which I imagine) but if it is the client, the market share belongs to Apple, not Google. Let’s study did not look at the Apple client.

    And since many of us have many email systems, and many of us may have a confluence of these systems at a single client, who knows what’s really happening and who is dickering with what emails.

    Bottom line, I think we’re at a point where there probably should be a law. Same with search engines since they tend to skew results to win, in truth, using a search engine is equivalent to go into the library and all items should be viewed equally, and not in a fashion determined by the search engine owner.