Google exploits immunity to attack AFLDS

America's Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) reported this week that Google LLC, a subsidiary of multinational technology conglomerate holding company Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL), now openly admits suppressing content on AFLDS’ website. 

After detailing Google’s history of censoring content with which it disagrees through hidden algorithms and manual interference with search results, Google's move to overt suppression was highlighted with a reproduction of the following text from Google’s “Alert Message” to AFLDS:

“Your site appears to violate our medical content policy … Nor do we allow content from any site that contradicts or runs contrary to scientific or medical consensus and evidence based best practices.”

Google went on to declare that “all pages" on the AFLDS site now “can see reduced display features, lower ranking or even removal from Google Search results.” [Emphases added].

From obfuscation to ambiguity

While websites were once left to guess why and how Google prevented the general public from viewing their content, Google has now substituted its previous obfuscation with ambiguities:

1. Google fails to define “scientific or medical consensus and evidence-based best practices.”
2. Google fails to provide a timeline for when AFLDS medical content is compared to the ever-changing “scientific or medical consensus.“
3. The AFLDS website consists of hundreds of pages of articles, analyses, legal documents and more. Yet the Google Alert does not identify a single category of information, let alone a specific article or specific claim from within an article, as violating its policies. Similarly, Google’s alert asks, “Done fixing?” before offering a “Request Review” button, but nowhere specifies what needs “fixing.” All while subjecting “all pages" to suppression.
4. Google implies, when using the phrase, “Nor do we allow,” that AFLDS violated its “medical content policy” and also “contradicts or runs contrary to scientific or medical consensus and evidence based best practices.” Google’s own website, however, defines its “medical content policy” with the very same words: “We don't allow content that contradicts or runs contrary to scientific or medical consensus and evidence-based best practices.”

“Medical” consensus?

Whose opinions constitute “scientific or medical consensus?”

While hundreds of leading scientific researchers and practicing medical doctors have been censored by Google, The New American reported about a non-doctor who, on the contrary, is promoted by Google - United Nations World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus:

“Tedros, who has no medical degree but got the top UN job with fervent backing from Communist China, is an actual communist with a long pedigree in the movement. Before taking up his perch at the WHO, Tedros was most prominent for … his key role in leading the murderous communist organization known as the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) ... Tedros played a major role, serving as a top member of the TPLF’s Politburo Central Committee … The U.S. government previously designated the Marxist group as a terrorist organization for its murders, kidnappings, terror attacks, and more."

Tedros’ actual degree is “Doctor of Philosophy in community health.” 

Bill Gates, also prominent in Google search results and widely interviewed for his opinions on COVID policy, is also not a doctor and does not even have a health related degree, having dropped out of college where he was a pre-law major.

Yesterday’s censored story, today’s mainstream news?

Failing to provide a timeline for determining the “medical consensus,” Google essentially requires AFLDS to “not contradict” medical opinions that are themselves contradictory. Thus, AFLDS is left not knowing whether it is being asked to avoid contradicting leading public health official Dr. Anthony Fauci’s statements discouraging mask use, or those he later made encouraging the practice.

Likewise, the statements of public health officials have changed over time with regard to the level of protection offered by COVID vaccines, the accuracy of PCR testing, the level of danger presented by the coronavirus when not accompanied by comorbidities and even the source of the novel coronavirus. It would be impossible to write about these subjects and be consistent with all the varying statements.

Unfortunately, Google does not generally undo its censorship when public health officials “catch up” to scientists with whom they initially disagreed.

Pretext for investigation? 

In October 2021, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the majority whip of the House of Representatives, used his power as Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis to initiate a congressional investigation of AFLDS with a letter demanding written, detailed answers to a series of multipronged questions. 

Clyburn opened his letter with direct references and links to articles in Time and the Intercept which amounted to hit pieces against AFLDS.

Will Clyburn likewise take advantage of Google’s vague and ambiguous “Alert Message” to further investigate AFLDS?

Congress conflicted?

As AFLDS previously reported, 

“In his letter, Clyburn did not reveal any connections he may have to Pfizer Inc., the very company that gains untold profits from its COVID mRNA vaccine and treatment pill when alternative treatments are prohibited…

“The Pulitzer Award winning Post and Courier uncovered that "Clyburn has taken more than $1 million in pharma money in a decade, far surpassing peers …”

Google conflicted?

The BBC reported already in April 2021 that, 

“Google owner Alphabet saw its earnings soar in the first quarter as people stuck at home in the pandemic used more of its services.

“Net profit jumped by 162% to a record $17.9bn in the three months to March as advertising revenue swelled by a third.

“It comes as the tech giant faces increased scrutiny over its power and the pandemic has people turning to the internet more than ever.

“The firm credited ‘elevated consumer activity online’ for its results.’”

Can Google be expected to ignore the profits it makes from strict public health restrictions when judging whether to suppress content on a medical freedom advocacy site like AFLDS?

Publisher or platform?

A year before the pandemic began, City Journal summarized the legal loophole allowing a mega-corporation like Google to decide to suppress the content of sites whose content could hurt their profits, while also enjoying immunity from their failure to suppress content which actually harms others:

“as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate ‘forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.’ This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.” 

In the absence of the special arrangement granted by Congress, the latter behavior (curating acceptable opinion) would lead to Google's designation as a “publisher” not immune to damage suits. Without that immunity, Google could be held liable in multi-million dollar judgments every time a person was killed by a bomb built with instructions found in a Google search and every time a person was subjected to a hate crime following a google search that led the perpetrator to a hate site.

Reevaluate immunity?

Google, like social media companies, thus uses congressionally granted immunity to avoid liability for damages caused by content on their platforms to censor internet content that is against their interests while also protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies which themselves use congressionally granted immunity to avoid liability for injuries caused by the vaccines they sell. 

With celebrities, computer programmers and corrupt politicians promoted by the very mega corporations that censor leading doctors and scientific researchers, it may be time for Congress to reconsider the immunity it granted to both big tech and big Pharma.