HomeEconomyWhy does Google Ads ban LewRockwell.com?

Why does Google Ads ban LewRockwell.com?

The fact that Google banned LewRockwell.com from its advertising program makes me feel very strange. This is a claim that articles on this website may “undermine participation in or trust in elections or democratic processes.” I think this means that the article published on the site indicated that President Trump claimed that the election was stolen from him. If people believe this, they are unlikely to support the electoral process. Why support a process that you think is manipulated?

Is this argument reasonable? I do not think so. Those who say that the presidential election is rigged usually do not want to end the election. Their complaint is that proper election procedures are not followed. For example, people without proper identification are counted as voters, and in some states, election rules are not set by the state legislature because of the status of these people as required by the constitution. It seems difficult to say that people with this view do not support the electoral process. Instead, they want to enforce existing election rules that have been violated. The extensive activities of these people to promote their allegations show that they are committed to the electoral process, not opposed to it. If articles on LewRockwell.com lead people to hold these views, it is wrong to accuse the site of disrupting participation in the election process.

However, maybe the people on Google who ban the site have other meanings, and the word “trust” appears here. They may mean that these terms lead people to distrust the electoral process that currently constitutes. People should reject the protests of Trump supporters and accept that Biden’s election is in line with the rules. But why would they do this? Isn’t the issue of the legitimacy of the election controversial? If Google’s position is that regardless of whether the election complies with the rules, people should accept it, otherwise they will lose trust in the election process, which is unusual to say. Why should we believe in incorrect elections? This is a stupid thing. Of course, those who support the “democratic process” should support elections that conform to the rules.

But there is another way to understand Google’s complaints. The complaint may be that, in Google’s view, the election protest is clearly wrong and not worth discussing. However, if this is the case, there is no reason to be afraid of public debates on this issue, because the absurdity of the protests can easily be exposed. If so, Google seems to be more likely to recognize that these complaints are substantive, or at least not easily sent out, but hopes to suppress these complaints. This makes people question its own commitment to the electoral process.

For what I said, Google has an escape may be opposed. Assuming that the election protest is clearly wrong, its flaws are easily exposed.Google may be concerned that readers of the site will tend to unreasonably ignore evidence that contradicts their own opinions due to “confirmation bias”, not read the rebuttal, or if they do see the rebuttal, put it aside without proper consideration But given Google’s enormous control over communication channels, even those who strongly support election protests are unlikely to ignore the views opposed to their claims, if these claims are That Paradoxically, confirmation bias seems unlikely to prevail.

There is another problem with Google’s allegations. It seems that most people who think articles on LewRockwell.com are convincing, even before reading them, agree with this view. It is safe to say that most readers of the site agree with its overall view. If so, the website cannot be accused of destroying trust in the current election process, because readers already lack this trust. Then Google might say that at least some people who have not done so before might distrust the election process, while others might find that their already existing beliefs have been strengthened. However, even if this is true, a slight increase in distrust is not enough to constitute a breach of trust in the election process, so the accusation fails again.

However, what I have said so far is not the main reason I think Google charges strange. The reason is this: if someone says that trust in the election process is undermined, it means that most people do trust the process. If there is a lack of trust, there is nothing to break. But in fact, most people already have serious doubts about this process. It is true that Biden’s supporters do not accept the claims of President Trump’s supporters, but they also do not believe in the election process. They accused Republicans of trying to limit the chances of getting votes for their own benefit. This is a cliché of American political analysis, but despite this, our country is still polarized. Few people are satisfied with the existing election arrangements. If this satisfaction is the standard for being able to use the Google Ads program, then Google will have to ban almost all websites that discuss political issues.

Google has another complaint that LewRockwell.com is promoting “harmful health claims.” Here, I think Google’s goal is to oppose the covid-19 vaccination articles on the grounds that they are unsafe and ineffective. My response to this is similar to what I have said about the election process, so I can be brief. If the assertions on the website are clearly wrong, shouldn’t they be easy to refute? If you read the articles on LewRockwell.com, you will find that they make important points that deserve careful consideration rather than refusal. This is not the place to think about how to best deal with covid-19, but I take the liberty to express my opinion. When vaccines came out, their supporters said they were very effective in preventing people from contracting the disease—in some cases, people asserted that they were 99% effective—and they were completely safe. Now, in the words of Jane Austen, immunity will weaken and many people will die after being vaccinated. This is a “generally accepted truth.” Of course, now is not the time to prevent discussion of this important issue.

Source link


Most Popular

Recent Comments