Connect with us

News

Google Accused of Algorithmic Suppression of Conservative News Sites

Jeffrey Thomas

Published

on

Google Accused of Algorithmic Suppression of Conservative News Sites

SAN FRANCISCO – In recent years, Google has come under fire for how it handles search results. Critics say the search giant pushes down conservative news sites, ghosts certain pages, and changes its algorithms in ways that aren’t always clear.

These claims, spread by politicians, news outlets, and researchers, have sparked heated debates about tech companies’ influence over public conversation. This report reviews the main accusations, looks at the supporting evidence, and considers how Google’s approach to ranking content affects everyone who uses the internet.

The main complaint centres on the belief that Google’s search system makes it harder for conservative-leaning voices to appear at the top of the results. Some say this limits viewpoints outside the progressive mainstream. Critics mention a few tactics behind these claims:

Lower Ranking for Conservative News

High-profile figures like former President Donald Trump and Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey have accused Google of boosting left-leaning media at the expense of conservative outlets.

Trump told Bloomberg News in 2024 that most Google results about him feature negative stories, even with good coverage available. Bailey’s probe into Google’s search methods, which included legal steps to examine algorithm details, claimed that Google “censors conservative speech” by shifting right-wing sources lower in results.

Some site owners, especially those running conservative or alternative news sites, report being “ghosted” after a Google update—meaning their pages drop sharply in results for no clear reason. For example, the World Socialist Web Site said its Google traffic fell by 70 percent after a 2017 change, and similar reductions hit sites like WikiLeaks and Counterpunch, which also challenge mainstream narratives.

Another frequent complaint is that Google briefly shows some pages in search, then quietly removes them from view, especially for politically charged topics. Critics argue this gives the impression of fairness, but really ensures key stories disappear from searches over time.

These claims have gained momentum as news becomes more polarised. Outlets like PJ Media, Breitbart, and The Gateway Pundit regularly report on supposed bias. A PJ Media piece from 2018 claimed 96 percent of Google searches for “Trump” promoted left-leaning sources. Social media also fuels the fire, with X users such as @EstopinalCathy sharing stories about Google “silencing conservative media.”

Examining the Evidence: Reports, Data, and Google’s Reply

Assessing these complaints means weighing personal stories, limited studies, and what data is available. Evidence for planned discrimination is still hard to pin down. Many reports come from those running websites that have disappeared from search results.

MyTriggers.com, an Ohio-based shopping platform, sued Google for unfairly pushing its services, but the case was thrown out as the harm to rivals wasn’t clear. Businessman Sir Brian Souter also complained when his company’s page stopped showing on Google’s first results.

Some researchers argue that Google’s autocomplete helps or hinders political candidates. Psychologist Robert Epstein claimed in 2016 that Google edits autocomplete results to hide negative stories about Hillary Clinton.

He later changed his view, noting that after his study, Google relaxed some controls and critical content about both Trump and Clinton surged, which he said may have spread more false claims.

A Wall Street Journal report from 2019 found Google keeps blacklists and manually edits results to demote spammy websites and boost big advertisers like eBay. Internal records from a 2016 Google meeting, uncovered in a US court, showed the company uses complex systems that even its engineers can’t always explain.

Google’s Stance

Google strongly rejects any claims of political bias. In answer to the Missouri attorney general’s 2024 inquiry, a spokesperson said, “These claims are totally false. Independent research shows Google Search is nonpartisan.”

The company points to its 160-page Search Quality Raters’ Guidelines, which set out how it grades sites for accuracy and relevance. Other tools, like the “About this result” feature, are meant to help users learn more about sources. Google insists it prioritizes what users are looking for, not any ideology.

But Google keeps much about its ranking process secret. Algorithms like PageRank use over 100 factors to decide what appears first, including location and how recent the content is. Even search experts can’t always predict the outcome. As sociologist Francesca Tripodi pointed out in a 2018 Guardian article, negative search results for people like Trump often reflect the kind of content users click and link to, rather than targeted removal.

Changing Algorithms and Their Impact

Google makes frequent changes to the systems that control search results, often to highlight reliable or useful information. Updates like the 2024 core changes focus on cutting out “unoriginal, low-quality content” while putting “helpful, reliable, and people-first” pages higher up. Still, these updates can cause big drops in website traffic that site owners sometimes blame on targeted censorship.

For example, the 2017 update, designed to combat fake news, hit left-wing sites like WSWS hard. Meanwhile, right-leaning sites like Breitbart say they lost around 89 percent of their traffic during updates such as the 2022 Pirate release.

Search professionals also see both sides. SEO expert Marie Haynes told The Atlantic in 2023 that while Google is getting better at spotting well-made pages, its system can be tricked by bad actors using aggressive SEO. Rhea Drysdale, from Outspoken Media, pointed out in 2016 that conservative sites have often used SEO tactics well, sometimes outranking mainstream outlets.

The ongoing complaints about bias at Google come as the company controls over 90 percent of the global search market. Its dominance raises concerns about how much power it holds over what information people can find. In 2016, antitrust expert Sally Hubbard argued that Google’s control lets the wrong stories go viral, as more competition would mean bad actors couldn’t just target one main system.

Regulators in the EU fined Google €2.42 billion in 2017 for favouring its shopping results. In 2020, the US Justice Department sued Google over claims of anti-competitive behaviour in search and advertising. These headlines focus attention on the bigger issue: a single company has a huge say in what people see online.

People’s confidence in Google is slipping. A 2024 BBC report referred to Google as a “bias machine,” saying its results often line up with users’ existing beliefs, creating echo chambers. Searching for fairness in the British tax system, for instance, yields results aligned to political leanings, supporting public perceptions of bias, even if it’s not intentional.

Algorithm Complexity and User Preferences

Some supporters of Google’s system argue that claims of bias ignore how search works. The rankings depend on things like links and user clicks, which can’t be controlled for political reasons without changing everything. A 2024 analysis by Authoritas found that conservative websites still held 2.7 times the visibility of left-wing sites in organic search, undermining arguments about blanket censorship.

User behaviour also plays a big part. If more people link to or search for certain news, those stories will rise in the rankings. Francesca Tripodi wrote in 2018 that mainstream and left-leaning sources often appear at the top because they’re cited by academic and official sites more often.

Whether the claims prove true or not, most critics agree that the lack of clarity is the biggest problem. Mark Williams-Cook, founder of AlsoAsked, told the BBC in 2024 that Google’s unwillingness to admit mistakes dents public trust. With no clear view into how rankings work, people are left guessing, and rumours spread more quickly.

This matters because Google handles 3.8 million searches each minute, shaping opinions on politics, health, and more. If its systems bury certain views by mistake or design, the effect on discussion and civic life could be huge.

Summary: Questions Remain

Clear evidence of planned political bias in Google’s search system is hard to find, but the lack of detail in how it operates keeps the debate alive. Both conservative and left-leaning sites have shared stories of sharp drops after algorithm changes. As Google faces more AI-generated pages and ongoing claims of bias, the company’s challenge is to stay fair, trustworthy, and open with users and publishers.

For now, arguments continue, with voices from all sides trying to sway public opinion. Until Google reveals more about how its system works, claims of hidden tactics and falling rankings will keep people guessing about whether the world’s top search engine is neutral—or picking winners and losers behind the scenes.

Related News:

Google and Facebook Under Huge Pressure Over User Privacy

News

Trump Positions U.S. Military Assets Closer to Iran Amid Deadly Crackdown

VORNews

Published

on

By

Trump Positions U.S. Military Assets Closer to Iran Amid Deadly Crackdown

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Iran’s nationwide protests have entered a third week, and President Donald Trump is stepping up the U.S. military posture in the Middle East. Key U.S. assets are shifting closer to Iran as Trump issues sharp warnings to Tehran.

The moves come as human rights groups describe an exceptionally violent crackdown, with reports that security forces have killed thousands.

Trump’s comments, often posted on Truth Social, have fueled talk of possible U.S. action. At the same time, he has signaled he may pause strikes after claims that the killing has slowed.

Anti-government protests spread across all 31 Iranian provinces in late December 2025. Demonstrations began amid economic collapse, hyperinflation, and anger over corruption. Many protests later turned into open demands to end clerical rule. Large numbers of Gen Z protesters and people from different ethnic communities have joined, calling for freedom and democracy.

The state response has been severe. Reports say security forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and police, have used live fire, metal pellets, and beatings against crowds described as mostly peaceful. A near-total internet blackout since early January has made verification harder, but accounts from exiled groups and witnesses describe widespread bloodshed.

Death toll estimates vary and remain difficult to confirm. The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency has reported more than 2,500 deaths. Iran International, citing internal documents, reported claims of up to 12,000 killed over two nights, January 8 to 9, 2026, during the peak of the crackdown.

Norway-based Iran Human Rights said it documented at least 3,428 protester deaths by mid-January, including children, along with thousands injured and more than 18,000 arrests. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned what they describe as unlawful lethal force, arbitrary arrests, and attacks on medical sites, warning these could amount to crimes against humanity.

Footage said to be smuggled out shows people running from gunfire, bodies stored in makeshift morgues, and families grieving. Iranian officials have labeled protesters as foreign-backed “rioters” and warned of rapid trials and executions. One reported case involves 26-year-old Erfan Soltani, who was said to receive a death sentence shortly after being detained.

The violence builds on a long pattern of repression, including the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests and earlier crackdowns. Many observers now describe the current unrest as potentially the deadliest since the 1979 Revolution.

Trump’s Warning to Iran

Trump has used blunt language in public statements. On Truth Social, he urged Iranians to “KEEP PROTESTING” and “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS.” He also promised “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” and said those responsible for the killings would “pay a big price.” He warned of “very strong action” if the government began hanging protesters or continued large-scale killings.

In interviews, Trump said Iran’s leaders face “tremendous” economic pressure and repeated that the U.S. was “locked and loaded.” He pointed to the June 2025 U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities as proof of U.S. willingness to act. Trump also said he had “very important sources” indicating the killings had paused, and he suggested that helped him hold off on immediate strikes. Still, he emphasized that “all options remain on the table.”

His messaging has lifted morale for some protesters, but it has also worried regional partners who fear a wider conflict.

U.S. Military Buildup

The U.S. military posture is shifting in visible ways. Sources say at least one U.S. aircraft carrier strike group is moving toward the Middle East. More air, ground, and naval assets are expected to follow in the coming days and weeks. The repositioning gives Trump a broader menu of options, from limited strikes on regime command sites to larger operations.

This comes after a recent drawdown that left fewer major assets close by. Some carriers, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, were redirected to the Caribbean after prior missions. The U.S. has also evacuated nonessential personnel from locations such as Al Udeid in Qatar, a sign officials are preparing for possible Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases. Defense planners say these steps keep choices open without committing the U.S. to a full war.

Analysts note that the on-station force level is smaller than during the 2025 Israel-Iran clashes. Even so, the U.S. can still act quickly, including with long-range bombers flying from the United States. The current U.S. aircraft carrier movement and broader Iranian military buildup appear aimed at deterrence, while also signaling support for protesters without direct involvement on the ground.

Congress Responds With Caution

Lawmakers in Washington are split. Leading Republicans have voiced support for Iranian protesters while pushing caution on military steps. Senators, including Kevin Cramer and Roger Wicker, have pointed to sanctions and diplomacy as preferred tools, and they have said they were not fully briefed on any plan for strikes.

Democrats have raised sharper objections. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stressed that major military action would require congressional approval under the War Powers Act. Other Democrats warned that strikes could backfire and push some Iranians to rally around the regime.

Polling suggests the public remains uneasy. Many Americans oppose U.S. strikes on Iran and say Trump should seek congressional approval first. Recent U.S. actions in Venezuela have also added to bipartisan concerns about the scope of presidential power overseas.

Related News:

Trump Takes Bold Stand on Corporate Giants Snapping Up American Homes

 

Continue Reading

News

Erika Kirk’s Early EMP Documentary Fuels CIA Grooming Rumors

VORNews

Published

on

By

Erika Kirk’s Early EMP Documentary Fuels CIA Tie Rumors

WASHINGTON, D.C. – American conservative politics, plus the online spaces that feed on conspiracy claims, rarely stay quiet for long. A new flashpoint hit in early January 2026 when an old documentary clip resurfaced featuring Erika Kirk, the CEO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and the widow of the late Charlie Kirk.

Jimmy Dore, a comedian and political commentator known for blunt criticism of establishment power, jumped on the clip and called it a possible “smoking gun.” In his framing, the footage raises uncomfortable questions about Kirk’s early access to national security circles and whether those links go back further than most people knew.

The viral segment shows a younger Erika Frantzve (Kirk’s maiden name) speaking about the risks of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack and how it could knock out the U.S. power grid. In the same film, she appears alongside well-known national security voices, including former CIA Director R. James Woolsey. Some social media accounts first claimed the documentary was a hidden or “buried” CIA project, which added fuel to the rumor mill.

The Documentary Source: Black Start and Why It Went Viral Again

The clip comes from Black Start, an independent documentary made by filmmaker Patrea Patrick through Heartfelt Films LLC. The movie was released publicly around 2017, with some interviews and material that appear to date back to about 2013.

The film focuses on weak points in the U.S. electrical grid and what could take it down, including cyberattacks, physical attacks, natural threats like solar flares, and high-altitude EMP events that could cause major, long-lasting blackouts.

In the resurfaced section, Erika Kirk, then in her mid-20s, delivers a calm, structured presentation. She talks through EMP dangers, basic mitigation ideas, and the chain reaction that could follow a grid failure. The setting looks like a talk given to people with a security or technical background.

Woolsey appears in the documentary as well, and in some circulating edits, he’s labeled as a former CIA leader tied to national security and energy. Woolsey has spent years warning about EMP risks and pushing for grid hardening, so his presence has become a central part of the debate.

Dore’s commentary focused on what he sees as unusual access. He pointed to the polished delivery and the audience as signals that this wasn’t a random appearance. In his view, young outsiders don’t usually get a platform in rooms like that without real connections. He also suggested her comfort level reads like prior coaching or preparation for high-stakes discussions.

Family Backstory

As the clip spread, online commentators started tying it to Kirk’s family history. One common thread involves her mother, Lori Frantzve, who founded companies such as GTeK (later connected in online discussions to E3Tek Group or AZ-Tech International). Those businesses have been linked to Department of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security contract work, with topics that include network security, risk work, and EMP-related protection tech.

A separate piece of old footage also made the rounds, a 2020 interview clip where Erika Kirk described her family’s move to Arizona. In that clip, she said the relocation was tied to her mother’s growing DoD-related work.

That move also put the family within reach of Fort Huachuca, an Army base known for intelligence training, drone operations, and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) programs. In conspiracy spaces, those details often get stitched together into a bigger story. Supporters of the theory argue that growing up around defense contracting, plus early exposure to EMP topics, could have created an on-ramp to intelligence networks.

Claims of CIA Links

The loudest claims say Erika Kirk has direct or indirect ties to the CIA, and they treat the documentary clip as proof. Some conspiracy-focused accounts have labeled it a “buried CIA video” or a “leaked briefing,” suggesting she was delivering insider-level knowledge or working in intelligence-adjacent roles.

Public reporting and fact checks push back on that. Black Start has been described as an independent film, not a CIA production, and it has been available publicly (including on YouTube). It features a range of public figures and commentators, including Fox News contributor Jeanine Pirro and former Congressman Trent Franks. Kirk also is not prominently credited on IMDb, and her presence fits a simpler explanation for many viewers: she had subject-matter exposure through family ties to defense and security work, not secret agency involvement.

Dore has treated the story as part of a wider pattern. Even if the CIA claim doesn’t hold up, he argues the overlap between intelligence circles, contractors, and political movements still matters. He has also used the clip to talk about influence and access in conservative organizing, a topic that gained fresh attention after Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025, which elevated Erika into TPUSA leadership.

Critics of the conspiracy narrative say the story is being used to target Kirk during a painful period and a major leadership change. Kirk has compared these kinds of claims to a “mind virus,” saying they feed on tragedy and turn it into content.

Why It’s a Big Story in 2026

This resurfaced clip landed at a moment when trust in major institutions is already low. It also touches a real policy issue, EMP threats and grid security, which figures like Woolsey have warned about for years. The clip sits at the crossroads of national security fear, internet speculation, and political influence, which is why it keeps spreading.

Under Kirk’s leadership, TPUSA remains a high-profile force, so attention comes with the job. The debate around this footage has settled into two camps. One side sees a young speaker drawing on family experience and a public documentary setting. The other side sees early access that feels too connected to ignore. Either way, the revived Black Start segment has kept the conversation going, and it doesn’t look like it will fade soon.

Related News:

Turning Point USA Under Scrutiny Over Alleged Shady Dealings

 

Continue Reading

News

Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey Face Criminal Investigation

VORNews

Published

on

By

DOJ Opens Criminal Investigation Into Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey

MINNESOTA – The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation involving Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The inquiry focuses on accusations that the two leaders took part in a conspiracy to hinder federal immigration enforcement, with attention on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in the Minneapolis area.

CBS News first reported the investigation on January 16, 2026. The probe follows public comments and actions by both officials during a major federal operation that sent nearly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents into the Minneapolis-St Paul region. The deployment, labeled Operation Metro Surge, drew protests and national attention. Tensions rose further after the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer on January 7.

ICE Becomes a Local Flashpoint

The large federal presence arrived as the Trump administration pushed harder for deportations and sstepped upenforcement in jurisdictions seen as friendly to immigrants. Minnesota, under Walz, has backed policies that limit local cooperation with ICE detainers.

Critics often call those rules “sanctuary” policies and argue they can protect undocumented people, including some with criminal records.

After Good’s death, demonstrations intensified and continued day after day. Walz and Frey spoke out against the federal operation, saying it was creating disorder and putting public safety at risk.

Walz encouraged residents to protest peacefully and to record encounters with ICE for possible future review. Frey used sharper language in public, demanding agents “get the f**k out of Minneapolis,” and said the situation “wasn’t sustainable.”

Federal leaders responded with their own accusations. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem argued the officials were fueling obstruction and unrest. Blanche posted on X that he was “focused on stopping YOU [Walz and Frey] from your terrorism by whatever means necessary,” and he described the turmoil as an “insurrection” tied to their words.

Protected Speech or Illegal Interference

Sources say investigators are looking at whether Walz and Frey crossed a legal line by encouraging resistance to federal officers, including citizen monitoring of ICE actions.

The reported focus includes a federal conspiracy law often described as “conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer.” That statute targets agreements to use force, threats, or intimidation against officials carrying out their duties.

Some legal analysts have said a case built mainly on public statements would be unusual and could raise First Amendment issues. No charges have been filed. A grand jury process could bring subpoenas soon, with requests expected for communications, instructions, or coordination tied to protests and responses to the ICE deployment.

Both officials have rejected the accusations. Walz has called the investigation an effort to turn the justice system against political opponents, and he has argued there has not been enough scrutiny of the ICE officer involved in Good’s death.

Frey has described the probe as an attempt to scare him into silence, and he has said he plans to stay focused on safety in the city.

Possible Federal Charges and Penalties

If prosecutors decide to move forward, a key charge could involve 18 U.S.C. § 372 (conspiracy to impede or injure officers). Investigators could also consider other obstruction-related laws, including 18 U.S.C. § 1505 or § 1512. In many conspiracy cases, penalties track the underlying alleged offense.

  • A conviction could carry up to 6 years in federal prison per count, along with fines that can reach $250,000.
  • Prosecutors could argue for tougher sentencing if they claim the conduct helped drive violence or threats during unrest.
  • Any indictment of elected officials would likely set off immediate political fallout, including potential impeachment efforts in Minnesota, removal fights, and long-term damage to future campaigns.
  • Convictions could also open the door to civil lawsuits, and asset forfeiture could become an issue if prosecutors link actions to a wider pattern.

To win in court, prosecutors would need to show more than criticism of policy. They would need evidence of an agreement to obstruct federal officers and overt steps taken to carry it out. The defense would likely point to protected political speech and a lack of direct incitement.

Political Stakes and What Comes Next

The investigation signals a sharper clash between the federal government and Democratic-led cities and states that resist ICE cooperation. It also comes as Walz faces added attention tied to other controversies, including separate inquiries connected to state welfare fraud scandals.

Walz also ran unsuccessfully as Kamala Harris’s vice presidential pick in 2024, which keeps him in the national spotlight.

Minneapolis remains tense, with continued protests and federal agents staying on alert. Whether the DOJ probe results in charges or works mainly as political pressure is still unclear. What is clear is that the fight over immigration enforcement, local authority, and federal power is intensifying.

Related News:

Articles of Impeachment Filed Against Tim Walz Over Massive Fraud

Continue Reading

Get 30 Days Free

Express VPN

Create Super Content

rightblogger

Flight Buddies Needed

Flight Volunteers Wanted

Trending