Google is famed for its proclaimed philosophy of Don’t Be Evil, but recently Google’s Matt Cutts advocated suppressing the political speech of unpopular people. Traditionally, we grant to many arguably evil people the right to say what they want so that we can say what should be heard. As French philosopher Voltaire explained, “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to my death your right to say it.”
Google not only advocates suppressing political speech, but creates a bogus consensus favoring their policy. I object and commented on the blog post of Matt Cutts containing 19 comments reinforcing his position, but he refused to approve my dissent:
Restricting free speech by limiting political contributions is foolish. Complaining about the influence of money on politics is like complaining about ants at a picnic after you spread out your blanket and leave out food. As long as the government is enormous, people will seek to influence how the loot is allocated. Do you blame them? Or blame the ants at the picnic?
One solution is to shrink the government, but how likely is that in a populous country? Other large countries where the government is centralized are even poorer: China, Russia, India, and Brazil.
A better solution is to stop voting at the ballot box and start voting with your feet. Imagine living with a responsible government like Hong Kong, in a Mediterranean climate like California. Chile offers a combination of pleasant climate and fewer government burdens than many others. If you’re ready to shed the debt your government has imposed upon you, it is a good destination to consider:
Matt Cutts and other Google executives are offended by the idea that people are Free to Choose to vote with their feet. They suppress speech and support the Democrats and Republicans, using their influence to create a false consensus around dubious ideas, such as the notion that handing money to bankers in 2008 prevented another Great Depression. In reality, if we had accepted sharply falling housing prices and allowed mismanaged banks to fail in 2008, we would have quickly recovered rather than being mired in protracted stagnation that sensible economists believe will last another 5 years or more.
If you search with Google and receive spam results or other poor quality nonsense, try using Blekko, a competing search engine that uses algorithms open to the public. Google advances their agenda with politics, promotes aged domains and governments by granting higher authority to links with .gov and .edu extensions, and relies on links that are easy to spam to determine authority. Like Twitter, Blekko uses human curators and often gives better results. Blekko’s slashtags allow you to restrict searches to the best sites identified by Blekko users. According to the New York Times:
It is a Wikipedia model — or Huffington Post model — applied to search. Some people apparently will work for no pay if they are convinced that their efforts will help or influence others. Experts who care enough about a topic edit the results. For instance, editors trawling the health results may give a higher ranking to the Web pages written by medical experts at the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic than those generated for eHow by writers getting paid a few dollars per piece.