Tag Archives: Alphabet

Google fires another Republican engineer who disagreed with Democrat party policies

The firing happened in early June, but I was busy at the time, and didn’t blog about it. This isn’t the first time that Google has fired software engineers for disagreeing with Democrat party policies. The last one, you’ll remember, was James D’Amore. This time, it’s Mike Wacker, who was fired for expressing Republican views and dissenting from Google “reporting” policies.

The Daily Caller reports:

A Republican Google software engineer has written an open letter describing a culture of left-wing “outrage mobs” that make use of the company’s anonymous bias reporting channels to shut down dissent.

The open letter, published Tuesday morning on Medium, was written by software engineer Mike Wacker, who was reported himself multiple times via the company’s anonymous reporting tools.

“If left unchecked,” Wacker wrote, “these outrage mobs will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda.”

In one case, Wacker describes a fellow Republican employee who was reported for saying nice things about the University of Toronto academic Jordan Peterson. He was given a note in writing that said, “One Googler raised a concern that you that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and this made them feel unsafe at work.”

Wacker himself was twice reported via the company’s anonymous reporting channels.

The full article by Wacker is here on Medium. Keep in mind that we have so many stories like this coming out of Google. The James D’Amore story was big, but it’s not the only one. Google apparently fires any employee who is caught disagreeing with the company’s political objectives.

Google-related companies donate 90% to Democrats

This firing of the Republican software engineer makes me wonder whether Google has a policy of discriminating against employees to make sure that no Republicans can work at Google.

According to the Washington Examiner, Google, YouTube and other Google-linked companies gave 90% of their political donations to Democrats:

A study released Thursday found that 90 percent of political donations by Google, YouTube, and other subsidiaries of Alphabet have gone to Democrats.

In 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Alphabet employees donated more than $5.8 million to Democratic candidates and causes, while only $403,042 was contributed to Republicans. Ninety-four percent of Alphabet contributions in that year went to Democrats.

Would that be a sign that their products and services are biased to support Democrats?

Google executives caught on film

Here are some highlights of a sting video featuring Google executives crying about the Democrat election loss:

This was filmed a company-wide meeting, and it clearly communicates the political bias of Google leadership to their employees. The message seems to be: “if you want to work here, you have to be a Democrat” and “if you want to rise in this company, then you have to be a Democrat”. Does this open adoration for the Democrat party by Google executives affect Google products and services?

When pressed for answers about their pro-Democrat bias, Google spokespersons have nothing to say.

Here’s Republican senator Ted Cruz asking questions:

Are there any SENIOR EXECUTIVES AT GOOGLE who voted for Donald Trump? She’s not aware of any. What about the $1.315 million given to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by Google employees and $0 given to Donald Trump? She has no answer.

I have some questions of my own. Would Google fire any employees that did give money to Republicans? Would Google prevent employees who gave to Republicans from advancing in the company? Would these political contributions to Democrats be a sign that the products and services offered by Google are biased to support Democrats? It seems to me that the firings that we know about, and the complete lack of donations to Republicans show that Google is discriminating against conservatives, so that they are unwilling to go on the record as supporting Republican candidates.

Studies show bias in Google products and services

What about the study showing that they promote progressive news sources ahead of conservative or unbiased ones?

Breitbart News reported in March 2019 on how Google used their products to influence elections:

New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.

The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.

This confirms a previous study from 2016:

The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings.

[…]Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.

Here’s another study reported in May 2019 by the UK Daily Mail:

Google’s bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others.

According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, the search engine promoted those sites over others repeatedly in November 2017.

Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google’s ‘top stories’ page that month after a term was searched, more than 10 percent were by CNN.

The New York Times was the second most favored and accounted for 6.5 percent of articles. The Washington Post was third with 5.6 percent.

By contrast, Fox News, the most right-wing outlet in mainstream media, was the source of just three percent of the stories which appeared.

See for yourself the difference it makes:

Study: Google uses its products and services to supports Democrat Party
Study: Google uses its products and services to supports Democrat Party

I think we really need an investigation to get to the bottom of this.

Related posts

Paul Davies: the hard problem of the origin of life is not “complexity” – it’s information

Check out this column on the origin of life from the radically leftist UK Guardian, written by agnostic cosmologist Paul Davies. (The same Paul Davies who is occasionally quoted by William Lane Craig)

Excerpt:

The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science. How did a non-living mixture of molecules transform themselves into a living organism? What sort of mechanism might be responsible?

[…]Most research into life’s murky origin has been carried out by chemists. They’ve tried a variety of approaches in their attempts to recreate the first steps on the road to life, but little progress has been made. Perhaps that is no surprise, given life’s stupendous complexity. Even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied.

But a more fundamental obstacle stands in the way of attempts to cook up life in the chemistry lab. The language of chemistry simply does not mesh with that of biology. Chemistry is about substances and how they react, whereas biology appeals to concepts such as information and organisation. Informational narratives permeate biology. DNA is described as a genetic “database”, containing “instructions” on how to build an organism. The genetic “code” has to be “transcribed” and “translated” before it can act. And so on. If we cast the problem of life’s origin in computer jargon, attempts at chemical synthesis focus exclusively on the hardware – the chemical substrate of life – but ignore the software – the informational aspect. To explain how life began we need to understand how its unique management of information came about.

[…]Sara Walker, a Nasa astrobiologist working at Arizona State University, and I have proposed that the significant property of biological information is not its complexity, great though that may be, but the way it is organised hierarchically. In all physical systems there is a flow of information from the bottom upwards, in the sense that the components of a system serve to determine how the system as a whole behaves. Thus if a meteorologist wants to predict the weather, he may start with local information, such as temperature and air pressure, taken at various locations, and calculate how the weather system as a whole will move and change. In living organisms, this pattern of bottom-up information flow mingles with the inverse – top-down information flow – so that what happens at the local level can depend on the global environment, as well as vice versa.

[…]The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life’s origin, any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can execute a program. Our work suggests that the answer will come from taking information seriously as a physical agency, with its own dynamics and causal relationships existing alongside those of the matter that embodies it – and that life’s origin can ultimately be explained by importing the language and concepts of biology into physics and chemistry, rather than the other way round.

The point of me posting this is simple. The thing to be explained in the origin of life is not a cake, where you can jumble ingredients together and get something. The thing to be explained is information. The origin of life is a programming problem, not a cooking problem. Where did the software come from – the first basic program that allowed for the basic functions of life, like self-replication.

Dr. Davies is hoping for a naturalistic solution to the problem, because he is a naturalist. But at least he is clear about specifying the thing that needs to be explained. A lot more clear than the journalists who explain intelligent design as the belief that some things are too complex to have evolved. But that’s wrong. The real question is: where did the information come from?