Michell Malkin blacklisted by Google

Triggering the Google Social Credit System

Armed with internal memos and emails, former Google software engineer Zachary Vorhies exposed how MichelleMalkin.com (online since 1999) was placed on a news blacklist banning my content from appearing on newsfeeds accessed through Android Google products. I do not advocate violence, publish porn or indulge in vulgarity or profanity (other than my occasional references to Beltway crapweasels). But I triggered the Google Social Credit System and there's no going back.

My apparent sin: Independently growing a large organic following of readers on the internet who share my mainstream conservative views on immigration, jihad, education, social issues, economic policy, faith and more.

Other conservative victims of the Google ban hammer include: Twitchy (a Twitter aggregation site I founded in 2012), FrontPage Magazine (founded by prolific conservative author and journalist David Horowitz), the Daily Caller (founded by Fox News host and journalist Tucker Carlson), Legal Insurrection (founded by Cornell University law professor and investigative blogger William Jacobson), NewsBusters (founded by Media Research Center in 2005), The Gateway Pundit (founded by grassroots social media pioneer Jim Hoft in 2004), the American Thinker (another of the veteran conservative blogs founded in 2003 by Thomas Lifson), LifeNews.com (an independent, pro-life news site founded in 1992 by Steven Ertelt), the Catholic News Agency and The Christian Post.

Ironically my google, chrome, and everything else I open up these days sends lists of stories that include liberal blogging websites like the Huffington Post and Politico. These sites are literally the liberal counterparts to places like Hot Air, twitchy, and the FrontPage Magazine. The sole difference is the slant of the political content.

Now some people will argue that Google is a private business and can hold whatever views that they want. But the problem is that they continue to deny what they are doing, even as they provide no real explanation for how they come to these conclusions. The best they can offer is the self fulfilling prophecy that some of these sites that they link to have more overall activity than the ones that they ban. So they deem them to be more "credible" because they reach more people, even though they reach more people precisely because google and others choose not to bring up conservative sites via their search engines and feed designs.

I find it amazing that a site like Legal Insurrection (which has literally been awarded in the past for being objective journalist as it pertains to the law and other social issue) has been chosen to be banned. It would appear that this is entirely because Legal Insurrection decides to write about things like the Oberlin Gibson bakery lawsuit, when the rest of the MSM wanted to ignore it.