BUSTED: Google News Censors Articles About YouTube Censorship

BUSTED: Google News Censors Articles About YouTube Censorship

About a month ago, I caught Google News censoring news about a shooting at a Black Lives Matter rally, and then shortly after, I busted them censoring a Reuters article which vindicated Trump. Now, it looks like they’re censoring a bunch of articles from the Google News feed about YouTube’s plans to demonetize videos which talk about “controversial subjects” like politics or war when one searches for ‘YouTube’.


For the following searches, I am using the Google News feature of sorting the articles by date, as opposed to using the “sort by relevancy” feature. When sorting by date, it’s not supposed to use any algorithm to display the articles — it’s supposed to display every single article in the Google News database which has a hit for the key word being searched.

What’s happening in this case is when doing a ‘sort by date’ search for the term ‘YouTube’, a bunch of articles about the YouTube demonetization aren’t showing up that do show up when searching for the more specific term ‘YouTube Censorship’. This is counter-intuitive, because a search for more specific terms is supposed to show up with less articles than a search with less specific terms. In this case, the opposite is occurring.

So, let’s break down the evidence. All of these steps should be easily replicated by anyone, so you can verify for yourself. Here’s an archive of a sorted-by-date Google News search I did for the term ‘YouTube’, and a corresponding screenshot of the first page of results.

FireShot Capture 5 - youtube - Google Search - http___archive.is_zc6gY


Now let’s look at the first page of results from an archive of a search I did for the terms ‘YouTube Censorship’, which logically should show up with less results than the more general term. This second search was performed within seconds of the first search, as can be evidenced by the time-stamp on the archives.



You’ll notice that in the above image, the articles for Crave Online, Motherboard, and MCV don’t show up in the search just for ‘Google’, but they should be based on how long ago they were posted. And that’s just on the first page of results. What’s interesting is that Motherboard is a rather-mainstream leftist outlet, and even they got censored from the original search. On the second page, even more stories are missing:

FireShot Capture 6 - youtube censorship - Google Search - http___archive.is_6ERWK

You see, on the second page of results for the search ‘YouTube Censorship’, the very last result — a post by RT — is listed as “11 hours ago’. And on the first page of results for the more general search, the last result was also listed as “11 hours ago”. So, except for that RT article that was the last result on the second page of the more specific search, every single one of those articles should be on the first page of the more general search.

But they’re not (except those first three, but that was only because I waited a few minutes before archiving the second page, but those results were already on the screen shot of the first page). And for the record, I looked up the second page of results on the more general search to check to see if that RT article showed up or not. It turns out it was censored.

I only became suspicious that some articles might have been censored in the first place because the search for ‘YouTube’ was showing huge time gaps between articles for such an incredibly hot topic. My suspicions turned out to be correct, but I implore readers to verify the results for themselves.

Just remember to hit the “search tools” the Google News to click “sort by date”. Then try just searching for ‘YouTube’ and compare the results to what you get when you search for ‘YouTube’ plus a more specific term, like either censorship or ‘monetization’.


Now, as you may have noticed, what’s kind of weird about this is that it’s not all of the articles about the subject that are being censored — just some of them. I’m not sure what the reason is for that. Maybe they’re censoring some of the articles by hand? Maybe it’s an algorithm to keep some of the articles about the demonetization out of the news feed for YouTube, so that they don’t end up showing up in the ‘sort by relevancy’? Maybe Google just didn’t want certain stories showing up in the general feed? Maybe you have a better idea in the comments section?

All I know is that many articles that are in the more specific search aren’t showing up in the more general search, and it definitely shouldn’t be working like that. And like I said previously that Google News did something very similar a month ago when I had to use the more specific search term of ‘Black Lives Matter Ferguson’ to get stories to show up on the feed that weren’t showing up on the more general search of ‘Black Lives Matter’. And they also censored a Reuters story recently in order to deceive their readers because they were still pushing out discredited story after discredited story claiming that the Secret Service had given a “talk” to Trump about alleged threats to Hillary.

Google doesn’t even care about the truth anymore, and they sure as hell don’t want normal people becoming political pundits. That’s because they are desperately trying to control all the narratives to promote their own agendas.

Remember that slogan of “Don’t be evil”? Yeah, about that.



Political Editor of TheRalphRetort.com. Previously published by Capital Research Center.Twitter: @spaghetti4poop

  • Yarlg

    Google’s search algorithm has not been a flat straight word search for years, they’ve been focusing on “relevant”, not necessarily literal, results that means you’ll see unintuitive results compared to your literal search terms but they consider more relevant to the average user based on “meaning”. This happens on all kinds of searches and is something I’ve noticed and have been frustrated with for years using many different search terms.

    I can’t say this is evidence of censorship (though that has been shown before), it just looks like their algorithm is in play on your date sort, trying to show you “meaningful”, not necessarily literal, results.

    • S4T

      I wasn’t using the “relevancy” search though. This was sorting by date. It’s supposed to list every article that matches the search term.

      • Yarlg

        That may be intuitive to you, but isn’t necessarily how their algorithm works. You’d have to show control searches of other things that behave the way you’re saying your specific search terms should.

        • S4T

          Yeah, well I use Google search every day and I know that it does usually show every hit that matches.

          That’s the whole point of sorting it by date as opposed to sorting it by relevancy. You can also do the same thing with normal Google search results as long as you specify a time period.

          • Yarlg

            Here’s a good example of user’s frustration with Google’s non-verbatim results, which I think is happening to you here: https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/websearch/QmM99GhW1VU

            They changed their PageRank algorithm years ago to be more “intuitive” to what “the average user meant”, so again, you’d have to show control searches that don’t show the mismatching of exact word marches for other topics to show censorship on this topic as opposed to just their non-verbatim algorithm showing you what it thinks you mean. [email protected]#$ing robots…

          • S4T

            This isn’t a “page rank”, because I’m not sorting by relevancy. It does not apply to sorting by date.

          • Yarlg

            I’d like to know their rules on that because I doubt it’s unrelated, and I’d still like to see some control searches of other newsworthy topics to show it’s not just part of their normal behavior.

          • Jennifer Mansito

            Omg their verbatim filter is horrible. I can word it fifty different ways and still get the “no results, try with verbatim off.” It’s like, really?! Nobody else in the entire world has asked any question I ever have? I spent three days trying to find out if I can use the skinner blend method with plasticine clay. I never found an answer. Ended up asking in someone’s YouTube comment section and finally got an answer. My poor wife has to hear about it every time I go to google with a question haha!

          • Yarlg

            That’s unfortunate; I remember the good old days where every word you typed was in the webpage… ah well.

            Skinner method on plasticine clay sounds scary.

  • ghostlife

    Well no shit they did, who do you think owns youtube?

    • ghostlife

      For that matter, compare Google searches (news or otherwise) to any other engine, they censor millions of results

  • scemar

    google is not a friend

  • Mr0303

    Google controls the information flow and wants to protect its property YouTube from any negative PR. So much for “don’t be evil”.

  • tz1

    Some of the doodles have been more edgy and offensive than the YouTubes.


    To stop google, everyone should start using ad-blockers. Demonitize Google.

    • Make sure to check the lists the ad-blockers use. Most of them whitelist google servers.

  • Jennifer Mansito

    The day Phil uploaded his first video on the subject, I immediately went to google to find related articles. I know full well Google owns YouTube, so I figured I would have to get specific in my search. I found zero articles on the demonetization issue. Zero. Also, it’s hard to find anything I look for in Google these days. I can spend a whole evening trying to find search terms that won’t bring up ads and main sites. It’s so easy for businesses to hog the top results in nearly every situation. I remember only a few years ago being able to find answers to specific questions very quickly. Now it’s just a damn headache.

  • Dave The Sandman

    Great work Sats…and on a professional level thanks because this has a tangential effect on the work I do.
    Gone it seems are the days when search engines were reliable neutral resources

    • Yarlg

      I’m sure some would argue that the “free market” should allow Google to censor webpages negative to their products, but in an ethical world they wouldn’t be allowed and should be punished for doing so, more than just “well don’t use it if you don’t like it”, which is largely ineffectual for things that aren’t as noticeable like this.

      • Dave The Sandman

        The problem I and my colleges in the trade will have mate is that we are often asked to monitor online activity to protect, through forewarning and awareness programs, the professional reputations and/or intellectual properties of named individuals or corporate entities. This requires us finding adverse content concerning the designated nominal and flagging it up, adding a little analytical voodoo along the way around sources and trend implications. We also need, as a day to day requirement, to access any and all material around topics of concern. This is not with the intention of censoring or editing said content through content takedowns, but instead to be aware of what is being said, written or disseminated.
        That requires a neutral resource in terms of search engines.
        Seems Google has compromised itself and is no longer a reliable resource, making our work harder than it already is. We have suspected that Google was content filtering like this, but this proves it. Its not a major blow to people like me as we as standard use multiple resources for any task…it is though an embuggerance that makes the work more of a pain in the arse.
        So…as I said….sterling work by the Sats and thanks for the headsup.

    • Brittenytcesar4

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj379d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash379HomeHelpfulGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj379d:….,….

  • Pingback: Elon Musk, George Soros and Eric Schmidt Hold Meetings About How To Sabotage Trump - THE DAILY NEWS GLOBAL()

  • Jeff

    Yesterday YouTube censored a serious video about the role of the FBI in the late 60’s disrupting the Underground Press, attacking and smearing civil rights organizations, and undermining anti war groups. Most of the information was obtained from the FBI’s own documents from the research archives of Professor Dale Brumfield. Over time Prof. Brumfield acquired more than 3,000 FBI documents by filing numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

    The Rat Subterranean News book project has presented a number of videos on it’s YouTube channel including subjects such as Woodstock, Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Kusama, W.H Auden, the student takeover of Columbia University and the Black Panthers. YouTube has instituted a new computer algorithm to review submissions to insure – to use the company’s own words – that videos are “Advertiser Friendly”. No specific reason was given for the exclusion of the FBI revelations and it is not clear that a human reviewed the video. There was no response by You Tube to complaints. YouTube is owned by Google.

    This YouTube policy clearly promotes pre-censorship, has a chilling effect on free expression, and limits the freedom to debate necessary in a democratic country.

    RAT Subterranean News Book Project

    FBI INVESTIGATIVE Video link via Vimeo:

    “YOUTUBE has chosen to censor a video we uploaded entitled, The FBI: Attacks on the Underground Press and Anti War Movement. The video is a supplement to a book about a famous underground newspaper in New York, RAT Subterranean News.”

    “The video in question uses documents obtained from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act. YouTube is taking a rather totalitarian bent in excluding historical material over 48 years old and obtained from the very agency being criticized. YouTube did not choose to respond to our previous query. We want to know the justification for your censorship.”