Investigate Google for Wire Fraud

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
July 15, 2019

The President

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenu

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

I urge that the Justice Department investigate the Google firm for wire fraud.

There is evidence that the Google firm has been lying to the public about the nature of its search engine.  In particular, it has represented that its search engine is an objective information source based on impartial algorithms and that it adheres to a philosophy of free speech. 

Recent revelations, specifically a Project Veritas video of Google employees discussing how they bias searches, reveals that Google has for some time been operating under the false pretense that its Web products are based on objective algorithms.  In other words, Google has lied to its users and its customers about the nature of its search engine and has received large financial benefits, at least over the past one to two years, in exchange.

According to LectLaw.com, Section 18 USC 1343 makes the use of interstate wires for carrying out a scheme to defraud a crime.  The requirements are that an individual knowingly devise a scheme to defraud for money by means of pretenses, representations, or promises.  The three essential elements are a scheme to defraud; intent to defraud; use of interstate wires.  A material misrepresentation must be related to the scheme, and the scheme must involve the intent to get money. 

The law frm of Crotty Saland points out that the crime of wire fraud includes all aspects of communication, including the Internet.

The facts are that (1) Google has never represented to the public that it ideologically slants search results; (2)  Google has lied in this representation for the last one to two years in order to indulge the beliefs and pleasures of its principals and employees; (3) Google has not divulged its change of policy to its customers or users, who include the Republican Party; and (4) Google has continued to receive large sums of money in exchange for its perpetuation of past representations that it knew to have changed and to be false.

There seems to be sufficient evidence of a fraud large in magnitude and of grievous harm to the public to pursue an investigation.  I urge that you ask the Justice Department to begin one.

                        Sincerely,

                        Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.   

Cc: The Honorable William Barr, Attorney General

                                              

                                           

The Demon in Leftism

Daniel Pipes has written an excellent article, “The Demon in Liberalism.”  I wish commentators would use the term "leftism" or something equivalent in place of "liberalism," which is an inaccurate term, but otherwise Pipes's analysis is spot on. 

The problem is that, like Legutko, whose work Pipes discusses, Pipes doesn't offer convincing remedies.  The left has a tradition of sophisticated activism, which includes Alinsky and his many apostles, including Hillary and Barack, along with a host of others who have thought carefully about how to organize unions, take control of the media, take control of higher education, and take control of Web-search technology.  

Perhaps due to the Buckley-Kirk-Burke tradition, conservatives have often  eschewed ideology or purpose, yet without an agenda or ideology action is impossible. They have viewed conservatism as moderating change rather than achieving a liberal society governed by the rule of law and freedom.  The absence of an ideology is a recipe for repeated and long-term failure.  

Without a vision and a set of specific tactics, conservatives have for the past 60 years brought a typewriter to a gun fight.   I would like to see leading conservative thinkers begin to think about methods and tactics that will overturn the recent trend as well as to more specifically consider concerted action strategies to counteract the left’s monolithic strategy, which has integrated academics, tech employees, journalists, and violent students.  

Why Are Professors Exclusively Leftist? My Latest Glazov Gang Moment

Google and Facebook Should Be Required to Be Labelled, Like Cigarette Packs

The President

The White House

Washington, DC

PO Box 130

West Shokan, NY 12494

July 11, 2019

Dear Mr. President:

Recent disclosures concerning Facebook and Google’s use of monopoly power to influence social networking and Web-search results require investigation and reform.    Property rights and economic freedom need to be balanced with protection from fraud.  America has yet to grapple with both the fruit of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration’s illegal use of political litmus tests in the granting of airwaves monopolies to the TV networks and subsequent, parallel political monopolization of the cable industry.

                With respect to social networking and Web-search technologies, the cloaked use of left-oriented censorship parallels that of the long-term health threats from tobacco.  People should have freedom to choose search engines even if they are biased, and suppliers should be free to compete and innovate as they choose.  However, to protect the public from fraud, please consider asking Congress to require that social networking and Web-search suppliers disclose that biases are built into their algorithms and what the biases are at the head of each search result, much as cigarette companies are required to disclose health threats on each pack of cigarettes.

                With respect to the airwaves and cable networks, which are federal- and state-granted monopolies, respect for property rights is consistent with a more interventionist response.  The cable industry should be asked to develop its own solution to current Democratic Party monopolization. The proportion of stations that openly support the Democrats is in excess of the cutoff for monopoly, often thought to be 80 percent of a market.  The cable-and-television networks should be asked to develop a plan to voluntarily balance partisan orientation, including to minor parties.  If the media firms are unable to come to an industry-wide solution, then a more interventionist approach to state-based cable monopolies will be appropriate.

Sincerely

Mitchell Langbert

Cc: Majority members of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet

• John Thune, South Dakota, Chairman
• Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
• Roy Blunt, Missouri
• Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia
• Ted Cruz, Texas
• Deb Fisher, Nebraska
• Cory Gardner, Colorado
• Ron Johnson, Wisconsin
• Jerry Moran, Kansas
• Mike Lee, Utah
• Rick Scott, Florida
• Dan Sullivan, Alaska
• Todd Young, Indiana