Google Bombing The Election
The campaign will proceed as follows:We hope they spend every last dime they can get their hands on. Blue Jersey will be at battle stations.
Step One: With help form readers at Dailykos and MyDD, I will compile a list of seventy article, one for each targeted race. Every article will focus on a different Republican candidate, and will be written by as generally trusted a news source as possible. It will also present as unflattering a view on the Republican candidate as possible. All of these articles will be placed into a database that I will maintain with the help of willing volunteers.
Step Two: Once the database is complete, BlogPac will purchase Google Adwords that will place each negative article on the most common searches for each Republican candidate. Simultaneously, I will produce an article on MyDD that embeds that negative article into a hyperlink that names the Republican candidate. I will then send a copy of that post out to as many bloggers as possible, who can also place the post on their blogs. One posting of this article will be enough.
Step Three: All further discussion of the Republican candidates in question on all participating blogs should include an embedded hyperlink that will increase the Google search rank of the article on the given candidate.
The result of this should be that the most damning, non-partisan article written on every key Republican candidate for house and Senate will appear both high on every Google search for that candidate, and automatically as an advertisement on every search for that candidate. BlogPac will cover the costs. The netroots will supply the research.
Aftermath: If this program is successful, after the election the advertising and Google-bombing program will continue. However, instead of targeting Republican candidates, it will be done in order to benefit and increase the search engine visibility of the very best local, progressive blogs around the country.
Resources: The list of Republican candidates to target can be found here: Republican candidates in key House and Senate races.
There’s another upside to this campaign. We’ll have a great list of the most partisan hacks chosen by the radical left. Anyone want to take bets on the authors of the articles chosen for Ferguson and Kean?
Update: Dan Riehl has more.
6 Comments:
"The left hopes to..."
The whole "left"? Everyone? All are accused of this based on a posting by Chris Bowers?
Seriously, you managed, in just four words, to sound out of touch with reality. Well done.
Well, they aren't the "right" and if you read the entire post you might have noticed we did refer to the participants as the "radical left". How do describe the political orientation of people writing on the dominate lefty blogs, My DD and Kos? Moonbats? We don’t go in for name calling and so chose to use the term the “left”.
We take it you don’t think the "Google Bombing" idea is a good one. We didn’t either. It’s so nice when we can find common ground.
Apparently, you are not the only folks who may be curious about the limits of Google bombing!
I noticed one very interesting point made in the above article in today’s New York Times article about an increasingly litigious atmosphere at Google:
"Last spring, KinderStart, a small search engine in Southern California that focuses on information for parents of young children, sued Google after it noticed that its site had been removed from Google’s search results — leading to a loss of traffic and revenue for the company.
Google said in court filings that an area of the site that permitted visitors to add links had been full of pointers to low-quality or pornographic sites, indicating that it was poorly maintained or was an effort to manipulate Google’s search results. KinderStart said the removal was unfair and unjustified and that Google’s guidelines on ways to avoid such punishment were too vague." (emphasis added)
But with regard to your post, does Google just plain not have any concerns when it comes to allowing leftie political organizations, who have quite openly declared their intention to manipulate Google search results in order to achieve a specific political result – i.e., to help attain a Democrat congressional majority in both Houses?
Given the fact that Google has opposed any such manipulation of search results when it comes to an organization devoted to protecting children, maybe Dr. Dean’s Democrat National Committee (DNC), the campaign weary Rahm Emanuel’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), should be looked at accordingly, and perhaps be required to declare any Google "benign neglect" in this particular instance as "in-kind" contributions to their campaign coffers?
And aren’t direct corporate contributions prohibited in political campaigns? According to an on-line essay posted a few years ago by two Covington & Burling attorneys, the prohibition on corporate contributions includes, "anything of value" including corporate resources. Interesting. And restrictions only became stronger with the passage of McCain/Feingold.
"The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) broadly defines the terms "contribution or expenditure" to include "anything of value" provided to a candidate or political party for use in a federal election. Direct corporate contributions to candidates are obviously prohibited, but so are any uses of corporate facilities, resources, or employees provided by the corporation to a campaign. These prohibitions are stringent, and both the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice are aggressive in enforcing them with civil and criminal actions."
So if Google is willingly allow the targeting of such "in-kind" contributions to particular House or Senate seats, such as in New Jersey against Mike Ferguson and Tom Kean, Jr., then the question of whether illegal corporate contributions were thereby given to Stender and Menendez, might be something for someone to take a close look at.
A quick check at PoliticalMoneyLine (Tray.com) of Google employee monetary contributions, indicates a very strong left-leaning orientation, including significant percentage of such personal contributions going to the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, Move-On, ActBlue, Friends of Hillary, and Ned Lamont. There are only a very few Republican contributions by Google employees this cycle.
So, is Google perhaps "not noticing" this Google bomb strategy in order to help Democrats take both houses, and in doing so, giving questionable contributions to Democrat campaigns?
How about "Some bloggers"?
Was that so hard?
And no, I don't go in for tricks. Too "wingnut" for my taste.
Gee, it took the New York Times only five days to catch up with you, and apparently a few other blogs, on this issue. Hope springs eternal!
Here is a link to their report on the subject.
To some extent, the article intentionally downplays the possible effects, as well as the "benign neglect" of the practice by Google, at least, it seems, when it comes to political campaigns.
As was said in the article:
"We don’t condone the practice of Google bombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results," said Ricardo Reyes, a Google spokesman. "A site’s ranking in Google’s search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query."
The company’s faith in its system has produced a hands-off policy when it comes to correcting for the effects of Google bombs in the past. Over all, Google says, the integrity of the search product remains intact."
Interesting how that does not quite square with the NY Times reporting the other day of Google's claims in litigation, mentioned in our comment above, in which Google defended against their intentional removal of a site's postings -- KinderStart, a California company that focuses on information for parents of young children -- because they involved, at least in part, an "effort to manipulate Google’s search results" by the company.
DBK,
The Oct. 26 NYT article (Trochilus links to above) - “A New Campaign Tactic: Manipulating Google Data"- begins with these words: "If things go as planned for liberal bloggers..."
You must be terribly upset by this and from “the newspaper of record”, no less. We can see your email to the Times now:
To: TOM ZELLER Jr. – NewYorkTimes.com
From: DBK -- FrogsDong.Blogspot.com
Re: A New Campaign Tactic: Manipulating Google
"If things go as planned for liberal bloggers…"
All "liberal" bloggers? Everyone? All are accused of this based on a posting by Chris Bowers?
Seriously, you managed, in just eight words, to sound out of touch with reality. Well done.
Post a Comment
<< Home