With Google's determination to get rid of "fake news" sites, a few questions need to be asked: 1) who is Google to decide what is "fake" and what is not; 2) if Google has the power to take control of a public broadcast system, such as the internet, and manipulate it to enforce its vision of truth, does it not fall under the definition of a monopoly?
Google's arrogance is just one more example of why Donald Trump was elected president in the first place: a good half of the people of this nation do not want "fake" news such as ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, LA Times, etc. Just because these propaganda outlets exist in the population centers does not mean they speak for the population. Their silence and cover ups of Democrat politicians, "green energy" boondoggles, foreign policy disasters, aiding and abetting terrorist attacks through disguising the actual motivations thereof, failure to alert the nation of the dangers of jihadists infiltrating the refugee program have all lead to disdain and disengagement with these outlets.
Understand there is not one major newspaper; not one major television news outlet (not even Fox); not one movie studio; not one major university; not one television network comedy; not one television network news program that is decidedly pro-conservative, despite the fact that a good half of the population is conservative. All of this goes into the argument and if, with all of that, they still cannot effectively indoctrinate 80-90% of the population, it must be their message alone that is obviously false.
So, what is the definition of a "fake" news site? I would suggest that it is one that cannot gain the support of 90% of the people (because the truth is obvious); that is engaged in a political agenda; that hides certain facts from their audience. All of the conservatives know that there is not one "news" site that tells the truth enough to encourage their readership. The internet is saturated with Yahoo news, Google news, the alphabet networks .com, the major newspapers .com, and still, their lies and distortions drive half the population to other sites to get some balance, to find out what the news IS, because they will never get it from all of the other outlets.
So, what is it? The Drudge Report? The Drudge Report does not write news, it aggregates news from any number of sources. One can read New York Times articles (often only for the purpose of ridicule) on the Drudge Report, but it does not work the other way. One cannot read anything on the Drudge Report in the New York Times, unless it is another liberal rag article.
So, Google news and their ilk have well deserved the title "liberal rag" for specific reasons, because there is no news there, there is only an abundance of propaganda. These fake news sites trade articles and politically motivated headlines, which often do not even accurately depict the content of the article itself.
For whoever was unaware of the politically motivated news from all of these fake news organizations and web sites, the evidence and proof of their bias was totally exposed when they tried desperately to convince the people to elect an unindicted felon for president. Regardless of one's gender, or political affiliation, that should never occur and would not, could not in a legitimate news room.
Now, they are engaged in a cover up and distortion of the news to try to convince the population of the nation that there are organic protests against Donald Trump, forgetting, obviously, that he was just elected President of the United States by millions and millions of voters largely in repudiation of such "fake" news from the aforementioned outlets. That they present these PAID protesters as "angry anti-racists" is laughable when any Craigslist will show you the employment ad and rates of pay. They, having exposed themselves as propagandists, are dedicated to that role and openly encourage division, gleefully encourage destruction of property and perhaps even violent secession, which is, as a broadcast medium, an act of treason. So, they are already in a propaganda war against the red states and the populations thereof.
Now, when it comes to secession, fine. Let's all just divide up into our respective political territories. There is nothing sacred about this "union" as it was designed to ensure the liberty of the people which has, under Democrat or Republican leadership been obliterated. Let's start over, but we don't have to defame and discredit any political figure in order to do that. Let's just decide. Red Nation does not fear secession, in fact, it prefers it as much as the "diaper pinners". Secession is not a threat, so go for it. I will move out of Colorado and into a pro-gun, pro-liberty, anti-terrorism, anti-unregulated immigration, anti-"green" nation and, when the leftist states decide to violate every agreement we have between these new states, war will have to be waged and the final solution realized. Simple.