Sunday, July 2, 2017

That Question Rises Its Head Again

From 90 Miles From Tyranny, links to the Washington Free Beacon's story  "Google to Give $2 Million to Gun Control Groups".
Google announced plans on Friday to donate $2 million to a violence reduction campaign that includes the nation's leading gun control organizations.

The grant will be given by, an arm of the search giant that provides money and resources to nonprofit organizations, and go to the PICO LIVE FREE Campaign. That campaign focuses on reducing gun violence, especially in minority communities centered in major cities. The new initiative it's creating with the grant will involve gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Guns Down America, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility.
In the big picture sense, this goes along with YouTube, also part of Google, being hostile to gun video producers by making it harder for them to monetize their videos.  In that case, I still saw corporations like Springfield Armory present, and it certainly didn't shut down the NRA.  For them, producing videos was an advertising expense - their monetization is return on the ad investment when people buy their products or join the NRA. 

Obviously, this blog is a Google blogspot site, and yes I use the Gmail account that "comes with" it.  I've been here for over seven years, and I'm certainly not a major draw.  I mean, I'm around 2.5 Million views lifetime, and I'm guessing a quarter of those are Russian bots.  I don't know how Google monetizes this, or if it's even possible. 

If Google is going to give millions to Everytown, the Brady Bunch and those other groups out to destroy our rights, though, I don't want to help.  (What's the matter, Shannon; can't get any more money out Bloomberg?)  The thing is, if Google has made a nickle off me and this site, I don't see how. 

There should be no ads here.  I use a hosts file, so the vast majority of popups and other ads are blocked and I never see them.  (Everyone should use one.)  Because of that, I have no idea if you readers see any ads here.  If you see an ad on this page, it's put there by Google because I've never signed on with anyone to run ads!  If there are ads here, my hosts file keeps me from seeing them.

You can read "Google is Evil"/"No They're Not" articles online until your eyes cross over and you can't see anymore.  They may be stupid in this case, instead of evil, and they may be simply evil.  I can't know their deep thoughts.  When I see quotes like this, though, it makes me shudder:
Justin Steele, principal at, said their goal was to interrupt "cycles of violence" and bring about "racial justice."
(Insider's note: it just may be possible that justice is the only word in the English language that should never get a modifier.)  As you may recall, I always say the answer to "are you evil or are you stupid?" can be "Yes".  It's entirely possible to be both evil and stupid.  This Justin Steele guy could well be both.

I'm up for opinions on what to do.  Should I pull the cord and move to Wordpress or another blogging service? I notice that the vast majority of blogs in my reading list are Google blogspot blogs, so it's something we all should be considering. 


  1. I've pondered the same thing. Truth is, though, Google is effectively a monopoly; no other company provides the same level of service. I hate them feeding the anti-gun monsters, but what to do?

  2. A monopoly is when a legislature declares that only organization so-and-so may supply a product or service. Landline telephones, cell phones, television, radio, letter mail, firefighters, city water, city sewer, garbage pickup, road building, these are monopolies. You are not permitted to compete with them; you are obligated to pay for them. Courts, judges, police, courts, judges, and armies are monopolies. Government as a whole is a monopoly. However, Microsoft and Google have not been declared legally privileged by a legislature, and they are not monopolies. You could write a new desktop operating system or offer a new search service tomorrow, and the police wouldn't stop you.

    In my opinion, leaving a google service that is working for you would hurt you a lot more than it would hurt them. Similarly for living outside the USA or giving up your USA citizenship.

    1. Is this Bill Gates? Under your pseudo-libertarian view, it would be perfectly legal to have the One Corporation running all business in the United States as long as the One Corporation is not legislatively decreed as a monopoly.

      I will disagree with you and say you do not have to have a legislative declaration to be a monopoly. You can be a monopoly by having enough force in the market place to prevent new entrants from competing by distorting the market. They Law recognizes this as a condition of monopoly.

      For instance, Microsoft did this through their OEM discounting; if you tried to offer other operating systems on PC hardware your company manufactured, your company would have to pay the 2, 3 or 4 time higher suggested retail price for Microsoft.

      And both of these companies you mention have government granted monopolies through patents and copyrights. It is being proven more and more in the SCOTUS that many software patents were mis-awarded as they did not meet the uniqueness for patentability.

  3. You gotta start somewhere no matter how small ... move off their platform to another for starters. I'm off their search, their browser, their email and most of their stuff and yes, it takes some fortitude to adjust but it can be done. Good on you! Happy 4th! Freedom ... don't take it for granted.

  4. There is a problem where most of these mega billionaires use their money TAX FREE to do harm. Why we allow them to give billions to questionable "tax free" entities I do not know. I think it is past time that we end the tax exemption for "charitable" giving.