Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Rumble CEO slams Google’s suppression of conservative content: ‘Is that not election interference?’

Published

3 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Didi Rankovic

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski cited Google’s suppression of the link to Rumble’s exclusive GOP debate livestream last year as an example of the giant’s ability and willingness to suppress dissent and control what narratives get promoted.

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski has reacted to Google suppressing, in Google Search, the link to the Rumble exclusive GOP debate livestream as an example of the giant’s ability and willingness to suppress dissent and control what narratives get promoted.

In conversation with Russell Brand, Pavlovski noted that Google had positioned itself (and gained massive search market share thanks to that) as a service that provides unbiased and relevant results, but that at this point, this is no more than “the bag of goods that they sold us.”

In other words, even if Google started out, and became extraordinarily popular, thanks to organic search – those days are long gone.

Still, seeing products and movies promoted to the top of the page instead of the most relevant to the query result is one thing, but it’s a very different problem when this powerful search engine that the huge majority of users in the Western world regularly turn to, starts “hiding” links to political content.

READ: Biden campaign demands censorship of video showing president wandering off at G7 meeting

Pavlovski mentioned the GOP debate which was exclusively streamed on Rumble, that is, Rumble was the only place to watch it live – and yet, when people searched for this in the hope of seeing the link to the page, it did not come up as the top result.

He said that instead, Google “put” (that is, programmed its algorithms to this end) “some corporate media entity” as the top result, even though it clearly didn’t have the livestream exclusively.

Pavlovski then wondered, “Is that not election interference?”

Pavlovski also touched on other consequences of the “rigged search” – namely, that it almost to a fault favors Google products (YouTube videos, Google Maps to show locations, etc.) in this way creating “a mouse trap” for its users. And, as critics – Rumble included – keep repeating, seriously undermining competition.

“And that’s one of the reasons why we have a lawsuit against them. It’s very difficult for you to go and search something that’s relevant and find Rumble near the top,” he said.

Brand observed that YouTube (Google) is a powerful entity that has in a sense become a “curator of reality” – “you only see certain stories, you only have access to certain ideas.”

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

2025 Federal Election

Liberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight     Dan Knight

After parroting a Chinese bounty on a Canadian citizen, Chiang exits the race without once mentioning the regime behind it—opting instead to blame “distractions” and Donald Trump.

So Paul Chiang is gone. Stepped aside. Out of the race. And if you’re expecting a moment of reflection, an ounce of honesty, or even the basic decency to acknowledge what this was really about—forget it.

In his carefully scripted resignation statement, Chiang didn’t even mention the Chinese Communist Party. Not once. He echoed a foreign bounty placed on a Canadian citizen—Joe Tay—and he couldn’t even bring himself to name the regime responsible.

Instead, he talked about… Donald Trump. That’s right. He dragged Trump into a resignation about repeating CCP bounty threats. The guy who effectively told Canadians, “If you deliver a Conservative to the Chinese consulate, you can collect a reward,” now wants us to believe the real threat is Trump?

I haven’t seen Donald Trump put bounties on Canadian citizens. But Beijing has. And Chiang parroted it like a good little foot soldier—and then blamed someone who lives 2,000 miles away.

But here’s the part you can’t miss: Mark Carney let him stay.

Let’s not forget, Carney called Chiang’s comments “deeply offensive” and a “lapse in judgment”—and then said he was staying on as the candidate. It wasn’t until the outrage hit boiling point, the headlines stacked up, and groups like Hong Kong Watch got the RCMP involved, that Chiang bailed. Not because Carney made a decision—because the optics got too toxic.

And where is Carney now? Still refusing to disclose his financial assets. Still dodging questions about that $250 million loan from the Bank of China to the firm he chaired. Still giving sanctimonious speeches about “protecting democracy” while his own caucus parrots authoritarian propaganda.

If you think Chiang’s resignation fixes the problem, you’re missing the real issue. Because Chiang was just the symptom.

Carney is the disease.

He covered for it. He excused it. He enabled it. And now he wants to pose as the man who will stand up to foreign interference?

He can’t even stand up to it in his own party.

So no, we’re not letting this go. Chiang may be gone—but the stench is still in the room. And it’s wearing a tailored suit, smiling for the cameras, and calling itself “leader of the Liberal Party.”

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump says ‘nicer,’ ‘kinder’ tariffs will generate federal revenue

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump says the slate of tariffs he plans to announce Wednesday will be “nicer,” “kinder” and “more generous” than other countries have treated the U.S.

Trump plans to unveil reciprocal tariffs on all nations that put duties on U.S. imports Wednesday, which the president has been calling “Liberation Day” for American trade.

Trump’s latest comments on tariffs come as he aims to reshape the global economy to reduce U.S. trade deficits and generate billions in federal revenue through higher taxes on imported products.

Trump’s trade policies have upended U.S. and global markets, but the president has yet to get into specifics ahead of Wednesday’s planned announcement.

At the start of March, Trump told a joint session of Congress that he planned to put reciprocal tariffs in place starting April 2.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

On Sunday night, Trump said on Air Force One that U.S. tariffs would be “nicer,” “kinder” and “more generous” than how other countries have treated the U.S.

Last week, Trump announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles, duties that he said would be “permanent.” The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two. Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Trump predicts his protectionist trade policies will create jobs, make the nation rich and help reduce both trade deficits and the federal government’s persistent deficits.

The “Liberation Day” tariffs come after months of talk since Trump took office in January. On the campaign trail, Trump frequently called “tariff” the most beautiful word in the English language.

James Dorn, senior fellow emeritus at the Cato Institute, said Trump’s rhetoric on tariffs doesn’t match the economic reality of Americans.

“Tariffs expand the scope of government, politicize economic life, increase uncertainty, and reduce individual freedom,” he wrote. “Government officials gain arbitrary power while market participants face fewer opportunities for mutually beneficial exchanges and greater uncertainty as the rules of the game change.”

Dorn said consumers would pay the price.

“Tariffs are levied on U.S. importers as goods – both final and intermediate –subject to the tariff enter the country,” he wrote. “Importers and consumers typically end up paying the tariffs, as they cut into profit margins and drive consumer prices up.”

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the foreign products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. The president also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X