Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Google Won in a Law Suit in Florida, E-Ventures vs. Google - Will Google Unfairly Censor This Article? Please Search for this Content on Google. Are Google Guidelines Deceptive?

Google Won Another Law Suit Challenge Based on Freedom of Speech.


Old Information below.
In summary I think E-Ventures initially did violate Googles guidelines and then the Google 
Spam Police overreacted and placed far to many penalties and for too long of a time period on E-Ventures. Because Google does unfairly discriminate against SEO related companies. 

 The summary below is from a law suit Google is defending currently for manually removing websites so no one could see them via a Google search. Why did Google put this companies 366 websites back into Google only after they sued Google? If it really was spam as Google claims why did Google not leave the penalty on them?
I smell "Big Brother Google's" evil bullshit.  Please click below to read the Forbes article.
I found out from some of my attorney friends that Florida is one of the best places to file a case like this against Google. The next court date for this legal case is in March of 2017.

This is why the most talented SEO experts in the world have to keep all their websites secret from Google and not use the Google Search Console, because you cannot trust Google to treat you fairly and Google has demonstrated a long history of abusing SEO experts.
"GotoTom2 Search Console for Google to read."
The worst part of this for Google is that I have plenty of solid proof and evidence regarding moving content that Google manually unfairly penalized to other peoples websites. Once the previously inappropriately censored content is moved Google does not penalize it. Guess what Google you are caught red-handed.
Why would you not track this "spam" to other peoples websites and penalize it?
I can easily find it in under one second using a Google search.
Why would you ignore the terrible content being moved and instead focus on penalizing more content and websites of the "unfairly targeted owner"? Is it because your real intention is not to penalize "spam" and that the content was really not spam in the first place?

 I independently completed the above work in order to determine that Google was doing something wrong and perhaps these types of evil activities will cause Google to lose this lawsuit in Florida.
So it is very disturbing to me and hopefully to many other people to read excerpts from the following article, which in my opinion makes Google look terrible.
Hopefully Google will lose this legal case and clean up their SPAM department so "fairness" is more important than evil anti-competitive activities.
They acknowledged that they removed 366 websites because they believed they were associated with him,” said Alexis Arena, an attorney with Flaster/Greenberg in Philadelphia who represents e-Ventures for CEO Jeev Trika. “And I don’t know that they reviewed all the content of the websites. So, how do you have First Amendment protection for exercising an editorial decision, when you don’t even review what it is you’re editing? It was because it’s the company, not the content.”
Why should the Google spam police even know who the owner of a website is if their job is to evaluate content fairly for all people?


It also makes it clear to me that I could do a better job of fairly implementing Google Guidelines then Google employees can.


At the minimum this looks very bad, and if it is not illegal we should pass new laws and regulations to make it illegal. What might be the next group Google may decide to target and inappropriately censor and punish?

 I will also show you a website that Google has incorrectly penalized and I had to tell a young women writer, I am sorry Google unfairly censored your content so your Mother cannot search for it on Google. This is an example of pure evil in my opinion. The young lady writer cried about this situation. Google wants to inappropriately punish me, however they are just harming innocent people that write for me and some of them are single mothers trying to earn a living as a writer.

7meg.net is unfairly censored by Google for 6-months already, yet Google is okay with this web page and site:
buyaccs.com/en/


It seems to me that the Google SPAM Police have the Wrong Priorities
Also if you look at thousands of websites like I do, you learn what Google might and perhaps should penalize.
So it is clear to me when Google is abusing me and denying me my freedom of speech. Google has a long history of unfairly censoring me and other top SEO experts. In fact Google unfairly censored articles and videos I have about Larry Page one of the Google founders. I emailed and complained to Larry Page and this terrible unfair censorship problem against me was immediately fixed by Google. However sadly it happens to many people and it seems to becoming worse over time.  I sincerely believe I could do a better job of cleaning up the Internet than Google can given the same financial resources.

Because of these facts, Google executive management should immediately forbid the Google Spam department from having any knowledge about website ownership. They do not need this information and clearly they have shown a pattern of abuse.
This would help with the above mentioned problems, Google will still make mistakes and penalize innocent people unfairly however then we could at least be assured Google is not inappropriately targeting, bullying, and incorrectly discriminating against a specific and targeted group of "operators of interest". 

 Google should be thanking me because I was showing another example site above that was violating Google's guidelines and the owner of the site noticed all the traffic this webpage was sending to him and then he changed the webpage so that it is no longer violating Google's guidelines. Therefore when Google did not properly enforce their own guidelines I did the job for Google.






I found other legal articles about this case, and since I am not an attorney it is important for me to read several different legal opinions about this case.

Posted by at