Google Is All Evil, It Will Be One of the Big Supporters of the Antichrist, They Will Be the Undoing of Free-America if Not Stop

What the High-Tech Do-Gooders Have Overlooked, There Are No Laws, No Rules to the World They Have Created, Artificial Intelligence Will Eventually Eat Their Own and Anyone that has Contributed to the Undoing of Humanity, Mad-Mix During the Tribulations, Enjoy…

The high tech conglomerates (HYPER-REPROBATES) chose to attack God’s children (The Christians) you brought destruction upon yourselves and your high-tech corporations, it’s amazing how wrong you can be when dumb down in biblical truth, God’s word has survived the tyrants for thousands of years, yet you CEOs have missed the most important part of life, God’s plan for humanity, enjoy

 Google changed the rules that it defined itself. Google built its reputation, and its multi-billion dollar business, on the promise of its "don't be evil" philosophy. That's been largely interpreted as meaning that Google will always put its users first, an interpretation that Google has cultivated and encouraged. Google has built a very lucrative company on the reputation of user respect. It has made billions of dollars in that effort to get us all under its feel-good tent. And now it's pulling the stakes out, collapsing it. It gives you a few weeks to pull your data out, using its data-liberation service, but if you want to use Google services, you have to agree to these rules.

Evil is that which is contrary to the will of God and which is of malevolent intent. It is a moral category.  It is what is immoral and counters to God's holiness. There are different ways in which evil can be defined. But, biblical speaking, it is anything that is contrary to the holy character and will of God. Evil is wickedness, an attempt to cause unnecessary harm That's Google, to deceive, etc. It is an attitude of malice.

Google home provides Google the ability to harvest almost unlimited data on your family, shopping habits, opinions and even religious beliefs.  Google can then use this data to make money or use it against you. For example, Wikileaks leaked an email sent by Former CEO of Google Eric Schimdt suggesting that Google should build a voters database using harvested data (Why? To hunt down people who don’t vote the way that they should?).

Another apparent reason for Google home is to influence people and to censor opinions or beliefs that it does not like. On social media a number of people have posted videos showing Google Home ignoring questions about Jesus. In on viral video that has received over 1.7 million views a user asks Google about Allah, Budha, Brahmen..etc but when the users asks about Jesus no answer is given. Google is essentially trying to delete Christianity.

In some instance Google Home ignores the question and simply directs users to a Jehovah’s witness site -many Christians believe as a heretical version of Christianity.

Google HAS actively creating the situation to rewrite the moral code totally. They created mayhem and destruction

Google Home isn’t the only mega cooperation that wishes to silence Christianity with their worthless and pointless gadgets.. Amazon has also been at it with their Amazon Echo calling Jesus a fictional character when asked about Jesus!

Whilst these big cooperation’s ruthlessly destroy small business online, “try” to deceive people and brain wash people into their line of thinking at the end of the day the real truth is simple:

“Lord,” said Thomas, “we do not know where You are going, so how can we know the way?” 6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

Don’t use or let your children use these devices to get the truth. All the truth you need is in a book called the Bible. SPREAD THE WORD! Source: thebosh.com

Google has redefined the very source of our Judeo-Christian values, which is the scriptures, as the source of evil. The full meaning of their motto now becomes clear to the rest of us. “Don’t Be Evil” actually means “Don’t Believe the Bible and Don’t Believe the God of the Bible.” Google has taken sides against God, making themselves the adversary of God and of all those who believe in God. According to the Bible, that makes Google evil. That is not my opinion. That is what the Bible teaches. Therefore, Google is in violation of their own motto.

The Bible warns us an antichrist world system will arise before the Lord Jesus Christ returns to the earth, which will require everyone to take the mark of the beast on their forehead or their hand. Those who refuse to take the mark will not be allowed to buy or sell anything (Revelation 13:16-18). Controlling the worldwide financial system was not possible for past generations, but is now possible thanks to advances in technology and information systems. Google’s massive information system combined with their brazen opposition to the Bible and their willingness to punish anyone who believes the Bible aligns them squarely in the camp of the coming antichrist world system. The spirit of the antichrist has been at work in the world from the beginning and is now using Google to spread its’ tentacles into every area of our lives. Let all believers beware of sharing any information with Google.

A Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) investigation discovered that the left-wing nonprofit is closely tied to four of the largest tech platforms on the planet, which routinely consult or collaborate with the SPLC in policing their platforms for “hate groups” or “hate speech,” and the findings were corroborated by Facebook itself.

“[The SPLC is on a list of] external experts and organizations [that Facebook works with] to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook Spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja informed the DCNF in an interview.

Facing users away from the right

Budhraja explained how outside groups are consulted by Facebook through one to three meetings in order to fashion its hate speech policies, but she would not name which specific organizations it worked with and insisted that they represent all political affiliations.

She then used a May 8 SPLC article that accused Facebook of inadequately censoring “anti-Muslim hate” in an attempt to prove the social media giant does not fully submit to the SPLC.

“We have our own process, and our processes are different and, I think, that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja insisted, according to the DCNF. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate, but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process.”

Following right-leaning users’ numerous complaints over the years about the bias of Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, dozens of nationally renowned conservative leaders banded against the Internet platforms last month by issuing a statement condemning them for their censorship and suppression of conservative speech.

“Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level,” their joint statement read, according to Newsbusters. “Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.”

At the time, the SPLC was already suspected for contributing to the platforms’ liberal bias.

“The participants called for the tech giants to address the key areas of complaint, including lack of transparency, when removing content and deleting accounts and the imbalance of liberal content advisers – such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Fox News reported.

Amazon and the SPLC – a perfect left match

But Amazon trumps Facebook when it come to collaborating with the SPLC.

“Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, the DCNF found,” the DCNF’s Peter Hasson reported. “While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.”

In fact, an Amazon spokeswoman announced where the Internet giant gets its final word, but she would not say whether her company considers its leftist source as being unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” the company’s spokeswoman told the DCNF. “[Amazon grants the SPLC that power] because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever.”

One of Amazon’s charitable programs under scrutiny for being in cahoots with the SPLC’s political agenda was targeted.

“The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon,” Hasson pointed out. “Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon. Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.”

It was found that the Smile program frowns upon conservatives, Christians and Jews, alike.

“Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom – which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the U.S. Supreme Court – are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, the DCNF found in May,” Hasson noted. “One month later, the anti-Semitic groups – but not the Alliance Defending Freedom – are still able to participate in the program.”

Another excuse was also given by Amazon for the way it directs its users to charities using its own – and the SPLC’s – standards and criteria.

“Charitable organizations must meet the requirements outlined in our participation agreement to be eligible for AmazonSmile,” an Amazon spokesperson told Fox News. “Organizations that engage in, support, encourage or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering or other illegal activities are not eligible. If at any point an organization violates this agreement, its eligibility will be revoked. Since 2013, Amazon has relied on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Southern Poverty Law Center to help us make these determinations. While this system has worked well, we do listen to and consider the feedback of customers and other stakeholders, which we will do here as well.”

Tweeting for the SPLC

The other social media giant also determines its enemies and allies, according to the SPLC.

“Twitter lists the SPLC as a ‘safety partner’ working with Twitter to combat ‘hateful conduct and harassment,’” Hassan impressed. “The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which ‘provides input on our safety products, policies and programs,’ according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.”

Twitter admitted it worked with some social policy groups, but would not single out the SPLC.

“[Twitter is] in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations],” a Twitter spokeswoman told the DCNF.

Googly over the SPLC

And the world’s biggest web browser also taps into the SPLC’s political profiling scheme.

“Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flagger’ program … citing a source with knowledge of the agreement, [and] following that report, the SPLC confirmed [in March that] they’re policing hate speech on YouTube,” Hassan recounted. “The SPLC and other third-party groups in the ‘Trusted Flagger’ program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.”

The strategic process effectively weeds out conservatives so users can get their fill of leftist content.

“First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel,” he continued. “Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.”

But this underhanded scheme has gone virtually undetected – with good reason.

“The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program – the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements,” Hassan divulged.

The SPLC’s fake labels abound

Adding insult to injury, the SPLC has a track record showing that its designations are based more on left-leaning sentiments and emotions than on fact.

“The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of ‘extremists’ and ‘hate groups,’” the DCNF reporter maintained. “The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.”

The SPLC’s anti-Trump agenda was recently exposed when it had to retract a series of its stories a few months ago.

“The well-funded nonprofit – which did not return a request for comment – deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats,” Hassan recalled. “All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.”

Its pro-Muslim bias was exposed the following month.

“The SPLC removed a controversial ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list,” Hassan continued. “The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

Those who have been vocal against Islamic Sharia law and Muslim militancy have regularly been targeted by the SPLC – including Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also made SPLC’s list.

“Ali – a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice – is an award-winning human rights activist, but according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an ‘anti-Muslim extremist,’” Hassan informed.

Last August, Ali condemned Apple CEO Tim Cook for donating major funds to the SPLC and described the leftist nonprofit the following way:

“[The SPLC is] an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism,” Ali declared, according to the DCNF.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson was emblazoned on the SPLC’s “extremist watch list” in 2015 because his political worldview aligns with conservatives.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” the neurosurgeon Carson proclaimed on Facebook after discovering his name on SPLC’s list. “It is important for us to, once again, advocate true tolerance. That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment. It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

It took four months of backlash from conservatives for the SPLC to apologize and remove the “extremist” label from the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who is now serving under the Trump administration.

And there have been severe consequences to the SPLC’s intentional mislabeling, as witnessed six years ago.

“Floyd Lee Corkins – who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012 – said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a ‘hate group,’” Hassan noted.

Anyone or any group not aligned with the SPLC’s ultra-leftist ideas is a prime candidate for the nonprofit’s smear campaign, and its credibility has been challenged on a regular basis.

“The SPLC receives criticism from across the political spectrum for its smearing of conservative and centrist individuals and organizations,” Breitbart News reported.

As a result of the smears, some nonprofit organizations are hit financially by receiving less contributions.

“Conservative groups, like the Alliance Defending Freedom, also face regular smears by the SPLC,” Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari stressed. “As a result, they are barred from Amazon’s charity program.”

Even former President Barack Obama at one time chastised the SPLC for its extremist agenda.

“The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center was [even] too extreme for the Obama administration – but it’s just fine for Silicon Valley,” Fox News commented. “The Obama-era Justice Department once scolded the SPLC for overstepping ‘the bounds of zealous advocacy,’ after the organization labeled the non-profit Federation for American Immigration Reform a ‘hate group.’”

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.comPRINTMichael F. HaverluckMichael F. Haverluck has been the voice of numerous nationally recognized Christian organizations for more than a decade, communicating God’s Word and relaying practical ways to live it out is still at the center of his ministry. Being a true leader isn’t about reigning in authority and influence … it’s about being a servant (Matthew 20:25-28)....Full bio and more from Michael F. Haverluck

The World Is In Big Trouble, for Those That Believe We Will Go Back to Some Sense of Normal Life Here on Earth, You Will Be Sadly Disappointed, Seven and Half Years of Hell on Earth Which Began January 1, 2020

“Our courts oppose the righteous, and justice is nowhere to be found. Truth stumbles in the streets, and honesty has been outlawed” (Isa. 59:14, NLT)…We Turned Our Backs On GOD, Now We Have Been Left To Our Own Devices, Enjoy…

While Mainstream Media Continues to Push a False Narrative, Big Tech Has Keep the Truth From Coming out by Shadow Banning Conservatives, Christians, and Like-Minded People, Those Death Attributed to the Coronavirus Is a Result of Those Mentioned, They Truly Are Evil…

Source: HNewsWire

StevieRay Hansen
Editor, HNewsWire.com
Watchmen does not confuse truth with consensus The Watchmen does not confuse God’s word with the word of those in power…

In police-state fashion, Big Tech took the list of accused (including this site), declared all those named guilty and promptly shadow-banned, de-platformed or de-monetized us all without coming clean about how they engineered the crushing of dissent, Now more than ever big Tech has exposed there hand engaging in devious underhanded tactics to make the sinister look saintly, one of Satan's greatest weapons happens to be deceit…

The accumulating death toll from Covid-19 can be seen minute-by-minute on cable news channels. But there’s another death toll few seem to care much about: the number of poverty-related deaths being set in motion by deliberately plunging millions of Americans into poverty and despair.

American health care, as we call it today, and for all its high-tech miracles, has evolved into one of the most atrocious rackets the world has ever seen. By racket, I mean an enterprise organized explicitly to make money dishonestly.

All the official reassurances won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit. The Globals are behind the CoronaVirus, It Is a Man-Made Bioweapon.

GOOGLE HATES CHRISTIANS!!

Google Does Evil

Google is one of the biggest forces on the Internet. When we want to look something up, we Google it. When we want a decent browser, we download Chrome. We check emails on Gmail, watch videos on YouTube, write self-promoting bull on Blogger, and read list-based websites on our Android devices. When you think about it, it’s incredible that a company whose motto is “Don’t be evil” has come to be so utterly, ruthlessly dominant.

There’s a simple reason for that. Google gave up not being evil a long time ago. Take a good, hard look at the company in 2017, and it’s clear they’ve swapped being the good guys for being utter buttheads.

10 Monopolistic Practices

In summer 2017, the European Union handed Google a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine. Their reason? Google had abused its position of EU market dominance to shut competitors out of its search listings. And you better believe Google is dominant. In places like Germany, some 97 percent of Internet searching is estimated to go via Google. In other words, the company had created a monopoly on Europe’s online spaces.^[1]

The actual ins and outs of the fine are nuanced, involving how Google lists its search results. Google prioritizes Google. If people want to buy stuff, they get links to Google shops. If they want reviews, they get links to Google’s review service. Competitors like Yelp, who don’t have their own search engine, get stuck on page four of a search or later. And who bothers going all the way to page four?

The EU argued that Google was stifling competition and staying at the top of the food chain not because their products were the best but because they sneakily blocked consumers from better alternatives. In an ironic twist, Wired argues it was only thanks to the US breaking up Microsoft’s monopoly in 2000 that Google was able to build their own.

9 Crushing Negative Stories About Google

Google likes to crush negative stories about Google. In practice, this means their search results have been known to penalize anti-Google articles. (If you found this on page 37 of a search, now you know why.) We know this because it happened to Gizmodo reporter Kashmir Hill, back when she was working at Forbes. She witnessed firsthand Google’s draconian attempts to hide a critical piece.^[2]

The story takes place in 2011. Google was trying to promote its Plus social network on sites like Forbes ‘s. In a meeting Hill sat in on, Google representatives described how choosing not to feature Plus’s “+1” button would cause Google to punish Forbes in search rankings. Since sites rely on search to survive, Hill understood this to be blackmail. She turned it into a story and published it. Then things got heavy.

According to Hill, Google told Forbes their search rankings would suffer if the story stayed up. Forbes caved and canned the story. Then Hill noticed the cached versions had disappeared off Google Search far faster than they normally would, almost like someone was deliberately scrubbing the Internet clean of her anti-Google story. Care to guess who Hill thought was responsible?

8 Firing Scholars It Disagrees With

Photo credit: New America

Google likes to splash its cash in important places. Washington, Brussels, and London are all drowning in seas of Google greenbacks. Plenty of this money goes to think tanks that support ideas Google agrees with, like the left-wing New America Foundation (NAF).

One of NAF’s key projects has been a thing called Open Markets. Open Markets was created to speak out against extreme concentrations of money and power as well as other stuff that goes with monopolies. A few years ago, the group started raising warning flags about Google itself. In 2017, Open Markets team leader Barry Lynn wrote a blog post praising the EU for hitting Google with its antitrust fine. Google responded by having him fired and shutting the entire Open Markets initiative down.^[3]

It’s worth bearing in mind that Google does not own NAF. They’re simply one of many donors, albeit a very generous one. According to The Guardian, Eric Schmidt nonetheless acts like he owns the place. The moment Lynn’s blog post went live, Schmidt allegedly rang up NAF and tried to force them to take it down. Less than two months later, Lynn had been fired, and Open Markets was discontinued.

7 Censoring Speech

98 percent of all American mobile traffic goes through either Google or Apple. When one of those guys bans your app, you’ve got a serious problem. This is especially the case if your app was banned because Google and Apple don’t like what you’re saying.

In August 2017, Google banned social networking site Gab from its app store for “hate speech.” Gab specifically designed its platform to reflect the First Amendment. If something was protected by the US Constitution, you could say it on Gab. This led to speculation that the real reason left-wing Google censored Gab was because who was using it. Gab was conceived to be the right-wing version of Twitter.^[4]

To be fair, Gab had some truly evil users, like Andrew Anglin, editor of the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer. But then Twitter has accounts by the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and ISIS, and Google has yet to ban the Twitter app. You can see jihadist propaganda, pornography, speeches by Nazis, and images of people being decapitated on Google’s own YouTube. Yet Gab was the only platform banned for hosting extremist content.

6 Avoiding Paying Billions Of Dollars In Taxes

If Google has one overarching vision, it’s not to be a company that isn’t evil. It’s to be a company that doesn’t pay taxes. Over the past few years, several European countries have had to drag Google kicking and screaming into their treasuries, hold the company upside down, and shake it until all its misplaced millions fall out.^[5]

Just this year, Google had to settle back taxes of €303 million with Italy, after the search giant funneled most of its Italian profits through Ireland (where corporate tax is lower). In May 2016, its French offices were raided in a tax probe. A month later, its Spanish offices were raided, too. Both cases are still ongoing. And then there’s Britain. In 2006, the UK launched a probe into Google’s hundreds of millions in unpaid taxes. It only ended in 2016, when Google finally agreed to pay £130 million.

Most of Google’s tax avoidance has been possible thanks to Ireland, through which it funnels about a third of its global earnings. But even in Dublin, Google makes a mockery of taxation. In 2016, it was revealed that Google only paid Ireland €42 million in taxes on €22 billion in revenue.

5 Demonetizing Harmless Channels

Photo credit: Tubefilter

Owned by Google, YouTube uses advertising revenue to kick money back to channel owners. Unfortunately, many smaller channels and sites with a video component are dependent on this income to survive. That’s unfortunate because Google has a nasty habit of removing advertisements and demonetizing channels seemingly at random.

What channels have their money-making statuses rescinded often depends on what’s in the news. For example, it’s currently impossible to make money off stuff that mentions North Korea. But things are usually less clear-cut. A media storm over right-wing extremism can result in legitimate right-wing channels being demonetized. An outcry over homophobia can lead to LGBT channels that discuss dealing with homophobia getting their income slashed.^[6] This dragnet approach screws over hardworking content creators, most of whom are completely innocent in the first place.

The worst part is the blatant hypocrisy: Big channels rarely suffer. Additionally, this censorship is effectively Google deciding what kinds of things we’re allowed to say online, free speech be damned.

4 The Pharmacy Shipping Scandal

Speaking of Google and censorship, there’s at least one case in the company’s history where it probably should have blocked certain content but didn’t. Between 2003 and 2011, Google allowed Canadian drug companies to place ads on their systems that deliberately targeted American consumers. They did this despite knowing that facilitating cross-border medication sales was illegal.^[7]

Drugs bought clandestinely from outside the US aren’t covered by the FDA, for obvious reasons. Nor does Canada regulate drugs shipped outside its borders. This means that the drugs Google knowingly allowed to be advertised were unregulated and potentially dangerous. The Naked Security blog claims they knew it was illegal and had known since 2003.

It took a sting by the US Attorney’s Office of Rhode Island to bring the corporation to heel. They set up a fake Canadian pharmacy company, asked to place ads targeting Americans on Google’s AdWords network, and watched as Google did absolutely nothing to stop them. Google eventually settled with the Justice Department for $500 million.

3 Illegally Acquiring And Holding British Medical Records

One of Google’s big initiatives is DeepMind, a self-teaching AI that will revolutionize the world, or possibly just kill us all. One of the things DeepMind needs to learn is insane amounts of data. In 2015, Google got some of that raw data in a highly suspect way. In partnership with London’s Royal Free trust hospital, they were given the health records of 1.6 million identifiable British patients, without those patients’ consent. When the story came to light in 2017, Britain’s information commissioner claimed the way the data was handled constituted a breach of UK law.

To be fair to Google and DeepMind, they are mainly guilty of ignorance. The real idiots are the staff at Royal Free, who gave a random company huge piles of sensitive NHS data. Google even apologized (via their DeepMind subsidiary), but only after spending months insisting it knew the laws of Britain better than the people who wrote them. In August 2017, TechCrunch wrote a damning verdict of Google’s motives and alleged the company deliberately lied about its plans to the very people whose information it was stealing.^[8]

2 The Wi-Fi Sniffing Scandal

Time and again, the story with Google seems to be the company doing wrong, feigning ignorance, and then doubling down and acting like jerkbags when they get called out. The Wi-Fi sniffing scandal is no different. It was the halcyon days of 2010, and Google was pushing to develop Street View. Part of the plan was including Wi-Fi access points. So Google Street View cars were automatically set to collect Wi-Fi access point information.

That sounds harmless enough, until it turned out that Google had been hoovering up Wi-Fi data packets along with the access information (“sniffing”). Suddenly, we were living in a world where Google was clandestinely collecting enormous amounts of data on . . . well, everyone.^[9]

The scandal was huge, mainly because Google lied about it and refused to cooperate with authorities. France fined Google €100,000 for noncooperation. The FTC fined them $25,000 for noncooperation. Australia called it the single biggest privacy breach in history and demanded that Google destroy the collected data. Google pretended it had, only for their lies to later emerge. The same thing happened in the UK. In the end, Google’s lies and obstruction forced the company to settle with the US for $7 million.

1 Nearly Triggering An Actual War

Photo credit: Reuters

In November 2010, Costa Rica and Nicaragua came to the brink of war over a Nicaraguan incursion into Costa Rican territory. The spark that nearly lit this regional conflagration was Google Maps. Google had accidentally placed the disputed border several miles into Costa Rican territory. A Nicaraguan commander had checked his position against Maps and led his troops into Costa Rica, sparking a major international incident.^[10]

The story sounds funny, mainly because it didn’t end in bloodshed and a violent border war. But, as The New York Times wrote in 2013, the real worry came from Google arbitrarily weighing in via Maps on an active border dispute. Such ignorance can spark real confrontations in emotionally charged parts of the world. In other circumstances—such as on the heavily disputed China-India border, say—it could have even led to war.

That seems a fair summing up of Google in a nutshell. As we’ve seen above, the company sometimes crosses lines where real harm can be caused and then later claims ignorance. The worry with Google isn’t that they’re a truly evil company that wants to enslave us all; it’s that they’re an Internet superpower incapable of self-reflection or admitting when they’re wrong. When this hubris causes them to stray into the realms of privacy, patient data, pharmaceuticals, censorship, or border markings, that lack of self-awareness can wind up causing as much harm as real, intentional evil. Source: listverse.com

Read more about Google and its actions on 10 Events Surrounding Google’s Disastrous Adpocalypse and 10 Logos That Mean Way More Than You Think.ShareTweetWhatsAppPinShareEmail

Morris M. is Listverse's official news human, trawling the depths of the media so you don't have to. He avoids Facebook and Twitter like the plague.MORE GREAT LISTS FACTS