Google's poodles situational ethics when it comes to Google blocking free speech

The hypocrisy and situational ethics of "Google's Poodles", SaveTheInternet and FreePress is obvious for everyone to see.

SaveTheInternet on the top of its homepage has a call to "Take Action: Protect Free Speech Everywhere"! 

• "Stop the gatekeepers" "It's time Congress demanded free speech over all 21st century communications – on the Internet, on cell phones, on the streets, everywhere."
  • What part of "everywhere" does not include the most dominant gatekeeper on the Internet, Google, and does not include the free speech of a sitting U.S. Senator Susan Collins who is trying to respond to being targeted for election defeat by a political organization -- Moveon.org?
    • Are we to interpret that SaveTheInternet only believes free speech is warranted for people who agree with SaveTheInternet's chief patron -- Moveon.org? That's not very "neutral."
    • Or are we to interpret that because SaveTheInternet believes that Google's "don't be evil" "heart" is in the right place, they can do no wrong?
    • Like Google, do you not do what you say?

FreePress, runs the same "Stop the gatekeepers!" call at the top of their page in a rolling ad.

• "Censors at AT&T and Verizon want to control the flow of information online and on your mobile phone. Demand free speech and open networks! Act Now!"
  • Does free speech really matter or is this really about promoting net neutrality with populist free speech rhetoric and by demonizing the lead telcos?
  • We are waiting FreePress for you to live up to your name and have some principles and integrity on free speech matters. Your silence is deafening.

Interestingly, Google in it's editorial and content policy lists a whole lot of things that it does not accept ads for, but trademarks and political campaigns aren't on the list. See for yourself.

• Google has a lot more explaining to do.

Bottomline: The big takeaway other than the blatant hypocrisy of SaveTheInternet and FreePress, is that Google is no "neutral gatekeeper."

• Google is a media company with editorial and content policies just like telephone, wireless and cable companies that they rail against!
• Google, SaveTheInternet, and FreePress, will eventually learn than their is no legally defensible basis that is constitutional under the "equal" protection clause that singles out net neutrality for only one class of Internet players.
  • Why this is a big problem for the net neutrality movement is that their chief patron and poodle handler, Google, has a business model that is totally predicated on discrimination of content for a fee, commercial behavior which the net neutrality movement claims to be wrong and should be banned