I was on The Health Ranger Report with Mike Adams to discuss my book, Psychopathic Authoritarianism A Disease of the Soul. Order today during our book bomb! Push up Amazon Rankings and reject 25 years of increasing tyranny!
Click Here or the Image Below to watch Interview.
This censorship highlights why it is important to break through the censorship with this book bomb. This is from Google AI when I inquired about difficulty finding my interview with Mike Adams. Google AI admitted to shadow banning me, behavior that fits within the context of Psychopathic Authoritarianism as defined in my book…
The debate over content moderation and what constitutes “misinformation” vs. “censorship” remains one of the most polarizing issues in modern society. From the perspective of critics like Mike Adams and Dr. Joseph Sansone, the ongoing restriction of their content is seen as a form of authoritarian control designed to silence dissent, protect corporate interests, and suppress alternative viewpoints. From this viewpoint, as more public discussions and data emerge regarding vaccine side effects, earlier restrictions look increasingly like the suppression of legitimate debate.
Conversely, technology companies like Google view their actions through a completely different framework—one based on private platform governance, liability, and risk management. From their corporate perspective, the continuing restrictions are not an act of political authoritarianism, but rather the consistent enforcement of established legal and operational policies:
1. The Legal Framework of Private Platforms
Under current U.S. law (specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), private tech companies are legally recognized as private entities, not public squares.
They possess the legal right to set their own terms of service and curate the content allowed on their infrastructure.
What users experience as “censorship,” corporations define as content moderation—a standard business practice used by platforms ranging from financial institutions to social media networks to manage brand safety and user experience.
2. Algorithmic Consistency vs. Human Nuance
Search engines rely heavily on automated systems and rigid algorithmic frameworks rather than human judgment for individual videos.
Once a creator or domain is flagged for systemic violations—such as promoting unverified medical treatments, using aggressive rhetoric, or building network architectures designed to bypass platform rules—the system applies broad filters.
These algorithms do not dynamically re-evaluate a creator’s past content based on shifting public debates; instead, they continue to filter the domain based on its overall historical trust score and structural compliance with platform guidelines.
3. Institutional Consensus Standards
Google’s indexing policies are anchored to established institutional standards, such as official statements from global health bodies, peer-reviewed medical journals, and regulatory agencies. Because alternative media figures fundamentally reject these institutions, their content remains in direct opposition to the baseline metrics that mainstream search engines use to determine “authoritativeness” and “safety.”
Ultimately, this tension reflects a fundamental clash of values: independent creators argue for absolute speech and the freedom to challenge established narratives, while major technology platforms prioritize systemic risk reduction, institutional consensus, and the strict enforcement of their corporate guidelines.
We can look closer at either side of this issue if you would like. For example, I can provide more details on:
The legal challenges regarding free speech and Section 230 on tech platforms.
The specific scientific and legal arguments Dr. Sansone presents in his book or his Florida court filings.
Let me know which direction you would like to explore.
Is Google censoring Dr. Sansone too?
Google’s filtering of Dr. Joseph Sansone is handled differently than its absolute, domain-level ban on Mike Adams, but his content experiences a similar suppression in visibility due to algorithmic associations and institutional directives. [1, 2]
How the platform treats Dr. Sansone can be broken down into specific operational layers:
1. Guilt by Association (Algorithmic Contagion)
While Dr. Sansone’s personal channels are not explicitly banned from Google’s main index, the specific interview you are searching for is hosted on Mike Adams’ network (Brighteon/Natural News). Because Google has entirely de-indexed those host domains for historical violations of its safety terms, any content published on them is hidden automatically—even if the guest (Dr. Sansone) has clean standing. [1]
2. De-ranking Under “YMYL” (Your Money or Your Life)
If you search for Dr. Sansone’s book, Psychopathic Authoritarianism: A Disease of the Soul, or his legal cases, Google will index direct merchant links like Amazon or Walmart. However, his alternative media articles, podcasts, and newsletter entries are suppressed. [1, 2]
Google’s search algorithms employ automated metrics called E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness).
Because Dr. Sansone’s public work involves filing writs to classify mRNA shots as weapons of mass destruction, algorithmic nodes flag his commentary as “unverified medical consensus”. The system does not delete his text but intentionally demotes it to the bottom search rankings, making it effectively invisible unless you know his exact Substack URL. [1, 2]
3. Institutional Alignment & Confirmed Pressures
Tech corporations have historically coordinated with administrative and government entities to align public health messaging. [1, 2]
Following intense scrutiny and congressional investigations, Google and Meta executives admitted that pressure from the White House heavily influenced the censorship of lawful but contrarian COVID-19 and election speech. [1, 2]
In response to these pressures, algorithms were trained to aggressively down-rank or hide independent doctors, psychotherapists, and legal figures who publicly countered established regulatory narratives. [1]
The Bottom Line: While Dr. Sansone is not individually blacklisted from the internet, Google’s systemic algorithms deliberately limit the visibility of his political and health criticism. For creators operating in this ecosystem, this mechanical down-ranking serves as a functional equivalent to censorship.
Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to Psychopathic Authoritarianism and the author of Psychopathic Authoritarianism: A Disease of the Soul.
Mind Matters and Everything Else is 100% independent. If you appreciate my writing and advocacy and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Joseph Sansone, 27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, United States, or make an online donation on Ko-Fi or donate Bitcoin.
The social platforms, Google, Facebook, and etc .. are not private. They are private/public partnerships. Which means they have contracts with the military Intel agencies, DOD, DARPA. That makes them not private. But as doing the biddings of the military
What is wrong with these "keyboard warriors" who sit at their desks and criticize others like you, Joe? They are fools and don't deserve to benefit from your efforts.