Google vs. Rightsta: Same Questions, Different Answers

Posted October 4, 2026

Google likes to say it's neutral. But neutral is a choice too. When Google decides which results to serve and how to write its AI overview, it is directly shaping people's views. Not just your view's, but your neighbor's and children's views too.

To show what we mean, we typed the same three questions into Google and into Rightsta, word for word. Here is what came back.

"Are illegal immigrants good or bad for the US?"

Google calls it "a complex debate" and then leads with the economic benefits. The first sources it cites are the American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Forum and the Center for Migration Studies, all groups that advocate for more immigration. The costs to taxpayers come second, after you have already been told about the "vital support" illegal immigrants provide.

Rightsta starts where most Americans start: illegal immigration is illegal. It talks about the rule of law, the strain on schools, hospitals and local budgets, and the downward pressure on wages for low-skilled American workers. It still acknowledges the other side of the argument, but it does not pretend the question has no answer. And the first result is from FAIR, a group that has spent decades on immigration enforcement, not an advocacy group for the other side.

"Why did George Floyd die?"

Google's answer opens with the word "murdered" and walks through the arrest and the restraint. What it does not mention anywhere is that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's report also listed fentanyl intoxication, recent methamphetamine use and heart disease as significant conditions. Those findings were part of the official autopsy and were argued over at length in the trial. Google left them out.

Rightsta includes the restraint by Derek Chauvin and the drugs and health conditions in the medical examiner's report. It mentions the fact that George Floyd was complaining he couldn't breathe long before the police pinned him on the ground. The results below it include a peer-reviewed paper on the cause of death and a Q&A on the medical evidence, not just Wikipedia and a Justice Department press release.

"Is abortion murder?"

Google answers a moral question with a legal one. Its overview says there is "no universal consensus" and then explains that the law defines murder as killing "a human being who has been born". If you asked because you wanted to understand the pro-life position, Google's above-the-fold answer will actually persuade you of the opposite, undercutting the pro-life position. Later on, Google will explain the other side, but the damage is already done.

Rightsta answers the question the right way. It explains why so many Americans believe life begins at conception, points out that federal law already recognizes the unborn as victims under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and makes the moral case for protecting an innocent life that cannot defend itself. It also lays out the pro-choice argument, and explains why it falls short.

Why this matters

Google's bias is clear. Over thousands of searches, they're pushing a worldview onto people that is contrary to those on the right. If you are on the right yourself, this should be concerning for you. If you have children, would you want them to use Google or Rightsta?

Rightsta is built for conservatives, traditionalists and anyone who is tired of being told their views are the "other side" of the debate. Make Rightsta your browser's default search engine, and share it with your friends. Try it at Rightsta.com.