Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?
-
@dude99 , I agree with your view, but I think that the worst problem is not, if the search engine is more or less neutral, or respects more or less privacy, but the named filter bubble that all non-private search engines have, that is, they order the results according to the interests of the user in previous searches, showing them at the beginning.
In other words, a user who believes that the Earth is flat, will always find pages and articles that confirm this delusio in first place.
That is why I use these 'partisan' search engines, because I don't want to ask anyone who always agrees with me, even if I an wrong, I want information as neutral as possible, which Google, Bing, Yandex and Yahoo don't give me. -
@Catweazle The filter-bubble is a problem too. But it's not a choice between fighting one problem or the other. Big tech is misbehaving in lots of ways!
More to the point: I think stunts like censoring "election fraud" do a lot more to show the bad faith of big tech, then the filter-bubble. With the filter-bubble: Search-engines can say "We're just giving people what they want." And they'd have a point, that's a reasonable explanation for how they can put the filter-bubble up in good faith.
-
@Catweazle said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
a user who believes that the Earth is flat, will always find pages and articles that confirm this delusio
Actually,
Did anyone listen and read about?
I started some months ago and there are some things that .Even the History is fake, so
-
@Zalex108 You lost me there.
-
@Zalex108 Oh boy....
-
Jajajaja
Actually I don't think it's Flat or a Globe.
There are many things related to all the "Officially accepted versions".
When you start watching, listen and reading by yourself, the things changes.You can start to take in count the opposite views and try to understand their points, independently believe it or not, you could also learn some other valuable things.
Mod Flood, Silica Trees, Arikat...
-
-
-
@TbGbe said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
@Zalex108 said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
Arikat...
Detail!
-
| Ari-kat instead of Arikat -
@Zalex108 Oh.. a pyramid scheme!!
Avoid them -
-
Don't worry,
Just a joke about Flat Earth, related on Who censors the information, for what reason?And a fix on Ari-Kat text for those interested to find out behind.
-
@Eggcorn Not really off-topic at all. There is a question whether limiting promotion of purely not-only-false, but actually conflict-promoting misinformation is actually bad faith, or, instead, socially-responsible action. Promoting flat-eartherism is not only irresponsible, it is also bad faith. Some may argue, so is promoting already-disproved election fraud conspiracy theories.
When the physical ballots in hand have already been compared, by hand, one at a time, to the known counts, it is really hard to credit the idea that a conspiracy or plot has changed them. To forward links to already-disproved conspiracy theories is, one might argue, irresponsible. Others may feel differently. But when one is operating what amounts to a public service, it is arguable that one has a responsibility to the public not to harm them. And disinformation is harm, in all cases.
Facts and opinion are not elements of equal value, or of equal kind. Neither are facts and fiction. Facts improve the mind. Opinions soften it. Fictions, presented as facts, damage it.
-
-
@Catweazle Of course. And the failure to cater to your bubble, thus potentially breaking it, could probably only be viewed as a good thing.
"I want to read about election fraud."
"But there is no election fraud."
"But I want to read as many articles as possible, written by people trying to convince me that there IS election fraud, because that is what I believe, and it comforts me."
"You want me to lie to you?"
"Precisely. Make me happy. Send me articles that reinforce what I believe."
"If you want me to lie to you, you will have to modify the syntax of your search such that I have no choice."
"OK, kewl. I'll do that." "Giuliani claims of election fraud."
"OK, here are your results."
"WHAAAAAT? The first result that comforts me doesn't appear until the SIXTH result?"
"Sorry, no matter how I try I cannot present only lies. The first five results demonstrate that the sixth result is 'unreliable' at best." -
@Ayespy If that's what Zalex TbGbe were talking about, then they really lost me (frankly, I can't tell what they were talking about)! I hate to go "I know you're the mod here" twice in a row, but another mod did say "Please, no political discussion here". In your defense, your opinion on Trump's claims is relevant to your point. But I think we should avoid discussing who won the election (I'd rather this thread not become a political shouting match).
With that out of the way: Let's say you're right about the election. Biden won, and Trump's claims of fraud are baseless disinformation. More to the point: Say I believe search-engines should censor websites that, in their judgement, promote baseless disinformation (and I don't believe that). Is banning "election fraud" from appearing in search-suggestions the way to do that? No, it's not. We want people to understand election fraud and how it works, so that they can see through baseless claims. Discouraging people from learning about election fraud promotes ignorance, not facts.
In short: Even if I grant all that, the search-engines are still out-of-line here.
-
Actually,
Does anyone searched by himself to find out what is truth and what is not?
Or "Fact check" opinion is enough here?
-
@Zalex108 To be fair: You can't fact-check everything you believe. If you did, you'd never have time for anything else. And that's where tentative truth comes in. You can tentatively accept most of what you know as true. But for the really important things, it's good to fact-check.
What year was Julius Caesar born? The exact year he was born is just trivia, no need to fact-check (unless you're writing a paper about him). What browser should you use? That's a matter of far greater consequence. Your choice of browser can save you, or waste you, a lot of time and effort. So you should do your homework there.
-
@Zalex108 On the whole, people do not search to find out what is, and what is not, true. More frequently, they search for results that serve their own confirmation bias.
Be it search engines, social media, or low/no cost or state-sponsored propaganda/disinformation ("news") sites, this has become one of the greatest evils of the internet infosphere. There is a natural human tendency that, even when one's belief is 100% incorrect, the reaction to receiving data contrary to a position in which one is invested is to dig in and defend that position all the more ardently. The infosphere of the internet and its built-in smorgasbord of information choice enables this self-destructive human tendency. It has grown so strong that there is a particular segment of information consumers, roughly 30% of the "searcher" class, that has evolved in their pursuit of viewpoint-defense to the point where all fact-checking sites are now considered by them to be corrupt, owned by the enemy, and therefore unreliable. If a fact-checking site says something is false, then these take that as proof positive that it is true.
I'm not sure what one can do about human nature.
-
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
More frequently, they search for results that serve their own confirmation bias.
I'll admit to being guilty of that myself. That's why search-engine censorship is a scary thing: I don't want censorship, on top of my own confirmation bias. That would make it rather difficult for me to find the truth.