Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?
-
@guigirl When I get some time...
-
@guigirl Of course. Electoral fr -> electoral fraud -> reams and reams of crap about electoral fraud or supposed electoral fraud - all, btw, harvested from major search engines.
-
The whole point of the thread was that many search providers are performing a soft censorship. As you can clearly see from my screenshot, my results differed from yours. The same holds true for other providers. It's not a question of yielding results but that certain results are not readily available.
-
Slightly OT, but lately there have been several offerings of alternative, "uncensored," "free speech" social media sites to escape evil Youtube, facebook, and Twitter to something that does not limit one's expression.
I have visited each of these. So far, every one is a toxic soup of right-wing conspiracy theory and hating on (and even recommending violence toward) "liberals" (aka, socialists, commies, fascists, baby-killers, deep state, democraps, etc.). If this is the crap the "censors" have been protecting us from, I can't be sure I'm entirely upset by that.
-
And that differs from the bile on the mainstream platforms that have a clear bias?
Free speech isn't there to protect just the things you find agreeable. It's there for all the ugly stuff too and in a free country, we are free to ignore it.
-
That's some extrapolation you've made there. If you are going to quote me, do not take it out of context just so you can get up on your soap box and puff up your chest with faux activism. We are talking about tech censorship, in the Tech forum.
-
Bill Gates must have been too busy masterminding the corona-hoax to catch this one:
-
-
@sjudenim the term in English is "electoral" fraud.
-
@sjudenim You are also free to "ignore" the smell of the slop and manure when you walk through a pig farm. But it still clogs your nostrils and brings an involuntary retch reflex to your throat. The internet has enough pig farms. There is actually a sane and sober reason why, in this forum for instance, we have a Code of Conduct. It's to avoid toxicity from creeping in and making the place unwelcome to visit, thus effectively shutting it down to people of good will. Offenders against the code always complain their "free speech" is being violated, that they are being "censored," and that they have a "right" to offend. They say if people don't like what they write, then they don't have to read it. Turns out it doesn't work that way. There is value to promoting and protecting sanity and peace of mind.
-
Check the thread title, that's the question being asked
-
If I go to a pig farm, I know what to expect. I'm not going to go there and complain about the smell. People who come here must adhere to the code of conduct, yes, but you were complaining about other sites not adhering to your code of conduct.
You are a moderator here and yet you make posts like this
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:Slightly OT, but lately there have been several offerings of alternative, "uncensored," "free speech" social media sites to escape evil Youtube, facebook, and Twitter to something that does not limit one's expression.
I have visited each of these. So far, every one is a toxic soup of right-wing conspiracy theory and hating on (and even recommending violence toward) "liberals" (aka, socialists, commies, fascists, baby-killers, deep state, democraps, etc.). If this is the crap the "censors" have been protecting us from, I can't be sure I'm entirely upset by that.
Not only is it clear to see such toxic behaviour from both sides, but more to the point, is it the role of a moderator to demonstrate a political bias that can alienate people whom you choose to demonize for not seeing the world through your glasses?
Yourself and @guigirl have engaged in a diatribe that has not been constructive nor helpful to the simple question asked by the original poster.
-
@sjudenim said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
If I go to a pig farm, I know what to expect. I'm not going to go there and complain about the smell. People who come here must adhere to the code of conduct, yes, but you were complaining about other sites not adhering to your code of conduct.
You are a moderator here and yet you make posts like this
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:Slightly OT, but lately there have been several offerings of alternative, "uncensored," "free speech" social media sites to escape evil Youtube, facebook, and Twitter to something that does not limit one's expression.
I have visited each of these. So far, every one is a toxic soup of right-wing conspiracy theory and hating on (and even recommending violence toward) "liberals" (aka, socialists, commies, fascists, baby-killers, deep state, democraps, etc.). If this is the crap the "censors" have been protecting us from, I can't be sure I'm entirely upset by that.
Not only is it clear to see such toxic behaviour from both sides, but more to the point, is it the role of a moderator to demonstrate a political bias that can alienate people whom you choose to demonize for not seeing the world through your glasses?
Yourself and @guigirl have engaged in a diatribe that has not been constructive nor helpful to the simple question asked by the original poster.
Let me see if I'm following here: it's not the people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being in league with/embodying demons who are engaging in demonisation, but those who are critical of such people and practices? Hmmm
-
@sjudenim If you go to a forum, or facebook, or other "mainstream" social media site, you don't expect to be going to a pig farm. Yet, you may find yourself in one anyway. And the pigs in the slop will find fault with you for reacting with distaste.
I make make some statements that sound "political" after a fashion, but they are more in the way of reporting on things seen. Obviously, my viewpoint is mine, and I like some things and don't like others. I sometimes express that. You will note that at no time do I denigrate the position of another (though I may find fault with unkind speech, while not attacking the views it expresses) or try to sway anyone to my viewpoint. You see, it's not whether a person is "conservative" or "liberal" or "libertarian" or "independent" that makes a difference to me. It's whether or not people are civil, or if they attack, demean or belittle others personally or on the basis of identity. It's whether people live in a world of facts, vs baseless theories. It's whether a person is capable of reason. It's whether people do harm or do good (or at least do no harm). Your economic theories may concur with mine or conflict with mine, but what I will care about is whether you approach me with malice over a difference of opinion.
But the question of the thread is over "censoring." And my position is that dangerous and harmful lies ought not to be given oxygen. My position further is that truth and falsity can be determined, and that fact is not the same as opinion - no matter how popular it is to devalue the damage harmful lies can do by claiming they deserve the protection of "just another opinion." So if some private enterprise wishes to elevate things they evaluate as true while making less of things they evaluate as false and potentially harmful, then I can't change their minds about these things, and I find that the practice does not harm me in any important way.
-
@purgat0ri said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
@sjudenim said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
If I go to a pig farm, I know what to expect. I'm not going to go there and complain about the smell. People who come here must adhere to the code of conduct, yes, but you were complaining about other sites not adhering to your code of conduct.
You are a moderator here and yet you make posts like this
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:Slightly OT, but lately there have been several offerings of alternative, "uncensored," "free speech" social media sites to escape evil Youtube, facebook, and Twitter to something that does not limit one's expression.
I have visited each of these. So far, every one is a toxic soup of right-wing conspiracy theory and hating on (and even recommending violence toward) "liberals" (aka, socialists, commies, fascists, baby-killers, deep state, democraps, etc.). If this is the crap the "censors" have been protecting us from, I can't be sure I'm entirely upset by that.
Not only is it clear to see such toxic behaviour from both sides, but more to the point, is it the role of a moderator to demonstrate a political bias that can alienate people whom you choose to demonize for not seeing the world through your glasses?
Yourself and @guigirl have engaged in a diatribe that has not been constructive nor helpful to the simple question asked by the original poster.
Let me see if I'm following here: it's not the people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being in league with/embodying demons who are engaging in demonisation, but those who are critical of such people and practices? Hmmm
Yeah, you're not following, but that didn't stop you from trying to put the cart before the horse to provide a gotcha.
The person who posted a simple question has been insulted repeatedly which is in direct violation of the code of conduct. A code of conduct that a moderator has the nerve to promote while not adhering to and/or enforcing. It has nothing to do with their political position or whether we agree or not and everything to do with their role on this forum and how they are abusing it.
-
This post is deleted! -
@sjudenim said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
has been insulted repeatedly
Could you point that out? No one has flagged a comment. I think I've seen a couple of snippy exchanges, but I have missed "insulted repeatedly." And if a user feels themselves personally insulted, I would hope they would flag the same. Otherwise, if testy words go back and forth to a small degree, perhaps the user is OK with that.
-
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
@Eggcorn said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
Election fraud is a real thing, it is factual.
Yeah, actually, in modern democracies, no. It's not. Not on any scale. For instance, in the US, there have been two county-wide (county, not country) cases of vote harvesting (going around collecting blank absentee ballots from people who requested them and then filling them out and turning them in instead of the actual voters) in the last 50 years. One case did not affect the final election results and, since the other might have, a new election was held - without the candidate who had paid for the vote harvesting. Both cases resulted in felony convictions and prison time. On the other hand, individual people who tried to vote twice, tried to help a single ineligible voter to vote (whose vote was not permitted) or tried to vote themselves while not eligible (which vote was not counted) are serving prison terms of up to five years apeice.
Wide-scale systemic election fraud within the systems of Europe, the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, is a hallucination. A fever dream. Autocracies, on the other hand, hold sham elections all the time. That is, indeed, election fraud. There are reams and reams of data on such "elections," which one can use a search engine to help themselves find.
@sjudenim said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
The US is different than every other country you mentioned too since it allows each state to regulate federal elections, opening the door to different election laws for the same election. Not good
and more to the thread topic
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulatedSadly, even DuckDuck is not free of this.
I tried typing "Election F" and was getting suggestions, but not any for fraud. I added the "r" and all suggestions stopped. I typed out the entire word without any suggestions
Déjà vu?
-
@sjudenim Did that get posted twice? I found it open and unposted, but that may be because I'm having to run two copies of the browser at the same time for mail testing - and lost track of it in one, while completing it in another.
-
@sjudenim said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
The US is different than every other country you mentioned too since it allows each state to regulate federal elections, opening the door to different election laws for the same election. Not good
You would have to take that up with the framers of the US constitution. I think that fact may, in the most recent general election, however, have prevented a de facto nullification of the election.
