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?:
you didn't respond
No, I wasn't here. And in my absence, the thread marched on apace.
-
Stating an opinion is not the same as playing the victim nor an expression of anxiety. That's just another nonsensical extrapolation.
Welcome to the community, you're a wonderful addition...
-
@guigirl This is rather one of the points I was making. I do tend to separate (at least in kind, if not degree) religiosity from caustic propaganda - but they do intermingle sometimes.
But when harmful fictions are spread about the current world and real, living people, that can lead (and literally has led) to violence and death. One of the current tropes, if one "chooses that they want to believe it" could, in extremis, lead to murder of members of one particular political party, because the killer thought it justified to protect the innocent. That is how dark this stuff can get. I have not entirely dismissed the line of thought which concludes that such is the result the purveyors of this "theory" seek to bring about. They may actually want "patriots" to execute "enemy" partisans. It's no secret that certain "believers" of "certain things" literally want, and hope to first provoke and then participate in, a civil war with an eye toward eliminating "inferior" persons and members of the "enemy" political party. It could be said that if the refusal to uplift such an ideology prevented such an eventuality, it would not be an entirely bad thing.
Certain narratives are not only distasteful, but actively destructive of social cohesion and human safety.
-
@sjudenim said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
You feel things you see as lies shouldn't see the light of day
That's not an accurate statement of my position. I hold that harmful lies should not be promoted - or at least that there is no merit in doing so. I also think they should definitely see the light of day, so that one knows whom one is dealing with.
And again, lies are lies whether I "see them as" such or not. It is not necessary for me to look at a statement in order for it to be an accurate statement or a false one. There is a root reality in the world, such as "fire is hot" and to say it's cool and refreshing, so one ought to put one's hand in it is not merely a lie, but a harmful lie.
Currently there are lies circulating that accuse members of a political party of the most evil, ghastly and disgusting things - things which could lead an unbalanced or incautious "believer" to execute members of the party in the interest of the "good of humanity." These would be, also, harmful lies.
-
Post-midnight and the bed calls. Night, all.
-
@guigirl said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
Maybe, maybe not, but if propagated should at the very least be prominently qualified with advisories that such opinions are palpably refuted by peer-reviewed repeatable objective data... aka, science. Nobody should get away with negating science in favour of their deluded opinion.
Refuting requires an exchange, censorship removes that possibility.
-
I removed those examples because they are deviating too far from the thread. The point being made was that you can't close doors based on science, nor religion, nor just good ol' popular opinion since none of those things have proven themselves to be absolute. Political opinions have very little to do with science so that's not really going to be a disqualifier anyway.
Censorship is no different than the attempted sanitization of history by removing the uncomfortable bits which are better served to learn from rather than exclude. Besides, human nature is such that the more people are criticized and condemned for their beliefs and values, the more they will seek to reinforce them. No matter how right we think we are, we can not control human nature, we can only work with it.
That's it, that's my piece, I'm out
-
@Eggcorn said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
@Zalex108 @Catweazle @purgat0ri @Ayespy
This is has been a worthwhile conversation. But I'd like to see what page you folks are on, on this thread's original topic: It seems, most search-engines have blacklisted "election fraud" from their search-suggestions. Is that okay, in your book?
You can't blacklist what didn't exist in the first place. THERE WAS NO ELECTION FRAUD PERIOD! Attempted yes, but actual frand NO!
-
@sjudenim But just so I'm clear, when I'm talking about "harmful lies," it's this kind of thing that I'm talking about.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gabriel-sterling-georgia-trump-violence_n_5fc6b2f8c5b6e4b1ea4f8191
If someone gets hurt, the provocateurs will never be held accountable. So, reasonable curbs on such communications might not be entirely out of order. But, per the purveyors of this stuff, that would be impermissible censoring of their opinions - such as the "opinion" that a certain former government official ought simply to be murdered.
-
https://nlpc.org/2020/04/10/viruses-and-transgenders-twitter-reveals-more-of-its-double-standards/
You have members of congress calling for the accosting of political rivals when out dining, racism directed at certain demographics that are deemed acceptable, antisemitism, misinformation, etc. etc. All unabated by censorship on social media platforms.
Like I said, both sides are guilty but it's funny how this altruism always seems to be so one sided, even in your examples. And there in lies the problem with censorship, it's only as objective as the ones applying it. Which brings us back to the question being asked by the thread starter. Something that I was able to concur with when I tried, as per their request.
-
@dude99 said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
Anyway, I already got my answer I need, so let's leave this topic to be bury by history.
I might have found you a better answer. Here's an article from Nicole Hao, called "New Search Engine Develops Tech to Display Uncensored Results Without Tracking User Data" The article's behind a paywall, but here's an excerpt:
“We are a fully independent search engine. We have the infrastructure and built the technology from the ground up,” said Steve Smith, a developer at Right Dao. “[We] show the search results, free of manipulation.”
Smith gave an example of searching for the keywords “election fraud.” On the most popular search engines, the results on the first page all describe recent allegations of 2020 presidential election irregularities as unfounded. In contrast, the results Right Dao shows include both negative and positive stories about election fraud [empsises mine].
In short: RightDao.com might be the search-engine you're looking for.
-
@Eggcorn Thank you for your attention & support on this topic.
As of now it should be clear to most sane people that Internet Censorship ain't a "political topic", left or right, democrat or republican have nothing to do with this. It's a matter of freedom of speech, freedom to search & share knowledge, & freedom to make sound decision base on our collective wisdom.
Internet have made these freedom possible for over half-century & we all have benefit greatly from it, but now Internet Censorship initiate by Big Techs are destroying these freedoms. This is akin to another Great Purge happened before us, & we are just witnessing the beginning of it.
My journey & many others like me will scrambling to search for more Alt tech to replace Big tech for a long time. Now we need more than just replace Google & Youtube, then Whatsapp & Facebook, even G.Chrome & Firefox...etc. That's pretty much everything on the Internet!
Well, at least we have Vivaldi, for now... until Google have snuff all the life out of Chromium project! LOL
-
A search engine that, looking for "electoral fraud" in the first place to the assumptions in the US in the last elections, whether positive or negative, is not a neutral search engine. A neutral search engine puts in first place the definition of electoral fraud and historical cases of any country. The US is not the navel of the world.
-
@guigirl HAH!!
-
@guigirl , I also think that it is NOT the navel
-
@Catweazle Careful, there... I live in the US, and have unaccountably tender feelings...
-
@Ayespy , sorry, I'm not talking about the people, but about politics that are harmful to the rest of the world.
-
@Catweazle No need to be sorry. My feelings were not actually injured.
-
@Catweazle said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
The US is not the navel of the world.
Of course, China is the navel of the world. Cuz that's what it's name means in Mandarin language:
中 = middle or center or central
國 = country or nation or govern landThus, 中國 = Center of the universe!
or some might just call it the "Middle Earth". LOL
-
@dude99 , I am the center of the world, as anyone else is on the surface of a sphere.