Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?
-
@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.
-
@Ayespy If it's all the same to you, I'll delete the repetition and all references to it. Cleaner thread.
-
@Ayespy 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?:
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.
Insults, snippy exchanges, testy words, tomayto, tomahto. It's all subjective but it is also in violation of the code of conduct you felt the need to link to and creates the environment which you claim to want to avoid.
And just to respond to your other post, this is where we disagree. You feel things you see as lies shouldn't see the light of day, that's fine, but I think people should have the ability to choose what they want to believe or not and not have some arbiter do that for them.
-
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
@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.
Yes, but tbh you didn't respond the first time I attempted to refute your claim so I took the opportunity to try again to see if you would care to respond this time
-
@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.
