Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?
-
-
@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.
-
@Eggcorn , if you have a headache and google for symptoms and remedies, you just had Ebola
-
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
I'm not sure what one can do about human nature.
Science and critical thinking probably our best attempts at countering the cognitive biases to which our natures predispose us—imperfect though they are.
Shockingly enough, though, I rarely find that the people who are enjoining others to "search for themselves" to discover the truth about, say, the shape of the earth, the theory of evolution, safety of vaccines, or the history of this or that civilisation, etc. are either recommending or practicing what would represent a legitimate endeavour in this direction: namely, devoting oneself to the relevant disciplines and fields so that you have the necessary knowledge and training to subject the claim/hypothesis/theory to a rigorous and appropriate evaluation, and then publishing your findings so that other experts can in turn evaluate your work.
I guess that all sounds like too much work and, besides, I might not get the answer I want. Instead, let me uncritically swallow the rhetoric being pumped out by a bunch of floridly brain-addled YouTubers (and yes, we partly have filter bubbles to thank for this) and pat myself on the back for having left the herd to become an indepdendent
deniercontrarianseeker of the truth! -
The problem is when we accept whatever because is socially accepted.
I just state the "Investigate", instead of disrespecting others because its points of views and theories, even less when you only trust those surrounded to power and money.
All Youtubers are not focused on revenue.
Some even shares the info books, articles, links and their entire research.Just open your mind and follow the White Rabbit, you can choose every second whether continue or not.
They will not punish you because your questions, culture, cosmology understanding...
--
Human Nature is Higher that in Chief Religions/Politics/Sports wants to force on people's Hearts and Mind.
-
@Zalex108 said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
The problem is when we accept whatever because is socially accepted.
The problem is that big tech accepts whatever is socially accepted. If big tech were around sixty years ago or so, they'd have censored folks who (for example) said that women should be allowed to work and earn a paycheck.
That's why I don't trust big tech to censor "blatant misinformation". "Blatant misinformation", to them, means whatever doesn't conform to their own culture's views and prejudices.
-
In Spain we have the pages Maldita.es and Newtral.es, which check the news for its veracity, contrasting and investigating the sources.
-
@Eggcorn said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
"Blatant misinformation", to them, means whatever doesn't conform to their own culture's views and prejudices.
This is a misconception. Some things are provably true, some things are provably not. One of the most destructive societal forces afoot at present is the conflation of opinion with fact. The people whose own thinking works that way assume that everyone's thinking works that way, and that everything is done on the basis of opinion or to support an agenda. Some things can be proved. Some things can be disproved. That which has been conclusively disproved should not be in textbooks (as it is legally required to be in places like Texas, for instance), in newspapers (except to note it has been disproved) or promoted in other places of broad distribution like the internet.
For instance, let's say there is a "theory" going around that carbon dioxide is so beneficial that humans could live in an atmosphere composed purely of it. Some believers of this would wind up dead, having tied bags over their heads to prove it. Or let's say there's a "theory" going around that vaccines are dangerous and should not be taken. Thousands or tens of thousands of people would then die of preventable diseases. The latter example continues to receive wholly unlimited distribution on the web, which contributes to the fact that for the first decade ever, average life expectancy in the US, for example, has actually declined. People dying for a belief. People dying for blatant misinformation. Kinda sad, really. And it is happening. Now.
-
@Ayespy , the problem is not that these misinformed people deny a vaccine or refuse to wear a mask, believing that everything is fake, gets sick (Darwin aproves), but they infect others, bringing up the wave of contagions over and over again.
I don't care about people's personal beliefs, but if they matter when this ignorance endangers others. -
@Ayespy I think I mostly agree with that. But I think you're missing the point: Big Tech will conflate opinion with fact to suit their own prejudices.
-
@Ayespy said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
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.
@Catweazle said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
In Spain we have the pages Maldita.es and Newtral.es, which check the news for its veracity, contrasting and investigating the sources.
Both reminded that, thank you.
I had received that info from the above sites.
Kept pending to investigate about how could be that found and checked:- Who is to the Domain
- Check the Business registry
- Search about the Business / Owners
Any other step?
--
Actually,
If you know what's going on outside the Official News, you understand that this has to be true, even before your research to check it.Since most of the information they deny has been already proved on Labs, the Results are public, but never contrasted, as a Real Person/Scientist would do.
They are just defamed, because it's True.
Accept it will expose to the Society all the fraudulent Official versions about Everything.The information is out there.
-
@Zalex108 , in general
It is ignorance not knowing how to distinguish between what needs demonstration and what does not need it
Aristotle
-
@Catweazle My point, exactly. It is harmless for people to believe false stuff. It is harmless, on the whole, to publish fiction. The harm arises when people act on fiction as though it were fact.
-
@Zalex108 How did I guess that you were getting your information from YouTube? And how is it any better to uncritically accept what "socially unacceptable" than "socially acceptable" information? And if people peddling the former type of information were in power (well, this is no longer a hypothetical, given the previous PotUS), are you sure that "they will not punish you because x"? Certainly, a lot of people pushing the conspiracies you allude to seem to have quite a bit of hostility to 'elites' and people they believe to have discredited their own cosmologies—even going as far as accusing them of committing the worst crimes imaginable without evidence.
-
@Catweazle said in Any Search Engine that doesn't censored "Election fraud" suggestion search term?:
@Zalex108 , in general
It is ignorance not knowing how to distinguish between what needs demonstration and what does not need it
Aristotle
Can't demonstrate the reliability of the Quote since I can't find anything related on Internet.
Then it's false.Many Western minded!
--
Since many times didn't obey to my Parents, had to learn by "Scientific methods", some of them painful.
--
Since I can't find whether the Quote it's True, can't accept it, but nor denied.
I'll check about the meaning...--
The meaning of the Quote lids me to:
-
A Naturally connected Person with the Universe Does Knows what is Truth
-
A Distracted Person from the Universe, questions everything, even when the Results are clear, tested over and over by many different Teams
-
A Distracted Person from the Universe searching for the Truth, learns and advances on every mistake
-
Was he joeking?!
--
About the Censorship...
It happens from Centuries ago... -