• AWildMimicAppears@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    after looking around on that site, i deeply mistrust the original author about probably everything. using the search term “christchurch shooting was faked” and arguing that the search results attack conspiracy theories, which means that there is censoring going on - that does not fit my definition of sanity.

    e: ah, and the moon landing was fake and covid shots are evil. dudes, this guy is nuts, dont even take the time of the day from him.

    • Tibert@compuverse.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wtf. Didn’t even have to go too far. Here in the brave section

      meaning you will never find the truth about the moon landing or COVID vaccines there even if the query asks for exactly that. What you will find - though - is a bunch of irrelevant “fact check” or “science loving” sites, or ones shitting on “conspiracy theorists”.

      WTF is wrong with this person.

      This “article” is about spreading search engine for people doing “their own research” and making the US look stupid on TV or something.

      I am for no “censorship”, however sometimes it is needed, because as for the example of the vaccines or moonlanding, people may je mislead, then search s* online and get a trash conspiracy article which enhances that stupid opinion. In this case there needs to be a way to spread good information.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I don’t agree with his conspiracy theories, search engines should give us the information we are looking for. He asked for information, and some of the search engines effectively told him, “no.” That’s valuable information because it’s not just conspiracy theories they’re removing. For example, some years ago I heard a news report about some American political group called the “Proud Boys.” I wanted to look into them to find out what they’re about, so I Google them. Turns out Google has scrubbed their site from search. Accusations of this kind of political censorship are mounting, too. Another politically contentious site, KiwiFarms, is also delisted. I can only imagine how many other sites have been delisted over the years which we just don’t know about.

      I’m an adult. I can make up my own mind. If I ask for information, I expect a search engine to provide it. Kagi passes this test.

      • Thorned_Rose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is my issue too. Yes, there are some things that are absolutely dangerous and some things that are completely nuts. But not all conspiracy theories, for example, are crazy. Some are actual conspiracies. That aside it’s a dangerous precedent to set when someone is picking and choosing what to show or not show and removing the ability of others to decide for themselves.

        Many governments, organisations, companies, etc. can be above board, but they don’t always stay that way. Others are dystopian in their obsession with power and control. Its not always obvious what’s what when censorship and curation of results are going on.

        And frankly, sometimes the ‘facts’ turn out to be wrong. Our reality is that we live in a world where profit and greed drives information and trends, where late stage capitalism leads to more exploitation and all of this is helped by bias, fraud, science for sale and yes, censorship.

        I cannot trust a company or organiation that censors search results because quite simply it means I can’t tell if they’re covering over anything else and what that anything else could be.

        Much like the parable of the boy who cried wolf. You’re either 100% above board and trustworthy or you’re not.

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          100%. We learned this lesson centuries ago during the Enlightenment. Censorship is harmful to society. Sure, if there were some magical and neutral arbiter of information, maybe it could work if democratically controlled. By there isn’t, and these tools are not democratically controlled. Every time people or groups get too powerful, they abuse the system for their own advantage. We should always presume companies like Google do the same using the age old premise of “protecting the children.” How many violations has this adage defended over the years.

            • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I still disagree. Arbiters of factual information can’t be companies, and can’t be governments. Currently we don’t have a proper arbiter; I would argue that finding one isn’t “hard”, it’s straight-out impossible.

              On the same line, who is it up to to decide what does it mean to pursue true knowledge?

              I strongly believe that censorship is not the answer- it’s not the answer to anything. Let’s say you are in a circle of strangers, and one of them starts shouting to the others that you did something horrible. The solution to this problem is not to kill him, but to present a different source of information that can stand more stable than is (ex: I wasn’t there at that time, I have history of not doing that kind of stuff, you claim this for your own gain, …).

              The solution to ignorance is not to shut down dissident opinions or theories, as flawed or dangerous as they may be, but to be open to educate.

              In this specific instance pertaining to search engines, the correct way to make misinformation available would be to provide appropriate disclaimers with reputable and independent sources, not to censor.