I just did this using simply "covid" as my search criteria. Here's the results:

Google:

Top stories: CNN, The Independent, sky news, Forbes, Newsweek, the Times, Fox News (more news).

Perspectives: The Hill, Substack, The Mercury

Search results:

CDC, WHO, Johns Hopkins, COVID.gov, floridahealthcovid19.gov, whitehouse.gov, UN.org, more CDC, Worldometer, covidactnow tracker, Mayo Clinic, Wikipedia, vaccines.gov, cnn, Yale medicine, OSHA, CBS, CNBC, floridahealth.gov, CA.gov tracker in California, NIH.gov, ABC, Pan American Health Organization, TN.gov, CT.giv, combatcovid.hhs.gov, floridahealthcovid19.gov (sponsored), FDA.gov, CBS News, clevelandclinic.org, publichealth.lacounty.gov, and so on.

DuckDuckGo:

1. a box explaining COVID-19 with summary, vaccines, symptoms, tips, statistics, sourced from Wikipedia.

First search result: CNN

Then Recent News from Newsweek, CNN on MSN, Fox, and "more news."

Then CDC, NPR, CDC, NYT, Mayo Clinic, CDC, worldometer, UC Davis.edu, webmd, and "more results."

Looks to me like Google is offering a much more robust variety of info on its first page than DuckDuckGo is.

But that has NOTHING to do with the topic - which is to use a search engine when looking for information.

A lot of the material filtered out is often junk science and propaganda. It does depend on the Search Engine though.

Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science - Scholarly Open Access 2023

Truth is now the new hate speech.

In Orwell's 1984, 'Doublespeak' was the method of communication. In the language of doublespeak the meanings of words were deliberately obscured -- or reversed.

The government of Oceania held 4 ministries. The Ministry of Truth was one of those. But those who worked for the Ministry of Truth had the job of writing propaganda. They did this by rewriting history and changing word meanings to fit Big Brother's hold on power.

The only reason the book was titled 1984 was because Orwell wrote it in 1948 and needed a title. Orwell missed it by about 30 years -- and that it is getting more egregious every day.

My high school classes read 1984 in 1984. At the time, my assignment for the essay at the end (always not to exceed two proofread, edited pages) was to look around the current (1984) world and to cite examples of things that were happening around us that seemed to foretell events that were in Orwell's work of dystopian fiction.

At the time (1984) violence in movies was becoming quite common and more graphic. In the book, Big Brother kept the Proles amused by producing extremely violent movies, with the goal of saturating the people with violence to make them immune to the violence used by Big Brother to remain in power and to use more power to take over other countries in their world.

The Proles in 1984 were the class of citizens of Oceania who had no real power for themselves, but could be easily manipulated and used by those whose goal was to remain in power forever.

There were two other things the government provided for the Proles, besides the violent movies. The other two were cheap gin and lotteries. The lottery winners were not real. Propaganda news made them real to the Proles. (As I recall, they very rarely threw in a real winner just to keep it "real." All the rest were fake winners.)

Most of the short essays the students wrote about 1984 were about movie violence. But that was in 1984 real-time.

Fast-forward to now, it would not be possible, in a two-page essay, to cover all the things being done by power-grabbers that we are seeing all around us. It would have to be a dissertation.

But. . .my point is moot (or is it?) because teachers would not be allowed to teach 1984 in many schools across the country now because digging into the book might cause critical thinking skills.

As far as the discussion in this thread of where is Truth and Google v. DuckDuckGo goes, I am sadly summing it up by paraphrasing that famous philosopher Mick Jagger who wrote, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.".................

To paraphrase Jagger, for that "do your own research" routine, "You can't always get what you need. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you want."

Boomer

PS: Dare I say -- think about it?

It does take an open mind and asking yourself why is so-and-so saying what he or she is saying? And is it verifiable or just hot air?

If you're using "Chrome", you're logged into Google...

Not necessarily. Have a chrome window up right now but not logged in to google (at least according to gmail, calendar, and voice).

How may years ago was this? And you honestly think that search algorithms have changed since then?

Filter out porn? LOL! If you don't have your settings set to restrict access, going deep enough into almost any search will give you porn...

And if you search for something, you don't start seeing ads for that item on ToTV?

I don't see adds on ToTV (I also don't usually use google), but that has nothing to do with being logged in.

Ads are controlled through cookies and cookies don't require you to be logged in. When you search for an item Google will either place a cookie on your computer with an ID and record the searches done by that ID or it will place a cookie on your computer that contains the searches (the former is more likely). Assuming ToTV is using Google's ad service (likely) then it will pull that cookie from your computer and feed you an ad relevant to it.

I have not thought about this much, but if you have ever logged in to Google in that browser then Google might know who you are whether you are logged in or not. When you are logged in, Google could place a cookie on the computer with your ID in it. Whenever you access Google again from that browser it could retrieve the cookie and retrieve the ID that it used when you were logged in and know who you are whether you are logged in or not. Maybe I'll look into that sometime.

Really? I had no idea about "cookies"... Are they oatmeal raisin or chocolate chip?

Ahhh, there is the answer, YOU, after INVESTIGATING, find a truth, maybe not, but at least your open to FACTS, which is a plus in my book. We have a tendency to look for OUR narrative, right??

Un-disputed FACTS

If those facts are undisputed, they have not been checked properly.

Google sucks. Bing usually gets me right where I want to go without fighting to get thru the weeds

The thing to worry about is how much "spin" is produced in the Russian troll farms.

"Truth is now the new hate speech."

Ain't THAT the truth!

...Or, put another way, "Truth is that which serves the ____ ". (You fill in the blank)

Fascinating, the way some people differentiate between Truth (capitalized intentionally) and fact. Truth is defined not necessarily as factual information but often nebulously as "the Greater Good", and all is fair if one sees him/herself as protecting and furthering that Greater Good.

The process is similar in just about all cases: if the facts support Truth, then then the facts are quoted exhaustively. However, if the facts do NOT support Truth, then the opposite is true. The facts have become the enemy of Truth and must be ignored. If those facts cannot be ignored, then the origin of those facts must be discredited by impugning the source. If this is not possible, then the messenger bringing those facts must (figuratively, at least) must be killed.

Some of us see Google of engaging in at least step one of that process. But maybe we should be looking no further than our own back yards.

LOL! there are personality type labels for that type of comment

The easiest way to see that there is no such thing as un-disputed facts , is the color of the cloudless midday sky. Most everyone sees blue. . but not everyone. . color blind people see a blue of a different shade/hue, but call it blue after being trained by those who are not color blind.

facts are a human construct, and when humans are involved, they always ph* it up with biases and genetic differences, aka individual perceptions, along with being no different than the animal kingdom of wanting to be the king of the local pack. . .

"DO YOU THINK THAT TRUTH CAN EVER BE THE NEW TREND".
The problem to this question is we all believe in our own truths.
What is right and what is left, what is up and what is down.
Once one takes a stand it is hard to change their direction.
To do that they would have to admit to themself and to others that they have taken the wrong path.
It's equivalent to a male driver who's made the wrong turn but continues until he hits a dead end.

Bottom line, FACTS can not be disputed, IMHO!

Google is not your friend. I’ve gone to Duck Duck Go and now to Brave for searches.

Truth or theory
 

“People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe”. Andy Rooney. Rooney hit the nail right on the head. This is why it’s so difficult to change peoples mind even when the science says they are wrong.

I think we all agree on the force of gravity especially if we are about to get in a plane wreck as well as the various factors of physics and the breaking point of various metals.

Facts are facts no matter what spin is put on them.

Ya, cuz you can trust Microsoft so much more than Alphabet. [/sarcasm]

Any talking head I would ask myself why he/she is saying that? What is that person's interest in what they are saying? How are they saying it? And most importantly when was this statement said?

Also-- follow the money.

Life is an ever changing dynamic, the search for "truth" is a never ending search,whatever a person's reasons are the weight of facts, logic and reasoning a person brings to any discussion is more enlightening as to what is "factual" regardless of motive real or imputed, it's easier to question someone's, character or motive when you disagree with the facts they present and you you have no response, how many times have we seen that here? institutions of higher learning (?) with safe zones so not to hurt feelings and debating societies facing extinction, the internet that channels one towards echo chambers of our preconceived beliefs and away from critical thinking

Critical thinking is not denying global warming, attacking books on African American history, etc. There are serious problems in academia but they are usually not the ones put out there by FOX and its related stations and interests.

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

It is hard not to say anything political here. So cannot really go into this.

Surely you jest. The only debate going on at colleges and universities is whether they are radically left enough. Conservative voices are squashed, picketed and/or boycotted.

Oh, and don't even get me started on what a bunch of snowflakes they've turned these kids into. Safe spaces? Really?

Snowflakes? That is hilarious.

I would add guest speakers shouted down and prevented from speaking if they do not conform to the prevailing thought at that institution

I remember being told that at this point in my life I would starving , freezing in the dark and the staticics were there to prove it, global warming perhaps but critical thinking I would think would suggest keeping an open mind, as to books on African history I don't have enough knowledge to judge how much is history and how much is politicized history

Not sure who you mean? Unless we are again getting too close to politics.

I should not be, but am, really startled at the number of people, things, events I ask "Alexia" about, how to spell, or when they took place, etc. etc. and the number of things that might be considered "conservative", authors, books, events, and so on I get "sorry I do not know that" and similar replies. At first I didn't even recognize there was a "pattern".... silly me !

Probably none of the above, solid GOLD cookies to google !

I always have loved what Mark Twain wrote about various subjects--

Mark Twain quotations - Truth

I tend to do the same. It seems many supposed "truths" are backed up by those with money and motives.

An out-of-the-box question. Have you ever heard a talking head reporting on an illness/disease, or provide death statistics of people who are considered normal weight? A group of us were discussing this topic. If we believe what talking heads tell us, only obese or malnourished people succomb to disease/illness and death. Yet, we all know that everyone dies. Why do they provoke their viewers into believing it will never happen to them? Seems odd.

I am not clear just where the mods draw the line between ideology and politics, I have been chastised for things I think were purely ideological, the IA programs have demonstrated bias, not just the programing and the RLHF (reinforced learning human feedback) but more importantly that 60% of programed influenced from a web crawl and 22% from curated sources makes me think that the preponderance of readily available public information is biased, if so that would decidedly move the needle, giving direction to the herd