Do you think that truth can ever be the new trend.
 

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

Google actively hides the truth. Use Duckduckgo or another.

Unfortunately, "truth" is in the mind of the searcher. Many don't want the truth, they want their opinions confirmed. Google will return enough responses that you can usually find any "truth" you are looking for.

Just curious, what is one example that I can search on to see google hiding the truth that duckduckgo returns?

I use duckduckgo but I never had a reason to question the results returned by google.

"Lead me to those who seek the truth, and deliver me from those who’ve found it."

Many variations on this quote.

Yes, but more often than not, you have to delve deep into the search...

A while back, I was looking for a specific video that debunked an often claimed fallacy...

I had to go 10-12 pages deep to find it, even though I put in a specific request. The first 8-9 pages were articles citing the false information...

I use google and duckduckgo and I usually find the same "main" results on the first page of each. The search engine you use isn't the issue. The question you ask is the issue.

If you type in:

Is climate change is a hoax

You'll find conspiracy websites that will feed you all the hoax information. The algorithm is picking up on the words "climate change hoax" and spitting out your preferred propaganda.

If you type in

Climate Change science

You'll find more actual data from scientific sources, but also some sites proclaiming that it is /not/ science.

If you type in "climate change definition"

You'll get a bunch of dictionary results, and a few encyclopedia results.

You'll get these results no matter which search engine you use. Learn what to ask for. That requires critical thinking. Not everyone has it, it's not really a natural human trait. It has to be learned.

Hmmm, so you had to navigate past nine pages you considered to be false information to find the one video that held the truth? Interesting.

Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo know what the truth is, they only know what seems to be most relevant and most common. A couple of months ago they returned several articles reporting a certain person's death. Come to find out, they weren't dead. The articles were relevant and they were common but they weren't the truth.

Google and Bing actively suppress results that don't fit their narrative. Duck Duck Go used to not do that, but since the whole Ukraine controversy, they have also started to filter results. See this 36 second video for details: Duck Duck GONE
The upside is that DDG at least still respects your privacy.

The only unfiltered options are search engines like Brave, but they are inferior in quality IMHO.

What is an example of a search that will give significantly different results in google and DuckDuckGo and showing Google’s active suppression?

source

And to answer your other question:

Google Manipulates Search Results

So Brave may use results from google or duckduckgo or others. But that doesn't show how any of them actively suppress results. Of anything, Brave's use of third party indices could be taken as a validation of their data sets.

Or am I missing something?

Did you read the article linked in post #12?

Not as I was typing post #13, but I have now. I am still looking for an example search that shows google is actively suppressing results.

The article made claims that google denies. The article provided search results comparing google with Duckduckgo but while the results were not identical I did not notice a significant difference.

I expect results from different search engines to be different. I prefer that the search engine block spam. I would hope that results are ordered to give me relevant, factual data from known sources ahead of crackpot theories from so.eone's basement or scam pages that are loaded with unintelligible text to try to get on a results page. As far as I can tell, google and duckduckgo are doing just that.

I guess if you want to test it yourself, the next time there is some controversial topic (and you won't have to wait long with the next election season already upon us) you should try using both Google and Brave to search for something considered right-wing conspiracy by the MSM and compare the results.

That Google filters search results to push their own narrative/agenda is not new news.

As another poster on here often writes: I fixed it for you.

I guess Business Insider is making it up then. On the one hand, it's not like the MSM doesn't outright lie all the freaking time.

OTOH, Google claiming it doesn't use its algorithms to skew results, or is fair and unbiased politically is quite possibly also an outright lie.

I didn't read anything in the Business Insider article that made the claim that Google filters results to push their on narrative/agenda. I'm not sure I read that in the WSJ article either.

there is no question that Google has algorithms to order results. When a search returns 172,000,000 results I would hope the search engine orders them to give me more relevant and common results first - I really don't have time to look through all 172,000,000. But with that many results, is there any filtering happening? And where is any evidence that even the ordering is to push a narrative/agenda?

I have never been concerned with what I have received from a Google query. If someone else has been concerned, particularly if they are frequently concerned, the question becomes whether the issue is with the Google algorithm or the user's bias?

Nice spin...

I'd post the link I'm talking about (it's been proven to be true), but I don't feel like taking another "vacation"...

And Google most certainly has algorithms that promote and/or bury certain topics. That has been proven to be true, as well...

As to your "example"...

https://y.yarn.co/b1c330de-e4e4-4eea...8084d_text.gif

Neither of them leads to the truth because they’re not supposed to. You have to decide that for yourself.

Critical Thinking

This is very interesting. I love the quote from Francis Bacon.


Quote by Bacon, Francis: “For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothi...”

I do have a BA in Philosophy (1980) from the U of Nevada, Reno and started on a MA but only had maybe took one course toward it. Could not figure out what practical use a MA in Philosophy would have. Had also started on a MA History to go along with my BA in History. (1981)

So, I got a MA in Librarianship and Information Management from the U of Denver, Class of May 1984. Librarians are supposed to look for the best answers to reference questions.

But, people have been asking what is the TRUTH for thousands of years.

I did also go to Law School at the U of MN (Class f 1989). Kind of the opposite of a search for the TRUTH. You fight for your client to the best of your ability within the parameters of the law.

No doubt the algorithms used by google and probably every search engine sort and order results. When the order appeals to a user then the engine is working well. When the order doesn't appeal to them then the engine is promoting an agenda and burying dissenting opinion.

I guess what I take away when I read about filtering and narratives/agendas and burying topics is the accusation that google has a political viewpoint and is manipulating results to emphasize that viewpoint. I don't believe that. I believe google wants users to go to their page frequently and in order to make that happen, they curate the results to put the most relevant and common information first.

I have yet to receive an example search which returns significantly different results in Google and DuckDuckGo and shows bad intent on the part of Google.

They also need to tread carefully to keep their section 230 protection and that may impact some of the results that are returned.

You looking for the truth on Google? Good luck. Remember, all search engines have been programmed a certain way to provide you with what Google, Facebook, bing, yahoo, old twitter, and others want you to see. That’s like asking Snopes to do fact checking which isn’t accurate.

Check these sites for further info:
How Google manipulates search to favor liberals and tip elections

Middle Schooler Proves Google Search Results Influence Political Opinions [Infographic]

Google Search Results Can Lean Liberal, Study Finds - WSJ

This also goes beyond politics, their search engines favor their advertisers in their searches.

Google Uses Its Search Engine to Hawk Its Products - WSJ

Google tips the scales in its own favor--but do marketers care?; Tuesday's daily brief

The first two pages on goo goo can be paid positions for info. As with life you have to invest time to get to the bottom to find the truth. Keep scrolling. Nothing in life is as it appears. Pawns in a twisted game comes to mind. If it sounds to good to be true it is.

I did a search on the Russian Hoax Investigation back in 2017/2018 and the top links it returned were from:

PBS, NYT, Guardian, CNN, VOX, Reuters, NPR,NBC, New Yorker, ABC, Pew Research,
USA,BBC, Politico.

No bias there!

Anyone with an open mind and read from all sources knew the investigation was a witch hunt from the beginning.

Google vs. Trump: Leaked Video Reveals Executives' Negative Reactions to Trump's 2016 Election Victory

The folks who think that google is not biased, believe everything on MSNBC and CNN are gospel. That includes my brother.

"What is truth?" (Pontius Pilate)

I find this whole"searching for the truth" a bit of a fallacy.
Whose truth?
If you are looking for an alternative against mainstream opinion, any search engine will find what you are looking for, but is it the truth or factual?
If you accept mainstream opinion, is that the truth or factual?
Bit like searching the Bible for the answer to life, is that fact, or the truth?
Many believe it is so.
The greatest brains of their time were convinced the world was flat, and that's a truthful fact! :shrug:

I think a lot of you just don't understand how google and other search engines actually work. I'll explain in the way my coding teacher explained arrays to me, since it's pretty much the same thing.

Google collects information. Google doesn't judge the information, but it does categorize it. It categorizes it based partly on the source, and partly on whether or not a company is paying for it to show up as a "sponsored" result. If it comes from a news outlet, then it's categorized as news. If it comes from a medical journal or science website, then it's categorized as science. And so on.

Each of these categories exist in a virtual file cabinet, unsorted. The newest bit of information goes in the front, the oldest in the back, but otherwise - it's just a mish-mosh of information.

When someone types in "climate change", Google checks the phrase, and discovers that the phrase matches with a whole lot of things in the "science" file cabinet. So it opens the science file cabinet, and takes out all the "sponsored results" that involve climate change, and puts them at the top of the list. It then goes through the rest of the cabinet seeking references to "climate change" and pulls out the files that match, in order of how many people have MOST RECENTLY checked the files. If most people have been RECENTLY checking the "climate change is a hoax" file from Breitbart news back in 2015, then that file will go on the top of the list immediately beneath the sponsored posts. It'll then open other cabinets to check for files that include the phrase "climate change." It'll toss all related files onto the list under the most recent and sponsored.

When it's done doing all this, it spits the entire list out for readers. Every time a reader clicks on one of those entries, the click is counted and marked as "recent." It's tallied with all the other recent clicks. So if 500,000 people click on a "Climate Change is Real!" file that was written yesterday and posted in the New York Times, and only 300,000 click on the one from Breitbart back in 2015, then the NYT post will replace Breitbart as the #1 post beneath the sponsored posts.

If you scroll over and click to results pages after the first, you'll also find articles from Entertainment Weekly about some celebrity divorce, and how there's been a real "climate change" in their household due to hostilities between the couple and their oldest son.

In short, Google doesn't manipulate what shows up on the top of the search results, OTHER than sponsored results. It ONLY looks for how many people are clicking on the links, and inclusion of the phrase in the correct category.

Edited to add: It does filter out certain things restricted by law - such as vulgarity and porn.

That may be true but just say the wrong thing & see how long they banned you for, some of the others will do the exact same thing. So don’t speak to quickly about your knight in shining Armor! They all know what you’re saying whether you think they do or not! Nothing is private, not even here!

Math and computer programming are quite objective except when you start adding in who clicks on what. That brings in people and their prejudices, fears, hates, loves, etc.

RIP Truth
 

Truth was struck a mortal blow in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

The objective today is to inflame and enrage to reap more ad revenue.

"Truth"? If you want to fact check if something is accurate/truth, there are several legitimate fact check sites other than Google. Just don't believe the Noise cable propaganda networks that are sued and lose over three quarters of a billion dollars law suits. Not to mention being sued for a billion and a half in another suit!

If they own their bias and market it that seems to be a dead giveaway that they are anything but objective.

The various nightly news providers are usually very objective except for those selling a skewed narrative which makes them the target of lawyers.

Truth from Google?
 

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Sometimes a skewed narrative is subtle enough to pass nearly unnoticed, I remember hearing a talking head on a Sunday news program , claiming no bias, taking of one group meeting behind "closed doors" and when the opposing group was mentioned they were "meeting in secret"

Meeting in secret implies criminal intent. That is all I am going to say.

Al Capone certainly did that a lot. Except when he did not need too because he controlled who was saying what in areas of Chicago and elsewhere. He did that through the threats of violence and having no regard for laws.

And if you are meeting behind closed doors that implies legitimacy of your meeting place. Eliot Ness met behind closed doors. Eliot Ness - Wikipedia

I'm still curious to see one example of a search where Google censors a topic while DuckDuckGo does not.

It's still objective. The Google algorithms don't measure or give any particular value to WHO is clicking the links. They don't care who is clicking them. They are counting clicks (or "views"). Anyone who does NOT have a google account, or is NOT logged into their google account while they use the google search engine - is not being judged by Google.

If millions of people are viewing conspiracy nonsense and fewer than millions are viewing anti-conspiracy nonsense, then the conspiracy nonsense will be at the top of your google search. It's a binary system.

I do think nonsense sells newspapers. Look at the Publix check-out racks. Candy bars and junk media. Actually, some of the magazines are quite good if pricey. Not the stars' latest romances, diets, fat photos, etc.