[–] nonservator [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

An odd thing happened when I wrote two recent essays regarding changes that Google has made to its web indexing/search algorithm. There were two different general opposition opinions expressed: 1) Google is doing nothing wrong, they have a near monopoly just because their product is better and people like it and 2) (lots of noise ending in) “….how dare you accuse Google of being bad!”

Shills show up here too, albeit in far fewer numbers. They're everywhere.

What about statistics? Bayes or Frequentist? Some in each camp of thought consider the other camp to be utter nonsense — but which one do we demote or de-rank as “misleading, low quality, offensive, or downright false information.” Or do we make sure to include information equally from both sides? Or favor one side a little? A lot? Or pretend that they could both be equally valid? Or let the citizenry decide by giving equal access to all statistics texts or links based on popularity?

"Shut up," they explained, "because reasons." The only thing that matters is that El Goog have declared you Evil.

So, we know that Google has done and is doing this. We do not accuse them of this, they announce it to the world.

"We're making the world a better place."

How do you suppress alternate points of view? Look to the history of newspaper wars in America’s major cities over the last century. Think of the yellow journalism days, battles for dominance between Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Simple, you curtail their access to markets, you dissuade their advertisers, you attack their income streams, you limit their distribution. Google’s de-ranking of WUWT, the world’s #1 Climate Skeptic website, does all three of these.

"What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak?"