11
109

[–] McBanjo 11 points 109 points (+120|-11) ago 

Part of me is frightened that a company would have control over what is the truth in searches. The other part of me wants to taste the sweet sweet tears of the anti-vaxxers when they have nothing in the search results.

6
67

[–] RexKramer 6 points 67 points (+73|-6) ago 

If your not willing to listen to both sides of an argument then we all lose....

13
40

[–] escape 13 points 40 points (+53|-13) ago 

If one of the sides is confirmed to be false, then no, only that side loses.

2
28

[–] Tantalus 2 points 28 points (+30|-2) ago 

People listened, they did studies, they proved it false and even the original guy who came up with the shit retracted it.

The two sides are "the science" and "those willfully subjecting other people to harm for no good reason".

0
7

[–] anotherRefugee 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I refuse to listen to poppy cock. Because it's poppy cock.

The Earth is 5000 years old because the Bible should not get equal footing on search results to the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because scientific evidence.

0
3

[–] Wassy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I have to disagree. This is the beauty of being able to decide for yourself and learn for yourself. Here google is telling you this is what truth is so there is no need to criticise, rationalise, or think for yourself anymore. Agreed this may seem like a good idea, but it takes so much more away. I dont need someone to tell me what the truth is. Im free to study it on my own... plus you are assuming this system in itself will not be misused or become corrupt. Its not like google would ever misuse this tool now would they?

9
20

[–] zoetry 9 points 20 points (+29|-9) ago 

No company will be able to control what is truth in searches, that's just silly.

This is just an extension of what search engines already do, which is to attempt to provide the best content based on your query.

3
22

[–] garryorlarry 3 points 22 points (+25|-3) ago 

Of course companies control what truth is in searches, and in everyday life. That is exactly what lobbying is.

2
10

[–] crab_crouton 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

Precisely. It's their search algorithm, so I say it's fair they can do it.

I mean, someone searching something on google is literally asking "Hey Google, what is X?". If someone doesn't like how Google's algorithms work, they'd use just another search engine (which is what happened with Yahoo for instance).

1
2

[–] webgurl 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

If you ask any single company to control the truth in search content, that's effectively breaking the internet. You have whatever that company says is truth, and all the other stuff falls to the bottom. It breaks the internet in Google's case, because everyone uses Google.

2
2

[–] TynanSylvester 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

This is just an extension of a bad thing search engines already do, which is "bubble" people against different ideas and opinions to make them happy. "Best" content is a very subjective idea - is it what's "best for you", or what will make you happy now?

http://dontbubble.us/

0
3

[–] Sir_Laughs-a-lot 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You really think a lack of results are going to impact, in any way, what people are CHOOSING to believe already?

0
1

[–] zondor 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That would just reinforce their beliefs and get them to claim persecution.

0
2

[–] fisting4freedom 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Also the sweet sweet tears of the anti-GMOers would be tasty.

0
0

[–] TheBeesTrees 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure that the location ranking of a search result isn't going to change anyone's mind on a hot topic item like this. Let alone produce tears of any kind...

[–] [deleted] 3 points 53 points (+56|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
17

[–] phyroxis 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

No, no. That'd never happen. A wealthy old man wouldn't build an entire informational news-like empire to spout his own ideology to the world, enrapturing an aging highly-motivated voting population and filling their senile heads with lies and misinformation shouted by people that look like them or those they wish they could fuck.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

5
4

[–] jdsutton 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago 

Popular sites naturally rise to the top. As of right now, things like anti-vaccination and creationism sites can show up in the top results if they are linked to enough.

Google is apparently worth about $350 billion, which seems to be quite a bit more than the richest individuals, so I don't think we need to worry about any one person buying Google. Even if they did, they could enact some sort of ridiculous censorship, regardless of whether or not Google implements this new "truth ranking".

0
14

[–] Balrogic 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

We shouldn't whitelist the enactment of blatant censorship just because the possibility of future censorship exists. If I can't beat a crappy idea with a better idea then the crappy idea is the better idea for all intents and purposes. I'm not threatened by some crazy nonsense that's easily refuted with objective fact. Why are you? Proper education consists of more than getting someone to repeat the correct answers when queried. When you fail to teach people to distinguish between verifiable fact and bullshit you empower bullshit. Every time.

1
1

[–] escape 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

What if a billionaire religious nut buys Google

What if a giant meteor falls from the sky, destroying all life on earth?

What if questions are always pointless.

0
1

[–] sharkiness 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Until they're not.

0
0

[–] zondor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Google doesn't work like Reddit.

1
43

[–] drmoron 1 points 43 points (+44|-1) ago 

duckduckgo.com is the new google search.

1
25

[–] atldude 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Once you start using DDG and utilize its zero-click answers, keyboard shortcuts, and bangs, you can never go back to another search engine.

And the best part is that their search results aren't filtered.

4
11

[–] escape 4 points 11 points (+15|-4) ago 

The problem is how poor the quality of search results are from DDG. There's a reason for the filters and adjustments. When you search, you want relevance, not comprehensiveness. The former is the only useful of the two.

0
0

[–] bazaarcluster 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A search is by definition filtering of information, is it not?

1
4

[–] umilmi81 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

What about Bing.c bwahahahaha I'm sorry, I couldn't even finish the sentence.

0
13

[–] Targut 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Porn.

0
5

[–] Balrogic 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Bing is a great search engine when you're in the market for random malicious redirects on your result clicks. I remember how that went when I tried it before.

0
1

[–] totes-mah-voats 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Bing has the best presentation of information. The interface is very slick. Unfortunately, the searches kinda suck...

0
2

[–] Xycos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I use duckduckgo and ecosia.org

Ecosia plants a tree for every 56 searches made by its users. Pretty neat.

1
1

[–] will4274 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I became a much bigger fan of duckduckgo when I realized just how lazy google had made me. When I first started using duckduckgo, I would search say "Hillary Clinton" and be annoyed when her wikipedia page didn't come up. After a bit of thought, I realized that if I wanted Hillary Clinton's wikipedia page, the appropriate thing to search was "hillary clinton wikipedia" and that it's actually quite valuable that I can search things like "hillary clinton phone scandal contrary opinions" and not just get a link to the contrary opinions part of her wikipedia page.

tl;dr: google gives good answers for people who are bad at searching and bad answers for people who are good at searching

2
29

[–] somebody112 2 points 29 points (+31|-2) ago 

SALON: Google should decide who the winners and losers of the internet are.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] immibis 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They already sort of do. They penalize sites for not being mobile friendly or not using HTTPS.

5
20

[–] mHtt 5 points 20 points (+25|-5) ago 

Fuck google.

0
1

[–] phyroxis 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Switch to Bing instead! /s

3
-1

[–] Balrogic 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

Double-wrap your firewall for extra protection and make sure you check your anti-virus for good measure.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] phyroxis 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Seriously. No one on reddit seems to have any hair anymore. So easily offended.

0
0

[–] SirWompalot 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

0
17

[–] MrHighBrow 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

There's no way this could go wrong.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
11

[–] Balrogic 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Like with YouTube. They always do the right things with YouTube. Don't be fooled by all the evidence to the contrary, all the people actively abused by fallacious intellectual property grabs.

0
13

[–] ahab_with_piggyback 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I am going to air on the side of that our internet is not transparent enough (having lived in other countries and personally seen how different information is on opposite sides of the world). So to have another corporation tell me that they know the difference between fact and fiction is just the same as someone blowing smoke up my ass. If I wanted to listen to someone feed me a round of shit I would listen to Fox news.

load more comments ▼ (49 remaining)