3 ms·
Sigh, do people really think there's some hidden propagandist in Google that blacklisted Churchill's photo? To send what message, exactly? That they will rand
by yongjik 6y ago
Sigh, do people really think there's some hidden propagandist in Google that blacklisted Churchill's photo? To send what message, exactly? That they will randomly censor images until you do one single click on "Images" which will foil their evil plan?
Many years ago there was an amusing bug for a few days - when you searched for Rachel (I think) the Biblical figure, the infobox showed a happy smiling face of some office worker somewhere (named Rachel, of course). Machines work in mysterious ways, sometimes they pick up signals in totally idiotic ways. At least, nobody accused Google of a hidden conspiracy to discredit Judaism...
- seesawtron 6y agoIn response to everything we see around today that seems to make significant waves in the whole world, you can respond differently as you choose. You can choose to ignore everything and assume that the state is run by organisations that care about the "greater good". This is of course a effortless thing to do. Or you can start to re evaluate your dependence on a single centralized source of information and how there exist no measures to control that source by a publically elected body making it an extremely powerful agency for mass propaganda IF it decided to do so. It's more than just about whether this was an honest glitch or an intentional response to adhere to ongoing anger of public so as to show support. Either way, it is necessary to think how long such powerful agencies can exist without intentionally or unintentionally contributing to Orwellian dystopia.
- koheripbal 6y agoI suspect it's a search poisoning effort by an external group.