12 ms·

For non-technical searches, mostly stuff relating to news, politics, or Covid, Google is next to useless at this point due to their attempts to combat misinform

For non-technical searches, mostly stuff relating to news, politics, or Covid, Google is next to useless at this point due to their attempts to combat misinformation. Even their autocomplete functionality guides potential search queries in an entirely unorganic manner. For instance, something may be trending according to google, while simultaneously being blacklisted as an autocomplete option- if it has Any elements of wrongthink about it.

ajvs 5y ago
Joe Rogan also commented on this cover-up a few days ago: > "Look, if I wanted to find specific cases about people who died from vaccine-related injuries, I had to go to Duck Duck Go. I wasn’t finding them on Google,” Rogan urged. [1] https://summit.news/2021/10/19/video-joe-rogan-accuses-google-of-hiding-information-on-vaccine-deaths/ https://summit.news/2021/10/19/video-joe-rogan-accuses-googl...
- mehphp 5y ago
  It's sad that Joe Rogan comes up as any kind of authority on anything besides mixed martial arts.
  - symlinkk 5y ago
    Why do you need to be an “authority” to talk about what you saw with your own eyes on a search engine?
    - mehphp 5y ago
      You don't think it's dangerous for someone with a platform like Rogan has to spread misinformation? That's what I'm referring to.
      - infinitezest 5y ago
        Which of his claims are you asserting is misinformation?
        mehphp 5y ago
        His anti-vaccination stance (specific to coronavirus, I don't know if he's anti-vax in general). He pushes ivermectin as a valid alternative to the vaccines when the data does not currently back that up.
        ajvs 5y ago
        He's not an anti-vaxxer. He is pro-vaccine for all other illnesses. He's also said he doesn't care if you choose to take it, just don't mandate it For all people when the science is not clear about the cost:benefit ratio for certain populations such as children. That being against mandating these emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines for all individuals is being conflated as being an "anti-vaxxer" shows how much propaganda has caused some people to lose all rationality on this topic.
        mehphp 5y ago
        I'm not conflating the two, I didn't say anything about his stance on the mandates. > That being against mandating these emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines They are not "experimental" by the way, THAT is propaganda/misinformation.
        thehappypm 5y ago
        All medicine is experimental to some degree, until you have years of data.
        gred 5y ago
        Please. I had to sign a 3-page liability waiver to get my COVID vaccine. I didn't have to do that for my flu vaccine, and never have.
        KennyBlanken 5y ago
      - JohnWhigham 5y ago
        No I think it's more dangerous when wide-reaching platforms like CNN spread misinformation about him and are completely unapologetic about it [0]. The most Joe Rogan has done regarding "misinformation" is telling people they should not get the vaccine and discussing vaccine side effects that, while yes they are not great in number, for every other platform it's a taboo topic for some weird reason. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHWkvaQmxvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHWkvaQmxvI
        mehphp 5y ago
        > The most Joe Rogan has done regarding "misinformation" is telling people they should not get the vaccine I'm baffled by this comment and how that alone isn't concerning to you. All the experts say the vaccine is safe and effective, and yet we have people listening to Joe Rogan on the topic. Joe Rogan also claimed to have taken ivermectin and experimental antibodies and yet seems to claim that ivermectin is what did the trick. I don't know what his motivations are but he's clearly confused/misinformed. edit: to clarify, I'm not defending CNN in this instance at all. Both cases of information are terrible.
        busymom0 5y ago
        He’s not anti-vax. People need to stop throwing labels around. It’s equivalent to calling people the 4 letter n word. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t see the point of young fit and healthy people getting the Covid “vaccine”. And especially not for kids. If you are old or have medical conditions or obese, then it might help you. The current shots are merely a potential severe symptom mitigator. Being opposed to a non-long term tested, short lasting, unaccountable shot which doesn’t even prevent catching and transmission of the virus doesn’t make someone anti-vax. Also opposing mandates of such a "vaccine" doesn't make someone "anti-vax". This is very specific to the Covid “vaccine”, not for other typical vaccines like polio, measles etc which are long term tested for over 70 years (smallpox for 2 centuries) and are also super effective at preventing catching and transmitting the virus. The current Covid shots don’t even fit the definition of a vaccine as they don’t prevent catching and transmission of the virus in any meaningful way. And even mild and asymptomatic cases have the same viral load as the unvaccinated which basically creates the problem of “silent spreaders”. The definition of a "vaccine" is supposed to be: "The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132#a_2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132#a_2 The Canadian definition is: "When you're vaccinated, you build immunity (ability to resist infection). This protects you from getting the disease and prevents you from spreading it to others. Some vaccines protect you for several years and some protect you for the rest of your life." When something isn't preventing the disease, nor effective after 3-6 months, how can it be considered a "vaccine"? And how can one mandate it? As for “safe and effective”, that’s just become a false marketing term. How can you say that when 10 months after pushing the shots, they are discovering new rising side effects and Sweden, Iceland, Denmark are banning Moderna and Canada is not allowing it for under 24 year olds? Or 6 months later, they are restricting AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson? How can something be considered “safe” in this case? When something hasn’t been long term tested, how can you trust the “experts” for it being safe? And since they wane off in 3-6 months, how are they “effective”? > claimed to have taken ivermectin and experimental antibodies He took what his doctor prescribed him. He specifically said that both the monoclonal antibodies and maybe ivermectin too could have helped him. He didn’t say only ivermectin helped him. He also said that him being fit and healthy must have helped him, something most people don't even talk about. Just a few years ago, same people pushing the Covid “vaccine” used to say that drugs shouldn’t be rushed and fda can’t be trusted because one-third of the drugs approved by the FDA and (by inference) Health Canada from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after the medications were made widely available to patients. This was more common for those given "accelerated approval". Follow-up period was 11.7 years and it took 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light. Given longer lifespans for youth, there is a potential for harm. So, it is perfectly valid for youth to be concerned about the lack of long-term safety data for the COVID-19 vaccines. Lack of this data makes informed consent impossible. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2625319 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26253... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/527575055/one-third-of-new-drugs-had-safety-problems-after-fda-approval https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/5275750... https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-events-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-even... In the UK for example, the rate of cases is now higher in the fully vaccinated group in anyone over 29 age group. The 18-29 group will also soon be higher in fully vaccinated as the vaccine wanes off in 3-6 months. Yet everyone's blaming the unvaccinated instead of the ineffective "vaccine". Page 13 table: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Please observe the nuances.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > Why do you need to be an “authority” to talk about what you saw with your own eyes on a search engine? Ask the GGP commenter? Why name drop if only the observation is important?
- gilrain 5y ago
  And he would know because why? He’s a loud personality with an audience.
  - HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
    He related his personal experience of searching for something in Google, not being able to find it, and then finding it straight away in DDG, a search engine that does not try to do mass opinion shaping. No special credential necessary for that.
- mminer237 5y ago
  I can find info about vaccine-related injuries fine on Google. It's actually easier than on DDG: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuries https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuries https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuries https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuri... I'm assuming he's just upset that blogspam that inanely conflates VAERS with evidence of injuries actually related to COVID vaccines shows up higher on DDG because that reinforces his false presuppositions.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    For reference, a picture of the results: https://i.judge.sh/forked/Party/chrome_TpfzKRLp5k.png https://i.judge.sh/forked/Party/chrome_TpfzKRLp5k.png
  - fouric 5y ago
    You do know that Google does search bubbling, so your results aren't the same as anyone else's, right? "I could find it on Google" is exactly as (in)valid as "It works on my machine"
  - ajvs 5y ago
    He said "I'm looking for very specific people and very specific cases" in the following sentence. He's not referring to generic anecdotes.
that_guy_iain 5y ago
I read this as "I can't find stuff because Google blocks misinformation". Every time I search for politics, news, or covid related stuff I find it straight away. News it right at the top with multiple articles available. Politics and COVID I find the offical source straight away.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I’m generally happy with Google’s results as well, but I also acknowledge that both of our experiences could be a symptom of us wanting to see the things Google that has not labeled as misinformation and it would be harder to detect subtle missing perspectives that might be being downranked if the results shown are generally pleasing to us.
- LMYahooTFY 5y ago
  I read this as "Google is perfectly capable of determining the truth". Moving from an era of media oligopoly into the internet age was very hopeful IMO, and now it's bottlenecked by even fewer companies.
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    > I read this as "Google is perfectly capable of determining the truth". Well, OP was the one that defined the info they were looking for as misinformation as far as I can tell. And then I stated I could find offical sources for politcs and COVID. These are not Google's opinions but simply a fact. WHO, RKI, CDC, etc are all offical sources of information for COVID, etc. This is not them define what is true or false but merely providing me with the offical information so I can educate myself.
    - yonaguska 5y ago
      Nope, I'm not looking for misinformation. I said that Google's attempts at combatting misinformation often hinders my searches. Oftentimes, I'll be looking for a pre-print or something from a scientific journal that is tangentially related to Covid, but Google will basically spam the official CDC, WHO, and news articles urging people to get vaccinated. For any political news, sometimes I'll be looking to verify a story I remember reading from a few days or weeks past, or I'm looking to do my own fact check of a claim...and I'll find that several mainstream news sources will have republished the same story(not the one I'm looking for), unrelated to whatever claim I'm checking- similar only in sharing a keyword or person of interest- and Google rewards this behavior by pushing the trusted organizations to the top of my searches. It's like forum sliding, except it's search. Then using ddg or brave, the story that I'm looking for will often be the first result. It's a very insidious antipattern, because it's hard to even know if your perception is being actively screwed with.
jccalhoun 5y ago
can you give a specific example?

ajvs 5y ago

Joe Rogan also commented on this cover-up a few days ago: > "Look, if I wanted to find specific cases about people who died from vaccine-related injuries, I had to go to Duck Duck Go. I wasn’t finding them on Google,” Rogan urged. [1] https://summit.news/2021/10/19/video-joe-rogan-accuses-google-of-hiding-information-on-vaccine-deaths/ https://summit.news/2021/10/19/video-joe-rogan-accuses-googl...

mehphp 5y ago
It's sad that Joe Rogan comes up as any kind of authority on anything besides mixed martial arts.
- symlinkk 5y ago
  Why do you need to be an “authority” to talk about what you saw with your own eyes on a search engine?
  - mehphp 5y ago
    You don't think it's dangerous for someone with a platform like Rogan has to spread misinformation? That's what I'm referring to.
    - infinitezest 5y ago
      Which of his claims are you asserting is misinformation?
      - mehphp 5y ago
        His anti-vaccination stance (specific to coronavirus, I don't know if he's anti-vax in general). He pushes ivermectin as a valid alternative to the vaccines when the data does not currently back that up.
        ajvs 5y ago
        He's not an anti-vaxxer. He is pro-vaccine for all other illnesses. He's also said he doesn't care if you choose to take it, just don't mandate it For all people when the science is not clear about the cost:benefit ratio for certain populations such as children. That being against mandating these emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines for all individuals is being conflated as being an "anti-vaxxer" shows how much propaganda has caused some people to lose all rationality on this topic.
        mehphp 5y ago
        I'm not conflating the two, I didn't say anything about his stance on the mandates. > That being against mandating these emergency experimental COVID-19 vaccines They are not "experimental" by the way, THAT is propaganda/misinformation.
        thehappypm 5y ago
        All medicine is experimental to some degree, until you have years of data.
        gred 5y ago
        Please. I had to sign a 3-page liability waiver to get my COVID vaccine. I didn't have to do that for my flu vaccine, and never have.
        KennyBlanken 5y ago
    - JohnWhigham 5y ago
      No I think it's more dangerous when wide-reaching platforms like CNN spread misinformation about him and are completely unapologetic about it [0]. The most Joe Rogan has done regarding "misinformation" is telling people they should not get the vaccine and discussing vaccine side effects that, while yes they are not great in number, for every other platform it's a taboo topic for some weird reason. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHWkvaQmxvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHWkvaQmxvI
      - mehphp 5y ago
        > The most Joe Rogan has done regarding "misinformation" is telling people they should not get the vaccine I'm baffled by this comment and how that alone isn't concerning to you. All the experts say the vaccine is safe and effective, and yet we have people listening to Joe Rogan on the topic. Joe Rogan also claimed to have taken ivermectin and experimental antibodies and yet seems to claim that ivermectin is what did the trick. I don't know what his motivations are but he's clearly confused/misinformed. edit: to clarify, I'm not defending CNN in this instance at all. Both cases of information are terrible.
        busymom0 5y ago
        He’s not anti-vax. People need to stop throwing labels around. It’s equivalent to calling people the 4 letter n word. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t see the point of young fit and healthy people getting the Covid “vaccine”. And especially not for kids. If you are old or have medical conditions or obese, then it might help you. The current shots are merely a potential severe symptom mitigator. Being opposed to a non-long term tested, short lasting, unaccountable shot which doesn’t even prevent catching and transmission of the virus doesn’t make someone anti-vax. Also opposing mandates of such a "vaccine" doesn't make someone "anti-vax". This is very specific to the Covid “vaccine”, not for other typical vaccines like polio, measles etc which are long term tested for over 70 years (smallpox for 2 centuries) and are also super effective at preventing catching and transmitting the virus. The current Covid shots don’t even fit the definition of a vaccine as they don’t prevent catching and transmission of the virus in any meaningful way. And even mild and asymptomatic cases have the same viral load as the unvaccinated which basically creates the problem of “silent spreaders”. The definition of a "vaccine" is supposed to be: "The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132#a_2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4132#a_2 The Canadian definition is: "When you're vaccinated, you build immunity (ability to resist infection). This protects you from getting the disease and prevents you from spreading it to others. Some vaccines protect you for several years and some protect you for the rest of your life." When something isn't preventing the disease, nor effective after 3-6 months, how can it be considered a "vaccine"? And how can one mandate it? As for “safe and effective”, that’s just become a false marketing term. How can you say that when 10 months after pushing the shots, they are discovering new rising side effects and Sweden, Iceland, Denmark are banning Moderna and Canada is not allowing it for under 24 year olds? Or 6 months later, they are restricting AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson? How can something be considered “safe” in this case? When something hasn’t been long term tested, how can you trust the “experts” for it being safe? And since they wane off in 3-6 months, how are they “effective”? > claimed to have taken ivermectin and experimental antibodies He took what his doctor prescribed him. He specifically said that both the monoclonal antibodies and maybe ivermectin too could have helped him. He didn’t say only ivermectin helped him. He also said that him being fit and healthy must have helped him, something most people don't even talk about. Just a few years ago, same people pushing the Covid “vaccine” used to say that drugs shouldn’t be rushed and fda can’t be trusted because one-third of the drugs approved by the FDA and (by inference) Health Canada from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after the medications were made widely available to patients. This was more common for those given "accelerated approval". Follow-up period was 11.7 years and it took 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light. Given longer lifespans for youth, there is a potential for harm. So, it is perfectly valid for youth to be concerned about the lack of long-term safety data for the COVID-19 vaccines. Lack of this data makes informed consent impossible. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2625319 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26253... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/527575055/one-third-of-new-drugs-had-safety-problems-after-fda-approval https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/5275750... https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-events-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/health/fda-approval-drug-even... In the UK for example, the rate of cases is now higher in the fully vaccinated group in anyone over 29 age group. The 18-29 group will also soon be higher in fully vaccinated as the vaccine wanes off in 3-6 months. Yet everyone's blaming the unvaccinated instead of the ineffective "vaccine". Page 13 table: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Please observe the nuances.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > Why do you need to be an “authority” to talk about what you saw with your own eyes on a search engine? Ask the GGP commenter? Why name drop if only the observation is important?
gilrain 5y ago
And he would know because why? He’s a loud personality with an audience.
- HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
  He related his personal experience of searching for something in Google, not being able to find it, and then finding it straight away in DDG, a search engine that does not try to do mass opinion shaping. No special credential necessary for that.
mminer237 5y ago
I can find info about vaccine-related injuries fine on Google. It's actually easier than on DDG: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuries https://duckduckgo.com/?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuries https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuries https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine-related+injuri... I'm assuming he's just upset that blogspam that inanely conflates VAERS with evidence of injuries actually related to COVID vaccines shows up higher on DDG because that reinforces his false presuppositions.
- judge2020 5y ago
  For reference, a picture of the results: https://i.judge.sh/forked/Party/chrome_TpfzKRLp5k.png https://i.judge.sh/forked/Party/chrome_TpfzKRLp5k.png
- fouric 5y ago
  You do know that Google does search bubbling, so your results aren't the same as anyone else's, right? "I could find it on Google" is exactly as (in)valid as "It works on my machine"
- ajvs 5y ago
  He said "I'm looking for very specific people and very specific cases" in the following sentence. He's not referring to generic anecdotes.

that_guy_iain 5y ago

I read this as "I can't find stuff because Google blocks misinformation". Every time I search for politics, news, or covid related stuff I find it straight away. News it right at the top with multiple articles available. Politics and COVID I find the offical source straight away.

sokoloff 5y ago
I’m generally happy with Google’s results as well, but I also acknowledge that both of our experiences could be a symptom of us wanting to see the things Google that has not labeled as misinformation and it would be harder to detect subtle missing perspectives that might be being downranked if the results shown are generally pleasing to us.
LMYahooTFY 5y ago
I read this as "Google is perfectly capable of determining the truth". Moving from an era of media oligopoly into the internet age was very hopeful IMO, and now it's bottlenecked by even fewer companies.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  > I read this as "Google is perfectly capable of determining the truth". Well, OP was the one that defined the info they were looking for as misinformation as far as I can tell. And then I stated I could find offical sources for politcs and COVID. These are not Google's opinions but simply a fact. WHO, RKI, CDC, etc are all offical sources of information for COVID, etc. This is not them define what is true or false but merely providing me with the offical information so I can educate myself.
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    Nope, I'm not looking for misinformation. I said that Google's attempts at combatting misinformation often hinders my searches. Oftentimes, I'll be looking for a pre-print or something from a scientific journal that is tangentially related to Covid, but Google will basically spam the official CDC, WHO, and news articles urging people to get vaccinated. For any political news, sometimes I'll be looking to verify a story I remember reading from a few days or weeks past, or I'm looking to do my own fact check of a claim...and I'll find that several mainstream news sources will have republished the same story(not the one I'm looking for), unrelated to whatever claim I'm checking- similar only in sharing a keyword or person of interest- and Google rewards this behavior by pushing the trusted organizations to the top of my searches. It's like forum sliding, except it's search. Then using ddg or brave, the story that I'm looking for will often be the first result. It's a very insidious antipattern, because it's hard to even know if your perception is being actively screwed with.

jccalhoun 5y ago

can you give a specific example?