Search results seem only to preserve the most controversial stuff, because that's what people look for, which is just the way the internet and news works. Th

Search results seem only to preserve the most controversial stuff, because that's what people look for, which is just the way the internet and news works. The idea that search engines aren't honest brokers or trustworthy sources is probably an indirectly positive development, as they shouldn't be a social credit record or an immutable journal, and people should not feel they are subject to them, or expect that the results are a true or accurate reflection of a persons life or work. Search was originally great for searching technical material about things, but they're profoundly awful for telling you anything accurate about people, and I'd suggest that may be a positive view. I did some professional writing for newspapers and magazines in the 00's, and it's all no longer online, which was a bit of a surprise to discover, as the articles in those publications were part of what I saw as significant personal accomplishments. Even the photos from the security cons have been largely scrubbed. There's some mercy in things falling off your social credit record with time, but for me that has been double edged. The good stuff is gone, and the lame stuff persists, but to me it's a small price for the freedom that the relative privacy provides. Some sites I understand what happened as some of it was personal, and other sites I checked to see how far back their online content went, and my pieces were just from before their current historical cutoff. Of course as a natural conspiracy practitioner, I think there is an ideological effect of progressing search results to emphasize the present and downplay the good and value in the past as a matter of permanent revolution, but even I would be suprised if that was ever explicitly articulated anywhere, and the bitrot of internet history can be explained by other more concrete and plausible incentives.