Re: Google is a pale shadow of what it was.
Google Search has been getting worse for years. Heavily censored, we used to be able to click through all of the results it harvested.
Sounds like the censorship is going to get worse..
Sullivan earlier this year contributed to that effort by pointing out a study that found Google's rival Bing is worse when it comes to misinformation.
Who, or what is going to decide what 'misinformation' is? Is this where Brian Stelter's heading, to lead google's 'reliable sources' function? A search engine shouldn't be editorialising, especially when many things have become highly politicised and we're living in a cancel culture. Or you're specifically looking for 'misinformation' to try and get a balanced view of a particular controversy.
Not sure what the solution is, other than more education to spot when imformation is being intentionally manipulated to intentionally misinform you. So Stelter had some.. interesting positions wrt the Biden laptop that showed he, and his sources weren't entirely reliable. Or the whole Covid fiasco, where information was declared misinformation waaay before any actual facts could be established/verified. So effectiveness or otherwise of taking 'horse pills'.
Perhaps there's a way to display how (or who) has manipulated results, add some kind of impact rating, or just allow users to peform a 'raw' or conspiracy-mode search. But it would be a tad complicated, eg-
'Is the Earth flat'
Should produce 'no' results. Then again, a 'reliable' summary link to a controversy page could be entertaining. I've seen a few fun papers and videos that show the lengths flat-earthers go to to convince themselves they're right. Or more seriously, Jane Lubchenco-
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has barred a member, Jane Lubchenco, a White House official and former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from receiving NAS honors and working on publications or programs for the academy or the National Research Council. NAS imposed the sanctions, which will last 5 years and were first reported yesterday by Axios, on 8 August, after the academy concluded Lubchenco violated its code of conduct when she agreed to edit a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on which her brother-in-law, who was also a former Ph.D. student of hers, was an author.
Especially given controversy around her chosen field-
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [Phil Jones, July 8, 2004]
Gatekeeping functions are kinda important in maintaining and protecting certain narratives..