We give you more credit than that, otherwise we wouldn't even bother to reply.

I did not understand any part of this. I would probably get it if you spelled it out as if for a child.

"I don't want to read about the other "side" that says the earth is flat."

It's good for a laugh anyway...otherwise you wouldn't know there are creatures that believe that...therefore, you wouldn't recognize the language and get sucked in.

I know already you are going to tell me you won't get sucked in and because you are a gulcher, I also know your not a progressive.

The other point you are missing is that progressives and liberals do not follow their own stated rules. That's my observation anyway.

Thanks...I try just to observe and not Look for. I too, want to see both sides. However, so far, the other side has no side...it's 180 opposed.

"-Pages that directly contradict well established scientific or medical consensus for queries seeking scientific or medical information, unless the query indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

-Pages that directly contradict well-established historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

These two guidelines provided by Google should set off alarm bells to anyone who has a thirst for knowledge or anyone that has the audacity to examine both sides of a topic." [bolded by me]

There is nothing sinister about this. If I'm searching for medical information, I don't want to read about homeopathy. If I'm searching for history, I don't want to read about holocaust denial. The text says unless the query indicates that. So if they're honest in their implementation, if I search for info on these topics, I can still get it. They're just keeping it from showing up in ordinary searches. I don't want "both sides of a topic." If I search for the orbit of the planets, I don't want to read about the other "side" that says the earth is flat.

Also, statistically, there are more liberals and more liberal activity online than conservative. If you rank sites by clicks, then you end up with liberal sites preferred. No need for conspiracy.

Jan, uses DuckDuckGo
(I use this because it does not recall my preferences. I want to read views that do not just reinforce my own opinions.)

Thanks ycandrea and temlakos...hadn't heard of that site. I sometimes use goodgopher.com though.

A lot of lefty sites are just as agravating. I agree they aught to rethink the practice. Can't stand it when your reading a page and something is playing and you have no idea where it's coming from.

Although, I wouldn't throw out the intent so quickly...these sites are not stupid...except for the first 3 anyway.

If I get information on many more shackles to my freedom, I'm going to duct tape my head to keep it from exploding. If I could only get incoming mail and articles to adhere to "No Problems, Only Solutions" but even the greatest software is not that sophisticated.

I have noticed lately that whenever I Google something controversial or political all I get are left wing sites. My husband uses DuckDuckGo. I guess I will be switching. I will also need to find a new email server and another map program.

I have direct evidence that Google have been demonetizing content and burying it under an avalanche of irrelevancy. They are no longer a reliable search engine. I recommend Ixquick and DuckDuckGo instead.

Sorry, folks. The real reason google is not 'first paging' these sites is much simpler. These sites all incorporate pop-ups, pop-unders, splash pages, and a list of other annoying tactics designed for generate per-click revenue.

These sites webmasters need to rethink their strategies. Sorry to piss on the conspiracy theorist's barbeque charcoal, but there's nothing deeply sinister happening here.

I used to regularly visit a number of the sites on the list -- but I stopped because they became so damn annoying, I had to stop.

use www.duckduckgo.com and don't worry.

The European Court of Justice’s "Right to be Forgotten" edict and Google's "partnering" with non-objective agitators' "hate crime" smearing are not good, but they are not evidence of what your headline claimed. The article you linked to didn't have any evidence for its "Gestapo annihilation mission" accusations or for it's own headline either. This kind of hysteria only undermines the credibility and seriousness of this forum, especially when members pile on and go alone with it with no challenge.

You "can't help ya there"? You posted it. No it didn't "musta come from somewhere credible".

This isn't the first time an article with an inflammatory headline from an hysterical site with no credibility has been promoted on this forum. This forum is supposed to be in support of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and objectivity, not kook fads and conspiracy theories.

The list of links isn't claimed to be blackballed by Google, it's presented as a suggested bookmark list as an alternative to google searches. "Below you will find a comprehensive list of great sites broken down by category that do an excellent job in their respective field. I urge everyone to bookmark this page and make it their go to when searching for news on politics, health and prepping."

That is the opposite of the article's misleading headline, repeated on this forum, "Bookmark This: Over 400 Links Google Doesn’t Want You To Visit".

The quotes from google are guidelines used in searches for factual information, they don't support the claim that it "doesn't want you to visit" them:

"Pages that directly contradict well established scientific or medical consensus for queries seeking scientific or medical information, unless the query indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

"Pages that directly contradict well-established historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless
the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint."

Yet this is called a "Gestapo like ... plan to suppress any information they deem unfit for readers" in an alleged "war on truth [that] has reached a fever pitch as Google has made it their mission to annihilate the independent media".

One can question google's standards for what it regards as "well established" science, medical practice and history, but that isn't what the article is about.

https://counterjihadreport.com/2017/0...

https://www.rt.com/news/173308-hidden...
There was this duplicate article on USNews as well.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News...

http://www.eutimes.net/2014/07/websit...

100's of examples can be found and 100's or articles on this problem, many of which are from the websites being blocked or having their writers blocked.

There is so much about this...I had to consider it was probable.

I looked over that "reference" and saw no mention of the links cited in the article. Neither the article nor you have provided a shred of evidence that Google "doesn't want you to visit" those 400 links, as was claimed in the headline.

Their reference was the 160 page guide.
As for the lamestream minority media...they are rarely if ever credible.

That's right...we just turned it into a Positive National song...I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy.

All the major media are talking about how bad Trump and his supporters are. "Musta come from somewhere credible," right?

If Google really "doesn't want you to visit" the links the article mentions, it should be no problem to find a reference or two for this assertion.

Yeah, spite all those lowlife libtard wannabe defamers.
Causes me dino to think of the Brits once singing "Yankee Doodle" to snub American revolutionaries, who thought that song just dandy.
In other words~NYAH!

I going to try a test, now FB only let's my stuff go to friends, anything I used to publish Public would vanish into history.
So...I'm going to post the Klingon Hiltery poster in honor of the new ST series.
Let you know if the image gets blurred.

PS...haven't been on FB since I came here to the Gulch.

Great idea...She could call them : Erma's

Google is more subtle than Facebook, which heavily censors certain content. I've noted posts from some of those sites listed in the article disappearing. I've also seen one peculiar form of censorship, blurring images that to me don't seem inappropriate, but as explained to someone who queried them about it, were apparently "trigger" images to some who complained. I guess Facebook considers blurring and "editing" content a lesser punishment than an outright ban.