Less politically biased search results ...

NightHawkeye said:

Well, sure, if one knows exactly what one is looking for then one should expect an exact result.

Thing is, sometimes when I search I'm actually looking for information ... without knowing the exact form it exists in. Regardless of whether what I was searching for fell victim to Google's political leanings or an algorithmic quirk, it's good to know alternatives to Google exist.

Click to expand...

It is really odd, then, that in my YouTube News feed that I get a lot of FoxNews links.

NightHawkeye said:

Google's bias has been amply documented ... even some liberal publications picked up on it. Did you miss it?

Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to you reporting an actual biased search result if you ever encounter one, because in this case, you clearly didn't.

Albion said:

People interested in using some a search engine that is not slanted like Google can check out these:

4Conservative.com

SearchConservative.com

and yippie.com

A problem is that one of these may be best when the issue is one thing, but it's another search engine that has better coverage when it comes to the next issue the user is interested in. Several of these used in conjunction with DuckDuckGo works well.

Note: I do not recommend StartPage.com for this purpose although it is often said to be the best if privacy is the concern.

Click to expand...

Well, I’m happy to see you using unbiased search engines like SearchConservative.com.

lasthero said:

Out of curiosity, what terms did you use to search for it?

Click to expand...

StuffIAgreeWith.com

NightHawkeye said:

Google's bias has been amply documented ... even some liberal publications picked up on it. Did you miss it?
Trump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens democracy, online freedom | USA Today

Google claims to value free expression and a free and open internet, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Big Tech giant wants the internet to be free and open only to political and social ideas of which it approves.
...
The president is absolutely right.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Google was accused of manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Also, research at Harvard University found that Google’s search rankings are not objective, and in 2017, the company was fined billions of dollars by the European Union for manipulating search results.

Google also maintains at least nine shadowy blacklists that affect what the public sees when using its search engine.
...
When it’s not manipulating the internet to prevent users from viewing right-wing content, Google is directly attacking that content. A report by The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed that Google’s fact-checking service “fact-checked” only conservative news websites, and that in many cases, these fact-checks were outright wrong. What does it say about the fact-checker when its fact-checking is biased and incorrect?​

Click to expand...

Brad Parscale's opinion is noted. Perhaps you can link to someone other then Trumps digital consultant?

SimplyMe said:

It is really odd, then, that in my YouTube News feed that I get a lot of FoxNews links.

Click to expand...

Come to think of it, so have I. In fact, just a few hours ago, I got a clearly pro-Trump ad telling me how Nancy Pelosi needed to be kicked out.

That’s some weird liberal bias.

lasthero said:

Come to think of it, so have I. In fact, just a few hours ago, I got a clearly pro-Trump ad telling me how Nancy Pelosi needed to be kicked out.

That’s some weird liberal bias.

Click to expand...

I have found that if I click any political youtube videos on christian forums, there is a high chance that I get offered a lot of alt-right, anti-feminism and anti-muslim content.

This is the reason I no longer participate in youtube video threads on this forum.

NightHawkeye said:

Google's bias has been amply documented ... even some liberal publications picked up on it. Did you miss it?

Click to expand...

I wasn't contesting the claim that Google has a bias. I specifically asked how this particular search could have anything to do with political bias. You might as well be complaining about left-wing bias because you can't find a recipe you're looking for--I don't see any sort of connection.

Conservative and liberal search engines? That's some kind of funny. If I may point out, the meanings of many and most terms reverse in connotation and denotation from positive to negative and visa versa in a left/right dichotomy. It's not personal, it's circumstantial. Which means that it necessarily requires seeing both sides to have any objective worthwhile analysis.

NightHawkeye said:

Google's bias has been amply documented ... even some liberal publications picked up on it. Did you miss it?
Trump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens democracy, online freedom | USA Today

Google claims to value free expression and a free and open internet, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Big Tech giant wants the internet to be free and open only to political and social ideas of which it approves.
...
The president is absolutely right.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Google was accused of manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Also, research at Harvard University found that Google’s search rankings are not objective, and in 2017, the company was fined billions of dollars by the European Union for manipulating search results.

Google also maintains at least nine shadowy blacklists that affect what the public sees when using its search engine.
...
When it’s not manipulating the internet to prevent users from viewing right-wing content, Google is directly attacking that content. A report by The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed that Google’s fact-checking service “fact-checked” only conservative news websites, and that in many cases, these fact-checks were outright wrong. What does it say about the fact-checker when its fact-checking is biased and incorrect?​

Click to expand...

By “liberal publications”, you mean Trump’s campaign manager?

Google's algorithms for news results have a component to take into consideration historical source accuracy, as well as what people clicked on for a particular set of search results to determine what to bubble up to the top. So, if someone searches for "Story XYZ", and 75% of users all clicked the same link first, the search results for that query will become more and more refined based on that.

Given that the age group that's more likely to use the internet to get their news vs other forms leans younger, that's not totally unexpected (thus the reason that while Fox gets higher TV ratings, CNN gets more site hits)...older people are more like to be conservative and get their news from TV, younger people are more like to hit the web.

The accuracy aspect that I mentioned before also has to be taken into account...and the right wing sources have nobody else but themselves to blame for that and their stuff tends to always get worse independent fact check scores than their left-wing counterparts. Many publish more conspiracy than actual news, so they can't act all shocked and appalled when they do publish something legitimate and it doesn't bubble to the top of the list.

That's where it's important to make the distinction between the two concepts of bias and accuracy. They're not interchangeable concepts, though people commonly make that error when evaluating news sources, and bias doesn't necessarily negate accuracy.

Now, one area where google has recently admitted to artificially altering their results was their recent algorithm update to push alternative medicine results lower in the results than legitimate ones, as that was a response to pressure put on them to do so as a response to this recent rash of anti-vaxxers popping up all over the place.

And you can see that downward trend for them via this handy little tool...
Serpstat — Growth hacking tool for SEO, PPC and content marketing

For instance, you can see where alternative medicine sites have taken a hit (as google even acknowledged that would be the case with their May 2019 algorithm update)

So, as an example, Mercola, peddler of alt-medicine nonsense:
mercola.com - Overview - Domain Analysis

...you can see where their visibility score tanked (similar results for DrAxe and DrBerg - neither are actually doctors)


However, for some right wing news sites, the same is not true.

Breitbart, for instance, shot up after the algorithm update



...same for rush limbaugh's website


(it's a neat tool to use, however, they do limit, by IP address, so they cap your searches at 5 per 24-hour window)

https://suite.searchmetrics.com is another option for looking that stuff up as well.

Silmarien said:

Why would the left want to suppress international treaties anyway? We are usually into issues like international law, so I don't see how this sort of search could have anything to do with political bias.

Click to expand...

If you’re wearing conspiracy-colored glasses, we’ll then...

grasping the after wind said:

Not a conspiracy but a bias so ingrained that those that hold those biases do not even realize how biased they are and only left wing media and giant monopolistic corporations not the whole world, though perhaps they consider themselves to be that as their worldview seems to them to be so self evidently correct that everyone not mentally impaired or malevolently evil would have no choice but to agree.

Click to expand...

Very well. How would this ingrained bias manifest when coding a search algorithm in such a way they would not be aware of it? I don't see how that would work.

Nithavela said:

Just did a google search for this subject. This site was the first result. I think the problem might be your searching habits.

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Click to expand...

That's the first one that came up for me too and there were a few others on the first page including wiki of coarse.
Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

I tend to use Ecosia. It uses Bing's underlying search engine, but uses the ad revenue to plant trees. And it claims not to share your information with third parties.

ToddNotTodd said:

If you’re wearing conspiracy-colored glasses, we’ll then...

Click to expand...

What is the definition of God in these categories you displayed?

grasping the after wind said:

Sorry but if you read it the pain was self inflicted. Stick with things less complicated like "See Spot run. Run Spot run." and you will be fine. I've seen many longer run on sentences than the one I devised and no harm ever befell the reader other than boredom. You must have a weak constitution.

Click to expand...

Then again, perhaps you need to increase your supply of commas and full stops. It appears your keyboard has run out of both.
OB