> If Google started to detect the pattern of someone slipping into madness and did what they could to start to refute things, to sprinkle in some helpful counter-points with their diet of pure nonsense, maybe we can save people who'd otherwise be lost.

To which the response is who are Google to influence how or what people think?

It's easy to make up pure-nonsense examples that nobody believes - like Soros suppressing the truth about the flat Earth - and say believers should be saved.

What if someone questions the official version of 9/11? What if they believe/d the NSA taps internet, social networks and world leaders? What if they think an omnipotent sky fairy watches over us all and blesses America?

Google's "did you mean" is irritating enough when applied to assumed typos; its purpose should be to give people what they're looking for, not tell people what they should be looking for instead.