Google admits to suppressing WSWS over compliance issues
wsws.org
wsws.org
Have we really arrived at a point where fact-checking and providing context to a claim is considered censorship?
It implies you are removing something based on a criteria which is censorship by definition regardless of your views. We can argue whether it's okay or not but you cannot argue that it's not censorship. You do not have the authority to redefine censorship.
Because it's censorship. You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right?
You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda. But on most controversial issues, it's very hard to "fact-check".
Take abortion. It's clearly the killing of a human life, but it's not murder since the fetus isn't a person. There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change.
Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda.
People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw.
It's not censorship because nothing is being censored. You can read any trump tweet and watch any conspiracy video you like, no one is keeping you from it - not the platforms and not the state. The only thing that is being done is putting a notice beside the tweets and videos.
> You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right?
You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda.
So you're saying there is no objective truth and every opinion has equal authority? If I say the moon is made out of cheese and you say, no it isn't, we have proof, can I accuse you of censorship?
> There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change.
This is extremely vague. Please give a concrete example.
> Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda.
So what should we do instead then? How should we then reach a conclusion on controversial issues if fact checking is not an option?
> People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw.
Which bias exactly?
But it's also worth noting that in the incident that caused this, WSWS fell on the same 'side' as the alt-right in that they were critical of the 1619 project.
When you search, you are literally asking Google for their opinion on which sites to see. Any results page is a result of various decisions, it's hard to call it "censorship". But when someone posts on Twitter, and the platform literally doesn't let them post the link they want to, that seems to me to be far more egregious - and can definitely be called censorship.
So that which Google could come up with a left-wing site they de-ranked, and Twitter and Facebook couldn't, becomes even more damning for them. Their censorship is far more real.