19 votes

Google, Yahoo & Facebook Are Hiding Things From You

Google, Yahoo & Facebook Are Hiding Things From You


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Is there a search engine that is fair?

I would rather use a search engine that allows co's to compete for the top of the list? but does that exist

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

People who think this is no big deal...

...need to realize that this is just the beginning.

You might end up being fed nothing but nationalist/socialist propaganda before they're done.

Google should have one algorithm... and let the sites compete to get to the top. That's a free internet.

Of course, one could argue that's their decision... and it is.

But it's also my decision not to use them.

Bigger Problem

This issue is not having "better" or more "ethical" filters. The existence of any filters whatsoever totally destroys the concept of a free and open Internet (observable by all).

As it is, many YouTube videos are banned, and disappear off the rader screen for arbitrary reasons (too "controversial", too conspiratorial, etc.). Google searches all too often give you mainstream friendly news stories, and you have to dig further and further to find the more serious and substantial stories.

I noticed even way back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that the Yahoo-based history page on the topic of the JFK Assassination became more and more and more dominated by pro-Warren Commission links and (so-called) "research" sites, and the original content and informative links with various research, photos, and other evidence implicating the CIA and Secret Service etc. were no longer accessible. So even on the Internet you cannot access information that exists, or at one time had existed -- and you are quite limited on what is easily searchable and widely accessible.

What has happened is that originally the Internet was just an open community tool. Web pages had content and photos. But then all the Web Pages became littered with Advertising and it all became Corporatized. Commerical advertising now dominates every single Web page in existence (even Web pages here), and so the Internet has become just another Corporately-owned and controlled medium.

Why can't Internet Servers just provide a service for a simple and modest fee, and then there would be no need at all for of this commerical advertising to exist in order to run a Web Site?

Back in 2007, people would make posters that said "Goggle Ron Paul", because all the good videos and debate performances would come up on the first page. Now when you do this, a lot of negative stuff can come up on the first page, and even false links (to things that have nothing to do with Ron Paul).

The Internet is slipping away from us, but we have to use it to the best of our ability to put the truth out there, and to keep it visible.

This is a hard task.

Joη's picture


"why don't they just make the internet so people don't have to think?!"
wait...that doesn't work...how about...
"...so that people can better see what I want them to see?"
wait, no, that doesn't work either...
"...so that people all see the same thing?"
"...so that people only see what they want to see?"
..no, that's even worse.
Tough crowd!

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

The free market takes care of this really...

If you don't like Google's algorithm... use someone else.


The underlying technology is actually licensed and shared between many different search engines.

And all the common Corporate, widely available search engines (such as Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc.) all follow the same philosophy anyway, and "control freak" modus operandi. The consumer has no real choice here.

That is one of the ways for how they profit (data collection used for advertising spam and profiling), and also how they filter-out Internet content to make it preferrable or "acceptable" to the big Corporate Monopolies that they do business with (and the CIA and MIC which likely dictates some of this).

But Companies like YouTube and Google were the free market here, and this Orwellian crap is what they brought to you and me -- a censored (arbitrarily filtered) Internet to which you have no real operable control over.

The "marketplace" has not, nor cannot, address this now -- as it has failed. The only way to address this is through a Law that would make it illegal to suppress or filter Internet content, and to actually have that Law enforced.

Joη's picture

yes! the market has failed! more laws! that's the answer!

you can't be serious.

Most of what you're saying is your extremely biased perspective, and not really truth. I encourage you to consider, not accept, just consider, that those serving you on a daily basis aren't trying to harm you at every turn. Usually to the extent they do, you've chosen to ignore an alternative.

I don't think you understand the enormity or artificiality of the internet. In a very big, very artificial construct, I guarantee you there are no universally right answers. Say I google restaurants. Should everyone on Earth see the same thing? Probably not. Plenty more examples like that.

The LAST thing you want to do is impose more market-distorting immutable laws onto the internet. Especially for something as new (in the big scheme of things) as a search engine.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Yikkes....talk about "can't be serious"!

I don't know what you even mean by "artificiality" (WTF-?), but it appears as if you are actually advocating for Corporate-determined rules and filtering of Internet content that the consumer has no control over? I think you can't possibly be serious.

The whole point of the Internet was to be an open free exchange of data and content...available to anyone on the Network. That is both the genuis and power of the Internet, and also presents the greatest opportunity for innovation in our Economy, and in our Culture. Who could be against that?

Now, once somebody has filtered the Interent content access in some ham-fisted way that you have no control of, then you have introduced censorship. Censorship is not what we want here (and it won't help get Ron Paul elected). The Corporations have also talked directly in the press about seeking an unequal class system of content availability.

The ubiquitous and free availability of the Internet is therefore lost, and so is the freedom of information to the masses that went with it. Sorry pal, I want the truth, and that means the whole Internet and not some restricted and censored and manipulated version of it.

The last thing you want to do is to give these Corporations Editorial and Kingmaking power over the free flow of Information. This is precisely what destroyed TV News, and Radio Broadcast, and Newspapers. So why do you want to destroy the Internet in the exact same way? Where do we even go to get unfiltered News after that happens-?

When Radio was first established it was intended as the public airwaves with the Radio Corps. originally forced to adhere to certain public standards. But that all changed over time, and today the Big Corporations (like Clear Channel) dominate and dictate all the rules and content -- which is why Talk-Radio transformed into nothing more than a right-wing, pro-War, Neocon, flag-waving, bullhorn of propaganda that is hostile to all Libertarian and Progressive dialog, and hostile to honest News about our Foreign (and domestic) Policies.

Whether or not you believe that all this filtering has done "harm" or not is not the criteria here. I've already pointed out that during the late-1990s the important Links and research information about the Kennedy Assassination was deleted and replaced by Pro-Warren Commission propaganda on the Yahoo News History site. I think everyone with a brain knows that the Warren Commission is a lie, and would agree that this type of Internet filtering of vital Internet content is not healthy.

If you want the consumer to have the freedom and control of the access of information, then yes...the Corporations cannot then have the power to filter and censor the flow of Information.

It is only the absence of censorship that equals freedom. Without Laws made that prohibit the censorship we can never be an open society.

Martin L. King once said that "an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". I could say that Censorship anywhere is a threat to our News and Information everywhere, but it is worse than that. Censorship on the Internet is a de-facto shutting-down and corruption of the whole Medium itself.

Joη's picture

too much confusion to address

artificiality: "the quality of being produced by people and not occurring naturally."

Why don't you address my points before I address yours: What is the universally perfect internet query response for "restaurants"?

The point I'm getting at is there isn't one. It will always be arbitrary exactly due to how artificial it is, because humans make the rules that govern it, not nature.

You're confusing search algorithms for lie detectors. If humans can't discern truth, you can't exactly expect robots to do much better.

I don't share your eagerness to place this newly created virtual marketplace further into the gaping jurisdiction of the local force monopoly.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

The "Monopoly" is the Corporations

You're misrepresenting my point.

I want to prevent the Censorship and the filtering that the Corporate Monopolies wish to force upon us -- this means taking away the jurisdiction. We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws and that implies that "Free Speech" extend to keeping the Interent free from represession, censorship, and arbitrary filtering/manipulation.

If I want to search on the Kennedy Asassination, and the majority of the hits (and order) are pro-Warren Commision lies and fraud ... then yes that is a serious problem. If you search for Restaurants, and fail to even specify some location with it (like Chicago or Las Vegas, New York City, etc) .. then it should be wide open as to what is displayed -- but it should not ever be filtered by anything other than the search modifiers that you yourself directly provide.

Corporations should not pre-determine what you see and what you don't. This is an Orwellian concept. The Internet must be free of censorship and content police.

Joη's picture

we're going in circles

if you were sincerely thinking about what you're saying, you'd apply the ambiguity of the restaurant search to the JFK search and realize what you're doing wrong.

This is another instance of problem externalization to self-impose victimization.

Your version of the truth is not popular. (Remember, search engines are not lie detectors. I hope we can at least agree the last thing we want is a force-wielding truth patrol online) It so turns out that popularity and traffic are very good pointers to the best sites for the vast majority of facts sought online. Not all, but the vast majority. There are instances where it's wrong. This will always be so.

Other than teaching an unimaginably large neural net in real time, I doubt anyone has a better clue as to how to efficiently organize over a trillion data points on the entirety of human experience for easy, instant querying, ten at a time.

Instead of refining your query, you will claim conspiracy: "they're trying to censor all those less popular explanations about the JFK assassination that I think are correct!" No doubt others believe in even more fringe theories. But their claims are invalid, aren't they? Yours is right. Theirs are wrong. Yours should be on top. Theirs should not.

When, if you searched even slightly more specifically for an alternative viewpoint, you can find it, and the conspiracy claim vanishes.

Are search engines going overboard in how they refine searches? Maybe. I keep up on the filters search engines are applying, because they announce them for anyone who wants to find out. Most search engines have also learned that people don't like to read about that stuff, so that's why they don't shove every single change in front of you. If you look, you can find out, though.

You don't like something, talk about it. They'll listen. I think you're going overboard by saying because they've done such a good job at improving their service that it's become so invisibly part of your life you don't ever notice its baffling complexity, (like all good products do), and now are doing something you don't like, that you should hand it over to a government to regulate.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Joη's picture

(yes, that's the point)


"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

A CFR supporter... on DP no less!? @#$%?

A communist/socialist, CFR supporter! Why is he on DP?

This is another distraction from the nomination process!

Six months later and we are still getting distractions from the real focus and battle! Wow... liberty hangs in the balance folks!

If anyone is scared....

A helpful download is the add-on called ghostery for Firefox. It blocks and prevents all cookies - including the ones that don't expire on your computer.


If few human gatekeepers were

If few human gatekeepers were replaced with a few search website algorithms...

Today what we have are those same search website algorithms being replaced by individual gatekeepers again. The difference this time with the human gatekeepers is that instead of it being the few it is now the many.

Want an example? Post a link in reply to this message. When you do, now you are the gatekeeper. Same difference would be if you posted just a message with particular news. You personally have bypassed both the old media gatekeepers and the algorithmic gatekeepers.

We can all be gatekeepers. And if we are all gatekeepers what that really means is that the information on the Internet is becoming free, not free in cost but free as in freedom.

Nobody can prevent you from emailing your friends, family and other contacts with news about Ron Paul. Nobody can stop you from posting to your Facebook network, your Twitter network, MySpace, YouTube or even on DailyPaul.

The algorithmic "gatekeepers" will soon be found to be very ineffective, because we have so many great ways of bypassing them. Even a less technical way: "Google Ron Paul" signs on the side of highways.

I don't think this issue of Google, Yahoo & Facebook will ultimately be all that significant over time. If we want information to get out it will get out, with or without those services.


i think you might be missing

i think you might be missing the point and jumping the gun here. he doesn't call for gov't intervention specifically, in fact he calls for ethics. i believe a lot of his points are true and it isn't just there to serve the user, but manipulate information. it's a form of media now, and this is how the corporations censor media. and this is why someone like M.I.A. gets pissed off because when you google her native Sri Lanka you don't get results about the brutal civil war there but about vacation resorts.

Progressives always...

Progressives always talk about how things should be with no realistic view on how this might be achieved.

Who exactly should stop Google and Facebook doing this? It is up to them how they want to run their businesses. We are all free not to use them.

(I just changed my default browser to Startpage - thanks for the recommendation).

Freedom and liberty is again the only answer. Let Google and Facebook do what they want and let people choose it if they want. That's the end of that. What we don't need is some central controllers deciding for us.

Just to answer your question

Just to answer your question "who should stop Google & Facebook..." ---> the free markets!

Once people find out how evil google really is and sees a much better product available, they will switch over to Startpage and then it's only a matter of time until it's gameover for google.

Not only can you make queries through startpage anonymously, but you can ALSO surf the web anonymously and websites will not able to who visited!


great post.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

What a bunch of absolute

What a bunch of absolute garbage spoken by someone who is completely clueless on how markets work. Of course companies tailor their products to each individual, how else are they to keep an ever growing base happy. If he's not happy about how they go about it, then perhaps he should look to his golden cow for the root cause of why they can do it in secret. And as others here have pointed out, it's not like it isn't fairly well known. Instead of looking to others for a solution, why not first withdraw your use or look for ways around. It's not that difficult, but then when has a 'progressive' ever wanted to be responsible for their own economic liberty.

Quite a few times, I've seen

Quite a few times, I've seen targeted Google ads for things I looked at and thought it would be very useful to have, and bought, like that portable solar powered battery charger.

I really don't mind Google's filters, as my brain has its own built in filter, but I do find their results terribly useful and helpful on occasion.

Joη's picture

how to turn off personalized & geographic google search


Go to advanced search options, expand options, find "region", set to one value, search, put URL somewhere, go back, set to another value, compare new URL, find parameter that changed, find it's "&cr=", keep blank for "region unfiltered" and append to search URLs if you're so worried.

None of you really relied solely on these searches for your data, did you? And it's their fault for you not keeping up with their services? Ok.

Seems a little silly to me to expect Google to always know at all times what the top ten most relevant things should be for every search performed by each of the several billion humans using the internet.

I think people who do great things, who are then hated when their success goes overboard in new territory, fosters a dangerous, almost cartoonish callousness towards those they serve.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

I don't like your pattern of defending Google

Are you affiliated with Google in any way?

The Google of today is not the Google the founders intended.


My search history was turned off, it asked me if I wanted to turn it on. Guess that's a good thing.

reedr3v's picture

thanks Jon, it's good to know of options



“It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that is not in some sense been tailored for them.”
~Eric Schmidt, Google

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Or in marketroid terms,

Or in marketroid terms, "targeted".

Shows where their thinking is. Usual marketroid ethics is "Yeah people will lose their freedoms, but I'll be rich and I can buy my way out!"

holy crap!!!!! DAILY PAUL PAY ATTENTION!!!!!

IF YOU ARE USING GOOGLE AS YOUR HOMEPAGE, OR SEARCH ENGINE..change it now!! (or get a manipulated search--video calls it a filter bubble)

http://www.scroogle.org/ does not track you, and the searches seem to be more diverse.(plus no cookies)

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm the scraper function wipes out any trace of your search forever.
no cookies | no search-term records | access log deleted within 48 hours (from the website)

not sure on others . maybe http://dogpile.com/?

If you don't think this is important watch the video on the main thread!!!

here is a backup video for the main one, download it ..in case it vanishes!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOTPz7KnwIA