• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Tech Google search results hijacked by rehabs

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
Has anyone else noticed this? Not so long ago you could search Google for information on drugs and get good results from here as well as other forums & sources, but sometime recently that was all replaced by various rehab pages that are now the only results you get for several pages. It's worse for some drugs compared to others but the information is always at best basic and at worst misleading or inaccurate since the pages are all obviously for the sole purpose of promoting their treatment facility and it seems that a lot of harm-reduction information has been lost or at least pushed really far back in the search results. When I was younger I could search google to answer drug queries - it's what led me to here. These days I don't see how anyone who doesn't know about Bluelight would find it, since searching for information will just lead to rehabs. Do sponsored pages no longer have to be listed as such on Google? How is it that a topic could become so overwhelmed with adverts that genuine results could get crowded out? Is there anything to be done about this?
 

Alex_1991

Moderator: NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
1,485
Location
Canada
It's been like that a while. The Internet is becoming more and more a centralized place with certain sites taking the monopoly on any subject for a variety of reasons, and then companies like Google buy in you get these curated results. Use Searx.xyz whenever possible seriously.

It's not all bad, some of Googles services are pretty sweet except at the tradeoff that their info gathering and analytics tracking everything you do for ads mainly. just one breach of these analytics companies data and you're entire life is up for grabs by any hacker for any reason.. Some people are very anti google and secure the hell out of their devices to minimize this with no Google apps.kr services, VPN, proxy. software to stop trackers, refuse to use anything with sketchy permissions, secure sandboxed OS like Qubes, etc.

Google analytics is built into most websites too btw. there's analytics trackers to the tune of several dozen to over 100 pretty much no matter where you go unless you opt out which is fucking impossible to get them all. It's a really bullshit process to go through all the ones you can't get in a clean sweep with the option being really hidden or just not happening..

Anyway I'm sure that sounds all conspiracy or meth psychosis but it's really not. It's up to the end user now to get in the know and decide whether it's worth going through some steps. All it really changes is what ads we see and the geography and bias of our search results right? Like all drug searches leading to rehab for instance. Maybe they know something about you, I can look up some questions about drugs and not get all rehab sites.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
Use DuckToGo as a browser and you'll do fine. Google is now a political activist platform, it's a censorship platform and much more.

Are you about to tell me Google has a far-left bias? Don't you think that tech companies, like other companies, are just parroting the external trappings of progressives to increase their market share and aren't in fact ideologically motivated, and that if a company were to have a far-left ideology then they would be against their own existence since the far left don't believe corporations should exist at all?
 

DeadManWalkin'

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
3,453
Location
Saudi Arabia
Are you about to tell me Google has a far-left bias? Don't you think that tech companies, like other companies, are just parroting the external trappings of progressives to increase their market share and aren't in fact ideologically motivated, and that if a company were to have a far-left ideology then they would be against their own existence since the far left don't believe corporations should exist at all?
It's virtue signaling what they do.
Censoring drug search results is a political act too, don't you realize that?
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
It's been like that a while. The Internet is becoming more and more a centralized place with certain sites taking the monopoly on any subject for a variety of reasons, and then companies like Google buy in you get these curated results. Use Searx.xyz whenever possible seriously.

It's not all bad, some of Googles services are pretty sweet except at the tradeoff that their info gathering and analytics tracking everything you do for ads mainly. just one breach of these analytics companies data and you're entire life is up for grabs by any hacker for any reason.. Some people are very anti google and secure the hell out of their devices to minimize this with no Google apps.kr services, VPN, proxy. software to stop trackers, refuse to use anything with sketchy permissions, secure sandboxed OS like Qubes, etc.

Google analytics is built into most websites too btw. there's analytics trackers to the tune of several dozen to over 100 pretty much no matter where you go unless you opt out which is fucking impossible to get them all. It's a really bullshit process to go through all the ones you can't get in a clean sweep with the option being really hidden or just not happening..

Anyway I'm sure that sounds all conspiracy or meth psychosis but it's really not. It's up to the end user now to get in the know and decide whether it's worth going through some steps. All it really changes is what ads we see and the geography and bias of our search results right? Like all drug searches leading to rehab for instance. Maybe they know something about you, I can look up some questions about drugs and not get all rehab sites.

What stops me worrying about this is just that there is such an enormous amount of data that my personal browsing history would just be one tiny grain of sand in the enormous desert of information that is Google. I'm not important or prolific enough for my particular results to be worthy of close examination and while I'd prefer privacy & anonymity I can't see there being any personal consequences to me of a data breach.

Like I said, not all drug searches lead to rehabs. However, try and find out anything on heroin, meth, cocaine or subutex and you'll see just pages and pages of rehabs. Some of the sites are designed to not look like treatment facilities at first till you look at the homepage and realize that it's just another rehab.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
It's virtue signaling what they do.
Censoring drug search results is a political act too, don't you realize that?

What you call virtue signaling I call meaningless empty platitudes to capitalize on cultural trends. If the most popular political movement among consumers at the moment was a shift towards traditional conservatism then they would adopt the aesthetics of that instead. It is no different than hiring a celebrity to endorse a product - just taking advantage of a cultural trend to make more money. It doesn't belie some truly leftist agenda - corporations are obviously going to be pro-business since they ARE business, so they are obviously not going to be leftist, and that's if they are anything but apolitical entities.

I don't think what is happening with the search results is active censorship, I think it's just rehab facilities paying google and/or manipulating search metrics to get a favorable position in the search results. Since the rehabs likely pay Google a sizable sum and Bluelight doesn't then the rehabs get to page 1 whilst Bluelight is pushed down. It's simply money again. You can find all sorts of reprehensible shit on Google and you will only have trouble if you're searching for something illegal or something that competes with a search term targeted by advertisers. Since it isn't censorship (the legit search results are there, just buried by rehabs) it's not inherently political.

You seem to have the common misconception that the left is some all-powerful force, despite the fact that right now conservatives hold literally all the levers of power in the US (the major world power) & UK government (where I'm from). If your location tag is correct then you should know that your country's government is a deeply conservative theocracy also. How conservatives can observe that and still judge the left to be currently more powerful is beyond me,
 

DeadManWalkin'

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
3,453
Location
Saudi Arabia
What you call virtue signaling I call meaningless empty platitudes to capitalize on cultural trends. If the most popular political movement among consumers at the moment was a shift towards traditional conservatism then they would adopt the aesthetics of that instead. It is no different than hiring a celebrity to endorse a product - just taking advantage of a cultural trend to make more money. It doesn't belie some truly leftist agenda - corporations are obviously going to be pro-business since they ARE business, so they are obviously not going to be leftist, and that's if they are anything but apolitical entities.

I don't think what is happening with the search results is active censorship, I think it's just rehab facilities paying google and/or manipulating search metrics to get a favorable position in the search results. Since the rehabs likely pay Google a sizable sum and Bluelight doesn't then the rehabs get to page 1 whilst Bluelight is pushed down. It's simply money again. You can find all sorts of reprehensible shit on Google and you will only have trouble if you're searching for something illegal or something that competes with a search term targeted by advertisers. Since it isn't censorship (the legit search results are there, just buried by rehabs) it's not inherently political.

You seem to have the common misconception that the left is some all-powerful force, despite the fact that right now conservatives hold literally all the levers of power in the US (the major world power) & UK government (where I'm from). If your location tag is correct then you should know that your country's government is a deeply conservative theocracy also. How conservatives can observe that and still judge the left to be currently more powerful is beyond me,
Well, virtue signaling is pretty much the same thing you told. It's people trying to look good to get some benefits, while actually not even knowing what the subject is really about.
I have never said anything about conservatives or liberals in this thread, so you commenting about my "misconspetion" is just funny. Never claimed that liberals are some unstoppable force.
It's censorship to push the most clicked and best search results down just to get some others up. I know it's about money. It's also about certain cultural trends, but some of the cultural trends are cheerleaders for censorship a.k.a cancel culture and you don't believe that the big tech is not going to take advantage of that?
People are asking for censorship and these big tech oligarchs will give the people what they want.
Some high level workers on Google have gotten kicked out of their job, because they said something like "I don't think that hiring bias is right, because gender differences can explain why there's much more men than women in tech."
That's not political?
Do you even know how much data google censors? It's insane amounts. There's reason why it's said that deep web is 99% of internet and the clear net is only 1%. Because of censorship and no sir, not all of the 99% which is censored is illegal. It's probably like 1-2% of the 99%.
 

Alex_1991

Moderator: NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
1,485
Location
Canada
What stops me worrying about this is just that there is such an enormous amount of data that my personal browsing history would just be one tiny grain of sand in the enormous desert of information that is Google. I'm not important or prolific enough for my particular results to be worthy of close examination and while I'd prefer privacy & anonymity I can't see there being any personal consequences to me of a data breach.

Like I said, not all drug searches lead to rehabs. However, try and find out anything on heroin, meth, cocaine or subutex and you'll see just pages and pages of rehabs. Some of the sites are designed to not look like treatment facilities at first till you look at the homepage and realize that it's just another rehab.
I don’t get results like that unless I put in something recovery related. I just looked up “how to purify cocaine” and all my results are instructions to acetone wash and a lot of scientific publications about cocaine and the cuts and whatever. I read a lot of scientific studies so my results are kind of geared that way.
 

DeadManWalkin'

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
3,453
Location
Saudi Arabia
I don’t get results like that unless I put in something recovery related. I just looked up “how to purify cocaine” and all my results are instructions to acetone wash and a lot of scientific publications about cocaine and the cuts and whatever. I read a lot of scientific studies so my results are kind of geared that way.
It's country specific.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
Well, virtue signaling is pretty much the same thing you told. It's people trying to look good to get some benefits, while actually not even knowing what the subject is really about.
I have never said anything about conservatives or liberals in this thread, so you commenting about my "misconspetion" is just funny. Never claimed that liberals are some unstoppable force.
It's censorship to push the most clicked and best search results down just to get some others up. I know it's about money. It's also about certain cultural trends, but some of the cultural trends are cheerleaders for censorship a.k.a cancel culture and you don't believe that the big tech is not going to take advantage of that?
People are asking for censorship and these big tech oligarchs will give the people what they want.
Some high level workers on Google have gotten kicked out of their job, because they said something like "I don't think that hiring bias is right, because gender differences can explain why there's much more men than women in tech."
That's not political?
Do you even know how much data google censors? It's insane amounts. There's reason why it's said that deep web is 99% of internet and the clear net is only 1%. Because of censorship and no sir, not all of the 99% which is censored is illegal. It's probably like 1-2% of the 99%.

Censorship implies someone taking an active role in manipulating/suppressing information. What you are describing is just how the google algorithm works - the most clicked results getting higher in the results - since it's a logical way of ordering the search results, rather than them just being presented randomly. The only time it doesn't work based on that algorithm is when advertisers pay for their results to be near the top regardless and I'd hardly call that censorship. The only time big tech will take part in "cancel culture" is if it affects their bottom line - advertisers don't want to be associated with controversies, so tech companies simply play it safe. If a content creator starts to pander to white nationalists, then the websites giving them a platform will ban them rather than have their advertisers withdraw if a controversy highlights that ads are being played during a pro-nazi rant. Perhaps you aren't one of these people, but some people seem to be reading some kind of nefarious conspiracy into this, as if tech companies have some hidden leftist agenda that they're trying to push.

By the way, it was one guy - James DaMore - who was involved in the google controversy, not a group of high level workers, and I've actually read the original memo and you've totally characterized the nature of it. If he'd just said that I imagine he wouldn't have been fired, but he actually defended the hiring bias - he didn't criticize it. If he had framed his points in a way that sounded more neutral and detached than again he would probably still be at Google, but rather than being a dispassionate interpretation of the research into why sex differences may lead to different work preferences Damore instead vehemently insisted that sex differences entirely explained the gender gap and that men were better suited to tech jobs than women. That last part is key - had he of stuck with explaining preferences or dispositions, I imagine he would have been fine, but when he began suggesting that men may just be superior for STEM/engineering roles then of course he was going to garner controversy. Since he literally titled his memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and filed the complaint with the labor board before he'd even been fired I think it's obvious that he set out to provoke Google intentionally, and the narrative he and conservative media tried to push of "Innocent engineer fired by liberal Google just for explaining science" is transparent and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You completely misunderstand how the deep web works. It has NOTHING to do with censorship. The vast majority of it, like you said, is not illegal but it's not in the clear web because it's not intended to be viewed by the public - it may be company databases or server banks or many other things that aren't "websites intended to be viewed by the public". A tiny proportion of it is websites like illegal pornography or drug marketplaces which are intentionally hidden from search engines to stay relatively clandestine - Google doesn't have to censor them because websites like the (now defunct) Silk Road never intended to be accessible on Google in the first place. Do you know the sheer volume of web traffic that Google handles each day? Bots & algorithms do practically all of the actual indexing - do you seriously believe that Google has employed people to actually sit and vet every single page added to it and that these employees choose not to index 99% of the pages that are thrown up? Have you thought about this for longer than a minute or two? I suggest you do a little research into how search engines actually work because you are making giant inferences that simply aren't true.

So far you've come up with one example of "censorship" and even that wasn't really censorship. They fired James Damore when he intentionally provoked controversy, but Google didn't actually remove the memo from its search engines. You can go to google right now and look up & read the entire memo. It's even the first source in the Wikipedia article that you yourself linked. Unless when you say "censorship" you mean "terminating the contract of someone who was intentionally trying to provoke outrage" but companies are free to choose who works for them, that's not exactly "censorship", especially since Google didn't take any actually censorious steps such as preventing his memo (or any of the hundred interviews he gave on the conservative interview circuit immediately following his dismissal) from appearing in search results.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
I don’t get results like that unless I put in something recovery related. I just looked up “how to purify cocaine” and all my results are instructions to acetone wash and a lot of scientific publications about cocaine and the cuts and whatever. I read a lot of scientific studies so my results are kind of geared that way.

You're right - to clarify, it isn't on all drug-related search terms, but even to take a similar example to yours, if you type in "strong cocaine" the first few results are what you'd expect - Wikipedia, some government anti-drug sites etc - but for me the fifth result down is a rehab site disguised as information & rehab results continue from there. You have to really dig deep to find anything like Bluelight or another drugs message board on there and it requires wading through a bunch of treatment facilities first.
 

DeadManWalkin'

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
3,453
Location
Saudi Arabia
Censorship implies someone taking an active role in manipulating/suppressing information. What you are describing is just how the google algorithm works - the most clicked results getting higher in the results - since it's a logical way of ordering the search results, rather than them just being presented randomly. The only time it doesn't work based on that algorithm is when advertisers pay for their results to be near the top regardless and I'd hardly call that censorship. The only time big tech will take part in "cancel culture" is if it affects their bottom line - advertisers don't want to be associated with controversies, so tech companies simply play it safe. If a content creator starts to pander to white nationalists, then the websites giving them a platform will ban them rather than have their advertisers withdraw if a controversy highlights that ads are being played during a pro-nazi rant. Perhaps you aren't one of these people, but some people seem to be reading some kind of nefarious conspiracy into this, as if tech companies have some hidden leftist agenda that they're trying to push.

By the way, it was one guy - James DaMore - who was involved in the google controversy, not a group of high level workers, and I've actually read the original memo and you've totally characterized the nature of it. If he'd just said that I imagine he wouldn't have been fired, but he actually defended the hiring bias - he didn't criticize it. If he had framed his points in a way that sounded more neutral and detached than again he would probably still be at Google, but rather than being a dispassionate interpretation of the research into why sex differences may lead to different work preferences Damore instead vehemently insisted that sex differences entirely explained the gender gap and that men were better suited to tech jobs than women. That last part is key - had he of stuck with explaining preferences or dispositions, I imagine he would have been fine, but when he began suggesting that men may just be superior for STEM/engineering roles then of course he was going to garner controversy. Since he literally titled his memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and filed the complaint with the labor board before he'd even been fired I think it's obvious that he set out to provoke Google intentionally, and the narrative he and conservative media tried to push of "Innocent engineer fired by liberal Google just for explaining science" is transparent and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You completely misunderstand how the deep web works. It has NOTHING to do with censorship. The vast majority of it, like you said, is not illegal but it's not in the clear web because it's not intended to be viewed by the public - it may be company databases or server banks or many other things that aren't "websites intended to be viewed by the public". A tiny proportion of it is websites like illegal pornography or drug marketplaces which are intentionally hidden from search engines to stay relatively clandestine - Google doesn't have to censor them because websites like the (now defunct) Silk Road never intended to be accessible on Google in the first place. Do you know the sheer volume of web traffic that Google handles each day? Bots & algorithms do practically all of the actual indexing - do you seriously believe that Google has employed people to actually sit and vet every single page added to it and that these employees choose not to index 99% of the pages that are thrown up? Have you thought about this for longer than a minute or two? I suggest you do a little research into how search engines actually work because you are making giant inferences that simply aren't true.

So far you've come up with one example of "censorship" and even that wasn't really censorship. They fired James Damore when he intentionally provoked controversy, but Google didn't actually remove the memo from its search engines. You can go to google right now and look up & read the entire memo. It's even the first source in the Wikipedia article that you yourself linked. Unless when you say "censorship" you mean "terminating the contract of someone who was intentionally trying to provoke outrage" but companies are free to choose who works for them, that's not exactly "censorship", especially since Google didn't take any actually censorious steps such as preventing his memo (or any of the hundred interviews he gave on the conservative interview circuit immediately following his dismissal) from appearing in search results.
Google does censor results. They even do it on your country, because law makes them to do so. They do it different in every country, but the fact that you think that they don't do it is just redicilous. Yeah, the big tech oligarchs are going to be good boys for you. They care about you.
They absolutely do it.
Google owns YouTube where censorship, deplatforming and shadow banning is rampant and a lot of it seems to be ideologically motivated.
90% of internet is deep web, I have to correct that. I just looked it up, 99% was overreach. I do understand how the deep web works, so please - don't jump into conclusion.
You wrote such a long post that I do not right now have the energy to answer this all. Thanks for the discussion.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
Google does censor results. They even do it on your country, because law makes them to do so. They do it different in every country, but the fact that you think that they don't do it is just redicilous. Yeah, the big tech oligarchs are going to be good boys for you. They care about you.
They absolutely do it.
Google owns YouTube where censorship, deplatforming and shadow banning is rampant and a lot of it seems to be ideologically motivated.
90% of internet is deep web, I have to correct that. I just looked it up, 99% was overreach. I do understand how the deep web works, so please - don't jump into conclusion.
You wrote such a long post that I do not right now have the energy to answer this all. Thanks for the discussion.

Are you reading my posts?? I have said that Google will censor results if the law compels them to. That was one of the first things I said.

I am not saying Google is looking out for our best interests. Tech companies will happily track your browsing activity, sell your data, show you adverts disguised as public service information, manipulate the content you see to keep you engaged & design their websites to snare children's attention spans and anything else that will bring them more advertiser money, but one thing they aren't doing is trying to secretly push a leftist agenda because they're all left-wing ideologues. As I've said, Youtube will deplatform creators that may be controversial to keep the ad money rolling in. If you think they are ideologically motivated then you should look up the Alt-Right pipeline and cast your mind back to 2017-2018 when "anti-SJW" content was all over the front page and constantly in the "recommended" section.

You really do not understand how the deep web works. The "deep web" doesn't consist of content that has been censored by google. This isn't something difficult to work out - just take a look at the Wikipedia article and notice that absolutely no part of what constitutes the "deep web" has anything to do with censorship. Maybe if you read that article you will have more of an understanding of what is meant by the term, since you seem to have half-learned what it means and then filled in the gaps yourself and got it very wrong.

You can't be bothered to read my actual rebuttal, but that's fine. Even if you had read it you would have had no satisfying response, so I will just leave you with these questions:

1. Do you think that tech companies have an ideological motivation that goes beyond their profit motive? i.e. do they have a political bend that is unrelated to them trying to make money?

2. Do you believe that Google manually has employees check every page that they index on their website and decides if it's to be censored or included?
 

Alex_1991

Moderator: NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
1,485
Location
Canada
@Rio Fantastic
Of course it would be results like yours if you search something like strong cocaine though because that kind of language is the exactly what propagandists and recovery related sites use to describe them. it’s anti-drug and rehab site 101 to say it using those words. What drug user looking for info is seriously looking up info like “strong cocaine”?

here’s my results for first page...over 2 posts because xenforo only allows so many links in post.

Cocaine and Crack | CAMH

www.camh.ca › dyk-cocainePDF
Do You Know... Cocaine - CAMH

www.drugabuse.gov › publications
Cocaine DrugFacts - National Institute on Drug Ab

www.albertahealthservices.ca › ...PDF
Cocaine - Alberta Health Services


en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cocaine
Cocaine - Wikipedia


alert-ab.ca › illegal-drugs › cocaine
Cocaine | ALERT
 

Alex_1991

Moderator: NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
1,485
Location
Canada
www.drugwise.org.uk › how-pure-a...
How pure are street drugs? – DrugWise

www.verywellmind.com › what-doe...
Understanding the Feelings of a Cocaine High - Verywell Mind

www.dea.gov › default › filesPDF
Cocaine - DEA

medlineplus.gov › Health Topics
Cocaine: MedlinePlus



Some of these links are based on my geography. Some are based on what I've searched before. Some are the obious anti-drug shit, but no secret rehab sites. I know exactly the kind of sie you mean. Rehab is a big business so of course there are sketchy rehab sites trying to make a buck on it, they're affiliate sites. I honestly think the reason why you get so many of them is beause you've been looking up a lot of rehab stuff before.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
www.drugwise.org.uk › how-pure-a...
How pure are street drugs? – DrugWise

www.verywellmind.com › what-doe...
Understanding the Feelings of a Cocaine High - Verywell Mind

www.dea.gov › default › filesPDF
Cocaine - DEA

medlineplus.gov › Health Topics
Cocaine: MedlinePlus



Some of these links are based on my geography. Some are based on what I've searched before. Some are the obious anti-drug shit, but no secret rehab sites. I know exactly the kind of sie you mean. Rehab is a big business so of course there are sketchy rehab sites trying to make a buck on it, they're affiliate sites. I honestly think the reason why you get so many of them is beause you've been looking up a lot of rehab stuff before.

You have a lot of Canadian results that seem to link to government-sponsored websites. However, what I was getting at isn't that you can't find general drug information - that is clearly out there - but if you are looking for information from a user's perspective - i.e. websites like Bluelight - you will often get sponsored rehab/treatment facilities, pages and pages of them, before a single drug forum or website geared towards harm reduction instead of abstinence. I have never looked up rehab stuff, and you say you have seen the exact kinds of websites I'm talking about, so what is our disagreement here?? I'm not trying to overstate my case - certain searches that once would have bought someone to a place like here or Erowid or drugs-forum now show you many, many rehab facilities first. That's my point. Not that you can't find the DEA website or some generic anti-drugs information page.
 

DeadManWalkin'

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
3,453
Location
Saudi Arabia
1. Do you think that tech companies have an ideological motivation that goes beyond their profit motive? i.e. do they have a political bend that is unrelated to them trying to make money?

2. Do you believe that Google manually has employees check every page that they index on their website and decides if it's to be censored or included?
I did read your post.
It's sad how you come into personal attack "Oh boom! You couldn't even answer if you did read my stuff!"
It takes me a while to write these, since English is not my first language and writing posts like you do would require me to have some real motivation. I need to spend time on translator every time I write these things. It's hard for me to explain complicated things, not because I don't understand them, but because of my level of English isn't high enough to explain it.
Again, you're jumping into conclusions. I do understand what the deep web consists of and no, it's not some site where pages that are not shown by google that are specifically listed there.
It's the broadest form of internet there is.
1. I don't think so, but it's easy for a mob to force their ideological bias on companies like this.
How a lot of YouTubers got demonetized and some even banned was that bunch of kids in Twitter realized that you could get people banned if you send enough customer service to people who advertise on YouTube and tell them that "There's so bad videos on YouTube and your product is advertised there."
Then the companies ask YouTube what is going on and YouTube ends up censoring.
Recently this guy who works for Vox was trying to get a huge portion of conservatives on YouTube banned and demonetized because of "It's attack on gay people"
Here's an article about how whining of a gay guy named Carloz Maza on Twitter led to history channels being banned and demonetized.
Yes, there's financial motivation on this too, but I just explained how the censorship thing works. It attacks the revenue of YouTube and that's when they're ready to censor.
2. These companies have algorithms and reports systems which decide content to be put under review. However some content is outright censored without review, depending on how the algorithms flag it.
 

Rio Fantastic

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,604
Location
Birmingham
I did read your post.
It's sad how you come into personal attack "Oh boom! You couldn't even answer if you did read my stuff!"
It takes me a while to write these, since English is not my first language and writing posts like you do would require me to have some real motivation. I need to spend time on translator every time I write these things. It's hard for me to explain complicated things, not because I don't understand them, but because of my level of English isn't high enough to explain it.
Again, you're jumping into conclusions. I do understand what the deep web consists of and no, it's not some site where pages that are not shown by google that are specifically listed there.
It's the broadest form of internet there is.
1. I don't think so, but it's easy for a mob to force their ideological bias on companies like this.
How a lot of YouTubers got demonetized and some even banned was that bunch of kids in Twitter realized that you could get people banned if you send enough customer service to people who advertise on YouTube and tell them that "There's so bad videos on YouTube and your product is advertised there."
Then the companies ask YouTube what is going on and YouTube ends up censoring.
Recently this guy who works for Vox was trying to get a huge portion of conservatives on YouTube banned and demonetized because of "It's attack on gay people"
Here's an article about how whining of a gay guy named Carloz Maza on Twitter led to history channels being banned and demonetized.
Yes, there's financial motivation on this too, but I just explained how the censorship thing works. It attacks the revenue of YouTube and that's when they're ready to censor.
2. These companies have algorithms and reports systems which decide content to be put under review. However some content is outright censored without review, depending on how the algorithms flag it.

You seem to be attempting to conceal your conservative bias. You have given it away more than once with the issues you've chosen to bring up and the way you're approaching this topic. Just come out and say it dude - you're actually censoring yourself here. Politically, you're right-wing, are you not?

I am very familiar with the Carlos Maza situation. I can't believe the disingenuous way that you're framing the issue. The guy was relentlessly bullied and harassed by Stephen Crowder, who has had the compilations of the racist & homophobic insults that he directed at Carlos Maza in multiple videos taken down, but I've seen the compilation and it was CLEARLY homophobic, racist & an obvious example of straight up harassment. After enduring it & complaining to Youtube and receiving no response, Carlos Maza eventually is forced to make a video addressing it, at which point Crowder is temporarily demonetized. Que a bunch of conservatives and Crowder himself crying about censorship. Sorry that I'm not getting up in arms about Youtube stopping Crowder from being racist & homophobic and continuing his long-standing harassment campaign. The fact that you frame that as "the whining of a gay guy" shows your clear & obvious conservative bias, which is why you're crying about cancel culture. Private companies don't let conservatives do shitty things like be racist, homophobic, discriminatory etc and all of a sudden the free-market non-government-intervention right wingers suddenly want companies to be held accountable.
 

Alex_1991

Moderator: NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
1,485
Location
Canada
You have a lot of Canadian results that seem to link to government-sponsored websites. However, what I was getting at isn't that you can't find general drug information - that is clearly out there - but if you are looking for information from a user's perspective - i.e. websites like Bluelight - you will often get sponsored rehab/treatment facilities, pages and pages of them, before a single drug forum or website geared towards harm reduction instead of abstinence. I have never looked up rehab stuff, and you say you have seen the exact kinds of websites I'm talking about, so what is our disagreement here?? I'm not trying to overstate my case - certain searches that once would have bought someone to a place like here or Erowid or drugs-forum now show you many, many rehab facilities first. That's my point. Not that you can't find the DEA website or some generic anti-drugs information page.
CAMH is actually a leading addicitons and psych hospital that conducts research as well. Its top because I've been on that site a fair bit recently. Some of it is govt sponsored which I get a lot of because I do refer to government websites a lot when I'm looking things up like drug policy or policy anything I'm often reading. Then theres wikipedia a bit of DEA and anti-drug propaganda as well. Verywell and drugwise.org.uk are other. My argument here is that the results are completely based on whats been looked up before. Even if you've never specificcally looked up rehabs you've clearly been clicked the links right? One click leads to more.

Not to mention the amount of traffic a site getting in general affecting its place in the results.

I do know that erowid, bluelight, drugs-forum, etc get put down in the results by a sort of censorship as well, but the fact is they're also just not that highly trafficed sites either, especially these days. All these sites were more trafficked 10 years ago then they are now and were higher up in the results because of that.

You just need to get better at using the search engine my man. "strong cocaine" isnt going to get much. I looked up pure initially and got much better results. Use boolean search operators, in include and exclude certain words and content and use site: if youre specifically wanting results from a particular site. That doesn't solve the bit of censorship for the average person who hasnt heard of BL but maybe that's on BL for not being so popular anyway.

Reset your advertising ID, new I,P. address and start over. It'll change your results for the better. Use alternative like searx.xyz too its way better.
 
Top