Hacker News Reader

Comment by colinmhayes | Hacker News Reader

Imagine thinking that excluding literal disinformation when it is not requested is a poor search result. The job of the search engine is to provide people the information they want. Not showing people lies when they want facts seems to be exactly the correct decision.

View on HN

I don't think most people would have an issue if DDG and whoever else only removed disinformation and they never had any false positives. The problem is DDG is not perfect and will censor real information while calling it disinformation.

Look at all the covid disinformation that turned out to be accurate or potentially accurate. The media and fact checkers have been completely awful at determining facts. Why do you think DDG will have any better luck?

First, define “disinformation.” Second, prove that only this disinformation is being suppressed. Lastly, prove that I don’t actually want to see some of this disinformation. I write articles and checking official Russian media is part of ensuring I’m writing factually.

Your problem is thinking that I don’t have the right to see media I want to see.

You think that ddg not showing as much disinformation is intruding on your right to see the media you want to see? You know that you can still find disinformation by explicitly searching for it right?

> excluding literal disinformation

Who decides what is literal disinformation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com