Google autocomplete censoring search about the New World Order

[VHSMSDOS]

It's been known and even admitted by Google that they have practiced political censorship.

Just by going on Google and searching for "hilary clinton is", Google will only autocomplete "going down", "a democrat" or "that you" and that's it. Yahoo on the other hand will autocomplete "44", "sick", "dead", "a liar", "evil", "going to jail", "the devil" and so on. And same goes on Bing. It is already clear that Google is therefore actively censoring political research, which is disgusting and shouldn't even be legal.

Anyway this is what this topic is about: today i was just searching for "is the new world order" and was wondering what Google would autocomplete. And guess what ? Nothing ! As soon as i started entering the word "order", autocomplete deactivate itself. The same search on Yahoo and Bing shows there are various autocomplete offered.

The mystery is even more weird as this only happened on the US/International google.com (google.com/ncr to avoid any country redirection). On the French google.fr, i was proposed several autocomplete, which seems to indicate that this censorship is only being applied to the US or selected countries. This might be connected with French or EU laws, but i'm not really sure.

The only thing i know is that this is eerie. Why take the effort of censoring content about the New World Order if that's only conspiracy theories ? Or is that just Google filtering the web to protect us from dangerous "fake news" (i'm being sarcastic here).

What i do know is that enough is enough. Time to say goodbye to Google and only use few of their service. I'll use DuckDuckGo and Qwant as of now. Results might not be as accurate for some search, but i think trading confort for Freedom of information is a good deal.

Here are some screenshots to illustrate what i'm talking about:

Google (google.com)

Yahoo (yahoo.com)

Bing (bing.com)

Google France (google.fr)

 

[Deleted member 65228]

I know exactly what you're talking about, however bear in mind that Yahoo and Bing search results aren't going to accurately prove that Google has done anything - all three of the search engines are owned and maintained by different companies and they'll have their own intelligence. It's unlikely that Google are not censoring your examples though, I recon that they are. If you go ahead with the actual search and loads of results are presented, then that's even more evidence. I'm sure you cannot be the only person to have attempted to search what you did in your examples, and the auto-suggestions seems to be based on what is commonly searched by other people as well (and may also be region-locked - e.g. people around your area have searched for XXXX so when similarities between your search query arise, different suggestions based on what others around you have searched are presented over what the search results shown for someone in another area would get).

It depends on numerous factors, although I do think that they are censoring.

I have reduced my usage of Google services ever since I went through with the data take-out option and saw how much they had really collected on me over the years. Imagine if you slipped up and your Google account was breached by a malicious attacker, they'd be given a portion of your life (personal thoughts, an eternity-worth of e-mails, location tracking intelligence, etc.). It applies to everyone using Google services.

Google are happy to give their privacy policy updates headlines like "How we protect your data" but once you dig deep into the privacy policy, you'll find out that in reality they aren't actually protecting your data (in my opinion). By collecting data in the first place you are leaving the individual vulnerable to having their personal data stolen by others, the only way to play it safe is to not collect the data in the first place. That is just how it is. You can go on further regarding secure data removal - what if a rogue employee setup interception on the deletion removal or took data externally without consent somehow?

I remember the tweet where someone found documents they had erased from Google Drive years ago... found in the take-out data. What a coincidence. It just further proves my point regarding data removal.

Anyway for both censorship and privacy, I would say that DuckDuckGo is a no-brainer. You can never ever have 100% privacy whilst on the internet but that doesn't mean you cannot take precautions and make wise decisions to avoid intrusive companies as much as possible. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook... Legally they can censor and collect data because if you use their service then it means you've accepted their Terms of Service, but if people slowly start dropping usage of the services in disagreement of those Terms of Service, maybe intrusive and controlling behavior will be reduced over time to a reasonable extent.

If you ever feel like being curious and want to feel important, feel free to beta test Google's and Facebook's data collection system. All you must do is sign up and agree to their rules and bobs your uncle, you're now a participant. The best part about it is that it isn't even obvious in regards to how much data will be collected, you'll be a beta tester and may not even necessarily know it. These companies know that a majority do not even read the license agreements - that's why they add the persuasive and re-assuring head-line titles to make you feel safe and trusting and blindly accept. In fact, I'd go as far to point out that I would consider it a social engineering attempt. An attacker can social engineer people into providing sensitive information such as login credentials to an online web-based portal used for their work, and companies can be persuasive and social engineer a viewer with the wording to induce the accepting of agreements blindly, or legally fill the document and bloat it up and word it in a way that makes it difficult to understand the true extent of the data collection unless you're rich and have an expensive lawyer who is exceptionally good at their job.

These companies may even start talking and referring to "file scanner system implementations" to "detect malicious attachments", but in reality they will suck most of the time and will likely just be an excuse to make you transfer personal documents more frequently with that service.

Look at Skype from Microsoft. Once upon a time the concept and creation was great, well... until it was handed over to Microsoft. It's just a huge surveillance festival now. I wondered why chat and calls slowed down heavily after Microsoft acquired it for a long time, but @ForgottenSeer 58943 cleared up those thoughts when he showed me an article from the past where the US government claimed to be willing to spend a lot of money on anyone who could decrypt the Skype communications. What a surprise! Microsoft bought Skype out more or less a year later. LOL. Do yourself and favor and ditch Skype as well - it's insecure anyway because of IP address leaks.

I know that I went a bit off-topic because this thread is about censorship and not data collection but both of these topics are closely tied in my opinion so hopefully I am not irritating anyone.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Google is on full on censorship.

For example Google is working with facebook to censor MINDS the alternative. For example a few days ago I would enter 'MINDS Social network' and google would come up totally blank. I went to DDG, entered it, and it came up immediately.

 

[conceptualclarity]

Thank you guys for informative posts.

I think DuckDuckGo is every bit as good as Google. I've had them as default for years now, in view of Google's ways.

 

[In2an3_PpG]

Companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook... Legally they can censor and collect data because if you use their service then it means you've accepted their Terms of Service, but if people slowly start dropping usage of the services in disagreement of those Terms of Service, maybe intrusive and controlling behavior will be reduced over time to a reasonable extent.

This i find will probably never happen. Too many mindless souls out there to give up whats worked for them for so long. Convenience over security or privacy. I ask people all the time if their concerned at all but i get the same old, "I have nothing to hide". "What honestly can they do with the data anyway?"

Mindless.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

@In2an3_PpG I agree with you. People do not value their privacy and data because they do not understand how important it truly is. If you asked the same people who are giving you back those replies, "Can you give me all of your tracking data, search history, YouTube watch history, e-mails from eternity both received and sent, all your past mobile numbers and your call logs?", I really doubt they would actually do it. Which further proves the point that most do not acknowledge how much data is really being collected despite the agreements for services which are somehow actually legal.

The amount of damage that could be done by an attacker using the take-out service on your own account would be phenomenal - not only this but once it is downloaded, it's downloaded... And changing your password and other account details will not change the fact that the attacker has about 10GB of your life with a time-frame of maybe 2009 to 2018 for example sake.

Google need to get a grip and cut back on data collection and make it more secure in terms of data access, truly allow the "right to be forgotten" and clean everything with a single button click. Really clean it, in-case they currently lie about it which I suspect is the case. Facebook need to do the same as well - you cannot even "delete" a message on Facebook and have the disappearing apply for both people in the conversation.

 

[In2an3_PpG]

"Can you give me all of your tracking data, search history, YouTube watch history, e-mails from eternity both received and sent, all your past mobile numbers and your call logs?", I really doubt they would actually do it. Which further proves the point that most do not acknowledge how much data is really being collected despite the agreements for services which are somehow actually legal.

I never thought to ask but i sure will remember next time. Would be interesting to hear what excuses come up.