This is because Google has been learning your search behaviour, DuckDuckGo doesn’t do that.
The censorship is real as exposed by @Project_Veritas
Compare these two searches on @JoeBiden , one done on @Google and one on @DuckDuckGo.
I can provide countless more examples.
We need more lawmakers seeing this! Please retweet.pic.twitter.com/v6HZrNrN0F
-
-
-
No, this was incognito.
-
No, he is correct. Regarding incognito it's not storing your searches LOCALLY. Server side, it is still storing a lot of information based on what it can get (ip, webkit, cookies if applicable). Further, Google's search algorithm is based on collective searches not just your own
-
Further, it CAN be personalized if you are logged in to Google or Gmail or any account associated with Google (Instagram, Facebook, anything) i.e. anything that is set up to log in using your Google account. Again, incognito mode is all about local storage and sending
-
Do not track requests. If a site ignores these and/or is not built to understand the do not follow requests, then it really doesn't matter
-
Lastly, based on the information we know, this is not censorship. This is all algorithmically designed for most common search terms.
-
Sorry. This allows for optimization of return results putting less load on a/the servers
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, you don’t know how algorithms or search engines work, do you?
-
Hey, if you’re getting paid by DuckDuckGo for sending a bunch of conservative twitter trolls to their site, more power to you. Just be honest.
-
Is this a joke? I'm pointing out what Google is doing. I am not paid by any person or organization to do this.
-
Then you’re a sucker for driving business to a relatively unknown search engine.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So because you don't like the outcome, you want legal action taken against a private business? That sounds totalitarian. And not surprising coming from right-wingers. Just do what you tell gay couples wanting a wedding cake: go somewhere else.
-
I have no problem with turning away customers, I also believe that
@HawleyMO put forth great legislation to strip them or their immunity as a platform status.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Want the law to stay the heck out of it! It's OUR responsibility not to support companies that censor, use child labor, harm the environment, etc. OUR responsibility, as free individuals. Be a wave of informed consumers - far more powerful than our corrupt gov. could ever be.
-
Yes! We should also not be giving them immunity and protections as a platform when they are clearly a biased publisher.
-
Totally agree!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're mistaken, Zalman. Please see this thread:https://twitter.com/Ike_Saul/status/1143944163030908929?s=20 …
-
Shmarya, I looked over the thread and gave my responses there. Google is censoring terms they consider violent/dangerous/hateful/sexual. I don't know how terms like
@HillaryClinton emails or@JussieSmollett hoax are violent or dangerous, and certainly not sexually explicit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.