The news continues:
It just further solidifies the conclusion that Google is willing to suppress factual information it (or its funders) don't openly agree with. There are so many biased left and right wing sites out there, and Google is one that people depend on to be impartial because it is one of the biggest tools to finding information on the Internet.
Basically. Their entire usefulness as a tool is unbiased access to information (based on quality of information, not political threat to your idealogy.) They're moving from a tool for research, to a tool for telling liberals how awesome they are.
I'm a "liberal" and I'm downright bewildered that others aren't as offended. "It's a private company" is the usual distraction of the right. Now liberals can't stop defending... monopolies.
(Remember when liberals protested Wal-Mart crushing competition from mom-and-pop stores? Now they can't get enough Starbucks, Facebook, and Google.)
Google are really shitty with their web browser especially on mobile.
If you run Firefox you get a stripped down version of Google Search also with no infinite scrolling for images and low resolution.
freehunter 10 hours ago [-]
Let's not forget the time they refused to make a YouTube app for Windows Phone and when Microsoft made one, Google forced them to remove it. And then seemingly in retribution for making the app, Google blocked Windows Phone from being able to access Google Maps even though the browser was technically capable of using it. Google's reasoning was (similarly to another comment here) "it's too hard to check functionality in so many browsers" like they're not literally the most powerful Internet company in the world engaging in petty nonsense with a basically non-existing competitor.
Remember when Microsoft did the stuff Google does now and the government actually cared enough to do something about it?
as well as:
Holy crap. Duck Duck Go joins the ranks of stupidity. Manipulating autocomplete results.
My point I raised with my friends was, "The whole point of a search engine is unbiased results. If they manipulate it, how can you ever be assured that your research into a topic isn't also biased?" Like, for an extreme example, but illustrates the point: would you ever visit a library in the Soviet Union to read about capitalism? You could, and it's good to get points even from antagonists (like reading the BBC or Al Jazera for US news to compare-and-contrast the US news bubble). But you still have to take into account their opposing bias. Most people trust their library's selection.
Now, granted, autocomplete doesn't guarantee that they bias their search results. But it's a mark against their impunity. "Just because my doctor stole someone's wallet doesn't GUARANTEE he'll botch my surgery, but do I really want to risk it?"
When I used to go to one doctor, he gave me a speech about how bad he felt for mixed race children having to grow up knowing their parents "did that to them." It was so strange it didn't even sink in that it was racism till a few minutes later. I never went back. And yet, the doctor's comments had nothing to do with his medical performance.
Yet a search engine manipulating autocomplete is almost DIRECTLY related to their search results. They want you to see more (or less) of something as opposed to being an unbiased machine, giving you exactly what you ask for.
Imagine if your phone decided "you've had too much to eat or drink" and refused to show you sites you want to visit to eat or drink at. After all, "it's for the good of society", so why not impose that morality on your phone's local search results?
What the hell happened to Silicon Valley and nerdtypes? When did they go from Free Speech advocates creating unbiased tools, to creating "intelligent" systems with a nanny-state attached?
I'm an adult. I decide what is best for me, and what information I allow into my head.