So... what if the fact checker's source is wrong? That happens more times then you think. An example can be found in reporting of the cost of 'medicare for all' in the American healthcare system. Where a party ignores results from it's own research in favor of another site > #SEO

But the site that seemed like an authority source to them, turned out to have the wrong facts.

This'll happen to Google as well. On a grand scale. How much of a margin of error do we allow Google? Should Google act as a gatekeeper at all? I'm not comfortable with the idea > #SEO

Russia changed everything. Suddenly our noses were pressed against the manipulation that goes on in everything we're exposed to.

Fake news, propaganda, manipulation, that's nothing new. Russia used these even before the internet. To the point where they banned 'bad' books >
#SEO

What makes the sudden awareness of this happening online special? Surely it's logical that what's been happening offline when it comes to information manipulation, would now be happening online.

The difference? Putin made them look like fools. The governments. Google. Etc >
#SEO

The US, EU, and smart people working in Silicon Valley had to act to save face.

At the same time, they needed to find new ways to protect their own interests. Because, like Putin, they too want to be able to manipulate the masses.

My, what a dilemma!
>
#SEO

In comes the idea of the upload filter, and other charming 'win-win' actions from our governments.

Google & other big brands aren't sitting still either. Censorship & dogma are thriving in 2020. Supported by them.

Putin provided the perfect excuse to take things further > #SEO

But who SHOULD act as a gate keeper to the information we access?

(in SEO we talk about 'information we are - allowed - to access,' the gate keeper: Google)

Who should be allowed to censor us?
What margin of error do we allow them to have?
How can we hold them accountable?
#SEO

The truth is, and every person who's ever spend even a little philosophical thought on censorship, will come to the conclusion:

The answer is noone. Fair censorship cannot exist. It can't be done.

Not by a group of people
Not by a government.
Not by a corporation.
>
#SEO

Google knows this. She knows she can't do a great job. She knows she can't be trusted as a gatekeeper. It's an impossible ideal.

We had an answer to the dilemma of censorship:

Free speech. 100% free speech.

But 100% free speech & Google can't happen. Not since Russia.
#SEO

This answer machine she tries to become, notice how there isn't a system in place that fact checks the fact checker.

Sure, Google has ways to check results produce by her machine. But do we have a REAL third party that holds her accountable for showing us the wrong results?
#SEO

This is why she spends millions in courts and on political lobbies.

She wants to be gatekeeper of information. Information that decides public opinion, bills, votes. Knowing full well that's not a job she can do, properly, without bias, without error, without suspicion >
#SEO

Fine Google.

But if you're not going to be able to follow 100% free speech.

If you're going to go for an ugly, imperfect system, if you're going to filter

Another ugly system, a party that holds you accountable for biases, inaction, and wrong results SHOULD BE in place. >
#SEO

One might even argue that you Google, should be made public sector, non-profit maybe.

You've no business making intelligent toasters. You should invest that money into OUR information filter, on removing fake reviews, better fact checkers, taking power back from advertisers
#SEO

That's not a perfect system. But right now, big corp, governments, and dogma created by small but loud groups of people have all the power over our main source of knowledge.

That's not a good thing, for people, for democracy. It's in your corp's best interest. Not in ours.
#SEO

Now, for sources:

I've tweeted many examples of Google's, (not just Google, also other brands, like Twitter), doing bad things that go without consequences (example: not stopping DMCA strike abuse, the refusal to remove obvious unverified reviews etc.)

Read back a little >
#SEO

Oh, and by the way: a private company STILL HAS TO FOLLOW RULES.

Marketers keep telling me: 'D'oh! Google can do whatever she wants! She's a private company!'

That's children's logic and it's wrong. Makes no sense what so ever.
#SEO

As for the example at the beginning of this thread about the fact checker(s) being wrong:

It's an example taken from 2018, when Mercatus Center pushed a wrong claim against their own research, after reading another source, regarding the cost of the US universal healthcare system