Search Engine results for revisionism in mid-2018

[EtienneSC]

There was a period from around 2011 (and probably before) to around 2016 when it was fairly easy to find revisionist literature by searching for appropriate terms, such as "holocaust" or "holocaust revisionism" on search engines. Similarly for videos. Trying this on a work computer today, this seems very much no longer to be so, at least on google. Even when I searched directly for "Holocaust revisionism" there were no actual revisionist websites in the first three pages of results. The sites that did come up condemned or refuted revisionism ("denial") but without linking to what they are condemning or refuting.

As a result, it will be difficult for people not familiar with revisionism to find out about it under their own steam. The implication is that the millions who know about it will have to be bolder ambassadors to the unaware, or it will fade away in much the same way as it came to the fore in the first place. New waters are ever flowing in upon us.

Another answer would be more competition amongst search engines. I don't really understand why this is not the case already. Surely users would like more clarity about the "algorithms" beings used and the level of sub-processing by censors? Is it that difficult to create a rival database of search results, or access the computing power?

I am sure this has been discussed before here, but a reminder of the current situation is in place.

[Moderator]

That's what is referred to as 'shadow banning'.
M1

[TimeTraveler]

Yeah I noticed the major censorship recently too. When I first was studying this I could find information pretty easy. But now it's a whole lot harder. Especially for the average joe that has no knowledge of any of this. I know what sites to go to now so it's not that hard to find for me. But for someone that has no clue yeah it'll be a lot harder for them now to try to study this topic.

[Moderator]

The good news is that the hits to the CODOH Forum and the CODOH main site are way up. I'll try to get some stats for everyone to see.
M1

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

The good news is that the hits to the CODOH Forum and the CODOH main site are way up. I'll try to get some stats for everyone to see.
M1

It's also good news that the first result for when, "askhistorians codoh" or "askhistorians codoh" is searched, the top result is the post I titled, "The Pseudohistory Website of "AskHistorians"", rather than the bigoted, racist, Palestine-denier website of "AskHistorians" (if you can even call it that.)

viewtopic.php?t=11930

My opinion would be to contact one's internet provider, and ask them how the search results are filtered.

Also, this is quite likely deliberate. Simply search "American inventors" on Google, and almost all of the seach results are African American. While it is true that there were/are African American inventors, the Google result makes it disproportionate.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/great-moments ... inventors/

[Hektor]

..... Even when I searched directly for "Holocaust revisionism" there were no actual revisionist websites in the first three pages of results. The sites that did come up condemned or refuted revisionism ("denial") but without linking to what they are condemning or refuting.

As a result, it will be difficult for people not familiar with revisionism to find out about it under their own steam. The implication is that the millions who know about it will have to be bolder ambassadors to the unaware, or it will fade away in much the same way as it came to the fore in the first place. New waters are ever flowing in upon us.

Another answer would be more competition amongst search engines. I don't really understand why this is not the case already. Surely users would like more clarity about the "algorithms" beings used and the level of sub-processing by censors? Is it that difficult to create a rival database of search results, or access the computing power?...

Shadow banning, of course. Or Holocauster web sites getting pushed with more SEO.

I think Revisionism does spread more with word of mouth than with people finding literature online as per coincidence. Well, some people may find it on forums or in the comment section under articles / social media. And that's the way to go, since we can't dictate to google what to do and what not.

[Sannhet]

For what it's worth, I have never failed to find CODOH via google search.

I do notice that Youtube (owned by Google) has hidden most CODOH videos and hidden the rest behind "The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences" with an identity verification needed to proceed.

The results for a Googling of "Holocaust revisionism," though, are just brutal. Studies suggest that few people go beyond the first page of search results, and Google appears to have stacked ten strongly anti-revisionist sites on the front page for that search...

(CODOH doesn't make it till the 6th page of 'Holocaust revisionism,' behind some pretty marginal sites...suggesting a shadowban is in effect)

[EtienneSC]

The following appears to reflect google's current or recent policy on historical searches:

A rating of Fails to Meet should be assigned to results that are helpful and satisfying for no or very few users. Fails to
Meet results are unrelated to the query, factually incorrect (please check for factual accuracy of answers), and/or all or
almost all users would want to see additional results. These results completely fail to meet the user intent, such as a lack
of attention to an aspect of the query (or user location) that is important for satisfying user intent. Fails to Meet may also
be used for results that are extremely low quality, have very stale or outdated information, be nearly impossible to use on
a mobile device, etc.
Fails to Meet should be used for the following types of Lowest Page Quality results: [.....] Pages that directly contradict well-established historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

The examples specifically include revisionism:

Google_Zensur_2018.PNG (100.46 KiB) Viewed 783 times

The links in the document go to Wikipedia and the SPLC websites. Although the example is Stormfront, the reason given would apply to revisionism generally. Hence they are deliberately censoring search results based on the views of the SPLC and Wikipedia editors. Source:
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//insidesearch/howsearchworks/assets/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
https://thomasdishaw.com/bookmark-400-links-google-doesnt-want-visit/

Alternative search engines include: Good Gopher, DuckDuckGo, Yandex, Searx.me and Qwant.com.