[pmarreck]

It's almost like "truth" isn't an absolute thing, but an ongoing discussion... which has become fractured!

[diogenescynic]

And yet there are observable and objective facts. Water freezes at 32 degrees. The sky is blue. Grass is green.

When a source repeatedly tells you not to believe your own eyes, but offers no valid counter-argument--you should be suspicious. I'm fine with Google/Facebook or whoever filtering out known dishonest and inaccurate websites, whether they are intentionally malicious or just ignorant.

[undersuit]

So WSWS is a known dishonest and/or inaccurate website?

[macspoofing]

WSWS? Oh yeah. It's an extreme left site that makes no attempt at any objectivity.

[undersuit]

I hate to have to ask again. Lack of objectivity isn't dishonest or inaccurate.

ob·jec·tive (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So is WSWS a dishonest and/or inaccurate website?

[macspoofing]

If you notice, they seemed to be flagged for neutral historical search queries. Things like "Russian Revolution". Someone reading it would get a viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream historians. So yes, dishonest.

[undersuit]

Do you have any proof that the content they host is dishonest? I'm seriously asking.

EDIT This page doesn't seem dishonest: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/07/twrr-a07.html Are you saying Google has examined the historical accuracy of this page and found it lacking?

[slededit]

Up on the top of this mountain my water freezes at 31 degrees! You are a liar and propagandist.

[pmarreck]

> When a source repeatedly tells you not to believe your own eyes, but offers no valid counter-argument--you should be suspicious

Who put Google in charge of determining what is true and what is fakenews? And how are you entirely comfortable with that?