[ehsankia]

Right, anyone who finds this offensive is implicitly agreeing that removing unfactual results would skew the results to be politically biased.

[LanceH]

What's offensive is that if their candidate wins, they don't raise that question.

[lern_too_spel]

If the candidate who isn't spreading fake news wins, then fake news isn't a big deal. There's nothing offensive about that.

[axlprose]

So it's wrong to be offended at the possibility of mass-scale censorship just as a matter of principle?

Search results are always going to be biased the same way that any media is always going to be biased. Have the regimes of the 20th century not taught us that it's naive to think we can objectively correct for that without opening the possibility for significantly worse repercussions?

[dragonwriter]

> So it's wrong to be offended at the possibility of mass-scale censorship just as a matter of principle?

Mass-scale censorship other than that already implicit in algorithmic link ranking wasn't suggested, improving the quality of the algorithms already in use and intended to provide he best information (which false propaganda is emphatically not) was suggested.