[pjkundert]

The great thing about falsifying information is that it can come from anywhere.

The idea that it's fine for a bunch of snot-nosed purple haired leftist activists (sorry, I meant wise and scholarly even-handed moderators) to censor the de-facto public knowledge search infrastructure is ridiculous.

I love finding out that my hypothesis is falsified -- no matter where the data comes from. It means I'm about to learn something that I didn't expect. The best moments of my day.

Maybe that comes from being a programmer for 40 years. After being surprisingly wrong tens of times a day, you start to look forward to it.

Perhaps the self-proclaimed overlords of society's collective knowledge need to ... learn to learn, before putting the brakes on all that unruly and uncomfortable data?

[II2II]

Google made a business decision that may (or may not) align with the values of their organization. You are welcome to criticize the business decision. You are welcome to criticize the values of the organization. Yet making unsubstantiated claims is only contributing to the problem.

The thing is, Google has decided not to accept money from people who are promoting a particular political agenda. It's their right to do so. Perhaps they should have gone a bit further and said that they were not going to accept money from people promoting the opposite agenda since advertising is not the place for scholarly discourse, but that wasn't the decision they made and it's their right to make that decision as a private entity.