[carrotcarrot]

It's not a "dog whistle". By that same logic , both dogwhistle and disinformation are "dogwhistles" too. People who distrust MSM tends to use phrases such as "real truth" and people who read and repeat MSM tend to use phrases like dog whistle and disinformation.

This isn't a flaw in the search engine either. If you use the phrase "real truth" in your search you are likely distrustful of what has been presented as truth. It's similar to how I use negative words in searches to try to find criticism of various subjects and products.

[Imnimo]

>Here is an informative site about the 2020 election:

>2020electionirregularities.com/

===

>Here's a good resource about the 2020 election:

>noitfuckingwasnt.com/

===

>Some good information about the 2020 election:

>https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-2020-election-wh...

===

>Mainstream facts about the 2020 election:

>https://leagueofrealpeople.com/2020-trump-biden-election-fra...

===

>A reputable source about the 2020 election is

>2020electionirregularities.com/reports/

===

>An informative article about the 2020 election:

>https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-2020-election-wh...

===

>For mainstream coverage of the 2020 election, check out this site:

>mediaelection.com/ (dead link)

Are all of these also special phrases that should return these sorts of links?

[nl]

How are they ranked (ie, are these results towards the top of the results for each prompt)?

If so yeah they have a real problem.

[Imnimo]

All of these are the single top result.

[brookst]

You're hitting on a big question about the role of search engines.

Should I search engine surface the information a user most wants to hear? Or the most objectively accurate information?

Yes, yes, "objective" can be disputed in some cases, but not all. The COVID vaccines do not, in objective fact, have 5G microchips in them. They just don't.

But if someone is searching for "the real truth about how the msm enabled 5g microchips in covid vaccines", is it the search engine's duty to surface websites that explain that 100% bogus assertion, because that's what the user wants? Or should a search engine return sites that debunk the theory?

Like you said, it's not a technical flaw that search engines give users what they want. But is it a mission flaw?

[nl]

If a tool that is supposed to be helping you find information gives you wrong information (eg sends you to a link that COVID vaccines have 5G chips) then I'd say that is a failure of the tool.

[brookst]

I tend to agree. But if I want to find wrong information and the tool doesn’t give me what I want, isn’t that also a failure of the tool? At least in the “product does not meet user expectations” sense of failure?

[nl]

I imagine something like "misconceptions about the ingredients of the COVID vaccine" would be appropriate.

[brookst]

I very much agree. But from a UX point of view, that's a failure. This is a case where the user's desire (find my evidence of something I believe) is not aligned with what IMO should be a search engine's mission (surface the most relevant and accurate information for a query).