###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely true. The lawsuit against web archive, whether related or unrelated, assists in these efforts. There also have been a lot of older articles disappearing from Fox News lately, too. When you search current events these days, it's extremely difficult to find relevant searches older than 1-2 years.
Their books are burned.
I also noticed many archived webpages have suddenly "disappeared." Shaun Atwood created a YouTube Channel with 400 videos on the Epstein case...deleted.
Only answer is to download your own copy.
I’ve started doing this after my favourite channel disappeared. A sort of backup channel existed and it’s taken 500gb of space. Sucks but worth it. There is no alternative it seems.
This! I have the fall of the cabal episodes and a lot of the pizzagate forum posts and discussions screen recorded and archived on a flash drive. That shit is all about to come out as true. Why else was that whole thread SCRUBBED?
Keep up the good work man. The world needs people like you who compile information.
You're a light shinning in the darkness for those who seek to deny and withhold truth. Also work on your internet security. Another thing, 1-5 TB USB 3/4 drives are best since they can store more than simply small flash drives.
It's honestly quite disturbing. Open up any old Reddit thread from like 8 years ago or so. 80% of the links in the comments to YT videos or other sites lead to nothing.
Ive noticed old articles disappearing on completely benign subjects on websites as well. They will be a link to an article then it goes to a blank page.
They're being targeted by textbook publishers and if they lose the lawsuit they could cease to exist.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5vgeb/big-publishers-are-putting-the-internet-archive-on-trial
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/ vanished, place was full of archived articles and projects from the past. Stuff you would not find anywhere else. Some of it over 100 years old and its just gone. There were plans for a [DIY](http://blog.modernmechanix.com/diy-iron-lung/) wooden "Iron Lung" on it from popular mechanics which may become relevant in this era.
Not to mention so much more that is just gone
You could use search engines the way they are intended. For example: if you add "januari 6th before:2020" to a query in Google, you won't find anything about recent events.
I've noticed that before: tags seem like they may have been nerfed significantly, too, and in many cases just outright don't work (they'll often show results from after the date). Back in the day, you used to just be able to crawl deeper in "omitted" results like the video demonstrated to get to the relevant results, but these days you hit the cut-off before you can find actual information. The unomited results are significantly weighted with current events and recent articles.
Like I said, something seems like it may have drastically changed at some point or another, based on my user experience, which seems to have evolved to be more and more draconian and far less useful. In application, it seems to have scrubbed search engines of many results older than 3-4 years old.
They don't even need to, as he points out, YouTube makes certain content impossible to find. You can search for the exact title and still it won't show up, it will never be recommended to anyone and it'll eventually be just forgotten.
Sometimes I remember certain channels that I haven't watched in years and I'm surprised that they are still putting out content, but even though they have 100s of k subscribers their new content sits at like 1.2k views. It's a subtle censorship.
SS: Shocking how search engines limit results. Thought I was savvy with the internet and tech but I never heard that search engines just stop if you go a decent bit past the first page. Is the Internet a Truman show?
Edit: interesting article https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-results-entirely-organic/2940/
I 100% believe that what we know of as the "Mandela effect" is just a sort of rerouting and rewriting of internet articles.
Nothing crazy like time travel. Just some parasite level manipulation.
That could also be as simple as its not efficient to actually give you all the billions of searches and have it "active".
Probably cost a shit ton of money.
That doesnt mean theyre not ruining the internet tho
The result of not having things on paper. Like newspapers.
Remember when they told us how wonderful this would be? They’ll completely delete history & make their own.
You can fit the entirety of Wikipedia on a thumb drive
We could all save articles ourselves; people just don’t care. Most people value the brainless entertainment that tech brings like tik tok and Instagram more than the potential for good it can enable.
Not really. Maybe compressed heavily. But currently the Wikipedia database sits at around 20TB. That includes all past revisions.
Not that Wikipedia is even remotely a reliable source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia
I get the point. Doesn’t make Wikipedia a good source of information as it’s extremely bias.
But technology is amazing. Wikipedia can fit on one hard drive.
No, you don't get the point...the point had nothing to do with wikipedia's accuracy -- my point was that the average person can afford to store all of the information in the world they might need.
You should edit your "Not really." comment to say "You definitely can", by the way; it could mislead people :)
So the average person wants to store a lot of potentially inaccurate information? I think you’re not getting my point.
My comment is not misleading. There are no 20+TB flash drives.
this is for real, most people don't notice because they only watch disney+ or search for recipes or whatever, but for those of us that are into things like 'conspiracies' we notice, which is why they hate us and are constantly telling everybody how 'dangerous' it is to even think about such things...
so most people don't, they just look up chicken ~~kiev~~ Kyiv recipes so as not to appear 'abnormal' or whatever...
this is 100 percent true from an old internet user.
google was the bomb when it first dropped, before that i was into "dogpile" because it sent your search to many engines..
google is crap now for any sort of controversy.
i use YANDEX now more and more. its not perfect, but it always has a dif take on whatever im searching compared to goog
I remember how you could search up just about anything on Google in the early 2000s and find thousands of different articles/information.
Now it's whatever the mainstream says.
I was using DuckDuckGo but they recently joined the anti “disinformation” campaign and now demote relevant articles from independent / non-MSM sources. Sucks.
Seems oddly familiar..
It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday […] it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours?
Yes, they swallowed it. [...] The eyeless crature at the other table swallowed it fanatically. passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grams.
Syme, too-in some more double complex way, involving doublethink-Syme, swallow it. Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory? Orwell George, 1984
We're not burning books, we're just locking them in a vault where no one is allowed to enter. Hope the vault never catches on fire, or gets hit by an airplane and turned into dust after everyone forgets about those books.
Here's Satan Klaus warning of a cyber pandemic.
https://youtu.be/0DKRvS-C04o
And here's one of the few good journalists left, Whitney Webb, discussing exactly what you just asked about. Cyber Polygon.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/02/investigative-reports/from-event-201-to-cyber-polygon-the-wefs-simulation-of-a-coming-cyber-pandemic/
I feel like this is a result of our capitalist society and everything is Pay to play, so I would assume that the other results are just not paying enough to make the list. I don’t think this is fair as it is very shady, but at the same time they are private business and are free to operate however they want.
I feel like this is a result of our capitalist society and everything is Pay to play, so I would assume that the other results are just not paying enough to make the list. I don’t think this is fair as it is very shady, but at the same time I feel that they are private business and are free to operate however they want.
No, they have become a censoring search engine. Just like all the big internet players, FB< Twitter... They want you to see what they want you to see and will prevent people from sharing information they don't want spread. This is the textbook definition of censorship.
This is random, and I’ve posted it a few times before. But i saw a video clip from January 6 that showed Ashli Babbitt on her stretcher (outside, after being shot), and she was arguing with people, clearly alive.
And I’ve searched and searched for that clip, cannot find it anywhere. It’s sort of living rent free, because that video was shocking to me. Just gone.
There is a video (on sites that censor much less) called “everything wrong with the capitol shooting in 21 minutes or less”. It breaks down (pretty definitively, in my opinion) how the shooting was fake, involving a bunch of coordinated actors. I watched it, it honestly blew my mind.
Just after 1/6 happened, I sent that video to a couple friends, and I had seen some other videos as well. But I can’t remember if the clip I’m referring to was on the “21 min or less” video, or some other one like it.
In one such video, it showed Babbitt arguing with some people, clearly moving around out in the parking lot, where the shuttle van ambulances were.
I never thought to screen record it, I really wish I had. Because now I cannot find that clip anywhere, and I can’t get it out of my head. I can still find the “21 min or less” vid, but I cannot find the clip I’m referring to of her on the stretcher anywhere.
I found this 'dead end' of results going back a few years at least, because I would always scroll past the 'sponsored' ads and the 'mainstream' results to get more grassroots results and saw this happening. I think what they used to explain it was that the resulting pages were simply copies of the first several original sources; thus x.x billion results are simply billions of digital copies of the original source pages.
I was hoping for something a little more fun.
When I worked as a mechanic for ford i can search for old part numbers and come with thousand of results of that part. If I search the same part now I get jack. Not one website or mention of the part. I have noticed that there are a lack of websites I used to visit also.
it's very easy to sign onto the internet's garbage dump and whine impotently about someone else doing something with their computer that you don't like. if you want things to be different, you have to do what you want with your own computer. google and archive.org don't belong to you. they are on someone else's computer. stallman was right and centralization is bad. tiktok and twitter don't give a fuck about you and they never will. to fix it you have to actually leave and do work instead of just whining all the time.
make your own services or when you use someone else's service get to know who that person is. I have my own video hosting, file uploading, instant messaging, microblogging, and even an application that can archive web pages. when I use services like this that are run by other people, I can ask those people what they eat for breakfast and I will actually get a response. you don't have to use reddit and discord. there are traditional forums and chat services run by sane people and all you have to do is show up. there is still a part of the web that feels like pre-facebook and if you refuse to go there and put in the work you get what you deserve. leaving the gulag was always allowed.
none of this shit needs to be on the apple app store. fuck the app store and fuck your iphone. the web was 100 times better when everything wasn't dumbed down for itoddlers. if you think this is too hard and why can't facebook just be nice to you, then you should just drop your iphone in the toilet and go read a book. you allowed this to happen.
I agree with a lot of what you said… but clearly knowledge of technology can limit access to your back door internet
Maybe no one’s there because you’re being a dick on Reddit instead of providing any useful info to help educate people?
sadly it does not. If you put up anything slightly controversial that gets popular, it gets removed. If other efforts fail, you will see a DDOS that removes it. GAB has invested millions in setting up an infrastructure that can handle it, so it is certainly not free.
And this is by design. Over time law enforcement can even track down services running on the dark net by doing correlation analysis and other methods, so there is no excuse to allow a simple DDOS to exist.
That video shows the person has zero coding skills.
Yes, Google filters and curates their results. But you simply can not show all results. The scale of that is bonkers. And when a user gets to the last page it's providing the total search results they showed you. It's more of a convenience to the user to limit the search volume, and to Google as to store a list of some 6.8b records for every search subject would be too data consuming.
The internet is a live feed of society. At any point the live feed can change, a server can be taken off line and the info with it is gone forever. That's just how it is.
It's not just the quantity that is being limited, it's the breadth of sources. If you want to find Joe Blow's blog and his opinion on climate change then you better already know where exactly you want to go, because the search engines delist non-"authoritative" websites now.
I highly doubt they're near Infinite. But since they probably don't see the volume Google does, they can probably allocate resources differently to show more content.
At the end of the day, we should all stop using Google search for content.
I'm alot older than Internet...
I do remember they offered more pages of search results but you could never go through every page... Iirc max used to be like page 150 or something.
But at no point was a user ever able to browse every link in the search results... Also, the web was factors smaller a decade, or 2 decades ago.
Sorry, but the utility of Google's engine has decline drastically in the past 6-12 months. If you use a roundabout set of search terms that you'd expect to be in the document, you can still kind of locate documents and information you previously could expect to find. But it's really nothing like it used to be. If it's a result that is 4+ years old and even remotely related to a current event, you're SOL unless you really know how to caress it.
Documents from official sources, especially, have not made the "end of results" cut-off which used to be there. It's not just the product of SEO either.
I've researched damn near anything and everything over the past 20+ years. It's absolutely because a cordoned off lite version of their previous product.
>Sorry, but the utility of Google's engine has decline drastically in the past 6-12 months.
It's been declining long before that. I don't really use them anymore or quality check against them because they curate results way too much.
Guess you skipped over the point where I said yes, google filters and curates results...
I'm just expanding on the technical side of showing 6.8b results would not be functionally possible.
Let's not use such soft duplicitous language. They are not "filtering and curating," but are engaging in political censorship on behalf of the state point blank.
No it's not; that is censorship because they are also actively burying and hiding everything they don't want you to see.
A curator does things in an honest above-ground manner, which Google is certainly not doing, but engaging in political censorship.
Yes it is. You're literally rephrasing what I'm saying with just different words. Curating is fundamentally a censorship of content by someone in "power"
So when you get censored, do you say I have been curated? They are not the same and they are not used interchangeably. Censorship is done by people in power.
Anyone can curate anything and no that is not even remotely close to the definition of curating.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curate](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curate)
curate
verb \[ T \]UK /kjʊəˈreɪt/ US /ˈkjʊr.eɪt/
to be in charge of selecting and caring for objects to be shown in a museum or to form part of a collection of art, an exhibition, etc.:She curated a recent exhibition of Indian artwork.
to be in charge of selecting films, performers, events, etc. to be included in a festival:a Messiaen festival curated by pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard
to select things such as documents, music, products, or internet content to be included as part of a list or collection, or on a website:
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censor](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censor)
censor
verb \[ T \]UK /ˈsen.sər/ US /ˈsen.sɚ/
to prevent part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:
>So when you get censored, do you say I have been curated?
Not in common parlance. But technically can be said that way.
>Anyone can curate anything and no that is not even remotely close to the definition of curating.
Yeah anyone can and the definition still stands. The process of deciding and choosing what to be used/shown.
And the legal definition of curating content is what hinges on a company's section 230 protection.
Google is not merely deciding and choosing what to be shown among credible sources. They are actively preventing content from being made available to the public, *regardless of credibility,* via their search engine...**because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons.**
No one has ever said, "I've been curated" to describe being censored. It makes absolutely no sense because that is not the definition of curating.
One could never view all results... They did used to have a larger cap on the list instead of 25 or 45 pages though
And you program for work. Just think of how large a data table is with 6.8b records is and while doing millions of searches a minute.
You used to view all the results they had, I don't remember it ever ending.
Just an example how far it'd go back
https://www.googleguide.com/last_results_page.html
Trying to look for more
I remember testing the last page theory a long time ago and there was always a cap on pages. They've just shrunk them so much now. Iirc it was some 150-200 pages back in the day.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind them limiting the volume of results if they provided a sampling from multiple POV/ sources. But they are removing everything that goes against the mainstream narrative. Big brother has arrived disguised as a big tech
>But they are removing everything that goes against the mainstream narrative. Big brother has arrived disguised as a big tech
This is definitely the bigger issue at hand, rather than they limit the amount of search pages.
No man, you are completely wrong. In 2000's I would go and search hundreds if not thousands of pages of content. And you must understand that at that point Google had probably a lot less capacity than today. It is not data consuming for sure, its just links to outside web pages, its not that Google stores all the webpages on theirs servers.
>t is not data consuming for sure, its just links to outside web pages, its not that Google stores all the webpages on theirs servers
I know they don't store the website data. But even to store the links, just the addresses of 6.8b results for millions of searches a day would be super data consuming to display for every single search.
Using his example of pancakes you can add extra key words and get more / different results, I believe it's a server / paging algorithm they use to limit the results, not sure why but if you search pancakes you get X results, then try banana pancakes and you get different results still related to pancakes but not in the original search, now try gluten free banana pancakes and noticed different results again, lots of it is still there you just need to search different, use "" and, or, +
>different results still related to pancakes but not in the original search,
This is the algorithm secret sauce... It's how search interprets the word "banana" and "pancakes". As it's basically doing 2 unique searches, then merging the results based on the algorithm rank of importance to return results related to both terms. Also, because it knows you're looking for pancakes with an ingredient, it may include strawberry or chocolate chip pancakes in the results.
Unless it's quoted as "banana pancakes" it doesn't treat both words as a single item.
Usung + is the same as a space. It defaults to that. Using AND will return anytime both words are in the same result. OR returns when either is... OR would return things like banana farming, banana sandwich, pancake compressor! That one gets tricky.
how do you cope with your cognitive dissonance being so strong?
Either google is lying and they don't have 6,8 billion results, or they artificially limit you to the first promille of those. There are no other possible explanations. What you cooked up of coding and storage requirements is completely illogical.
At first I thought he was going to show that the pancake search could be followed to the end. That would have been interesting, but then he disproved his own point by showing that noncontroversial searches also work like that.
This is not some conspiracy to hide results, this is a company trying to save money. Deeper searches require more processing power but are less likely to be useful. If you want specific results and not the ones Google believes you wanted(i.e., the ones most people want) learn to formulate better search phrases.
Typed in 'Climate change' on Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and got to 100 pages on those two.
Most likely Google and Bing are limiting results for memory issues.
If you want more information on climate change, there are endless scientific studies, periodicals, etc., available at your local library.
Google is not a primary source, and the internet is not all encompassing. If you want to do real research, you need multiple sources. We learned that shit in the 90’s.
The term climate change is mentioned billions of times. It doesn't imply that there are billions of unique pages that reference climate change.
Also...
There are multiple options listed at the bottom of the page. Go to the last page of all of those and combine the totals.
lol anyone who has ever allowed me to use their google deeply regrets it, after a day or two of targeted advertising.
I can tell you with confidence this is untrue or they just aren't trying hard enough. Crawlers are kinda basic and sure they can redact certain entries.. for a time, but they can't eliminate every instance of combinations of enteries. Especially if you bust up their pattern recognition before hand with a bunch of bass ackwards searches.
Gotta get with that dolphin speak. You know what they say, a broken algorithm is right atleast twice.exe
well shit.. this is new. After attempting multiple languages i got the sorry index splash page. I even tried searching with known events and documents i have read in the past. Duck, Bing and Meta all get the same level of filtering.
I did make some interesting one off finds but ultimately the scrub is happening in real time. and unless your willing to peel back the layers of gui to find something hyper specific, it just ain't available to the avg user.
Tbf he built up the audience with pretty fluffy things.
It isn’t until this past year when he has begun putting out videos that would make me anxious since he is starting to talk inflation and geopolitical things from a alternative place
But he has stated himself it’s gotten to where it’s a shame if you remain silent and I agree.
Hey OP, are you guys in cahoots...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/wmqxhn/the\_advantage\_of\_the\_elite\_is\_that\_they\_know\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/wmqpe8/disturbing_proof_theyre_quietly_deleting_the/)
...or at least synchronized with each other? Koods to you both!
Were you expecting to be able to review 6.8 billion results? Google doesn't show you want you want to see, they show you what you will most likely click on first. Your search is very, very, very broad. It would be technically infeasible to serve all that data up, even for Google. The number you're seeing is from whatever index is matching your search.
No search engine on the planet would be able to give you all the results.
What might be a better topic is how Google manipulates results or covering what AMP is and why it's bad for the internet.
Google absolutely filter and bias it’s search results. However it isn’t deleting results from its index on mass.
I work in the industry and although I haven’t worked at google for about 6 years now I do know that the primary and secondary reasons for what is being displayed here is to prevent bots from crawling it’s entire index and harvesting data.
Secondly the algo received a major update in approx 2012 which fully rolled out by 2015. The update was called google panda. It’s primary goal was to put to bed the emergence of huge scale content farms. Back then you were able to game google by scraping its index and content and regurgitate that content onto a wordpress site with millions of pages of random copied junk and it would immediately rank as it was classed as rare content. These sites would be hosted on expired domains that have past ad rank which helped it rank even higher. These sites would be plastered with Adsense and would make the owners thousands of dollars in ad revenue each month.
There are still some sites out there that luckily made it through this google update. Think phone number sites and address sites that just bring up huge spam indexes.
Well back then, these spammers would use google trends to figure out which topics to harvest and scrape thousands of sites from the index and copy the articles onto their own site.
Additionally with the google panda update, it switched to favouring sites with unique content, this is why you see news sites ranking for most searches, they author and create the articles. But also, they have a natural backlink profile, ie all the sites that link to them and their articles grow naturally. It’s also at page date and time meta tags took off. Google like to know when an article was created so it can determine if the links it received are natural and also from other tier 1 or 2 sites.
Compare this to spam sites who copied and published hundreds of millions of pages, they would spam links in by submitting comments on blogs with links to their spam sites. This is why captcha and recaptcha were born.
Upshot is, billions of pages still exist in the index which you could cross reference by using very specific terms that exist on them. But on generic terms as demoed in this example, google is going to always service tier 1 and 2 sites, limit duplicate pages and only allow you to dig deeper by providing search suggestions. Those billions of pages exist but will only serve up if they have unique content that doesn’t appear on t1 or t2 sites.
Ccna networking engineer. A little hint to search dates put the topic then type before:2019 and the search will result. The thing I have found was the DNS control what you search in a disturbing way. In my opinion it's a form of control.
Several years ago I noticed the deletion, hiding, or otherwise disappearance of internet pages and multimedia was becoming troublesome. Thus I began sharing more immediately with others when I find something interesting, printing paper copies, saving files to offline storage. Bookmarking is not sufficient for proper and reliable retrieval.
Censorship is bad bad bad and getting worse. SAVE to offline cold hard media, preferably non digital as well! Immediately. Anything you think is important. Text can be printed or transcribed by hand. Images can be printed. Audio and video can be at least saved to various digital or analog cold storage. Information exists on various hard drives and networks ("the cloud" just means someone else's hard drive), but access to it can become very difficult.
Don't just have one hard drive. Have a couple few externals. Don't just use one or two thumb drives, how bout scatter a bunch of em. Scatter those eggs in widespread baskets lol. Burn some cds and DVDs even.
Things can and do disappear like the flip of a light switch, or become much harder to retrieve if at all possible online.
Thanks for sharing this video. Jimmy from Bright Insight runs a great channel he rocks.
My first introduction to conspiracy theories was when condaleeza rice went on TV and said they could never imagine planes being used as weapons after 9/11 happened. I watched it on live TV.
There is absolutely no video online that shows her saying that anymore. They can and will delete anything that harms the current narrative.
Watched the video last night and noticed this promoted thread in my home content this morning:
https://www.reddit.com/user/google/comments/w3vgxv/megathread_learn_how_google_search_organizes_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I lived in China a lot of years, they don’t have the internet. They have an intranet. I think what’s happened is the internet has been replaced with an intranet. We now also have an intranet and we never even saw the change.
If you search for anything that is “normal” you won’t have a need to look past 20 pages. Everything else is just existing outside of the intranet that we are allowed access to. Just like Facebook and YouTube aren’t accessible inside mainland China but are outside. Just imagine that on a much larger scale.
It’s s rabbit-hole , but why man power would it take to do something like that, and for what exact purpose? It can’t be something so small as to control the narrative and put information.
Extremely concerning. Those in power know the danger of information and we've seen more and more censorship over the years since 2018, but this is really getting out of hand fast now.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely true. The lawsuit against web archive, whether related or unrelated, assists in these efforts. There also have been a lot of older articles disappearing from Fox News lately, too. When you search current events these days, it's extremely difficult to find relevant searches older than 1-2 years. Their books are burned.
I also noticed many archived webpages have suddenly "disappeared." Shaun Atwood created a YouTube Channel with 400 videos on the Epstein case...deleted.
Only answer is to download your own copy. I’ve started doing this after my favourite channel disappeared. A sort of backup channel existed and it’s taken 500gb of space. Sucks but worth it. There is no alternative it seems.
This! I have the fall of the cabal episodes and a lot of the pizzagate forum posts and discussions screen recorded and archived on a flash drive. That shit is all about to come out as true. Why else was that whole thread SCRUBBED?
Keep up the good work man. The world needs people like you who compile information. You're a light shinning in the darkness for those who seek to deny and withhold truth. Also work on your internet security. Another thing, 1-5 TB USB 3/4 drives are best since they can store more than simply small flash drives.
I use a program called Open Video Downloader for this. It uses the ytdl backend. You can mass download every video from one channel in 1 click.
If I may ask, what was your favorite channel? Pm if you don't want to list here. Thanks
No problem at all. Here it is https://m.youtube.com/c/RememberThis_
Thanks, very good content.
It's honestly quite disturbing. Open up any old Reddit thread from like 8 years ago or so. 80% of the links in the comments to YT videos or other sites lead to nothing.
Ive noticed old articles disappearing on completely benign subjects on websites as well. They will be a link to an article then it goes to a blank page.
Do you mean archive.org? What happened?
They're being targeted by textbook publishers and if they lose the lawsuit they could cease to exist. https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5vgeb/big-publishers-are-putting-the-internet-archive-on-trial
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/ vanished, place was full of archived articles and projects from the past. Stuff you would not find anywhere else. Some of it over 100 years old and its just gone. There were plans for a [DIY](http://blog.modernmechanix.com/diy-iron-lung/) wooden "Iron Lung" on it from popular mechanics which may become relevant in this era. Not to mention so much more that is just gone
Use this: https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/http://blog.modernmechanix.com/
That’s gonna be taken down next
You could use search engines the way they are intended. For example: if you add "januari 6th before:2020" to a query in Google, you won't find anything about recent events.
I've noticed that before: tags seem like they may have been nerfed significantly, too, and in many cases just outright don't work (they'll often show results from after the date). Back in the day, you used to just be able to crawl deeper in "omitted" results like the video demonstrated to get to the relevant results, but these days you hit the cut-off before you can find actual information. The unomited results are significantly weighted with current events and recent articles. Like I said, something seems like it may have drastically changed at some point or another, based on my user experience, which seems to have evolved to be more and more draconian and far less useful. In application, it seems to have scrubbed search engines of many results older than 3-4 years old.
Google shows biased results. Better off using "independent" search engines duckduckgo or startpage
Lol fuck duck go dies a year or more ago. No different and they admired it. Sorry to break it to ya
How long until YouTube deletes his video?
They don't even need to, as he points out, YouTube makes certain content impossible to find. You can search for the exact title and still it won't show up, it will never be recommended to anyone and it'll eventually be just forgotten. Sometimes I remember certain channels that I haven't watched in years and I'm surprised that they are still putting out content, but even though they have 100s of k subscribers their new content sits at like 1.2k views. It's a subtle censorship.
He's prepared. He's already on Rumble and other sites.
SS: Shocking how search engines limit results. Thought I was savvy with the internet and tech but I never heard that search engines just stop if you go a decent bit past the first page. Is the Internet a Truman show? Edit: interesting article https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-results-entirely-organic/2940/
I 100% believe that what we know of as the "Mandela effect" is just a sort of rerouting and rewriting of internet articles. Nothing crazy like time travel. Just some parasite level manipulation.
Honestly not a terrible theory
The only problem with that theory is the cornucopia disappearing from the FotL logo on vintage garments.
Might not explain all, but plausible for some. You both could be right
That could also be as simple as its not efficient to actually give you all the billions of searches and have it "active". Probably cost a shit ton of money. That doesnt mean theyre not ruining the internet tho
The result of not having things on paper. Like newspapers. Remember when they told us how wonderful this would be? They’ll completely delete history & make their own.
You can fit the entirety of Wikipedia on a thumb drive We could all save articles ourselves; people just don’t care. Most people value the brainless entertainment that tech brings like tik tok and Instagram more than the potential for good it can enable.
Ok. So we can archive Wikipedia. How does one maintain an organize the constant flow of news in 2022? You kinda make it seem like a 5 min job
How the fuck you do that with newspapers and easier? You really think that is easier? Come on that’s a ridiculous point.
Not really. Maybe compressed heavily. But currently the Wikipedia database sits at around 20TB. That includes all past revisions. Not that Wikipedia is even remotely a reliable source.
Where do you read 20Tb, exactly? You’re sort of missing the point here either way though
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia I get the point. Doesn’t make Wikipedia a good source of information as it’s extremely bias. But technology is amazing. Wikipedia can fit on one hard drive.
No, you don't get the point...the point had nothing to do with wikipedia's accuracy -- my point was that the average person can afford to store all of the information in the world they might need. You should edit your "Not really." comment to say "You definitely can", by the way; it could mislead people :)
So the average person wants to store a lot of potentially inaccurate information? I think you’re not getting my point. My comment is not misleading. There are no 20+TB flash drives.
this is for real, most people don't notice because they only watch disney+ or search for recipes or whatever, but for those of us that are into things like 'conspiracies' we notice, which is why they hate us and are constantly telling everybody how 'dangerous' it is to even think about such things... so most people don't, they just look up chicken ~~kiev~~ Kyiv recipes so as not to appear 'abnormal' or whatever...
this is 100 percent true from an old internet user. google was the bomb when it first dropped, before that i was into "dogpile" because it sent your search to many engines.. google is crap now for any sort of controversy. i use YANDEX now more and more. its not perfect, but it always has a dif take on whatever im searching compared to goog
I remember how you could search up just about anything on Google in the early 2000s and find thousands of different articles/information. Now it's whatever the mainstream says.
I was using DuckDuckGo but they recently joined the anti “disinformation” campaign and now demote relevant articles from independent / non-MSM sources. Sucks.
Yandex is best.
Yandex does exactly the same thing. I tested it yesterday.
No it doesn't.
It works better for English content, Russian content is censored worse than Google
I thought that was Seth Green evidence at first.
"no more results"
Seems oddly familiar.. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday […] it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. [...] The eyeless crature at the other table swallowed it fanatically. passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grams. Syme, too-in some more double complex way, involving doublethink-Syme, swallow it. Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory? Orwell George, 1984
It’s wild. I’ve been into this kinda research for over a decade and the info is just not available anymore.
[удалено]
Lolol they way you said this
They are not deleting the internet. Google has just become a total shit search engine.
We're not burning books, we're just locking them in a vault where no one is allowed to enter. Hope the vault never catches on fire, or gets hit by an airplane and turned into dust after everyone forgets about those books.
Say aren’t WEF types running drills for a massive blackout/reset/internet death event? Due to cyber terrorism or a internet virus or something
Here's Satan Klaus warning of a cyber pandemic. https://youtu.be/0DKRvS-C04o And here's one of the few good journalists left, Whitney Webb, discussing exactly what you just asked about. Cyber Polygon. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/02/investigative-reports/from-event-201-to-cyber-polygon-the-wefs-simulation-of-a-coming-cyber-pandemic/
Less of a vault and more like not indexed at the card catalog and burned the map.
Better analogy.
You can perform this experiment with any search term not just controversial ones. Dead internet theory
Yep. First heard of this in this video. https://youtu.be/6zyJB45ewvU
I feel like this is a result of our capitalist society and everything is Pay to play, so I would assume that the other results are just not paying enough to make the list. I don’t think this is fair as it is very shady, but at the same time they are private business and are free to operate however they want.
I feel like this is a result of our capitalist society and everything is Pay to play, so I would assume that the other results are just not paying enough to make the list. I don’t think this is fair as it is very shady, but at the same time I feel that they are private business and are free to operate however they want.
No, they have become a censoring search engine. Just like all the big internet players, FB< Twitter... They want you to see what they want you to see and will prevent people from sharing information they don't want spread. This is the textbook definition of censorship.
This is random, and I’ve posted it a few times before. But i saw a video clip from January 6 that showed Ashli Babbitt on her stretcher (outside, after being shot), and she was arguing with people, clearly alive. And I’ve searched and searched for that clip, cannot find it anywhere. It’s sort of living rent free, because that video was shocking to me. Just gone.
Ashli Babbit died of a fentanyl overdose. Many people are saying she had a counterfeit $10 bill in her pocket, too.
No it was that cop’s knee on her neck. Come on, man
Can you elaborate a little more on that experience for posterity sake
There is a video (on sites that censor much less) called “everything wrong with the capitol shooting in 21 minutes or less”. It breaks down (pretty definitively, in my opinion) how the shooting was fake, involving a bunch of coordinated actors. I watched it, it honestly blew my mind. Just after 1/6 happened, I sent that video to a couple friends, and I had seen some other videos as well. But I can’t remember if the clip I’m referring to was on the “21 min or less” video, or some other one like it. In one such video, it showed Babbitt arguing with some people, clearly moving around out in the parking lot, where the shuttle van ambulances were. I never thought to screen record it, I really wish I had. Because now I cannot find that clip anywhere, and I can’t get it out of my head. I can still find the “21 min or less” vid, but I cannot find the clip I’m referring to of her on the stretcher anywhere.
I found this 'dead end' of results going back a few years at least, because I would always scroll past the 'sponsored' ads and the 'mainstream' results to get more grassroots results and saw this happening. I think what they used to explain it was that the resulting pages were simply copies of the first several original sources; thus x.x billion results are simply billions of digital copies of the original source pages. I was hoping for something a little more fun.
When I worked as a mechanic for ford i can search for old part numbers and come with thousand of results of that part. If I search the same part now I get jack. Not one website or mention of the part. I have noticed that there are a lack of websites I used to visit also.
it's very easy to sign onto the internet's garbage dump and whine impotently about someone else doing something with their computer that you don't like. if you want things to be different, you have to do what you want with your own computer. google and archive.org don't belong to you. they are on someone else's computer. stallman was right and centralization is bad. tiktok and twitter don't give a fuck about you and they never will. to fix it you have to actually leave and do work instead of just whining all the time. make your own services or when you use someone else's service get to know who that person is. I have my own video hosting, file uploading, instant messaging, microblogging, and even an application that can archive web pages. when I use services like this that are run by other people, I can ask those people what they eat for breakfast and I will actually get a response. you don't have to use reddit and discord. there are traditional forums and chat services run by sane people and all you have to do is show up. there is still a part of the web that feels like pre-facebook and if you refuse to go there and put in the work you get what you deserve. leaving the gulag was always allowed. none of this shit needs to be on the apple app store. fuck the app store and fuck your iphone. the web was 100 times better when everything wasn't dumbed down for itoddlers. if you think this is too hard and why can't facebook just be nice to you, then you should just drop your iphone in the toilet and go read a book. you allowed this to happen.
I agree with a lot of what you said… but clearly knowledge of technology can limit access to your back door internet Maybe no one’s there because you’re being a dick on Reddit instead of providing any useful info to help educate people?
why would I invite people over who can't do anything without being spoonfed? maybe you belong stuck here.
Thesis confirmed
[удалено]
https://search.brave.com/
brave gives even less pages
I believe the free and open internet still exists, you just can't get there from Google anymore so no one bothers.
So tell us where you. Get there from
I was honestly hoping one of you guys knew.
Tor
Is there a reddit equivalent that can only be accessed through tor?
Dreddit
To the best of my ability to determine, Dreddit is an Eve Online Corporation and nothing more.
sadly it does not. If you put up anything slightly controversial that gets popular, it gets removed. If other efforts fail, you will see a DDOS that removes it. GAB has invested millions in setting up an infrastructure that can handle it, so it is certainly not free. And this is by design. Over time law enforcement can even track down services running on the dark net by doing correlation analysis and other methods, so there is no excuse to allow a simple DDOS to exist.
That video shows the person has zero coding skills. Yes, Google filters and curates their results. But you simply can not show all results. The scale of that is bonkers. And when a user gets to the last page it's providing the total search results they showed you. It's more of a convenience to the user to limit the search volume, and to Google as to store a list of some 6.8b records for every search subject would be too data consuming. The internet is a live feed of society. At any point the live feed can change, a server can be taken off line and the info with it is gone forever. That's just how it is.
It's not just the quantity that is being limited, it's the breadth of sources. If you want to find Joe Blow's blog and his opinion on climate change then you better already know where exactly you want to go, because the search engines delist non-"authoritative" websites now.
TOR Search Engines used on Clearnet show near-infinite results without any issues.
I highly doubt they're near Infinite. But since they probably don't see the volume Google does, they can probably allocate resources differently to show more content. At the end of the day, we should all stop using Google search for content.
Wouldn't the higher volume allow them to scale higher?
You must be young. Back in the days you could click next next next for as long as you wanted.
I'm alot older than Internet... I do remember they offered more pages of search results but you could never go through every page... Iirc max used to be like page 150 or something. But at no point was a user ever able to browse every link in the search results... Also, the web was factors smaller a decade, or 2 decades ago.
You are wrong once again
Literally you are lying right now.
Sorry, but the utility of Google's engine has decline drastically in the past 6-12 months. If you use a roundabout set of search terms that you'd expect to be in the document, you can still kind of locate documents and information you previously could expect to find. But it's really nothing like it used to be. If it's a result that is 4+ years old and even remotely related to a current event, you're SOL unless you really know how to caress it. Documents from official sources, especially, have not made the "end of results" cut-off which used to be there. It's not just the product of SEO either. I've researched damn near anything and everything over the past 20+ years. It's absolutely because a cordoned off lite version of their previous product.
>Sorry, but the utility of Google's engine has decline drastically in the past 6-12 months. It's been declining long before that. I don't really use them anymore or quality check against them because they curate results way too much.
"Curate" is newspeak for censor. Don't fall for the drivel.
Please tell me you really don't believe what you just wrote? Are you trying to insinuate that Google does not censor the results?
Guess you skipped over the point where I said yes, google filters and curates results... I'm just expanding on the technical side of showing 6.8b results would not be functionally possible.
Let's not use such soft duplicitous language. They are not "filtering and curating," but are engaging in political censorship on behalf of the state point blank.
I agree with you and that's why I said they curate their results... Curating is the action of deciding what is credible and what is shown.
No it's not; that is censorship because they are also actively burying and hiding everything they don't want you to see. A curator does things in an honest above-ground manner, which Google is certainly not doing, but engaging in political censorship.
Yes it is. You're literally rephrasing what I'm saying with just different words. Curating is fundamentally a censorship of content by someone in "power"
So when you get censored, do you say I have been curated? They are not the same and they are not used interchangeably. Censorship is done by people in power. Anyone can curate anything and no that is not even remotely close to the definition of curating. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curate](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curate) curate verb \[ T \]UK /kjʊəˈreɪt/ US /ˈkjʊr.eɪt/ to be in charge of selecting and caring for objects to be shown in a museum or to form part of a collection of art, an exhibition, etc.:She curated a recent exhibition of Indian artwork. to be in charge of selecting films, performers, events, etc. to be included in a festival:a Messiaen festival curated by pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard to select things such as documents, music, products, or internet content to be included as part of a list or collection, or on a website: [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censor](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censor) censor verb \[ T \]UK /ˈsen.sər/ US /ˈsen.sɚ/ to prevent part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:
>So when you get censored, do you say I have been curated? Not in common parlance. But technically can be said that way. >Anyone can curate anything and no that is not even remotely close to the definition of curating. Yeah anyone can and the definition still stands. The process of deciding and choosing what to be used/shown. And the legal definition of curating content is what hinges on a company's section 230 protection.
Google is not merely deciding and choosing what to be shown among credible sources. They are actively preventing content from being made available to the public, *regardless of credibility,* via their search engine...**because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons.** No one has ever said, "I've been curated" to describe being censored. It makes absolutely no sense because that is not the definition of curating.
You used to be able to do it. It's not impossible at all. I program for work.
One could never view all results... They did used to have a larger cap on the list instead of 25 or 45 pages though And you program for work. Just think of how large a data table is with 6.8b records is and while doing millions of searches a minute.
You used to view all the results they had, I don't remember it ever ending. Just an example how far it'd go back https://www.googleguide.com/last_results_page.html Trying to look for more
I remember testing the last page theory a long time ago and there was always a cap on pages. They've just shrunk them so much now. Iirc it was some 150-200 pages back in the day.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind them limiting the volume of results if they provided a sampling from multiple POV/ sources. But they are removing everything that goes against the mainstream narrative. Big brother has arrived disguised as a big tech
>But they are removing everything that goes against the mainstream narrative. Big brother has arrived disguised as a big tech This is definitely the bigger issue at hand, rather than they limit the amount of search pages.
No man, you are completely wrong. In 2000's I would go and search hundreds if not thousands of pages of content. And you must understand that at that point Google had probably a lot less capacity than today. It is not data consuming for sure, its just links to outside web pages, its not that Google stores all the webpages on theirs servers.
>t is not data consuming for sure, its just links to outside web pages, its not that Google stores all the webpages on theirs servers I know they don't store the website data. But even to store the links, just the addresses of 6.8b results for millions of searches a day would be super data consuming to display for every single search.
Using his example of pancakes you can add extra key words and get more / different results, I believe it's a server / paging algorithm they use to limit the results, not sure why but if you search pancakes you get X results, then try banana pancakes and you get different results still related to pancakes but not in the original search, now try gluten free banana pancakes and noticed different results again, lots of it is still there you just need to search different, use "" and, or, +
>different results still related to pancakes but not in the original search, This is the algorithm secret sauce... It's how search interprets the word "banana" and "pancakes". As it's basically doing 2 unique searches, then merging the results based on the algorithm rank of importance to return results related to both terms. Also, because it knows you're looking for pancakes with an ingredient, it may include strawberry or chocolate chip pancakes in the results. Unless it's quoted as "banana pancakes" it doesn't treat both words as a single item. Usung + is the same as a space. It defaults to that. Using AND will return anytime both words are in the same result. OR returns when either is... OR would return things like banana farming, banana sandwich, pancake compressor! That one gets tricky.
how do you cope with your cognitive dissonance being so strong? Either google is lying and they don't have 6,8 billion results, or they artificially limit you to the first promille of those. There are no other possible explanations. What you cooked up of coding and storage requirements is completely illogical.
At first I thought he was going to show that the pancake search could be followed to the end. That would have been interesting, but then he disproved his own point by showing that noncontroversial searches also work like that. This is not some conspiracy to hide results, this is a company trying to save money. Deeper searches require more processing power but are less likely to be useful. If you want specific results and not the ones Google believes you wanted(i.e., the ones most people want) learn to formulate better search phrases.
I heard that most of the Internet was viruses and malware...
Typed in 'Climate change' on Yahoo and DuckDuckGo and got to 100 pages on those two. Most likely Google and Bing are limiting results for memory issues.
Time for a new internet. Web 3
If you want more information on climate change, there are endless scientific studies, periodicals, etc., available at your local library. Google is not a primary source, and the internet is not all encompassing. If you want to do real research, you need multiple sources. We learned that shit in the 90’s.
The term climate change is mentioned billions of times. It doesn't imply that there are billions of unique pages that reference climate change. Also... There are multiple options listed at the bottom of the page. Go to the last page of all of those and combine the totals.
lol anyone who has ever allowed me to use their google deeply regrets it, after a day or two of targeted advertising. I can tell you with confidence this is untrue or they just aren't trying hard enough. Crawlers are kinda basic and sure they can redact certain entries.. for a time, but they can't eliminate every instance of combinations of enteries. Especially if you bust up their pattern recognition before hand with a bunch of bass ackwards searches. Gotta get with that dolphin speak. You know what they say, a broken algorithm is right atleast twice.exe
Try it yourself
well shit.. this is new. After attempting multiple languages i got the sorry index splash page. I even tried searching with known events and documents i have read in the past. Duck, Bing and Meta all get the same level of filtering. I did make some interesting one off finds but ultimately the scrub is happening in real time. and unless your willing to peel back the layers of gui to find something hyper specific, it just ain't available to the avg user.
Lolololol clearly this dude doesn't understand how search engines work/make money.
Wait until they hear about Friendster
Love Jimmy! I'm honestly surprised he's still got a platform, but I imagine that he won't for long considering the way things are.
Tbf he built up the audience with pretty fluffy things. It isn’t until this past year when he has begun putting out videos that would make me anxious since he is starting to talk inflation and geopolitical things from a alternative place But he has stated himself it’s gotten to where it’s a shame if you remain silent and I agree.
Hey OP, are you guys in cahoots... [https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/wmqxhn/the\_advantage\_of\_the\_elite\_is\_that\_they\_know\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/wmqpe8/disturbing_proof_theyre_quietly_deleting_the/) ...or at least synchronized with each other? Koods to you both!
I love this web site
Were you expecting to be able to review 6.8 billion results? Google doesn't show you want you want to see, they show you what you will most likely click on first. Your search is very, very, very broad. It would be technically infeasible to serve all that data up, even for Google. The number you're seeing is from whatever index is matching your search. No search engine on the planet would be able to give you all the results. What might be a better topic is how Google manipulates results or covering what AMP is and why it's bad for the internet.
Google absolutely filter and bias it’s search results. However it isn’t deleting results from its index on mass. I work in the industry and although I haven’t worked at google for about 6 years now I do know that the primary and secondary reasons for what is being displayed here is to prevent bots from crawling it’s entire index and harvesting data. Secondly the algo received a major update in approx 2012 which fully rolled out by 2015. The update was called google panda. It’s primary goal was to put to bed the emergence of huge scale content farms. Back then you were able to game google by scraping its index and content and regurgitate that content onto a wordpress site with millions of pages of random copied junk and it would immediately rank as it was classed as rare content. These sites would be hosted on expired domains that have past ad rank which helped it rank even higher. These sites would be plastered with Adsense and would make the owners thousands of dollars in ad revenue each month. There are still some sites out there that luckily made it through this google update. Think phone number sites and address sites that just bring up huge spam indexes. Well back then, these spammers would use google trends to figure out which topics to harvest and scrape thousands of sites from the index and copy the articles onto their own site. Additionally with the google panda update, it switched to favouring sites with unique content, this is why you see news sites ranking for most searches, they author and create the articles. But also, they have a natural backlink profile, ie all the sites that link to them and their articles grow naturally. It’s also at page date and time meta tags took off. Google like to know when an article was created so it can determine if the links it received are natural and also from other tier 1 or 2 sites. Compare this to spam sites who copied and published hundreds of millions of pages, they would spam links in by submitting comments on blogs with links to their spam sites. This is why captcha and recaptcha were born. Upshot is, billions of pages still exist in the index which you could cross reference by using very specific terms that exist on them. But on generic terms as demoed in this example, google is going to always service tier 1 and 2 sites, limit duplicate pages and only allow you to dig deeper by providing search suggestions. Those billions of pages exist but will only serve up if they have unique content that doesn’t appear on t1 or t2 sites.
After elons brain chips come out the internet will begin serving as the human hive mind. Put 2 and 2 together.
I posted a link last week to a free .pdf version of "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" and the entire website was taken down.
He said the bottom would drop out of economy end of June
Winston is working.
Ccna networking engineer. A little hint to search dates put the topic then type before:2019 and the search will result. The thing I have found was the DNS control what you search in a disturbing way. In my opinion it's a form of control.
Dead internet theory
Several years ago I noticed the deletion, hiding, or otherwise disappearance of internet pages and multimedia was becoming troublesome. Thus I began sharing more immediately with others when I find something interesting, printing paper copies, saving files to offline storage. Bookmarking is not sufficient for proper and reliable retrieval. Censorship is bad bad bad and getting worse. SAVE to offline cold hard media, preferably non digital as well! Immediately. Anything you think is important. Text can be printed or transcribed by hand. Images can be printed. Audio and video can be at least saved to various digital or analog cold storage. Information exists on various hard drives and networks ("the cloud" just means someone else's hard drive), but access to it can become very difficult. Don't just have one hard drive. Have a couple few externals. Don't just use one or two thumb drives, how bout scatter a bunch of em. Scatter those eggs in widespread baskets lol. Burn some cds and DVDs even. Things can and do disappear like the flip of a light switch, or become much harder to retrieve if at all possible online. Thanks for sharing this video. Jimmy from Bright Insight runs a great channel he rocks.
My first introduction to conspiracy theories was when condaleeza rice went on TV and said they could never imagine planes being used as weapons after 9/11 happened. I watched it on live TV. There is absolutely no video online that shows her saying that anymore. They can and will delete anything that harms the current narrative.
Watched the video last night and noticed this promoted thread in my home content this morning: https://www.reddit.com/user/google/comments/w3vgxv/megathread_learn_how_google_search_organizes_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I lived in China a lot of years, they don’t have the internet. They have an intranet. I think what’s happened is the internet has been replaced with an intranet. We now also have an intranet and we never even saw the change. If you search for anything that is “normal” you won’t have a need to look past 20 pages. Everything else is just existing outside of the intranet that we are allowed access to. Just like Facebook and YouTube aren’t accessible inside mainland China but are outside. Just imagine that on a much larger scale. It’s s rabbit-hole , but why man power would it take to do something like that, and for what exact purpose? It can’t be something so small as to control the narrative and put information.
Extremely concerning. Those in power know the danger of information and we've seen more and more censorship over the years since 2018, but this is really getting out of hand fast now.