"If I don't want to see "Russian Disinformation", I probably won't search for it to begin with."
? Nobody is really searching for 'disinformation'.
That's the whole point.
Is 'disinformation' really 'what they were looking for'?
Or were they looking for good information, and the 'misinformation' - which doesn't appear as 'misinformation' comes up first. They click it and become unwittingly 'misinformed'.
It's obviously very nuanced, but there is definitely such a thing as misinformation and especially propaganda.
For example, I see a ton of feeds sharing RUS losses with video snippets etc. but not a lot of UKR losses. Unless it's civilians in which case they want the information out there i.e. 'war crimes'.
Or more nuanced: the words of Putin himself. He 'misinforms' arguably by misrepresenting literally every thing he talks about, and obfuscating other realities. There are 100% pro-Nazi sympathisers in UKR forces. But it's also pretty clear that the government is not a 'Nazi Regime' by any stretch.
Issues such as 'NATO Threat' which is in some ways real, but used as an excuse really, because there is no material threat of the invasion of Russia.
So it's complicated.
There's also the fact that little bits of misinformation can contribute a lot to public opinion. I can just be 'populist' stuff. Like a funny picture oof Biden next to a 'strong and commanding Putin'. Charicatures influence people. That's a bit of a different domain, but also relevant.
When wars break out, we have to be a bit more pragmatic and also vigilant.
In the war situation, I assume everything is potentially misinformation, and want to see statements from all sides.
I mean if you read Western media, they will literally write "Russia is putting out a lot of disinformation", so that would be at least one claim I could try to verify myself, by looking at actual Russian media.
But the more important point is, how does DDG decide what is misinformation and what is not? Sure a search engine always has to try to rank information by some criteria. The issue I have here is with a manual interference in the algorithm that seems politically motivated.
Realistically, I guess we should be thankful that at least DDG points out that they are doing that, whereas others are simply doing it without telling anybody (on all sorts of issues, not just this war).
Also, I think some "internet savvyness" has to be expected from search engine users. The assumption that just because some statements by Putin show up in search results, people would just flat out believe them, is rather insulting and belittling.
1) There is a difference between 'rah rah nationalism' and 'disinformation'. The Western media is not putting out disinformation so much as focusing on the things that benefit them. This is perennial.
2) It's myth that there is some kind of 'neutrality' in term of search - you have to pick an algorithm. It's rational to want to chose sources that have integrity as opposed to those that do not. 'Information Populism' i.e. just picking the 'most popular link' leads to the 'National Equiror' type information.
3) "how does DDG decide what is misinformation and what is not" and "politically motivated"
This moral relativism is the problem with the 'free speech' advocates. There is something as the 'truth' and, some parties are better at communicating it. Some parties actually just make up whatever they want and say it. There are ways to make that determination. Everyone is based, some more than others.
4) " I think some "internet savvyness" has to be expected from search engine users. "
"The assumption that just because some statements by Putin show up in search results, people would just flat out believe them, is rather insulting and belittling."
Both of these statements are essentially wrong.
Almost nobody has the 'internet savviness, time and wherewithal' to actually fact check. Less than 0.1% of people. Most people are not paying close attention to any issues, let alone a specific one, and don't have the wherewithal to do anything about Tweets they say. Moreover, 'most people' are populist, they like to twee jokes, get angry, like things that make fun of the group they don't like.
As for b) 30% of Americans believe that the 'election was stolen' by Joe Biden, when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that lie. And that's a pretty big lie. So imagine that - at least 30% of people will believe you if they just want to believe you. 30% of people believe that Police are evil and just want to arbitrarily arrest and beat black people, and that merely the act of getting pulled over is dangerous, which is also ridiculous. Racism exists, but anti-racism hysteria has given people a context that simply is not true. The evidence actually supports that.
This is why 'Putins words alone' can be dangerous. His current 'propagnda' about 'Denazification' and that the UKR government is a bunch of 'Nazis and Drug Addicts' is perverse, and that the government is fully of Nazis.
But 75% of Russians believe it fully.
How do you think he managed to convince 75% of the Russian population of things that are ridiculously untrue?
Russians are getting calls from relatives in Ukraine, and literally not believing them when they hear of bombings in Kiev, they'd rather believe the propaganda that 1st hand evidence.
That's the power of misinformation and it speaks to the fact that people aren't often even interested in the truth at all, but rather that which makes them feel better.
Finally - if you want access to Putins' words, it's all there. There's nothing hidden. If that's what you are really searching for you will get it. You can easily find on DDG and Google his 'Mein Kampf' style works where he's justifying the grand narratives of the invasion. In that context, anyone searching specifically for that is going to find it in the 'quality' context we'd expect from DDG or Google.
Nothing is being hidden or censored, it's all there if you actively search for it.
What we don't want is Putins' propaganda seeping through the cracks into every day populist rhetoric. We don't want his army of social influences able to make their lies and propaganda party of the daily vocabulary of common information ingestion.
"The Western media is not putting out disinformation so much as focusing on the things that benefit them."
What do you mean - Western media doesn't lie, only shifts focus? Sorry that is just flat out wrong. The last couple of years should have tought you that.
"This moral relativism is the problem with the 'free speech' advocates. There is something as the 'truth' and, some parties are better at communicating it."
Um no sorry, your type of thinking is exactly the problem. There is no neutral way to establish truth, so nobody should be given the authority to say what is true or not.
"Both of these statements are essentially wrong."
People believe stupid shit - the solution is not to establish some "authority" forcing people to believe just some stupid shit.
The Trump fans may seem stupid for believing Biden stole the election, but his opponents were equally stupid for believing in the Russian collusion theory. Yet that was relentlessly pushed by mainstream media.
"This is why 'Putins words alone' can be dangerous."
Yeah because Russians have no other news sources. That is exactly why it is bad to limit access to news sources, as DDG is doing indirectly.
"it speaks to the fact that people aren't often even interested in the truth at all, but rather that which makes them feel better."
So DDG is just trying to make us feel better?
"Nothing is being hidden or censored, it's all there if you actively search for it."
That is such a hypocritical claim. Given all your arguments, you seem to be fully aware that that is not how information flow works.
? Nobody is really searching for 'disinformation'.
That's the whole point.
Is 'disinformation' really 'what they were looking for'?
Or were they looking for good information, and the 'misinformation' - which doesn't appear as 'misinformation' comes up first. They click it and become unwittingly 'misinformed'.
It's obviously very nuanced, but there is definitely such a thing as misinformation and especially propaganda.
For example, I see a ton of feeds sharing RUS losses with video snippets etc. but not a lot of UKR losses. Unless it's civilians in which case they want the information out there i.e. 'war crimes'.
Or more nuanced: the words of Putin himself. He 'misinforms' arguably by misrepresenting literally every thing he talks about, and obfuscating other realities. There are 100% pro-Nazi sympathisers in UKR forces. But it's also pretty clear that the government is not a 'Nazi Regime' by any stretch.
Issues such as 'NATO Threat' which is in some ways real, but used as an excuse really, because there is no material threat of the invasion of Russia.
So it's complicated.
There's also the fact that little bits of misinformation can contribute a lot to public opinion. I can just be 'populist' stuff. Like a funny picture oof Biden next to a 'strong and commanding Putin'. Charicatures influence people. That's a bit of a different domain, but also relevant.
When wars break out, we have to be a bit more pragmatic and also vigilant.