fuck.
that.

Collected declassified docs on MKUltra:

http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/cia-mkultra-collection/

Also, lots of other stuff obtained via FOIA requests, and a veritable shedload of JFK docs (another shedload of which were released recently).

Lots of leaked documents end up on here (mostly uninteresting tbh):

https://cryptome.org/

NSA archive:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/

Unredacted, another site that takes the time to shift through the ongoing supply of previously classified docs that routinely get released via the FOIA act:

https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/

Muckrock, similar to the above:

https://www.muckrock.com/

I thought it was that site Maria posted on

I thought it was a combo in a fighting game.

If there is any company in dire need of having its wings clipped it's google.

It's so bloody handy though.

Privacy doesn't bother me that much (you can for example not be logged in which helps a bit, or of course just use another engine like DuckDuckGo),  it's the fact that they could be censoring stuff - that is what bothers me.

A simple 'questionable/unsuitable content' symbol could solve it easily. I've no problem with trying to stop kids seeing porn, ISIS vids being banned and what-not ... but Google deciding what is and isn't acceptable thought makes me queasy.

As for the Holocaust denial stuff, it's out there and it's a viewpoint (bafflingly) just outright banning it does no-one any favours. Lots of it can be disproved fairly easily. Treat people like adults, one of the best things about the internet is that it allows space for all manner of content and opinion which would never make it into traditional media ... it just smacks of an overly authoritarian response to a very minimal problem. Outright restricting people's ability to access anything but 'acceptable thought' just seems sinister.

Like I said, I suspect the whole 'fake news' 'conspiracy theory' argument is being used as a trojan horse in order to get the internet back under control and more in line with the bland, safe, conformist model of the more established traditional media. It's just a method for the powers that be to wrestle back control, a new frontier in the propaganda warzone, to be conquered and brought into line.

It's not an official 'blacklist' - more that certain sites are relegated in searches and get less traffic.

Google does not explain precisely what it means by the term “conspiracy theory.” Using the broad and amorphous category of fake news, the aim of the change to Google’s search system is to restrict access to alternative web sites, whose coverage and interpretation of events conflict with those of such establishment media outlets as the New York Times and the Washington Post.


By flagging content in such a way that it does not appear in the first one or two pages of a search result, Google is able to effectively block users’ access to it. Given the fact that vast amounts of web traffic are influenced by search results, Google is able to effectively conceal or bury content to which it objects through the manipulation of search rankings.

Example from the article quoted above, what other sites are affected I don't know. I mean, some of those sites are no great loss (imo) but still...

Amnesty.org alexa top site view figures.

davyK wrote:

If they're pushing hits down a few pages then it's not as much of a big deal. It's only taking sponsored links a step further.

That's precisely what they're doing, and they do this sort of thing constantly with websites. If your site doesn't reach certain criteria (up to now it's been technical such as the use of HTTPS), it gets dropped down the rankings. Nothing's being banned.

Not sure how to interpret those graphs - are they upside down?

But the values on the Y axis decrease as you go up.

Ah right, thought that was visitor numbers.

This is the % of visitors to globalresearch.ca that came from a search engine.



Doesn't look like anything unusual has happened to visitor habits.