But what if someone, somehow, through some extraordinary bit of research, does find evidence contradicting a widely supported claim? Not the soviet famine claim, but e.g. David Glantz did research and found that the early years of the USSR's involvement in World War II had been substantially misrepresented due to the USSR censoring many of those records to save face. Prior to his publication of that work, it was the "truth" that the USSR launched no major offensives until 1942-3. After the publication of that work, that was no longer the "truth" (the USSR had in fact launched many offensives and then purged them from the historical record in order to appear infallible).

Sure, new historical discoveries (based on evidence!) deserve to be published.

But do you believe Google should keep search results that deny the Holocaust? I personally see no value in that trash and if I was Google, I'd blacklist that stuff too.

Whoah whoah whoah, how is marketing different than propoganda?

Your examples are cherry-picked UGC from Reddit (not a good brush to tar any viewpoint with).

Are there specific WSWS examples, or is the the concept of advocating socialism which is false to you?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."

Ironic because Socialist forums are heavily moderated and quickly ban those who don't repeat the talking points. They hate having their ideas challenged, but get mad that a public company won't give them web traffic? Cry me a river.

>Ironic because Socialist forums are heavily moderated

I'm a member of at least one such forum which isn't heavily moderated.

>and quickly ban those who don't repeat the talking points

The forum I use prides itself on allowing such discussion.

>They hate having their ideas challenged

I love having my ideas challenged, and I love arguing, who are you constructing a straw man of?

Give some examples if you're going to name names.

did this website do this?