This is exactly the problem, though. By suppressing this stuff, they validate the narrative that “THEY don’t want you to know the truth” (whoever the hell they is). This stuff doesn’t go away. It just migrates to different platforms and every time it’s taken down it gains credibility among the faithful.

This is the current paradox that plagues us.

Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add legitimacy to them

So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less visible?

This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts.

Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.

Thanks for your point of view. I'm going to keep researching to find some alternative examples

> it gains credibility among the faithful.

Among whom it already had enough credibility.

I guess what I'm getting at there is, content aside, Google has made a conscious decision to step in here and de-rank that website. We don't know what their motivations for that are because they haven't stated that they de-ranked Breitbart.

Sundar Pichai was asked during testimony if they censor websites and he said (wording might be a bit off) "only in cases where it's a legal requirement or a copyright issue". If Breitbart being de-ranked was one of those then I'm sure they would have let Breitbart know. But as far as I can tell it was a concerted effort to suppress that website in particular.

If you come across any data about other sites that are similarly affected I'd love to know!

Funny how people go all conspiracy on Google, with zero evidence, when we have actual evidence of known right-wing Facebook executives personally intervening to delete misinformation strikes against Breitbart et al.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook...

This seems like a legitimate HN story but it was flagged to oblivion when it was posted yesterday.

Don't talk to me about cancel culture.

How was that 3 hours of lectures by doctors faked, I'm curious. What about it was fake, and what about it was putting anyone In danger?

If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do...

The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.

Please try to avoid insults like "if it's an honest question".

Obviously the video isn't "fake". That's crying wolf. The video is real, you just don't like what those doctors have to say.

The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.

Yeah, or maybe it's the opposite. That's a medical discussion. Snopes and Google should have nothing to do with it. And calling it fake is just manipulation.

Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being "harmful," which they are not qualified to judge. Also, I find Snopes aggravating, because of stuff like this. They said they couldn't find evidence the doctor treated 200+ patients with COVID, thereby implying the doctor was lying. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack of truth. Plus, that's clinical data. Wouldn't it be illegal for Snopes to have access to that without patient consent?

It's all dogma and authoritarianism masquerading as science and reason. It's a dangerous time for free thought right now.

You do not have to be a qualified doctor to check the sources. You do have to be thorough in checking the consensus and recommendations of major health organisations and verify scientific papers, a lot of which is published in the open on for instance PubMed, big name journals etc.

This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research.

It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.)

And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public.

Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.