If I type "the daily stormer" (a very unique name which corresponds to something very specific, i.e. the website for the far-right online newspaper by that name), I expect to find that thing in the first 5 results. That's not the case with Google; it's just not there at all. You have articles from other papers talking about it, you've got a wikipedia page talking about it, you've got sites like the ADL and the SPLC talking about it, but not the actual thing itself. Bing, Yahoo, Yandex all return it as the first result.
When I “search” for something, I am searching for it. I mean, it’s the definition of the word “search” for crying out loud. Somehow over time this idea of a “search engine” got perverted into something that either tries to predict what I don’t know I really want or what someone else thinks I need to see.
Your claim that the search engine should show results which indicate that there was no systematic election fraud, is a wishful thinking that you don’t want people to believe in it, not a good decision making regarding what search engines should display.
What should it do? Article titled "There is no proof that the earth is flat" also satisfies the query completely from a keyword perspective, although not from a semantic. But if there is no actual proof that earth is flat, any article claiming there is would satisfy the query only from a keyword perspective but technically not semantically. It is a good question.
It I mean it would be nice if it surfaced whatever actual report you’re talking about, but maybe it’s just not the best query for that? I’m sure I could find it by clicking through any of the links
Shouldn't an "objective" search engine return results that are true (that there was no systemic election fraud) instead of results that fit his personal biases?