Google not prioritizing 4chan and KiwiFarms is a terrible example "not wanting organic content". They're not just "organic content", they're cesspools of the worst kind of organic content. 4chan is notoriously filled with questionable to outright illegal content/activity, and KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment. I don't understand why that's your standard for "organic content". I would have to heavily question your activity if you're being thwarted by a lack of those sites in your search results. I'm personally very happy with 4chan links not showing up in search results.

I also think you're misunderstanding how Google prioritizes content. It's not showing the content people want, as much as content that's optimized with SEO to look appealing.

> KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment

KF is a gossip site, like Lipstick Alley or DataLounge, but with a focus on e-celebs and internet phenomena. I go there whenever I want to get the dirt (ie. truth) about e-celebs or some weird internet trend or subculture. Its users literally just passively document and discuss this stuff, and there's a policy (and ethos) of "no touch." You and others endorsing its erasure (despite it not breaking any law) would know this (and perhaps secretly do) if you actually lurked there for a while instead of just credulously accepting its critics' characterization. It's also strange how the site is supposedly such a hive of doxxers, harassers, etc., yet nothing seems to happen to the journalists and tech people organizing against it.

I think the real reason it's in hot water is precisely because they just passively, permanently document so much, some of which some people with money and influence don't want documented. Maybe they documented something someone (some billionaire?) secretly doesn't want out there?

The sorts of people being "documented" on KiwiFarms are not celebrities. They're usually vulnerable people with some sort of mental illness who are struggling. And I don't buy for a moment the "no touch" policy. Just because you can't use a specific website to harass someone, does not mean you can't use the information on the website to harass them off-platform. This is a bad take. There's a major difference between journalism, tabloid journalism (which I also consider worthless and wrong), and stalking vulnerable people on the internet. Or as you call the latter, "documenting".

> are not celebrities. They're usually vulnerable people with some sort of mental illness who are struggling

Like Baked Alaska (IRL Streamer and convicted Jan 6. participant), or Nick Fuentes (most prominent gen z white nationalist)? The people they cover are YouTubers and Twitch streamers with thousands or even millions of followers. Some of them are also multimillionaires. These are not struggling people. And besides documenting the more pedestrian cases of streamers grifting and sex-pesting, there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere (or at least nowhere near to the extent), such as the million pity/trillion tears monkey hate stuff (which incidentally, YouTube and FB enable, and of which people like you seem unaware or unconcerned).

> And I don't buy for a moment the "no touch" policy

That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.

> Just because you can't use a specific website to harass someone, does not mean you can't use the information on the website to harass them off-platform. This is a bad take

If you really believed this nonsense, you'd be going after Discord, Signal, etc--apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment, and which will remain running irrespective of KF's fate.

You do realize that KiwiFarms is named that because of Chris Chan, the person the website was set up to stalk, right?

See: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-...

> That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.

Zero interest. You don't have eat white lead to know it will give you cancer.

> there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere

There's a word for this: stalking. Many of these "social phenomena" are people, and like I said, ones who suffer with mental illness. You're quite literally advocating for, and enabling real-world stalking when you endorse write-ups about these sorts of people.

> apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment

Used for, vs created to enable. There's a difference you're either ignoring or willfully blind to here.

Good OC > Good AI content > diarrhea > brain cancer > kiwifarms

Google isn't prioritizing AI content, it's just losing the battle against it. Not the same thing.

4chan constantly deletes its own content. There are a limited number of slots for threads, and making a new one causes the oldest one to disappear. Google does not care much for dead links.

Additionally, image submissions are basically never described in the text, so they are unsearchable even when they are live. There's some exceptions with archives but now you're in power-user territory.

Not being compatible with search engines is a side-effect that its userbase actually likes. You are either currently there or you are not.

> 4chan constantly deletes its own content.

There are archives, like rebeccablacktech and 4plebs, which Google likewise blackholes. You could argue Google also does not care much for archives, yet I still get StackOverflow clone results, for some reason.