
Google will ‘de-rank’ RT articles to make them harder to find – Eric Schmidt - nkurz
https://www.rt.com/news/410444-google-alphabet-derank-rt/
======
jenga22
Look, I am all game for attacking fake news. However, this seems to me like a
blanket ban which could apply to anyone. For example, Fox News has a slant
which one could consider highly misleading. Would they get de-ranked too?

Wouldn't a better solution be to identify the claims in the article and
automatically alert the reader that one or more claims have been debunked?
Then let the user decide?

~~~
turndown
Obviously this is a lazier approach than others that could be taken, but I do
think that it's completely fair that a state run news agency would be given
less inherent credibility on a wide range of topics(read: any that might
effect the nation in a positive/negative way.) How can you guarantee the
objectivity of a by-design mouthpiece for a government? You can't.

~~~
wahern
The BBC?

I'd be the last person to defend RT, but the cost/benefit of blacklisting such
a site belies atrocious foresight. Google is opening up a huge can of worms
for what will be very little gain in terms of improving the signal-to-noise
ratio of mass media consumption.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter are all doing a very poor job of countering the
backlash on Capitol Hill. That's partly their own doing as they willfully
perpetuated the myth of the magic of their technology. But rather than reign
in the misperceptions they're doubling down to save face and making very
concrete, very stupid promises.

~~~
beefsack
The Australian ABC is another example of a state supported news service which
would probably be harmful to penalise.

~~~
bruce_one
If anything the ABC probably has the opposite slant to what GP was talking
about (ie slanted against the government rather than for it).

Irrespective, I believe it would be harmful to penalise...

~~~
yostrovs
Its slant depends on who is the prime minister.

------
untog
Before everyone screams too loudly, RT was recently forced to register as a
foreign agent by the US government:

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/11/14/564045159...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/11/14/564045159/rt-america-firm-registers-as-foreign-agent-in-u-s-
russia-looks-to-retaliate)

So it's not as if Google is picking media organisations it dislikes at random.

~~~
MichaelGG
But AIPAC isn't forced to do so, despite even engaging in espionage[1] and
literally boasting about how they've corrupted and influenced top
politicians[2]. So everyone should take this foreign agent registration stuff
as more political theater.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#Steiner_resignation)

~~~
knowThySelfx
Exactly. It all depends on whose side you are. If it is from the side which
the establishment/puppet masters favor, then its all fair. How much trust do
MSM's have these days? They have bought it upon themselves by being slaves of
people with agendas.

------
chiaro
> _“Good to have Google on record as defying all logic and reason: facts
> aren’t allowed if they come from RT, ‘because Russia’ – even if we have
> Google on Congressional record saying they've found no manipulation of their
> platform or policy violations by RT,”_ Sputnik and RT Editor-in-Chief
> Margarita Simonyan said in a statement.

Funny, the official PR rings like a thousand troll posts I've read.

Good on Alphabet, some CSR in this area is long overdue.

------
whack
I don't doubt that RT has a pro-Russian slant, but is there any objective
evidence that the traditional sources are any less biased? It was only last
decade when American media proved itself to be frighteningly biased in favor
of the US government's agenda[1].

By abandoning algorithmic rankings, and directly targeting "enemy" news
sources, Google is moving away from its engineering roots, and is starting to
become a weapon for the US government's foreign policy objectives. Is it any
surprise that foreign countries, including our allies in the EU, are becoming
increasingly distrustful of American technology platforms?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms_of_pro-
invasion_bias)

~~~
jcranmer
It's not that RT is biased. Fox News is clearly biased, but I wouldn't treat
it the same way. It's that RT utterly doesn't care to report the facts.

To show you what I mean, I came across an RT article that was trying to pin
the blame on the hacking of the Estonian government on UIUC. The article had
several flaws:

* It miscounted the number of people in the city. While I understand there's definitely some room to come up with different values (having two cities and a general not-in-city suburban area), I couldn't come up with a combination of reasonable values that was close to their estimate.

* It misidentifies the NCSA as the NSA.

* There was an odd bit about how it's "suspicious" that the area has so many IP addresses, which is a) nonsensical, b) I've no idea how to actually come up with a number here (I'm quite sure it was made up for the article), and c) not so surprising if you understand historical IP address allocation policies.

* It also identifies the small town as having three major airports. There is in fact only one airport served by one airline (now two) that serves two destinations (Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth) with 5 flights a day. There is a second, 4000 ft airstrip. I don't know what they think the third airport is--best guess is the decommissioned Air Force base in the next town over.

After reading that article, I have decided to never again grace RT with even
ad revenue.

~~~
nkurz
_I came across an RT article that was trying to pin the blame on the hacking
of the Estonian government on UIUC_

I presume you are avoiding a direct link to the article so that you don't
publicize it further, but ironically, when I searched on Google for "estonia
uiuc hacking rt"
([https://www.google.com/search?q=estonia+uiuc+hacking+rt](https://www.google.com/search?q=estonia+uiuc+hacking+rt))
I found that Google choose to ignore "uiuc" and "rt" in the first two results,
and "estonia" and "rt" from the third.

Any other day, I would have assumed this is just Google's relatively recent
policy of assuming essential search terms are typos, but now I have to wonder
if they are c̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ de-ranking results! Still, while I may just be
lacking Google-fu, even when I search for "estonia uiuc site:rt.com"
([https://www.google.com/search?q=estonia+uiuc+site:rt.com](https://www.google.com/search?q=estonia+uiuc+site:rt.com))
I get nothing. Maybe you could provide a link?

~~~
jcranmer
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihu7zN5s_XAhUKY98KHaSQB08QFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fnews%2Fcrimea-
referendum-attack-website-194%2F&usg=AOvVaw2rh93rpJtLppaDifDtbqFK)

It appears to have actually been in relation to the Crimean referendum instead
of Estonian government.

~~~
nkurz
Thanks for the link. While the 2014 article you linked does mislabel The
University of Illinois at Urbana Champagne as "Illinois University", it
conspicuously does not even mention the specific details you chide it for:
population details, NSA vs NCSA, so many IP addresses, or number of airports.

As such, it seems like an odd "last straw" regarding RT's accuracy in
reporting facts. Did you maybe link the wrong article, or am I maybe I'm
failing to understand your sense of humor, and in fact you are making a subtle
joke about the implausibility of using apparent IP address location to assign
blame for a DDOS?

~~~
jcranmer
I didn't read the link I posted directly (as I said, I will not give them the
clicks), so I didn't verify that it was exactly as I recalled. The article I
read definitely did mention the airports (since I spent quite a bit of time
staring at the satellite view trying to figure out what they thought the third
airport was), so it's possible I found a cleaned-up version of the article
when trying to find it again.

(FWIW, the town is Champaign, not Champagne).

------
smsm42
RT is trash and propaganda arm of Russian government, however what Google is
doing is thousand times more scary to me that what RT is doing. When you come
to RT (if you do), you know where you are, you know how to evaluate the
information and you don't even have to go there if you don't want to - every
link would clearly tell you "you are going to RT". It is exactly what it says
on the box, no surprises.

What Google is doing is essentially telling me "we own your information diet
now, and for your own good we're not letting you to see this. Because we know
what you _should_ be seeing, and this is not part of it. So we will choose
which content to show and not to show for our own reasons, and you don't
bother your little head with it, we've got it".

This is an approach that takes away my choice, takes away my power to decide
which content I want to consume. I'd probably be ok if the content Google
demotes is clearly junk - like spam sites that game the ranking etc. Maybe
even with sites which are clearly criminal or used as a tool to commit crimes.
But here we clearly have tweaking search ranking as a response to political
pressure. This is terrible, and also now you can't trust Google with not doing
the same for any other reason - maybe they are tweaking the ranking to boost
political candidates they like? Maybe to boost businesses they invest in or
partner with? Maybe tweak it to demote some companies that offended them in
some way or stepped on somebody's toes? Before, I could say it's paranoid to
think so, Google would never risk their business by doing this. Now I see head
of Google saying this and I can't honestly say it's just paranoia anymore.
Thanks, Eric Schmidt.

That's why one should use every opportunity to use engines alternative to
Google (I use DDG, other suggestions welcome) - when Google thinks they know
what we need better than we do, it is a very bad symptom.

------
jancsika
I remember seeing separate interviews with Richard Stallman, Steve Wozniak,
and Andy Müller-Maguhn on RT about five years ago. Also, some early pieces
delving into Bitcoin before that.

Has RT changed substantially in the last five years? Does it no longer
interview people who are experts in their field?

~~~
grandalf
No, it just covers issues that are unflattering to powerful US officials and
to the US in general. The regular US press has somehow been conditioned to
write lots of stories that are critical of other governments, other countries'
infrastructure, etc., but always to carry the torch of American
exceptionalism.

Once we realize that American Exceptionalism is among the most evil ideologies
of the modern era, it makes sense that other nations would want to offer a
competing voice.

RT has not been criticized for the quality of its journalism, only for its
source of funding.

~~~
aalleavitch
Also the fact that identified Russian propaganda bots and troll armies have
been sighted on numerous occasions disseminating RT articles. You'd be blind
not to realize that RT is an important part of their machine.

~~~
grandalf
Propaganda bots and troll armies? None have been linked to the Russian
government. Surely someone wishing to spend time making bots and hiring trolls
would promote certain articles, but if the American papers did an acceptable
job writing about facts, those bots/armies would obviously prefer to link
American articles if trying to persuade the American people.

So it's not sufficient to cite the means of distribution/virality, one must
actually dig in and find factual problems with the content.

Motive is even more difficult, as the motive of discrediting American leaders
for lies or misdeeds is arguably in the public's best interest, so it's hard
to persuade me that doing that is somehow harmful to America, even if it was
done by an adversary.

~~~
aalleavitch
You can't be real here:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-
notori...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-notorious-
kremlin-linked-troll-farm-and-the-russians-trying-to-take-it-
down/2017/10/06/c8c4b160-a919-11e7-9a98-07140d2eed02_story.html)

You're pushing their agenda to a T.

------
mtmail
A less biased source for the same story, all quotes are the same
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pa39vv/eric-
schmi...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pa39vv/eric-schmidt-says-
google-news-will-delist-rt-sputnik-russia-fake-news)

~~~
dleslie
> less biased

> vice

I mean come on now; that's just swinging all the way the other direction.

~~~
wybiral
There is a subtle but noteworthy difference between first amendment-protected
opinionated reporting and foreign state sponsored propaganda.

~~~
GSimon
There is also a subtle but noteworthy difference between highly opinionated
think pieces trying to present their views as being unbiased reporting and
credible state-sponsored media outlets that don't force feed propaganda. But I
guess you'd consider your view to be the objectively sound way to look at
things without realizing the irony in the way you're portraying media outlets
you favour over others you don't seem to like.

~~~
meowface
"Highly opinionated think pieces trying to present their views as being
unbiased reporting" are a major problem in the US and around the world, but
let's at least consider why RT is a special case here.

RT is not only owned by a foreign state but is specifically owned by a state
which attempted to deceptively influence Google's home country's elections,
partially with the help of RT. RT is undoubtedly Russian propaganda and can't
be anything else; anyone at RT who genuinely wants to provide a view that
isn't uniformly pro-Russian risks retaliation from the government.

If the scenarios were flipped and Voice of America were peddling propaganda to
influence Russia's next election (which they probably actually are doing),
Yandex would have a pretty valid reason to lower the rankings of Voice of
America stories.

~~~
GSimon
I don't largely disagree with some of the concerns I question the motives and
timeliness of the decision to de-rank a media outlet like RT. It's not
something that is done for the reasons presented and the whole Russian
influence on the election has so many holes to be a proven credible threat.
People are ignorant of media outlets and think stations like Al Jazeera are Al
Quaida driven so I am highly skeptical that any party is doing any censoring
for legitimate reasons or valid concerns. They aren't looking out for your
best interests when it comes to presenting the news.

~~~
meowface
>and the whole Russian influence on the election has so many holes to be a
proven credible threat

I'm not sure the impact so much matters as the intent. Even if it wasn't
really a big threat, and even if Trump would've won without any sort of
interference (which probably is the case, but it is and will be impossible to
truly know), the fact that they did it at all shows they're trying to game the
system, partly by gaming Google. Google is now going to make it harder to
game.

It is a bad precedent to de-rank results in this way, but I think this is a
special circumstance. I agree that a better approach would be to provide
warnings and context rather than merely trying to push things down.

~~~
wybiral
> I'm not sure the impact so much matters as the intent.

I think some of the election-related stuff is mostly politicization. If you
follow some of the hearings on the subject of Russian propaganda (cspan has
some) it seemed more that they were targeting and prodding cultural divisions.

Organizing anti-immigration rallies at the same time and location as Muslim
rallies and pushing racial and cultural divides. It seems like their focus is
to polarize people and try to promote extremism.

~~~
meowface
Yes, this was undoubtedly one of the Russian government's goals, but the US IC
also came to the definitive conclusion that their goal was not _only_ this but
also to get Donald Trump elected. It was an open question for some time: were
they merely trying to cause chaos and increase the divide, or did they
specifically want one candidate in office? The answer, at least according to
17 US intelligence agencies, is both. And this isn't a huge shock considering
Putin's well-known long-standing grudge against Clinton and Trump being
considerably more pro-Russian than she was during the election cycle.

------
aalleavitch
I think it's both legitimate and important to point out the fact that as this
is a popular public internet destination where presumably some quite
influential people are known to frequent that it could be a very likely target
for Russian-backed (or otherwise) trolls looking to sway public opinion. I
think it's important that everyone consider the intentions and motives behind
the comments that they read.

~~~
chatmasta
> it's important that everyone consider the intentions and motives behind the
> comments that they read.

Isn’t it always? If critical thinking was a little more commonplace, maybe we
wouldn’t have gotten into this mess i the first place. People are too quick to
play the victim of big bad media. The first step should be a look in the
mirror.

------
rdtsc
> The Alphabet chief, who has been referred to by Hillary Clinton as a
> “longtime friend,” added that the experience of “the last year”

They don't even pretend to be unbiased. "Hillary is my friend and she refuses
to acknowledge she lost due to her own hubris. Instead blames Russia, so I am
going along with her here".

> showed that audiences could not be trusted to distinguish fake and real news
> for themselves.

"The people don't seem to be swallowing our propaganda for some reason. The
Manufacturing Consent machine has broken down a bit. Please stand by while
tweak our algorithms to ensure they are force fed the proper version of
truth".

To be more serious, RT is propaganda and a branch of the Russian government
just like Fox New is a branch of Republican party. What is interesting is the
other media (traditional TV and print news) and now the tech companies have
also dropped the pretense.

Well at least things are bit more clear. Nobody is pretending anymore. That in
itself is a step forward as well.

~~~
caconym_
You do not have to be a fan of Hillary Clinton to think that "audiences [can]
not be trusted to distinguish fake and real news for themselves" based on the
"experience of 'the last year'". The mention of her name in literally the same
sentence where they implicitly question the validity of the "fake news"
narrative could not be more transparently calculated.

So yes, you are right that RT is propaganda, but in that light I'm not sure
how to take your first two sentences. The word "irony" comes to mind.

~~~
rdtsc
> The word "irony" comes to mind.

There is irony in how it is presented, and I tend to be confusing, but to
clarify my position, just because I think Google is going too far and don't
like Hillary doesn't mean that I automatically like or support RT or Fox News.

------
cobookman
So when's Al jezeera getting a lower rank. They are a state media which is
also heavily baised.

~~~
harry8
And presently the best news service in the world. A title they took from the
BBC who are state median and heavily biased and always have been.

Shut them all down? I can't see that being good for democracy.

------
vm
RT is Russia Today, which is funded by the Russian government. Sputnik, the
other media outlet mentioned in the article, is similarly funded by the
Russian government. Their Wikipedia pages imply that both are use for Russian
government propaganda... in case anyone else also needed background context.

~~~
MRSallee
And BBC is funded by British government.

And PBS is funded by US government.

~~~
threeseed
That's pretty disingenuous without talking about the respective level of
corruption in each country:

[https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept...](https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016)

Britain: Very clean, US: Clean, Russia: Corrupt.

~~~
Sone7
You wouldn't say that if you'd seen how the BBC and the Guardian, never mind
the right-wing rags, were talking about Corbyn last year.

And the US election? I honestly don't know why ye haven't dismantled your MSM
brick by brick after that. Fucking hell.

------
stash_machine
As a person, who lived in Crimea and survived Russian invasion I'm very happy
about that. RT is not a media news it is absolute propaganda which exists for
only one reason - to help russia seize other countries

------
darepublic
Making the world safe from fake news is the new war on terrorism. In the same
way there is just as much terrorism since 9/11, there will be just as much
misinformation in the future, only with less freedom.

------
Sone7
Hey YC -

Please answer me this question - have your mods flagged this story? It sure is
odd how an incredibly active discussion in a fresh story with >100 points is
on page 2 behind stale and dead stuff on the front page.

Seems kinda relevant to the topic at hand. Also relevant is how little
coverage this story is getting outside of RT - Fucking hmmm.

~~~
grzm
It's also got 164 comments. It's likely been bitten by the "overheated
discussion detector", which also depresses a story's rank.

~~~
Sone7
Sure would have been nice to know tho. Ah well - why should we expect that
basic level of transparency, right?

------
makecheck
If you blacklist things that people like (however misguided their reasons are
for liking them), they will double down and probably consume even more of
their propaganda news.

Instead, demand that articles use language that states things plainly,
probably with a machine learning model to help. No personal attacks, etc.

------
oliwarner
It's interesting to see people take sides here. We freely rely on Google to
sift through people trying to manipulate search rankings and show us the
_best_ results. Part of this process often results in entire domains being
blacklisted. Hell, we we even allow copyright law to dictate what we can find
on Google.

So I don't understand why it's so controversial to exclude insidious
propaganda and proven bad journalism from news searches.

Some others have called this a slippery slope, saying Fox (or the left wing
equivalents) could be next... But seriously, why not? The threat to excluding
bad outlets should be extended to _all_ outlets.

------
mrschwabe
One way to workaround this is simply to prefix your Google search with
site:rt.com

ex

site:rt.com my search query

With or without the communist Chinese style ban on RT.com it is convenient to
use this technique if even to cross reference a specific issue you've heard
buzz about with an non-US (and by extension, non Five Eyes) based source of
news. Otherwise your news is, now openly admitted, at the discretion of
Google's / US governments distorted and now limited view of what is 'news'.

Have always enjoyed RT because it is one of the few quality international news
outlets not based or biased in US - and will continue enjoying it despite
Google or US introducing Chinese PRC style blanket censorship.

Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff are just a few of the respected names who have
routinely appeared on RT to share their commentary.

Slippery slope, but hey - this way they seal their own demise as independent
thinkers lead the way in replacing the likes of Google and other compromised
tech companies with decentralized, censor-proof solutions.

------
speedplane
The problem with Google "ranking" is that it's linear, when a real substantive
analysis of results would first categorize results and then rank within those
categories. Google needs to indicate the intent behind an article, such as to
inform, to convince, to sell a product, or to generate clicks to show you more
advertising.

------
diebir
Good for us. Thanks, Google.

------
sl1e
I wonder if anyone has noticed that you can't even query a search without it
already being flooded with the news. You can't really customize the search in
away you get zero news from any search.

------
foota
"We are working on detecting and de-ranking those kinds of sites – it’s
basically RT and Sputnik" \- so no, they're not banning the site explicitly.

------
vincengomes
Since US agencies are not meddling with other nations politics, and esp not
through their news agencies, US based medias are safe from googles hammer /s

------
Lidador
Google 2000: " Don't be evil "

Google 2018: " Educate people and protect them from evil* "

*We decide what's 'evil'.

------
ebbv
Good. Russia Today is not a journalistic entity, it is the propaganda arm of
Putin's dictatorial regime.

~~~
smallstepforman
As oppossed to any western mouthpiece (BBC, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, NYT
etc)? Every news outlet parrots the opinions of its investors, and even when
you think that a report is neutral, the adjectives try to slant the message in
a certain direction. By agreeing to censorship, you are disagreeing with the
concept of free speech. In the end, if Google becomes more political, it will
alienate a demographic, and lose funds. In which universe is this “good”?

~~~
ebbv
Only the BBC fits, as it is also government controlled. The others may
sometimes publish shill articles or whatever but they are not a government run
propaganda arm. We don't have such a thing in the US, as NPR has lost almost
all of its government funding. The US government runs media operations in
other countries but none of our big media companies are government run like
RT.

And the fact that we just elected freakin' Trump helps underline the fact that
the US is not yet a dictatorial country. So the comparison between Russia
Today and any US media is pretty ridiculous on that level as well. Our media
has plenty of flaws (answering to corporate sponsors instead of the government
has its own drawbacks), but again, they are not comparable to RT.

~~~
zimpenfish
> Only the BBC fits, as it is also government controlled.

It might be government influenced (in that they have the power to mess with
the licence fee) but it's not at all "government controlled".

------
yAnonymous
I'd consider RT more reputable than Fox News, The Sun or BILD. What are they
going to do about the others?

There is hardly a news outlet right now that wouldn't print lies if those lies
make them money or increase their power and influence, so where do we draw the
line?

------
ucaetano
Related news: 'Slap at the First Amendment’ - RT America forced to register as
foreign agent

------
supergirl
US should just install some kind of great national firewall. Then RT can be
blocked completely

------
gudenuf4gvmt
Another argument for open source search ranking. Anything else is likely
biased and harmful.

------
MichaelMoser123
Google giveth and Google taketh away, that's true for products as well - they
changed something and now we get less organic search results and fewer
purchases. Everyone on the Internet is in the same boat.

------
jstewartmobile
A pertinent benediction from St. Ignutius:

[https://stallman.org/google.html](https://stallman.org/google.html)

------
enterx
Who cares what Evil Shmit does anyhow.

His fake lying news business(read ads!) is finally doomed to fail anyway in a
very near future.

------
jxramos
I've watched RT videos on YouTube and after I realized where it was coming
from I was able to connect the dots with various socialist leaning good feel
pieces embedded in larger stories. But I mean it's not like it was super
aggressive propaganda worth censuring. I think a lot of their material is
interesting and well produced.

~~~
joe_the_user
Just about any news source has a viewpoint that can be found by connecting the
dots, in Western sources, that might be termed "editorial policy".

So basically we're seeing that all the powerful states seem to be moving
towards not just producing their own propaganda but demanding outside
propaganda be filtered out - China is far much more aggressive of course and
thankfully for me, the US is merely exerting a "light touch".

I assume this level of censorship is more or less happening proportionate to
the degree the various ruling forces feel threatened.

------
cft
Wait till they start "de-ranking" or something similar when users manually
enter undesirable URLs in their browsers' address bars. It seems implausible
right now, but the stuff that is happening now was equally implausible in the
internet when Google was just starting.

------
CodeWriter23
Tap RT America on this page, and view all the legit reporters banned by this
act of censorship.

[https://www.rt.com/onair-talent/](https://www.rt.com/onair-talent/)

------
tryingagainbro
_> >"But we don’t want to ban the sites – that’s not how we operate.”_

Virtually every small business website has seen how you operate, you don't ban
just bury them on page 15 and get a click every 4 months. How nice of you. At
least you help us by letting us buy ads.

I agree that RT is _official_ Russian propaganda, but so is Voice of America
or our government websites

~~~
jessaustin
OMG it's such a racket. Why are our customers going to our competitor? Oh,
they're using our name in adwords, and our customers are idiots who use google
to navigate to the next block... ok Google here's thousands of dollars every
month. Please don't extort any more from us.

------
0xbear
Slippery slope, if I’ve ever seen one.

------
Nickersf
Who the fuck is Google to tell me what I can read or not?! I rarely consume
RT, but if I want to, I should be able to do so freely. I'm a free person with
agency and a sense of reason. This is why I stopped using Google months ago...

