Quantcast

Should Google and Facebook Be Filtering Our Content For Us?

Personalization, relevance, and information overload in search and social media

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


[ Search]

Is the personalization of the Internet a step backwards? Is the wealth of information that is accessible to us being reduced because the products we use are filtering it all so heavily? This is a discussion that has been gaining momentum in recent weeks.

Do you want your search results and news tailored to your tastes, or do you want more control? Let us know in the comments.

The topic was brought up most recently by alternative search engine DuckDuckGo, which calls out the major search engines for being too heavy on the content filtering. DuckDuckGo has set up a site at DontBubble.us, which provides something of a graphical slideshow to illustrate its point. If you strip out all of the graphics and sub-text, it reads:

When you search the Internet, search engines now show different results to different people. Results are tailored to who you are, based on your search history and your click history. Since you often click on things you agree with, you keep getting more and more of what you already agree with, which means other stuff gets demoted (effectively filtered). This begs the question: what are you missing?

In other words, you are living in a Filter Bubble that promotes things it thinks you’ll like, and demotes (effectively filters) out some of the rest, which may limit your exposure to opposing information. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to pop your filter bubble, because the technology is used so much across the Internet.

Then it turns into an ad for DuckDuckGo:

We offer you an alternative: a search engine that breaks you out of your Filter Bubble by default, plus other differences like real privacy.

Founder Gabriel Weinberg discussed these differences with WebProNews in an interview earlier this year:

Of course, DuckDuckGo is not above some level of filtering. It’s already pre-filtered out results from sites like eHow, which many may applaud, but others may not appreciate. For all of the controversy that’s surrounded eHow, it also has its fans, and Demand Media, which owns it, claims to be taking action to make its quality better. The point is, there is some level of filtering going on, though this is more at the human level, than at the personalized algorithmic level.

The “Filter Bubble”

This “Filter Bubble” DuckDuckGo speaks of is a concept discussed by Eli Pariser in a recent TED Talk, which can be viewed here:

Pariser had some interesting things to say, speaking directly to executives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other companies, who were in the audience. In his presentation, he included a couple of interesting quotes – from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt:

“A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.” – MZ

“It will very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them.” – ES

Pariser talked about being a political progressive, but liking to hear what conservatives have to say, but noticing that all of the conservative posts had disappeared from his Facebook News Feed because Facebook had noticed he was clicking more on liberal links than conservative ones.

“Facebook isn’t the only place that’s doing this kind of invisible algorithmic editing of the web,” he said. “Google’s doing it too. If I search for something and you search for something even right now at the same time, we may get very different search results…There is no standard Google anymore.”

This is a fairly well-known fact, but that doesn’t make it any less of a nightmare for SEOs.

He talked about having several of his friends search for “Egypt” and send him screenshots of their results, only to find they were very different. One person didn’t even have any stories about the recent protests, and this was apparently while they were the “big story of the day”. He went on to note that many sites (mentioning the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Yahoo News) are engaging in some kind of personalized content delivery behavior

If you take all of these filters/algorithms together, you get a filter bubble, he says – your own personal unique bubble of info, which depends upon who you are and what you do, and “you don’t decide what gets in . You don’t actually see what gets edited out.”

He equates the phenomenon to the “passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones,” with the humans being traditional human news editors. If algorithms are going to curate the world and decide what to show us, he says, we need to make sure they’re not just keyed to relevance, but that they will also show us things that challenge us or make us uncomfortable – basically give us other points of view.

“We need you to give us some control,” he told the executives in the audience.

I might argue that we as users do have control. In the end, we’re choosing what services to use, what people or brands to follow, what publications to read, etc. If you’re limiting your content intake to what Facebook is showing you in the news feed, what Google is returning in search results, etc. then yes, you are succumbing to the algorithmic editors. He makes some great points.

However, in the end, it is still up to us humans to dictate how we go about consuming our information. Even Google and Facebook have ways that let us see what we want, in terms of news. You can use Google Reader, for example, and subscribe to every RSS feed your heart desires, and you can see every headline from every publication offering these feeds. It can be quite a task to get through all of your feeds, if you’re subscribed to too many, but you are still in control of how you consume that information. If you want conflicting view points, you can subscribe to both Fox News and MSNBC.

If Google is returning you MSNBC links for news searches, you can go to Fox News and search for the same topics there. And vice versa.

All of that said, it can certainly get more complex when you’re talking about non-news content, there’s a lot of gray area.

Google’s 57 Signals

He also says a Google engineer told him that Google has 57 signals that it looks at to personally tailor your query results. These signals, I presume, are a certain subset of the over 200 overall ranking signals Google employs with its algorithm. Pariser says the 57 includes things like what kind of computer you’re on, what browser you’re using, and where you’re located. Google doesn’t like to get into signal-naming too much, though it does let us know about certain ones from time to time.

René Pickhardt, a Webscience PHD student, took a crack at naming at least 40 of them. These are by no means confirmed by Google, but it’s an interesting compilation. It includes things like: search history, frequency of searches, age, sex, use of advanced search commands, etc.

In the end, there is simply a ridiculous amount of information at our disposal, being uploaded to the web every single second. The concept of the filter bubble charges that our access to all of this is limited by what the algorithmic gatekeepers think we should be seeing. On the flipside, these gatekeepers are tasked with providing the information they deem most relevant to our daily content consumption (and search) needs. By not employing such filtering, they could be said to be adding more noise. It’s a complex issue, on which opinions vary. It’s convenience vs. information overload.

What do you think? Should Google, Facebook and others be filtering results based on who we are? Share your thoughts.

Should Google and Facebook Be Filtering Our Content For Us?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.wsdbiz.co.il Aviran

    I dont think Google/facebook should filter anything, they should show us the information from the web when we search it, if not, they can just chose what to publish and be a non-democratic SE, and facebook to lose for Tweeter.

    • http://www. Adsense Publisher

      I don’t think anybody should be filtering, at least not by some algorithm. Algorithms should be only to determine how relevant a search is to a specific page, and leave filters for things like location relevancy, past search history, type of page (all, blog, map, video, etc.), and other factors that filter out certain sites from appearing in a search. I like the ability to refine my own search based on what results have been made available. I think based on how people use those filters Google will better understand what makes things more relevant to the kind of searches we are doing based on the filtering we all would use. If something is to be removed, blame the public if they all block the site on purpose, but don’t actually remove it, just let the individual decide not to see results for the site.

      • http://www.FreeGunInfo.com Adsense Publisher

        I wanted to add that there should also be more information about the site in Google’s Webmaster tools, like how many people are blocking the site’s results from appearing to them. It would be a signal that perhaps they need to improve their content or at least look at their website to see why people might not like their site. Not many people are going to take the time to email somebody of some issue with their site. Most of the time they’ll simply leave the site, or if they are using the Chrome browser they might block your site from their search results entirely.

  • http://c-drew.com/blog Christopher Drew

    This is censorship, period! When I search I don’t want a preconceived bubble determined by previous searches or any other method. I want what is out there!
    Christopher A. Drew

  • M

    I don’t think Google or Facebook should be filtering out the content. I reported someone for animal cruelty and they sued me in retaliation for defamation. They got a court order forcing me to temporarily remove photos, videos which showed the cruelty. Then they threatened to sue Google and Facebook if they did not exclude the evidence located on other sites from their searches. Now people cannot see the evidence unless they use Yahoo, Bing, Alta Vista or another search engine. The website that is hosting the evidence refused to remove the items citing freedom of speech.

  • http://www.agence-hyperclics-marketing.com Pierre Frigon

    Hi
    Yep, making life “easy” delivers another blow to staying alert. What some call “relevance” is also construed as an ever-ending loop keeping things “easy” for us. As always, any automated system that gets to decide who we are before delivering influential information (i.e. reality) is in deed gearing up to manipulate information effectively. Identical to some laws applying to controlling many media outlets (Newspaper, TV, etc.) Search engines haven’t been asked yet (or told) that they can’t go on deciding for us what “relevancy” is… In fact, they could directly show us all (ALL!) available results listed in such TAGS as Videos, pictures, books are already displayed. One could have a TAG called “contrary info” (as decided by the less-than-intelligent A.I. bots) that one could look at to get a FREE VIEW of the actual outrside world… like a clear window letting the light in. One of these days, billions of businesses being run by idiot-bots will revolt and demand a lawful enactment of BUSINESS RIGHTS freeing any ONE (or few) groups (Businesses like Search Engines) from controling things to much… until a group forms to stop all that nonsense of having idiot-savant kids rule the world from the vantage point of ridiculus algos… all for a buck, of course… That book written in 1948 is our present, now. (1984) – Being a SEO provider since 1998… I guess I can tell how algos behave…!!

  • http://www.softwarefreeway.com/ Len

    Filtering a person’s internet search is like filtering a person’s visit to the local library… The person is not permitted to access the whole library – only sections that he has been in before. I think it could make sense to prominantly display two options for every search – one option with results based on user filters, and one without.

  • http://www.metanym.com/milton-keynes MarkFL

    Most readers of this article will be well informed but the vast majority of people won’t have a clue what Google etc filter for them. Try asking a friend if they have their google web history enabled when they search and you are more than likely to get a blank stare! If the government edited what we saw like this there would be uproar!

  • http://www.seowebexpert.co.uk SEO Expert

    I can understand why they would want to filter results but that doesn’t make it right.

  • http://www.balkans.com Manos

    I do not agree with the filtering action. I want the data raw.

  • http://www.RedSunDomains.com RedSunDomains

    Absolutely Not! They (Google, Facebook and others) share an educated population that can filter, if needed, at will.

  • Frank

    It’s clear they have not started yet, since most results are trash, oh wait, maybe that’s why!

  • http://www.armandaudrey.com Armand Audrey

    Absolutely NOT. Not unless it’s strictly optional, at least. Search overload is easy to get, but it’s a choice. Besides, I personally don’t WANT a search engine to know enough about me to filter a search based on what they think I’m interested in.

    It’s a privacy matter, not a convenience matter. Sure, some people may have no problem with that, but that doesn’t justify stepping on the privacy rights of those who do.

    I personally use Yahoo. Google is too invasive.

  • http://www.canics.com Steve Canics, Inc

    It’s so refereshing to see someone prominent (TED) stand up for all internet users. I don’t think Google is going to sit back and watch some homegrown search engine take over their user base. I think Google will have no choice but to slack off on the filter bubbling. We should see ALL search results and WE should be the ones filtering. After all we do live in a democratic society.

  • http://www.destinationgraphix.com Gabrielle

    No. And it’s been getting worse. As a consumer and a marketer I have different uses but in all cases I strongly dislike the blatant manipulation of my online searches and usage.

    Good post and question, Chris.

  • http://howtogetridofacnespots.com/diet_for_acne.html How to get rid of acne spots

    I think that is bull to filter out content. What about comparisons and research? What about an open mindset where I might not be interested in airplanes but sometimes I would look at some.

    If they are only showing what we read the most than the rest of the net no good to us. Might as well make it subscription only like cable TV. Subscribe to different channels and that’s it. Or the Internet turning that way?

    I don’t think google or anyone else should regulate how the world should think or what to be interested in. I am interested in many many things and want to read about it all. I don’t need goggle’s protection for myself or for my children.

  • http://www.midrand.oink.co.za Craig Nuttley

    Censorship or Filtering? What are we talking about here? When you are logged into your Gmail account for instance, your search results may differ to those which appear when you are logged out of your Gmail account. If your web history and preferences are set to save searches and base your content on the history your results may differ to those that appear when your search settings are altered. If you use a Google South Africa Search results may differ to using the Google web search option.

    Having said that, no, it wouldn’t be right to remove content from general search. Content which is deservedly there through value, importance and authority should always be accessible and only removed from search via the options available in a users search settings.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/larrywilliams4u Larry

    It doesn’t bother me, it goes with the territory. I’m glad searching is “smarter” based on my history, habits and preferences. That’s what I want it to do, just like I want my car to remember my stations and seat position.

    If I want unbiased, neutral search results, I just go to an alternate site that I don’t use all the time. In my case, that would be Bing, Yahoo or Dogpile.

    It’s as simple as that.

  • http://www.norele.com Richard Hace

    At Norele.com we do the end around for consumers by listing exact matches, all the words, then the rest in labeled sections for each search result. A user can clearly see if the data base has the desired content. Giant monetized search engines and relevancy created the need for a search like Norele.com. Norele, no rel e, stands for no relevancy and no related content. Worse is asking for terms to be excluded in search. As a comparison like at an ice cream shop. I would rather say which one instead of saying the thirty I don’t want.

    www.norele.com

  • http://www.norele.com Richard Hace

    At Norele.com we do the end around for consumers by listing exact matches, all the words, then the rest in labeled sections for each search result. A user can clearly see if the data base has the desired content. Giant monetized search engines and relevancy created the need for a search like Norele.com. Norele, no rel e, stands for no relevancy and no related content. Worse is asking for terms to be excluded in search. As a comparison like at an ice cream shop. I would rather say which one instead of saying the thirty I don’t want.

  • http://telecommtraining.info headdragon

    No way should they be filtering us. The federal government does not have the right to do it.

  • CheleHell

    Filtering is happening more often than we all think. As humans and as Americans, we are fully capable of filtering our own information. The internet became a tool for us to find the information we were looking for. I mean who uses encyclopedia volumns anymore? It opened our horizons to access that information from sources all over this Earth. To sensor, filter or decide for us only dumbs us down. A lot of the filtering, I believe, is for advertising purposes. Companies pay big money to end up in your searches. There is a lot of money changing hands and we all suffer the consequnces of being presented with the information they want us to see and not what we “came” to see.

  • sandy

    I believe we should have control, not facebook, yahoo, or any other social network

  • Rachael

    No I don’t. I also find the personalized ads creepy. Plus they tend to keep showing you links you have already seen and checked out. The only personalization I want is settings I can easily control myself and change.

  • http://www.toprockinternet.com Adam

    Social media has no place in search engine results. I do not want my data filtered and I do not want to be living in a bubble. Sounds like a Brave New World type stuff to me….. Google, leave your search engine alone and stop trying to make us prescribe to group think mentality with our searches. Just because my friends are democrats doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the republican point of view.

  • http://www.desperateamateurs.com DesperateAmateurs.com

    I am never ok with someone else telling me what I can and cant see.
    He who controls the information controls everything.

  • http://www.matthewloxton.com Loxton

    This kind of filtering is a natural but horrible idea.

    One of the benefits of a search engine is to return unexpected results, things that pose a challenge to one’s mindset, and filtering to bring matches that fit the mindset can be a risky path to mental conservatism.

    If all you ever get are things that agree with what you already prefer and believe, then the opportunity for erroneous ideas to be challenged by new information trails off asymptotically.

    I would very much prefer a way to turn down that filters dial or switch it off. The Netflix or Amazon approach to ofering a suggestion is about as far as it should go.

  • http://www.ftol-ecommerce.com/ Jenny

    I hate the concept of being spoon fed information that someone else wants me to see. I also see this as a step towards what will effectively be censorship by design.
    One particular failure is that I am being presented with advertising content from my competitors products which I am clearly not going to be buying!
    Sadly the days gone from when Google was a pure search engine with a set of pioneering technology and respecable ethics. Now it’s just a cash generating machine.
    The way is set for a new “Google” to take the lead.

  • http://www.essenceofthedivine.com Lynn Marie DeLellis

    I want complete control. My tastes and interests will change and I am quite capable of handling them myself.

  • http://www.dollarcounts.com/ TPJaveton

    Hey chris,

    It’s a very interesting question you raise, because on the one hand I need to have as much control over my results as I possibly can; But, the results can become much more biased and convoluted when mega-sites pay big bucks to highly skilled personnel to buy page rank and dominate the first page of the results. At this point I would have to vote “yes” for more filtering. Thanks for an interesting topic!

    TPJ-

  • http://soberlivingsearch.com Tom Rees

    I don’t want any filtering whatsoever, and I find it almost offensive in a way. I was not aware Google was doing this too. This is one of the first practices I have heard of that could truly set them back. I want to find another search engine now, knowing this!

  • http://www.hunahawaii.com Graeme

    I would rather have user selectable filtering than have what I see in my search results effectively censored.

  • http://www.4rx-pharmacy.com My1Rx

    The only google wants to do is filter out organic search.

  • Brian

    I’m totally against any kind of tracking of where I go and What I do on the Internet. I want my filter bubble to be no bubble at all. Here’s a shocker for you, I consider this to be no different than the Nazis burning books in World WarII. They didn’t want the populas to read certain materials either. Where is the Constitution and those swarn to protect it. We the People…

  • Diana

    I don’t like having my content filtered for me. I am thinking of leaving Facebook because of that feature. I hate it. I’d rather be given random choices if there are too many to list, than have them choose what they think I want to see!

  • http://www.mabuzi.com Kevin

    No definetly not. Thats is censorhsip.
    Google as a company with vested intrests has already decided what it thinks you are looking for. Eventually, as a business, Google will make you pay it to be found on Google as been seen in the changes occurring in both local listings and paid advertising.

    Google is a business after all.

  • http://www.infowars.com Destry

    Growth and the expansion of the human mind are based on learning the new and unknown. If everything we encounter is tailored to each of us, then that kills our development. I prefer to learn something new than to live as a zombie.

    • Beamer

      I hadn’t read your comment before I wrote mine, but zombies and robots were the words I used. I’m in total agreement with you.

      Get a clue people. Time to remove the scales from your eyes and brains and see things for what they really are. Your internet life is being controlled by control freaks. Break free from the chains that bind.

      I tried duckduckgo search engine and really like it. You can set your preferences to how YOU want it. From here on it is my search engine of choice above Google, Bing and Yahoo.

  • Richard Mathews

    He hit this one right on the head and I have the same gripe with how search and even blog commenting are going. I don’t care how popular a comment is or isn’t and I don’t want filtered search results because Google or some other search engine believes I want to see this or that. Search was so much better, before these started rolling out. I want to see the whole picture, not filtered results only!

  • Margaret Liggett

    I really don’t like someone else (or some software) deciding what I want to see. I may show patterns of searching but assuming that my interests today are the same they were yesterday is taking a great leap. In fact, I resent their keeping track of what I search for so they can “help” me. It is an invasion of privacy! …and, suppose someone else uses my computer and spends an entire day searching out pornography. The next day, and for days to come, the response to my queries will be slanted towards that.

  • http://taliesinhouser.com Ethan

    It’s shocking and seriously creepy. If there was an opt out, that would be one thing, but for a Mozilla user with adblock plus, I really don’t think filtering is helping anyone’s advertisers. Not exposing yourself to other ideas is not healthy!

  • http://twitter.com/#!/marketlance Marketlance

    Just say no to content filtering! Didn’t Google have a problem when China was doing this same content filtering – they called it censorship if memory serves. The reason Google became a dominant force around the globe is because it helps Internet users find products, services, and other information, right? Why then, would that, or any other search engine, think that they can personalize our results in such a way that they will be useful to us? I don’t want to know about places and products I am already familiar. I would much rather discover products and services that I, nor anyone else knows about. Otherwise, why should I waste my time trying to discover what I already know.

    It makes zero sense to me unless I am selling advertising and in that scenario…personalization makes good sense. I can show searchers what I want them to see because it brings in revenue. I am totally convinced it is a conspiracy. :D

  • http://www.honestgamers.com/ Jason Venter

    I feel that the personalization is a nightmare, honestly. I want to see what I want to see, not what someone else thinks I want to see. A computer isn’t capable of accounting for moods. One day I might want to see girls in bikinis in my news and the next day something may have happened in my life that requires me to look at something entirely different. I want my search results to follow a consistent course that only I alter.

    As noted in the article, this is also a problem from an SEO standpoint. I know that people who look for game reviews will love my site’s content, but will they even know it exists if the search engine has noticed that they click on links from major sites covering other topics? Will my site’s content get demoted? It seems likely. If it’s happening to me, it’s happening to others and it’s happening to content that I might want to see as I browse the Internet.

    There’s value in assigning people to demographics, obviously, but leave them with the ability to use your mainstream service and to break free from one demographic is–as people are likely to do–they change.

  • http://www.patantconsult.com/ Carla Lendor

    Filtering information is contrary to what the internet was designed for. It was designed so that people can leave their comfort zone, celebrate differences in ideologies ect. Google and Facebook and their likes simply reinforces one own prejudices and thoughts and borders on control the freedom of the internetsphere. By doing so they can control what we like and bombard people with advertising and information that suit the agenda. This is not about end user it is about fat cats like Google looking for every opportunity to milk a dime.

  • John

    Filter Off.

  • Gary Bouskill

    Google and others do not have and never have had any honour nor integrity. Google has made millions by selling the ranking positions that show up in searches. These include all kinds of MLM adds that are scams and lightly hidden pyramid schemes.

    Time and time again I find web pages that contain ads that are very specific to where I live and other personal things, especially when I do a search.

    Try doing a search for a species like T Rex and e-bay and others will offer to sell you one. Books on the subject that show up are okay.

    When I do a search I want to be very specific about what I’m looking for and not get 10,000 irrelevent listings.

    The internet has become useless for any kind of research. I understand some universities are designing an alternative for doing research. I hope I can get to use it.

    • -

      panopticlick,ua,referer, httpseverywhere, ip,tor,i2p, javascript/noscript evercookies/supercookies, etc

  • Stephen

    Global and National News content should not be filtered,
    personal shopping preferences are OK

  • http://24365.co Sri

    No filters for me please! How can any algorithm decide that I will only see particular type of pages – that’s anti-human!

    What SEs should actually provide is, a list of all the signals that they are detecting, in a side panel with check boxes and leave the choice of switching signals on or off at our will. Hey! that’s what is supposed to be advanced search, silly ;)

  • http://www.wsiwebfactory.com Kirk

    What a great article followed by a bunch of predictably irritated responses. Sounds like there’s a consensus that filtering is bad, Google is evil and privacy is dead. Well, the last is certainly true.

    So, if we don’t want filtering, I assume everyone is good with Google returning results in Podunk, Maine to our query for Pizza, right?

    Google is trying to learn what we’re looking for by aggregating our behaviors. That way, they improve their chances of returning results which are relevant to us, based on our patterns of usage, so they can monetize their intellectual property.

    I’m not sure that’s the definition of evil. If we want more variety of results, we always have the option to use other search engines. Google (Yahoo!, Bing, pick your poison) don’t dictate that we use them for search. I find it pretty ironic that there are responses that seem to suggest that search engine’s filtering should be illegal or regulated. Seriously? Aren’t we responsible for our own search activity? If it’s research we’re embarked upon, isn’t it incumbent upon the researcher to ensure a variety of sources are used.

    The more information we have, such as this article, makes us better informed and enables us to make better choices. If you’re uncomfortable with the filtering inherent in Google’s business model, change your behavior, don’t yell at Google to change theirs. (And please, let’s not expect the Government to do it for us.)

    • Damian

      When I look up pizza, I don’t just google ‘pizza’ and get Podunk, Maine… I tailor my own searches to bring up specific things that I look for, such as pizza . Common sense is a great thing, and unfiltered search results with added common sense are far greater tools than filtered search results alone.

      • Damian

        *such as pizza [enter city here]

    • http://www.internationalexpansion.org Vegard Vevstad

      Neither Google nor the government should tell us what is good for us.

    • Daniel

      The problem is that you will find the pizza site with the best SEO and not the best pizza. A small pizza restaurant that puts his efforts, creativity and love into its marvellous pizzas has no chance against the crap seller who knows nothing abut pizza but everything about web optimizing,.

  • Banatu

    I hate, hate, hate these stupid ‘personalized’ ads and content. It renders searches nearly useless and makes annoying ads downright offensive.

    I spend 90% of my time online doing research, which usually requires more than one point of view, something google has a real problem with.

    More and more the last few years it is becoming more productive to do research the old fashoined way, as google et al insists on presenting me with worthless garbage and, if the subject is remotely controversial, filtering out half the sites.

    I’ve long since stopped using google and others that personalize things for you whether you want it to or not, and that’s not even getting into all the tracking and tracing.

    Ixquick is your friend if you value privacy.

    • Beamer

      I’m with you on that! After trying duckduckgo, I have added its search box to one of my sites. Just tried it today and am very excited about using it. It is refreshing, No tracking or ignorant ads pushed in your face. Privacy and relevancy prevails.

      The more into it I look, the better I like it. Great Experience!

      Good for you that you have found an engine that meets your needs. I will try Ixquick out too. Goodbye Google. Don’t let the door knob hit ya. You may be big, but you are pure junk.

      Good freaking BYE! Now, as more and more people wake up from their zombie/robot state, they will do the same as many already have. It is a great feeling to be free from the Google BS.

  • Cliff Frederiksen

    DO NOT FILTER MY INTERNET. I want to be able to choose freely the inoformation I’m seeking with NO filter !!!!!~

  • http://www.internationalexpansion.org Vegard Vevstad

    I want to know what to know what is out there according to some objective criteria, not what I may have liked in the past. That’s like having Yes-men around you telling you what you like to hear, not what you need to hear.

  • http://www.masterkeyconsulting.co.za Amanda Strydom

    No. We should have the choice. Creating a win win and mixing it with freedom of choice is important – if not, who is running and controlling the world? This can be simplified. Why can’t the Search Engines give you something to click on to turn the restriction on or off? That way if you need their help to shorten the results displayed then you can, If you want to see everything available and have the time, then you have the freedom to choose. I use the internet to research things I have no knowledge about. How am I going to broaden my thinking or build on someone elses theories, if I am restricted to seeing theirs. Visa-versa, how will anyone find me, and team with me, if they never get to read what I do.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom