Jump to content
The Education Forum

Duck Duck Go Go and the NYT


Recommended Posts

The alternative search engine, preferred by privacy enthusiasts, is called "Duck Duck Go."

"Duck Duck Go Go" is a much better name for it, thank you for that. And for the heads up about the article. But, I stubbornly refuse even a free NYT account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DuckDuckGo is something Ive used for a few years, especially for things like JFK, Watergate, Iran Contra, etc. It was never a right-wing search engine, but the fact that the NYT paints it that way shows you who they believe is looking up alternative information these days as opposed to who they believe is falling in line properly with the mainstream media. Google does limit the availability of non-mainstream, non-compliant results for general searches. Sure, if you search specifically for "Kennedys and King" or "Midnight Writer News," those will come up. But if you search more generally for more alternative perspectives, those results may be pages and pages down in a world where I believe it has been said that most searchers do not move past the first page of results. More importantly, it is the continuance of the idea that alternative perspectives are dangerous in some way, that ideas and those who search for ideas across any spectrum are dangerous. The NYT believes there to be a hierarchy of information, but this is a self-serving vested interest as they believe they should be in that hierarchy (if not at the top). I said the problem with Rogan wasn't any guest he had on the show. He's a Bernie supporter who believes in M4A. The problem with Rogan for the MSM is that he was absolutely kicking their collective asses in consumption numbers. He doesn't threaten them politically; he threatens their stranglehold on control and especially control over what media is accepted and what is not. The more popular the alternative media becomes (and believe this, it isn't right wing... to the NYT, Kennedys & King and MWN/garrison are alternative media), the more they will push back in an effort to classify it as not only wrong but dangerous. But I think the "win" is not to keep slurping the mainstream media, hoping they'll acknowledge us, validate us, and mention us. The win is to build your audience and garner a level of respect completely outside and without the MSM, as Rogan has done. (But again, I don't want to make this post about Rogan, but he's the most popular example and the article does mention him.) Of the 100 thinkers and writers I admire most in the world right now, I'd guess that 90+ would be considered "alternative." I'd rather speak to them or read them or gain some sort of acceptance from them than I would the NYT or the WaPo. But I do understand there are some in these communities who go after the MSM critically and then turn cartwheels of joy and gratitude when they get a mention in some weekend edition review. This is something I'll never understand. It's like desiring a hug from an abusive father. I mean, c'mon. So, again, I chalk this up to the NYT having no clue what is really going on at the ground level, and it not mattering to them. What matters to them is that they continue to paint their "alternative competition" as dangerous in some way. That's the narrative: Ideas that we (the collective MSM) haven't approved are dangerous. Beware. Today, it's the right whose searches are "dangerous." The MSM wants to use the left as their batterers, cheering while the right gets classified as dangerous and censored on some social media outlets. But tomorrow it'll be the left and the MSM will use the right as the cheerleaders. The problem is - when you've supported either MSM attack on one, it's impossible for you to go all the way to the other side for the other and do so with any credibility. You've been used. The only way to retain credibility as a free speech advocate is to oppose what the NYT is doing here, and oppose it always (the idea, not their right to print it).         

Edited by S.T. Patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

The only way for the internet to exist is for it to be a completely unfiltered hive of scum and villainy. Anything less is oppression.

Sarcasm, I assume. But not far from the ultimate intent of the NY Times argument. Of course the rub is:  those acting as the "filter" get to define who the "scum and villains" are. Personally I am more of a free speech absolutist, convinced of the argument many years ago by Noam Chomsky's musings on the subject. He was working from his textual analysis of how institutions like the NY Times use language and omission to manufacture false consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

He was working from his textual analysis of how institutions like the NY Times use language and omission to manufacture false consciousness.

We certainly see a lot of that in this day and age. Though most are totally oblivious that such a techniques exist. 
 

Perhaps Tim Berners-Lee will provide you with what you are looking for @Micah Mileto, he is working on a new uncensored internet. I fear the powers that be with perform a massive cyber attack, shutting down access to the net. They’ll then turn around in the aftermath suggesting we all need a new super secure internet (like China’s) and that everyone must have an internet ID to get online. The place will be an echo chamber of government ideas. Of course the dumb, distracted citizenry will think its impartial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Sarcasm, I assume. But not far from the ultimate intent of the NY Times argument. Of course the rub is:  those acting as the "filter" get to define who the "scum and villains" are. Personally I am more of a free speech absolutist, convinced of the argument many years ago by Noam Chomsky's musings on the subject. He was working from his textual analysis of how institutions like the NY Times use language and omission to manufacture false consciousness.

Wait, I was not being sarcastic. I am also a free speech absolutist. I don't trust other people to filter information for me, and I cannot like anybody who presumes to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a spooky one: The NYT, as the Ukrainian War got underway, decided run prominently on its front page a non-peer reviewed study of old data, that purported to prove the COVID-19 Wuhan virus was started in the "wet market" and did not result from a lab leak. 

The article not behind a pay wall. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html

The article says, "Scientists released a pair of extensive studies over the weekend that point to a large food and live animal market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the coronavirus pandemic."

The first study, not yet even published or peer-reviewed, was produced by University of Arizona professor. OK, fine.

The second study the NYT cites was "published online on Friday, By scientists at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed genetic traces of the earliest environmental samples collected at the market, in January 2020."

Yes, the NYT is citing as an authoritative source a Chinese government agency. 

But it gets worse. It turns out the Arizona University guy (named Worobey) participated in the Chinese government study. No one asked if Worobey was paid, or has PC views on the matter.

An additional curiosity is that In "May 2020, George Gao, the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said animal samples collected from the seafood market had tested negative for the virus, indicating that the market was the site of an early superspreading event, but it was not the site of the initial outbreak.[48]"--Wikipedia. 

The NYT, and the US globalists, love Beijing. 

There is one (and maybe only one) US business leader who talks truth about China.

Kyle Bass, founder and CIO of Hayman Capital Management: “If the U.S. national security or human rights policy was left up to corporate America, we’d all be speaking Chinese tomorrow.”

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at the new article about Duck Duck Go Go  and Conspiracy Theorists in the NYT.

Its behind a wall so I won't link to it.  But its kind of interesting.

I believe Joe Rogan said he voted for or supported Bernie Sanders.  How does that make him a right winger?  If it does the whole country is just one big conspiracy theory.  I too switched to Duck Duck Go because any research I did on Google generally came up with nonsense material.  DD go is not much better.  OBTW, what is wrong with a considering something that is a conspiracy a conspiracy theory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...