Search Google and Yandex for "2020 election fraud." The results are VERY different. The Zach Vorhies leak shows that Google regularly does blatant censorship for political purposes.[1]
Totally, just like how if you want to find out what really happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, your best bet is Baidu. Totally different results than what Google gives you!
I sincerely have deep respect for Yandex for releasing this, and Baidu for some of the amazing research they've released over the years, but both are deeply deeply beholden to their local governments in a way that is incomparable to the relationship between Google and the US government.
Remember that the NSA was literally digging up and tapping fiber around Google data centers in a secret program called MUSCULAR because they didn't think Google was being cooperative enough when handing over data that they were requesting.
Google: 118M results. Top link is the best resource on verified election fraud cases.
Yandex: 9M results. The top two links are pretty suspect. Top link promotes Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules documentary in the banner which at best is a one-sided take on election fraud. At worst, very misleading.
This is a weird comment because yes, that's exactly what the above person was saying. It shows results that google won't give you.
Secondly, I've yet to see any criticisms of 2000 mules data that aren't addressed by the stringency in the analysis they claim to have done.
I thought the information they presented was extremely valuable. Are we going to overturn an election at this point? No. But the vulnerabilities to the mail-in ballots were obvious, then lied about, then ignored, then clearly taken advantage of. I want to live in a democracy because voting matters. I especially don't want NPO's destroying this by taking advantage of flawed voting infrastructure.
If there are legitimate criticisms of the methods, the data, or anything else coming out of this film I expect a legitimate presentation that can break it down using the actual data in question. All I've seen so far is shilling and gas-lighting.
If you have any evidence, any evidence at all, of significant mail-in ballots fraud, then you should write it up and publish it; and even present it to the USDOJ, because you would have succeeded where Trump's highly-paid teams of lawyers failed.
It's not about whether it happened or not, it's whether it's reported or not.
I personally believe (with obviously no proof) there was definitely fraud going on, on both sides. With such an archaic system and such a great economic and power incentive, you would be stupid not to do it. For sure mail in ballots made it even easier than in the past.
I've heard about Russian hacking the elections after Trump won for a good 2 years.
Why should 2000 Mules be promoted in results at all? It's total BS, it's progenitor is a criminal that's was guilty of Election Campaign Finance Fraud.
I don't know man, "thegatewaypundit.com" as a top reputable source? seems to me like it's not "honest two-sided results" but just, well, a rather random mix of result of widely varying quality. Mad Altavista vibes!
What I'm trying to say is that even if you believe that "was the 2020 US election stolen?" is worth debating, which it isn't, the yandex results are shit.
If you get all your information through mainstream channels, and you don't want to see anything contradicting those channels then you should continue to use Google because they explicitly implement the algorithms on controversial topics to prefer mainstream news sources[1]. What I mean by "better" in terms of controversial searches is that on controversial matters, it will rank the searches the same way it does for all other searches. I mean yeah, I don't have access to the internal code base of Yandex, but it certainly feels more organic.
Btw Wikipedia’s first few sentences on Breitbart are not inspiring
> Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike.[10] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[11][12] and intentionally misleading stories.[13][14]
This is the association fallacy, which is, unfortunately, how most people determine what to believe these days.
An absurd example of this fallacy would be, Wikipedia, which you cite, has articles that indicate tobacco smoking may cause disease. The nazis were also anti-smoking[1]. Therefore Wikipedia is Nazi propaganda and you should not trust anything on there.
It is not the association fallacy; the role of a news site is to provide news, which includes fact-checking the work of their "journalists."
If Breitbart pulled a Fox News and argued in court that their goal was to entertain and not inform, then you have a point! But until then, you have a terrible misunderstanding of journalistic integrity and what it means for a publisher to attach their name to a journalist's work.
[1]https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/08/19/google-whistleblow...