Probably not. Anyone sceptical enough to use a "non-biased" search engine would be just as sceptical of the biases of any supposed "non-biased" competitor. Personally I'd argue there's not really such a thing as non-biased content. Everything produced by humans, either directly or indirectly is going to have some amount of bias.
It's also a balancing act to some extent. Is a search engine biased towards a certain political perspective but which reduces the amount of fake news better or worse than an unbiased search engine which weights fake news and accurate reporting equally? I think all you can really do is be aware of possible biases and question everything you're consuming.
My main concern with what Google and other tech platforms are doing is the subtleness which I suspect could be a deliberate move. Sites like Fox News still appear in Google results, but they just seem to be put significantly lower than other sources. Google knows 99% of people will look at the top 4-5 links, so as long as Fox News or other right-wing sources don't appear near the top you've effectively censored their content to 99% of Google's users without ever having to admit to doing anything nefarious because it's still technically there and maybe if you were explicit enough with your search it might even rank in the top results.
I don't really know what the answer is. I'd personally just urge people not to consume news, and if they're curious about anything just download official statistics. For example go ask people how many people they think will die this decade of smoking related diseases, or how many people are killed in terrorist incidents. Generally people don't know these numbers, despite the fact one kills millions and is rarely spoken about and the other is basically an irrelevant problem despite being discussed endlessly. Google is just a small part of what was already well established problem imo.
Just tried googling it the other way around (if you meant that?) and it’s the same story. Both of the terms could be understood as „site:“ modifier, as the respective websites are term + .de
Well the author is from an institution called the University of London, and Max Roser, who's stats he is critiquing, from an institution called Oxford...
Hey, so I "pivoted" my original idea of adding a comment section on any website ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931518 ) to a comment aggregator that puts the relevant Reddit, HackerNews, and Facebook comments on the current website with the push of a button.
I made this switch due to the "marketplace/chicken-and-egg" problem my original idea had. It just wasn't very useful without a big amount of comments already on there. With the new direction, I picked up HN users dudzik's and brownbat's suggestions as in the linked thread above. :)
You made it simple to switch between sources, and I like how clean the UI is.
Initially, I thought about each comment source being a separate extension. But I can see the value in integrating the sources into one. It makes it easier to get another perspective on a topic, without setting up too many things.
On the subject of getting different perspectives: Can you select the subreddits that provide you with the comments?
At the moment it pools the comments from all Reddit and HN submissions and thus all subreddits. It sorts them by relevance/upvotes. I'm using this "plugin": https://github.com/tgallant/embedd
I was thinking about having configureable options where the user can choose which services to show comments from. Was thinking about adding others as well - e.g. Twitter, Disqus. I can imagine not all techies want FB comments. :) But for now, I just wanted to release another version first.
Hey, thought I replied to you. Apparently not, sorry. Moderation is only with FB right now. You can arrange your own moderation as well, put I'm not sure if I can scope it by domain or something or only for the entire app (i.e. extension), but it's probably not something I would go for. More here: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/comments
