Maybe this won't be a popular opinion here -- but it seems to me that there should be a search engine that actively acts with intentional bias to weed out publishers and websites that, according to that search engine's standards, simply aren't worth listing in their search engine.
Kind of a hybrid search engine, and curated list of websites.
Google set the standard by trying to make everything algorithmic. I can't help but think that most people would be served better if there was a search engine in the market that actively curated the listings.
I'm not saying that such a search engine should be the only option, but I do think that it could be a valuable addition to the search landscape.
True, but very specific human intervention is very different to web scale algorithms. The algorithms are to an extent beyond accountability at a human level, but human intervention isn't.
Google is known to have 10's of thousands of "quality raters" for web pages. But they follow an algorithm. They will still have their own biases though. Not every one of them will rate pages the same.
The lines are very muddy for sure, but to say "I don't like this country and what it's saying and we're actively going to demote content ... somehow... " is the kind of manipulation that DDG users seem to be strongly disagreeing with. Particularly so with DDG because their entire index is Bing, and who knows whether they're doing the same? I would wager DDG does not know.
Kind of a hybrid search engine, and curated list of websites.
Google set the standard by trying to make everything algorithmic. I can't help but think that most people would be served better if there was a search engine in the market that actively curated the listings.
I'm not saying that such a search engine should be the only option, but I do think that it could be a valuable addition to the search landscape.