The article “Should search algorithms be moral?” presents the dilemma of whether search engines should strive to present the most factual information rather than the most popular (or rather, “search-engine optimized”) content.

I believe that the author’s suggestion that search engine companies should censor information they deemed non-factual is a dangerous one. The reason for this is that practically everybody is convinced that what they believe is the truth, and shunning articles that are deemed non-factual would simply promote whatever happens to be “the truth” from Google’s point of view. Let us not forget that just over a century ago, scientists had “proven” it was physically impossible to create an airplane, or that the scientific consensus on the origin of life, abiogenesis, is a phenomenon that we have failed to replicate in the lab despite decades of attempts to do so.

It is true that the Internet is filled with (from my point of view, at least), non-factual information, such as the belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed or that vaccines cause autism. But it is shortsighted to assert that what one believes must be unequivocally true, regardless of one’s academic qualifications.

If we are worried that the mind of the public could be contaminated with false information on the Internet, the solution is to train the public to be objective-minded and ready to research their questions down to first-hand evidence. Furthermore, we must work to make such first-hand evidence, especially artifacts, fossils, and geological findings, readily available on the Internet. Censoring articles that we don’t deem to be true will only work to hamper the intellectual progress of our society.