NOTE ADDED 10 August 2016: FAKE LINK TACTIC I'VE NOT SEEN BEFORE
I noticed this with a low-grade site, which seems popular with many gullible Americans and their invaders, called zerohedge.com
On the anniversary of the supposed atom bombing of Hiroshima, they had an article, attributed to 'Tyler Durden'. with quite a few links to supposedly skeptical sites; I'd guess most are troll sites, along the lines of the James Randi fake skeptics sites.
The link appeared as something like nukelies
which people experienced in HTML will recognise as a way to post a link. This bit of code typically shows as nukelies
. The fake link with some systems shows up as a 'page suspended' error. What the effect of this is ultimately I can't tell: the site is perfectly OK, and it may be that zerohedge will be increasingly recognised as incompetent. It may be there will be discussion about the disappearance of online sites. It may have no effect, since articles on these sites have a very limited life.
But, just for the record, I'm mentioning it here. - Rerev
 Google is firmly established as the leading search engine, at least in the Anglo and white world. (Baidu, Sousou, Yandex seem important in China, Japan, and Russia).
 I'd like to briefly debunk the magical status attributed to Google. In the late 1990s it was obvious a good search engine was needed. I don't take the 'two brilliant mathematicians' idea seriously (maybe they gave the name). What was needed was huge storage capacity, i.e. huge numbers of hard disks with ventilation requirements and hardware replacement-on-failure requirements. This meant money, and this suited the Jewish paper money fraud. The whole model was and is built on advertising.
 It's not necessary to assume Google's file downloads and sort-and-file system was phenomenally skillful. Most commercial websites are geographically and product located, so that (say) Melbourne taxidermists, or air flights from New York to Mumbai, or plumbers in Idaho, or fast food places in Peoria, or universities in Paris are found easily enough by keywords: all that's needed is a large number of directories. And many sites are named after their owners: it's very likely that ikea.com or macys.com or nbc.com or cia.com are found there (I haven't checked).
 However, informational and misinformation sites aren't easily classifiable. The Zundelsite was (I think) one of the first alternative sites. At one point Google apologised for some keyword arrangements listing such sites in the top few.
 As everyone knows, links were used to help out with page rankings, and a parasitic quasi-industry of fake links soon grew up. Similar parasitism grew up around the use of estimated time on pages: if Google could be persuaded some pages had high bounce rates, they could be demoted. (There are of course Jews who spend their time on Amazon, clicking down reviews&—same idea).
 The obvious thing to do is to rate the sites in some automatable way. It seems Google’s Quality Rater’s Handbook wants content to reflect expertise and be authoritative and trustworthy—E-A-T is their acronym. Obviously, with any controversial topic, there's a potential problem: a simple technique is to grade links by quality but the problem is of assessing expertise etc. Google's CEO, Schmidt, is evidently keen to bury sites he doesn't like at the bottom end of Google's results pages.
 I have no idea what will happen; maybe (i) disliked sites will simply be censored out altogether; (ii) sites which mention anything alternative may be handicapped by being marked down; (iii) there will be campaigns to make sites show up as inexpert—maybe the current 'flat earth' promotion is intended to identify sites weak on physics; (iv) 'EAT' sites will be given accreditation if they are state, official, professional, or whatever; (v) perhaps some algorithm can be found to identify two groups, A and B, and somehow try to assess the quality of debate between them; (vi) perhaps there'll be a disaster—maybe Windows 10 will be equipped to erase any disks attached to the remote computer during (for example) a declared or undeclared war.
 If fightback is needed, maybe (i) there's scope for meta-searchers: if Google's data can be searched (a 'metasearcher' looks at several search engines, and combines the results) a revisionist metasearcher might boost sites which include chosen keywords; or (ii) a smaller subset of sites might be filed away, omitting most of the commercial stuff, and used in a totally new search engine; (iii) maybe operating systems outside anything commercial could pop up; after all, much of the working deals with standard files. Internet may prove resilient to official attacks. <
Google's 'lite' link, googleweblight.com (this note inserted 20 July 2016 - Rerev)
Google has its own short versions of some Website pages. Graphics etc can be cut out—and so can information. Googleweblight appears to be aimed at India, where download speeds must often be slow by modern standards. Googleweblight.com/?lite_URL=http://www.big-lies.org is their syntax. Google has taken the opportunity to cut out my nuclear, holocaust, and Jewish material. Maybe they think impoverished Indians might not appreciate having been ripped off with nuclear frauds, the Holocaust fraud, and other Jewish frauds?