>>8080 It is almost certainly the people who control the search engines. A browser can do many nefarious things, but directly manipulating your search results from a search engine is not one of them. The reason is what these tools actually do, how they interact with each other, and the limitations of network infrastructure as it has grown and evolved since it's initial deployment. Put briefly: Let's look at connecting to google.com and using the search engine with firefox. You type the url into your browser, and the page appears moments later. In this interaction, your browser is sending data first to a DNS server to resolve the URL into a usable IP address, and then makes a request to access the server at that address. The server then sends the google homepage. In order to do this, your computer must first encapsulate every message it sends out. In order to do this, your browser needs to hand the data you want to send off to other applications, most of which you never see or know about. In the vast majority of cases, the organization that developed your browser of choice has no involvement in the rest of the software being used on your computer. Even in a case with google.com on google chrome running on chrome OS which in turn is running on 100% google-manufactured hardware the number of people who would have to be communicating in order to manipulate your traffic at the host level is very high. This is of course ignores all the security obstacles in performing what amounts to a man in the middle attack to compromise data integrity without triggering a single warning flag. Instead, what if you compromised the service being directly accessed? Especially if that service was an essential tool. You could entirely avoid every single problem described above, while casting a much more consistent and thorough net as to who you are affecting while also decreasing the chance the details of your scheme are revealed and eliminating a significant amount of cost and personnel required for the effort.

>>8089 You say that, but the big tech companies that operate these things can ignore all the most powerful governments in the world and blatantly break laws with the direct intention of harming the citizens of said governments for profit. They do so to both cheering crowds, and little meaningful retaliation, because they control the large portions of the media in a world dominated by the 24/7 news cycle (now the endless stream of content flowing along with the torrent of endlessly expanding amounts of junk data).

>>8089 Amusing, those cookies and trackers and search histories and whatnot are still there despite me explicitly refusing them. Nice double standard you got there.

>>8089 >nudity is illegal

>>8093 Goolag and the FAANGs could care less about the law. They are deprecating government and implementing a global corporatocracy. Censoring Trump is a symbolic victory, and just the beginning. Rand Paul was next, and it is demonstrable that censoring elected officials silences the voices that voted for them. What import are laws when no one can even speak of them?

>>8273 No reason not to remove it

>>8273 Nudity still isn't illegal, regardless.

well, i read some articles about investigators showing how easy is to find underage explicit pics, yet i cant imagine what kind of queries they use, because ive tried with "soft" terms and nothing, using explicit terms like 12 nude will pop up that warning message. So i thing you need to use a different words, im surprised even Yandex sanitized the result because i know they are the less authoritatian search engine.

>>8363 It all happened this year with yandex. It wouldn't return real life hardcore stuff, but photoshops and fakes of celebrity girls. Faggots don't want you making art from actual photos so they nigged the fuck out and went after anyone who was showing those kind of results.