who says what...

Most of us would like to believe that we are independent and we make decisions ourselves. Incidentally, though we would like to believe so, we generally act out what we are told to act out.

At first this may sound radical as we would like to believe we have our own thinking and reasonings in going about doing certain things, but what if all what we think we are thinking is not really independent but we are being nudged to do so.

Today, we look for information via google. However google provides us its data depending on its page rankings or paid rankings. This does mean that google's interest in not necessarily what we are interested in, but what google is being paid to set up or google has been coerced to page rank though with no force a particular data thanks to meta tags or page links or site-traffic and all the internet jazz.

It could mean that what we see on google is not necessarily a true and objective account of what is available as information but one that has been contrived (not necessarily google's fault here, as it is just a medium, it just does what it is supposed to do or paid to do by patrons)

This is much like journalism. Most journalism is just information, I mean that is what a journalist does he/she keeps us aware on information, however it is not a journalists profile to impart knowledge which could mean that since the journalist is himself/herself unaware about all there is on a topic of information, the information he/she does impart could be fallacious or prejudiced again no fault of the journalist, he/she is plain unaware and he/she is not infalliable.

Given this commonality, I guess the medium that could trump 'google' would be 'wikipedia'; though it is not a search engine per se, it does impart information with less of prejudice or bias or self interest as compared to google.

wikipedia by itself is not a perfect system, it is still a work in progress, it does have erroneous information however just interms of an 'idea' or a source of information, I guess it is closer to an objective account of that information.

The reason being wikipedia has filters and the filters are people who moderate its information 24/7, erronrous information if present is corrected by million of moderaters around the world, whereas in the case of google, its about the money.
Its filters are for its very own self interest.