>The problem I see here is that there is no alternative to an algorithm.

That's not what she is arguing at all. She's pointing out the algorithms have intentionally been tainted. Biased. Censorship by omission. Algorithms aren't independent things, they are programmed and share the biases of their programmers.

Indeed I think she sums it very eloquently here:
"You've probably noticed this if you've tried to search YouTube for videos which don't align with the official narratives of western governments and media lately. That search function used to work like magic; like it was reading your mind. Now it's almost impossible to find the information you're looking for unless you're trying to find out what the US State Department wants you to think."

If you happen to not have experienced that, I might point out you just might be in the right bubble to where it's not yet noticeable for you, or maybe not happened enough to be more than an annoyance easy to write off as something else. Perfect example: "The author cites how popular their facebook pages used to be, but that wasn't a neutral algorithm either - they were just happy when the algorithm was rigged to benefit them rather than harm them." When algorithms that used to distribute attention fairly uniformly now are biased to certain political ideologies to the extent that even the size of these services can't hide it - when does that become more than the mere coincidence you are trying to pass it off as? In your mind is there ever a threshold that would no longer pass a sniff test?

I have long noticed the usefulness of search features on the major services has dramatically declined, especially if the topics are even remotely political. So I no longer rely on search, especially for anything related to current events. I'm back to where I was pre-Google - a large, diverse group of sources I routinely visit. I've rediscovered the joys of RSS and self-hosted aggregation - it greatly helps one do this in a pretty trivial manner. No wonder Google first took over RSS with Reader then killed it. With such functionality I don't need some all knowing centralized "cloud" of knowledge to consult - I can easily gather information on my own and make my own decisions.

Heaven forbid that be allowed to continue. It's why it's past time for people to take control back themselves. It's a little more work, but well worth it if you really care about getting an unfiltered view of the world. I'm constantly amazed by how many times a topic will come up in conversation as being new and I'll usually have heard about it days if not weeks before - and often with significantly more detail and context.

And it's not really that new - before the internet you could spot people who relied on TV/Radio, those who read newspapers too, and those who routinely dug deeper into long form magazine or other articles.

What's really insidious about the Internet is it gives a great illusion to having unfettered access to all information without really living up to it in a way most people will never notice.

Until something they are passionate and have detailed knowledge of gets distorted. Then it sticks out like a sore thumb. The sunglasses in *They Live*, if you will. Just wait - censorship never ends. Sooner or later you will have your own jolt. The real question is will it be too late to do something about it?

"The avalanche has already started - it's too late for the pebbles to vote"

Tolerance or excuses for this behavior just enables it to be more firmly entrenched.