Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? What i see, is that it's blocking illegal things.
Well, there is the Wikipedia article [1] but even there most of what it mentions could be considered hearsay, so I'll go with a couple others: - 4chan's /pol/ board straight up doesn't show up. It's easy to directly go to a board by writing "4chan" and the correspondent letters, /pol/ is censored from the results though, this is most probably political in nature since even /b/ shows up. - The "substitute" for the r/T…
Like what part would censor opinions ?
> 4chan
There sitemap is even wrong ? https://www.4chan.org/sitemap.xml It redirects to the http version. Also, i can't access the page without accepting the rules ( perhaps that's related?)
> communities.win
I found it with Google, but it really isn't SEO optimized even and it's backlinks ( low quality) + domain authority is really low: https://ahrefs.com/nl/backlink-checker
Additionally, the content seems to be misleading/untruthful. So that would bring down the trustworthiness of the entire site ( backlinks of similar sites). It's the same way spam is threated, by their organic links.
Backlinks include: conspiracies.win , cancelthiscompany.com, patriots.win, greatawakening.win, weekendgunnit.win, ...
A search engine is about finding usefull results. And while communities.win could be usefull for the ones that know it and they can find it through Google. I doubt many other people would even look for it or find it useful.