Google not prioritizing 4chan and KiwiFarms is a terrible example "not wanting organic content". They're not just "organic content", they're cesspools of the worst kind of organic content. 4chan is notoriously filled with questionable to outright illegal content/activity, and KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment. I don't understand why that's your standard for "organic content". I would have to heavily question your activity if you're being thwarted by a lack of those sites in your search results. I'm personally very happy with 4chan links not showing up in search results.
I also think you're misunderstanding how Google prioritizes content. It's not showing the content people want, as much as content that's optimized with SEO to look appealing.
> KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment
KF is a gossip site, like Lipstick Alley or DataLounge, but with a focus on e-celebs and internet phenomena. I go there whenever I want to get the dirt (ie. truth) about e-celebs or some weird internet trend or subculture. Its users literally just passively document and discuss this stuff, and there's a policy (and ethos) of "no touch." You and others endorsing its erasure (despite it not breaking any law) would know this (and perhaps secretly do) if you actually lurked there for a while instead of just credulously accepting its critics' characterization. It's also strange how the site is supposedly such a hive of doxxers, harassers, etc., yet nothing seems to happen to the journalists and tech people organizing against it.
I think the real reason it's in hot water is precisely because they just passively, permanently document so much, some of which some people with money and influence don't want documented. Maybe they documented something someone (some billionaire?) secretly doesn't want out there?
The sorts of people being "documented" on KiwiFarms are not celebrities. They're usually vulnerable people with some sort of mental illness who are struggling. And I don't buy for a moment the "no touch" policy. Just because you can't use a specific website to harass someone, does not mean you can't use the information on the website to harass them off-platform. This is a bad take. There's a major difference between journalism, tabloid journalism (which I also consider worthless and wrong), and stalking vulnerable people on the internet. Or as you call the latter, "documenting".
> That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.
Zero interest. You don't have eat white lead to know it will give you cancer.
> there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere
There's a word for this: stalking. Many of these "social phenomena" are people, and like I said, ones who suffer with mental illness. You're quite literally advocating for, and enabling real-world stalking when you endorse write-ups about these sorts of people.
> apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment
Used for, vs created to enable. There's a difference you're either ignoring or willfully blind to here.
I also think you're misunderstanding how Google prioritizes content. It's not showing the content people want, as much as content that's optimized with SEO to look appealing.