Does Google Have an Integrity Responsibility?

There are literally thousands of conspiracy theories out there...and thousands of websites to go along with them, claiming things as "fact," claiming fringe scientists as "experts" and in the end, claiming a different belief than the mainstream scientific community. That's all well and good, way to be proactive and think for yourself. The problem is that millions of other people have access to these sites, and many take what they see before them as scientifically proven theories that are being unfairly denied by science.

While one in a thousand or million may turn out true, the rest are simply false and millions of people are swayed into belief by a lack on general knowledge on the subject. Do search engines such as Google have a responsibility to let you know what's what?
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/anti_vaccine_activists_9_11_deniers_and_google_s_social_search_.2.html#comments

Some people in the comments sections are berating the author for suggesting  flagging these site as trying to suppress free speech...I see where they are coming from, but I simply don't think that's the case here...

I don't think this is a free speech issue at all and, in fact, I think the long-held phrase "counter them with truth" over censorship is exactly what this article suggests. The problem is that outsider theories are more interesting and engaging, giving scientists a tough job of getting the same platform to prove the truth is actually the truth. 

Simply look at the "Ancient Aliens" show...Im sure any archeologist would love to get an hour long program to debunk their claims, but the fact is that the conspiracy theory is far more interesting than the debunking, and thus the channel wouldn't give them the air time due to need of viewers. The real problem is that the internet creates a platform that makes spreading baseless theories as scientific fact easy and accessible, without any type of regulation or fact-checking while true science is left to actually proving their points, getting published, and hoping people are interested enough to find the article.

I don't think you should institute a censor, but i also think we have the right to know whether we are reading a baseless theory of some random guy who has a tiny bit of evidence that is contradicted by years of research, or a scientifically researched theory that has been read, criticqued and found to hold merit.

I don't think this is a free speech issue, I think it is an issue of scientific responsibility and integrity which each author should be held to. You can put whatever claim you want out there, but I don't think any joe with a theory should be able to claim it as "fact" simply because he found evidence that convinces him personally.

If the author is saying we should censor people...then NO, I completely disagree. But I have no problem with instilling a bit of journalistic/scientific integrity so that we have the ability to know when something simply isn't based on science.

I think, first and foremost, we should focus on teaching people to think for themselves and look at theories critically. But when an author can claim pretty much anything with no repercussion, it makes it hard to assess the "facts' and create an accurate conclusion on a topic for someone unfamiliar with the topic.