Google tells people DOGE never existed

Below is the Mandela Effect event, which I believed was real: the Ministry of Governmental efficiency, and the false costs managed by Elon Musk to reduce “fraud, waste, and abuse” from federal processes, did not already exist. At least, this will tell you the Google Overview of Google if you are looking for a specific content related to DOGE operations.

Bluesky user passes Iucounu ​​pointed out for the first time This error in Google’s understanding skills, and found that inquiring about the information search engine and the number of deaths caused by the cutting of basic programs DOGE leads to a response that claims that the agency is “fictional” and from “political spelling or conspiracy theory.” Gizmodo can re -create these results:

According to Google, “there is no actual government administration called Doge, and the term is used in critical or satirical contexts to refer to the policies or measures taken by the Trump administration.” The results are expanding in that later, saying: “It is very important to understand that there is no real government entity called Dog, and the surrounding discussion is part of political discourse or satire, and not a realistic government action.”

Certainly, there are outlets and people who suggested that Doug is fake, either in that Do nothing to accomplish its announced mission Or in reality Not a real agency It was established by the federal government (although it is Certainly it works as one). But an artificial intelligence overview does not cite any source indicating this.

The closest to an explicit source says that Dog is not present is a link to the committee of the Democratic Parliament based on the budget, which carries a page entitled “”The so -called “Doug“But even this provides a clear statement that Dog is not a collective illusion:” Dog is an organized in the president’s executive office. It is not an agency at the Cabinet level with a leadership approved by the Senate and has no legal authority to change the funds allocated to Congress. Other sources, places like Lawfare and Budget and Politics Priorities CenterDo not even come close to the suggestion that the agency is spelling.

So what gives? Google did not provide any explanation when contacting it, although a company speaker told Gizmodo, “This general view of Amnesty International is clearly incorrect. Our policies on civil information have violated, and we are taking measures to address this issue.”

So it seems that Dog was not everything in our collective heads after all. Is this not a shame?