Let me give you guys a little perspective about what's happening from someone who works in the 'MSM' (me, senior editor and news writer for more than ten years).
Google is currently in the middle of one of the biggest algorithm changes it has rolled out in a few years, and it has been rolling out for the last few weeks.
The change is designed to de-rank fake news websites; the change is similar to the one that happened years ago that demoted the glut of content farms (ehow etc) from the front page, and more recently the anti-piracy algorithm change.
The problem here is the using an algorithm to determine what is fake news versus unsourced blogs versus satire versus opinion versus speculation is not as easy as it seems since, by its nature, fake news is usually written to be indistinguishable from real news in every practical sense.
For this reason, Google is currently relying heavily on the sources of an article to help determine its status, but that's not working well at all, and hopefully they'll tweak it again soon and try something else.
I can't name publication names, but I can say that MANY news websites -- major, well established sites that have existed for many years -- are suffering dearly right now because of this algorithm change. Everyone is feeling the pain. Major legit news websites have seen their daily traffic numbers cut by 30 to 60% as a result of this change.
So it's not surprising right now that something like the Mandela Effect website would lose ranking. Without proof of its existence, it's going to get swept up in the 'fake news' glut and shuttled further away. If you want these sites to rank higher post change, you'll need to link to established primary sources and websites (like scientific journals) for the algorithm to back off.
Now, I have my concerns that the fake news push can and in some ways is being abused. Regardless, there does need to be a better handling of the matter -- remember, fake news can be used by anyone with an agenda, and that means people who want to attack and delegitimize you as well as anyone else.
I can just as easily write fake news lambasting the Mandela Effect and presenting it as the stuff of insanity as can a 'MSM' source. If the general public has that negative fake news shoved in its face all the time, it's just as damaging to the topic as if CNN were doing it.
I do caution you guys about jumping straight to the most paranoid end of the spectrum on these matters. Again, I'm not saying that the news is bias free or not manipulated, by the very nature of coming from humans, it can never be truly neutral. I have witnessed occasional manipulation of news, but that's not in any way reserved for the MSM, and in fact is much easier outside of it in many ways. Jumping straight to the more paranoid less nuanced end of the spectrum will drive the curious away from you.
The reality is, it seems 'obvious' that oooh something big is happening, there's a cover up, etc, but really the things you need to know and see aren't these things. They're tucked away very far from public view in very dark shadows. But there are things I can't talk about, and I simply caution you guys not to stare to long at the sparkling 'obvious' lure, even those things are just a distraction.