Should Google be manipulating the status of Infowars?
I agree with their description of its reliability.
I am not sure it benefits society to have them ranking how "true" news is according to their own criteria.
Sites that have worse reliability than InfoWars, such as The Atlantic, The Express, and the New York Times, are all ranked higher because they agree with their messages, such as that Hillary has a 99.9% chance of winning.
Google shouldn't be in the content-judging business.
Yeah, Infowars is garbage. But it's not for them to decide.
April 17th, 2017 10:00am
I strongly disagree.
It is GOOG's social responsibility as a good corporate citizen that the minds of especially young people do not get polluted with problematic content. I think it's great that finally, instead of algos, real humans with clearly defined guidelines are paid to do a much needed job: Promoting those sites that are trustworthy and penalizing objectionable content.
Because algorithms that reflect how much people are interested in content, read content or link to content can not know whether content is hateful or presents issues for certain groups in society.
If you don't like it, use a different search engine.
Previously, Google was manually penalizing content that exploited flaws in their engine. I.e., a bunch of no-content sitest that linked to each other, boosting their PageRank.
Now, Google is manually penalizing content that they find "objectionable".
Instead of "cataloging all the world's information", their goal now is "cataloging all information that meets our censorship criterion".
But legally, Google can use whatever criterion they like for censorship. Hopefully it will cause them to lose credibility with users.
It only matters because of Google's near-monopoly market position.
April 17th, 2017 7:00pm
I didn't change my Firefox default from Bing. After one or two searches I give up and go back to Google.
Theoretically, the competition should catch up eventually, but it hasn't been happening.
It's hard for a scrappy startup to unseat Google, because making a database of all websites is a big $$$$ capital expense.
April 17th, 2017 9:35pm
DDG's explanation is here:
Part of what DDG does is try to prevent sites from tracking you.
Let's say you search for this:
Then if you get results and the results clicked straight to the site, your browser would forward the referring URL, which contains the search terms, to the site you go to, which allows them to find what search terms you used to get there.
DDG has instead a link that forwards through their site which contains only the URL and not the search terms. DDG then forwards that click to the site, your search terms have now been stripped out and the destination site doesn't know what you were searching for.
Google's already in the content judging business and always has been. It's what made them Google.
PageRank says content that's most linked by other content should appear higher in search results.
Spammers and SEOs have been attempting to game that system ever since and Google has continuously rolled out countermeasures to maintain the quality of results.
Letting garbage news rise to the top ahead of "higher quality" news simply because more stupid people have linked to the garbage news seems a strict disservice to their mission.
AI and ML based results are going to require continual human review to assure quality, because if you leave it up to the hive mind you end up with horrifyingly racist and idiotic results trumping good content.
> more stupid people have linked to the garbage news
The cultural contribution of Silicon Valley libtards: defining "stupid" as "anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion that we do."
Definition of stupid and tasteless: what 80% of the people like.
April 18th, 2017 1:19pm
Do you get nose-bleeds from looking down on people from such a height?
> The cultural contribution of Silicon Valley libtards: defining "stupid" as "anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion that we do."
You sure you want to die on this hill over Infowars?
In his custody suit, Jones is claiming that his infowars and prisonplanet ravings are his "public persona" and not who he really is. If that argument is remotely true, then his stuff on infowars is nothing but "performance art" (also known as trolling) and as such could never be considered "news".
Pie is a lot better than ...
April 20th, 2017 7:30am