Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Should Google be manipulating the status of Infowars?

Seems appropriate
Permalink Wabi-sabi 
April 17th, 2017 4:29am
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.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
April 17th, 2017 6:28am
Google shouldn't be in the content-judging business.

Yeah, Infowars is garbage. But it's not for them to decide.
Permalink Send private email xampl9 
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.
Permalink google 
April 17th, 2017 1:18pm
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.
Permalink FSK 
April 17th, 2017 7:00pm
When was the last time you used a different search engine?
Permalink Yoda 
April 17th, 2017 7:48pm
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.
Permalink FSK 
April 17th, 2017 9:35pm
^ Unless you're Dr. H. (snort)
Permalink Bored Bystander 
April 18th, 2017 12:08am
Bing is backed by Microsoft and they too failed.
Permalink Yoda 
April 18th, 2017 1:33am
Duck Duck Go?
Permalink AntiAntiFa 
April 18th, 2017 5:37am
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.
Permalink Pestular Croaker 
April 18th, 2017 8:19am
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.
Permalink Wabi-sabi 
April 18th, 2017 9:19am
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.
Permalink Wabi-sabi 
April 18th, 2017 9:24am
> 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."
Permalink Bored Bystander 
April 18th, 2017 12:55pm
Definition of stupid and tasteless: what 80% of the people like.
Permalink Lotti Fuehrscheim 
April 18th, 2017 1:19pm
Do you get nose-bleeds from looking down on people from such a height?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 18th, 2017 1:21pm
Dude, the nose bleeds are completely relative. Hypocrite on.
Permalink Hater 
April 18th, 2017 9:00pm
> 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?
Permalink Wabi-sabi 
April 19th, 2017 7:06am
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".

Permalink Pie is a lot better than ... 
April 20th, 2017 7:30am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2017 Other topics: April, 2017 Recent topics Recent topics