Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#151

Post by lomnakkus »

gkoberger wrote: post #57
nl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative interpretation is that the #DNCLeaks don't seem very interesting. I don't know why Twitter removed it (assuming that did happen), but to me it looks like most of the same people tweeting about are also tweeting about #Munich and or Tim Kaine, both of which are trending. If I was building a trends algorithm I'd try to aim for diversity of sources of trends. I have no idea about Reddit. The first search…

I'm not saying this particular theory is true. It's probably a mistake. I'm just saying that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious and ask questions, however, given that we have definitive proof that Google is known to work with the government.

> I'm not saying this particular theory is true. It's probably a mistake.

So why are you repeating it? (It sounds like you don't even think it's true. What the use in repeating it, then?)

> I'm just saying that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious and ask questions, however, given that we have definitive proof that Google is known to work with the government.

"I'm just saying...". Well, at least it's a step up from "I'm just asking!".

Look, suspicion of government and authority (and media probably moreso) is generally speaking a good default, but if you're throwing concrete allegations about you need to have some concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise it's just scaremongering or conspiracy theory.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#152

Post by ksk »

nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

Google's properties like DoubleClick have served malware in the past. Could you point out times when they have been blocked? :)

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#153

Post by nl »

emn13 wrote: post #129
wwwdonohue wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DNC emails show that the DNC actively nurtured relationships with reporters that went against the basics of journalistic ethics. They show that the DNC coordinated with the Hillary campaign to come up with good anti-Bernie stunts (planting an audience member to, i.e., ask if he believed in God). They show a consistent and far-reaching effort not just to "favor" Hillary, as you say, but to ensure that she would wi…

Well, "interesting..." Is it more interesting than the fact that the candidate can't follow secrecy rules? Is it more interesting than the fact that those rules are so unreasonable that it's been decades-long implied policy to ignore them? Is it more more interesting than the much more blatant partiality in the only opposition party when it comes to picking candidates (not that I blame them)? So, the DNC was caught p…

This is pretty much my position.

I think it is worth noting that the Clintons have been deeply involved in the Democratic party for a long, long time, so it isn't awfully surprising there are personal relationships there.

The other thing I'd note that all this was also true when Obama ran against Clinton.

(I've noted elsewhere I'm not a Hillary supporter and that I'd have liked more candidates in the race)

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#154

Post by cLeEOGPw »

dang wrote: post #141
douche wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been noticing a pattern lately where anything that touches on a few different hot-button issues gets blasted away with flags the second it creeps onto the front page. I don't think its the mods having anything to do with it, but it feels a little broken.

It's usually that users flag these stories, presumably because of HN's (really the public internet's) inability to discuss them civilly and substantively. It's a tough problem. Those stories often relate to important issues which hold intellectual interest, if not necessarily gratifying intellectual curiosity (the mandate of this site). In that sense they're not all off-topic. But it damages this site and community f…

So what it achieves is silences any discussion and pretends that no controversial topics exist. I don't think there's much value in this HN's "fear of controversy". Fact is, almost ALL things that are "gratifying intellectual curiosity" have some controversy in it, so the system doesn't deliver what it's made to do. After this too aggressive filter on topics, what's left is some very niche topics without controversy, since they are too niche for the majority to have any opinion or prior knowledge on it, or so uninteresting nobody even bothers to comment.

Just open HN at any given moment and tell me honestly - how many articles do you actually read and think they are genuinely interesting?

I can tell you this - a couple years back, when HN was just starting to get popular, the algorithm was different, and I found almost 90% of top stories so interesting it was worth to read them, and the remaining 10% I usually read anyway because it was something I just didn't knew about yet, but could be safely said they were interesting to people who knows what it's about based on the way stories were ranked.

Now I open NH and AT BEST I read 1-2 articles, often 0, because it is full of either some obscure stuff, often without even upvotes, but new, or it is something everyone agree on, which is often an article about common sense. Sad.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#156

Post by emmelaich »

colordrops wrote: post #146
MichaelGG wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please give me an exact citation. Perhaps update Wikipedia while you're at it?

I've never edited wikipedia, but my understanding is that it is labor intensive. I'll just provide a citation here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants...

The words "mandatory" and "compulsory" figure prominently in that article.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#157

Post by nl »

merpnderp wrote: post #121
nl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I'm being downvoted pretty heavily on this, but I'm not entirely sure why. I didn't even mention Trump's wife. DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Hu? The DNC email leaks are much more interesting than the plagiarized paragraph in Melania Trump. Neither are particularly interesting in the scheme of things though. The plagiarized paragraph shows that…

"The plagiarized paragraph shows that the Trump campaign isn't very well organized. I think most knew that." Compared to who? Hillary's #stealthebern campaign or the 2007/8 plagiarism scandals with Obama? Joe Biden has some serious scandals as well. If the media weren't pushing a certain angle, all these scandals would have been kept in context. Instead one line from a politician's wife's speechwriter now means he's…

The line from the speech was just an example that underlined how little staffing Trump has.

I think it is pretty widely recognized that his staff isn't experienced, and there are very few of them compared to a usual campaign. If you don't agree, I understand that we are talking partisan politics, so I'm unlikely to convince you.

Perhaps consider listening to some political wonk podcasts and you hear how amazed they are at how the convention was run. Things like calling Fox during one of his speaker's speeches, not knowing what multiple speakers were saying, and the whole thing with the VP rollout: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/15/12199676/trump-vp-pence-rollout

Mitt Romney's convention was nothing like this, nor was any other convention from either side of politics.

It isn't really surprising - he isn't exactly from the core of the Republican party, so he hasn't been able to rely on people just doing what they always do. That's a quite reasonable explanation, but it doesn't deny the facts of his disorganized campaign.

Now it may well work out fine - a lot of things that people thought were important are tuning out not to be.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#158

Post by dang »

cLeEOGPw wrote: post #154
dang wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually that users flag these stories, presumably because of HN's (really the public internet's) inability to discuss them civilly and substantively. It's a tough problem. Those stories often relate to important issues which hold intellectual interest, if not necessarily gratifying intellectual curiosity (the mandate of this site). In that sense they're not all off-topic. But it damages this site and community f…

So what it achieves is silences any discussion and pretends that no controversial topics exist. I don't think there's much value in this HN's "fear of controversy". Fact is, almost ALL things that are "gratifying intellectual curiosity" have some controversy in it, so the system doesn't deliver what it's made to do. After this too aggressive filter on topics, what's left is some very niche topics without controversy,…

It's hard to have this discussion on the terms that you're presenting. For one thing, people disagree strongly about what's interesting. For another, this perception tends to be skewed by nostalgia: most of us think that HN is worse than it was when we first got into it, but that's because we mostly think that about everything. (Things have always been getting worse, as some wit once said.) There are other biases too: if HN doesn't interest you (i.e. any of us) for a few days in a row, you're likely to think that it's going to seed, but in fact regular fluctuation is bound to yield such stretches from time to time.

If you'd care to find an example or two of a front page from when you think HN was better, that expresses what was better about it, I'd be happy to take a look. You can do that either using the Internet Archive, or by using HN's front page archive like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2016-07-23, for any day since 2014-11-11.

For fun and a small bias check, if you do look at frontpage history, keep track of the number of days you looked at before finding suitable examples. e.g. if you come up with two good examples, it would be interesting to know if they were the first two you looked at, vs. 2/10 or whatever.

Btw, the above offer goes to any HN reader who wants to spend time finding examples of how HN was better in the past. Just make sure to give us specific links. Otherwise it's too hard to say anything meaningful.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#159

Post by cLeEOGPw »

dang wrote: post #158
cLeEOGPw wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what it achieves is silences any discussion and pretends that no controversial topics exist. I don't think there's much value in this HN's "fear of controversy". Fact is, almost ALL things that are "gratifying intellectual curiosity" have some controversy in it, so the system doesn't deliver what it's made to do. After this too aggressive filter on topics, what's left is some very niche topics without controversy,…

It's hard to have this discussion on the terms that you're presenting. For one thing, people disagree strongly about what's interesting. For another, this perception tends to be skewed by nostalgia: most of us think that HN is worse than it was when we first got into it, but that's because we mostly think that about everything. (Things have always been getting worse, as some wit once said.) There are other biases too…

That's a functionality I didn't know exists. So ok, I randomly selected two dates, 2016-07-23 and 2015-01-23.

2016-07-23

Articles i would check out (2):

> Show HN: Chalkbot

> Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics

2015-01-23

Articles i would check out (8):

> Google discloses three severe vulnerabilities in Apple OS X

> Scientists have shown that young blood rejuvenates old tissues

> Day in the Life of a Google Manager

> Telomere extension turns back aging clock in cultured human cells, study finds

> $1.6B in funding and $7B in exits: Chicago tech just had its best year ever

> Hipster Logo Generator

> Why I Am Not a Maker

> Lars Andersen: a new level of archery [video]

Now this may be biased because I somehow knew which page was the old one, so I could choose more articles just to prove my point. So someone should do a blind test to verify it. Also it may have been a "good day", so more samples should be tested to verify it's not an exception.

But the fact is, I remember even now reading half of these articles I listed from old page. Especially telomere one. If this article would be posted today, it would attract comments and would be penalized, and who knows, maybe even flagged by some nutjob who thinks that "society obsession over youth" is bad and at the same time upvotes post about scientific study how being fat is actually not causing diabetes.

Another fact is that once community gets large enough, content gets objectively worse. Not because of nostalgia or some other psychological effect, but measurably worse.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#160

Post by daveloyall »

Update: Over the weekend, I encountered some guy at a store who probably doesn't read HN. He believed that Google was deliberately filtering out WL for political/conspiracy reasons.

When I explained the automated malware protection (Safe Browsing or whatever the call it), he accepted that explanation (I had him at "emails have viruses") but he countered that "google filtered out wikileaks last time".

This concludes today's observation from IRL.

Post reply on HN