Live data from Hacker News

Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

arstechnica.com

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#71

I am amazed at how bad this situation is. > Something happens. > /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day > some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting > google indexes /pol/ Given that: > Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_ > Searches for a name yield content related to a name > Search…

I think you're entirely misrepresenting the problem.

The issue was that the data was being used in Google News, not Google Search. This doesn't just impact "what URL we follow", but how other pages get pulled in as "relevant". So we can be presented with "something terrible happened" from a news site, and "here's what we know about john smith" as relevant to the topic - without being told that the leap from 'something terrible' and 'john smith' was made by /pol/.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#72
post #65

I am amazed at how bad this situation is. > Something happens. > /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day > some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting > google indexes /pol/ Given that: > Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_ > Searches for a name yield content related to a name > Search…

It's weird that people are blaming a search engine for providing relative links for discussion on a topic. Again, it's a search engine first and foremost, not a media outlet . It indexes media outlets. It shouldn't be Google's job to vet articles. That should fall on the end user, and this push to hide "fake news" is just asking for more problems down the road.

>It indexes media outlets.

Anyone including "4chan" in a list of media outlets is an idiot. (Or whoever enacts a system that automatically includes 4chan in a list of media outlets ... it's not important to users how they got to that result.)

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#73
post #65

I am amazed at how bad this situation is. > Something happens. > /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day > some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting > google indexes /pol/ Given that: > Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_ > Searches for a name yield content related to a name > Search…

It's weird that people are blaming a search engine for providing relative links for discussion on a topic. Again, it's a search engine first and foremost, not a media outlet . It indexes media outlets. It shouldn't be Google's job to vet articles. That should fall on the end user, and this push to hide "fake news" is just asking for more problems down the road.

Google shouldn't be vetting articles, but they are picking what outlets are considered "news" for inclusion in the news.google.com "Google News" aggregator.

Does anyone think 4chan articles belong there?

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#74
post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

You are understating and giving a pass for the real issue at hand - a lack of ability to think critically by a large portion of our population. Let's assume for argument's sake that Google News and Facebook shut down their feeds tomorrow - can you tell me with confidence that another one won't mushroom up and take its place or that people won't switch to "dark" networks - Whatsapp, Messenger, Email and what not? I'm…

Lesson to be learned:

Wisdom and knowledge do not come from technology. They come from wise and experienced educators working one-on-one with their students, not to tell them the truth, but to help them experience the truth. Nullius in verba!

Ed-tech is confidence game.

What technology offers is the productive capacity to support a world filled with actual human educators and actual human intelligence.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#75
post #60

Ultimately, the issue is whether we allow freedom of speech or not (or suppressing it severely). Tech is becoming political now, it's going to end up regulated and meaningful advancements will be rare, as they will risk "rocking the boat". That is going to be the most likely result when all major tech companies bow down to "filtering", "censoring", "suppressing" unpopular opinion. Automation would in infinite limit a…

A distinction needs to be made between the Googles and Facebooks of the world, and "tech". In practice, huge corporations love it when they can serve as a proxy for a human rights issue like freedom of speech. But there is no reason that mega-corporations with unimaginable power and increasingly control of the world's information should have the same freedoms that we allow individuals or even smaller companies. To the contrary, they need government checks and balances because there is no other counter-balancing force to their power. Over the last 100 years or so American culture has been totally subverted to this idea that any restrictions on corporate activity are inherently fascist and will destroy our economy, and the only solution to overwhelming market dominance is deregulation and magical thinking about the efficacy of the free market.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#76

I am amazed at how bad this situation is. > Something happens. > /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day > some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting > google indexes /pol/ Given that: > Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_ > Searches for a name yield content related to a name > Search…

Google became a $600bn conglomerate largely off the strength of search quality.

Yes, people should be capable of determining that 4chan isn't actually a news source, but that doesn't mean it's defensible for a Google feature intended to surface news stories to be so poor that it's trivially easy to bomb it into highlighting posts on the world's most infamous bulletin board as "top stories", even if the search term is really specific.

I wouldn't use a blowtorch to trim my nails. I would use Google with the expectation that an internet search company capable of writing software that drives cars and performs real time translation is also capable of not labelling a website which is both extremely well known and trivially identifiable as NSFW user-generated content as a source for a "top story"

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#77
post #48
post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

Neither of them would be considered "Media Outlets" since they don't employ reporters or an editorial board. You are overreacting because it's not Google or Facebook pushing bad content on you - it's you choosing to believe it at face value. And by "you" I mean "the collective you" - everyone has a responsibility to determine if the information they've received is correct or not. If you cannot verify it - don't belie…

It's a multi-faceted problem to be sure, people need to take responsibility for themselves, and I think the trend over time is for people to become more sophisticated about truthiness. The problem is that we are right in the thick of a publishing revolution where the traditional signals about the quality of information are out the window, and the flow of information is so much broader and more diversified, leading to an explosion of confirmation bias and worldview silos. Google and Facebook are right at the center of this, and making the problem worse with AMP and video-jacking, and personalizing feeds to optimize purely for engagement.

Using old terminology like "media outlet" does nothing to address the problem, all it does is frame the issue in a way that supports the narrative that these companies are mere aggregators that can bear no responsibility for the information they are disseminating.

Well, frankly, that's bullshit. You have to look at the actual effects in order to make any kind of reasonable judgement on the situation. Google and Facebook are a huge contributor to the fake news problem, and despite how difficult and maybe intractable the problem is, they are also uniquely positioned to be able to make a difference. They deserve to be held to a higher standard, and regardless of their protests, they at least have the resources to try harder.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#78
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snopes most definitely is NOT one of the more reputable fact-checking sites FYI.

On any issue not directly related to the divorce of the founders, it absolutely is.

There's been two stories on Snopes that haven't been able to be verified by anyone else online. They ignore many, many inquiries on the matter.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9423/did-charli...

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/is-a-write...

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#79
post #65

I am amazed at how bad this situation is. > Something happens. > /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day > some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting > google indexes /pol/ Given that: > Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_ > Searches for a name yield content related to a name > Search…

It's weird that people are blaming a search engine for providing relative links for discussion on a topic. Again, it's a search engine first and foremost, not a media outlet . It indexes media outlets. It shouldn't be Google's job to vet articles. That should fall on the end user, and this push to hide "fake news" is just asking for more problems down the road.

I think some societal context is extremely important in understanding the situation.

Yes, Google is a search engine. Everybody who's become accustomed to modern computing technology over the past ~20 years is very familiar with what it is and what it does. At least the more technically-inclined and aware do. To you, it's a cold, logical machine that provides best-efforts based upon their heavily researched proprietary algorithms. That's absolutely correct. To others, however, it's become something else.

To illustrate:

For many people, especially the most vulnerable to being persuaded by search engine results, Google as become a word as ubiquitous as Kleenex.

When your nose is running, you need a "Kleenex", even if you mean "tissue". You probably don't care ultimately if the tissue is Kleenex brand as long as it solves your problem.

When somebody says they want to "Google" something, they mean "google". They aren't concerned, necessarily (though bias lives even in pop culture over Bing), whether you use Yahoo!, Bing, Ask.com, or Lycos (it apparently still exists, at least in spirit).

To that second category of people I'm using to illustrate, the problem they want solved is that they want an answer. They've become accustomed to "googling" something delivering them an answer they can generally rely upon. It's a learned habit/behaviour and, I'd argue, hardly their fault.

Yes, North American culture could do well with become more critical in its thinking and that would probably solve this issue. Sorrily, getting there isn't so simple. In fact, it's probably a compound problem in light of who is aptly taking advantage of that system of habit and trust.

Funny enough, those exploiting this problem are the same who would prefer to remove even further the ability to think critically in US society (and others), by means of cutting back on public services like healthcare and education so that bare survival becomes the mode.

I'm starting to get off topic now, so I'll leave it there.

I don't have a direct solution. I'm not sure there is one. Google is as Google does, and yes people need to improve at thinking things through, especially what they read. But if you just resign the problem to that last point, I really don't think we'll get anywhere at all.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#80
post #65

I am amazed at how bad this situation is. > Something happens. > /pol/, being /pol/, flipped the switch that generates semi-random information around a subject, seasoned with bias-of-the-day > some posters on /pol/ decide to blame Geary Danley for the Vegas shooting > google indexes /pol/ Given that: > Searches for _words_ yield content related to _words_ > Searches for a name yield content related to a name > Search…

It's weird that people are blaming a search engine for providing relative links for discussion on a topic. Again, it's a search engine first and foremost, not a media outlet . It indexes media outlets. It shouldn't be Google's job to vet articles. That should fall on the end user, and this push to hide "fake news" is just asking for more problems down the road.

Google should rank by relevance. That is their goal. Whether or not truth is more relevant than lies depends on the context.

In the context of news truth is more relevant than lies, because news is an account of recent events, not fiction.

So if I go to Google News and it displays fiction as if it was news then something has clearly gone wrong, and I don't think Google denies that for a second.

Post reply on HN