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

Do Not Trust Google

lukeboyle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#31

Post by fortytwo79 »

millstone wrote: post #24
ghthor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was that 3 hours of lectures by doctors faked, I'm curious. What about it was fake, and what about it was putting anyone In danger?

If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do... The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.

Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being "harmful," which they are not qualified to judge. Also, I find Snopes aggravating, because of stuff like this. They said they couldn't find evidence the doctor treated 200+ patients with COVID, thereby implying the doctor was lying. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack of truth. Plus, that's clinical data. Wouldn't it be illegal for Snopes to have access to that without patient consent?

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#32

Post by DlSGUSTING »

bergstromm466 wrote: post #4

"- what kind of users go to that websites (and does the user searching fit that profile)? - how much traffic does the website get? - how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)? - and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?" Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared…

Yeah absolutely, GA is quite terrifying. And they just ignore "do not track" settings on browsers. Recaptcha is another one trojan horse imo. With recaptcha v3 you get that single score to determine how legitimate of a user you are. I've been outright blocked from sites because of my recaptcha score.

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#33

Post by DlSGUSTING »

mgkimsal wrote: post #11

"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong." I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier. I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as th…

I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion.

I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#34

Post by DlSGUSTING »

cowpig wrote: post #10
joe-collins wrote: post #7

> You don't have to agree with them politically to see that Google is applying different standards to conservative content than to more liberal content. Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking? (Granting, yes, perfect b…

Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing. I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked. That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.

I guess what I'm getting at there is, content aside, Google has made a conscious decision to step in here and de-rank that website. We don't know what their motivations for that are because they haven't stated that they de-ranked Breitbart.

Sundar Pichai was asked during testimony if they censor websites and he said (wording might be a bit off) "only in cases where it's a legal requirement or a copyright issue". If Breitbart being de-ranked was one of those then I'm sure they would have let Breitbart know. But as far as I can tell it was a concerted effort to suppress that website in particular.

If you come across any data about other sites that are similarly affected I'd love to know!

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#36

Post by AstralStorm »

DlSGUSTING wrote: post #28
burke_holland wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the problem, though. By suppressing this stuff, they validate the narrative that “THEY don’t want you to know the truth” (whoever the hell they is). This stuff doesn’t go away. It just migrates to different platforms and every time it’s taken down it gains credibility among the faithful. This is the current paradox that plagues us.

Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add legitimacy to them

So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less visible?

This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts.

Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#37

Post by AstralStorm »

fortytwo79 wrote: post #31
millstone wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do... The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.

Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being…

You do not have to be a qualified doctor to check the sources. You do have to be thorough in checking the consensus and recommendations of major health organisations and verify scientific papers, a lot of which is published in the open on for instance PubMed, big name journals etc.

This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research.

It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.)

And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public.

Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#39

Post by AstralStorm »

DlSGUSTING wrote: post #33
mgkimsal wrote: post #11

"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong." I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier. I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as th…

I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion. I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popu…

If a search engine should not take a stance, then who also should not? Publishers? (Incl. YouTube, which takes some big stances.) Libraries? Social media? Governments?!

Everything is political in some form after all.

Re: Do Not Trust Google

#40

Post by DlSGUSTING »

AstralStorm wrote: post #36
DlSGUSTING wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add legitimacy to them

So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less visible? This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts. Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the…

Thanks for your point of view. I'm going to keep researching to find some alternative examples
Post reply on HN