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

Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 309 posts

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#151

Post by toomanyducks »

kr99x wrote: post #57
dkokelley wrote: post #19

This is an example of a large central authority censoring information. How does the notion of a purely distributed, unregulated, uncensorable, blockchain-backed internet handle "revenge porn" or other genuinely harmful content? An argument I hear from the crypto community is that blockchain is good because it enables freedom of speech that can't be banned by governments or other central authorities. The crypto commun…

No, no information should ever be banned from any public/commons - the end. You want to ban certain information from a particular place you control? Go nuts. The wider public? No. The power to ban information is too great to be entrusted to any authority at all. Depending on how thorough the "ban" (web text filter at the ISP level? mandatory AR implants at birth filtering banned content? worse?), it's anywhere from a…

Hm - I think something to consider is who's information it really is that you want removed. Information that I put up isn't Google's to remove, but if I want to do that, should I have the right? Especially if it's actively harmful to me and benefits nobody (see previous mentions of non-consensual sharing of explicit images), shouldn't I have control over it? If I am wholly responsible for the existence of some unique content, or it was created against my wishes, I think it's within right to control it (to the extent that practicality allows).

For clarity: this shouldn't apply to information that a corporation produces, because corporations aren't people and shouldn't have the same freedoms. Open source is still good, and controlling information that you discover, not that you invent, is unreasonable.

Overall, my issue is less with control over information (because if you believe all control is bad, then you have to say that revenge porn isn't too big an issue, and that's not a position I'm personally willing to take) and more capital's control over information because of all the cases when capital is misaligned with the interests of the people who need it. All of these cases feel like they define technology. Lots of the history of technology can be understood as large companies (bourgeoisie) trying to keep information hidden fighting a decreasing population of 'hackers' (the proletariat), and that fight's legacy is found here, on Google's hidden page gatekeeping what should be known.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#152

Post by judge2020 »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #86
crazygringo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not strange since they probably have very low PageRank, visits, etc. On the other hand, the top Google results go to The Guardian, Wikipedia, Time, the BBC, etc., discussing the topic -- hugely popular sites. Google's meant to find popular relevant pages for your search terms. Remember, that's what PageRank was all about. So seems to be working as expected.

This does run into the same problem that Wikipedia runs into, that it insists on using “credible” or “reputable” sources but does not really bother to define that, and it essentially comes down to that sources are not “credible” for disagreeing with their beliefs. Personally, I have yet to see any “credible” news source and the adage remains that every news article about anything I have even the most minor inside kno…

> I cannot see anything good coming from it and there will always be a bias not based in factuality, but politics.

Well, Google isn't omnipotent and thus it only echos back results which are popular with people, which is basically politics, so yes. If everyone tomorrow instantly started thinking the world was flat (and previous flat earthers start saying the world is round) Google's results would shift pretty dramatically to whatever is the most popular side.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#153

Post by PhantomGremlin »

deertick1 wrote: post #7

Yeah also if you compare results from google vs duckduckgo for controversial search terms like "I don't care about gender identity" Google will return only content that tells you why that opinion is wrong e.g. "why you should care about gender identity" Whereas duckduckgo will return stuff that actually matches your search. Google always errs on the side of left wing political platform. Its actually really egregious…

Whereas duckduckgo will return stuff that actually matches your search.

One upon a time Google was a really cool search engine. Entire books were written about how to use it wisely. E.g.

   Google Hacks
   100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/google-hacks/0596004478...

Now, it's impossible to properly qualify searches. Quotes don't mean shit. Appending "&tbs=li:1" to get verbatim results doesn't mean shit.

Google just does whatever the hell it wants to. Which is probably great for the unwashed masses but really sucks for advanced users.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#154

Post by akiselev »

version_five wrote: post #138
akiselev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People often pay electricians even for tasks that are just "flip a switch and turn some screws," after all. The ultimate reason people pay electricians is liability. Unlicensed work is an easy way to invalidate your homeowner's insurance, lose everything, and get sued for any damage to your neighbors' property (by their insurance company, no less).

My view is that if the only reason you are doing something is because of the insurance implications, then you've surely made the wrong decision. Nobody's interests are less aligned with your own than an insurance company's. There are lots of legitimate reasons to hire an electrician, but making decisions solely based on what someone who wants you to perpetually give them money whole finding reasons to never give it b…

Nobody's interests are less aligned with your own than an insurance company's when it comes time to pay out.

Investigating a case is expensive, let alone litigating one against someone with their life's assets on the line, so it's in their best interest to prevent the event they're insuring against from occurring. They have the most accurate up to date data on real world outcomes so especially in professional circumstances, it usually pays to follow their advice.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#155

Post by advisedwang »

swayvil wrote: post #145

One might even say that they filter their results in order to promote a preferred ideology. To propagandize us, even. Search any modern hot topic on Google. Do the same on one of the various alternative search engines (duckduckgo, for example). Compare the results. It's educational.

Read the tweets and docs. This is about removing personal info from Google, not general ideology.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#156

Post by mcbits »

dkokelley wrote: post #132
kr99x wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no information should ever be banned from any public/commons - the end. You want to ban certain information from a particular place you control? Go nuts. The wider public? No. The power to ban information is too great to be entrusted to any authority at all. Depending on how thorough the "ban" (web text filter at the ISP level? mandatory AR implants at birth filtering banned content? worse?), it's anywhere from a…

Thanks for sharing. Do you think there is ever a scenario where information should be censored from the public at large? (Child porn, or you or your family getting ‘doxxed’, for example) I appreciate the take that the future harm isn’t worth the benefit today, since we’d enable future arbiters to control what is available. There’s nuance in determining what is a public sphere vs. a privately controlled platform. The…

Nobody ever argued that molecules of air and ink have some duty to participate in enforcing laws prohibiting various types of speech and the press, I guess because it was never possible. Bits and bytes are rapidly supplanting ink and air for many types of communication, and they do make it possible to censor those communications at a deeper level than ever before.

So I guess the question is, how does the use of this new power to suppress abuses of speech weigh against other forms of abuse that become available to those who wield this power?

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#157

Post by sneak »

dkokelley wrote: post #64
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to walk into a business without shoes or a shirt and demand service. For some crazy reason these businesses are allowed to restrict my liberty on their property.

I guess I'm thinking more about a "decentralized Google" where it's impossible to remove things like revenge porn. Is there anything we can/should do about that potential?

You mean, anyone's web index that they created outside of Google?

Indexing the web is an old tradition.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#158

Post by aeturnum »

CDRdude wrote: post #37
lozaning wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I freaked a bunch of FBI agents out a while back by Base64 encoding a photo of an FBI logo and writing that to the Eth chain. They have massive concerns around this regarding data exfiltration. The cost of removing the data, once written to a chain, is essentially equal to the market cap of the coin for that chain.

I don’t understand. Why did this freak out a bunch of FBI agents?

The FBI is used to situations where they can issue targeted takedown orders when groups publish illegal information, but blockchain setups complicate the situation. How does a company "providing" an immutable blockchain stop providing illegal / unlicensed content? Does the fact that their blockchain contains illegal / unlicensed content mean the service is illegal to operate in the US? The alternative is having some sort of legal safe harbor where there is content that, in other circumstances, you would not be allowed to distribute but you can because you are on the blockchain.

Lots of distasteful outcomes possible.

Re: Few people know that Google voluntarily removes some search results

#160

Post by sneak »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #125
dkokelley wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thought experiment: What would happen if someone encoded something horrible and illegal like child porn into a blockchain? Is everyone who operates on that chain guilty of possession? Does that make a specific crypto "illegal" if its blockchain contains illegal content?

People already added it into bitcoin if you stretch the definition a bit. As in the bits needed to reconstruct the image exist in the chain.

> People already added it into bitcoin if you stretch the definition a bit.

Which is a fancy way of saying that they haven't. The only images in the bitcoin blockchain are ascii art.

There are plenty of hashes of different types of data in the bitcoin blockchain, but hashes are not the hash function's input data.

Schneier himself repeated this bogus "there's illegal content in the bitcoin blockchain already!" claim, which shows the legs this false meme has on it.

Please stop repeating this falsehood.

Post reply on HN