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

171–180 of 309 posts

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

#171

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

meisel wrote: post #8
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…

Can you provide more examples of this?

Search for "list of conservatives removed from twitter" on google vs. DDG.

Google returns a list of left leaning sources down playing it, DDG returns a list of right leaning sources condemning it.

The results are night and day different.

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

#172

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jfrunyon wrote: post #50
oh_sigh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First result...under 4 ads that probably make you pay to do the thing google does for free for you.

I get 0 ads on that search. The very first result, above anything but their header, is https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061 .

Since there are conflicting reports, allow me a stupid question: you're not running adblock?

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

#173

Post by sombremesa »

amelius wrote: post #130
sombremesa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electricity can kill you. Doesn't seem like a good comparison.

Ending up in a Google search result can too, I suppose, in some indirect way.

Help me with how this is relevant. Is the person you hired to scrub your Google result risking getting doxxed?

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

#174

Post by makeitdouble »

version_five wrote: post #150
JadeNB wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In this situation, I am paying someone else to assume risk for me. That is, I suppose, a type of insurance, in a very broad sense. However, I am not in any way relying on my interests and the other person's to be aligned, except in the sense of performing the work they are…

I see those as separate. Paying someone to take on risk I see a clear argument for. Its specifically the "do it this way because insurance wont cover you otherwise" that I'm reacting too, because I think that had caused a lot of damage to society. Effectively nobody is taking on risk under the model insurance companies push - insurance won't let you do anything risky, and won't pay if you do. That's why I say it's a…

This is a good point, and also a general fact of life I think. Society is not just modeled by laws, but also by influencial groups.

If your company gets banned by visa/mastercard for dealing with porn, you’ll steer away for anything porn related.

You know banks won’t give you a loan for growing legal weed, if your goal is actually to make money you’ll grow other fancy aromatic plants instead, etc.

You still can push through, but getting nudged is not new, will never stop, and most of the time reflects your societies values anyway.

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

#175

Post by yoz-y »

dkokelley wrote: post #41
kypro wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO both of these options are terrible. I seem to lean quite far on the freedom side of most arguments, but I do acknowledge there are times when action may need to be taken in the interest of the public. My objection is that I neither want it to be impossible to take action or for a foreign company to unilaterally decide what action to take. What we need in situations like this is a legal process. If one doesn't exi…

I appreciate this response! I agree that a legal process seems to be the best solution (so far) to collectively deciding what is and isn't ok. The legal system has its own faults of course. It's administered by fallible governments and can have individual bad actors. But could a legal system expect to exert control over a decentralized system like a blockchain? Put another way, if there was a "crypto twitter" clone,…

In these cases the problem is also that the legal system is slow. For genuine take down requests time matters.

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

#176

Post by dredmorbius »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #51
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…

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.

Having your access restricted based on readily-remedied conditions, based on consideration for the common weal, or to one of numerous potential suppliers or vendors, is different from access restrictions based on flat-out retaliation, intimidation, coercion, historic social discriminatory bases, and/or to the sole, overwhelming majority, or most attractive (low cost, convenience, features, compatibility/interactivity) provider.

The "private business right of refusal" argument has some merits, but also substantial equity and justice problems.

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

#178

Post by swayvil »

advisedwang wrote: post #155
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.

I know. But it's just one facet of a greater syndrome.

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

#179

Post by dredmorbius »

throwaaskjdfh wrote: post #6

What does the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine do in similar circumstances?

The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others.

https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004716091-Wayb...

In practice, IA will unpublish content on request to info@archive.org AFAIU

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

#180

Post by jhncls »

spondyl wrote: post #113

I'd like to take this opportunity to share some relevant exercepts from In The Plex[^1] about Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google. > One day Denise Griffin got a call from Eric Schmidt’s assistant. “There’s this information about Eric in the indexes,” she told Griffin. “And we want it out.” In Griffin’s recollection, it dealt with donor information from a political campaign, exactly the type of public information that G…

Is this the same Eric Schmidt as in "If You Have Something You Don’t Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be Doing It"?

[0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_38...

Post reply on HN