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

DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 865 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#321

Post by spoils19 »

helen___keller wrote: post #308
moltke wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should I simply accept that this site is the correct top result for my users' queries, Yes, your users aren't using your search engine as an oracle for the truth, they're using it to find pages with similar text. It's their job (and specifically not yours) to determine how well the text they find corresponds with reality. Perhaps they're even aware the site is factually incorrect and enjoy reading it for the novelty…

> Yes, your users aren't using your search engine as an oracle for the truth, they're using it to find pages with similar text. I’m confident this is factually incorrect for a very very large subset of searches. Probably a majority.

Could you source what you're basing your facts on? I know many people like myself are just looking to expand on the text we're searching for, and letting the free market decide what's a good search result.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#323

Post by Imnimo »

ricardo81 wrote: post #297
Imnimo wrote: post #290

Suppose I go off and make a search engine, with my own algorithm for ranking search results. At first it works great. And then five years later, I find that, by a quirk in my algorithm, I find that a new site has risen to the top of all my results. This new site was created as a prank, and it contains authoritative-sounding but incorrect answers to common questions. The results returned are still relevant to my users…

> contains authoritative-sounding but incorrect answers to common questions. The results returned are still relevant to my users, but they are now factually incorrect. IMO the difference is between web-wide decisions vs something else. DDG have stated they're specifically targetting something beyond web pages. If DDG has some way of measuring "misinformation" then fair play, we can assume it isn't specific to Russia…

So if I could only detect this one prank site, but did not have a way to detect and downrank all prank sites at once, you would say it's invalid for me to just take action against the one I know about, since that's not a universal solution?

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#324

Post by gruez »

ScarletEmerald wrote: post #296
HeckFeck wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, this move by DDG will have the opposite effect of what is intended. I will now trust my own media and sources even less, if they rely on silencing the competition and insist on controlling what I access "for my own good". Such dirty tactics are insulting, even more so when delivered under a sneering benevolent guise. As if they have perfect knowledge of my motives and wishes. What if I'm genuinely curious as…

Would you trust a source of medical information less if it declined to present or link to information that breathing CO is healthy, drinking mineral spirits is fine, and handling mercury with bare skin is safe and fun?

>Would you trust a source of medical information less if it declined to present or link to information

Unfortunately, there's a wide ecosystem of conspiracy minded sites that link to each other. They even have papers supporting them, eg. studies in favor of homeopathy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9310601/

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#325

Post by bhandziuk »

mardifoufs wrote: post #291
eli wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but it just isn't the same. Russia made it illegal -- punishable by 15 years in prison -- to accurately describe their invasion of Ukraine.

I think you can go to jail for supporting the russian invasion in some european countries right now too.

Is there a source for this?

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#326

Post by kube-system »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #285
eli wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but it just isn't the same. Russia made it illegal -- punishable by 15 years in prison -- to accurately describe their invasion of Ukraine.

I'm not in Russia and DDG isn't limiting their distortion to Russian visitors to their site.

They weren't suggesting otherwise. They were suggesting that Russia's disinformation campaign has been particularly egregious and intentional.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#327

Post by colinmhayes »

spoils19 wrote: post #314
enragedcacti wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't understand this view point. Isn't a search engine's entire job to effectively 'censor' the parts of the internet that aren't relevant or helpful to your search query? Is it censorship for them to downrank flat-earth content when you are trying to learn about how to chart a flight? Flat-earthers certainly have a lot of ideas about how charting a course on a flat earth works but that doesn't mean it's he…

The free market will decide what's a valuable search result or not, and I trust the freedom and liberty of people over any kind of curated, mutated ranking system.

Is people choosing which search engine they use based off the results it returns not the free market in action?

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#328

Post by mardifoufs »

coffeefirst wrote: post #188
avgcorrection wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people consume information from outlets like Al Jazeera because they would like something which might be a little more distanced from the West than things like Anglo outlets.

Right, but Al Jazeera is more like the BBC than it is like RT. I don't see anyone making a quality-based argument to downrank it, and I would disagree with them if they did.

Aljazeera is literally the Qatari state media. That means they are the media outlet of a slave state controlled by an absolute monarchy . Tell anyone in the Arabic world that aljazeera is neutral or BBC like and you will get laughed at. Even RT is probably not on as short of an editorial leash than al jazeera.

Your comment is actually an amazing example of why we should absolutely avoid media censorship (like the EU is doing right now); it seems like the people who are usually the most vocally pushing for it are also, not coincidentally, those who are also the most likely to be completely oblivious to propaganda even when it's right in front of them. Yet also think that they are impervious to it.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#329

Post by skinnymuch »

michaelmrose wrote: post #148
TehShrike wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

analysts and historians saying "it's complicated"

But its not complicated at all. Ukraine is every year more prosperous and more connected to the west and Russia is weakening kleptocracy led by a disconnected, malicious, evil dictator that fears that if it doesn't seize the opportunity to return to its vision of a greater Russia that has a seat at the table in the grand scheme of things that it will ultimately be subsumed by either the west or by its own people who…

The data of the past decade doesn’t show this to be the case. Check Ukraine with Belarus and Russia economic numbers. It negates your or really the west’s framing.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#330

Post by freediver »

p1necone wrote: post #307
freediver wrote: post #22

I guess this did not age well: “[W]hen you search, you expect unbiased results, but that’s not what you get on Google,” @matthewde_silva quotes @yegg https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1114524914227253249 Also, they probably do not realize that they will have to start with Twitter if to be consistent.

Search results have to be "biased" towards being related to your query to be useful, I would argue that state sponsored Russian propaganda is probably not particularly related to most queries.

How about state sponsored Chinese propaganda? Or how about state sponsored New Zealand propaganda? Or state sponsored German propaganda? How about a corporation XYZ sponsored propaganda? What if you are Russian, Chinese, Kiwi, German or XYZ employee in these situations - or simply want to have equal access to information so you can make up your own world view?

If you choose to go down this path - what propaganda is OK to be relevant to most queries and who is supposed to be the judge of that?

The problem discussed here is not of search quality bias nature, but of political bias nature which should not have a place in a general web search engine.

Post reply on HN