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

401–410 of 865 posts

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

#401

Post by s1artibartfast »

Tainnor wrote: post #198
hnuser847 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Europe. That is a circumstance where some of these cases apply. Indeed, there's a war going on and there's a tremendous amount of propaganda being circulated from both sides. The question is, why is DDG okay with amplifying Ukranian/NATO propaganda and not Russian propaganda? Is it because NATO is the "good" guy and Russia is the "bad" guy? When the US inva…

The Iraq war was wrong and stupid, it should never have happened. But that's just whataboutism. It doesn't make the Ukraine war or Russian disinformation any better to point out that the United States have messed up spectacularly more than just once. One difference, though, is that GWB never put anyone in prison for talking about the Iraq "war" or about how much the US government lied about WMD. > Is it because NATO…

The central point is that you need access to information to determine if a war is wrong and stupid. It is clear how censorship and propaganda can alter perception of who is the the good or bad guy.

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

#402

Post by brimble »

julesnp wrote: post #233
astine wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're actually interested in flat earth theory you'll search for "Flat Earth." If you search for "Charting a Flight", You're probably not looking for flat earth content.

To me that has to do with search results being tuned for relevancy, not due the the perceived quality of the information.

And a Flat Earth take on how to chart a flight path isn't relevant because...?

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

#403

Post by raygelogic »

how much of the uproar over this is about implementation vs intent? disinformation isn't worth being returned when the user is seeking information. like if you are looking for the health impacts of soda, you probably don't want coke writing your answers.

I'm all for neutral platforms, but it feels like you either opt out of editorializing and end up with trash driven by SEO, or editorialize and marginalize some content producer or consumer. any play feels like a losing move from the business's perspective.

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

#405

Post by mardifoufs »

bhandziuk wrote: post #325
mardifoufs wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is what the ukrainian embassy in slovakia claimed. I guess official ukrainian sources have been incredibly unreliable but I haven't seen any fact check on their claims

>Czech law enforcement warns that public approval of Russia's invasion of Ukraine could be classified as a "crime of denial, questioning, approval and justification of GENOCIDE." There are already the first two cases of detainees incriminated in this paragraph of the Criminal Code.

https://twitter.com/UKRinCZE/status/1497829641171525634

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

#407

Post by JamisonM »

vogre wrote: post #375
adventured wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all disinformation is created equal, and that's a critical difference. The Russian and Ukrainian sides are not moral equals. If Russia says Ukraine is full of drug addicts, whores and nazis, and that bombing hospitals is necessary to protect itself from Ukraine - that's of course disinformation. If Ukraine says they have killed 10,000 Russian soldiers, when the real number is closer to 5,000 - that too is disinfo…

>If Russia says ... that bombing hospitals is necessary to protect itself from Ukraine - that's of course disinformation. Actually this story is really "wag the dog" style https://waronfakes.com/civil/fake-russian-aviation-struck-a-... Every story you read now is propaganda. West is just better and more experienced in this stuff than Russia. >I'm interested in Russia losing in humiliating fashion, getting isolated, h…

It sure seems like that "war on fakes" site is full on non-debunkings of things.

This article for example is just re-printing Russian government talking points:

https://waronfakes.com/civil/fake-russian-soldiers-wont-let-...

Which is fine, the authors can believe the Russian government if you want, but declaring the statements of the other side "fake" on only that basis isn't very credible.

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

#408

Post by deltarholamda »

empthought wrote: post #371
deltarholamda wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unfortunately, the alternatives to mainstream media (Q-idiots, Zero Hedge, Info Wars, random dude with an opinionated blog, some pot comedian's podcast, viral memes on facebook, etc) The alternative to one source of dubious information is not another source of dubious information. The alternative is to have access to all sorts of information, and piece together what you think is true, using your own critical thinkin…

> The alternative is to have access to all sorts of information, and piece together what you think is true, using your own critical thinking skills and ability to sniff out BS. This strategy is vulnerable to supply-chain attacks on your information sources... which is exactly what Russian information warfare carries out. The credibility of American and European "mainstream media" is oft-maligned but rarely actually d…

>This strategy is vulnerable to supply-chain attacks on your information sources

There is no single strategy, there is no silver bullet. I certainly didn't intend to imply that there was. One can only make their best effort. Any strategy is going to have flaws.

>which is a far cry from astroturfing and falsehoods made out of whole cloth that Russian sources typically engage in

American mass media has historically done exactly those things. There never was a time where The News was trustworthy, unbiased, and disinterested in politics. This continues today. You can look around the Internet--at least for now--and find where people have compiled examples of mainstream American news flat-out staging a scene for the TV to give an impression that is not true, such as a long-distance zoomed in shot of a crowd that makes the few dozen protesters seem like they fill a large area.

I wouldn't downplay the editorial decisions that you mention either. That is a hugely powerful lever of control. Yanking RT or whoever from search results is exactly that, only this time it is exercised by corporate tech companies.

Finally, one can always find a reason why this thing is worse than this other thing, and one is therefore justified in doing whatever it is one wanted to do anyway. This line of argumentation rarely impresses me.

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

#410

Post by deltarholamda »

shadowgovt wrote: post #376
HideousKojima wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a conspiracy (few things are because they just don't scale well). It's more what I call "assholes with similar motives/incentives." It has a lot of the appearance of coordination without needing secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms. That said, sometimes it actually is coordination. Just look at the JournoList scandal.

Isn't the "JournoList scandal" just "There was a Google Group that lots of journalists on the left subscribed to?" Journalists have always talked to each other. The fact that we have an auditable mailing list of one instance of it just tells us something we already know.

>Isn't the "JournoList scandal" just "There was a Google Group that lots of journalists on the left subscribed to?"

No, they were coordinating messaging to get the results they wanted. That's the scandal, because they were simultaneously presenting themselves as Objective Journalists.

Post reply on HN