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

721–730 of 865 posts

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

#721

Post by raxxorrax »

pvaldes wrote: post #470
freediver wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many problematic aspects of DDG's decision, but here are just a couple of angles. Both sides in the conflict spread disinformation. DDG desides to downrank only results related to disinformation from one side. This makes it a decision based on a political bias and not search quality bias (which would cause all disinformation to be downranked - which is OK and actually a desireable thing in a search engine).…

> Both sides in the conflict spread disinformation. One of them does not have free press and kill journalists. Both cases are not even remotely comparable.

The west does imprison journalists because at least there is enough public pressure that it would never be accepted, even if the result is comparable.

But it is specifically not a question about who the good guy is. This is about hiding certain information.

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

#723

Post by Gareth321 »

colinmhayes wrote: post #518
Gareth321 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. This is absolutely not what the principle of free speech is. Private companies censoring information can be every bit as insidious and damaging to society, and of course falls under the umbrella…

Imagine thinking that excluding literal disinformation when it is not requested is a poor search result. The job of the search engine is to provide people the information they want. Not showing people lies when they want facts seems to be exactly the correct decision.

First, define “disinformation.” Second, prove that only this disinformation is being suppressed. Lastly, prove that I don’t actually want to see some of this disinformation. I write articles and checking official Russian media is part of ensuring I’m writing factually.

Your problem is thinking that I don’t have the right to see media I want to see.

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

#724

Post by id02009 »

archagon wrote: post #504
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 question is, why is DDG okay with amplifying Ukranian/NATO propaganda and not Russian propaganda? Because one side is busy shelling and starving civilians right now? Are you seriously suggesting that "NATO propaganda" (WTF?) and Russian propaganda are somehow equivalent? There is very, very obviously a "bad guy" here, and most of the world (even outside the US/NATO sphere of influence) seems to agree on this po…

What was presented as shelling of women's hospital by Ukrainian side is presented as shelling of evacuated hospital building that was being used to station troops.

I'm not going to try to answer the question who is lying here. But I do prefer to see both sides' cases. I think it could help with the tribal ecstasy everyone seems to be in at the moment.

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

#725

Post by id02009 »

gammarator wrote: post #668
tonguez wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Because one side is busy shelling and starving civilians right now?” well technically the ukranians were doing the shelling first, starting on february 17th, killing ethnic russians in donbas. but you probably dont know that bc of the censorship. so basically you want propaganda amplified because you arent aware it’s propaganda, and have no way of figuring out it’s propaganda bc you want everything else to be censo…

> well technically the ukranians were doing the shelling first, starting on february 17th, killing ethnic russians in donbas. Many sources argued both in advance and at the time that these were false-flag attacks designed to create a pretext for the invasion. (Eg, https://www.voanews.com/a/shelling-mortar-fire-intensify-in-... ) So the accusation of propaganda can go either way.

But that's exactly the point. DDG is in no position to verify any of it. We need to learn this cycle on our own skin: Read something, get outraged, then read a study proving it was false, learn not to get automatically outraged. Repeat.

Censoring is keeping adults in informational childhood state.

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

#726

Post by shapefrog »

kuraudo wrote: post #673
shapefrog wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While simultaneously people who rant constantly about "mainstream meadia" claim that because RT broadcast it, that it must be true and can in no way be propaganda.

I don't think anyone has ever said that. Even people who enjoy rt understands who funds it.

I hear it (in the US and Europe) it is something you would hear regularly in Russia - I also hear that "mainstream meadia" constantly lie but Fox News is a beacon of truth, and they too are on "our" side in the fight against the corrupt mainstream media and fake news crisis.

Personally I dont see how anout with more than a single IQ point can hold such a belief honestly in good faith, but clearly plenty do.

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

#727

Post by raxxorrax »

Clubber wrote: post #623
pasabagi wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded a little bit of a clip[0] in which an AP reporter challenged a State Department official about some of his claims about the Russian plans for a war on Ukraine. It's aged in a weird way, because of course, the war happened - but it does show the weird dynamic at play between journalists, the people, and the state security apparatus. Essentially, they can't give you the details. Sometimes they lie, for nat…

Did Russia ever stage a false flag operation before their invasion of Ukraine? I don't recall hearing about it.

False flag operations were very common in Ukraine from both sides of the parties. It was often a war about publicity and perception to get third parties to act.

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

#728

Post by ikt »

hedora wrote: post #619
soueuls wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western media helped start a war with Irak based on fake weapons of mass destruction. If people lost trust on Western medias, it's not because of Russians, it's because we are constantly producing propaganda as well. It's just different.

The western media is not a monolith. Fox News was the primary source running the fake WMD story, and is the only mainstream outlet running pro Russian opinion pieces. They're also foreign owned, and promote policies that would prevent people from voting, allow counts to be ignored. Since they're Australian, they're not even geographically "western".

Woah woah woah ... woah

Fox News, and stylized in all caps, is an American multinational conservative cable news television channel based in New York City.[2][3][4] It is owned by Fox News Media, which itself is owned by the Fox Corporation.[5]

Fox Corporation (stylized in all-caps as FOX Corporation)[5] is a publicly traded American mass media company operated and controlled by media mogul Rupert Murdoch and headquartered at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in New York City. Incorporated in Delaware, it was formed in 2019 as a result of the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company

-- We Australians call it an American company, you can't put this one on us!

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

#729

Post by OtomotO »

DFHippie wrote: post #210
OtomotO wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're intolerant you are not tolerant. If you only tolerate what you approve of, you're not tolerate at all. The definition of tolerating includes viewpoints that are not your own. Otherwise everyone in existence would be tolerant

You present tolerance as binary: you are tolerant or you are intolerant. There are degrees of tolerance. If you wish to foster a more tolerant society, you can refuse to tolerate the least tolerant people and thereby make the net level of tolerance in the society higher. Basically, you ban the bigots. Is this bigotry against bigots? No, actually, because bigotry is holding an unjustified negative opinion against some…

But in the eyes of the bigot their bigotry is totally justified.

So it all boils down to "but I am right, trust me, my bigotry is totally justified"

But yes, you're right with your assessment, that I view being tolerant as an absolute state.

From my point of view being "a little" tolerant or "being 98% tolerant" is the same as not being tolerant at all.

Being tolerant doesn't mean that I won't defend my values or stand in between a bully (or worse) and their victim.

It just means, that I can totally bear it to live next door to Nazis (which sadly in my country isn't too uncommon) without actively attacking them.

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

#730

Post by OtomotO »

bhandziuk wrote: post #245
OtomotO wrote: post #132

Truth is the first victim of war

Are you advocating for more news articles about how great Russia is for liberating the Nazi-subjugated people of Ukraine?

No (did that answer the kind of hidden but not ad hominem?)
Post reply on HN