111–120 of 151 posts
Gee, wouldn't it be great if we could just look up the open-source code for the most popular search engine on the "open" Internet? Given the amount of power and money they now have, effectively having "won the game," it seems ethical to me to open-source their entire search algorithm.
But if it's open, people will game it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like "truth" isn't an absolute thing, but an ongoing discussion... which has become fractured!
And yet there are observable and objective facts. Water freezes at 32 degrees. The sky is blue. Grass is green. When a source repeatedly tells you not to believe your own eyes, but offers no valid counter-argument--you should be suspicious. I'm fine with Google/Facebook or whoever filtering out known dishonest and inaccurate websites, whether they are intentionally malicious or just ignorant.
Who put Google in charge of determining what is true and what is fakenews? And how are you entirely comfortable with that?
Bullshit. A Google search for "socialist news" returns wsws.org as the #2 response. #1 is socialistworks.org, a competing site.
> the company instructed its search evaluators to flag pages returning “conspiracy theories” or “upsetting” content unless “the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.” "Socialist news" would be one of the searches that "indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint."
Where are these findings? It would be rather easy to show Search Console data with a decline, but that isn't the case. Do they have that sort of evidence?
Also, was the "Fake News" thing about regular SERPs, or specifically news SERPs? I have no idea - it isn't an area I've looked at - but I'm pretty sure it was news based, no?
Google adjusts its search results all the time for business reasons but also for political or legal reasons. The PC description is "tuning the search algorithm". That may encompass any number of effects to the search results or Google interfaces. While I hate the idea of regulation, Google Search is such a basic utility in the US that it really should be regulated by the government. Regulation is done on utilities li…
Meh, I have a hard time caring about this because I want Google to block propaganda and misinformation. From my experience, socialist websites and forums tend to ignore, rewrite, or white wash the history of communism in Russia/USSR, Venezuela, and even North Korea. So much so that the No True Scotsman fallacy should just be the No True Socialist fallacy. Go check out /r/socialism if you want your head to spin. Accor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who determines what is misinformation?
A private company with no oversight, obviously.
Would you prefer a state/government entity? Or a political organization? Because god knows that socialist regimes are so hell-bent on promoting truth and impartial reports on inconvenient facts.
>The WSWS has been blacklisted in searches dealing with history, and in particular historical topics related to the revolutionary struggles of the 20th century. These include the terms “Russian revolution,” “Bolshevik revolution” and “October revolution,” all of which returned results in the top 50 in April That's probably ... correct.
Blaming their own SEO failure to censorship. Sounds pretty left to me.
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.
If you would like to know more about the project, the blog is here: http://blog.levelnews.org
Much of the codebase is open source and can be found on GitHub if you'd like to contribute: https://github.com/levelnewsorg