141–150 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. The NSA and the CIA doesn't care about WSWS, and Google simply made an editorial decision that these guys don't have a credible or objective view of history and shouldn't be a search result for neutral terms on history. How's that for a non-conspiratorial version?
Since when is Google making "editorial decisions"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this "editorial decision" (ahem, "tuning") is in fact a political decision to downgrade results for a site that by any objective measure has a wide, international readership (Alexa global rank, 30-40k). It is also an objective fact that Google has close relations to the state (top federal campaign contributor, regular visitor to the White House, Eric Schmidt book praised by Michael Hayden, etc.). So it is a "cons…
>But this "editorial decision" (ahem, "tuning") is in fact a political decision to downgrade results for a site that by any objective measure has a wide, international readership (Alexa global rank, 30-40k). WSWS has a skewed view of history that is outside of what mainstream historians would accept. For that reason displaying them for neutral historical search queries is dishonest. So it seems reasonable that whatev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you notice, they seemed to be flagged for neutral historical search queries. Things like "Russian Revolution". Someone reading it would get a viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream historians. So yes, dishonest.
Do you have any proof that the content they host is dishonest? I'm seriously asking. EDIT This page doesn't seem dishonest: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/07/twrr-a07.html Are you saying Google has examined the historical accuracy of this page and found it lacking?
I'm sorry you don't see why an ideological advocacy organization would be de-prioritized for neutral search queries by a search engine. If you don't get it, I cannot bridge that gap for you. A Marxist perspective on the Russian Revolution is interesting and there's value to it but it has to be rooted in that context, otherwise it's just dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. It's also true in this case. WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history. If you want an objective view of the Russian Revolution, this is not the site you would go to - so I have no issues with Google tuning their search engine to suppress them in th…
>WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site I'm always a little amused when people use "ideology" in this way. Marx said that ideology promotes "false consciousness" about political power structures; by this measure, that which exposes false consciousness is anti-ideological. So by this measure, WSWS is non-ideological. On the other hand, Zizek claims that for someone to actually be captured by ideology, the…
And by every other (sane) measure, Socialism, Communism, Marxism are regular ideologies.
>Perhaps it is the mainstream that is ideological, because it's true ideology that holds the most power!
Playing with language is fun, I agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But this "editorial decision" (ahem, "tuning") is in fact a political decision to downgrade results for a site that by any objective measure has a wide, international readership (Alexa global rank, 30-40k). WSWS has a skewed view of history that is outside of what mainstream historians would accept. For that reason displaying them for neutral historical search queries is dishonest. So it seems reasonable that whatev…
Consider the concepts you are using. "skewed view of history," "mainstream historians." According to whom? Google? Amazon? The Hoover Institution? Who make this decision? If you search for "Russian Revolution," the works of Sean McMeekin will be very high, in part because the book is being heavily promoted by the New York Times, Amazon, large publishing houses, etc. And by Google. Yet McMeekin's book is based on larg…
The first line in their 'Russian Revolution' chronology uses terms like 'bourgeois' - a loaded ideological term used exclusively by Communists and Marxists. It's not hard to see what their spin is.
> I don't believe you have given your "alternative explanation," unless it is the SEO explanation, which has not real factual foundation?
But I did give you an alternate explanation - you just prefer your crazy tinfoil conspiracy. Flat-Earthers are the same. They ask for a picture of a round earth to prove to them the earth is round, and when you show them one, they say NASA faked it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an advocacy group for an extreme ideology do you think they have an objective view of history? If a person does a neutral search on, say, the history of the Russian Revolution, should they be up there?
What is an "extreme ideology"? The WSWS is a Marxist organization. Of course, it has a specific view of the Russian Revolution--namely, the view of those who led and organized it, opposed to both Stalinist and western interpretations. Who is Google to decide that this conception of the Russian Revolution should be removed from searches, that people don't want to have access to it, in favor of promoting the New York T…
You've answered your question.
Unfortunately, some companies are becoming too powerful. Concurrency must be encouraged, it's always good.
At first glance, this looks extremely ironic. Don't Socialists advocate for a centralization of economic capital (among others like political and news) or do I misunderstand? If purist socialists had there way, wouldn't there only be one search engine? Obviously it would be great if others could compete, but I think it's simply a market gap (innovation, capital investment, etc) at this point and not for lack of compe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider the concepts you are using. "skewed view of history," "mainstream historians." According to whom? Google? Amazon? The Hoover Institution? Who make this decision? If you search for "Russian Revolution," the works of Sean McMeekin will be very high, in part because the book is being heavily promoted by the New York Times, Amazon, large publishing houses, etc. And by Google. Yet McMeekin's book is based on larg…
>Consider the concepts you are using. "skewed view of history," "mainstream historians." The first line in their 'Russian Revolution' chronology uses terms like 'bourgeois' - a loaded ideological term used exclusively by Communists and Marxists. It's not hard to see what their spin is. > I don't believe you have given your "alternative explanation," unless it is the SEO explanation, which has not real factual foundat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that correct? Looking at their website they're currently running a lecture series/look back at the Russian revolution: http://www.wsws.org/en/special/1917/chronology.html None of it seems to be conspiracy theory or low-quality material.
It's not low quantity but it seems very filtered. Recently finished reading: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History-ebook/... The Russian revolution was co-opted by Lenin and the Bolsheviks who were funded by the German foreign office and more than anything else were unscrupulous about who they murdered. 25 million people were dead by the end of the revolution (early 20s). There's not so much as a hint…