21–30 of 151 posts
> These findings make clear that the decline in Google search traffic to the WSWS is not the result of some technical issue, but a deliberate policy of censorship. Quite a claim.
It would be very interesting to prove this, but their argument is mostly circumstantial so far.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/0Y...
When Google, Facebook, and others announced that they were banning "fake news", many on the left cheered. But it was probably naive to assume Google would limit itself to censoring political opinions with which one disagrees.
I don't quite understand the snark in your response - were you, unlike the purported cheering liberals, fond of the purveyors of fake news?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...how far does "propaganda and misinformation" go? Political parties also put out propaganda and misinformation, as do businesses and individuals.
Marketing is not the same as propaganda and straight up lying about historical facts. If you claim there weren't famines in the Soviet Union, you're either a liar or a fool. I am fine with those being removed from Google. Separating the wheat from the chaff is the entire point of Google search. They should ban all disinformation sites, Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars would be a good start to add to WSWS. Salon and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite understand the snark in your response - were you, unlike the purported cheering liberals, fond of the purveyors of fake news?
I don't believe it was ever about "fake news", rather it's about establishing "acceptable opinion". As the article said: > In a set of guidelines issued to Google evaluators in March, elaborated in April by Google VP of Engineering Ben Gomes, 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 alte…
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…
so much reductionism, there isn't one left. there're factions and they do have different opinions on the previous political projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be very interesting to prove this, but their argument is mostly circumstantial so far.
The fact that Google is refusing to deny it is, in my view, pretty strong circumstantial evidence.
When Google, Facebook, and others announced that they were banning "fake news", many on the left cheered. But it was probably naive to assume Google would limit itself to censoring political opinions with which one disagrees.
I don't quite understand the snark in your response - were you, unlike the purported cheering liberals, fond of the purveyors of fake news?
There's actually fake news - person XYZ died (but not really), or satire websites (that people don't realize), or even more devious websites.
Then there's "fake news" which refers more to "I don't think that is news" news.
There's also "fake news" which refers to "That one news article made a mistake, so we can't trust any news from them now, they're fake" news.
The phrase has become as loaded as any SJW terms.
>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.
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.