31–40 of 151 posts
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.
(I work for Google but on nothing remotely related)
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.
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…
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.
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…
This has been fairly thoroughly debunked: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/0Y...
My original comment remains unedited below.
--
For a concrete demonstration of pathological de-ranking, do a query for "site:web.archive.org".
I get "59,000 results" on page 1, but page 2 will never load!
There are a few results, which proves that a) web.archive.org are not using robots.txt or other blocking techniques, and b) that Google's infrastructure is inhaling content. But it's invisible.
Think about how sad this is - once a site goes dead, it's offline, even though the content is still publicly accessible. If only that context was indexed using a decent search engine.
Practically speaking, I totally acknowledge that archived content is complex to surface; sites can be pulled offline because content needs to be disappeared for any number of reasons, etc. I recognize the general difficulty of getting this right. So I'm not _really_ arguing "if only this were surfaced", because it's unfair to - I'm more saying "hey look, this is what it looks like when something has been completely killed," as a demonstrable and extreme datapoint.
Bullshit. A Google search for "socialist news" returns wsws.org as the #2 response. #1 is socialistworks.org, a competing site.
"Socialist news" would be one of the searches that "indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint."
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…