Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

wsws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#71

Post by ue_ »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #53
quickben wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, support.google.com opinion on this matter is entirely unbiased :P

Well, considering it's a support forum and none of the people who have answered are affiliated with Google, yeah, it's unbiased.

I don't have any particular say on this issue in particular, but what about the fact that Google can silently remove replies without telling you (which gives the image of non-bias) and further that people may be biased in favour of Google without actually being affiliated with Google?

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#72

Post by thephyber »

edpichler wrote: post #29

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 competitors trying. Many died out (Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista), some survive as niche (DuckDuckGo), some still exist (Bing, Ask/Jeebs), and some are still massive but serve other markets (Baidu, Yandex).

Google has become so successful that their search is very advanced compared to upstarts. The more Google learns from their massive index corpus and userbase, the further ahead they get. Baidu might have a comparable dataset and userbase, but they specialize in different markets with different languages and cultures.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#73

Post by ue_ »

diogenescynic wrote: post #26
mmbaghdad wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so much reductionism, there isn't one left. there're factions and they do have different opinions on the previous political projects.

Sorry, but the tankies who think nothing bad has ever been done in the name of communism are just as foolish as the InfoWars junkies screaming about chem-trails.

Do you have evidence that this website in question is a "tankie" website? Or does it offer a different viewpoint, or a range of viewpoints?

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#74

Post by leereeves »

mempko wrote: post #59
leereeves wrote: post #4

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.

The news that the left cheered when google and facebook censored fake news, is itself fake news.

For example:

Salon/AlterNet: Fighting fake news: Google’s new fact-check tool attempts to combat a global issue

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/23/fighting-fake-news-googles-n...

Salon/AlterNet's main concern was apparently that it didn't do enough.

> this doesn’t do anything to directly combat the use of Google’s platform to spread false or offensive stories.”

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#75

Post by CurtMonash »

I'm an anti-censorship extremist, but this doesn't feel to me like censorship. After all, the site is being discussed here on HN, and I'm sure it could also be found through many other search engines, portals, or whatever.

Even if we get to the point that certain pages are only likely to be found via 10-20 year old technologies, so what? Those technologies were invented for text articles and still work well for them, and text articles are what matter most. Similar things are also true about the runners-up in "matter most", which in some order are straightforward image, sound and video files.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#76

Post by ue_ »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #54
ReadEvalPost wrote: post #8

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…

Interesting, is there anywhere I can read about this aside from the book you've linked? Although I am a Communist, I am critical of the Bolsheviks and I have an open mind.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#77

Post by diego_moita »

guelo wrote: post #58

FWIW, searching on Bing "russian revolution" wsws.org shows up on page 5.

Searching on duckduckgo, "russian revolution" shows wsws.org on 80th place. Didn't show up for "proletariat".

The irony: they prefer to cry wolf instead of doing SEO and don't want to be called a conspiracy theory site.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#78

Post by jim-jim-jim »

leereeves wrote: post #4

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.

Trots != huffpo reading liberals.

Most people on the actual left weren't caught up in the "fake news/Russia/Russian fake news stole the election" hysteria because none of them supported Clinton in the first place.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#79

Post by diogenescynic »

dibujante wrote: post #24
diogenescynic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But what if someone, somehow, through some extraordinary bit of research, does find evidence contradicting a widely supported claim? Not the soviet famine claim, but e.g. David Glantz did research and found that the early years of the USSR's involvement in World War II had been substantially misrepresented due to the USSR censoring many of those records to save face. Prior to his publication of that work, it was the…

Sure, new historical discoveries (based on evidence!) deserve to be published.

But do you believe Google should keep search results that deny the Holocaust? I personally see no value in that trash and if I was Google, I'd blacklist that stuff too.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#80

Post by WaxProlix »

oh_sigh wrote: post #61
dibujante wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be very interesting to prove this, but their argument is mostly circumstantial so far.

Even if Googlers had no sense of right and wrong, just knowing the number of socialists or socialist-leaning googlers there are, there is no way this would ever fly. It's not like anyone has super special access to modify the search engine algorithm and rankings individually. All changes go through probably dozens of people at least. One of them would presumably raise the issue internally(or leak to press) if somethi…

How many socialist googlers do you think there are? I imagine the number is really, really small. I have plenty of friends who work at google and a disproportionate number of socialist friends, and neither group would be able to tolerate each other at a party. Not saying that none exist, but it's way outside of my experience if it's the case.
Post reply on HN