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

DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 865 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#751

Post by eli »

xg15 wrote: post #274
eli wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I just don't agree with any of that. Spam is infamously hard to identify and consistently define. My spam is your content. I'd argue what Russia is doing here is spam. They're laundering their message through media outlets with domains with much stronger SEO positioning than any official government domain. (You may disagree this is "spam" but that's kind of my point.) Meanwhile I think there's pretty broad conse…

> My spam is your content. Tell me of one person who wants to read unsolicited viagra offers and all that stuff. > I'd argue what Russia is doing here is spam. Problem is that there are a lot of half-truths embedded in pro-russian media outlets and many things that, how false they may be, seem to be their genuine viewpoints. I think it would be better to engage with that stuff and separate the half-truths from the li…

> Tell me of one person who wants to read unsolicited viagra offers and all that stuff.

The people who buy viagra from those unsolicited offers. Spammers have been offering that product for decades because it works. People buy it.

"Spam" is mostly just stuff you don't want to read.

> I think it would be better to engage with that stuff and separate the half-truths from the lies instead of simply hiding everything away.

It's not gone, it's just no longer near the top of a query for "what happened yesterday in Ukraine?" If you're looking for one answer to that question, Sputnik or RT is definitely not the best source.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#752

Post by dTal »

native_samples wrote: post #740
paulmd wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, do you feel that Fox and OAN deserve the same "reputation score" as Nature ? If so, why? For as much whining here about the importance of free and open discussion, it's unfortunately verboten to say it, but fortunately people will usually bring it up of their own volition. It is like the "why are all the highly educated people so liberal!?!?" thing, deep down you know the answer, and it's not actually "becaus…

I think you're under-estimating the quantity of articles Nature and associated journals publish that aren't scientific, or are outright wrong, just because they flatter the preconceptions of their readers. There's even a cute saying in science, "Just because it's published in Nature, doesn't mean it's wrong". Example: Nature published Flaxman2020, a modelling paper by the epidemiology team at ICL which claimed lockdo…

>As for your legal point, that doesn't mean much. Lawyers try any argument that might work.

No, I'm not willing to let them off the hook so easily. Why were they in a court of law in the first place? Because they lied to such an extent that it's literally illegal. If this hail-mary legal argument of "no reasonable person would believe us" was the best defence they could come up with, then that is approximately the most powerful indictment of their veracity as is possible to legally establish within our current framework. We should not let them live it down - they cannot have their cake and eat it.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#753

Post by jonasenordin »

Nursie wrote: post #688
newyankee wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am nowhere a supporter of attack on Ukraine, however when I open a reddit page I see 10s of posts in seemingly unrelated subreddits, probably organically upvoted by people angry at Russia and with sympathy towards Ukraine which highlights the brave fight of the small nation. However the skeptic in me feels that a lot of this information is also being orchestrated to the top behind the scenes, which in this case mak…

In Russia if you report the wrong thing you go to prison. The west is not remotely like Russia in this matter.

Yes, for individuals, it's worse. For accurate information, it's probably a wash, or a close call. There are so many other ways of biasing information streams than overt oppression.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#754

Post by pydry »

hedora wrote: post #592
pydry wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One of the main goals of the current Russian propaganda push in the US is to get people to lose confidence in reliable news outlets. If western news outlets focused a little more on actually being reliable and objective maybe people wouldnt lose confidence. I hardly think Russian propaganda is required for people to do this.

True, but "not great" is different than "maliciously bad".

Western news is a lot worse than "not great".

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#755

Post by jonasenordin »

pie42000 wrote: post #569
misslibby wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" their successes have been remarkable and have shown Russia to be mismanaged, incompetent, weak, and everything else one would expect of a typical authoritarian regime" And doesn't make you excited for the war and enthusiastic about joining the fight for Ukraine? Great - but having only information and announcements from one side would give me pause. Somehow the war hasn't ended yet, despite of the zillions of Russi…

"Somehow the war hasn't ended yet, despite of the zillions of Russian tanks that have been destroyed by now." Well if we're going to be pedantic and childish, then for your information, Russia started the war with 12.3 zillion tanks and the war is still going on because the Russians still have more tanks. The fact that zillions of tanks have been destroyed and that Russia still has plenty more tanks is not somehow a…

True. Many tanks have been destroyed. But the zillion tanks destroyed are often presented without context, and used to imply that resistance has a better prospect than is realistic. The number of remaining enemy tanks (or whatever) is seldom mentioned. Well, I guess that's what the GP was implying.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#756

Post by mardifoufs »

pvaldes wrote: post #738
mardifoufs wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it really is just supporting russia even without any violence. For example in lithuania: >The decision bans to organize or gather at assemblies “aimed at supporting, in any form or scope, the actions of the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus, which caused the introduction of the state of emergency” while this state of emergency remains in place. https://www.baltictimes.com/lithuania_extends…

Well, for Lithuania is personal. I can't blame them for not wanting to support their own destruction falling in a 'Donbas trap'

No disagreement, war is war and they are in a vulnerable position

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#757

Post by jen20 »

ashwagary wrote: post #471
mardifoufs wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ignored the "slave state with an absolute monarchy" part I think. Not like they are even comparable, unless you are saying the BBC journalists could justifiably be fearing for their lives if they criticize the UK government? All state media aren't created equal, and aren't equally independant. Otherwise the BBC, aljazeera and RT would be all equal since they are all state media after all.

You stated that you aren't British. You should probably ask some Brits what they think about the BBC and understand their criticisms. You may be surprised by the response. They generally do not consider it unbiased at all and many would call it false propaganda, especially if they are Irish or Scottish.

I am British. The BBC is the best media service in existence, and although one must watch with open eyes (like any media), it is generally more free of bias than any other available source, especially when covering international matters.

If there were an option to pay the license fee from the US, I would.

I can’t decide your generalizations are pretty ignorant (at best parroting the Daily Mail and friends) or malevolent.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#758

Post by segmented_fault »

DangitBobby wrote: post #692
s1artibartfast wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central point is that you need access to information to determine if a war is wrong and stupid. It is clear how censorship and propaganda can alter perception of who is the the good or bad guy.

And what happens when you can't tell what "information" is true in any reasonable timeframe, making it impossible for normal people (or actually anyone at all) to discern fact from fiction? Tough titty, those people just get to believe misinformation? It's not anyone's responsibility to suppress lies? I will never agree with that position. In a better world, the truth can be identified just by reading carefully. This…

Who’s who to decide what’s True and what’s False? No one should be in that position of power, only you. You want to be taken care of, but your caregivers are wolves in disguise. Power breeds parasites. Long live anarchy

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#759

Post by raxxorrax »

uejfiweun wrote: post #26
diego_moita wrote: post #11

Good! One more reason for me to remain a DDG user. This is the behaviour of responsible and accountable adults. "Censoring" is a word very badly understood and prone to manipulation. There are a lot of circumstances where suppression of information/opinion is justified: protecting intellectual property and copyrights, blocking doxing, prevent haters from doing harm against others, protection of military secrets or pe…

You're not wrong that they absolutely have the right to choose what results to display. Just like Twitter has the right to choose what content appears on their platform, and same with YouTube, etc. But my opposition is not from a legal standpoint, it is from a moral standpoint. I just think censorship and cancellation is wrong and immoral, even if it is legally allowed. I think it is immoral for some business executi…

Those that need legal force to adhere to the principle of freedom of expression simply do not support it. They often believe that they do, but in all relevant metric they certainly do not.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#760

Post by z3ncyberpunk »

diego_moita wrote: post #11

Good! One more reason for me to remain a DDG user. This is the behaviour of responsible and accountable adults. "Censoring" is a word very badly understood and prone to manipulation. There are a lot of circumstances where suppression of information/opinion is justified: protecting intellectual property and copyrights, blocking doxing, prevent haters from doing harm against others, protection of military secrets or pe…

Wow you have no intelligence whatsoever. You're basically advocating for one team's propaganda because you don't like the other teams. YOU are the problem.
Post reply on HN