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

821–830 of 865 posts

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

#821

Post by mrjangles »

tonguez wrote: post #618
mrjangles wrote: post #20

Seriously what the f*ck makes Gabriel Weinberg think that myself, or anyone else, gives a damn about his personal opinion on what I should and should not be reading. The arrogance of these people is astounding. Also, absolutely zero of the standard base of Duck Duck Go users are the kind of people who don't understand what a Russian state controlled news site is, and why one would have to be careful reading it. Those…

“ Seriously what the f*ck makes Gabriel Weinberg think that myself, or anyone else, gives a damn about his personal opinion on what I should and should not be reading.” he doesn’t care, he’s just another rich baby that needs to project his own stupidity onto the workers whose labor creates his upper class lifestyle

I'm glad you brought that up. I feel the class warfare aspect of these things is under appreciated.

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

#822

Post by ece »

prox wrote: post #717
ece wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like good news can distill down to: if there's not enough fact checking in the right domain(s), the editor fucked up. Conspiracy theories, and propaganda obviously fail this test, but do not do so online often enough. Especially not when grifters/propagandists are trying to make money through ads or are state funded by an autocratic government. Should DDG take into account what is and isn't fact-checked? Absol…

I agree. I also believe transparency should be there on what changes are made in some shape or form. Unlike Google, DDG could actually do this.

A disinformation search engine would be interesting..

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

#823

Post by rixed »

JamisonM wrote: post #820
vogre wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it fake? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/11/1566-m11.html

I am wondering about how your initial response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was so ambiguous: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=vogre&next=30589151 And then all of your subsequent comments seem to be extremely consistent with Russian government talking points. You were initially kind of concerned that the invasion was not justified, but now you believe the Russian government positions whole-heartedly? It…

My guess is that it is a result of russophobia. Kind of Newton's third law of motion, but for opinions.

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

#824

Post by noRespect4u »

jollybean wrote: post #802
eric_cc wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you’re waffling > If you were a search engine provider and knew that viral, fake stories How does the search engine company know whether something is true or not?

It's at the core of Google algorithm: page rank. It uses 'trust'. That actually maps to how we work as a society. We cannot be experts in everything, we do not have the time, ability, wherewithal. So we 'trust' certain sources: Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, Police, more than we do others i.e. criminals, sources of gossip, arbitrary people. This is why when people form those institutions fail us, it's a much big…

> The NYT is a good source of information, but it depends if it's 'straight news or opinion'.

Is this that same newspaper that was one of the primary cheerleaders for the US invasion of Iraq?

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

#825

Post by rixed »

vogre wrote: post #745
rixed wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, they do not claim to cover both sides: > We are the owners and administrators of several Russian non-political telegram channels. > We don't do politics. But we consider it important to provide unbiased information about what is happening in Ukraine and on the territories of Donbass, because we see signs of an information war launched against Russia. Granted, I would have liked to see a "FAKE: US funding…

How is it fake? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/11/1566-m11.html

Given how hard it is to find out what kind of research happened in Wuhan, despite it was possible to inspect it for as long as needed, I find it hard to believe that one can that quickly and single handedly (esp in the current context) be certain that some biological weapons were actually developed in that lab.

I've also witnessed a lot of biased "journalism" in India to push that unreasonable narrative.

That's more likely propaganda doubled as a humorous reminder of the WMD in 2003, in my opinion.

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

#826

Post by rixed »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #785
rixed wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There isn't going to be one for Russia either. I'm not so sure about this. What makes you believe so?

War crimes tribunals only happen for the loser after they submit to terms.

What makes you believe Russia will not end up losing?

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

#827

Post by soundnote »

joe_the_user wrote: post #464
kube-system wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unbiased" doesn't mean "unfiltered". For example, I don't want spam or malware in my search results. Search results should return good information that is relevant to your query, and filter out anything that is not that.

"unbiased" doesn't mean "unfiltered". What else can a filter be aside from a bias? Clearly, I'd want a search engine that's biased against spam and generally against "automatically generated" content. It's hard for people to wrap their heads around how many search judgements are inherently editorial decisions - and how much of this is OK. One factor is that mainstream American news, from Hearst to the NY Times spent…

Interestingly, that's what the Brave Search team has proposed. They call it "Goggles". Customizable, plainly visible biases instead of living in a search bubble without even knowing why.

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

#828

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

jollybean wrote: post #798
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the war situation, I assume everything is potentially misinformation, and want to see statements from all sides. I mean if you read Western media, they will literally write "Russia is putting out a lot of disinformation", so that would be at least one claim I could try to verify myself, by looking at actual Russian media. But the more important point is, how does DDG decide what is misinformation and what is not?…

1) There is a difference between 'rah rah nationalism' and 'disinformation'. The Western media is not putting out disinformation so much as focusing on the things that benefit them. This is perennial. 2) It's myth that there is some kind of 'neutrality' in term of search - you have to pick an algorithm. It's rational to want to chose sources that have integrity as opposed to those that do not. 'Information Populism'…

"The Western media is not putting out disinformation so much as focusing on the things that benefit them."

What do you mean - Western media doesn't lie, only shifts focus? Sorry that is just flat out wrong. The last couple of years should have tought you that.

"This moral relativism is the problem with the 'free speech' advocates. There is something as the 'truth' and, some parties are better at communicating it."

Um no sorry, your type of thinking is exactly the problem. There is no neutral way to establish truth, so nobody should be given the authority to say what is true or not.

"Both of these statements are essentially wrong."

People believe stupid shit - the solution is not to establish some "authority" forcing people to believe just some stupid shit.

The Trump fans may seem stupid for believing Biden stole the election, but his opponents were equally stupid for believing in the Russian collusion theory. Yet that was relentlessly pushed by mainstream media.

"This is why 'Putins words alone' can be dangerous."

Yeah because Russians have no other news sources. That is exactly why it is bad to limit access to news sources, as DDG is doing indirectly.

"it speaks to the fact that people aren't often even interested in the truth at all, but rather that which makes them feel better."

So DDG is just trying to make us feel better?

"Nothing is being hidden or censored, it's all there if you actively search for it."

That is such a hypocritical claim. Given all your arguments, you seem to be fully aware that that is not how information flow works.

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

#829

Post by ashwagary »

jen20 wrote: post #757
ashwagary wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 malevol…

>The BBC is the best media service in existence

Hyperbolic claim, so I will ignore it.

>it is generally more free of bias than any other available source, especially when covering international matters.

I disagree, especially when the British have an interest in the outcome of an international situation.

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

#830

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

Lascaille wrote: post #705
paulmd wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's done that for a long time, and you've always been able to force a match by wrapping a word in quotes. (I don't think it's a 100% "must have this keyword" in the boolean sense, but it is an extremely strong suggestion to the engine.) Maybe we have finally reached the point where people don't know boolean operators anymore though

>you've always been able to force a match by wrapping a word in quotes This no longer works very well. A while ago I was searching for the linux syscall which is identified in the manpages as 'splice(2)' If I didn't include quote marks, I basically got pages of junk. If I did include quote marks I basically got a page of junk and then a single relevant link halfway down the second page followed by another page and a…

I thought verbatim was supposed to be wrapped in " not , '

But to your point, strict "___" searches do not seem to be respected as much anymore.

Post reply on HN