3 ms·

They're not taking a stand on which news stories are true and which are false. They're targeting sites that exist only to spread false information and make no a

by treebog 10y ago

They're not taking a stand on which news stories are true and which are false. They're targeting sites that exist only to spread false information and make no attempt to be truthful in any story. These aren't news sites that occasionally write sketchy stories. These sites generate exclusively fake "news" content and fraudulently try to pass it off as the real thing. Maybe someday we'll reach the slippery slope, and it will be harder to tell the real news sites from the fake ones. But at the moment, there are certain sites around the net that are obvious frauds, and it is good that Google is taking steps to reduce their influence.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jwtadvice 10y ago
So... every media outlet? Are we talking about infowars here? Zero Hedge? The Occupy Wall Street blog? RT and SANA? The National Enquirer? Or are we talking about The Onion? Do you think that Google will withdraw ads from sites that have partisan takes on news? Do you think that Google with withdraw ads from sites that pull their information from foreign narrative? Google is an information monopoly that partners with the US military. It already skews its information to the benefit of the United States, where it can. It has every right to do this, as it is a private organization. But this does illustrate the danger of abuse of monopoly power. Without real insight into the operation Google has yet again passed extremely dangerous authoritarian policies without any transparency. To that question: can you please give examples of what you think they are going to decide count as fake news websites? Please share a few links. Presumably there are so many this is a such a huge problem it needs Google to attempt to defund it.
- treebog 10y ago
  Some sites which are contain nothing but blatantly false fake news: christ wire dot org daily currant dot com (claims to be a "parody" site, but does not attempt to be funny) If you use facebook, you have probably seen these and similar sites pop up, shared by people who think they reflect real news. They exist to confuse people and score clicks in the confusion.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    The parody site from this article?: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/09/christwire.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/09/christwire.html It absolutely is parody. I regret using Facebook for many reasons. Really poorly informed politicking and sharing of tabloids unfortunately hasn't been invented or exacerbated by Facebook. The most onerous and pernicious trading of misinformation I've seen on Facebook has been impressions originating from 'credible' sources: that Putin and Trump are best friends (Hillary Clinton and the DNC), that Saddam Hussein had some connection to 9/11 and also had nuclear weapons (George Bush, the White House Press Secretary and the US mainstream media), that there is no global assassination program, deal with Iran, that the US coalition wasn't supporting ISIS (the Obama Administration), Clinton had a 100% chance of winning this election (every reputable news source), that the South China Sea is about Chinese "aggression" (Obama Administration), there was nothing illegal and nothing interesting in Secretary of State emails and similarly in the DNC leaks (State Department and Clinton Campaign), there was no mass surveillance even indicated by the Snowden Documents (effectively all mainstream American media), the (first) fake US invasion of Fallujah (US military and New York Times), that nothing was happening in Ferguson after the State of Emergency (Federal Aviation), that China's economy was about to fall instead of giving the real news about their entering the special economic basket (HBR, The Economist, BBG + NPR), fake news about the assassination of Qaddafi [and his rape, and the US involvement in continued intentional regime change] (CNN, mainstream news reporting), the whitewashing of the genocide in Bahrain (CNN international), etc. In higher level education in the United States, they tell history studies students to completely forget everything from their K-12 education, and they start over. The reason for this is that K-12 history education looks nothing like actual recorded history, and is subject to the need for the state to educate a positive portrait of itself in order to build support among its population base. The problem with this pernicious bubble of mis- and dis-information affecting even high levels of otherwise erudite conversation is that because it's trusted-by-default source, questioning it (as it is actually prudent to do) is considered 'disruptive' and 'irresponsible' while assuming and parroting establishment narrative as somehow factual, unstrategic or unbiased is considered 'polite' while it at the same time justifies enormous human cost and tragedy. This pernicious bubble is a much larger problem than silly National Inquirer articles, as it has much greater negative effects and is much, much more populous.
inopinatus 10y ago
Just want to point out that that definition could reasonably be said to include The Onion. Being a parody site indicates intent to amuse of course, rather than to misinform. But discerning intent programmatically may be even harder than identifying truth.
jrnichols 10y ago
I'm seeing more websites (that are loaded with ads from different ad networks) posting older legitimate news stories, but as if they were new breaking news stories. I worry that'll be harder to curb.

by treebog 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jwtadvice 10y ago

So... every media outlet? Are we talking about infowars here? Zero Hedge? The Occupy Wall Street blog? RT and SANA? The National Enquirer? Or are we talking about The Onion? Do you think that Google will withdraw ads from sites that have partisan takes on news? Do you think that Google with withdraw ads from sites that pull their information from foreign narrative? Google is an information monopoly that partners with the US military. It already skews its information to the benefit of the United States, where it can. It has every right to do this, as it is a private organization. But this does illustrate the danger of abuse of monopoly power. Without real insight into the operation Google has yet again passed extremely dangerous authoritarian policies without any transparency. To that question: can you please give examples of what you think they are going to decide count as fake news websites? Please share a few links. Presumably there are so many this is a such a huge problem it needs Google to attempt to defund it.

treebog 10y ago
Some sites which are contain nothing but blatantly false fake news: christ wire dot org daily currant dot com (claims to be a "parody" site, but does not attempt to be funny) If you use facebook, you have probably seen these and similar sites pop up, shared by people who think they reflect real news. They exist to confuse people and score clicks in the confusion.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  The parody site from this article?: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/09/christwire.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/09/christwire.html It absolutely is parody. I regret using Facebook for many reasons. Really poorly informed politicking and sharing of tabloids unfortunately hasn't been invented or exacerbated by Facebook. The most onerous and pernicious trading of misinformation I've seen on Facebook has been impressions originating from 'credible' sources: that Putin and Trump are best friends (Hillary Clinton and the DNC), that Saddam Hussein had some connection to 9/11 and also had nuclear weapons (George Bush, the White House Press Secretary and the US mainstream media), that there is no global assassination program, deal with Iran, that the US coalition wasn't supporting ISIS (the Obama Administration), Clinton had a 100% chance of winning this election (every reputable news source), that the South China Sea is about Chinese "aggression" (Obama Administration), there was nothing illegal and nothing interesting in Secretary of State emails and similarly in the DNC leaks (State Department and Clinton Campaign), there was no mass surveillance even indicated by the Snowden Documents (effectively all mainstream American media), the (first) fake US invasion of Fallujah (US military and New York Times), that nothing was happening in Ferguson after the State of Emergency (Federal Aviation), that China's economy was about to fall instead of giving the real news about their entering the special economic basket (HBR, The Economist, BBG + NPR), fake news about the assassination of Qaddafi [and his rape, and the US involvement in continued intentional regime change] (CNN, mainstream news reporting), the whitewashing of the genocide in Bahrain (CNN international), etc. In higher level education in the United States, they tell history studies students to completely forget everything from their K-12 education, and they start over. The reason for this is that K-12 history education looks nothing like actual recorded history, and is subject to the need for the state to educate a positive portrait of itself in order to build support among its population base. The problem with this pernicious bubble of mis- and dis-information affecting even high levels of otherwise erudite conversation is that because it's trusted-by-default source, questioning it (as it is actually prudent to do) is considered 'disruptive' and 'irresponsible' while assuming and parroting establishment narrative as somehow factual, unstrategic or unbiased is considered 'polite' while it at the same time justifies enormous human cost and tragedy. This pernicious bubble is a much larger problem than silly National Inquirer articles, as it has much greater negative effects and is much, much more populous.

inopinatus 10y ago

Just want to point out that that definition could reasonably be said to include The Onion. Being a parody site indicates intent to amuse of course, rather than to misinform. But discerning intent programmatically may be even harder than identifying truth.

jrnichols 10y ago

I'm seeing more websites (that are loaded with ads from different ad networks) posting older legitimate news stories, but as if they were new breaking news stories. I worry that'll be harder to curb.