5 ms·

I do not google a term to get a false result that I happen to agree with. Especially not one that is doing so just to sell ads. I am not interested in soothing

I do not google a term to get a false result that I happen to agree with. Especially not one that is doing so just to sell ads. I am not interested in soothing nonsense on _any_ topic not just political ones. For some reason it is being argued that google's (and facebook's) algorithms, which obviously must rank their results, should not take accuracy into account at all. The value of google is exactly proportional to the accuracy of its results, not its random interspersing of fabrications. If I want insane conspiracy theories I can always take 3 seconds to type bullshit.com in the url line. And ironically, somehow observations like this one are ruthlessly down voted by defenders of free speech.

inimino 10y ago
Google indexes content, and displays it by relevance to your query and overall relevance (e.g. PageRank). The idea that Google and FB should be in the business of discriminating truth from falsehood is one of the most naive ideas to come out of this election cycle.
- whybroke 10y ago
  On the contrary. The discovery that social media, as currently implemented, is in the process of annihilating rational discourse is the single most important discovery of this election cycle. Possibly of the last decade. Even now, because of this problem, there is no longer agreement on many basic facts. The notion that a people so polarized on basic truths will ever be able to function together democratically is what is utterly naive. Under such circumstances, ultimately one side will have to force its view of reality on the other. Indeed it may not be a coincidence that the sudden success of extremists parties in the west, driving voters to vote so conspicuously against their own self interest, corresponds almost exactly to the emergence of social media in general and facebook in particular. What is naive is the belief that truth will somehow win out when the bulk of mankind sees the world predominantly through a facebook feed that explicitly selects for spectacular self confirming nonsense algorithmicly suppressing anything unpleasant to know.
  - inimino 10y ago
    You overestimate the health of rational discourse before this election. Disagreements on basic facts are not new. Social media has created a kind of nervous system which amplifies and spreads fears and foolishness. Yes, this is a problem that we should address. (Perhaps allowing interpersonal communications to be dominated by a handful of companies was not the best idea.) What is naive is to solve this problem by putting the determination of truth and falsehood in the hands of a centralized authority.
    - whybroke 10y ago
      >Perhaps allowing interpersonal communications to be dominated by a handful of companies was not the best idea. Absolutely. Especially since tabloid like self confirming facile nonsense has broader user retention and thus profitability than difficult or subtle factual information. >What is naive is to solve this problem by putting the determination of truth and falsehood in the hands of a centralized authority. Indeed that would be catastrophic. But the ordering of the facebook timeline is intentionally emphasizing self confirming propagandistic nonsense: We already live in a highly propagandized facebook steam. Just remove that (highly profitable) bias from the algorithm. >Disagreements on basic facts are not new. Now however it is far worse, indeed essentially nonexistent. As a result the width of the division has grown enormously in the last 10 years. In the, US for example, the vast majority of counties are now either landslide red or landslide blue. The most polarized since the civil war. And there has never been this level of overt hostility to science at the top of the political ladder. On the larger scale, it is a mistake to think that the experiment of enlightenment democracy that is only present in a minority of countries and in those, only for a fraction of history, is somehow permanent and can somehow endure when the public no longer has access to accurate information. Indeed, nascent democracies are already being snuffed out one by one.
      - inimino 10y ago
        > But the ordering of the facebook timeline is intentionally emphasizing self confirming propagandistic nonsense: We already live in a highly propagandized facebook steam. Just remove that (highly profitable) bias from the algorithm. We agree on the problem, just not the solution. Let's consider two sub-problems. First, the advertising-based business model benefits from compulsive behavior and engaging, viral content. The most engaging content is not always the most true, and the second problem: some of it is entirely fabricated. Put these two parts together and you get the current situation. Now we see many crocodile tears shed over the fact that the second problem spread so much untrue content that it may have swung the election. Whether that's realistic or not, it creates an excellent opportunity to establish an authority that determines which stories are true, or how true a story is. Who wouldn't want that job? What a way to make a difference. So we have this: > Under such circumstances, ultimately one side will have to force its view of reality on the other. And what better way to do that than by establishing a ministry of truth. (Whether established by the government or private enterprise is practically immaterial.) But might it be worth stepping back for a moment first? If the only way democracy can work is by the elite directly controlling the perception of truth, then what is it that democracy still offers? > Just remove that (highly profitable) bias from the algorithm. Sell that to the shareholders! "Engagement is down but our metrics show the electorate is slightly better informed due to our efforts this quarter." So here you get at the first problem, which is that Facebook's monetization is directly at odds with many of the things that people should be doing to make a democracy work, such as getting off Facebook, reading a history book, engaging with their neighbors, and so on. Of course nobody is talking about solving this, because none of the solutions to this problem allow anyone to amass money or power.

inimino 10y ago

Google indexes content, and displays it by relevance to your query and overall relevance (e.g. PageRank). The idea that Google and FB should be in the business of discriminating truth from falsehood is one of the most naive ideas to come out of this election cycle.

whybroke 10y ago
On the contrary. The discovery that social media, as currently implemented, is in the process of annihilating rational discourse is the single most important discovery of this election cycle. Possibly of the last decade. Even now, because of this problem, there is no longer agreement on many basic facts. The notion that a people so polarized on basic truths will ever be able to function together democratically is what is utterly naive. Under such circumstances, ultimately one side will have to force its view of reality on the other. Indeed it may not be a coincidence that the sudden success of extremists parties in the west, driving voters to vote so conspicuously against their own self interest, corresponds almost exactly to the emergence of social media in general and facebook in particular. What is naive is the belief that truth will somehow win out when the bulk of mankind sees the world predominantly through a facebook feed that explicitly selects for spectacular self confirming nonsense algorithmicly suppressing anything unpleasant to know.
- inimino 10y ago
  You overestimate the health of rational discourse before this election. Disagreements on basic facts are not new. Social media has created a kind of nervous system which amplifies and spreads fears and foolishness. Yes, this is a problem that we should address. (Perhaps allowing interpersonal communications to be dominated by a handful of companies was not the best idea.) What is naive is to solve this problem by putting the determination of truth and falsehood in the hands of a centralized authority.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    >Perhaps allowing interpersonal communications to be dominated by a handful of companies was not the best idea. Absolutely. Especially since tabloid like self confirming facile nonsense has broader user retention and thus profitability than difficult or subtle factual information. >What is naive is to solve this problem by putting the determination of truth and falsehood in the hands of a centralized authority. Indeed that would be catastrophic. But the ordering of the facebook timeline is intentionally emphasizing self confirming propagandistic nonsense: We already live in a highly propagandized facebook steam. Just remove that (highly profitable) bias from the algorithm. >Disagreements on basic facts are not new. Now however it is far worse, indeed essentially nonexistent. As a result the width of the division has grown enormously in the last 10 years. In the, US for example, the vast majority of counties are now either landslide red or landslide blue. The most polarized since the civil war. And there has never been this level of overt hostility to science at the top of the political ladder. On the larger scale, it is a mistake to think that the experiment of enlightenment democracy that is only present in a minority of countries and in those, only for a fraction of history, is somehow permanent and can somehow endure when the public no longer has access to accurate information. Indeed, nascent democracies are already being snuffed out one by one.
    - inimino 10y ago
      > But the ordering of the facebook timeline is intentionally emphasizing self confirming propagandistic nonsense: We already live in a highly propagandized facebook steam. Just remove that (highly profitable) bias from the algorithm. We agree on the problem, just not the solution. Let's consider two sub-problems. First, the advertising-based business model benefits from compulsive behavior and engaging, viral content. The most engaging content is not always the most true, and the second problem: some of it is entirely fabricated. Put these two parts together and you get the current situation. Now we see many crocodile tears shed over the fact that the second problem spread so much untrue content that it may have swung the election. Whether that's realistic or not, it creates an excellent opportunity to establish an authority that determines which stories are true, or how true a story is. Who wouldn't want that job? What a way to make a difference. So we have this: > Under such circumstances, ultimately one side will have to force its view of reality on the other. And what better way to do that than by establishing a ministry of truth. (Whether established by the government or private enterprise is practically immaterial.) But might it be worth stepping back for a moment first? If the only way democracy can work is by the elite directly controlling the perception of truth, then what is it that democracy still offers? > Just remove that (highly profitable) bias from the algorithm. Sell that to the shareholders! "Engagement is down but our metrics show the electorate is slightly better informed due to our efforts this quarter." So here you get at the first problem, which is that Facebook's monetization is directly at odds with many of the things that people should be doing to make a democracy work, such as getting off Facebook, reading a history book, engaging with their neighbors, and so on. Of course nobody is talking about solving this, because none of the solutions to this problem allow anyone to amass money or power.