4 ms·

Try getting anywhere near the same exposure if your site is on page 20 instead of page 1 of Google's search results. This isn't censorship. Lies are not relev

Try getting anywhere near the same exposure if your site is on page 20 instead of page 1 of Google's search results. This isn't censorship. Lies are not relevant search results in general, nevermind a lies clickyness. It's pushing misinformation out of the public consciousness.

keithnz 10y ago
I think you want google to be something it's not. Lies / Truth are not googles goals. It reflects what people believe because they create content which is consumed and linked to by other people. Trying to work out what are lies/truth gets super super murky when it comes to religion. Not to mention people actually want to search for what people believe, I want to know what holocaust deniers think, I want to know what climate deniers think, that shouldn't be filtered from me. But, it exposes a bigger problem about the problem of consuming information, how we, as humans, determine what to believe when exposed to everyones beliefs. Especially for people who are young and can latch onto ideas very quickly.
- state_less 10y ago
  Google's job is to give you relevant search results to queries. Putting misinformation at the top of the page is irrelevant and damaging to the goal of informing. For example questions like, "does global warming exist?" Notice link number 2. for that query. It's from a source townhall, this source is irrelevant, just as my opinion would be irrelevant on the matter of global warming. Whether a page has backlinks is irrelevant if it's full of lies. So push them down the page some, flagged as spam.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > Whether a page has backlinks is irrelevant if it's full of lies. So push them down the page some, flagged as spam. Who would have the authority to do this, and why should they be trusted? How could we get rid of them when they start hiding true things they don't want people to know about? What would their job title be? Minister of Truth? (I suppose you'd need to get permission from Orwell's estate to use that title, which is probably a sign that you should think twice about what you're doing.)
  - keithnz 10y ago
    It's all just information. Some of it true, some of it not. People who believe different things think that people with opposing beliefs are lies or delusion or lack enlightenment. I think it's better that everything is laid bare to the world so it's not hidden. But it requires a certain set of skills when consuming information. I think Wikipedia is more like what you are wanting. It's curated, it attempts to convey accurate information without emotional language, etc. Of course, that's super difficult and it has it's own problem in trying to do that.
twblalock 10y ago
You should think through the consequences of what you suggest. Do you really want to live in a society in which corporations have the power to determine what counts as truth? I find it odd that so many people who believe the government should not do such things are fine with corporations doing it.
- state_less 10y ago
  We already live in that world today. Corporations already decide what is broadcasted and google does have to rank results at the end of the day. We all see the results on the page and right now they are not pretty. Try "does global warming exist?" I think link 2. is a problem. If it's damaging, maybe those damages should be determined by the courts. I don't think the corporations are the final arbitrator, a court should weigh in on matters of truth with well informed and constructed arguments. Then the rest of us can consider the merits of those arguments and vote accordingly.
  - marcus_holmes 10y ago
    Do you think that sites that raise concerns about GMO foods should be similarly classified as spam? There's an ideological divide in our society. People who deny climate change support GMO foods and nuclear power. People who oppose GMO foods and nuclear power believe we should do more about climate change. Accepting that Google should do more to suppress "bad" results on global warming also means that it should do more to suppress "bad" results on anti-vaccinations, anti-GMO foods and other areas where the majority scientific opinion is clear. And then, of course, there's religion. What stance should Google take on that? No-one's going to be happy with that situation. There is no course of action that Google can follow that will make everyone happy here.
    - state_less 10y ago
      Yes, educating people isn't about making them happy. How you feel about the truth is incidental to it being true. It's an interesting measure, when hearing the truth, how often do are you repelled by it :) So my answer is yes to all the topics you mentioned, if the opposition can prove vaccination is worse than not, then don't flag as spam, but until then, please bump them down the search results page some. The government has to prosecute religious cons already. Suppose you say, "Come to my church. Start praying and donating, the lord will take care of your cancer" Lies like these are misleading and dangerous. People can die from them. You can be prosecuted for making them. So, we ought not allow them to be promoted to our citizenry. If a religion wants to make that statement, make them prove their claim with a study that meets the standard.

keithnz 10y ago

I think you want google to be something it's not. Lies / Truth are not googles goals. It reflects what people believe because they create content which is consumed and linked to by other people. Trying to work out what are lies/truth gets super super murky when it comes to religion. Not to mention people actually want to search for what people believe, I want to know what holocaust deniers think, I want to know what climate deniers think, that shouldn't be filtered from me. But, it exposes a bigger problem about the problem of consuming information, how we, as humans, determine what to believe when exposed to everyones beliefs. Especially for people who are young and can latch onto ideas very quickly.

state_less 10y ago
Google's job is to give you relevant search results to queries. Putting misinformation at the top of the page is irrelevant and damaging to the goal of informing. For example questions like, "does global warming exist?" Notice link number 2. for that query. It's from a source townhall, this source is irrelevant, just as my opinion would be irrelevant on the matter of global warming. Whether a page has backlinks is irrelevant if it's full of lies. So push them down the page some, flagged as spam.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Whether a page has backlinks is irrelevant if it's full of lies. So push them down the page some, flagged as spam. Who would have the authority to do this, and why should they be trusted? How could we get rid of them when they start hiding true things they don't want people to know about? What would their job title be? Minister of Truth? (I suppose you'd need to get permission from Orwell's estate to use that title, which is probably a sign that you should think twice about what you're doing.)
- keithnz 10y ago
  It's all just information. Some of it true, some of it not. People who believe different things think that people with opposing beliefs are lies or delusion or lack enlightenment. I think it's better that everything is laid bare to the world so it's not hidden. But it requires a certain set of skills when consuming information. I think Wikipedia is more like what you are wanting. It's curated, it attempts to convey accurate information without emotional language, etc. Of course, that's super difficult and it has it's own problem in trying to do that.

twblalock 10y ago

You should think through the consequences of what you suggest. Do you really want to live in a society in which corporations have the power to determine what counts as truth? I find it odd that so many people who believe the government should not do such things are fine with corporations doing it.

state_less 10y ago
We already live in that world today. Corporations already decide what is broadcasted and google does have to rank results at the end of the day. We all see the results on the page and right now they are not pretty. Try "does global warming exist?" I think link 2. is a problem. If it's damaging, maybe those damages should be determined by the courts. I don't think the corporations are the final arbitrator, a court should weigh in on matters of truth with well informed and constructed arguments. Then the rest of us can consider the merits of those arguments and vote accordingly.
- marcus_holmes 10y ago
  Do you think that sites that raise concerns about GMO foods should be similarly classified as spam? There's an ideological divide in our society. People who deny climate change support GMO foods and nuclear power. People who oppose GMO foods and nuclear power believe we should do more about climate change. Accepting that Google should do more to suppress "bad" results on global warming also means that it should do more to suppress "bad" results on anti-vaccinations, anti-GMO foods and other areas where the majority scientific opinion is clear. And then, of course, there's religion. What stance should Google take on that? No-one's going to be happy with that situation. There is no course of action that Google can follow that will make everyone happy here.
  - state_less 10y ago
    Yes, educating people isn't about making them happy. How you feel about the truth is incidental to it being true. It's an interesting measure, when hearing the truth, how often do are you repelled by it :) So my answer is yes to all the topics you mentioned, if the opposition can prove vaccination is worse than not, then don't flag as spam, but until then, please bump them down the search results page some. The government has to prosecute religious cons already. Suppose you say, "Come to my church. Start praying and donating, the lord will take care of your cancer" Lies like these are misleading and dangerous. People can die from them. You can be prosecuted for making them. So, we ought not allow them to be promoted to our citizenry. If a religion wants to make that statement, make them prove their claim with a study that meets the standard.