5 ms·

1) Hence the broader point that such 'verification' extends far beyond this picture, which I agree would be noteworthy; 2) The lack of a picture doesn't mean t

1) Hence the broader point that such 'verification' extends far beyond this picture, which I agree would be noteworthy; 2) The lack of a picture doesn't mean the two were never physically close enough to be photographed together. It just means they were never so when a camera was around. 3) It ignores the broader social context in which Google is the funnel through which information exists. If the ministry of truth wants to rewrite history, they'll do so by manipulating what Google results are available. The entire point of the article is how history can be manipulated, and then succumbs to verification via a source that can, in fact, be manipulated. That is, imagine a picture was taken, and you're sitting here thinking, "I really thought those two met." If verification constitutes, "Is it on Google?" then the task of changing history is pretty easy.

jerf 16y ago
"The lack of a picture doesn't mean the two were never physically close enough to be photographed together. It just means they were never so when a camera was around." I see what you're trying to say here, but you've picked a terrible example. The probability that these men would meet and there would not be cameras around is negligible. Non-zero, I concede, but in a Bayesian world absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, under the right circumstances. (The conventional phrasing is wrong, it ought to read "Absence of evidence is not 100% proof of absence", which scans much less well but is actually correct; the phrase is intrinsically Aristotelian.)
- boredguy8 16y ago
  You're still missing the point. Google has censored results before, and future censoring would lead to the types of dystopic scenarios outlined in the beginning of the article. I'm not about to get into a debate about the relative probabilities of a picture existing or not. In part, because just-so stories abound on either side. But more fundamentally: it's not the point of the selection in my first post.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I think you're getting carried away with the part of the article where it says that they verified they'd never met by checking google. The historical fact is that these two have never publicly met. They already were pretty certain they knew this, but checked google just to be absolutely sure. Doing an image search is a lot easier than doing a text search since there's an awful lot of articles which mention them both and it would be too hard to sort through the guff. That doesn't mean you can fool people into thinking that something never happened just by removing all pictures of it from google image search. (Removing pictures would of course be a necessary but not sufficient step for anyone wanting to remove something from history.)
- qq66 16y ago
  I think that the probability that these men would meet WITHOUT cameras around is much higher than the probability that they would meet WITH cameras around. If Obama and Ahmedinajad decided to meet, it would certainly be something Obama wanted to keep out of the newspapers. I certainly think that it is within the power of the President of the United States to arrange a secret meeting.
FluidDjango 16y ago
The fact that "it" is not revealed by google means without doubt... that photoshoppers are running behind.

jerf 16y ago

"The lack of a picture doesn't mean the two were never physically close enough to be photographed together. It just means they were never so when a camera was around." I see what you're trying to say here, but you've picked a terrible example. The probability that these men would meet and there would not be cameras around is negligible. Non-zero, I concede, but in a Bayesian world absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, under the right circumstances. (The conventional phrasing is wrong, it ought to read "Absence of evidence is not 100% proof of absence", which scans much less well but is actually correct; the phrase is intrinsically Aristotelian.)

boredguy8 16y ago
You're still missing the point. Google has censored results before, and future censoring would lead to the types of dystopic scenarios outlined in the beginning of the article. I'm not about to get into a debate about the relative probabilities of a picture existing or not. In part, because just-so stories abound on either side. But more fundamentally: it's not the point of the selection in my first post.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I think you're getting carried away with the part of the article where it says that they verified they'd never met by checking google. The historical fact is that these two have never publicly met. They already were pretty certain they knew this, but checked google just to be absolutely sure. Doing an image search is a lot easier than doing a text search since there's an awful lot of articles which mention them both and it would be too hard to sort through the guff. That doesn't mean you can fool people into thinking that something never happened just by removing all pictures of it from google image search. (Removing pictures would of course be a necessary but not sufficient step for anyone wanting to remove something from history.)
qq66 16y ago
I think that the probability that these men would meet WITHOUT cameras around is much higher than the probability that they would meet WITH cameras around. If Obama and Ahmedinajad decided to meet, it would certainly be something Obama wanted to keep out of the newspapers. I certainly think that it is within the power of the President of the United States to arrange a secret meeting.

FluidDjango 16y ago

The fact that "it" is not revealed by google means without doubt... that photoshoppers are running behind.