5 ms·

Meh, I have a hard time caring about this because I want Google to block propaganda and misinformation. From my experience, socialist websites and forums tend t

Meh, I have a hard time caring about this because I want Google to block propaganda and misinformation. From my experience, socialist websites and forums tend to ignore, rewrite, or white wash the history of communism in Russia/USSR, Venezuela, and even North Korea. So much so that the No True Scotsman fallacy should just be the No True Socialist fallacy. Go check out /r/socialism if you want your head to spin. According to that sub, there were no famines in the USSR, Stalin never killed anyone, and everything bad we hear about Venezuela is just media bias. And then when it's objectively true and can't be dodged, they aren't really socialists.

dibujante 9y ago
...how far does "propaganda and misinformation" go? Political parties also put out propaganda and misinformation, as do businesses and individuals.
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  Marketing is not the same as propaganda and straight up lying about historical facts. If you claim there weren't famines in the Soviet Union, you're either a liar or a fool. I am fine with those being removed from Google. Separating the wheat from the chaff is the entire point of Google search. They should ban all disinformation sites, Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars would be a good start to add to WSWS. Salon and Huffington would be up there too.
  - mark_edward 9y ago
    did this website do this?
  - dibujante 9y ago
    But what if someone, somehow, through some extraordinary bit of research, does find evidence contradicting a widely supported claim? Not the soviet famine claim, but e.g. David Glantz did research and found that the early years of the USSR's involvement in World War II had been substantially misrepresented due to the USSR censoring many of those records to save face. Prior to his publication of that work, it was the "truth" that the USSR launched no major offensives until 1942-3. After the publication of that work, that was no longer the "truth" (the USSR had in fact launched many offensives and then purged them from the historical record in order to appear infallible).
    - diogenescynic 9y ago
      Sure, new historical discoveries (based on evidence!) deserve to be published. But do you believe Google should keep search results that deny the Holocaust? I personally see no value in that trash and if I was Google, I'd blacklist that stuff too.
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    Whoah whoah whoah, how is marketing different than propoganda?
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."
    - diogenescynic 9y ago
      Ironic because Socialist forums are heavily moderated and quickly ban those who don't repeat the talking points. They hate having their ideas challenged, but get mad that a public company won't give them web traffic? Cry me a river.
      - etplayer 9y ago
        >Ironic because Socialist forums are heavily moderated I'm a member of at least one such forum which isn't heavily moderated. >and quickly ban those who don't repeat the talking points The forum I use prides itself on allowing such discussion. >They hate having their ideas challenged I love having my ideas challenged, and I love arguing, who are you constructing a straw man of?
      - hellbanner 9y ago
        Give some examples if you're going to name names.
  - confounded 9y ago
    Your examples are cherry-picked UGC from Reddit (not a good brush to tar any viewpoint with). Are there specific WSWS examples, or is the the concept of advocating socialism which is false to you?
mmbaghdad 9y ago
so much reductionism, there isn't one left. there're factions and they do have different opinions on the previous political projects.
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  Sorry, but the tankies who think nothing bad has ever been done in the name of communism are just as foolish as the InfoWars junkies screaming about chem-trails.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Do you have evidence that this website in question is a "tankie" website? Or does it offer a different viewpoint, or a range of viewpoints?
evanlivingston 9y ago
Who determines what is misinformation?
- mhermher 9y ago
  A private company with no oversight, obviously.
  - diogenescynic 9y ago
    No oversight whatsoever... none... obviously. And really, would you seriously prefer the government to set search rankings? Because they have no conflict of interest either, right?
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > A private company with no oversight, obviously. Would you prefer a state/government entity? Or a political organization? Because god knows that socialist regimes are so hell-bent on promoting truth and impartial reports on inconvenient facts.
pmarreck 9y ago
It's almost like "truth" isn't an absolute thing, but an ongoing discussion... which has become fractured!
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  And yet there are observable and objective facts. Water freezes at 32 degrees. The sky is blue. Grass is green. When a source repeatedly tells you not to believe your own eyes, but offers no valid counter-argument--you should be suspicious. I'm fine with Google/Facebook or whoever filtering out known dishonest and inaccurate websites, whether they are intentionally malicious or just ignorant.
  - undersuit 9y ago
    So WSWS is a known dishonest and/or inaccurate website?
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      WSWS? Oh yeah. It's an extreme left site that makes no attempt at any objectivity.
      - undersuit 9y ago
        I hate to have to ask again. Lack of objectivity isn't dishonest or inaccurate. ob·jec·tive (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. So is WSWS a dishonest and/or inaccurate website?
        macspoofing 9y ago
        If you notice, they seemed to be flagged for neutral historical search queries. Things like "Russian Revolution". Someone reading it would get a viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream historians. So yes, dishonest.
pbreit 9y ago
This is ironic, right?
etplayer 9y ago
>From my experience, socialist websites and forums tend to ignore, rewrite, or white wash the history of communism in Russia/USSR Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. Do you have evidence that your experience applies in this particular case, or are you just generalising? For a user named after a philosopher, you don't seem to be very keen to apply logic in this circumstance, perhaps because of bias or bad prior experience. Not to mention you're grouping in several tendencies and ideologies and opinions within a very broad movement that's lasted 200 years to date in your criticism, which is at best inaccurate and at worst disingenuous.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. It's also true in this case. WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history. If you want an objective view of the Russian Revolution, this is not the site you would go to - so I have no issues with Google tuning their search engine to suppress them in the search results for those kinds of queries.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    >WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site I'm always a little amused when people use "ideology" in this way. Marx said that ideology promotes "false consciousness" about political power structures; by this measure, that which exposes false consciousness is anti-ideological. So by this measure, WSWS is non-ideological. On the other hand, Zizek claims that for someone to actually be captured by ideology, the ideology must be first presented to them as non-ideological. Can you see the conundrum? Ideology isn't an illusion, rather, to be rid of ideology may be to put on the glasses rather than take them off, to use Zizek's example in the film They Live. >with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history Perhaps it is the mainstream that is ideological, because it's true ideology that holds the most power!
    - macspoofing 9y ago
codedokode 9y ago
Would not it be better to explain why something is a propaganda and what is its purpose rather than block it?
zeep 9y ago
you want them to block what you think is misinformation, but what they paint as misinformation might be very different.

dibujante 9y ago

...how far does "propaganda and misinformation" go? Political parties also put out propaganda and misinformation, as do businesses and individuals.

diogenescynic 9y ago
Marketing is not the same as propaganda and straight up lying about historical facts. If you claim there weren't famines in the Soviet Union, you're either a liar or a fool. I am fine with those being removed from Google. Separating the wheat from the chaff is the entire point of Google search. They should ban all disinformation sites, Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars would be a good start to add to WSWS. Salon and Huffington would be up there too.
- mark_edward 9y ago
  did this website do this?
- dibujante 9y ago
  But what if someone, somehow, through some extraordinary bit of research, does find evidence contradicting a widely supported claim? Not the soviet famine claim, but e.g. David Glantz did research and found that the early years of the USSR's involvement in World War II had been substantially misrepresented due to the USSR censoring many of those records to save face. Prior to his publication of that work, it was the "truth" that the USSR launched no major offensives until 1942-3. After the publication of that work, that was no longer the "truth" (the USSR had in fact launched many offensives and then purged them from the historical record in order to appear infallible).
  - diogenescynic 9y ago
    Sure, new historical discoveries (based on evidence!) deserve to be published. But do you believe Google should keep search results that deny the Holocaust? I personally see no value in that trash and if I was Google, I'd blacklist that stuff too.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  Whoah whoah whoah, how is marketing different than propoganda?
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."
  - diogenescynic 9y ago
    Ironic because Socialist forums are heavily moderated and quickly ban those who don't repeat the talking points. They hate having their ideas challenged, but get mad that a public company won't give them web traffic? Cry me a river.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      >Ironic because Socialist forums are heavily moderated I'm a member of at least one such forum which isn't heavily moderated. >and quickly ban those who don't repeat the talking points The forum I use prides itself on allowing such discussion. >They hate having their ideas challenged I love having my ideas challenged, and I love arguing, who are you constructing a straw man of?
    - hellbanner 9y ago
      Give some examples if you're going to name names.
- confounded 9y ago
  Your examples are cherry-picked UGC from Reddit (not a good brush to tar any viewpoint with). Are there specific WSWS examples, or is the the concept of advocating socialism which is false to you?

mmbaghdad 9y ago

so much reductionism, there isn't one left. there're factions and they do have different opinions on the previous political projects.

diogenescynic 9y ago
Sorry, but the tankies who think nothing bad has ever been done in the name of communism are just as foolish as the InfoWars junkies screaming about chem-trails.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Do you have evidence that this website in question is a "tankie" website? Or does it offer a different viewpoint, or a range of viewpoints?

evanlivingston 9y ago

Who determines what is misinformation?

mhermher 9y ago
A private company with no oversight, obviously.
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  No oversight whatsoever... none... obviously. And really, would you seriously prefer the government to set search rankings? Because they have no conflict of interest either, right?
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > A private company with no oversight, obviously. Would you prefer a state/government entity? Or a political organization? Because god knows that socialist regimes are so hell-bent on promoting truth and impartial reports on inconvenient facts.

pmarreck 9y ago

It's almost like "truth" isn't an absolute thing, but an ongoing discussion... which has become fractured!

diogenescynic 9y ago
And yet there are observable and objective facts. Water freezes at 32 degrees. The sky is blue. Grass is green. When a source repeatedly tells you not to believe your own eyes, but offers no valid counter-argument--you should be suspicious. I'm fine with Google/Facebook or whoever filtering out known dishonest and inaccurate websites, whether they are intentionally malicious or just ignorant.
- undersuit 9y ago
  So WSWS is a known dishonest and/or inaccurate website?
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    WSWS? Oh yeah. It's an extreme left site that makes no attempt at any objectivity.
    - undersuit 9y ago
      I hate to have to ask again. Lack of objectivity isn't dishonest or inaccurate. ob·jec·tive (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. So is WSWS a dishonest and/or inaccurate website?
      - macspoofing 9y ago
        If you notice, they seemed to be flagged for neutral historical search queries. Things like "Russian Revolution". Someone reading it would get a viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream historians. So yes, dishonest.

pbreit 9y ago

This is ironic, right?

etplayer 9y ago

>From my experience, socialist websites and forums tend to ignore, rewrite, or white wash the history of communism in Russia/USSR Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. Do you have evidence that your experience applies in this particular case, or are you just generalising? For a user named after a philosopher, you don't seem to be very keen to apply logic in this circumstance, perhaps because of bias or bad prior experience. Not to mention you're grouping in several tendencies and ideologies and opinions within a very broad movement that's lasted 200 years to date in your criticism, which is at best inaccurate and at worst disingenuous.

macspoofing 9y ago
>Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. It's also true in this case. WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history. If you want an objective view of the Russian Revolution, this is not the site you would go to - so I have no issues with Google tuning their search engine to suppress them in the search results for those kinds of queries.
- etplayer 9y ago
  >WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site I'm always a little amused when people use "ideology" in this way. Marx said that ideology promotes "false consciousness" about political power structures; by this measure, that which exposes false consciousness is anti-ideological. So by this measure, WSWS is non-ideological. On the other hand, Zizek claims that for someone to actually be captured by ideology, the ideology must be first presented to them as non-ideological. Can you see the conundrum? Ideology isn't an illusion, rather, to be rid of ideology may be to put on the glasses rather than take them off, to use Zizek's example in the film They Live. >with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history Perhaps it is the mainstream that is ideological, because it's true ideology that holds the most power!
  - macspoofing 9y ago

codedokode 9y ago

Would not it be better to explain why something is a propaganda and what is its purpose rather than block it?

zeep 9y ago

you want them to block what you think is misinformation, but what they paint as misinformation might be very different.