3 ms·

I find it appalling that you don't even confront the question of "why are we using algorithms to promote news"? Unless Google can somehow find a way to reliabl

by awj 9y ago

I find it appalling that you don't even confront the question of "why are we using algorithms to promote news"? Unless Google can somehow find a way to reliably present factual content, what they're doing here is fundamentally irresponsible. That their choice of editorialization strategy is based on algorithms is entirely besides the point. The proof is in the pudding, and Google's pudding sometimes has chunks of shit in it. The onus is not on me to understand why that shit got there to be able to state that I don't want shit in my pudding.

blacksmith_tb 9y ago
But isn't the problem that Google isn't a news outlet? It's essentially showing us all the 'shit' that's floating around on the internet. Going to them expecting to get 'just the facts' is a category error.
- awj 9y ago
  Except that's exactly the expectation people have of news, and Google calls what they do news. It absolutely isn't a category error on the part of consumers when Google puts themselves in the category.
  - blacksmith_tb 9y ago
    That's fair, to a point. Obviously most of what Google does is search, but "Top Stories" is cheerfully vague. It isn't Google News proper, but I agree it's intentionally confusing.
colemannugent 9y ago
>I find it appalling that you don't even confront the question of "why are we using algorithms to promote news"? So you think news could be effectively be curated on Google's scale by humans alone? >Unless Google can somehow find a way to reliably present factual content, what they're doing here is fundamentally irresponsible. Where do they claim that the content they present if factual? You are assuming this. They merely aggregate data, what you do with the data is your responsibility, not Google's. A higher ranking in results does not mean a higher level of accuracy in the content of the result, as anyone researching anything could tell you. >The proof is in the pudding, and Google's pudding sometimes has chunks of shit in it. The onus is not on me to understand why that shit got there to be able to state that I don't want shit in my pudding. I think what you are trying to say here is that you search for things expecting "the truth" to be given to you. Google only gives you things to read, you actually need to read them to determine if you think they're true or not. The onus is on you. Don't believe everything that Google "tells" you. For a while, asking Google Now how tall the current president was (after Trump took office) would still give you Obama's height. Had you not actually looked at your phone, you wouldn't have noticed that the height it spoke back to you was for the wrong president. If you went around claiming Trump was the same height as Obama (they are actually pretty close, but that's besides the point) then you would be wrong and the responsibility would be solely yours for simply accepting whatever Google told you without checking other sources.
- ksk 9y ago
  News is understood by the average person as a factual piece of information as opposed to a gossip or a rumor. They call it "Google News" and not "Stuff our algorithms find to be popular or current which may or may not be true!".

by awj 9y ago

blacksmith_tb 9y ago

But isn't the problem that Google isn't a news outlet? It's essentially showing us all the 'shit' that's floating around on the internet. Going to them expecting to get 'just the facts' is a category error.

awj 9y ago
Except that's exactly the expectation people have of news, and Google calls what they do news. It absolutely isn't a category error on the part of consumers when Google puts themselves in the category.
- blacksmith_tb 9y ago
  That's fair, to a point. Obviously most of what Google does is search, but "Top Stories" is cheerfully vague. It isn't Google News proper, but I agree it's intentionally confusing.

colemannugent 9y ago

>I find it appalling that you don't even confront the question of "why are we using algorithms to promote news"? So you think news could be effectively be curated on Google's scale by humans alone? >Unless Google can somehow find a way to reliably present factual content, what they're doing here is fundamentally irresponsible. Where do they claim that the content they present if factual? You are assuming this. They merely aggregate data, what you do with the data is your responsibility, not Google's. A higher ranking in results does not mean a higher level of accuracy in the content of the result, as anyone researching anything could tell you. >The proof is in the pudding, and Google's pudding sometimes has chunks of shit in it. The onus is not on me to understand why that shit got there to be able to state that I don't want shit in my pudding. I think what you are trying to say here is that you search for things expecting "the truth" to be given to you. Google only gives you things to read, you actually need to read them to determine if you think they're true or not. The onus is on you. Don't believe everything that Google "tells" you. For a while, asking Google Now how tall the current president was (after Trump took office) would still give you Obama's height. Had you not actually looked at your phone, you wouldn't have noticed that the height it spoke back to you was for the wrong president. If you went around claiming Trump was the same height as Obama (they are actually pretty close, but that's besides the point) then you would be wrong and the responsibility would be solely yours for simply accepting whatever Google told you without checking other sources.

ksk 9y ago
News is understood by the average person as a factual piece of information as opposed to a gossip or a rumor. They call it "Google News" and not "Stuff our algorithms find to be popular or current which may or may not be true!".