6 ms·
Google has started censoring any anti-war, progressive, independent outlets in an effort to combat "fake news" and "russian propaganda". Here are some extracts
by otalp 9y ago
Google has started censoring any anti-war, progressive, independent outlets in an effort to combat "fake news" and "russian propaganda". Here are some extracts from the findings of the WSWS:
"....estimating the decline of traffic generated by Google searches for 13 sites with substantial readerships. The results are as follows:
* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
* theintercept.com fell by 19 percent
In the twelve months preceding the implementation of the new Google protocols, the WSWS had experienced a substantial increase in readership. A significant component of this increase was the product of Google search results. The rapid rise in search traffic reflected the well-documented growth in popular interest in socialist politics during 2016. The rate of growth accelerated following the November election, which led to large protests against the election of Trump.
Search traffic to the WSWS peaked in April 2017, precisely at the point when Google began the implementation of its censorship protocols.
Another site affected by Google’s action has provided information that confirms the findings of the WSWS:
“In late May, changes to Google’s algorithm negatively impacted the volume of traffic to the Common Dreams website from organic Google searches,” said Aaron Kaufman, director of development at progressive news outlet Common Dreams. “Since May, traffic from Google Search as a percentage of total traffic to the Common Dreams website has decreased nearly 50 percent.”
The extent and impact of Google’s actions prove that a combination of techniques is being employed to block access to targeted sites. These involve the direct flagging and blackballing of the WSWS and the other 12 sites listed above by Google evaluators. These sites are assigned a highly negative rating that assures that their articles will be either demoted or entirely bypassed. In addition, new programming technology teaches the computers to think like the evaluators, that is, to emulate their preferences and prejudices.
Finally, the precision of this operation strongly suggests that there is an additional range of exclusion techniques involving the selection of terms, words, phrases and topics that are associated with socialist and left-wing websites."
- cvsh 9y agoGood, as long as right-populist sites are losing new readers as fast as left-populist sites are. If Google is indeed making an active effort to use its influence to stall our societal descent into Weimar Republic politics, it should be applauded.
- humanrebar 9y ago"Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam) — also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy, false middle point fallacy, equidistance fallacy and the golden mean fallacy — is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
- mtberatwork 9y agoA drop in the SERPs doesn't mean censorship. Google updates their algorithms routinely and the SEO landscape is quite volatile. Furthermore, "blackballing" would mean a complete de-indexing from Google and that doesn't appear to be the case. Just glancing at many of these sites, one can see numerous basic SEO issues: poor mobile usability, broken UI, lack of schema.org markup, not leveraging AMP, heavy "page weight", etc. Again, glancing through these site, there is very little reporting and mostly opinion pieces being published. In several cases, I also see quite a number of "re-blogged" pieces which are of little to no value in terms traffic. If I had to guess, most of these sites probably suffer from poor back-link profiles and are rarely cited by other sites with good page rank.
- otalp 9y agoEric Schmidt has said outright that he's "deranking" particular sites that Google has targeted specifically (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/google-de-rank-russia-today-sputnik-combat-misinformation-alphabet-chief-executive-eric-schmidt https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/google-de...). Other sites like The Intercept, which does indeed do very good original reporting, while criticising the hysteria over Russia, have also been hit.