4 ms·

Seems like you are mixing up two things: 1. search results 2. sponsored ads/links and Google shopping marketplace, which appear separately. If Google chooses

by jazzyk 9y ago

Seems like you are mixing up two things: 1. search results 2. sponsored ads/links and Google shopping marketplace, which appear separately. If Google chooses to not accept money from selling X, there will not be X items appearing in the sponsored links (2) section. But the search itself (1) has always been intended to return the most relevant information, based on the key words. Without any moral/political judgement, as long as it is legal.

vkou 9y ago
I'm not mixing those things up. People talking about Google search censorship are failing to note that: 1. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Search has, and continues to return relevant gun-related search results. 2. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Shopping[1] has had its search results reduced, hence the controversy. [1] Notice how all of the screencaps[2] posted on Zero Hedge/etc, are of people having the Shopping search tab open. [2] https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433 https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433
- jamra 9y ago
  I wasn’t posting my comment on Google in relation to shopping. There is a notion that Googles usefulness has made it a utility. If that utility chooses to censor, it’s worth discussing. The article I linked about Nazis are to explain the idea that censoring bad things can sometimes backfire. When you stop the bad people from assembling, how do you prevent the definition of bad to be changed in the future? As a matter of fact, my original comment was about the direction we are going in. With departments dedicated towards weeding out fake news, Google is ignoring its own bias. YouTube is targeting conservative ideas. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are perhaps an example of good censorship. At which point in the future will Google censor the next genocide?
  - vkou 9y ago
    > There is a notion that Googles usefulness has made it a utility. This is a fantastic argument against Silicon Valley - that the institutions that it created have too much power. However, that is not the argument being made in this subthread. Having this argument requires consideration of the institutions that it replaced, and whether or not the concentration of so much market influence in a corporation is a good thing. That's the problem at hand, not the particular politics of such a corporation. > YouTube is targeting conservative ideas. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are perhaps an example of good censorship. At which point in the future will Google censor the next genocide? I am of the understanding that the problem Sandy Hook conspiracies is not their content, but their presentation - my understanding is that they libel, and accuse victims of the shooting of conspiracy and murder. This is, by many definitions, harassment, and is against the TOS. > The article I linked about Nazis are to explain the idea that censoring bad things can sometimes backfire. If we really want to go down that tangent, may I remind you that this strategy of dealing with Nazis backfired spectacularly in 1933? We allowed them to speak, and big surprise, that did not stop them from suppressing the speech of their opposition, as soon as they seized power. Not that anything else could be expected from a movement that is built on no foundation but violence. Tolerance is not a suicide pact. [1] [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

by jazzyk 9y ago

vkou 9y ago

I'm not mixing those things up. People talking about Google search censorship are failing to note that: 1. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Search has, and continues to return relevant gun-related search results. 2. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Shopping[1] has had its search results reduced, hence the controversy. [1] Notice how all of the screencaps[2] posted on Zero Hedge/etc, are of people having the Shopping search tab open. [2] https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433 https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433

jamra 9y ago
I wasn’t posting my comment on Google in relation to shopping. There is a notion that Googles usefulness has made it a utility. If that utility chooses to censor, it’s worth discussing. The article I linked about Nazis are to explain the idea that censoring bad things can sometimes backfire. When you stop the bad people from assembling, how do you prevent the definition of bad to be changed in the future? As a matter of fact, my original comment was about the direction we are going in. With departments dedicated towards weeding out fake news, Google is ignoring its own bias. YouTube is targeting conservative ideas. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are perhaps an example of good censorship. At which point in the future will Google censor the next genocide?
- vkou 9y ago
  > There is a notion that Googles usefulness has made it a utility. This is a fantastic argument against Silicon Valley - that the institutions that it created have too much power. However, that is not the argument being made in this subthread. Having this argument requires consideration of the institutions that it replaced, and whether or not the concentration of so much market influence in a corporation is a good thing. That's the problem at hand, not the particular politics of such a corporation. > YouTube is targeting conservative ideas. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are perhaps an example of good censorship. At which point in the future will Google censor the next genocide? I am of the understanding that the problem Sandy Hook conspiracies is not their content, but their presentation - my understanding is that they libel, and accuse victims of the shooting of conspiracy and murder. This is, by many definitions, harassment, and is against the TOS. > The article I linked about Nazis are to explain the idea that censoring bad things can sometimes backfire. If we really want to go down that tangent, may I remind you that this strategy of dealing with Nazis backfired spectacularly in 1933? We allowed them to speak, and big surprise, that did not stop them from suppressing the speech of their opposition, as soon as they seized power. Not that anything else could be expected from a movement that is built on no foundation but violence. Tolerance is not a suicide pact. [1] [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...