6 ms·

>I suspect anyone who disagrees is taking a provincial, American view on the subject, and is being triggered by the phrase "gun control". How open-minded of yo

by jsega 8y ago

>I suspect anyone who disagrees is taking a provincial, American view on the subject, and is being triggered by the phrase "gun control". How open-minded of you. There is no better way to partake in a discussion in good faith then to use the old: If you disagree with me [insert negative suggestion here].

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I'm an owner of firearms and in favor of the second amendment and I still agree with parent, Gun Control being highlighted as a relevant article makes complete sense, since Gun Control is fundamentally about rights related to firearm ownership.
- dhimes 8y ago
  It's not absurd, but there is a page that fits the search term better in the same domain. That's what makes it "suspicious."
  - rovr138 8y ago
    The title and domain is not the only thing that matter for Google’s ranking.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Right - of course. So the question is: are the other "things that matter" designed to: 1) Inform the user and help the user quickly find facts, narratives, and meaningful content related to the search phrase? 2) Sell things? 3) Promote modes of political control by narrowing the scope of acceptable thought and connection between search phrase and content? We all hope for #1. We all accept #2. But I think that most of us, at least until recently, had thought that #3 wasn't happening to any significant degree. I agree that results like this one are befuddling - a search for "Politically controversial and anti-state concept <foo>" brings as the first result, "Related but saccharine pro-state concept <bar>" when both foo and bar appear in approximately equal stature in the domain in question. Yeah, I think that's odd. And I don't see a way to easily explain it in the context of numbers 1 and 2 above.
      - wool_gather 8y ago
        The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect from "Gun rights") and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control definitely put a different complexion on the subject -- or at least very closely related subjects -- and it seems like someone searching for "Gun rights" would probably be better served by being shown the first article. So I think you're right to be skeptical here. On the other hand, after a scan of each, I see two plausible reasons that the "Gun control" article might be elevated. One, it's somewhat longer, with more references and cross-links (it even has a "See also" link to the "Gun rights" article). Two, superficially, the "Gun control" article is a bit more internationally focused. The title of the "Gun rights" article is straight out of the U.S. Constitution. The appearance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny -- they both spend similar shares of their content on U.S. stuff -- but it might make a small difference. Regardless of the reason, it's definitely good to pay attention to this sort of thing.
      - potta_coffee 8y ago
        Try Googling the term "white couple" as an image search - you will be provided with a page of interracial couples, not white couples. Not that I have a problem with interracial couples, my own family is interracial. But it's obvious how Google is attempting to influence the perspectives of it's users.
        dagenix 8y ago
        Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^
        potta_coffee 8y ago
        It's easily substantiated by searching different terms and observing the difference between what you're searching for and what results are provided.
        dagenix 8y ago
  - dagenix 8y ago
    According to you. There are a few other comments here with people expressing views that tue gun control article is actually the more useful result. Interpreting Google's ranking algorithm as a conspiracy to infrinage on gun rights is unsubstantiated by fact.
sjwright 8y ago
> How open-minded of you. Spoken like an American. You do know the rest of the world is doing just fine without your absurd gun "rights". I much prefer my "right" to live in a city where guns are exceptionally difficult to procure. That right keeps me much safer than your gun rights—and that's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.
- dang 8y ago
  Nationalistic flamewar is not allowed on HN regardless of which nation you have a problem with. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Fair enough, but it's simply a fact that certain obvious societal problems begin and end at the boundaries of nations. I didn't choose for it to be like that, I wish it wasn't like that. I didn't create the world we live in.
    - dang 8y ago
      Ok, but please follow the rules when posting here. That means avoiding flamebait, including nationalistic swipes.

by jsega 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I'm an owner of firearms and in favor of the second amendment and I still agree with parent, Gun Control being highlighted as a relevant article makes complete sense, since Gun Control is fundamentally about rights related to firearm ownership.

dhimes 8y ago
It's not absurd, but there is a page that fits the search term better in the same domain. That's what makes it "suspicious."
- rovr138 8y ago
  The title and domain is not the only thing that matter for Google’s ranking.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Right - of course. So the question is: are the other "things that matter" designed to: 1) Inform the user and help the user quickly find facts, narratives, and meaningful content related to the search phrase? 2) Sell things? 3) Promote modes of political control by narrowing the scope of acceptable thought and connection between search phrase and content? We all hope for #1. We all accept #2. But I think that most of us, at least until recently, had thought that #3 wasn't happening to any significant degree. I agree that results like this one are befuddling - a search for "Politically controversial and anti-state concept <foo>" brings as the first result, "Related but saccharine pro-state concept <bar>" when both foo and bar appear in approximately equal stature in the domain in question. Yeah, I think that's odd. And I don't see a way to easily explain it in the context of numbers 1 and 2 above.
    - wool_gather 8y ago
      The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect from "Gun rights") and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control definitely put a different complexion on the subject -- or at least very closely related subjects -- and it seems like someone searching for "Gun rights" would probably be better served by being shown the first article. So I think you're right to be skeptical here. On the other hand, after a scan of each, I see two plausible reasons that the "Gun control" article might be elevated. One, it's somewhat longer, with more references and cross-links (it even has a "See also" link to the "Gun rights" article). Two, superficially, the "Gun control" article is a bit more internationally focused. The title of the "Gun rights" article is straight out of the U.S. Constitution. The appearance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny -- they both spend similar shares of their content on U.S. stuff -- but it might make a small difference. Regardless of the reason, it's definitely good to pay attention to this sort of thing.
    - potta_coffee 8y ago
      Try Googling the term "white couple" as an image search - you will be provided with a page of interracial couples, not white couples. Not that I have a problem with interracial couples, my own family is interracial. But it's obvious how Google is attempting to influence the perspectives of it's users.
      - dagenix 8y ago
        Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^
        potta_coffee 8y ago
        It's easily substantiated by searching different terms and observing the difference between what you're searching for and what results are provided.
        dagenix 8y ago
- dagenix 8y ago
  According to you. There are a few other comments here with people expressing views that tue gun control article is actually the more useful result. Interpreting Google's ranking algorithm as a conspiracy to infrinage on gun rights is unsubstantiated by fact.

sjwright 8y ago

> How open-minded of you. Spoken like an American. You do know the rest of the world is doing just fine without your absurd gun "rights". I much prefer my "right" to live in a city where guns are exceptionally difficult to procure. That right keeps me much safer than your gun rights—and that's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.

dang 8y ago
Nationalistic flamewar is not allowed on HN regardless of which nation you have a problem with. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Fair enough, but it's simply a fact that certain obvious societal problems begin and end at the boundaries of nations. I didn't choose for it to be like that, I wish it wasn't like that. I didn't create the world we live in.
  - dang 8y ago
    Ok, but please follow the rules when posting here. That means avoiding flamebait, including nationalistic swipes.