5 ms·

> Google isn't trying to control or limit what people think. Google's efforts against "fake news" are exactly trying to do that. And just because one agrees w

> Google isn't trying to control or limit what people think. Google's efforts against "fake news" are exactly trying to do that. And just because one agrees with them in this one instance doesn't change the precedent.

andybak 8y ago
Rather a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" on that one.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  I'm not saying I don't understand why they are doing it. But I also understand why news media in a totalitarian regime toe the party line, say. And they are also damned if they do, damned if they don't. Again, I am not claiming that Google should be doing something different. They may well not have any other options. I'm claiming that we should be aware of what they (and various other companies and governments!) are doing and act accordingly. If someone claimed that the US government "isn't trying to control or limit what people think", say, that would probably be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. Even more so for the Chinese government. My argument is that such claims about Google should also be treated sceptically. Not as sceptically as the Chinese government; hard to compare tothe US government.
gxigzigxigxi 8y ago
Hrm. It is different. Google going against fake news is google avoiding the promulgation of falsehoods. That is, in a sense, an effort to change people’s beliefs. But in that sense, anything and everything that google does or doesn’t do would be considered an effort to change beliefs, which makes it a useless statement.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  Google has no problems with promulgating falsehoods that are not classified as "fake news". Unfortunately, that definition involves a lot of motivated reasoning, on all sides. > anything and everything that google does or doesn’t do would be considered an effort to change beliefs Absolutely. Google (like so many other organizations) is making efforts to change beliefs all the time. That's not a problem per se, except they have so much leverage to _succeed_ at it that it might be worth thinking about the implications a bit. And statements that they don't do it don't help with that step.
- hammock 8y ago
  >promulgation Did you mean proliferation? (just trying to avoid falsehoods on HN)
  - gxigzigxigxi 8y ago
    No, I meant what I said.

andybak 8y ago

Rather a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" on that one.

bzbarsky 8y ago
I'm not saying I don't understand why they are doing it. But I also understand why news media in a totalitarian regime toe the party line, say. And they are also damned if they do, damned if they don't. Again, I am not claiming that Google should be doing something different. They may well not have any other options. I'm claiming that we should be aware of what they (and various other companies and governments!) are doing and act accordingly. If someone claimed that the US government "isn't trying to control or limit what people think", say, that would probably be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. Even more so for the Chinese government. My argument is that such claims about Google should also be treated sceptically. Not as sceptically as the Chinese government; hard to compare tothe US government.

gxigzigxigxi 8y ago

Hrm. It is different. Google going against fake news is google avoiding the promulgation of falsehoods. That is, in a sense, an effort to change people’s beliefs. But in that sense, anything and everything that google does or doesn’t do would be considered an effort to change beliefs, which makes it a useless statement.

bzbarsky 8y ago
Google has no problems with promulgating falsehoods that are not classified as "fake news". Unfortunately, that definition involves a lot of motivated reasoning, on all sides. > anything and everything that google does or doesn’t do would be considered an effort to change beliefs Absolutely. Google (like so many other organizations) is making efforts to change beliefs all the time. That's not a problem per se, except they have so much leverage to _succeed_ at it that it might be worth thinking about the implications a bit. And statements that they don't do it don't help with that step.
hammock 8y ago
>promulgation Did you mean proliferation? (just trying to avoid falsehoods on HN)
- gxigzigxigxi 8y ago
  No, I meant what I said.