5 ms·

Google's aim in recent changes is to promote quality, reputable content rather than tabloid, 'fake news'/propaganda and content farms. If we take a quick look

by mabbo 7y ago

Google's aim in recent changes is to promote quality, reputable content rather than tabloid, 'fake news'/propaganda and content farms. If we take a quick look over at DailyMail.co.uk, one can quickly identify where the problem might be located.

dazc 7y ago
The Daily Mail is hardly unique in terms of fake news and propaganda, especially in the UK. Give me an example that proves otherwise instead of downvoting?
- iron0013 7y ago
  No thanks, I prefer to downvote.
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  But then surely the answer there is that other bad actors (The Sun, Daily Express, etc.) should suffer the same penalties from Wikipedia, Google, etc.; not that one should slide because others are just as bad.
kofejnik 7y ago
"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  Correct but you will be downvoted here of course. Edit: and now this comment is flagged.
  - sctb 7y ago
    > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dguaraglia 7y ago
  The DailyMail isn't reputable by any standard. If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    > If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it. Yes, at CNN.
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  Not solely. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... > The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. I'm surprised it took Google 2 years to get around to the same viewpoint.
  - Matsta 7y ago
    I mentioned in my comment, but I think they have been struck with a manual action from Google. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.
    - driverdan 7y ago
      Wikipedia is not a primary source. Even so it's more trustworthy than The Daily Mail.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?
      - Bartweiss 7y ago
        It's sort of funny how knee-jerk "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has become. It is among other things a user-editable encyclopedia. It's also the largest project of the Wikimedia foundation, an online-encyclopedia development initiative with a paid staff, and one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. As you say, it is a primary source here. The question isn't what's on the Daily Mail's anyone-can-edit Wikipedia page, it's what a closed group of encyclopedia overseers have decided constitutes an acceptable source. What's more, the closest competitor, Britannica, relies on finding expert contributors instead of listing specific reputable sources, so its editors wouldn't be nearly as relevant here!
- mabbo 7y ago
  I'm on the fence with whether I agree with you. Yes, biases may come into play, but Daily Mail has always played fast and loose with facts. If Google has found a way to identify bullshit like that and de-prioritize it from search results, that's both amazing and good for the world. It would encourage DailyMail to focus on news, facts, reality and not their usual tabloid fare.
- orwin 7y ago
  And if it's not the majority definition and does actually not improve the search experience, the market will punish them for it. I'm nearly degooglized (youtube vulgarisation videos are hard to pass sadly), i'm not a fan of their policies and their control of the market, but come on, this argument do not stand.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  "reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias I think a fair assessment wouldn't pin 100% of the cause to Google's ideological bias. However, a fair assessment of the situation would also acknowledge the existence of Google's ideological bias.
AnabeeKnox 7y ago
The Daily Mail is neither fake news, nor propaganda, nor a content farm. These are ludicrous suggestions. It's an unpleasant sensationalist tabloid, but it abides by the UK press standards authority. There are equivalents in every western country.
- toby- 7y ago
  He wasn't necessarily implying the Daily Mail is propaganda or a content farm. They are, however, a tabloid of ill repute.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  It's definitely a content farm; I suppose the other two accusations depend on one's personal definitions. "The production process was simple. During a day shift—8 a.m. to about 6 p.m—four news editors stationed together near Clarke's desk assigned stories to reporters from a continually updated list of other publications' articles, to which I did not have access. Throughout the day, they would monitor the website's traffic to determine what was getting clicked on and what to remove from the homepage." from: My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online @ http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-... https://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/daily-mail-accused-of-plagiarizing-emma-thompson-interview https://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/daily-... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/09/news-corp-accuses-daily-mail-australia-of-plagiarism https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/09/news-corp-accu...
- stordoff 7y ago
  The ISPO has ruled against the Daily Mail / Mail Online multiple times: https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=07188-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - "The publication had failed to handle publication sensitively" https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05768-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - "Publishing photographs of the complainants taken in such circumstances represented an intrusion; the publication had not sought to justify the publication of the images in the public interest." https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=07543-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - accuracy ("This gave rise to a misleading impression of the effects of GDPR legislation") https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=06837-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - accuracy ("This article was a report of an inquest, in which the deceased had been inaccurately identified. This was a fundamental and damaging error on a basic point of fact. [...T]he correct position was readily available, [so] there had been a failure on the part of the agency providing the story to take care over its accuracy.") https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=20912-17 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - accuracy ("The repetition of these serious allegations against the man, with no indication they had been disproven, seriously misrepresented the judgment") amongst others.
tomohawk 7y ago
Google has a monopoly on search. Their market share is 94%. https://sparktoro.com/blog/as-the-antitrust-case-against-google-kicks-off-heres-where-the-doj-should-start/ https://sparktoro.com/blog/as-the-antitrust-case-against-goo... As a monopolist, they need to meet much higher standards of accountability, transparency, and fairness. Would we tolerate it if the electric monopoly cut off power to the Daily Mail? Or the water monopoly? When you're not a monopoly, you don't have to care about any of these things. You're in it to win it. As a society, we cannot have a monopoly willy nilly censoring sites with no accountability or means of redress. It is an intolerable situation. A monopoly must be demonstrably fair to everyone.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  > Would we tolerate it if the electric monopoly cut off power to the Daily Mail? I think most of us would encourage it. The paper and it's online counterpart are a detriment to society... But I get your broader point.

by mabbo 7y ago

dazc 7y ago

The Daily Mail is hardly unique in terms of fake news and propaganda, especially in the UK. Give me an example that proves otherwise instead of downvoting?

iron0013 7y ago
No thanks, I prefer to downvote.
zimpenfish 7y ago
But then surely the answer there is that other bad actors (The Sun, Daily Express, etc.) should suffer the same penalties from Wikipedia, Google, etc.; not that one should slide because others are just as bad.

kofejnik 7y ago

"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias

sergiotapia 7y ago
Correct but you will be downvoted here of course. Edit: and now this comment is flagged.
- sctb 7y ago
  > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dguaraglia 7y ago
The DailyMail isn't reputable by any standard. If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it. Yes, at CNN.
zimpenfish 7y ago
Not solely. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... > The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. I'm surprised it took Google 2 years to get around to the same viewpoint.
- Matsta 7y ago
  I mentioned in my comment, but I think they have been struck with a manual action from Google. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.
  - driverdan 7y ago
    Wikipedia is not a primary source. Even so it's more trustworthy than The Daily Mail.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?
    - Bartweiss 7y ago
      It's sort of funny how knee-jerk "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has become. It is among other things a user-editable encyclopedia. It's also the largest project of the Wikimedia foundation, an online-encyclopedia development initiative with a paid staff, and one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. As you say, it is a primary source here. The question isn't what's on the Daily Mail's anyone-can-edit Wikipedia page, it's what a closed group of encyclopedia overseers have decided constitutes an acceptable source. What's more, the closest competitor, Britannica, relies on finding expert contributors instead of listing specific reputable sources, so its editors wouldn't be nearly as relevant here!
mabbo 7y ago
I'm on the fence with whether I agree with you. Yes, biases may come into play, but Daily Mail has always played fast and loose with facts. If Google has found a way to identify bullshit like that and de-prioritize it from search results, that's both amazing and good for the world. It would encourage DailyMail to focus on news, facts, reality and not their usual tabloid fare.
orwin 7y ago
And if it's not the majority definition and does actually not improve the search experience, the market will punish them for it. I'm nearly degooglized (youtube vulgarisation videos are hard to pass sadly), i'm not a fan of their policies and their control of the market, but come on, this argument do not stand.
stcredzero 7y ago
"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias I think a fair assessment wouldn't pin 100% of the cause to Google's ideological bias. However, a fair assessment of the situation would also acknowledge the existence of Google's ideological bias.

AnabeeKnox 7y ago

The Daily Mail is neither fake news, nor propaganda, nor a content farm. These are ludicrous suggestions. It's an unpleasant sensationalist tabloid, but it abides by the UK press standards authority. There are equivalents in every western country.

toby- 7y ago
He wasn't necessarily implying the Daily Mail is propaganda or a content farm. They are, however, a tabloid of ill repute.
pessimizer 7y ago
It's definitely a content farm; I suppose the other two accusations depend on one's personal definitions. "The production process was simple. During a day shift—8 a.m. to about 6 p.m—four news editors stationed together near Clarke's desk assigned stories to reporters from a continually updated list of other publications' articles, to which I did not have access. Throughout the day, they would monitor the website's traffic to determine what was getting clicked on and what to remove from the homepage." from: My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online @ http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-... https://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/daily-mail-accused-of-plagiarizing-emma-thompson-interview https://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/daily-... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/09/news-corp-accuses-daily-mail-australia-of-plagiarism https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/09/news-corp-accu...
stordoff 7y ago
The ISPO has ruled against the Daily Mail / Mail Online multiple times: https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=07188-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - "The publication had failed to handle publication sensitively" https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05768-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - "Publishing photographs of the complainants taken in such circumstances represented an intrusion; the publication had not sought to justify the publication of the images in the public interest." https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=07543-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - accuracy ("This gave rise to a misleading impression of the effects of GDPR legislation") https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=06837-18 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - accuracy ("This article was a report of an inquest, in which the deceased had been inaccurately identified. This was a fundamental and damaging error on a basic point of fact. [...T]he correct position was readily available, [so] there had been a failure on the part of the agency providing the story to take care over its accuracy.") https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=20912-17 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/rul... - accuracy ("The repetition of these serious allegations against the man, with no indication they had been disproven, seriously misrepresented the judgment") amongst others.

tomohawk 7y ago

Google has a monopoly on search. Their market share is 94%. https://sparktoro.com/blog/as-the-antitrust-case-against-google-kicks-off-heres-where-the-doj-should-start/ https://sparktoro.com/blog/as-the-antitrust-case-against-goo... As a monopolist, they need to meet much higher standards of accountability, transparency, and fairness. Would we tolerate it if the electric monopoly cut off power to the Daily Mail? Or the water monopoly? When you're not a monopoly, you don't have to care about any of these things. You're in it to win it. As a society, we cannot have a monopoly willy nilly censoring sites with no accountability or means of redress. It is an intolerable situation. A monopoly must be demonstrably fair to everyone.

oliwarner 7y ago
> Would we tolerate it if the electric monopoly cut off power to the Daily Mail? I think most of us would encourage it. The paper and it's online counterpart are a detriment to society... But I get your broader point.