23 ms·

> I don't want Google to be the judge of the validity of claims as it's perfectly possible to make an add which is 100% made up of technically correct statement

> I don't want Google to be the judge of the validity of claims as it's perfectly possible to make an add which is 100% made up of technically correct statements but presents a misleading narrative. What do you find objectionable about a low-pass filter that simply removes obvious lies?

zajd 7y ago
> simply removes obvious lies Good luck!
noman-land 7y ago
I think you mean high-pass filter?
- MayeulC 7y ago
  I guess that just depends on the axis orientation... But there is nothing inherently wrong about removing pure garbage ads. Of course, one might object that it would give more visibility to harder-to-discern bad ads, and make the consumer less wary of ads if they are less used to see them with obviously wrong information. Double edged sword as always, and I would certainly ban them. Or every ad, for that matter. But that's google, it is their business model, so what are you expecting?
- justin66 7y ago
  Quite right.
Karunamon 7y ago
The fact that I don't trust Google (or any other large corporation, for that matter) to judge what is and is not an "obvious lie" given the right political incentives. In this case, outright banning would be better and remove any ambiguity or opportunity for shenanigans.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  You shouldn't trust any large _institution_ to prevent "obvious lies" from spreading. Institutions are just collections of people, and there's barely a single one out there that's managed to completdly avoid the fact that people are, generally speaking, dishonest and dumb.
  - x220 7y ago
    I trust The Economist newspaper and the Congressional Budget Office
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      You'd trust The Economist (or the CBO) to be the arbiter of what other people are allowed to say? That's what my comment says, not "trust any institution to avoid telling obvious lies" (that being said, I've read some pretty dishonest stuff in the Economist, despite generally being a fan).
      - x220 7y ago
        >You'd trust The Economist (or the CBO) to be the arbiter of what other people are allowed to say? They already do that with their own employees. They censor and control what statements they print to control for accuracy. Journalism concerns in part determining what true statements we should print. I think the Economist and CBO do a good job of separating the facts from the fiction. I would trust them to fact-check statements. I would not trust CNN or Facebook or the Democrats to fact-check statements.
- zepto 7y ago
  Ok, so then you have the problem of Google judging what is and is not political.
  - justin66 7y ago
    This is a good point that runs a little deeper than some people appreciate. (moving a topic into the category of "political" can already, today, be a subtle form of censorship in the public sphere) At the same time, if we're talking about advertising, in the US we can just rely on what constitutes political advertising under the law.
shakna 7y ago
What constitutes an "obvious lie"? If China says the majority of Hong Kong support immediate reunification, backed by a statement from the Hong Kong government, is that an "obvious lie"? It comes from what is considered to be an authoritative source of truth. If Google can overrule a government's statement, by disagreeing with China, does that mean they can overrule the official statement of any government? That gives them the power, and incentive, to approve some statements that come from the White House, and not others that might damage their own reputation. Or rather, knowing Google, approval of these goes through a machine, with unknown bias, and suddenly Google is only approving right-wing messages. All Democrat messages get disapproved. Or vice versa. It places Google in position as the ultimate source of truth, without giving them the responsibility that comes with that.
- pjc50 7y ago
  On the other hand, if google replies to the query "labour manifesto" and the top link is an ad to "labourmanifesto.co.uk" that is actually run by the conservative party, that's the same category of fraud as if I entered "chase bank" and was sent to a phishing site. Allowing that ad in response to that query is defrauding voters. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-labour-manifesto-website-fact-check-general-election-a9212076.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-lab... Being the largest source of information in the world while being completely indifferent as to whether that information is true or not is an amazingly nihilistic, amoral position to take.
  - shakna 7y ago
    Absolutely. I think the most sensible thing for any ad agency to do is to ban _all_ political ads. It may become difficult for them to differentiate what is and isn't a political ad (an ad for a gay dating app could be construed as a political ad in some nations), but they need to remove themselves from any seat of responsibility.
- justin66 7y ago
  Based on your questions and comments I get the feeling I am communicating with someone who does not know that journalism exists or how it is supposed to work. What constitutes an "obvious lie"? is not even close to being an intractable problem. Reporting what China said is not the same thing as putting it forward as the truth. Determining whether it is the truth or not is not necessarily an impossible task. Etc. etc. It's true enough that Google will experience some pressure to kowtow to the governments or powerful interests who have the ability to lean on them, and that is probably a pretty good argument to get out of the business of political advertising altogether. "What is truth anyway, man????" is not much of an argument.

zajd 7y ago

> simply removes obvious lies Good luck!

noman-land 7y ago

I think you mean high-pass filter?

MayeulC 7y ago
I guess that just depends on the axis orientation... But there is nothing inherently wrong about removing pure garbage ads. Of course, one might object that it would give more visibility to harder-to-discern bad ads, and make the consumer less wary of ads if they are less used to see them with obviously wrong information. Double edged sword as always, and I would certainly ban them. Or every ad, for that matter. But that's google, it is their business model, so what are you expecting?
justin66 7y ago
Quite right.

Karunamon 7y ago

The fact that I don't trust Google (or any other large corporation, for that matter) to judge what is and is not an "obvious lie" given the right political incentives. In this case, outright banning would be better and remove any ambiguity or opportunity for shenanigans.

wutbrodo 7y ago
You shouldn't trust any large _institution_ to prevent "obvious lies" from spreading. Institutions are just collections of people, and there's barely a single one out there that's managed to completdly avoid the fact that people are, generally speaking, dishonest and dumb.
- x220 7y ago
  I trust The Economist newspaper and the Congressional Budget Office
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    You'd trust The Economist (or the CBO) to be the arbiter of what other people are allowed to say? That's what my comment says, not "trust any institution to avoid telling obvious lies" (that being said, I've read some pretty dishonest stuff in the Economist, despite generally being a fan).
    - x220 7y ago
      >You'd trust The Economist (or the CBO) to be the arbiter of what other people are allowed to say? They already do that with their own employees. They censor and control what statements they print to control for accuracy. Journalism concerns in part determining what true statements we should print. I think the Economist and CBO do a good job of separating the facts from the fiction. I would trust them to fact-check statements. I would not trust CNN or Facebook or the Democrats to fact-check statements.
zepto 7y ago
Ok, so then you have the problem of Google judging what is and is not political.
- justin66 7y ago
  This is a good point that runs a little deeper than some people appreciate. (moving a topic into the category of "political" can already, today, be a subtle form of censorship in the public sphere) At the same time, if we're talking about advertising, in the US we can just rely on what constitutes political advertising under the law.

shakna 7y ago

What constitutes an "obvious lie"? If China says the majority of Hong Kong support immediate reunification, backed by a statement from the Hong Kong government, is that an "obvious lie"? It comes from what is considered to be an authoritative source of truth. If Google can overrule a government's statement, by disagreeing with China, does that mean they can overrule the official statement of any government? That gives them the power, and incentive, to approve some statements that come from the White House, and not others that might damage their own reputation. Or rather, knowing Google, approval of these goes through a machine, with unknown bias, and suddenly Google is only approving right-wing messages. All Democrat messages get disapproved. Or vice versa. It places Google in position as the ultimate source of truth, without giving them the responsibility that comes with that.

pjc50 7y ago
On the other hand, if google replies to the query "labour manifesto" and the top link is an ad to "labourmanifesto.co.uk" that is actually run by the conservative party, that's the same category of fraud as if I entered "chase bank" and was sent to a phishing site. Allowing that ad in response to that query is defrauding voters. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-labour-manifesto-website-fact-check-general-election-a9212076.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-lab... Being the largest source of information in the world while being completely indifferent as to whether that information is true or not is an amazingly nihilistic, amoral position to take.
- shakna 7y ago
  Absolutely. I think the most sensible thing for any ad agency to do is to ban _all_ political ads. It may become difficult for them to differentiate what is and isn't a political ad (an ad for a gay dating app could be construed as a political ad in some nations), but they need to remove themselves from any seat of responsibility.
justin66 7y ago
Based on your questions and comments I get the feeling I am communicating with someone who does not know that journalism exists or how it is supposed to work. What constitutes an "obvious lie"? is not even close to being an intractable problem. Reporting what China said is not the same thing as putting it forward as the truth. Determining whether it is the truth or not is not necessarily an impossible task. Etc. etc. It's true enough that Google will experience some pressure to kowtow to the governments or powerful interests who have the ability to lean on them, and that is probably a pretty good argument to get out of the business of political advertising altogether. "What is truth anyway, man????" is not much of an argument.