6 ms·

Do Not Trust Google

61 points by DlSGUSTING 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
paulcole 6y ago
> As people increasingly are using search to navigate the web (as opposed to typing a URL into the address bar), this traffic increases, those people see more ads, Google makes more money. Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay per click and not pay per impression?
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  The ads appear above search results and so are often clicked on.
- rbecker 6y ago
  Google puts ads organic search results, so there's a good chance your users will click your ad instead of the search result. And if you don't advertise, then your ad-buying competitors will show up in search results ahead of your own site, if your site shows up at all: https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gvdsu1/entire_google_search_result_pages_are_now_ads/ https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gvdsu1/entire_googl...
bergstromm466 6y ago
"- what kind of users go to that websites (and does the user searching fit that profile)? - how much traffic does the website get? - how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)? - and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?" Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'. It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get detailed insights". I know it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all this trickery has become...
- DlSGUSTING 6y ago
  Yeah absolutely, GA is quite terrifying. And they just ignore "do not track" settings on browsers. Recaptcha is another one trojan horse imo. With recaptcha v3 you get that single score to determine how legitimate of a user you are. I've been outright blocked from sites because of my recaptcha score.
joe-collins 6y ago
> You don't have to agree with them politically to see that Google is applying different standards to conservative content than to more liberal content. Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking? (Granting, yes, perfect balance for any actor or reference frame is impossible; and accepting that some degree of filtering-scare-quotes-censorship is a positive, pro-social quality in a search engine.)
- cowpig 6y ago
  Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing. I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked. That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
  - burke_holland 6y ago
    This is exactly the problem, though. By suppressing this stuff, they validate the narrative that “THEY don’t want you to know the truth” (whoever the hell they is). This stuff doesn’t go away. It just migrates to different platforms and every time it’s taken down it gains credibility among the faithful. This is the current paradox that plagues us.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > it gains credibility among the faithful. Among whom it already had enough credibility.
    - DlSGUSTING 6y ago
      Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add legitimacy to them
dundarious 6y ago
invidio.us appears to be shutting down, which is a shame, as I was happy to learn there was a sort of startpage.com for youtube.
- DlSGUSTING 6y ago
  Yeah that's unfortunate. Seems like the maintainer is feeling burned out. invidiou.site is another instance you can import your invidious data to
29athrowaway 6y ago
The world would be a better place without Breitbart and Stormfront. If you think otherwise, leave a reply here. I would love to hear why you disagree. Otherwise you are just a closet racist.
- cowpig 6y ago
  Maybe edit this to remove the last statement?
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    As a person that has been spitted on and yelled at by racists, including one guy wearing an infowars t-shirt, I stand by what I said. Stormfront is a cesspool of racism and bigotry. Breitbart is a cesspool of misinformation.
    - cowpig 6y ago
      I agree with both those statements, but I don't agree with your preemptive ad hominem attack against people who disagree with you.
    - biggidywiggidy 6y ago
      I have been spat on called a "white cunt" by a person of color for just sitting on a bus doing nothing. However, black people can't be racist. And all white people are racist. And if a white person denies it, it is proof that they are racist. So it wasn't his racism. It was entirely my fault for being white. I should have been born to parents of different skin color. Then no matter what I did I wouldn't be a racist.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        Let's dissect this a little bit... > I have been spat on called a "white cunt" ... for just sitting on a bus doing nothing. I am sorry that happened to you, that sucks. > by a person of color If that person was incited to attack you because of something they read online, would this world be better if those websites did not exist? Or at least, if they were not returned as search results in Google? I think the answer to that is yes. > However, black people can't be racist. Everyone can be racist regardless of race. > And all white people are racist. It is stupid to deny that being a racist was normal and socially accepted until just few decades ago, and that a portion of the population today do not agree with desegregation, and do not agree with diversity. Are those the majority? No, but they do exist and their numbers are significant enough to be a problem. > I should have been born to parents of different skin color. Then no matter what I did I wouldn't be a racist. Wrong conclusion.
mgkimsal 6y ago
"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong." I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier. I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their 'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's more content to compete with too. If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them ranking lower years down the road isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but a company serving the needs and desires of its users?
- DlSGUSTING 6y ago
  I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion. I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    If a search engine should not take a stance, then who also should not? Publishers? (Incl. YouTube, which takes some big stances.) Libraries? Social media? Governments?! Everything is political in some form after all.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Impressive mental backflips. Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
ezluckyfree 6y ago
this is some pretty enlightened centrist content
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Google is manually making these decisions to block conservative websites So show us the evidence.
- DlSGUSTING 6y ago
  I'll add some more sources to support that claim, but the main one would be about the Google exec meeting after Trump got elected. https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/media/google-leaked-video-trump/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/media/google-leaked-video-t... Haven't vetted this source but I believe it's the right one
- thu2111 6y ago
  The graphs of traffic flatlining overnight aren't convincing evidence to you? There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in "Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories): https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-black-list-site-for-google-now.txt https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl... See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".
johnnujler 6y ago
Withdraw unto yourself and your immediate/close community.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Sure, and then when they are wrong you go down with the ship, oblivious.
  - johnnujler 6y ago
    Hmmm... Btw that was a joke to showcase the universality of trade-offs. And the idea that you do you and with that comes the responsibility to bear the consequences. Anyway be well.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
My stance is that companies should have to make a choice: If you editorialize, you’re a publisher. If you want copyright immunity, you can’t editorialize. - - - Further, HN is also biased. My political views are deemed an inherent flame war, no matter how calmly stated or supported by evidence — and I’d encourage you to review my comments and see exactly what @dang deems so wrong think it must be silenced.
rvieira 6y ago
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but perhaps a site trying to seriously discuss bias against Breitbart shouldn't use :ok: as a favicon.

61 points by DlSGUSTING 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

> As people increasingly are using search to navigate the web (as opposed to typing a URL into the address bar), this traffic increases, those people see more ads, Google makes more money. Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay per click and not pay per impression?

jay_kyburz 6y ago
The ads appear above search results and so are often clicked on.
rbecker 6y ago
Google puts ads organic search results, so there's a good chance your users will click your ad instead of the search result. And if you don't advertise, then your ad-buying competitors will show up in search results ahead of your own site, if your site shows up at all: https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gvdsu1/entire_google_search_result_pages_are_now_ads/ https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gvdsu1/entire_googl...

bergstromm466 6y ago

"- what kind of users go to that websites (and does the user searching fit that profile)? - how much traffic does the website get? - how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)? - and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?" Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'. It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get detailed insights". I know it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all this trickery has become...

DlSGUSTING 6y ago
Yeah absolutely, GA is quite terrifying. And they just ignore "do not track" settings on browsers. Recaptcha is another one trojan horse imo. With recaptcha v3 you get that single score to determine how legitimate of a user you are. I've been outright blocked from sites because of my recaptcha score.

joe-collins 6y ago

> You don't have to agree with them politically to see that Google is applying different standards to conservative content than to more liberal content. Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking? (Granting, yes, perfect balance for any actor or reference frame is impossible; and accepting that some degree of filtering-scare-quotes-censorship is a positive, pro-social quality in a search engine.)

cowpig 6y ago
Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing. I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked. That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
- burke_holland 6y ago
  This is exactly the problem, though. By suppressing this stuff, they validate the narrative that “THEY don’t want you to know the truth” (whoever the hell they is). This stuff doesn’t go away. It just migrates to different platforms and every time it’s taken down it gains credibility among the faithful. This is the current paradox that plagues us.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > it gains credibility among the faithful. Among whom it already had enough credibility.
  - DlSGUSTING 6y ago
    Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add legitimacy to them

dundarious 6y ago

invidio.us appears to be shutting down, which is a shame, as I was happy to learn there was a sort of startpage.com for youtube.

DlSGUSTING 6y ago
Yeah that's unfortunate. Seems like the maintainer is feeling burned out. invidiou.site is another instance you can import your invidious data to

29athrowaway 6y ago

The world would be a better place without Breitbart and Stormfront. If you think otherwise, leave a reply here. I would love to hear why you disagree. Otherwise you are just a closet racist.

cowpig 6y ago
Maybe edit this to remove the last statement?
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  As a person that has been spitted on and yelled at by racists, including one guy wearing an infowars t-shirt, I stand by what I said. Stormfront is a cesspool of racism and bigotry. Breitbart is a cesspool of misinformation.
  - cowpig 6y ago
    I agree with both those statements, but I don't agree with your preemptive ad hominem attack against people who disagree with you.
  - biggidywiggidy 6y ago
    I have been spat on called a "white cunt" by a person of color for just sitting on a bus doing nothing. However, black people can't be racist. And all white people are racist. And if a white person denies it, it is proof that they are racist. So it wasn't his racism. It was entirely my fault for being white. I should have been born to parents of different skin color. Then no matter what I did I wouldn't be a racist.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      Let's dissect this a little bit... > I have been spat on called a "white cunt" ... for just sitting on a bus doing nothing. I am sorry that happened to you, that sucks. > by a person of color If that person was incited to attack you because of something they read online, would this world be better if those websites did not exist? Or at least, if they were not returned as search results in Google? I think the answer to that is yes. > However, black people can't be racist. Everyone can be racist regardless of race. > And all white people are racist. It is stupid to deny that being a racist was normal and socially accepted until just few decades ago, and that a portion of the population today do not agree with desegregation, and do not agree with diversity. Are those the majority? No, but they do exist and their numbers are significant enough to be a problem. > I should have been born to parents of different skin color. Then no matter what I did I wouldn't be a racist. Wrong conclusion.

mgkimsal 6y ago

"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong." I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier. I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their 'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's more content to compete with too. If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them ranking lower years down the road isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but a company serving the needs and desires of its users?

DlSGUSTING 6y ago
I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion. I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  If a search engine should not take a stance, then who also should not? Publishers? (Incl. YouTube, which takes some big stances.) Libraries? Social media? Governments?! Everything is political in some form after all.
thu2111 6y ago
Impressive mental backflips. Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.

ezluckyfree 6y ago

this is some pretty enlightened centrist content

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Google is manually making these decisions to block conservative websites So show us the evidence.

DlSGUSTING 6y ago
I'll add some more sources to support that claim, but the main one would be about the Google exec meeting after Trump got elected. https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/media/google-leaked-video-trump/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/media/google-leaked-video-t... Haven't vetted this source but I believe it's the right one
thu2111 6y ago
The graphs of traffic flatlining overnight aren't convincing evidence to you? There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in "Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories): https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-black-list-site-for-google-now.txt https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl... See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".

johnnujler 6y ago

Withdraw unto yourself and your immediate/close community.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Sure, and then when they are wrong you go down with the ship, oblivious.
- johnnujler 6y ago
  Hmmm... Btw that was a joke to showcase the universality of trade-offs. And the idea that you do you and with that comes the responsibility to bear the consequences. Anyway be well.

AnHonestComment 6y ago

My stance is that companies should have to make a choice: If you editorialize, you’re a publisher. If you want copyright immunity, you can’t editorialize. - - - Further, HN is also biased. My political views are deemed an inherent flame war, no matter how calmly stated or supported by evidence — and I’d encourage you to review my comments and see exactly what @dang deems so wrong think it must be silenced.

rvieira 6y ago

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but perhaps a site trying to seriously discuss bias against Breitbart shouldn't use :ok: as a favicon.