5 ms·

> 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, pe

> 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
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less visible? This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts. Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.
      - DlSGUSTING 6y ago
        Thanks for your point of view. I'm going to keep researching to find some alternative examples
- ghthor 6y ago
  How was that 3 hours of lectures by doctors faked, I'm curious. What about it was fake, and what about it was putting anyone In danger?
  - millstone 6y ago
    If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-doctors/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do... The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
    - fortytwo79 6y ago
      Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being "harmful," which they are not qualified to judge. Also, I find Snopes aggravating, because of stuff like this. They said they couldn't find evidence the doctor treated 200+ patients with COVID, thereby implying the doctor was lying. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack of truth. Plus, that's clinical data. Wouldn't it be illegal for Snopes to have access to that without patient consent?
      - AstralStorm 6y ago
        You do not have to be a qualified doctor to check the sources. You do have to be thorough in checking the consensus and recommendations of major health organisations and verify scientific papers, a lot of which is published in the open on for instance PubMed, big name journals etc. This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research. It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.) And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public. Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.
- DlSGUSTING 6y ago
  I guess what I'm getting at there is, content aside, Google has made a conscious decision to step in here and de-rank that website. We don't know what their motivations for that are because they haven't stated that they de-ranked Breitbart. Sundar Pichai was asked during testimony if they censor websites and he said (wording might be a bit off) "only in cases where it's a legal requirement or a copyright issue". If Breitbart being de-ranked was one of those then I'm sure they would have let Breitbart know. But as far as I can tell it was a concerted effort to suppress that website in particular. If you come across any data about other sites that are similarly affected I'd love to know!
- panarky 6y ago
  Funny how people go all conspiracy on Google, with zero evidence, when we have actual evidence of known right-wing Facebook executives personally intervening to delete misinformation strikes against Breitbart et al. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-zuckerberg-what-if-trump-disputes-election-results https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook... This seems like a legitimate HN story but it was flagged to oblivion when it was posted yesterday. Don't talk to me about cancel culture.

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
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less visible? This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts. Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.
    - DlSGUSTING 6y ago
      Thanks for your point of view. I'm going to keep researching to find some alternative examples
ghthor 6y ago
How was that 3 hours of lectures by doctors faked, I'm curious. What about it was fake, and what about it was putting anyone In danger?
- millstone 6y ago
  If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-doctors/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do... The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
  - fortytwo79 6y ago
    Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being "harmful," which they are not qualified to judge. Also, I find Snopes aggravating, because of stuff like this. They said they couldn't find evidence the doctor treated 200+ patients with COVID, thereby implying the doctor was lying. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack of truth. Plus, that's clinical data. Wouldn't it be illegal for Snopes to have access to that without patient consent?
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      You do not have to be a qualified doctor to check the sources. You do have to be thorough in checking the consensus and recommendations of major health organisations and verify scientific papers, a lot of which is published in the open on for instance PubMed, big name journals etc. This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research. It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.) And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public. Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.
DlSGUSTING 6y ago
I guess what I'm getting at there is, content aside, Google has made a conscious decision to step in here and de-rank that website. We don't know what their motivations for that are because they haven't stated that they de-ranked Breitbart. Sundar Pichai was asked during testimony if they censor websites and he said (wording might be a bit off) "only in cases where it's a legal requirement or a copyright issue". If Breitbart being de-ranked was one of those then I'm sure they would have let Breitbart know. But as far as I can tell it was a concerted effort to suppress that website in particular. If you come across any data about other sites that are similarly affected I'd love to know!
panarky 6y ago
Funny how people go all conspiracy on Google, with zero evidence, when we have actual evidence of known right-wing Facebook executives personally intervening to delete misinformation strikes against Breitbart et al. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-zuckerberg-what-if-trump-disputes-election-results https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook... This seems like a legitimate HN story but it was flagged to oblivion when it was posted yesterday. Don't talk to me about cancel culture.