5 ms·

> On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones

> On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industry. Why not? Hopefully because you give a single fuck about the rule of law.

harryf 6y ago
I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher. Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  Because the ranking algorithms are likely changed regularly, in opaque ways. Because many of the changes will be things like "reran the training algorithm on a new data set". Because it's a foot in the door to making them justify such changes. Because the purpose of a good search algorithm is to serve the people searching and not the people writing sites. Because it's an inherently adversarial process between search engines and bad "SEO". Because no good can possibly come from sites having more insight into how to affect their ranking, other than "make content people want". And those are just the reasons off the top of my head.
  - harryf 6y ago
    I agree with all the points you raise. But... These have are all fundamental assumptions anyone working on the web makes and we’re established as fundamental at the point Google beat out its competitors, in the early 2000’s At that time Google was a different company and didn’t have a monopoly, and the web was a different place. Now Google does have a monopoly and users browsing habits have narrowed to a few sites like Facebook and Reddit where they get “everything” content wise So perhaps it’s time to question those assumptions and ask if they’re really still true in today’s context, or whether other things matter more now?
vxNsr 6y ago
This whole comment is a red herring that turns into a straw man. No one was talking about News Corp, and most of what you said about them is false besides. And then you try to divert attention away from the real discussion by making it seem like the argument is about “the rule of law” which really comes out of left field, but is a great boogeyman to pull up if you wanna quiet dissent.
- vermilingua 6y ago
  This whole thing is about NewsCorp, if you don’t see that, read more. If you think what I had to say is false, please refute it, if I’m wrong I want to know it. And evidently my ploy to quiet dissent didn’t work, as here you are. NewsCorp does genuinely violate the rule of law, a different set of standards apply to them and their conduct.
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

harryf 6y ago

I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher. Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp

JoshTriplett 6y ago
Because the ranking algorithms are likely changed regularly, in opaque ways. Because many of the changes will be things like "reran the training algorithm on a new data set". Because it's a foot in the door to making them justify such changes. Because the purpose of a good search algorithm is to serve the people searching and not the people writing sites. Because it's an inherently adversarial process between search engines and bad "SEO". Because no good can possibly come from sites having more insight into how to affect their ranking, other than "make content people want". And those are just the reasons off the top of my head.
- harryf 6y ago
  I agree with all the points you raise. But... These have are all fundamental assumptions anyone working on the web makes and we’re established as fundamental at the point Google beat out its competitors, in the early 2000’s At that time Google was a different company and didn’t have a monopoly, and the web was a different place. Now Google does have a monopoly and users browsing habits have narrowed to a few sites like Facebook and Reddit where they get “everything” content wise So perhaps it’s time to question those assumptions and ask if they’re really still true in today’s context, or whether other things matter more now?

vxNsr 6y ago

This whole comment is a red herring that turns into a straw man. No one was talking about News Corp, and most of what you said about them is false besides. And then you try to divert attention away from the real discussion by making it seem like the argument is about “the rule of law” which really comes out of left field, but is a great boogeyman to pull up if you wanna quiet dissent.

vermilingua 6y ago
This whole thing is about NewsCorp, if you don’t see that, read more. If you think what I had to say is false, please refute it, if I’m wrong I want to know it. And evidently my ploy to quiet dissent didn’t work, as here you are. NewsCorp does genuinely violate the rule of law, a different set of standards apply to them and their conduct.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html