5 ms·

If you ever want to play censorship scavenger hunt, try to get Google to link to breitbart.com without including the word breitbart. You can search article titl

If you ever want to play censorship scavenger hunt, try to get Google to link to breitbart.com without including the word breitbart. You can search article titles word for word in quotes and the names of the authors but google will not return a single breitbart.com link.

quickthrowman 5y ago
I know I’m a sample size of one, but I just searched for the string (without any quotes) ‘biden doj to investigate mpls police joshua caplan’ on Google, the story on breitbart.com was the 2nd result, the first result was the same article on ‘newsbreak.com’
- barbacoa 5y ago
  That is an interesting observation. I can confirm I get those results too. Perhaps they are relaxing their algorithms now that elections are over. I originally tried this month (or maybe a few) ago and was unable to get any link to breitbart.com even if I googled entire paragraphs.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Some sources aren't merely low quality they are poison. A website on fragrances isn't liable to show you which sort of toxin would make your corpse smell most sweet after you have choked on your own death. An ethical take would be trying not to spread poison is the right thing to do. Inaction in the face of evil isn't neutral its evil.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  I'd rather decide for myself what is "evil" and "poison" rather than have that decision made for me by a search engine who's only job is to return the information I'm asking for. I could want this "evil" information for any number of non-evil reasons, it is not their nor anyone else's job to make that decision on behalf of the user.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    I think I will be better off if social media and search engines don't help people poison their minds. That is to say its possible that your desire to be informed and my desire for you not to find what you are looking for might be opposed. If you think that you are missing out on legitimate information pick a different search engine or make one.
    - Karunamon 5y ago
      There are lots of oppressive things we can do to help people not "poison their minds". Strictly controlling the information your citizens interact with, as is done in places like China, shows what an implementation of this may look like. It's also roundly criticized as repressive, anti-freedom, and ripe for almost unlimited abuse by every first world nation.
      - psd1 5y ago
        You're right, but the question is, how absolutist should we be on that principle? The results of free sharing of "information" can be seen in measles outbreaks, for example.
        Karunamon 5y ago
        Completely, in my mind, because the alternatives have unbounded abuse potential.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        Even if you had freedom from legal coercion it doesn't imply a platform ought to use that freedom to help poisonous crap spread. Lets give an obvious example there was a lady spreading nonsense about how you could cure your autistic kid by giving them bleach anally. She is encouraging dumb people to torture their vulnerable mentally challenged children. Whether the government ought to let her spread her malicious lies is an entirely different question from whether for example amazon ought to carry her book or google ought to index her site. If your absolutist free speech position doesn't allow you to admit to the idea of the government censoring her I understand. However if you think that amazon and google ought to be morally obligated to help her spread her poison I don't understand your position at all. A rational person can tell the difference between a grey area obvious nonsense and pretending that there aren't plenty of trivially definable black and white situations in which not carrying poison makes the world a better place is complete nonsense as is the idea that ANY editorial discretion magically leads to 1984. Life is literally the finding a balance point and I think we can reasonably discover a point of homeostasis between free heroin on every corner and constantly strip searching everyone for drugs. If you don't think so you haven't considered the problem very deeply.

quickthrowman 5y ago

I know I’m a sample size of one, but I just searched for the string (without any quotes) ‘biden doj to investigate mpls police joshua caplan’ on Google, the story on breitbart.com was the 2nd result, the first result was the same article on ‘newsbreak.com’

barbacoa 5y ago
That is an interesting observation. I can confirm I get those results too. Perhaps they are relaxing their algorithms now that elections are over. I originally tried this month (or maybe a few) ago and was unable to get any link to breitbart.com even if I googled entire paragraphs.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Some sources aren't merely low quality they are poison. A website on fragrances isn't liable to show you which sort of toxin would make your corpse smell most sweet after you have choked on your own death. An ethical take would be trying not to spread poison is the right thing to do. Inaction in the face of evil isn't neutral its evil.

Karunamon 5y ago
I'd rather decide for myself what is "evil" and "poison" rather than have that decision made for me by a search engine who's only job is to return the information I'm asking for. I could want this "evil" information for any number of non-evil reasons, it is not their nor anyone else's job to make that decision on behalf of the user.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  I think I will be better off if social media and search engines don't help people poison their minds. That is to say its possible that your desire to be informed and my desire for you not to find what you are looking for might be opposed. If you think that you are missing out on legitimate information pick a different search engine or make one.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    There are lots of oppressive things we can do to help people not "poison their minds". Strictly controlling the information your citizens interact with, as is done in places like China, shows what an implementation of this may look like. It's also roundly criticized as repressive, anti-freedom, and ripe for almost unlimited abuse by every first world nation.
    - psd1 5y ago
      You're right, but the question is, how absolutist should we be on that principle? The results of free sharing of "information" can be seen in measles outbreaks, for example.
      - Karunamon 5y ago
        Completely, in my mind, because the alternatives have unbounded abuse potential.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        Even if you had freedom from legal coercion it doesn't imply a platform ought to use that freedom to help poisonous crap spread. Lets give an obvious example there was a lady spreading nonsense about how you could cure your autistic kid by giving them bleach anally. She is encouraging dumb people to torture their vulnerable mentally challenged children. Whether the government ought to let her spread her malicious lies is an entirely different question from whether for example amazon ought to carry her book or google ought to index her site. If your absolutist free speech position doesn't allow you to admit to the idea of the government censoring her I understand. However if you think that amazon and google ought to be morally obligated to help her spread her poison I don't understand your position at all. A rational person can tell the difference between a grey area obvious nonsense and pretending that there aren't plenty of trivially definable black and white situations in which not carrying poison makes the world a better place is complete nonsense as is the idea that ANY editorial discretion magically leads to 1984. Life is literally the finding a balance point and I think we can reasonably discover a point of homeostasis between free heroin on every corner and constantly strip searching everyone for drugs. If you don't think so you haven't considered the problem very deeply.