4 ms·

I don't need my search results censored, I'll decide what I want to read.

markbnj 6y ago
Let me get this straight: someone posts slanderous lies about another individual in order to defame them and perhaps profit from the defamation; google is exploited to drive the slander to the top of the search results; and you think any attempt to remove the slander would constitute censorship and compromise the purity of the information you have access to? Really?
- parineum 6y ago
  That is the definition of censorship and it does change the information available. Knowing that someone is being slandered can be informative. You have to make a choice of what you prefer but the choice you're making is censoring slander or not.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  The idea that Google should act as judge of what is slander and what is a true allegation of wrongdoing is what gets up the hackles of anyone who still thinks free speech has value. The parent comment said nothing about the slander being proven such in court, google is simply assumed to know what is slander and what is not. Which of course it doesn't, a state-of-the-art AI's language comprehension is still extremely rudimentary and would be prone to being gamed by powerful malicious actors even if it were human level.
  - krasicki 6y ago
    Exactly. A MSM outlet whose own content is dubious and is no stranger to exercising their own self-entitled "opinions". These opinions could be reasonably construed as slander in a world where an individual could stand up against them in court without going broke. But let's play along and assume that everybody else's speech is the problem. Citizens don't need MSM fitted, woke muzzles. The co-opting of internet providers to mete out draconian terms of service that strip the individual of their freedom to express ideas needs to be criminalized.
  - lupire 6y ago
    You are free to choose a search engine that ranks results closest to your values.
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      I'd rather push back against the idea that a search engine that only ever promised to report popularity be expected to now report accuracy or cease operating.
unicodepepper 6y ago
Your decision is not quite as neutral if all the options you see point in the same general direction.
jrochkind1 6y ago
There is no such thing as "natural" search results, the search results are the result of complex interacting algorithmic logic that Google implements to try to give you "good" results. When Google for instance penalizes a site for being slow; or for being spammy; or being identified by the algorithm as likely to be disliked by most users, and not be what they are looking for; or for having spyware; or for seeming to use "black hat" SEO with irrelevant keywords... ...are these actions "censorship"? What kinds of shaping of google results are censorship and what kinds aren't? The results are inherently shaped, they only exist because of algorithms that implement choices, there are no "natural" unshaped results.

Let me get this straight: someone posts slanderous lies about another individual in order to defame them and perhaps profit from the defamation; google is exploited to drive the slander to the top of the search results; and you think any attempt to remove the slander would constitute censorship and compromise the purity of the information you have access to? Really?

parineum 6y ago
That is the definition of censorship and it does change the information available. Knowing that someone is being slandered can be informative. You have to make a choice of what you prefer but the choice you're making is censoring slander or not.
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
The idea that Google should act as judge of what is slander and what is a true allegation of wrongdoing is what gets up the hackles of anyone who still thinks free speech has value. The parent comment said nothing about the slander being proven such in court, google is simply assumed to know what is slander and what is not. Which of course it doesn't, a state-of-the-art AI's language comprehension is still extremely rudimentary and would be prone to being gamed by powerful malicious actors even if it were human level.
- krasicki 6y ago
  Exactly. A MSM outlet whose own content is dubious and is no stranger to exercising their own self-entitled "opinions". These opinions could be reasonably construed as slander in a world where an individual could stand up against them in court without going broke. But let's play along and assume that everybody else's speech is the problem. Citizens don't need MSM fitted, woke muzzles. The co-opting of internet providers to mete out draconian terms of service that strip the individual of their freedom to express ideas needs to be criminalized.
- lupire 6y ago
  You are free to choose a search engine that ranks results closest to your values.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    I'd rather push back against the idea that a search engine that only ever promised to report popularity be expected to now report accuracy or cease operating.

unicodepepper 6y ago

Your decision is not quite as neutral if all the options you see point in the same general direction.

jrochkind1 6y ago

There is no such thing as "natural" search results, the search results are the result of complex interacting algorithmic logic that Google implements to try to give you "good" results. When Google for instance penalizes a site for being slow; or for being spammy; or being identified by the algorithm as likely to be disliked by most users, and not be what they are looking for; or for having spyware; or for seeming to use "black hat" SEO with irrelevant keywords... ...are these actions "censorship"? What kinds of shaping of google results are censorship and what kinds aren't? The results are inherently shaped, they only exist because of algorithms that implement choices, there are no "natural" unshaped results.