3 ms·

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 explo

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  You are free to choose a search engine that ranks results closest to your values.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y 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.

parineum 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
You are free to choose a search engine that ranks results closest to your values.
- SuoDuanDao 5y 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.