3 ms·

Let's be honest, with rare exception, compelling & relevant content is no longer on the web. It's found on chats where people can be candid, like Signal & Teleg

Let's be honest, with rare exception, compelling & relevant content is no longer on the web. It's found on chats where people can be candid, like Signal & Telegram. To some degree it's on twitter where you can curate trusted publishers, and other social media. There are exceptions e.g. Substack, but most of the web content is seo clickbait. The author ignores the more pernicious problem : ML fairness. Google is editorializing results by up-ranking positions it prefers. Check the results on any controversial topic like race, politics, abortion, covid treatments, etc. The problem is that 95% of consumers believe google represents the truth. Just go back to first principles before the internet and make sure you trust the publishers, sources & references. Also don't ignore your own observations. There's a PR campaign fighting your own critical thinking abilities.

Volker_W 5y ago
> The author ignores the more pernicious problem : ML fairness. Google is editorializing results by up-ranking positions it prefers. Check the results on any controversial topic like race, politics, abortion, covid treatments, etc. Source/Proof?
- temikus 5y ago
  Not the OP but I think he might be referencing this study from Columbia where they found that the “Featured” articles were mostly left-leaning: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300683 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300683 The cause of this is debatable though - be it editorialisation, unconscious bias on behalf of people working on the algorithms or some common qualities to the websites that lean a certain way politically.
  - quacked 5y ago
    No, it's overt--I wish I could find this for you, but I saw a tweet from an apparently reputable source, it was a Google engineer saying "I'm so proud of the work our team has done to make it more difficult to find misinformation using Google". Naturally, "misinformation" means whatever the G-engineers want it to mean.
    - temikus 5y ago
      I used to work for GOOG and one thing I can attest to that bias is taken VERY seriously, so it’s not quite that simple.
      - quacked 5y ago
        I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe you--obviously you'd know more about working there than I would. But can you explain to me why in 2010 if I googled "evidence the moon landing was faked" I got a huge list of conspiracy sites, and now if I Google the same query I only receive articles and websites alleging the exact opposite of what I searched?
        temikus 5y ago
        I would apply Occam’s razor for this - the topic is becoming less and less relevant: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0kw5f https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
        P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul 5y ago
        I currently work for Youtube. We identify conspiracy-seeking queries, and then boost results from authoritative sources. Don't see why we wouldn't also be doing this on Google. Maybe people don't bother searching for things when the results suck (or maybe they just use alternative means of searching)?
        quacked 5y ago
        See, this is what I assumed was going on, and also what that engineer from Google was saying.
        quacked 5y ago
        How long ago were you working there? I noticed this trend only in the past five years.
Jweb_Guru 5y ago
Yeah, I often wish you could search public Discords without joining them... it's where a huge percentage of information lives nowadays.
omreaderhn 5y ago
> It's found on chats where people can be candid, like Signal & Telegram Can you recommend some of these channels?
- Eiriksmal 5y ago
  The point of those groups is that they are closed. Similar to how "Secret" Facebook groups became the late 00s equivalent of invite-only PHPBB forums (think what.cd). If you're part of whatever political or ideological movement is en vogue, you're free to candidly speak on whatever public platform you choose. If you aren't... You end up inviting a few like-minded friends to a Signal group to share your real thoughts and ask questions. They, in turn, invite a few more people. After a few months, you find yourself in a full-blown community; one where you can get all kinds of useful information. But those communities aren't interested in advertising their existence.
psyc 5y ago
The problem remains that Google no longer delivers the most compelling and relevant of what is still on the web.

Volker_W 5y ago

> The author ignores the more pernicious problem : ML fairness. Google is editorializing results by up-ranking positions it prefers. Check the results on any controversial topic like race, politics, abortion, covid treatments, etc. Source/Proof?

temikus 5y ago
Not the OP but I think he might be referencing this study from Columbia where they found that the “Featured” articles were mostly left-leaning: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300683 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300683 The cause of this is debatable though - be it editorialisation, unconscious bias on behalf of people working on the algorithms or some common qualities to the websites that lean a certain way politically.
- quacked 5y ago
  No, it's overt--I wish I could find this for you, but I saw a tweet from an apparently reputable source, it was a Google engineer saying "I'm so proud of the work our team has done to make it more difficult to find misinformation using Google". Naturally, "misinformation" means whatever the G-engineers want it to mean.
  - temikus 5y ago
    I used to work for GOOG and one thing I can attest to that bias is taken VERY seriously, so it’s not quite that simple.
    - quacked 5y ago
      I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe you--obviously you'd know more about working there than I would. But can you explain to me why in 2010 if I googled "evidence the moon landing was faked" I got a huge list of conspiracy sites, and now if I Google the same query I only receive articles and websites alleging the exact opposite of what I searched?
      - temikus 5y ago
        I would apply Occam’s razor for this - the topic is becoming less and less relevant: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0kw5f https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
        P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul 5y ago
        I currently work for Youtube. We identify conspiracy-seeking queries, and then boost results from authoritative sources. Don't see why we wouldn't also be doing this on Google. Maybe people don't bother searching for things when the results suck (or maybe they just use alternative means of searching)?
        quacked 5y ago
        See, this is what I assumed was going on, and also what that engineer from Google was saying.
        quacked 5y ago
        How long ago were you working there? I noticed this trend only in the past five years.

Jweb_Guru 5y ago

Yeah, I often wish you could search public Discords without joining them... it's where a huge percentage of information lives nowadays.

omreaderhn 5y ago

> It's found on chats where people can be candid, like Signal & Telegram Can you recommend some of these channels?

Eiriksmal 5y ago
The point of those groups is that they are closed. Similar to how "Secret" Facebook groups became the late 00s equivalent of invite-only PHPBB forums (think what.cd). If you're part of whatever political or ideological movement is en vogue, you're free to candidly speak on whatever public platform you choose. If you aren't... You end up inviting a few like-minded friends to a Signal group to share your real thoughts and ask questions. They, in turn, invite a few more people. After a few months, you find yourself in a full-blown community; one where you can get all kinds of useful information. But those communities aren't interested in advertising their existence.

psyc 5y ago

The problem remains that Google no longer delivers the most compelling and relevant of what is still on the web.