4 ms·

Is this materially different from filtering other abuse like SEO spam? Would you choose to keep spam in your results to reach your own conclusion?

by eli 5y ago

cato_the_elder 5y ago
> Is this materially different from filtering other abuse like SEO spam? Yes it is. The undesirability of spam is much more universal than "misinformation", and its definition is much less controversial. And we don't care whether the spam is Russian, American, Nigerian or whatever. The motivation in this case is clearly more paternalistic compared to filtering spam.
- eli 5y ago
  Yeah I just don't agree with any of that. Spam is infamously hard to identify and consistently define. My spam is your content. I'd argue what Russia is doing here is spam. They're laundering their message through media outlets with domains with much stronger SEO positioning than any official government domain. (You may disagree this is "spam" but that's kind of my point.) Meanwhile I think there's pretty broad consensus that if you doing a general search (and not specifically seeking out opposing information or alternate views) that you do not want the top results to be intentionally false.
  - xg15 5y ago
    > My spam is your content. Tell me of one person who wants to read unsolicited viagra offers and all that stuff. > I'd argue what Russia is doing here is spam. Problem is that there are a lot of half-truths embedded in pro-russian media outlets and many things that, how false they may be, seem to be their genuine viewpoints. I think it would be better to engage with that stuff and separate the half-truths from the lies instead of simply hiding everything away.
    - eli 5y ago
      > Tell me of one person who wants to read unsolicited viagra offers and all that stuff. The people who buy viagra from those unsolicited offers. Spammers have been offering that product for decades because it works. People buy it. "Spam" is mostly just stuff you don't want to read. > I think it would be better to engage with that stuff and separate the half-truths from the lies instead of simply hiding everything away. It's not gone, it's just no longer near the top of a query for "what happened yesterday in Ukraine?" If you're looking for one answer to that question, Sputnik or RT is definitely not the best source.

Is this materially different from filtering other abuse like SEO spam? Would you choose to keep spam in your results to reach your own conclusion?

by eli 5y ago

Is this materially different from filtering other abuse like SEO spam? Would you choose to keep spam in your results to reach your own conclusion?

cato_the_elder 5y ago

> Is this materially different from filtering other abuse like SEO spam? Yes it is. The undesirability of spam is much more universal than "misinformation", and its definition is much less controversial. And we don't care whether the spam is Russian, American, Nigerian or whatever. The motivation in this case is clearly more paternalistic compared to filtering spam.

eli 5y ago
Yeah I just don't agree with any of that. Spam is infamously hard to identify and consistently define. My spam is your content. I'd argue what Russia is doing here is spam. They're laundering their message through media outlets with domains with much stronger SEO positioning than any official government domain. (You may disagree this is "spam" but that's kind of my point.) Meanwhile I think there's pretty broad consensus that if you doing a general search (and not specifically seeking out opposing information or alternate views) that you do not want the top results to be intentionally false.
- xg15 5y ago
  > My spam is your content. Tell me of one person who wants to read unsolicited viagra offers and all that stuff. > I'd argue what Russia is doing here is spam. Problem is that there are a lot of half-truths embedded in pro-russian media outlets and many things that, how false they may be, seem to be their genuine viewpoints. I think it would be better to engage with that stuff and separate the half-truths from the lies instead of simply hiding everything away.
  - eli 5y ago
    > Tell me of one person who wants to read unsolicited viagra offers and all that stuff. The people who buy viagra from those unsolicited offers. Spammers have been offering that product for decades because it works. People buy it. "Spam" is mostly just stuff you don't want to read. > I think it would be better to engage with that stuff and separate the half-truths from the lies instead of simply hiding everything away. It's not gone, it's just no longer near the top of a query for "what happened yesterday in Ukraine?" If you're looking for one answer to that question, Sputnik or RT is definitely not the best source.