5 ms·
> Who are they to decide what is "disinformation". How do they know? Making decisions about which information to rank highly vs. lowly is, you know, kind of th
by Legion 5y ago
> Who are they to decide what is "disinformation". How do they know?
Making decisions about which information to rank highly vs. lowly is, you know, kind of the definition of a search engine.
- if_by_whisky 5y agoYeah there's a lot of "anti censorship" warriors in this thread, who seem confused about what search engines are for
- larvaetron 5y ago> there's a lot of "anti censorship" warriors in this thread You say that as if being "anti censorship" is a weird, or bad thing. What reasonable person would agree that being "pro censorship" is an ideal stance?
- if_by_whisky 5y agoAnti-spam utilities exist to filter out (aka "censor") spam. Disinformation is spam. I'm pro filtering spam and perhaps even a reasonable person. There you have it.
- larvaetron 5y ago> Disinformation is spam. I believe, at a fundamental level, this statement is far too ambiguous to be considered a reasonable conclusion.
- OtomotO 5y agoA search engine is for finding information. Misinformation is a kind of information.
- xg15 5y agoWar seems to be the only situation in which it is somehow morally imperative to only get one side of the story...