8 ms·

I want to use a search engine that puts all its effort into down-ranking sites that I'm not searching for

tpoacher 5y ago
I want one which doesn't decide this for me, no-matter how "good for me" it may be, and relies exclusively on my search query to decide what is most relevant. If you really want to flag disinformation, I'd be fine with some sort percentage reliability value or something along those lines, right next to the result. Preferably something that I can also order results by. Totally happy with a 'caveat emptor' clause regarding who comes up with those reliability values. But down-ranking sites by default is not how this is supposed to work. "It's for a 'good cause'" is not the point. It's always going to be for a "good cause (TM)". Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"? I prefer being presented with bad arguments whose value I get to judge for myself, than being told I'm not getting all the arguments, only those whose value someone else decided on my behalf.
- TehShrike 5y ago
  Exactly. If I'm searching for Russian propaganda, I should see Russian propaganda in my search results. If I'm searching for good bicycle reviews, I should see good bicycle reviews.
  - axiosgunnar 5y ago
    What should be shown if you search for „why did russia invade ukraine“?
    - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
      Whatever your Native State wants you to believe, of course.
    - bsedlm 5y ago
      a mix of both with a slider to parametrize the sentiment of the results "it's pure evil VS itls good" or I dunno... it's a near-waste of time to imagine what this could/should be as I'm in no poisition to build it.
    - TehShrike 5y ago
      analysts and historians saying "it's complicated"
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        But its not complicated at all. Ukraine is every year more prosperous and more connected to the west and Russia is weakening kleptocracy led by a disconnected, malicious, evil dictator that fears that if it doesn't seize the opportunity to return to its vision of a greater Russia that has a seat at the table in the grand scheme of things that it will ultimately be subsumed by either the west or by its own people who see clear evidence of a better way so close at hand. In service of this goal it has turned first to brutal invasion of another nations sovereign territory and when this proved ineffectual to brutal mass murder of the Ukrainian people, war crimes, mercenaries, and assassins in hopes of breaking a nations people and its leaders. The complicated thing is a full analysis of why its war machine and intelligence is so broken as to lead them to believe this would lead to course of action would be profitable.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        Let us not try to discount the complexity of the Russian motivation for war (and no matter what they are, it's still morally wrong). Firstly, Ukraine was most prosperous in 2013. Even in recent years, Ukrainian wealth was growing more slowly than that of, say, Belarus. Even with sanctions, up until the pandemic, Russian GDP per capita PPP was increasing at a similar rate as with Ukraine. So it is unlikely that this was the only motivation, Ukraine was never on track to becoming more prosperous than Russia or it's satellites, nor even becoming relatively more prosperous in recent years. Indeed, Ukraine's economic system is pretty similar to that of Russia, and both countries have had similar levels of corruption by various indexes. Then, there are obviously many other possible motivations, neither of them were a justification alone, and many analysts squabble still about what they were. So yes, "it's complicated".
        jaywalk 5y ago
        You're literally just spouting the West's approved propaganda and don't even realize it.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    I don't regard carriage of misinformation used to justify genocide as morally neutral nor do I hope many others. If you feel existing search engines are insufficiently neutral towards evil you are free to start your own. Search engines results represent and will continue to ultimately represent a human value judgement because there is no mathematical answer to what is the right answer for what is the right set of results for this query because both engineers at the search engine and the pages indexed are adjusting their software based not on mathematical correctness but instead on the first parties desire to return humanly useful results not mathematically useful results and the latter's desire to be visible regardless of utility to the end user. If we correctly abandon neutrality as the lie it is then it is merely a question of whether lies that justify genocide have greater utility than actual facts. This is I think an easier question to answer.
  - awb 5y ago
    What is a query you would use to search exclusively for Russian propaganda?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      search rt.com Now blocked in several countries.
      - awb 5y ago
        Really? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt&ia=web Works fine for me in the US. RT.com is the first result. What countries are you referring to? And is this DDG’s decision or are they being forced to comply with the country’s law?
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I was mainly referring to the EUs ban on RT. I think the law forces the ISPs to comply, not the engines. that way it prevents direct access via the URL. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/03/08/eu-officials-defend-move-to-ban-rt-and-sputnik-amid-censorship-claims https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/03/08/eu-officials-d... RT is not banned in the US as far as I know, although it appears engines are banning some content of their own free will.
        garaetjjte 5y ago
        This is TV broadcast ban. Thankfully EU currently doesn't have methods to block websites.
- fuckcensorship 5y ago
  > Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"? This is an excellent point that doesn’t get as much discussion as it deserves. Censorship of misinformation seems to be rooted in the idea that the masses cannot/should not have the freedom to think and discuss information freely. Also, there is a great deal of valuable insight which can be gained by analyzing a country’s propaganda.
  - hackyhacky 5y ago
    There is great value in analyzing propaganda if you know it's propaganda. The danger comes in the fact that the majority of people can't distinguish actual reporting from disinformation. That's why it gets down-ranked.
    - fuckcensorship 5y ago
      You are correct. However, the solution should be better education, not censorship.
      - diputsmonro 5y ago
        If DDG can overhaul the worldwide education system, I'm sure we'd all be in favor of that. But since the best solution is impossible, at least right now, a half measure like this seems reasonable to offer some amount of protection. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We should do what we can now, and keep pushing for better solutions. Holding out for perfection does nothing to help people now, or possibly ever, depending on your definition of "perfect".
      - hackyhacky 5y ago
        Educate who and how? What concrete steps should be taken right now instead of downranking manipulative information warfare?
    - therein 5y ago
    - 5y ago
- chris11 5y ago
  > Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"? Disinformation doesn't just try to present an alternative view, it also tries to drown out other viewpoints. I don't think it's possible to accurately and neutrally present search results when bad actors try to subvert rankings. I think propaganda can be interesting, I don't think it should be banned. But penalizing it seems fair to me. I don't want other searches to get flooded with clickbait.
  - OtomotO 5y ago
    "Disinformation doesn't just try to present an alternative view, it also tries to drown out other viewpoints." So, basically what is done now by downranking "disinformation", right?
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      If I want to know if a Foobar Baz Sedan is a good car then legit reviews and spam generated by paid shills aren't equally useful and since there is a finite time available to produce quality content having 1000x more spam will make it absolutely impossible for the real information to be obtained by anyone. Searching google for war in ukraine returns over 2 billion results. It is impossible not to privilege some information over others. Believing that any software designed by people can possibly be unbiased is absolute misunderstanding.
      - OtomotO 5y ago
        We are not talking about believing if something is unbiased, or if something can be unbiased, we are talking about said something being actively biased in the name of "the greater good"
      - foxfluff 5y ago
        > Searching google for war in ukraine returns over 2 billion results. Google always lies about the number of results. You'll see the real number once you dig in. First screenshot shows what you get by default, second shows what you get after you enable "omitted results." https://imgur.com/a/pgiTYuV https://imgur.com/a/pgiTYuV
eli 5y ago
Doesn't seem incompatible. I assume most people searching for general news about Ukraine are not seeking for Russian state media's take on it.
- hammock 5y ago
  It's not, for him and anyone else you "assume." For others, yes.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- hajile 5y ago
  I've watched US propaganda from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. I don't trust the US government or their news agencies anymore than any other propaganda. They'll pick the facts that support their side and mix in lies without a second thought. There are three truths in war: My side, their side, and the truth. If they feel compelled to do something, poison the well by marking sites as suspected Russian propaganda. Otherwise, let me read what I want and make up my own mind. If I wanted my search engine to play politics, I'd just use Google.
  - chinchilla2020 5y ago
    Any links to this? I would love to watch some old videos from that time.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      It's harder to find news from that time (that time being pre-internet) that isn't based in approved propaganda than news that is. The best thing to read about it would be Walter Lippmann in general, but starting with Public Opinion.
    - somenameforme 5y ago
      Not videos, but these two articles played a formative role in my worldview (related to Iraq): WaPo: "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i... NYTimes: "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-undeniable.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u... I find it extremely interesting to occasionally reread those knowing what we know now. And nothing has changed, except for now there is significant push to try to censor anything beyond such irrefutable sources.
atlantas 5y ago
Brilliantly stated. This is literally their one job.

I want one which doesn't decide this for me, no-matter how "good for me" it may be, and relies exclusively on my search query to decide what is most relevant. If you really want to flag disinformation, I'd be fine with some sort percentage reliability value or something along those lines, right next to the result. Preferably something that I can also order results by. Totally happy with a 'caveat emptor' clause regarding who comes up with those reliability values. But down-ranking sites by default is not how this is supposed to work. "It's for a 'good cause'" is not the point. It's always going to be for a "good cause (TM)". Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"? I prefer being presented with bad arguments whose value I get to judge for myself, than being told I'm not getting all the arguments, only those whose value someone else decided on my behalf.

TehShrike 5y ago
Exactly. If I'm searching for Russian propaganda, I should see Russian propaganda in my search results. If I'm searching for good bicycle reviews, I should see good bicycle reviews.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  What should be shown if you search for „why did russia invade ukraine“?
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    Whatever your Native State wants you to believe, of course.
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    a mix of both with a slider to parametrize the sentiment of the results "it's pure evil VS itls good" or I dunno... it's a near-waste of time to imagine what this could/should be as I'm in no poisition to build it.
  - TehShrike 5y ago
    analysts and historians saying "it's complicated"
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      But its not complicated at all. Ukraine is every year more prosperous and more connected to the west and Russia is weakening kleptocracy led by a disconnected, malicious, evil dictator that fears that if it doesn't seize the opportunity to return to its vision of a greater Russia that has a seat at the table in the grand scheme of things that it will ultimately be subsumed by either the west or by its own people who see clear evidence of a better way so close at hand. In service of this goal it has turned first to brutal invasion of another nations sovereign territory and when this proved ineffectual to brutal mass murder of the Ukrainian people, war crimes, mercenaries, and assassins in hopes of breaking a nations people and its leaders. The complicated thing is a full analysis of why its war machine and intelligence is so broken as to lead them to believe this would lead to course of action would be profitable.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Let us not try to discount the complexity of the Russian motivation for war (and no matter what they are, it's still morally wrong). Firstly, Ukraine was most prosperous in 2013. Even in recent years, Ukrainian wealth was growing more slowly than that of, say, Belarus. Even with sanctions, up until the pandemic, Russian GDP per capita PPP was increasing at a similar rate as with Ukraine. So it is unlikely that this was the only motivation, Ukraine was never on track to becoming more prosperous than Russia or it's satellites, nor even becoming relatively more prosperous in recent years. Indeed, Ukraine's economic system is pretty similar to that of Russia, and both countries have had similar levels of corruption by various indexes. Then, there are obviously many other possible motivations, neither of them were a justification alone, and many analysts squabble still about what they were. So yes, "it's complicated".
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        You're literally just spouting the West's approved propaganda and don't even realize it.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  I don't regard carriage of misinformation used to justify genocide as morally neutral nor do I hope many others. If you feel existing search engines are insufficiently neutral towards evil you are free to start your own. Search engines results represent and will continue to ultimately represent a human value judgement because there is no mathematical answer to what is the right answer for what is the right set of results for this query because both engineers at the search engine and the pages indexed are adjusting their software based not on mathematical correctness but instead on the first parties desire to return humanly useful results not mathematically useful results and the latter's desire to be visible regardless of utility to the end user. If we correctly abandon neutrality as the lie it is then it is merely a question of whether lies that justify genocide have greater utility than actual facts. This is I think an easier question to answer.
- awb 5y ago
  What is a query you would use to search exclusively for Russian propaganda?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    search rt.com Now blocked in several countries.
    - awb 5y ago
      Really? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt&ia=web Works fine for me in the US. RT.com is the first result. What countries are you referring to? And is this DDG’s decision or are they being forced to comply with the country’s law?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I was mainly referring to the EUs ban on RT. I think the law forces the ISPs to comply, not the engines. that way it prevents direct access via the URL. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/03/08/eu-officials-defend-move-to-ban-rt-and-sputnik-amid-censorship-claims https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/03/08/eu-officials-d... RT is not banned in the US as far as I know, although it appears engines are banning some content of their own free will.
        garaetjjte 5y ago
        This is TV broadcast ban. Thankfully EU currently doesn't have methods to block websites.
fuckcensorship 5y ago
> Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"? This is an excellent point that doesn’t get as much discussion as it deserves. Censorship of misinformation seems to be rooted in the idea that the masses cannot/should not have the freedom to think and discuss information freely. Also, there is a great deal of valuable insight which can be gained by analyzing a country’s propaganda.
- hackyhacky 5y ago
  There is great value in analyzing propaganda if you know it's propaganda. The danger comes in the fact that the majority of people can't distinguish actual reporting from disinformation. That's why it gets down-ranked.
  - fuckcensorship 5y ago
    You are correct. However, the solution should be better education, not censorship.
    - diputsmonro 5y ago
      If DDG can overhaul the worldwide education system, I'm sure we'd all be in favor of that. But since the best solution is impossible, at least right now, a half measure like this seems reasonable to offer some amount of protection. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We should do what we can now, and keep pushing for better solutions. Holding out for perfection does nothing to help people now, or possibly ever, depending on your definition of "perfect".
    - hackyhacky 5y ago
      Educate who and how? What concrete steps should be taken right now instead of downranking manipulative information warfare?
  - therein 5y ago
  - 5y ago
chris11 5y ago
> Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"? Disinformation doesn't just try to present an alternative view, it also tries to drown out other viewpoints. I don't think it's possible to accurately and neutrally present search results when bad actors try to subvert rankings. I think propaganda can be interesting, I don't think it should be banned. But penalizing it seems fair to me. I don't want other searches to get flooded with clickbait.
- OtomotO 5y ago
  "Disinformation doesn't just try to present an alternative view, it also tries to drown out other viewpoints." So, basically what is done now by downranking "disinformation", right?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    If I want to know if a Foobar Baz Sedan is a good car then legit reviews and spam generated by paid shills aren't equally useful and since there is a finite time available to produce quality content having 1000x more spam will make it absolutely impossible for the real information to be obtained by anyone. Searching google for war in ukraine returns over 2 billion results. It is impossible not to privilege some information over others. Believing that any software designed by people can possibly be unbiased is absolute misunderstanding.
    - OtomotO 5y ago
      We are not talking about believing if something is unbiased, or if something can be unbiased, we are talking about said something being actively biased in the name of "the greater good"
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      > Searching google for war in ukraine returns over 2 billion results. Google always lies about the number of results. You'll see the real number once you dig in. First screenshot shows what you get by default, second shows what you get after you enable "omitted results." https://imgur.com/a/pgiTYuV https://imgur.com/a/pgiTYuV

eli 5y ago

Doesn't seem incompatible. I assume most people searching for general news about Ukraine are not seeking for Russian state media's take on it.

hammock 5y ago
It's not, for him and anyone else you "assume." For others, yes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hajile 5y ago
I've watched US propaganda from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. I don't trust the US government or their news agencies anymore than any other propaganda. They'll pick the facts that support their side and mix in lies without a second thought. There are three truths in war: My side, their side, and the truth. If they feel compelled to do something, poison the well by marking sites as suspected Russian propaganda. Otherwise, let me read what I want and make up my own mind. If I wanted my search engine to play politics, I'd just use Google.
- chinchilla2020 5y ago
  Any links to this? I would love to watch some old videos from that time.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    It's harder to find news from that time (that time being pre-internet) that isn't based in approved propaganda than news that is. The best thing to read about it would be Walter Lippmann in general, but starting with Public Opinion.
  - somenameforme 5y ago
    Not videos, but these two articles played a formative role in my worldview (related to Iraq): WaPo: "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i... NYTimes: "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-undeniable.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u... I find it extremely interesting to occasionally reread those knowing what we know now. And nothing has changed, except for now there is significant push to try to censor anything beyond such irrefutable sources.

atlantas 5y ago

Brilliantly stated. This is literally their one job.