3 ms·

A couple of problems with your argument 1) assumption that search engines should be neutral 2) assumption that downranking info that almost all fact checkers

A couple of problems with your argument 1) assumption that search engines should be neutral 2) assumption that downranking info that almost all fact checkers agree is false is a slippery slope will lead to downranking info that consensus reality says is true 3) assuming you know anything about Duck Duck Go's customer base or Weinberg's intent

aparticulate 5y ago
maybe elitist but I think popular search engines should not be neutral for most people who are not me or your typical HN user. I personally want warts and all results. ie a search engine to treat me like an adult
zozbot234 5y ago
"Fact checking" is just some rando's opinion, Facebook even admitted this in court. There's zero evidence that those who keep pushing for blind faith in those "fact checkers" even care in the least about really being accurate.
- klyrs 5y ago
  That's what facebook did. Not all fact checkers are facebook.
soundnote 5y ago
> 2) assumption that downranking info that almost all fact checkers agree is false is a slippery slope will lead to downranking info that consensus reality says is true You mean I should put my trust in random doofuses who police narrative more than fact. Say, is a person a terrorist or not? Well, they belonged to an organization that bombed buildings and committed armed robberies. The person was also convicted of possessing hundreds of pounds of explosives. But! They have the right politics, so it earns a "Mixed" rating and squirming about the lack of "a universal definition of terrorism" so you can't really say that yeah, the person was a terrorist. Maybe they had the bombs to admire them peacefully with no intent of ever handing anything over to other members of a criminal organization she was explicitly a part of. That's the problem. Fact-checking is checking whether Californians like something, not a check of whether the facts actually line up.

aparticulate 5y ago

maybe elitist but I think popular search engines should not be neutral for most people who are not me or your typical HN user. I personally want warts and all results. ie a search engine to treat me like an adult

zozbot234 5y ago

"Fact checking" is just some rando's opinion, Facebook even admitted this in court. There's zero evidence that those who keep pushing for blind faith in those "fact checkers" even care in the least about really being accurate.

klyrs 5y ago
That's what facebook did. Not all fact checkers are facebook.

soundnote 5y ago

> 2) assumption that downranking info that almost all fact checkers agree is false is a slippery slope will lead to downranking info that consensus reality says is true You mean I should put my trust in random doofuses who police narrative more than fact. Say, is a person a terrorist or not? Well, they belonged to an organization that bombed buildings and committed armed robberies. The person was also convicted of possessing hundreds of pounds of explosives. But! They have the right politics, so it earns a "Mixed" rating and squirming about the lack of "a universal definition of terrorism" so you can't really say that yeah, the person was a terrorist. Maybe they had the bombs to admire them peacefully with no intent of ever handing anything over to other members of a criminal organization she was explicitly a part of. That's the problem. Fact-checking is checking whether Californians like something, not a check of whether the facts actually line up.