3 ms·

But this gets me thinking. "Censored" is definitely the wrong word here; it implies that there is some objective pool of information that we could all be getti

by jrm4 5y ago

But this gets me thinking. "Censored" is definitely the wrong word here; it implies that there is some objective pool of information that we could all be getting to if it weren't for the search engines getting it wrong, and that's just not it. It's definitely much closer to -- imagine 5 hypothetical bookstores owned by different people. Each has to make decisions on what to choose to carry based on their business interests, and so they do. But there's nothing I would call "censorship" about that. And if we're deciding it is, then we have to be much more serious and intelligent in what to do about it. I'm thinking something like the EPA or FDA for search engines. If they have to tell us whats in the ketchup, then they have to tell us what's in the "search engine algorithms."

celdon25 5y ago
When a company gets large enough, whether in the US or Russia, "good relations with the government" becomes one of your aforementioned "business interests". Call it whatever you want.
gruez 5y ago
>"Censored" is definitely the wrong word here; it implies that there is some objective pool of information that we could all be getting to if it weren't for the search engines getting it wrong, and that's just not it. 1. I think that when it comes to "search engine censorship", most people know it's about search engines downranking/hiding certain results, not them literally going around burning books or blocking/taking down websites. 2. The definition for "censorship" is "The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated". When it comes to the internet, getting downranked/hidden from search engines does a pretty good job at preventing such information from being "propagated", even though you could still access it via the deep web. As a thought experiment, suppose the government banned 1984 from being sold/read anywhere, save for you going to the library of congress in person. You can theoretically still read it, but at great difficulty. It's certainly more work than reading harry potter or whatever. Would you say such measures are not "censorship"?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think there are pretty clear examples of censorship that would cross the line. The most widely recognized example is when major search engines delisted pictures and results for the Tiananmen Square massacre last year. The bookstore analogy would be if you came in and asked for a book on the massacre, and the owner said "sorry, I don't know what you are talking about" when they have a whole shelf in stock.
hunglee2 5y ago
yes great insight! A better word might be 'curated' - we are getting access to preselected set of information from which we can further select

by jrm4 5y ago

celdon25 5y ago

When a company gets large enough, whether in the US or Russia, "good relations with the government" becomes one of your aforementioned "business interests". Call it whatever you want.

gruez 5y ago

>"Censored" is definitely the wrong word here; it implies that there is some objective pool of information that we could all be getting to if it weren't for the search engines getting it wrong, and that's just not it. 1. I think that when it comes to "search engine censorship", most people know it's about search engines downranking/hiding certain results, not them literally going around burning books or blocking/taking down websites. 2. The definition for "censorship" is "The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated". When it comes to the internet, getting downranked/hidden from search engines does a pretty good job at preventing such information from being "propagated", even though you could still access it via the deep web. As a thought experiment, suppose the government banned 1984 from being sold/read anywhere, save for you going to the library of congress in person. You can theoretically still read it, but at great difficulty. It's certainly more work than reading harry potter or whatever. Would you say such measures are not "censorship"?

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I think there are pretty clear examples of censorship that would cross the line. The most widely recognized example is when major search engines delisted pictures and results for the Tiananmen Square massacre last year. The bookstore analogy would be if you came in and asked for a book on the massacre, and the owner said "sorry, I don't know what you are talking about" when they have a whole shelf in stock.

hunglee2 5y ago

yes great insight! A better word might be 'curated' - we are getting access to preselected set of information from which we can further select