3 ms·

It's the job a search engine to filter the good from the bad. The poll question specifically asks about "disinformation". The definition of disinformation is th

It's the job a search engine to filter the good from the bad. The poll question specifically asks about "disinformation". The definition of disinformation is that it is both incorrect and developed with the intent to deceive. Of course I don't want to see that in my search results for anything I search for. I don't want to see it about politics, or product reviews, medical issues, health and fitness, or financial information. Disinformation is bad and I don't want it. Many people are talking about 'how do they determine the difference between information and disinformation'. That's a good question, though it isn't the one being asked in the poll. How do they down-rank other scammy content? Don't slipperly slope arguments apply there too?

insickness 5y ago
The difference is the political nature of the process. When a search engine filters out faceboook.com from the results, I don't question the political motive of the company. When the same company decides for me that I don't need to see websites with information on politically polarized topics, I have a problem with it.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
  "websites with information on politically polarized topics" is not the equivalent of "websites with disinformation". The former is fine the latter is not. For example, if I'm searching about vaccine information, which can be a polarizing topic, I don't want to be shown articles about how the vaccine has nanochips so that Bill Gates and George Soros can track you. Because that's blatant disinformation that should be filtered out by a good search engine. The problems of distinguishing real information from disinformation in real time is difficult, made even more difficult when the stakes are high, like an active war. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or that because there is no perfect method that no method should be used. Disinformation should be fought not embraced.

insickness 5y ago

The difference is the political nature of the process. When a search engine filters out faceboook.com from the results, I don't question the political motive of the company. When the same company decides for me that I don't need to see websites with information on politically polarized topics, I have a problem with it.

Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
"websites with information on politically polarized topics" is not the equivalent of "websites with disinformation". The former is fine the latter is not. For example, if I'm searching about vaccine information, which can be a polarizing topic, I don't want to be shown articles about how the vaccine has nanochips so that Bill Gates and George Soros can track you. Because that's blatant disinformation that should be filtered out by a good search engine. The problems of distinguishing real information from disinformation in real time is difficult, made even more difficult when the stakes are high, like an active war. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or that because there is no perfect method that no method should be used. Disinformation should be fought not embraced.