4 ms·

If you get all your information through mainstream channels, and you don't want to see anything contradicting those channels then you should continue to use Goo

If you get all your information through mainstream channels, and you don't want to see anything contradicting those channels then you should continue to use Google because they explicitly implement the algorithms on controversial topics to prefer mainstream news sources[1]. What I mean by "better" in terms of controversial searches is that on controversial matters, it will rank the searches the same way it does for all other searches. I mean yeah, I don't have access to the internal code base of Yandex, but it certainly feels more organic. [1]https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/12/study-the-cnn-search-engine-google-search-results-overwhelmingly-favor-mainstream-media/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/12/study-the-cnn-sear...

zaptrem 4y ago
Why link to Breitbart of all places instead of the original source? https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php Btw Wikipedia’s first few sentences on Breitbart are not inspiring > Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike.[10] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[11][12] and intentionally misleading stories.[13][14]
- narrator 4y ago
  This is the association fallacy, which is, unfortunately, how most people determine what to believe these days. An absurd example of this fallacy would be, Wikipedia, which you cite, has articles that indicate tobacco smoking may cause disease. The nazis were also anti-smoking[1]. Therefore Wikipedia is Nazi propaganda and you should not trust anything on there. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-War-Cancer-Robert-Proctor/dp/0691001960/ https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-War-Cancer-Robert-Proctor/dp/069...
  - SR2Z 4y ago
    It is not the association fallacy; the role of a news site is to provide news, which includes fact-checking the work of their "journalists." If Breitbart pulled a Fox News and argued in court that their goal was to entertain and not inform, then you have a point! But until then, you have a terrible misunderstanding of journalistic integrity and what it means for a publisher to attach their name to a journalist's work.

zaptrem 4y ago

Why link to Breitbart of all places instead of the original source? https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php Btw Wikipedia’s first few sentences on Breitbart are not inspiring > Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike.[10] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[11][12] and intentionally misleading stories.[13][14]

narrator 4y ago
This is the association fallacy, which is, unfortunately, how most people determine what to believe these days. An absurd example of this fallacy would be, Wikipedia, which you cite, has articles that indicate tobacco smoking may cause disease. The nazis were also anti-smoking[1]. Therefore Wikipedia is Nazi propaganda and you should not trust anything on there. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-War-Cancer-Robert-Proctor/dp/0691001960/ https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-War-Cancer-Robert-Proctor/dp/069...
- SR2Z 4y ago
  It is not the association fallacy; the role of a news site is to provide news, which includes fact-checking the work of their "journalists." If Breitbart pulled a Fox News and argued in court that their goal was to entertain and not inform, then you have a point! But until then, you have a terrible misunderstanding of journalistic integrity and what it means for a publisher to attach their name to a journalist's work.