4 ms·
it is not a search engine's job to filter their results based on acceptable politics. the only explicit filtering out they should be doing is filtering out mani
by coconut08 3y ago
it is not a search engine's job to filter their results based on acceptable politics. the only explicit filtering out they should be doing is filtering out manipulation, explicitly illegal content, spam, fraudulent content and stuff like that. aside from that the filtering algorithm should be largely neutral and unbiased. it's not a search engine's job to refuse to answer search results because the owner finds it distasteful.
- smoldesu 3y agoDoes bad-faith propaganda not qualify as fraudulent content?
- coconut08 3y agoyes they should obviously be filtering out or downranking manipulated and fraudulent propaganda content. these policies would have existed before the invasion happened so there would be no reason to say that you are going to be downranking russian information unless you are planning on adding additional filtering and manipulation to the ranking on top of what you would normally do to content. they should be filtering all content neutrally and equally, not filtering russian content more because the owner wants to inject politics into their algorithm.
- throw9away6 3y agoSo no more NYT?
- lolinder 3y agoHow do you think search engines detect manipulation, down, fraudulent content, etc, if not by judging the content? Content is all a search engine sees. An article about a Nigerian prince who needs money is likely to be a scam. An article about how Ukraine is really just a rebellious Russian province is likely to be state-sponsored propaganda.
- mughinn 3y ago>manipulation This seems to be the case being argued here >explicitly illegal content Illegal according to who? >fraudulent content Fraudulent according to who? These things you name are an editorial decision and are not unbiased