3 ms·

So why did they take the article down as opposed to only appending the note at the end of the article like they've done elsewhere? It's long been rumored that

So why did they take the article down as opposed to only appending the note at the end of the article like they've done elsewhere? It's long been rumored that Google coerces news outlets to publish (or not publish) certain topics lest they find themselves downranked or missing from search queries for a while or get penalized with adsense. With the removal of an article besmearching Google, I begin to wonder if there's any truth to those rumors.

mst 3y ago
The article seemed very strange to me, so I'm not surprised it's been pulled. (my overriding thought as I read it being "I'm sure google does assorted morally dubious things in this area but this really doesn't seem like their style of evil, and I suspect the article is either a misrepresentation or mistaken")
- rockskon 3y ago
  My point is that it's highly unusual for a news outlet to outright remove an article as opposed to editing it and giving a note explaining why. Or a note saying the article is not accurate but leaving it up for historical purposes.
  - mst 3y ago
    My point is that it isn't unheard of for something sufficiently badly wrong, and that article cleared the bar hard enough that I was honestly surprised that wired published it at all. I find it highly likely that Google -do- try to influence coverage, mind, but I don't think that was the primary factor in play here.
joenot443 3y ago
Because in this case, the _entire premise_ of the article was wrong. You're welcome to wonder all you like, but in this case the obvious answer is the correct one. The author (Megan Gray) wrote a bad piece because she misunderstood how a technology worked, leaving Wired no choice but to take it down. Read the article, come to your own conclusion. https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 When I read that I was floored - not because I expected even remotely that it might be true, but because I couldn't believe just how far Wired's quality bar had fallen. It doesn't read like a piece written by someone who's familiar with how the internet works.

mst 3y ago

The article seemed very strange to me, so I'm not surprised it's been pulled. (my overriding thought as I read it being "I'm sure google does assorted morally dubious things in this area but this really doesn't seem like their style of evil, and I suspect the article is either a misrepresentation or mistaken")

rockskon 3y ago
My point is that it's highly unusual for a news outlet to outright remove an article as opposed to editing it and giving a note explaining why. Or a note saying the article is not accurate but leaving it up for historical purposes.
- mst 3y ago
  My point is that it isn't unheard of for something sufficiently badly wrong, and that article cleared the bar hard enough that I was honestly surprised that wired published it at all. I find it highly likely that Google -do- try to influence coverage, mind, but I don't think that was the primary factor in play here.

joenot443 3y ago

Because in this case, the _entire premise_ of the article was wrong. You're welcome to wonder all you like, but in this case the obvious answer is the correct one. The author (Megan Gray) wrote a bad piece because she misunderstood how a technology worked, leaving Wired no choice but to take it down. Read the article, come to your own conclusion. https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 When I read that I was floored - not because I expected even remotely that it might be true, but because I couldn't believe just how far Wired's quality bar had fallen. It doesn't read like a piece written by someone who's familiar with how the internet works.