5 ms·

Hahaha... laughed so hard... even for Google this is pretty comical. > The company has been downsizing in recent months to reckon with slowing growth and uncer

Hahaha... laughed so hard... even for Google this is pretty comical. > The company has been downsizing in recent months to reckon with slowing growth and uncertain economic conditions. What happened to becoming better through overcoming problems? "Slowing growth" and "Uncertain economic conditions" means now "Close down immediately". > The cuts at Google News come as big online platforms are pressured to provide the public with accurate information on the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia’s war in Ukraine. I guess at the scale of Google it is easier to completely close down your news arm than try to provide accurate information or admit you have problem with producing truth?

thaumasiotes 3y ago
Nobody should be expecting accurate information on either conflict. Sometimes accurate information is hard to come by. I'm not sure the problem is that platforms are being "pressured to provide the public with accurate information", though. I would guess there's far more pressure to provide information that favors certain viewpoints, whether that information is accurate or not.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  I think people should expect accurate information. Kinda the same as with justice. We know justice is served by people in nice togas and juries of peers who are really a nice name for your neighbours. And yet we still demand and hopefully will continue to demand justice, even if those people make mistakes or sometimes behave fraudulently. The problem with Israeli-Hamas conflict isn't that the accurate information isn't available. It is that too many people decided to side with either belligerent and are selectively accepting information. It is that both sides of the conflict decided to use misinformation to bolster their media presence and their right to defend themselves. It is that the people who have open and measured view of the situation are not feeling safe expressing their views and feel pressured to support either side or shut up. I am personally suspicious of radical opinions, but I feel no way to express any support to more moderate and rational opinions without exposing myself as target for both sides. This problem in turn is result of some more general socio-politic changes, poor education and capture of media by organisations who discovered it is better to serve extreme views on any matter because it lets them steal more of the focus of consumers by exploiting our natural biases. Because of the polarisation, you have to choose a lesser evil. If you don't like "trumpism", you have to side with "radical left". If you don't like "radical left", you have to side with "trumpism". This is how masses of people can be captured by extreme views, which should not be the norm, in my opinion.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > The problem with Israeli-Hamas conflict isn't that the accurate information isn't available. > It is that both sides of the conflict decided to use misinformation to bolster their media presence and their right to defend themselves. How can these two claims be compatible with each other? The first says that accurate information is available. The second says that it isn't.
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      Strictly speaking, it says that inaccurate information is also available.
      - planede 3y ago
        You can destroy information with noise. Accurate information about the conflicts (or anything) is also available in the digits of pi.
    - Woshiwuja 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Accurate information is available. Figuring out which of the many, many bits of information we're bombarded with are accurate is frequently tough.
  - myko 3y ago
    > If you don't like "trumpism", you have to side with "radical left". If you don't like "radical left", you have to side with "trumpism" This strikes me as incorrect. There isn't really much "radical left" in the US, Biden himself is a centrist. I take your overall point regarding accuracy of information, and I think the comments re: "radical left" are an example of the inaccuracy we see in US media. "Radical centrism", maybe.
    - gosub100 3y ago
- Woshiwuja 3y ago
  maybe not accurate, but it has to be true.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

Nobody should be expecting accurate information on either conflict. Sometimes accurate information is hard to come by. I'm not sure the problem is that platforms are being "pressured to provide the public with accurate information", though. I would guess there's far more pressure to provide information that favors certain viewpoints, whether that information is accurate or not.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
I think people should expect accurate information. Kinda the same as with justice. We know justice is served by people in nice togas and juries of peers who are really a nice name for your neighbours. And yet we still demand and hopefully will continue to demand justice, even if those people make mistakes or sometimes behave fraudulently. The problem with Israeli-Hamas conflict isn't that the accurate information isn't available. It is that too many people decided to side with either belligerent and are selectively accepting information. It is that both sides of the conflict decided to use misinformation to bolster their media presence and their right to defend themselves. It is that the people who have open and measured view of the situation are not feeling safe expressing their views and feel pressured to support either side or shut up. I am personally suspicious of radical opinions, but I feel no way to express any support to more moderate and rational opinions without exposing myself as target for both sides. This problem in turn is result of some more general socio-politic changes, poor education and capture of media by organisations who discovered it is better to serve extreme views on any matter because it lets them steal more of the focus of consumers by exploiting our natural biases. Because of the polarisation, you have to choose a lesser evil. If you don't like "trumpism", you have to side with "radical left". If you don't like "radical left", you have to side with "trumpism". This is how masses of people can be captured by extreme views, which should not be the norm, in my opinion.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > The problem with Israeli-Hamas conflict isn't that the accurate information isn't available. > It is that both sides of the conflict decided to use misinformation to bolster their media presence and their right to defend themselves. How can these two claims be compatible with each other? The first says that accurate information is available. The second says that it isn't.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    Strictly speaking, it says that inaccurate information is also available.
    - planede 3y ago
      You can destroy information with noise. Accurate information about the conflicts (or anything) is also available in the digits of pi.
  - Woshiwuja 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Accurate information is available. Figuring out which of the many, many bits of information we're bombarded with are accurate is frequently tough.
- myko 3y ago
  > If you don't like "trumpism", you have to side with "radical left". If you don't like "radical left", you have to side with "trumpism" This strikes me as incorrect. There isn't really much "radical left" in the US, Biden himself is a centrist. I take your overall point regarding accuracy of information, and I think the comments re: "radical left" are an example of the inaccuracy we see in US media. "Radical centrism", maybe.
  - gosub100 3y ago
Woshiwuja 3y ago
maybe not accurate, but it has to be true.