4 ms·

> This story appears to confirm that Google sees ideological influence as part of their core mission That's confirmation bias. I could do the same argument goi

> This story appears to confirm that Google sees ideological influence as part of their core mission That's confirmation bias. I could do the same argument going the other way. That google profits of misinformation by promoting content that is demonstrably false and have caused harm in the real world. BTW, scientist can have opinions too, and such opinions can be wrong. What opinions were expressed? That closing borders doesn't work? Yes, once there are multiple spreading points restricting movement in international scale doesn't work and would be unpopular due the economic harms it brings. That mask doesn't work? Yes, they don't work because to be correctly used you literally have to have them 100% of the time when you are outside of your bubble, something that the public isn't very disciplined about.

slily 3y ago
Treating content without bias and having some things you don't like crop up next to the things you do like isn't "promoting" anything one way or the other. The moment you start meddling with boosting or deboosting things, you get into censorship territory. This is what the people fixated on "misinformation" or "disinformation" or "malinformation" or "information I don't like" don't get. Doubly so when they act like their favorite scientists, journalists and pundits are always right. Speaking of confirmation bias... And speaking of masks as well, recall how early on in the corona debacle, The Science said that they don't work... :)
- braiamp 3y ago
  The mask that were "popular" like cloth mask, etc. that weren't up to the N95 standards didn't work because the virus is aerosol. Not all masks are equal, that's what the science has discovered. Also, not being associated with certain content is the purview of each individual and organization. The EU is a standard of this, that tells companies, like Twitter, that they still have responsibility about their user content, so they must moderate their site.
  - slily 3y ago
    I distinctly remember US health authorities claiming that surgical-grade masks, perhaps specifically N95s, that I am not 100% sure, were not helpful, and this led to social media companies deboosting posts disagreeing with that assessment and applying labels basically calling them fake. I don't recall if they were banning people at that point. But I am surprised that so few people remember the constant flip-flopping and goalpost-shifting. I would think that anyone paying attention would be very wary of "informationisms" as a result. By the way, questioning the usefulness of cloth masks after that period would get you shunned or banned on many networks well past the point where we had ample evidence to prove that they were ineffective, so even ignoring the initial screw-up, there is plenty of easily provable information that was systematically censored by Internet information brokers.
    - braiamp 3y ago
      Can you pull the article? Because I remember several times repeating to others that it isn't that they didn't work, but that the public doesn't need 'em, since social distancing should be enough. The N95 production of mask at the start of the pandemic wasn't able to give a mask to everyone that wanted one. Nowadays, there's sufficient production to do that. That was the whole thing.
      - slily 3y ago
        How about this - US Surgeon General claiming masks are ineffective against the coronavirus, just four years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.co... That's as far as I'll go since I am about to head to work, and I've spent enough time playing the game where I'm told to dig for articles by people who don't bother doing it themselves, so hopefully this is satisfactory. The deletion should be telling, there's a lot of retconning and memory-holing going on unsurprisingly.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        From: https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire... > So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning? > "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." I also have this one bookmarked: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.amp https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-... Edit: that link 404s now (curiuous). Still on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20210802065432/https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.amp https://web.archive.org/web/20210802065432/https://slate.com...
indymike 3y ago
> That's confirmation bias. Did you actually read the article? Google literally is telling them to remove content that they don't want. This article is confirming bias.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Bullshit. Google is telling them to remove content if they want to comply with Google's advertising T&C, otherwise the ads won't run and they won't make money. That's not censorship; if you're running an ad-supported site, you have to run ad-friendly content. If Google is paying you to run their ads, you're their piper, and you play the tunes they call.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    That is censorship. Sometimes large businesses remove their advertising from a paper publication because they disagree with the reporting. When that happens, the whole industry rightfully calls it censorship and abuse. > If Google is paying you to run their ads, you're their piper, and you play the tunes they call. You just described censorship in crystal clear terms.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      No, that is not censorship. You calling it that does not make it so. Consider the alternative: Either morally or legally, Google and/or their advertisers have to run ads on sites that they disagree with, thereby supporting them both financially and reputationally. Where, in that scenario, is their free speech? You're free to say anything you want. I'm free to not endorse it or support it. So are Google and their advertisers. (You might make a case for actual censorship if Google refused to index such pages.)
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        It is censorship, even though they have the right to do it and even if they can have justified reasons for doing it. During war, letters home from soldiers and even generals are read by a censor and censored, so that sensitive information cannot get to the enemy. That is legal, that is agreeable, that is still censorship. In this case, Google even specifies what articles need to be removed for continued advertising, so it is crystal clear censorship.
pixxel 3y ago
[flagged]

slily 3y ago

Treating content without bias and having some things you don't like crop up next to the things you do like isn't "promoting" anything one way or the other. The moment you start meddling with boosting or deboosting things, you get into censorship territory. This is what the people fixated on "misinformation" or "disinformation" or "malinformation" or "information I don't like" don't get. Doubly so when they act like their favorite scientists, journalists and pundits are always right. Speaking of confirmation bias... And speaking of masks as well, recall how early on in the corona debacle, The Science said that they don't work... :)

braiamp 3y ago
The mask that were "popular" like cloth mask, etc. that weren't up to the N95 standards didn't work because the virus is aerosol. Not all masks are equal, that's what the science has discovered. Also, not being associated with certain content is the purview of each individual and organization. The EU is a standard of this, that tells companies, like Twitter, that they still have responsibility about their user content, so they must moderate their site.
- slily 3y ago
  I distinctly remember US health authorities claiming that surgical-grade masks, perhaps specifically N95s, that I am not 100% sure, were not helpful, and this led to social media companies deboosting posts disagreeing with that assessment and applying labels basically calling them fake. I don't recall if they were banning people at that point. But I am surprised that so few people remember the constant flip-flopping and goalpost-shifting. I would think that anyone paying attention would be very wary of "informationisms" as a result. By the way, questioning the usefulness of cloth masks after that period would get you shunned or banned on many networks well past the point where we had ample evidence to prove that they were ineffective, so even ignoring the initial screw-up, there is plenty of easily provable information that was systematically censored by Internet information brokers.
  - braiamp 3y ago
    Can you pull the article? Because I remember several times repeating to others that it isn't that they didn't work, but that the public doesn't need 'em, since social distancing should be enough. The N95 production of mask at the start of the pandemic wasn't able to give a mask to everyone that wanted one. Nowadays, there's sufficient production to do that. That was the whole thing.
    - slily 3y ago
      How about this - US Surgeon General claiming masks are ineffective against the coronavirus, just four years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.co... That's as far as I'll go since I am about to head to work, and I've spent enough time playing the game where I'm told to dig for articles by people who don't bother doing it themselves, so hopefully this is satisfactory. The deletion should be telling, there's a lot of retconning and memory-holing going on unsurprisingly.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      From: https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire... > So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning? > "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." I also have this one bookmarked: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.amp https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-... Edit: that link 404s now (curiuous). Still on archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20210802065432/https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.amp https://web.archive.org/web/20210802065432/https://slate.com...

indymike 3y ago

> That's confirmation bias. Did you actually read the article? Google literally is telling them to remove content that they don't want. This article is confirming bias.

denton-scratch 3y ago
Bullshit. Google is telling them to remove content if they want to comply with Google's advertising T&C, otherwise the ads won't run and they won't make money. That's not censorship; if you're running an ad-supported site, you have to run ad-friendly content. If Google is paying you to run their ads, you're their piper, and you play the tunes they call.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  That is censorship. Sometimes large businesses remove their advertising from a paper publication because they disagree with the reporting. When that happens, the whole industry rightfully calls it censorship and abuse. > If Google is paying you to run their ads, you're their piper, and you play the tunes they call. You just described censorship in crystal clear terms.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    No, that is not censorship. You calling it that does not make it so. Consider the alternative: Either morally or legally, Google and/or their advertisers have to run ads on sites that they disagree with, thereby supporting them both financially and reputationally. Where, in that scenario, is their free speech? You're free to say anything you want. I'm free to not endorse it or support it. So are Google and their advertisers. (You might make a case for actual censorship if Google refused to index such pages.)
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      It is censorship, even though they have the right to do it and even if they can have justified reasons for doing it. During war, letters home from soldiers and even generals are read by a censor and censored, so that sensitive information cannot get to the enemy. That is legal, that is agreeable, that is still censorship. In this case, Google even specifies what articles need to be removed for continued advertising, so it is crystal clear censorship.

pixxel 3y ago

[flagged]