3 ms·
> Google tunes its algorithms and lets the chips fall This is even more sloppy and could be easily applied to any real censorship, where some (censored) lose a
by eviks 1y ago
> Google tunes its algorithms and lets the chips fall
This is even more sloppy and could be easily applied to any real censorship, where some (censored) lose and some (not censored) win
If you're "tuning" your algorithm with the goal of blocking all small independent websites, then yeah, you're doing the shadow (if you don't tell the sites about it) banning.
By ignoring the intent of the policy and replacing it with a truism you don't really have a terminology counter argument
- gorjusborg 1y agoCensorship is about filtering out messages that are somehow 'undesirable'. That is not what is happening here. What's happening here is that someone has built a business that relies heavily on search hits from Google, Google made changes that negatively impact the number of hits. I'm not trying to minimize what is clearly a significant problem for the author, I'm just saying that misusing words like 'censorship' can water it down to the point that it has no impact. I abhor censorship. This isn't it.
- eviks 1y agoCensorship is also about filtering out the messengers. But I wasn't talking about that, even my example was about banning, not censorship. And it wasn't about you minimizing it either, just that the argument which you've repeated here doesn't hold - if you ignore why Google changes negatively impacted the number of hits you can make no counter re. censorship. By the way, if they made changes to filter out travel advice messages (from small travel sites) because they think such messages are undesirable since they hurt their ability to earn money from AI models, than the same negative impact would meet your definition of censorship, no?