4 ms·

What is "fact" is actually highly subjective and puts Google in the place of picking the "winners" for arguments or perhaps pushing their own political and reli

by ben_pr 12y ago

What is "fact" is actually highly subjective and puts Google in the place of picking the "winners" for arguments or perhaps pushing their own political and religious agenda. Fact: Vaccines are Dangerous Fact: Vaccines are Safe and prevent spread of deadly diseases. Fact: I nearly died from a vaccine. Fact: Vaccines contained mercury[1] for decades and poisoned untold millions of people. Fact: Google now decides which facts you get to see. I understand Google is trying to get rid of lots of useless add pages but determining "truth" is potentially just pushing an agenda and burying those facts they disagree with. [1]http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability...

sukilot 12y ago
To put a finer point on it, Google's success is based on statistical machine learning, but interesting facts are rooted in expert rule systems and predicate logic.
WalterSear 12y ago
Someone, somewhere has to make that call: the current situation is untenable.
- robsears 12y ago
  It's a whole lot more tenable than appointing a referee, which is what Google is trying to become here. An organization with the power to "settle" contentious debates becomes a target for corruption, a single point of failure for the integrity of the entire system. For example, maybe the Waltons decide they don't like the national conversation on minimum wage laws; could they lobby/bribe/extort/whatever their way into having their "facts" be treated favorably in search results? Or could the Democratic party decide that Republican candidate so-and-so is a pedophile/spouse-beater/alien, and make that a settled "fact" by promising Google employees favorable tax breaks in exchange for aid in "narrative building?" Under the current system, "facts" are democratized. Sure, sometimes bullshit makes its way into the popular consciousness, but it's more random than not. When I see some tripe about "OBAMA TO INJECT TRACKING CHIPS INTO AMERICANS USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK," I'm relieved to know that there is no amount of money or power in this world to make that an established "fact."

by ben_pr 12y ago

sukilot 12y ago

To put a finer point on it, Google's success is based on statistical machine learning, but interesting facts are rooted in expert rule systems and predicate logic.

WalterSear 12y ago

Someone, somewhere has to make that call: the current situation is untenable.

robsears 12y ago
It's a whole lot more tenable than appointing a referee, which is what Google is trying to become here. An organization with the power to "settle" contentious debates becomes a target for corruption, a single point of failure for the integrity of the entire system. For example, maybe the Waltons decide they don't like the national conversation on minimum wage laws; could they lobby/bribe/extort/whatever their way into having their "facts" be treated favorably in search results? Or could the Democratic party decide that Republican candidate so-and-so is a pedophile/spouse-beater/alien, and make that a settled "fact" by promising Google employees favorable tax breaks in exchange for aid in "narrative building?" Under the current system, "facts" are democratized. Sure, sometimes bullshit makes its way into the popular consciousness, but it's more random than not. When I see some tripe about "OBAMA TO INJECT TRACKING CHIPS INTO AMERICANS USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK," I'm relieved to know that there is no amount of money or power in this world to make that an established "fact."