Slashdot Mirror
Google Planning To Serve "High Quality News" Passively
krou writes "The Wrap has an interesting interview with Eric Schmidt on Google's new plan for news. Google is apparently planning on rolling out 'high-quality news' to users who are not actively searching for news. It's expected to launch in approximately six months' time, and the first two news organizations to be involved will be The New York Times and The Washington Post. 'Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google's page. The latest algorithms apply ever more sophisticated filtering — based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues — to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they're looking for it. And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content.' Although Schmidt said that companies like the New York Times won't get any of this ad revenue, he commented that it will push stories to users who want them, drive up traffic to those stories, and in turn bring higher advertising rates for those stories."
As VentureBeat points out, Google hasn't officially confirmed any of this, and with no ad revenue going to the other companies, it only partially addresses complaints that Google is profiting unfairly from the work of news publications.
They get you what they think you want after you ask for it. That's a critical difference between what Google does now and the proposed new system.
umm, yeah, uh, like the propaganda spread by news agencies anywhere outside north america is any less population pacifying propaganda and advertisments than the Washington Post or National Enquirer.
My favorite example is perhaps Englands "The Sun"
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Ya I know ;) Even when you ask for something they are just doing a best guess. Getting exactly what you asked for is akin to solving for Zeta in a Taylor series. But yes, I love google for it's simplicity, I don't need another yahoo.com throwing random data to generate revenu...
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Grammar aside, this is downright scary:
If I'm not actively searching for news it's probably because I'm not interested in news at that particular moment, whether they are high quality, sponsored or not.
It seems Google is actively trying to find exciting new ways to become annoying.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
What do you expect it to cover? Tracking an infectious disease actually seems like a good use of the media to me. Would you rather read about The presidents new Dog, or the fact the a lot of people doesn't like the presidents view or a lot of people who does. Do you want to fucus on everything that is wrong with the world and make you feel more depressed or all the good things so you get cavities. Do you want to read transcripts of the entire debates that goes on in the House of Representatives.
There is a lot of stuff that goes on in the world, that can be covered. And almost anything that goes on is of interest to someone. News outlets need to balance importance and popularity of such venues.
The problem I see with Google News is that it will give news that people want to see, not necessary news that will broaden their views.
I want to see news that makes the Republicans look like a bunch of whinny babies when they are in the minority, however if the republicans are in charge I want the democrat minority look like brave people standing up for our rights.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now who can I actively pay *not* to be exposed to stories from the NY Times or the Washington Post?
Just don't use Google. Seriously. They are not here to be your friend. They want to mine your data and direct you to their sponsors.
What is a person and their interests? At what point does Google create a prison for a person by creating a profile that represents your interests you can't break free of? What does it say about "I" if "I" can be quantified? Does "I" ever need to break free of their profile because in reality, we all filter on an implicit profile within ourselves and it never changes. After all, the profile is about opt-out of information as much as opt-in. So, when your profile prevents information from reaching you because it is filtered out, the bars of the prison are realized. In the end, does this make you stupider?
For instance, let's say I am a person that believes that the dark ages were good and the world is flat. Will information to the contrary ever come my way if I am identified as a backward person? How would I ever become enlightened to opposing view points if I am always presented with affirming information on my world perspective.
I'm not really that interested in pornography or nudism related news. Topics of interests and what current events I follow aren't always the same.