Slashdot Mirror
Google To Prohibit Fake News Websites From Using Its Ad-Selling Software (reuters.com)
According to The Wall Street Journal, Google is working on a policy update that will prohibit fake news websites from using its ad-selling software. The move would ultimately make it more challenging for those fake news sites to earn revenue. Reuters reports: The policy change is imminent, Google spokeswoman Andrea Faville told Reuters. "Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property," she said in a statement. The policy change comes amid an intensifying debate over how much responsibility technology companies bear for monitoring the accuracy of content as more and more people access news through sites such as Facebook rather than traditional media companies. Facebook, in particular, has been criticized over the spread of inaccurate articles promoting U.S. president-elect Donald Trump on the site. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has denied that the site influenced the outcome of the election. Google's AdSense advertising network is a key financial driver for many publishers. The company places various restrictions on where its ads may be placed, including bans on pornographic and violent content. Work on the policy update began before the election, Faville said.
What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks? And yes, that was a lie, read this: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17...
Why didn't they want us to know about it? Oh, because we have emails between CNN and the DNC, they leaked the debate questions. Then they brought Donna Brazille on there to tell us they were somehow modified. Except, not so fast, Donna: they have DKIM authentication, which provides non-repudiation. And make sure you actually read the damned DKIM headers, because they include the b and bh parameters. So if you try and tell me they only protect the headers, you're going to get a lecture on the DKIM specification, because you're not just wrong, you can be mathematically proven wrong.
Anyhow, there's no great loss to the clickbait sites. Good riddance to such. However, inasmuch as they believe they can use this to control what people say and believe, I can only remind them of the Streisand Effect and laugh. Google took down the video from this story quite a few times before they started allowing it once it hit the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
In case you're wondering what Snopes says about it, they say it's "mixed." You see, there was a fender bender and the guy wanted to exchange insurance info before they brutally beat him and dragged him from the back of his own car, which they stole while nearly killing him.
Does this mean I can stop getting stories on my Google News page from 'Ecumenical News' and 'Christian Daily', two religious news web sites that apparently went belly-up some years ago, had their domains purchased by scammers, and now serve clickbait bullshit constantly? All they ever do is somehow zero in on some search term I used recently and then feed me fake headlines about that thing.
Like, for months now, I've constantly had a story on my news page about Rick and Morty (which I searched for one day in July, and these stories started the next day) from one or the other of those sites. Today, it's "'Rick and Morty' season 3 update: Release date revealed and other spoilers" from Ecumenical News. I don't click them; they're just a gibberish mishmash of rumors from elsewhere on the web. I 'Personalized' my Google News feed and set both of these news sources to the lowest they'll go, but unfortunately, it seems impossible to exclude them completely.
Before that, it was a constant stream of rumor-mill bullshit about The Arrow and the drama between cast members. These sites are NOT NEWS, they're just algorithmicly generated clickbait. Preferably, they would both die a fiery death, but in the meantime, if I could just get them off of my news feed, I'd be mollified.
Basically, Google is saying you can't advertise a website that purports to be ABC News if you are not ABC News. I'm still trying to figure out your problem with this.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A) CNN didn't say anything about people with clearances, instead they divided the world into two groups, the media (where it's okay) and the rest, where it's not okay.
B) That part is explicitly covered in the Popehat article which I linked, anyhow.
C) Wikileaks publishes all verifiable and true material leaked to it and goes for maximum impact, but they're not a hacking group, they can only operate if they have leaks.
For most leaks, you can simply go to ABC / CBS / NBC and avoid playing spy. Wikileaks was needed here, because the media themselves are complicit in many of the things in the Podesta dump. I mean, we have emails like this one showing them going behind their own lawyers' backs to send donors to the Washington Post's party, after being forbidden to put it on the price sheet. That really looks like a campaign donation of some kind, and their own lawyers explicitly forbade it. This is just one of many, many, many such examples. With the media doing things behind everyone's back, how can we be expected to just shut up and trust them, as CNN tried to encourage?
But there's no way for them NOT to do that. Ad-revenue follows the amount of views, which means if they do nothing they're essentially taking a stance of 'we'll facilitate the spread of any type of mis-information as long as it makes us money". So they're already doing it now, they're just slightly changing their parameters. It's their product and platform, they have no obligation whatsoever to spread lies to make money if they don't want to.
And why not? It's a search engine, the point of which is to provide people accurate information. If some trolls/hackers/political shills/whatever try to skew the search results so that upon googling thing X, instead a completely unrelated/false article Y comes up, that means their product is not operating as intended and they should correct it.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead