Google Plans To Remove 'In the News' Section From Its Desktop Search Following 'Fake News' Criticism (businessinsider.com)

Nathan McAlone, reporting for BusinessInsider: Following criticism over fake news on its platform, Google plans to remove its "In the news" section from the top of desktop search results in a matter of weeks, according to a source familiar with the matter. It will be replaced by a carousel of "Top stories" similar to what now exists on mobile. This move had been planned for quite some time, the source said. The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product. Earlier this month, Google faced scrutiny when one of its top results for "final election count" was fake news. The top result in Google Search's "In the news" section was a Wordpress blog named "70 News," which falsely claimed Trump won the popular vote by a margin of almost 700,000. He didn't.

Comments

So sad that SJWs were the reason

[NotInHere]

I think that personalized news sites are orwellian and they create an echo chamber. You can't form an informed opinion if you only get news that already have your opinion.

Instead of banning these sites out of this reason like it should be done, they are removed because the filters are not conforming with what SJWs think is non-"offensive" articles.

Its so sad that reports about Clinton's corruption is classified as fake news by the SJWs who only care about "microagressions" and "pussy grabbing" instead of real crime.

Similarly the undercover footage that proved how the democrats have rigged elections (by abusing tolerant state laws and driving over voters with busses) and paid protesters since decades went almost unnoticed by the mainstream media (only Fox reported about it I think).

I don't agree with republicans about most of their issues, and clearly Clinton was the candidate I was rooting for, but in this election almost all of the mainstream media have supported clinton, and I still think that journalism critical about the democrats should be allowed.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[DishpanMan]

Let's play this narrative out out with Democrats "rigging" elections. 32 governors are Republicans. House and Senate have been and continue to be both controlled by Republicans. This equates to the most failed rigging ever by Democrats. The House has 239 of 435 seats as Republicans, 55% control. The popular vote was 60 million for Republicans and 57 million for Democrats in the House equates to a 51% majority for Republicans. The facts do not fit the rigging narrative. Republicans handed the Democrats another ass kicking in the elections. Crying foul after winning is like playing a victim when you win. It just does not work.

Who decides?

[BobSutan]

Who gets to decide what qualifies as "fake news" vs "real news"? Thus far the bulk of the stories surrounding the subject are largely just the left-leaning mainstream media outlets being butthurt over Trump's win and Bannon giving Breitbart a huge heaping of credibility. This move by the left to censor various news outlets is largely just a response to them getting their comeuppance for their hubris.

In the end let's call this #fakenews trend what it is: an attack on conservative and right-leaning media outlets not already in the fold of what constitutes the "mainstream media". Even if you don't take a news/media company seriously, that doesn't for a second think they should be excluded from the marketplace of ideas. That includes those on the fringe like Infowars, Hell, even The Inquirer has broken some very real and legitimately big stories over the years.

Re:Google will kill Black Lives Matter

[butchersong]

The black lives matter stories may rely primarily on false narratives but it is the officially sanctioned media outlets that give voice to those false news stories. The very ones the "fake news" filters are setup to endorse.