Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
The article do not refer to "Google Desktop", but to "desktop search". That is, the version of Google Search (i.e. www.google.com) that you see when browsing with a desktop browser, as opposed "mobile search" which is the term for the version of Google Search, you are presented with when browsing from a mobile browser. The two may, and often do, give different results as the user e.g. might want more timely or location based results on mobile, while the user might want more background stories when browsing from a desktop.
dark Democrat money wouldn't be pushing the fake news agenda
You forget to add "and the large number of people who are sick and tired of having to debunk uncle bob's emails to nana for her"
Someone had to do it.
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.
I'm not sure whether I should be feel honored or mortified that I'm mentioned in this.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I do wonder if in all this wanting to censor fake news, if they'd censor and remove what has been by far the most wide spread bit of fake news circulating. The bit that Clinton won the popular vote.
To those who want to argue that she did win the popular vote, let me ask you, was the election winner determined by popular vote? If you say no, then I ask you how Clinton could have possibly won something that didn't happen. If you say yes, might I recommend checking your meds.
Now to those who are going to argue this, remember, we have no idea how the election would have turned out had it been popular vote. I know I personally would have voted differently had it been popular, guaranteeing that the numbers we saw in this election would not have been identical in a popular vote.
In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Is this the impression you are left with when watching the news?
On the surface, like most leftist arguments I believe most people agree that sexual assault is a crime. That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.
Hate to tell you this buddy, but you are guilty of sexual assault too. Your partners have not yet decided to press charges, but you are absolutely guilty due to the broad definitions placed on the term.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is it not possible that Republicans could have won by larger margins, if we assume Democrats did rig? We call this affirming the disjunct, your logic is simply wrong.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
dark Democrat money wouldn't be pushing the fake news agenda
You forget to add "and the large number of people who are sick and tired of having to debunk uncle bob's emails to nana for her"
Two things:
1. Ironically, my only uncle is named Bob. He's 83 now and finally took me off his mailing list at some point last year. But, yeah, I get it.
2. That said, this has nothing to do with people like him. If it did, we would have heard about it before Trump won.
Do you have ESP?
When I was trying to find out who really was this Trump guy, an editorial was one of the news links on the Google News front page. I clicked on the link to learn more about him and had to deal with an editorial rant. That really bothered me. It was a clearly marked editorial in the opinion section of the web site. Google's algorithms should be easily able to remove those from the news. If Google News wants to post editorials, they should be clearly marked as editorials in the links. My trust of Google News was damaged and I am much more suspicious of Google News now. They can do better and should.
When this is all over we will come get you.
The "fake news" could be substituted for "news we deem fake"
So I guess you're arguing here that reality is entirely a media construct? Because otherwise, if actual facts exist, then there is an easy, objective definition for "fake news": false information which is knowingly and deliberately reported in order to influence public opinion. There's an older word for it: "propaganda".
Apparently it's the Chinese. They've suddenly taken a great interest in Westerners knowing what is "valid" news.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
AC is deranged. Look, I'll make it simple for you. The people voted, and sorry to tell you, but YES, Clinton fucking won a plurality of the votes cast. DEAL WITH IT. That's what I'm doing. I'm not happy about it, but denying it is STUPID. Does it mean she won the election? Of course not. Everybody knows that.
Did you not read my post? I used the word propaganda right in the post. Was kinda hard to miss. Wait, Void? Like Voidzero???
Thank 8 years of race merchandizing for things coming to this point. If President Obama didn't elevate the BLM thugs to the point that every other day, cops are targeted in the streets, it wouldn't have come to this. If President Obama had aggressively taken a bully pulpit to get Black gangsters on the streets off the streets, instead of leaving the po-po to hang out to dry, you wouldn't have seen this backlash
Good.
Maybe now we can get the "From the Web" and the "Sponsored by Taboola" removed from Slashdot.
No. intentionally made-up "news" and biased news about actual events are not equivalent. The "fake" news problem is about actual fake stuff; intentionally and knowingly made-up stuff. Like with people in it that don't exist, etc.
If it did, we would have heard about it before Trump won.
Sometimes it takes a flashpoint to pop a seething bubble of frustration.
Someone had to do it.
"Fake news" is fake.
I have to wonder if our country, or maybe the world, is under a "divide and conquer" attack. An attack that uses psychological warfare operations, through the news systems and media services (including social media).
Or maybe it's just the political parties doing it? Nah... they are not smart enough. 8-P
Am I just kidding? You tell me, I don't know for sure. 8-)