Google Is Removing 'In the News' Section From Desktop Search After Criticism (businessinsider.com)

Google today confirmed that it is removing "In the news" section from the top of desktop search, and replacing it with a carousel of "Top stories," similar to what exists on mobile. From a new report on BusinessInsider: This move had been planned for quite some time, and is being rolled out globally, according to Google. 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. Last 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 didnâ(TM)t). Google's search results, in contrast to Google News, are not assessed for "truth."

Comments

planned for AFTER hillary's election

[turkeydance]

she won, right?

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Joe_Dragon]

only after they X2 the votes in her in the recount.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, she now leads by 2.7 million votes

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[anthony_greer]

thats not how it works. the rules were long standing and clear, its about electors in the states. Its like baseball - the Indians scored more runs than the Cubs in the World Series but who won?

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[sexconker]

Yes, she now leads by 2.7 million votes

And yet she lost.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

Not in the only election that counts. "Add up all the individual votes from all the states" has never been the way the winner of the US presidential election has been determined.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[tepples]

The only election that counts has not occurred. That's December 19, 2016, and it's not the foregone conclusion that some of Mr. Trump's supporters claim. For one thing, as Secretary Clinton's popular vote margin continues to rise, there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors. For another, eight electors have already announced intent not to vote for their party's nominee.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

In more sensible sports, like soccer, the Indians would have won, because you take the aggregate score.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

Is she from the pedocratic party?

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the popular vote counts for a whole heck of a lot, that's why Trump is so desperate to craft a story about 3 million illegals voting.

Never mind that if that were the case, it'd de-legitimize the ENTIRE election, but he's got to have some way to salvage his ego, as he'd know, he'd know, that more people voted for a woman than him, and he only won by chance.

That latter, especially, when you consider the low margins in several critical states. That's enough that the outcome could have changed by a slight bit at any time.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

The only election that counts has not occurred.

I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.

And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[oneiron]

Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process? The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios. Therefore, they are following the process- not subverting it. Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[tsqr]

there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors

I'm curious how you think that could possibly happen. Historically, individual electors have voted contrary to their commitment, but I doubt that there exists a legal means to unseat an elected slate of electors, short of a recount that flips the state's result.

There is a group of 8 Democratic electors (the so-called "Hamilton Electors") who say they're going to vote for John Kasich, and a Democratic elector from the state of Washington who says he won't vote for Hillary Clinton. There is a Republican elector from Texas who says she will not vote for Trump, but instead for some unnamed Republican she feels would be a better choice. So far, that's a net loss of 8 for Clinton and a net loss of 1 for Trump.

If enough electors refuse to vote for Trump but don't vote for Clinton, then no one gets 270 in the Electoral Collage and it gets kicked to the House of Representatives, where votes may be cast for anyone who received at least one Electoral College vote.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted.

All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it, many people rejected it through proposals such as the NPVIC, WR, and other means of expressing their dissent with the electoral college, not to mention a certain twittering twitster who called for revolution in 2012.

Seriously, you should not make such provably false claims, many people are on record as expressly opposing the Electoral College, and at most, the majority of people are merely giving their tacit consent.

The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.

As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already exists, for example, in Kentucky:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

> there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors

No, all the states are locked in. All that you are seeing is that states that are already concluded are continuing to tally. But this can't flip any states any more. Even Pennsylvania, which somehow had 22,000 Hillary votes show up at the last second, is certified.

The electors refusing to vote as instructed would be an absolute shit-show. Trust me buddy: you don't want to see it.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?

Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.

The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.

What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)

Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?

The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[oneiron]

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil. Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo... If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[maharvey]

The election hasn't actually happened yet, but she is expected to lose by 74 votes, having won only 43% of the total.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.

I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.

The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.

So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.

And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.

If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process

I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.

So "boohoo" yourself.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[negRo_slim]

Direct Democracy is hardly sensible.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no safe space in real life. Complain, whine, and redefine words or processes all you want. You lost and are bitter. You lost and are acting out as a child does. You lost with that attitude and will continue to lose with that attitude. Keep pushing your attitude on others and you will lose the next election too.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Antique Geekmeister]

> The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.

Not at all. The ability to vote the way _some_ voters of their districts selected, rather than the current "winner-take-all" common practices, would indeed enfranchise many voters from their districts. It's also supported by the Constitution. Even a casual reading of Article II shows that the electors can use their judgment to select a President.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Anonymous Coward]

Abraham Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote against a Democrat whose followers insisted he was "not their President." General Sherman reminded these SJWs he was their President by burning a path to the ocean.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[oneiron]

Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself? Come on, now... Believe what you want, but genuinely and truly, I'm not invested in the results of their efforts one way or the other. Each candidate is bad for the country in their own way, and in my view, it's next to impossible to determine which one is more dangerous at this point. At the same time, some aspects of the electoral college are bad for the country and an alternative or a fix is badly needed. I don't care.

I love watching stuff like this play out, and I'm only advocating respect (including possible constructive criticism) of the process our founding fathers created. You're demonstrating willful ignorance of this process to suit your political agenda. The pledge is not meaningless. The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college was intentionally designed so that "faithless electors" could influence the outcome of a presidential election. They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process. They are embracing it. You're the one spinning a yarn and spreading misinformation that runs contrary to the laws of our nation. This type of garbage subverts the integrity of our current election and corrupts the way citizens who fall victim to your lies might perceive future elections.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself?

I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.

and I'm only advocating respect

Boo hoo? Ok.

The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions.

The electors are selected by the voters. The names are on the ballot, the electors know who they are pledging to vote for. If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.

They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process.

The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES. Not only did they get the job because they pledged to vote for the candidate they represent, they are, in many cases, required by law to do so.

Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.

who fall victim to your lies

I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.

Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it,

Sigh. In context, please. "All" refers to everyone who was subject to the process. The electors, for example. The people who voted knowing that they were picking electors who voted in the Electoral College.

I don't care if ignorant people who don't understand the Electoral College don't agree to what they tacitly approved of when they cast their ballots. I don't care if YOU don't accept it, because you don't define the process.

It's fascinating to watch the tiny minority of people who actually object trying to change the process after the fact when their candidate loses, but who are otherwise silent when it works out ok for them.

As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already exists, for example, in Kentucky:

The "right" of revolution wasn't under discussion. The right of the losers to jump up and down and shout and scream and get their losing candidate put into power in the US system of democracy was. That quote talks about the "power of the people", and this is the system in place, today, to represent those people. A vocal minority who don't like the result don't have the right to change the result, even if they have the right to scream about how the process should be changed.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[oneiron]

I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.

OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.

If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.

That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.

The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES.

Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.

Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.

Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.

I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.

It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part.

So that would be, of course, the thing you use as an example.

When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors

You want to put words in my mouth, and you're being civil? No, sorry. I said "boo hoo" because you said it, and you were accusing me of being uncivil. I implied no such thing.

My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president,

Other than supporting the changes to the rules that would allow the losing candidate to become the winner, no. It doesn't matter which one won or lost, changing the rules after the fact so the loser wins is wrong. It is a bad thing. I don't care whether it was Trump people challenging Hillary had she won or the other way around. It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.

If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent,

Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent", it is a simple statement of fact. I've followed the rules so many times when my favored candidate didn't win that it is simply ridiculous to claim that trying to follow the rules is some political thing.

Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing.

They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.

any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy

I didn't treat you like a political enemy. You replied to a comment to someone else, and you're unhappy that it made you are a part of that discussion?

you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.

I didn't "check the other guy's post history". I've lived through it.

You've inferred what you want to read, and don't know what has been said. Why do you post?

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[oneiron]

You want to put words in my mouth

Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you've made a sarcastic quip to suggest that I'm aligned with these loons in response to me explicitly stating my position. No direct argument from you, though....just a bunch of rambling BS about Obama. What a surprise... I guess we know where you stand.

and you're being civil?

Can you read? I've already told you when and why civility went out the window. I'm more concerned with helping you understand the flaws in your position, at this point. You're welcome.

It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.

That's not interesting. It's not even intelligible. What deluded thread of logic is does this wild tangent of an idea even represent? Actually, I take it back about the delusion. Even though you've already demonstrated your meddle, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself in clear language. Good luck. I'm waiting.

Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent"

First, you've demonstrated your political bent in oh so many ways that I won't bother to list them out here. You and everyone who reads your comments know exactly how you're aligned and how belligerent you are towards anyone who doesn't sing the same tune. Let's not pretend.

Second, I've already explained how the rules defined by our nation's constitution encourage faithless electors. No one is changing rules by "challenging" the constitutionality of state laws. It boggles my mind that you can't grasp this. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?

They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.

Haha, ok, I take back the bit about cognitive dissonance. Good job... It really looks like you're starting to grasp it. You get a C+ for this paragraph.

Seriously, though, unconstitutional laws are almost never challenged until they are broken, enforced unfairly, or until someone is planning to break them. That's just how it works. It's also how it SHOULD work because court cases like this cost tax payers and plaintiffs a lot of money, and there are enough shitty laws to fill 20 libraries of congress. Your candidate ran on that rhetoric in case you've forgotten.

Also, those people are in court for more than just the idea that their candidate lost. They're there because the winning candidate is just as much of a loon as the losing candidate is a crook. It's a scary situation for folks to be in, and some of them have deluded themselves into thinking they know one person or the other is actually REALLY better. Others are just as crazy or crooked as the candidate they supported. I haven't decided which category you fall into, just yet...

And just in case you haven't figured out where I stand... They're both trash, and I'll repeat it: I love watching the system chew them both up. It would be neat to see it spit one of them out in

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[oneiron]

shit... "mettle" I knew that didn't look right.

Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election

[Obfuscant]

You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries

There are words you are trying to put in my mouth. "Political adversaries" isn't something I said, it is something you falsely inferred.

So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever.

I didn't have to check anything, and I'm done with you putting words in my mouth.

I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process...

Except you did not do that, because you are wrong. The electors made a pledge to vote for the person who won the state election. That's a fact. If they didn't want to vote for Trump the solution was simple: do not be an elector for Trump. And the process includes state laws that require them to follow their pledge in many states. Trying to get those laws overturned NOW, after the election has been held and everyone voted based on the existing system, is dishonest.

when you pick little bits of my comments to take out of context

I elide things that are irrelevant or extraneous, leaving the CONTEXT so you can see what specifically I am replying to. If you want to see the full comment, read the parent. It's there for all to see. That's how it is supposed to work here.

Google's fix. Brilliant!

[geekmux]

*Google finds folder with kiddie porn*

*Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*

"There we go, that should do it."

Re:Google's fix. Brilliant!

[houstonbofh]

*Google finds folder with kiddie porn*

*Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*

"There we go, that should do it."

Well, it is the difference between the "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" sections, so in this case it does do it. (Yes, I know that lately all "News" is a bit of fiction, but that is another story...)

Re:Google's fix. Brilliant!

[thegarbz]

More like Google had it's porn in 2 different locations. One folder for softcore and one folder for hardcore, except they were both named hardcore. So they just removed the word hardcore from the incorrect folder and left it just as "porn".

Re:Google's fix. Brilliant!

[Anonymous Coward]

They even put an example into the article but you post some hyperbole BS

Re:Google's fix. Brilliant!

[geekmux]

*Google finds folder with kiddie porn*

*Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*

"There we go, that should do it."

Well, it is the difference between the "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" sections, so in this case it does do it. (Yes, I know that lately all "News" is a bit of fiction, but that is another story...)

The fact that a lot of "News" is a bit of fiction (which is a caveat you felt rather compelled to add here), is more like the story.

I suppose time will tell if the audience actually gives a shit to separate fact from fiction anymore, regardless of Google's efforts.

Re:Google's fix. Brilliant!

[Coren22]

I suppose time will tell if the audience actually gives a shit to separate fact from fiction anymore, regardless of Google's efforts.

None of the news orginazations give a damn about fact and fiction anymore, it is actually getting pretty hard to tell what is fact anymore as there is no authoritative source for looking up fact.

News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's deciding what's fake and what isn't? Yes, real journalism requires work. Propaganda can be pulled out of any asshole.

After Criticism

[frovingslosh]

I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on a search to current item of interest. For example, if I'm concerned about a particular recent earthquake I use the NEWS link to focus my search result to just recent news rather than encyclopedia like entries about earthquakes in general. It sucks if Google is removing this feature, and it sucks even more if it is being done because of "Criticism". And all this while fake news sites like CNN and the New York Times and the Washington Post continue to operate.

Re:After Criticism

[thegarbz]

I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on a search to current item of interest. ... snip...
It sucks if Google is removing this feature, and it sucks even more if it is being done because of "Criticism".

They're not. They are removing the "news" stories you get as part of search results which are related to whatever the crawler picks up. The actual news button at the top will remain and the news search function will too as far as I can tell.

Re:After Criticism

[smooth wombat]

And all this while fake news sites like CNN and the New York Times and the Washington Post continue to operate.

Probably because they're real news sites, with real reporters, who go out into war zones, or visit earthquake survivors or flood victims or report on government waste. You know, what real news organizations do.

Unlike those fake news sites like Breitbart who twist other people's work to suit their propaganda needs.

Just because CNN, the New York Times and so on report facts about Trump's crimes and lies doesn't make them fake news. They're doing their job. Or would you prefer to hear from Fox which which routinely reports fake news such as porn being shown on CNN?

Re:After Criticism

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that all three said Trump would lose right? That North Korea was fueling their nukes for a preemptive strike against us any time now every couple of years when the news cycle is slow. All three said Iraq had WMD's. All three said our elections could not possibly be tampered with. Then when Trump won, all three ran articles about Russia tampering with the election.

They are frauds and only ignorant fools and useful idiots believe them.

Re:After Criticism

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what makes their fake news so damaging, they mix it with real news and many people cannot tell the difference.

They are indeed doing their job. Their job is twofold: to (1) make money and (2) further their editorial agenda. Not sure which is a higher priority, but they only report real news to the extent that it serves one of those two goals. And if you think news sites don't have an agenda you are their "target audience" (err, victim) because you are gullible.

Breitbart is no different. A mix of real news and editorial twisting. More sensational perhaps, but the same thing. Anyone who holds up one as true and the other as fake has already drank the kool-aid. I like Breitbart not because it is 100% truthful but because it tells the other side of the story that the mainstream fears and covers up. Its one of a few underdogs, and we need them, because only with BOTH sides do we have a complete picture. The minute you throw out one side, or believe one side, you have been fooled.

Re:After Criticism

[Anonymous Coward]

People who don't see any difference between Breitbart and the New York Times make me question the future of humanity as a species.

The New York Times also has rigorous fact-checkers. You may not like their opinions, but they do actually go to a great deal of trouble to try to ensure that there is actual verifiable evidence to back up the facts they are reporting. If you want a conservative-leaning counterpart to the New York Times, I suggest trying the Wall Street Journal, which is also a real news organization with rigorous fact-checkers, unlike Breitbart.

There is a really big difference between attempting to really report news by making a serious effort towards accuracy versus just making stuff up, or making stuff up to suit a particular political agenda (FoxNews, MSNBC) with real news sprinkled in for plausible deniabiity.

Every news organization has a bias of some kind. It is important to keep that in mind while you read it. But not every organization which claims to report news actually feels any obligation whatsoever to try to tell the truth. If you think that Breitbart is one of those, I suggest you read it much more closely, and try doing some of your own fact-checking on its articles. You should especially find out what people who aren't right-leaning think about the "facts" being presented, and whether they have access to other facts that are carefully omitted by Breitbart's articles. (Hint: a lot of Breitbart's articles are simply bullshit. Sometimes the "other side of story that the mainstream news fears" is just fantasy and wishful thinking sold to readers to get ad revenue.)

AI Story

[zlives]

so their AI can't figure a fake news from real news...
good to know in the future when AI rule i can pronounce myself an AI inhabiting a meat Popsicle.

Re:AI Story

[Anonymous Coward]

nor can most trump supporters apparently

Re:AI Story

[houstonbofh]

nor can most trump supporters apparently

Or CNN viewers...

Main Search Product

[sexconker]

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.

Google's main product is advertising and user info (to better target advertising), not search.

Re:Main Search Product

[Anonymous Coward]

You are interpreting that wrong. It clearly says "its main search product."... Don't perceive it as; "its main product, search." You can have 'main' products in other niches, and of course an over-all 'main' product as well...

Re:Main Search Product

[unitron]

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.

Google's main product is advertising and user info (to better target advertising), not search.

Google's main product is our eyeballs, which they sell to the advertisers.

We don't pay anything to Google the way a new Chevy rolling off of the assembly line doesn't pay anything to General Motors. They get their money when someone buys the Chevy.

To those people who don't understand what this is

[thegarbz]

Google is NOT removing the "News" section. What they are removing (actually have removed) is "news" stories as part of the the search results. These were whatever relevant thing the crawler picked up. e.g. If you searched for "Brexit" you would invariably get some "news" stories at the top of your search results. Now you get a "Top Stories" section.

You can still click "news" in the heading to get the normal Google News results which are vetted by a person rather than Google's standard crawler algorithm.

He didnâ(TM)t

[110010001000]

He didnâ(TM)t? Good to know.

Re:He didnâ(TM)t

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is an American site built by Americans with American values in mind. It has excellent support of the ASCII charset which is adequate for American orthography.

If you want your socialist Unicode characters, go somewhere else.

Stories to read

[avgapon]

I can not believe that crap that Google Now suggests to me as "Stories to read". Like something titled "Are Jews White?".

Re:Stories to read

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? Everybody knows Jews are white, they're just not as white.

Re:Stories to read

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the ones who aren't

Paying the price

[Okian Warrior]

The only election that counts has not occurred. That's December 19, 2016, and it's not the foregone conclusion that some of Mr. Trump's supporters claim. For one thing, as Secretary Clinton's popular vote margin continues to rise, there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors. For another, eight electors have already announced intent not to vote for their party's nominee.

If you're hoping for that to happen, I hope you also are prepared to pay the price for it.

No one paid much attention to Hillary's rioters because deep down everyone knew that Trump won fair and square. The rules were clear, Hillary had her chance, and didn't make it.

If the electors switch the outcome, about half the country will be up in arms over the results, the half that has most of the arms. Some of the other half will be on our side, some will be apathetic, and only a small slice of the public will be actively against the ensuing revolt.

Expect to see whole cities burning and mass riots at a level that local law enforcement couldn't hope to contain. It'll be like the Rodney King riots, but everywhere. There will literally be lawless areas in some cities - areas where the police are afraid to go.

It would be a demonstration that rules don't matter, that the social contract is a scam.

It could also bring down the government. As many as 25 states at once have sued the federal government over various things during Obama's administration, and it only takes 33 to call a constitutional convention. Many of those were holding off recently, under the hope that Trump would win.

If California and New York try to dictate the election, a *lot* of states would immediately file suit against the union.

This is what you're risking. Just to get an unlikeable "business as usual" politician into office.

It would cause a not-insignificant loss of property and life, and might bring down the government.

That's the price to get Hillary elected.

Re: Paying the price

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get the taste of republican dick out of your mouth. You are the definition of a Party follower. Your thoughts are not your own.

Re: Paying the price

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be naive

Re:Paying the price

[Anonymous Coward]

No one paid much attention to Hillary's rioters because deep down everyone knew that Trump won fair and square.

LOL, Hillary's rioters. As if anybody believes that right-wing narrative about them being paid protesters whose competence is...nil? But no, you forget that Trump himself was proclaiming that the election was rigged, he still is, in fact.

You know, that whole imaginary illegal voters thing. That he's making up because he believes that he must have really and legitimately won.

Of course, if it were true, that'd mean the whole system was being scammed, and nobody would be sure ANY elections were valid.

The rules were clear, Hillary had her chance, and didn't make it.

The rules were broken even before this election, and the result here shows it. It's providing an impetus to change. If only people listen.

Maybe we do need a revolution. Like he already said.

It would be a demonstration that rules don't matter, that the social contract is a scam.

It'd be exactly what Trump wanted, to kick the ant-pile and see what stirred up. That's how he ran, on breaking the system.

He just might. But it won't be in the way he intended.

That's the price to get Hillary elected.

Sure, whatever.

Now what's the cost of having Trump in office? You know, the guy who has repetitively made petty lies to us, the guy who has a history of deceits and cons, the guy who has shown his temperament and his integrity are lacking. Rutherford B. Hayes may have stolen an election, but he wasn't entirely a bag of crap. Trump is, and we've known it for decades.

He even made up a story about Boeing. Just to make some swipe at an imagined expensive program for Air Force One?

  And you're willing to stomach him as President? Why?

New York and California will likely decide that isn't in their interests, and they have a whole lot of money and influence.

But rest assured, they won't act directly, they'll likely just expose his history of crimes and charades. Let him be destroyed by his own works.

Even money on whether they let Pence remain in office. He's kind of a putz himself.

That's what you earned, for picking the man purporting to be an outside, a maverick, when he's nothing but a bag of hot air.

But hey, maybe you'll get lucky, and some asshole will blow up the inauguration, and the Secretary of Agriculture will take over.

Until, it's learned that the President's comatose body was preserved.

Doot-Doot-Doot.

Re: Paying the price

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump! Clinton! Pizzagate!
Enough!

Re:Paying the price

[tepples]

It's not about Secretary Clinton becoming President. At this point, the best outcome would be for her to endorse a moderate Republican that even those representatives and senators opposed to Mr. Trump can support.

Re:Paying the price

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

LOL, Hillary's rioters. As if anybody believes that right-wing narrative about them being paid protesters whose competence is...nil?

The comment you replied to said nothing about paid protestors, just that there were people rioting for Hillary. There certainly were riots after the election - not very many, mind you, but a few.

Re:To those people who don't understand what this

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is NOT removing the "News" section. What they are removing (actually have removed) is "news" stories as part of the the search results. These were whatever relevant thing the crawler picked up. e.g. If you searched for "Brexit" you would invariably get some "news" stories at the top of your search results. Now you get a "Top Stories" section.

I just searched `brexit` and it did return three news organization [BBC, Daily Mail and Townhall(?)] as top results. But then I am in South America, so...

You misspelled "Renaming"

[HalAtWork]

"Google Is Renaming 'In the News' Section From Desktop Search After Criticism" - FTFY

Re: To those people who don't understand what this

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy mistake to make, The Daily Mail is a hate filled gutter rag, not a news organisation.

ctrl-v strikes again

[epine]

Google's main product is advertising and user info (to better target advertising), not search.

And this tired observation moves the discussion forward how exactly?

I've seen this helpful ctrl-v "eyeballs are the product" contribution more than a 100 and probably less than a 1000 times since I joined Slashdot.

Add some useful context? Ah, fuck it. ctrl-v has miles to go before it sleeps.

Re:ctrl-v strikes again

[sexconker]

What discussion? What needs to be moved forward?
It's a simple fact that people need to be reminded of.

If anything, things need to be rolled back.

three large screens

[epine]

Carousels can suck it.

I've whipped up CSS Userscripts to remove them from web pages more than once, lest I click on one in a moment of weakness (which I always regret 3 s later).

Old motto: there's another fish in the sea. This maxim is true, also, regarding web content. But it often helps to enforce this programmatically.

Different rules would see different vote counts

[knorthern knight]

> In more sensible sports, like soccer, the Indians would
> have won, because you take the aggregate score.

There were a lot of discouraged Republicans who didn't vote in California and New York, because they knew ahead of time that their votes wouldn't make a difference under the current winner-takes-all system. In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.

Re:Different rules would see different vote counts

[Obfuscant]

In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.

Under a different system we could have had a different result. That's why is it ridiculous to pretend that the results of a different system today mean anything. Ignorant people didn't know what they were doing when they voted; they are not a reason to assume they meant something specific and coerce the result to match. ("Dimpled chads" is one of those kinds of things, too.)

I'll just point out that even the "popular vote" system that the losers want to convert to for this election is a "winner-takes-all" system. It isn't a "coalition government" system where three losers can get together to run the government in place of the candidate with a plurality. And how you'd do a "coalition" president is pretty hard to imagine, but I'm sure if it meant that the current losers got to be in charge, someone will come up with a way.

Improve your searches

[knorthern knight]

> I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on
> a search to current item of interest. For example, if I'm concerned about a
> particular recent earthquake I use the NEWS link to focus my search result to just
> recent news rather than encyclopedia like entries about earthquakes in general.

1) On the upper-left side of the search-result screen you get the following list...
        Any time
        Past hour
        Past 24 hours
        Past week
        Past month
        Past year

The default is "Any time", which is why you get a gazillion hits. Click on "Past week" or "Past 24 hours" and you'll get the recent hits.

2) If you want info about a quake in the Solomom Islands, make your search term...

earthquake solomon islands

and you'll get relevant hits.