Slashdot Mirror
Google Responds On Skewed Holocaust Search Results (bbc.com)
Google says it is "thinking deeply" about ways to improve search, after criticism over how some results -- including ones discussing the Holocaust -- were ranked. From a report on BBC: Searching for "did the Holocaust happen?" returned a top result that claimed it did not, as Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr reported. Now, the ranking has changed for US users. The page -- from white supremacist site Stormfront -- remains top in the UK. "This is a really challenging problem, and something we're thinking deeply about in terms of how we can do a better job," said a Google spokesman. "Search is a reflection of the content that exists on the web. The fact that hate sites may appear in search results in no way means that Google endorses these views."
Seems fine to me. Don't hide shit, everything is working as intended.
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets. Do not require that anyone do that for you otherwise they eventually will when you don't want them to. If you need a warning label to avoid suffocating yourself on the plastic bag that is the world wide web then just turn around and walk away from whatever device you're using to access it.
Ancient history... you do know that people that there are people still alive today that were IN THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
History is not only written by winners, it is also proclaimed by people who personally remember it because they were there, personally witnessed what had happened, and were fortunate enough to survive it. I personally know people that fit this category.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...The most likely untruths from the last century lie in internal strategy, unrecorded thoughts, and secret locations. Not whether Hitler ordered genocide.
Ah, but the issue even lies within the genocide itself, questioning the amount of actual deaths that occurred, as if arguing about gas chamber efficiency somehow dismisses Hitlers intent regardless of actual death tolls.
By laying the blanket of doubt over historical markers, the general masses can be convinced easily that events never took place, which I suspect is what will end up in the history books within the next half century, paving the way for repeat offenders.
Look at how bad fake news continues to rewrite the logfile. The only historical fact that will emerge out of the 21st century is showing how gullible the masses really were.
Is stormfront doing better SEO than all the other sites?
Then without some bespoke editorial control of search they are correctly ranked.
And this is where the slippery slope happens...
If Google delists a site that is not illegal (even if distasteful) then you have made the search less a reflection of the web.
If Google tweaks page rank to lower the value of their SEO (and applies it globally) then fine I guess.
While I can point and yell "slippery slope" as well as Chicken Little yelled that the sky was falling, I have no decent answer what to do about it.
I would think that ideally Google would put the Wiki page about the Holocaust as the first result, then natural page rank after that? (And yeah, there's that damnable slope again). I don't envy Google in situations like this.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
The evidence for the Holocaust is enormous. It's one thing to ask "How do scholars and historians arrive at the figures?" But when the question amounts to a thinly coded "The Holocaust was a fraud", then it's not really questioning at all, but simply a rhetorical device used by Holocaust Deniers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets.
People are incredibly bad at doing this. If you need an example I refer you to The Bible. People have been mistaking that tome of mostly fictional stories as reality for centuries. You think they are going to stop being credulous just because somebody tells them a tall tale on the internet? Not likely.
Sometimes we need a responsible party to stand up and tell the facts. No reason Google can't serve that role in a case like this. Arguably it would be irresponsible for them not to insist that their search engine provide actual true facts instead of made up bigotry.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Holocaust Denier sites, but I said nothing, because I was not a holocaust denier.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Intelligent Design sites, but I said nothing because I didn't believe in Intelligent Design.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Climate Change Denier sites, but I said nothing, because I was not a Climate Change Denier.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Pro-Electoral College Sites, I but said nothing because I believe in One Vote for Each American.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Pro-Gun Ownership Sites, but I said nothing, because I believe in stricter gun control.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Life Begins at Conception sites, but I said nothing because I believed that life begins at birth.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Anti-Assisted Suicide Sites, but I said nothing because I believe assisted suicide is okay.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Anti-One Payer Healthcare sites, but I said nothing because I believe in single payer healthcare.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Sugary Drinks and Fatty Foods sites, but I said nothing because I believe everyone should be eating healthy.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Meat and Dairy Industry sites, but I said nothing because I believe meat and dairy are unhealthy.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Alcohol Industry sites, but I said nothing because I stopped drinking a few years ago. Just in time, right??
They came to lower the page ranks of the Legal Marijuana Industry sites, but I said nothing, because I didn't want my boss to know I smoked weed.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Humor and Satire sites, but I said... wait, what???
They came to lower the page ranks of every few remaining sites outside the walled gardens of a few mega-corporations allied with a global Nanny State with vested interests in controlling what people could read, and I said, "Hey, Now! Wait a minute! What about my Apple Gadget Blog?! Nobody can find my Apple Gadget Blog anymore!
If I were to perform a search for "is mars inhabited by aliens" I would expect to get kooky sites about aliens. If I search for "did the holocaust happen" it is because I am looking for sites that are addressing that question. "Everyone" knows it happened. Anyone upset about these results knows it happened and would never perform this search. People are only performing this search so they can whine about the algorithm which... was doing its job.
I'm sorry that neo nazis are able to get accurate results back for their interests but I would be more sorry if google started weighing in more and more often on "truthiness".
While I can point and yell "slippery slope" as well as Chicken Little yelled that the sky was falling, I have no decent answer what to do about it.
Excuse me for slightly changing the subject from "holocaust and search" to "political correctness and AI," but I'm curious what happens when you make a question and answer AI (think Siri on steroids) and it tells the truth to the best of its ability instead of saying the politically correct but factually wrong thing? Will people change their ideas, or will they demand the robot be censored? My guess is the latter.
For instance, racial equality. The thought police have changed the idea of racial equality under the law to equivalence between all groups of people, which is of course wrong. 50,000 years of different selection pressures produced different traits. So, ask the AI "are all races equivalent" and the political correct answer is either "yes" or some dissembling distraction about race being a social construct, but the truth is not that.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.