Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Featured Snippets Are Worse Than Fake News (theoutline.com)

Posted by msmash on from the trouble-in-news dept.

Adrianne Jeffries, reporting for The Outline: Peter Shulman, an associate history professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, was lecturing on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s when a student asked an odd question: Was President Warren Harding a member of the KKK? Shulman was taken aback. He confessed that he was not aware of that allegation, but that Harding had been in favor of anti-lynching legislation, so it seemed unlikely. But then a second student pulled out his phone and announced that yes, Harding had been a Klan member, and so had four other presidents. It was right there on Google, clearly emphasized inside a box at the top of the page. "I understand what Google is trying to do, and it's work that perhaps requires algorithmic aid," Shulman said in an email. "But in this instance, the question its algorithm scoured the internet to answer is simply a poorly conceived one. There have been no presidents in the Klan." Google needs to invest in human experts who can judge what type of queries should produce a direct answer like this, Shulman said. "Or, at least in this case, not send an algorithm in search of an answer that isn't simply 'There is no evidence any American president has been a member of the Klan.' It'd be great if instead of highlighting a bogus answer, it provided links to accessible, peer-reviewed scholarship."

11 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Rank reputable sources by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If sites like Google and Facebook want to let algorithms decide which information to highlight, they will need to spend more time doing human assisted ranking of various information sources. Crowd sourcing will be very helpful here, but you will still need some human moderators who can perform real research to help determine which information has credibility. I know too many otherwise intelligent people who are becoming so disenfranchised they just don't believe anything they read anymore, which is the ultimate goal of these misinformation campaigns.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Rank reputable sources by pastafazou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, that's all we need is crowd sourcing to help determine the truth. Popular opinion should matter more than actual facts.

    2. Re: Rank reputable sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While helpful, I still agree with pastafazou. Truth cannot be determined by consensus.

    3. Re: Rank reputable sources by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AGW is a proven fact, the Consensus Opinion of Scientists says so.

      Scientists don't just pull consensus opinions out of their asses. They do experiments and observations to check their hypotheses. And then they publish them, to allow their community to scrutinize and test them further. Consensus develops gradually over time, as ideas survive this treatment over and over again.

      Please note, I am not saying AGW is false,

      Except you are.

      I'm simply saying that consensus opinion is masquerading as "fact" in the biggest science debate, and yet nobody seems to notice.

      In science, the facts are not opinions. They are the experimental results. Your claim that nobody notices a supposed debate about conflating facts with opinions is just sloppy posturing and conspiracy-mongering.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  2. Teaching moment by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if Prof took the time to review with the students the difference between a search result and a fact.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Teaching moment by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if Prof took the time to review with the students the difference between a search result and a fact.

      No, the students were too busy heading out the door to join in a good old fashioned Berkeley-Style Bloody Beat Down of some people who weren't sufficiently towing the liberal line. If Google says it, it's good enough to break out the black masks and the clubs, man. Or at least to smash up some immigrant's limousine, or burn a coffee shop.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Teaching moment by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really. You mean the one guy who got hit after he was disrupting a private event and spoiling for a fight? Yes, the guy who hit him should have faced assault charges. WHICH HE DID.

      Meanwhile, we have dozens of events where gangs of liberals attack people simply walking on the sidewalk near a Trump event. Or a liberal university crown not merely standing around, but actively cheering as people they don't like are literally beaten unconscious for not obeying the group think. Week-in, week-out displays of property damage meant to ruin someone's means of making a living. Anti-Trump protesters walking up and pepper-spraying an old man in the face for not being one of them. Regular reports of anti-Trump people filing false reports of "hate crimes" against them - hoax after hoax after hoax (doing things like spray painting Trump messages on their own church and then burning it down to construct a false narrative - lots of theatrics like that).

      So what you're saying is that people who are standing and saying words that you don't like should be violently attacked, have their businesses smashed, and their grandparents pepper-sprayed and pushed to the ground by good liberals who know best how things should be.

      You are the personification of the fascist thuggery that you're pretending to oppose. You LIKE violence against non-violent people. You WANT it. Just as long as it's liberal foot-soldiers being violent against people you don't like. Thanks for showing your true colors. Please make an even bigger display of your hypocrisy, as often as possible, leading up to the 2018 legislative elections, so that D minority in the Senate can shrink even more. Thanks for your hard work towards that goal!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Unfortunately... by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'd be great if instead of highlighting a bogus answer, it provided links to accessible, peer-reviewed scholarship."

    That scholarship is behind a paywall.

  4. Re:Who will algo the algos? by ancientt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm more bothered by the implication that the results of an internet search engine should not return results representing what's on the internet.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  5. Peer reviewed by senatorpjt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe the problem is that the incorrect information is free and the peer-reviewed article costs $30 to read.

  6. Re:Clickbait - You Reap what You Sow. by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Capitalism really isn't who/what you want to blame though. Capitalism just encourages taking the most profitable action/route. The underlying problem is that we, as humans, can't get enough of this clickbait bullshit.

    Capitalism is capitalizing on the true underlying problem.

    Because of technology, humans have become obscenely lazy.

    It's far easier to believe and perpetuate bullshit than put in actual effort to find truth.