Google Looks at People As it Pledges To Fight Fake News and 'Offensive' Content (betanews.com)

Google said today it is taking its first attempt to combat the circulation of "fake news" on its search engine. The company is offering new tools that will allow users to report misleading or offensive content, and it also pledged to improve results generated by its algorithm. From a report: While the algorithm tweaks should impact on general search results, the reporting tools have been designed for Google's Autocomplete predictions and Featured Snippets which have been problematic in recent months. Updated algorithms should help to ensure more authoritative pages receive greater prominence, while low-quality content is demoted. Vice president of engineering at Google Search, Ben Gomes, admits that people have been trying to "game" the system -- working against the spirit of the purpose of algorithms -- to push poor-quality content and fake news higher up search results. He says that the problem now is the "spread of blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information."

Comments

Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[sjbe]

Google said today it is taking its first attempt to combat the circulation of "fake news" on its search engine.

That should be easy. Just delete anything said or tweeted by Donald Trump. Viola, less fake news.

Re:Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[ganjadude]

better off banning slate, salon, msnbc, foxnews, cnn, breitbart. that would clean up a good 80% of fake news

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like how MSNBC blamed the recent riots in Venezuela entirely on a Trump campaign donation, and made no mention of the rampant starvation or roving death squads supporting the regime?

Yeah... Tell us more about fake news, dipshit.

Re:Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Have leftists ever thought about why so many average people are turning away from so-called "mainstream" news sources, and instead choosing to get their news from alternate sources?

It's actually quite simple: average people see what's being reported in the "mainstream" press, and they just can't reconcile what they're being told with what they're actually seeing while on the job or going about their daily lives.

Meanwhile, the reports from these alternate sources actually end up being far more reliable. What's reported actually matches what average people are actually witnessing for themselves.

Average Americans are well aware of how their jobs, and/or their relatives' and friends' jobs, are being shipped off to third-world countries who can offer better prices only because these third-world locales totally lack the safety and quality standards that are found in the US.

Average Americans are well aware of how illegal aliens are taking many jobs. It frustrates these average Americans when the go to get fast food, or they go to fill up their gas tank, or they try to get a small home repair done, and they're served by somebody who can barely speak English and who can barely do the job at hand.

Average Americans are well aware of how so much of the violent crime in places like Chicago, St. Louis, L.A., Philadelphia, Atlanta and Houston is black-on-black violence, yet the police and non-blacks end up getting blamed for it by "protesters" and the mainstream media.

Average Americans know that something is wrong when they take a vacation to San Francisco, and they spend their days dodging the homeless who are urinating and defecating on the sidewalks.

Average Europeans know that something is very wrong when all sorts of third-worlders, many of them illegal aliens, are allowed to flood into Europe uninhibited, and this is supported by the EU. It becomes even more evident when there are numerous violent attacks committed by these foreigners or their Europe-born offspring.

Average Europeans know something is wrong when there are grenade attacks in Sweden and sexual assaults in many German cities during New Year's Eve celebrations, and it isn't people of European descent who are responsible for these incidents.

Average Europeans watch videos like this one, showing the real illegal immigrant situation near Calais.

Average Australians know something is wrong when they're priced out of even the smallest homes in the major Australian cities because foreigners have bought up much of the property, often not even bothering to use it in any way, other than as a way to try to store what's likely ill-gotten wealth.

The "mainstream" narrative has diverged so far from what average people around the world are witnessing that they can't help but look for other sources of information that better match what they're actually seeing and experiencing. They're looking for real news, not politically-correct news that pushes a leftist narrative.

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Have leftists ever thought about why so many average people are turning away from so-called "mainstream" news sources, and instead choosing to get their news from alternate sources?

Yes, over three hundred years ago:

Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believâ(TM)d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceivâ(TM)d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effectâ¦

Seriously, look at your own recitation and find the lies and falsehoods in them. There are plenty.

And yours aren't even new. The anti-immigrant Know-Nothing party was preaching its hysteria before the American Civil War. Civil War secessionists built their cause on a house of lies. Anti-Indian, Anti-Irish, Anti-Chinese, Anti-German, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Russian sentiment was similarly fostered with fraud.

The question you should ask, is why you think leftists don't know, while you seemingly demonstrate great depths ignorance yourself.

Or rather, you should answer it.

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

These comments are interesting ones! I think that yours actually proves what the GP's comment is saying. Your comment is nothing but denial, misrepresentation, and a gibberish uncited quote (although to be fair, Slashdot's broken UTF-8 support is partially responsible for its untidy appearance). The comment you replied to, on the other hand, gave numerous clear, relevant and factual examples. Furthermore, the comment that's actually correct in this case (the GP's comment) was modded down to -1, while your nonsensical comment has been modded up to +1. Slashdot's broken moderating is another example of how traditional media is thrashing around wildly in the face of changing times. I think we'll see the GP proven to be correct in the long term. Traditional media will continue to see their readership and viewership numbers drop off. Alternative media will continue to get more and more of these readers and viewers who are fleeing the traditional media. Traditionalists like yourself will remain in your state of denial, while the rest of society moves on to news sources that report relevant and factual news instead of trying to force a certain line of thinking. We'll continue to see society shift to the right politically, as we're already seeing in the USA and Europe. People like you, who felt it necessary to substitute in your artificial reality rather than accepting and reporting actual reality, will be left behind and become irrelevant.

Re:Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Nethemas the Great]

Anyone can gin up nonsense to fit a curve. That's what fake news largely is. The biggest error I see in most mainstream media is the assumption that details and context can be omitted. It is far easier to digest a simpleton falsehood compared to reality when the audience lacks the foundational information to understand it. You cannot communicate the complexities and nuance of reality in 30 second sound bites.

Re:Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

why so many average people are turning away from so-called "mainstream" news sources...

I've met both of them and they're fucking retards

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

These comments are interesting ones!

Well, that is humble of you.

I think that yours actually proves what the GP's comment is saying.

Insofar as the concept of belief in lies being prevalent, you might have noticed there was no argument to that , it was merely to the particulars, not the sentiment.

Your comment is nothing but denial, misrepresentation, and a gibberish uncited quote (although to be fair, Slashdot's broken UTF-8 support is partially responsible for its untidy appearance).

Really, yet you cite no particulars for it, and if you wanted to look up the quote yourself, nothing is stopping you.

The comment you replied to, on the other hand, gave numerous clear, relevant and factual examples.

Your blind, unquestioning, acceptance of them is not in your favor. But no, I did not consider it worth my time to expose them in detail. Anyone interested would be able to investigate on their own.

Furthermore, the comment that's actually correct in this case (the GP's comment) was modded down to -1, while your nonsensical comment has been modded up to +1. Slashdot's broken moderating is another example of how traditional media is thrashing around wildly in the face of changing times.

I'll believe your ire over that when you complain about some post you want to believe being upmodded, but learning it is false. Or repudiate any falsehoods you once held as true.

I think we'll see the GP proven to be correct in the long term.

I think you should look at that post for its falsehoods today. Or even just check out the history of the quote, and other similar statements, there are others in plentitude. That is probably the most important part of what I said, yet sadly you did not consider it, you just railed in offense against my post yourself. Do you not realize that this is nothing new?

Traditional media will continue to see their readership and viewership numbers drop off. Alternative media will continue to get more and more of these readers and viewers who are fleeing the traditional media.

Yes, yes, the yellow journalism is ever popular. They are very appealing.

Traditionalists like yourself will remain in your state of denial, while the rest of society moves on to news sources that report relevant and factual news instead of trying to force a certain line of thinking.

Amusing, you wish to portray me as a Traditionalist for some reason. To the contrary, I am pointing out the tradition of the very thing the GGP was railing over. In other words, the history of what the GGP was doing.

This should hardly be construed as an endorsement.

Ah, but you wish to believe that there is somebody claiming they are giving people freedom to think, yet the lies of those who espouse that line are well known themselves. Especially in the alternative media you propound upon.

We'll continue to see society shift to the right politically, as we're already seeing in the USA and Europe. People like you, who felt it necessary to substitute in your artificial reality rather than accepting and reporting actual reality, will be left behind and become irrelevant.

Oh my, to the contrary, the fantasies of the right are well known(The current President would hardly be elected without them), as well as the propensity for people to believe what narrative their own preferences support.

Society is not shifting, politicians have always tried to sell us on "Morning in America with Tyler too!" and the raucous mob will cheer them on over it.

Your own words reflect your biases, but can you stare into the Abyss? Can you look at your own lies? Your useless recriminations?

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll continue to see society shift to the right politically

Yep, just like the fall of the Roman Empire.

Re:Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Google said today it is taking its first attempt to combat the circulation of "fake news" on its search engine.

That should be easy. Just delete anything said or tweeted by Donald Trump. Viola, less fake news.

Seriously, This! Mod this shit up!

It could be said that the Fake News problem started with Donald Trump and the whole "Obama is a muslim" conspiracy theory and for some reason the walmart workers of the world didnt want Hillary so badly they elected Donald Trump despite them even knowing that he was full of BS. This is the problem of the world we now live in.

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[imnobody]

You are full of s***. Your argument boils down to "I am right. But I can't bother to explain why. Anyone who wants to know that I am right can investigate for himself" (add some smugness).

This is an unfalsifiable statement. If somebody says something different (such as GP's comment), you only say: "Oh, he's so wrong. Of course I can't bother explaining why. Google it".

Maybe GP's comment is completely wrong. But you can't win the argument by default. GP's comment gave some assertions and you can dispute that with arguments, logic and links. You are not God to say "They are wrong because I say so."

It's no wonder that you love traditional news sources. They are the same as you. "Trust us", "Everybody else is fake news". The same smugness as Rachel Maddow saying Trump could not win in any way https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

These traditional sources were the same media that told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We only had to trust them. The same way we have to trust you because. ... because... because.... Ok, just because.

Re:Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[epyT-R]

No, the whole 'fake news' thing was started by a mainstream media that couldn't reconcile reality with the heavy lensing effects of their ideological slant. So while it started with Trump's win, and he has done much to enhance it, the starting point is still the so-called 'journalists.'

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Can you explain why you believe that is what my argument boils down to? I notice you didn't explain that yourself, and you missed a lot of the nuance.

For example, I have disdain and contempt, not smugness.

This is an unfalsifiable statement. If somebody says something different (such as GP's comment), you only say: "Oh, he's so wrong. Of course I can't bother explaining why. Google it".

So did you bother to read what I said? Otherwise, you would understand that the real effort to see the wrongness has to come from within, there is nothing I can do if you don't want to consider it at all.

Make an effort, or not, it is in your hands.

Maybe GP's comment is completely wrong. But you can't win the argument by default.

Neither can the GP or GGGP, don't you think? For all your pretentious sanctimonious pretensions, I'm not seeing much effort on your part, or the GP, or GGGP.

You don't even seem to notice it.

GP's comment gave some assertions and you can dispute that with arguments, logic and links. You are not God to say "They are wrong because I say so."

Note your lack of logic or links, and explain why that isn'tâ your problem.

It's no wonder that you love traditional news sources. They are the same as you.

And where do you get this? Rather the opposite, I am pointing out that the traditional news sources have a long history, not only of lying in the ways you denounce, but telling the falsehoods you might want to proclaim as truth.

Certainly they have told the stories before. As will the alternative media.

Yet instead of recognizing that, you decide to uselessly belabor me with a false claim of allegiance.

If I needed a further reason for disdain of you, that would be it.

"Trust us", "Everybody else is fake news". The same smugness as Rachel Maddow saying Trump could not win in any way https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So far, I'm seeing an opinion piece, not exactly what you want it to be.

There is difference between being wrong in speculation, and making up falsehoods and fabrications.

But I do notice your silence on how Trump told us that he won in a landslide, that there were so many illegal votes, and more. Trump even misstated the history of electoral college victories, and while his excuse for that was rather lame, it might be buyable, except nobody should be boasting about that anyway. That bragging alone is enough.

Here, try his inauguration speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DsRBsJNdK1t0

Spot me some lies

These traditional sources were the same media that told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We only had to trust them. The same way we have to trust you because. ... because... because.... Ok, just because.

Wait a second, you are railing about the lies about WMDs in Iraq, yet you only mention the media, not the presidential administration that actually fomented that narrative?

I might commend you if you had criticized the media for being gullible, but your ire, such as it is, seems misdirected. You don't even mention the instigator.

I wonder, what Bizarro universe you live in, if you think your omission of the cause was a good idea.

Besides, I already mentioned the Spanish-American War.

More than a century ago.

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh forgot a quote tag, my bad.

Anyway, go watch Citizen Kane, great Cinema has already been made.

And you go on about this as if it were not traditional, of long-standing practice, but some new Revelation and you, you are the paragon with the insight to see it.

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how you occasion to mention the American Civil War whete the United States began looting America States, as well you mention in tge same order of arrival the famed orientsl parasite that travelled from Canaan to Egypt and then to liberate it's children into a faction of druidic Yew and the red menace all direct descendants of Nimrod himself the Great Hunter who went against God by eating the flesh of people around him.

All this vested in an unorthodox AshkeNAZI Jew named Donald Trump. who only works for Jews but doesnt allude his jewry in any of his books I scanned briefly from the discount bargain-bin.

The same creature of malicious lies that couldnt tell the difference of a Presbyter to a Cathar yet aligns hisself such by no doctrine but espousevthe works of Atheism, and his own vissage rumoted to feature amonge the wall-art of the Bank Of America building in New York.

He is anotherbkind of Obama but dresses his Bank Of America lobby portrayal as someone wearing a Knight's Templar tunic yet not an initiated Freemason!

Exhume the body of Scalia!

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Cinnamon Beige]

All bigotry is, in general, fostered by fraud and deception, including self-deception. Part of why the mainstream media as a whole has been bleeding credibility is that it's getting easier to check--do you think things like the libelous article in the Rolling Stone would have emerged quite as quickly and publicly before the internet?

More importantly, people are gaining awareness that this is a thing--journalists are losing the ability to have their readers just take their word for things, and as more people question, the more problems are caused by things like journalists turning in bad articles & editors giving them a pass for it.

Also, it's funny that you mention on the list Anti-Russian sentiment, given that people decried as fraud reports of...less than pleasant things happening in Soviet Russia, which we know now were rather accurate overall. It's unfortunately not a rare thing for people to reject verifiable facts and replace them with their own reality--nor does it have any connection whatsoever to which side of the political spectrum you're on.

If you're going "But my side doesn't!"...you're part of the problem.

Re: Aka "The Trump Muzzle"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the same Southern states that decided to continue their practice of oppression and violence for their own personal enrichment, even to the point of initiating violence?

Yeah, they reaped as they sowed. Such as is the fate of those who choose the path of war.

Lee earned it, when he crossed the state line.

They should partner with

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Jimmy Wales

But I love offensive content!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think I'm on the fucking internet in the first place?

Re:But I love offensive content!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ms Avasarala, you need to switch to decaf.

Users can report?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it's a democratic process to determine what news is fake? Ah yes, the "if we all agree it's not true then it isn't" method of understanding the universe.

Let's go burn down the observatory so this can never happen again!

Re:Users can report?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't actually care if it's fake, they care if they'll get political blowback.

Re:Users can report?

[Nethemas the Great]

Google is in a tight spot. If they rank things by purely objective algorithms, they'll be accused of leftist censorship. If they democratize things, there's at least a notion of openness with a hopeful prospect of balance and counterbalance to ensure moderate outcomes.

Re:Users can report?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ah yes, the "if we all agree it's not true then it isn't method" of understanding the universe.

Actually that is pretty much empiricism in a nutshell.

Re:Users can report?

[Derekloffin]

An objective algorithm is pretty much impossible on this topic, at least one that does anything useful. Hate speech itself, for instance, is subjective, so ANY judgment on such will also have to be subjective. Fake news is also a problem as there is no way for the system to know what is not fake in an objective way. Since political bias is so big a component of fake news, you can't really trust any organization as a source as we all have political leanings. You can trust that which is repeated the most, but that just means the lie that gets repeated the most gets trusted as well. Trying to be an arbiter of Truth is a lost cause from the start.

Re:Users can report?

[Penguinisto]

Instead of an objective algorithm, how about a transparent one? Post it (or them) publicly for all to see, so that there can be no allegations of bias (assuming the algorithm(s) is(are) not biased.)

Re:Users can report?

[AHuxley]

Anyone who can get enough of their cult, faith, communist party, SJW, political party together to stop a search result.
No more comments about Communist party leaders.
No finding out about Tiananmen Square and 1989.
No cartoons that make people question their faith.
From a classic search engine to gatekeeper.

Re:Users can report?

[bongey]

Except their algorithm is being adjusted to down mod conservative sources http://imgur.com/HM89EbE. Even using 'Adjust Sources' in Google News , left sites still pop up to the top and are cited many more times. Same thing is happening today, CNN still gets cited more than any other source with the example 'Adjust Sources' . It is impossible to get to that output without a manual parameter that ends up over-riding the user preferences.

Re:Users can report?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that is pretty much empiricism in a nutshell.

Not even close. Even a cursory search through the unreliable Google Corporation will dispute your assertion. Empiricism suggests that knowledge must be derived through sense experience. It has nothing whatsoever to do with popular opinion or "what we agree is true".

Re:Users can report?

[GonzoPhysicist]

That would make results far too easy to game and then the top results will just be whomever understand the algorithm better, not what's searched for.

Do No Evil

[110010001000]

They are the leaders.

Better idea

[OYAHHH]

Google needs to quit pretending and just limit it's search results to NPR, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

That would fix it.

Re:Better idea

[coinreturn]

Google needs to quit pretending and just limit it's search results to NPR, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

That would fix it.

You're right - that's an equivalent filter.

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

> Google needs to quit pretending and just limit it's search results to NPR, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

I see nothing BUT the Washington Post in Google news any more. Seriously, like 70% of all stories will lead with WaPo.

If I wanted that, I'd go to their site directly.

Re:Better idea

[bongey]

They pretty much are already doing that. Media Matters of America,PoliticusUSA, and ThinkProgress are considered 'legitimate' news sources(check their 'Adjust Sources'). While they just removed sites like http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... in the last few months. All three of those sites are much worse than the thegatewaypundit at report accuracy. There is no way to add a personal source either.

correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"admits that Russia has been trying to "game" the system -- working against the spirit of the purpose of algorithms -- to push poor-quality content and fake news higher up search results."

FTFY

Google is evil right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect so, and I don't trust Google, or, Alphabet.

I never asked for censorship on the internet. And an algorithm? A freaking experiment on society.

Re:Google is evil right?

[jonow]

Regardless if I think Google can do this effectively and neutrally, I don't think this is the answer. I don't think any service or institution curtailing "fake news" is going to do a good job of it, and even if they do, I don't think it will be effective.

The problem is people actively seeking support to their view and disregarding anything contrary. By filtering results, you are just ensuring those people go elsewhere for their fake news.

I believe that real change on this front will only come from a long-term investment in education. We can't filter everything a person sees, nor should we want to. What we should want is every citizen capable of determining fake news for themselves. We aren't going to change a majority of view's or opinions by marking news fake or filtering it and in fact, I believe it will make the problem worse as people feel their information is being controlled.

People in this country need to have to tools to determine what is fake and what is real on their own. If they don't have those tools and are unable to critically consider facts, then there is no codling that will help them.

Re:Google is evil right?

[Rockoon]

Exactly.

And once people are looking for things they dont want you to know there will be something each user runs into that will stick.

If you want control over what sticks well you just can't do that if you are driving everybody into a vast randomized process.

Re:Google is evil right?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Regardless if I think Google can do this effectively and neutrally...."
You are inadvertently raising a good point. Wouldn't this be a violation of Net Neutrality? Of course not if it targets only conservatives.

CENSORSHIP!

[Anonymous Coward]

CENSORSHIP!

Slipery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, another self proclaimed judge to "offensive content". I'm sure the automated tools will be great at banning all the bad words.

I find google offensive, now, ban google.

Real people saying fake things

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, if real people say things that are false, then it's still real news to report on what that person said. Especially, if we're talking about people of note. Of course what most people are going to see (especially, if they want to believe the statement) is: Important person says, "Dogs can be milked" ==> Dogs can be milked.

The problem isn't fake news. The problem is people not taking an unbiased and well-thought-out view on life.

*licks finger, sticks it in the air*

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Offensive today?

Re:*licks finger, sticks it in the air*

[MrLogic17]

>What's Offensive today?

Oh, for mod points. Best comment on this article.

Re:*licks finger, sticks it in the air*

[Anonymous Coward]

I am inclined to think that "western" journalism has NEVER been concerned with what is and isn't "offensive". Pretty sure, when "they" censored or framed material, they did so with a variety of motives, but wanting to protect people from being offended probably wasn't it I suspect.

So I am thinking what we might have end up with here, are maybe hidden motives by the powers that be, by whoever make decisions in mass media, as if instilling arbitrary rules in culture, which nobody asked for, but which might be imposed anyway for reasons that might server other ones than the general public.

Re:*licks finger, sticks it in the air*

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put, very well put, i applaude.

This is bullshit

[JWW]

Either all speech is protected or none of it is.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Either all speech is protected or none of it is.

Fake news publishers are still protected, they have every right to publish it.

That does not mean that:
A. Google is required to index it.
B. Google cannot exercise it's own free speech (i.e.: "This is a link to total fucking bullshit.")

Re: This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

They want none of it protected.

Google should be stripped of their immunity from prosecution for illegal content, since they are now arbiters of what content is presented based on their opinion, just as revenge porn website is liable for publishing photos sent to them.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a company. They can set the rules for their services.

The best thing to do is use a different search engine. I like Ixquick/Startpage.

Re:This is bullshit

[FrankHaynes]

I'd just like to know WHO decides what is "offensive"??

And who elected him or her Czar of the Internet??

Is this the new Hays Code??

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are people so confused by the 1A?

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If google curtails content, they should be prosecuted and their board thrown in jail for any illegal content found such as child porn. If they want to manage content then they should be held legally responsible for its contents. In a just world the entire board would be in jail within the day.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

But they do. Child porn links are removed and DMCA take down are also honored. Google is not a bastion of free speech, they could not survive if they where.

Frankly, i'm not really annoyed if google flag fake news site as total bullshit and add more weight to legitimate sites it's what they do all the time to curb spammer. They shoud not however remove the link from the index.

The site should be findable to people looking hard enought.

Re:This is bullshit

[doconnor]

Google is exercising its right to free speech by not including fake news in its news search.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yes. Offensive content is the whole point of the internet.

I'm always searching for banned books, movies, cartoons. Who doesn't? Escaping this sort of control is the internet's whole appeal.

Oh well. As always the net will route around this like damage. Adios google.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

because the "security" industry wants people to be confused about their rights so they can spy on us?

Re:This is bullshit

[ewibble]

What is the difference between removing the link or putting it 1 millionth in the search results? Who looks further than the first few pages?

Re:This is bullshit

[GuB-42]

Fake news publishers are still protected, they have every right to publish it.

Not everywhere. Among "free countries", Europe tend to put much more limits on free speech than the US.
For example, in France and Germany, it is almost impossible to talk about the Nazis in a way that isn't approved by the state. You can get condemned for defamation even if you speak the truth. In some cases, insults are outlawed too, and they can lead to prison sentences if they are racial in nature. In general, "hate speech" is considered a serious offense.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Assessment of the quality of speech IS speech.
Google is assessing the quality and depending what to tell people based on it, or would you deny them that ability?

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just excercising my right to not allow blacks into my taxi, or bake cakes for gays.

Just admit that none of you actually believe in equal rights, as a premise. Then I'll be OK with blacks and gays telling me what I'm allowed to think and feel.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The things you mentioned are protected attributes. Race, religon, sex and age is protected. Political views or "fakeness" of news are not. The freedom of speech is not impinged, Fox/Breitbart are free to go and use other platforms. Google are free to do this with no legal problems, it's not a equal rights issue.

You can change your political views. You can't change your race, sex or age.

Re:This is bullshit

[SeaFox]

Either all speech is protected or none of it is.

Google doesn't have to publish/display anything they don't want to. Free Speech does not mean companies are required to give you a platform to express your views.

If the Trumpettes don't like that -- they are free to create their own Alternate-Google.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

So censorship is freedom?

and ...war is peace?

Re:This is bullshit

[lactose99]

They tried that with Conservapedia and we all know what a steaming pile of turd that is.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Google decides. Google ARE the internet for many. If you don't like that, it is a free market so you are more than free to start your own company with your own rules.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Vee's Law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMHjE4Z3C6Y

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Kylie/Bruce(/Brulie/Brylie?) Jenner would like to speak with you about changing sex....

Re:This is bullshit

[HeckRuler]

I get this argument. And you're not entirely wrong because it's not an entirely black and white issue. But remember that freedom of speech is an ideal. It is not limited to the first amendment which provides the legal right to keep the government from restricting your speech. It's not something that only applies to other people.

Take Slashdot comments for example. Is it censorship if people have their comments voted down? Everyone can still see them if they choose to. But I think no one would argue that without some way for the quality posts to float to the top and the shitty trolls to sink to the bottom, slashdot's forum would be a giant pile of crap that no-one would want to wade through. And should it allow anonymous commentary? There are a lot of REALLY good reasons to let people comment on something anonymously, but it opens the obvious security hole of letting a single person control the majority of the debate. You've got to expect shills, trolls, and sock puppets any time you've got a group of eyeballs.

Same damn thing applies to news aggregators. Editors at news agencies too. Instead of individuals making submissions, you've got the wide and wild smorgasbord of news agencies, Reuters reporters, crack-pots, and crack-pot Reuters reporters working for news agencies. If you feed a raw and random assortment of news tidbits, people will get their news blurbs elsewhere. Determining what is and isn't "news worthy" is the job of a news editor. Every act they do is the sort of thing where they soft-censor non-news-worthy stuff simply by not showing it front and center. Only one thing can get the top spot at any given time. So how do you balance that?

Flat out censoring is wrong. If they have a profile of a... white supremacist, it's ethically wrong to simply block all content from the KKK. Connecting those two monsters to each other is, while an ostensibly bad thing, a better option than letting Google not connect them.

Having some sort of "But that's bullshit" flag from Google might be the best. It would be better than them trying to silently and selectively squash information. That sort of power would go right to their heads and would be abused and for sale within a year. They certainly have the power to so, it's only the fear of public backlash that keeps them from being monsters.

Google's business model is to be useful to people so they get eyeballs and sell ads. Popularity is certainly their goal. If 90% of the populace violently burned down anything saying anything remotely nice about the purple-people, Google wouldn't commit suicide by defending them. Probably. And so I think it's really important to remind people to get REALLY FUCKING PISSED at any effort by the gate-keepers of the Internet, namely Google and Facebook for this topic, to try and censor the Internet.

Having Google or Facebook build some sort of "truth-rating-agency" that judges all content on the Internet for truth sounds like a a path to a real dystopian hellscape. You know there would be "Google Truth Optimization" right around the corner just like SEO bullshit. How much of our sovereignty to we want to give a single self-serving group?

And what's the solution to mind-controlling google overlords? Alternative search engines. Any single point of failure is bound to fail eventually.

Re:This is bullshit

[Gravis Zero]

Either all speech is protected or none of it is.

Caveats of threats of violence aside, your speech is protected because you have conflated freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of said speech. If you read the actual U.S. constitution then you will notice it's protecting you from the government. There is nothing that says you are free from the consequences of what you say from other people.

Re:This is bullshit

[FrankHaynes]

As sensible a post as most ACs on here these days.

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news publishers are still protected, they have every right to publish it.

Not everywhere. Among "free countries", Europe tend to put much more limits on free speech than the US.
For example, in France and Germany, it is almost impossible to talk about the Nazis in a way that isn't approved by the state. You can get condemned for defamation even if you speak the truth. In some cases, insults are outlawed too, and they can lead to prison sentences if they are racial in nature. In general, "hate speech" is considered a serious offense.

Welcome to the fourth reich!

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Either all speech is protected or none of it is.

Speech can be compromised by too much noise as well as too little message. It often is.

Your implied "speech is always good" is childish - fraudulent, spammed, mistaken, deceptive and dangerous speech are all bad and often drown out worthwhile speech.

I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be easy. Just delete anything said or tweeted by Donald Trump. Viola, less fake news.

This should be marked alternatively "funny" or maybe even "insightful" but certainly not "troll".

It is clear the current president is profoundly dishonest (and before his apologists scream "they are all dishonest", no, they are not the same. Yes, everybody lies, and arguably most if not all politicians probably lie or stretch the truth a little more than the average person ... though with the behavior of Trump supporters online this past year, I'm not so sure the last bit is true, but either way, the Democrats in general, and politicians in general, do not engage in the kind of wholesale lying that has come to characterize Republicans of late, and Trump in particular.

So yeah, an effective "fake news" filter is going to end up being a bit of a Trump muzzle, in the sense that it becomes a bit of a "Liar muzzle" with Trump, Putin, and their enables being the most prolific liars these days, by orders and orders of magnitude. Doesn't mean there won't be plenty of left-wing bogus news articles being filtered as well (there will be), but by current metrics, they will amount to a tiny fraction compared to the fiction coming from the Right.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of horrific liars. Hillary is an amazing storyteller. One day she supports TPP, the next day she doesn't. WikiLeaks shows how she flip flops and admits standing against TPP is only for show.

No need to even discuss deals while SoS.

If you're going to comment on liars and leave Hillary out of the mix, your seriously misguided.

Re:I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[ganjadude]

e Democrats in general, and politicians in general, do not engage in the kind of wholesale lying that has come to characterize Republicans of late, and Trump in particular.

I see your trump and raise you a clinton, a warren, a cuomo and a pelosi

sorry, you are not correct here

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

For as often as I see Trumpeters saying "HIllary lost, get over it," they're always bringing Hillary up when we talk about how shitty our POTUS is. Hillary lost, get over it. Time for Don to do all the winning (that we'd supposedly be tired of by now).

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading GP, more than just enough to decide it's on 'your side' and flop your head in a nod. Parent post wasn't the first one to bring up Clinton's honesty.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what the difference is? One is a president, the others aren't. That should hold him to a higher standard but it doesn't.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[ganjadude]

other than clinton, they run congress, they actually have more power than the president so nope.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Power has shit all to do with it. This man is the face of our country. He talks to the world leaders. He interfaces with other governments. He is the United States pretty much. And to have a blatant liar and habitual line crosser at the helm of our ship, is a very bad thing.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your trump and raise you a clinton, a warren, a cuomo and a pelosi

Three people who Trump has lied about, distorting their words and actions, and otherwise demonstrating his deceit?

You aren't helping your case here.

Just take the oft-cited Pelosi quote, what she was saying was that the Affordable Care Act was covered in a fog of lies that only real experience could dispel, but the GOP mischaracterization took it as claiming that she didn't know what was in it.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama lied constantly. The only reason you don't know is because you only take in propaganda supporting the Democratic Party. You really do live in a bubble.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit arguing with them. They literally exist in an alternate reality crafted by their own desire to only listen to a handful of organizations and by disregarding sources.

Re:I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

"profoundly dishonest" How do you know he is more profoundly dishonest than anyone when the major news organizations, online partisan web sites, and the idiots pumping out misleading bullshit every 15 minutes. The MSM publishes provocative headlines that have nothing to do with the actual content of the article. The words could, possibly, may, or would are used because whatever crisis the article is addressing is really just someone asking an open ended question. News organizations and individuals publish information they attribute to "unnamed sources because they are not authorized to comment" and the reporters turn themselves into martyrs while "protecting" their sources. And if the sources are not authorized to make statements and doing it anyway that means, depending on the subject matter, are committing a crime. We end up a no named source with a propensity for ignoring the law and repudiating any agreements they signed when taking their position. This person sounds trust worthy. This is the root cause of all the bullshit you encounter on a daily basis. The public bases their opinions on information supplied by "Unnamed Sources" backed up by "Anonymous Cowards" in any open discussion forums.

  Are we suppose to automatically trust the people behind the stories? Or is it Ok to exaggerate and be misleading because you really hate Trump. The Trump haters are willing to say anything or do anything to get rid of him. They know they are being slightly dishonest and would never want the same type of treatment directed at their candidate. The most dangerous person in society is one who is 100% sure they are right. This certainty emboldens them to do anything necessary to get the people who don't agree with them to submit.

And this is not a defense of Trump. However he did upset the apple cart by winning the election. His greatest contribution has already been completed and he could leave office tomorrow having accomplished something no other President in modern history has ever done. He sidelined the major parties which resulted in a lot of people losing a shit load of money. All the Democrat and Republican major donors wasted all that money. The Press unmasked itself in front of everyone when they decided openly take sides for which they are now paying a steep price. The press corp now needs to make their own travel arrangements if they want to cover Trump. They MSM have been sidelined and ignored by the WH staff. All the behind the scenes access the press has enjoyed in the past is gone.

Had Clinton won the election no one would have questioned the electoral college or castigated her or her staff for talking to foreign officials before, during, or after the election. When Clinton got caught selling State Department access to foreign officials based upon how much the foreign official "donated" to the Clinton Foundation there was no outrage from any of her supporters and very little from anyone else since all politicians sell access in some fashion.

After all the "collusion with Russia" bullshit there has not been a single piece of evidence presented proving Trump or his campaign workers were working with Russians to undermine the election. US government officials and employees from all political sides talk with and meet their foreign counterparts or their representative all the time.

And I could care less who is President. It makes no difference what so ever in my life. I am a white male, born in the US, college educated, 6 figure salary, heterosexual, no kids, widower, with full health care paid by my employer. There is not a single issue being argued about today that will make any difference in my life. People like me are at the point where lower taxes would be negligible while at the same time not being able to write-off or take advantage of any tax credits offered to people in a lower income bracket.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

so you think it's impossible for someone to change their opinion?

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you are wrong. It will end up being a Trump muzzle because Google is apposed to Trump. Things would be different if Trump supported the TPP and Ha1b programs. Google will filter results based on what's good for Google. Just like once the republicans are finished raping the open internet you will start noticing a speed difference in Google approved left leaning results because ISPs are mostly right leaning. Its a game just like the campaign donations. In the end of the day large corporations will do what's best for them and the ones that don't will disappear.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

my team good, other team bad!!

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Nethemas the Great]

Only Donald can move to the center when it suits him. Everyone else must be intransigent and completely polarized.

Re:I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost because she was a profoundly dishonest and unlikable candidate.

Get over it. All this anti-russia fake news stuff is just you liberals doubling down on your own idiocy.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it, Hillary lost. You'll have to find someone else to blame all your problems on now.

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Donald can move to the center when it suits him. Everyone else must be intransigent and completely polarized.

So what we lack now are some really large cathodes and anodes?

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop lying already

Re: I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[Anonymous Coward]

±

Let's see a minority leader in the House with a Speaker who follows the Hastert Rule and a junior senator in the minority party.

More power than the President? What other shit are you spewing. At least try to stick to some semblance of the truth, yourself.

Re:I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[SirSlud]

Yup

Re:I guess Truth == Troll for the Right

[goose-incarnated]

It's not "an effective fake-news filter", because it would allow things like "It's illegal to read wikileaks" to be viewed while filtering away "Stem illegal immigration" as 'racism'.

It's the Ministry of Truth, not a filter for facts.

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been a deadly outbreak of fake news fighters. It appears many wealthy corporations are infected with the sudden urge to correct the news. The long term effect of this infection is currently unknown and it is not clear if the news will ever return to normal.
Geoffrey over to you....

New game for 4Chan

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long it'll take them to get bored of messing with Google's news feed.

Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

The underlying problem is Google is supposed to be a *search engine* It's supposed to show you where to find stuff on the internet. At some point in time they decided to complete with Ask Jeeves and become an "answer engine." Good luck with that.
 

Re:Truth

[OYAHHH]

Brilliant insight!

Re:Truth

[Blue Stone]

It is insightful and about sums up the issue.

I think a lot of this has to do with (excuse me while I silently vomit as I say this) 'thought leaders' - (or in proper terms) 'influential people' deciding that Google should or shouldn't offer up - from politicians to the heads of certain political, social, or other advocacy groups.

In so far as Google intends to placate these concerns, it's up shit creek if it just wants to return actual valid results that aren't influenced by such concerns. That ship has sailed. It has become too big and so must 'reflect society's values'.

Unless it's a little crafty.

All it has to do is create a seperate domain for unfiltered results that operate as old Google did (I know, nothing is unfiltered/unbiased) and let the politicans and media mouths have their sanitised Google results, while anyone who wants real(er) results bookmarks rawfeed.google.com, or whatever.

Re:Truth

[swillden]

The underlying problem is Google is supposed to be a *search engine* It's supposed to show you where to find stuff on the internet. At some point in time they decided to complete with Ask Jeeves and become an "answer engine." Good luck with that.

It has always been an answer engine, and that's the reason it became popular.

Back in the day (mid 90s) most everyone was certain that search engines could never be very useful. Lycos, Altavista, etc. weren't terrible, but they also weren't very good, because although they could effectively spider the whole web that just meant that any search matched thousands or millions of pages, and they had no way to determine which of those were the best answers for the query. The "smart money" was betting on Yahoo!'s approach of manually curating enormous lists of links.

Then Larry Page's pagerank algorithm found an excellent (not perfect, but excellent) way to figure out which of all of those answers were likely to be the best ones. That insight launched Google. It took off precisely because it provided better answers, rather than just returning a list of everything that was on the Internet. A list of everything on the Internet is not useful.

Re:Truth

[phantomfive]

At some point in time they decided to complete with Ask Jeeves and become an "answer engine." Good luck with that.

It was shortly after Microsoft made a deal with Wolfram Alpha to do the same thing. Google had a huge push after that to give answers and such.

Re:Truth

[AthanasiusKircher]

While I guess you have a point that Pagerank was designed to deliver better results, so were all other "search engines" of the time. Pagerank was just a better algorithm than others. But by your definition all search engines back then were "answer engines," since they all were trying to rank results somehow.

The thing is: back then Google's algorithms were still based on terms actually found in the searched pages. Hence, it was still a search engine. The ranking may have been tweaked, but you were still searching for actual text and actual search terms.

Somewhere around 2005 or so, it became possible for Google to serve up top hits that no longer contained the literal search terms. At that point it ceased to be a "pure" search engine and became about trying to guess what you wanted rather than just retrieving pages with your text. As the years went by, Google deprecated and screwed up the plus operator, increasingly screwed up verbatim search until it became nonfunctional for people who just want a literal search, and incorporated "personalization" to serve up pages more like other pages you've viewed, rather than what you literally asked for.

Google hasn't been a functional search engine in about a decade.

Re:Truth

[AthanasiusKircher]

Oh and BTW, the way you use a literal search engine with thousands or millions of results is to introduce more specific search terms to narrow your search to a reasonable number. Back then people COULD use search engines to find specific content very well that way. I used to be able to use Google to find specific pages again years later if I remembered a few specific unique words or phrases that could get me back to that specific page... I haven't been able to reliably do that in years. As you point out, that type of searching is less useful when you're doing a broader search for a vague topic and just want the "best" hits (by some metric). Early on, Google tried to combine the two, but the former approach requires search strategy and understanding how to use operators and such to get useful results in narrowing down a topic. Most internet users today never learned how to use a search engine -- they just want to type in a few vague things and expect good stuff to come up, even if it's not what they literally asked for. Google has thus decided to serve the latter crowd, though I still don't quite understand why that required them to screw up literal search for those who request it. (BTW, for those who don't know and want more literal search, verbatim on Google is really poor these days. Try the allintext: operator instead, though even that is a crapshoot was to whether the specific results you want will actually show up.)

Re:Truth

[swillden]

Google hasn't been a functional search engine in about a decade.

Perhaps by your very narrow definition. But it's vastly better than it was at finding what people are looking for, which is what they always wanted, regardless of terminology.

However, it's *not* as good at "keyword regexp bingo" as it used to be. But if you're still trying to use those old-style queries, you're doing it wrong. Try typing complete natural language questions for what you want to find. I find this works amazingly well, even on obscure technical topics which include lots of "keywords" which are heavily overloaded in other contexts.

Re:Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with google is it is actually terrible at finding precise documents and/or complete information. I don't mean obscure topics but I mean documents that I know exist and I know either the title or blocks of texts from said document. I think the main problem is that most people that are looking for such documents either a) already know the "correct" path to the document and thus never train google (self fulfilling problem of google never getting "hits" to move the doc up the page rank. and b) extremely infrequent use of said documents.

Complete natural language searches have no hope because they will bring a slew of pages that are highly "page ranked" due to the "extra" words from the natural language. Google may find the result but it is likely on page 100 and nobody has time. Now that you can't cram in random terms to narrow the search it is almost impossible to find some of this stuff through search and you actually have to "browse" the web until you find it manually.

Re:Truth

[swillden]

I find Google to be quite good at finding stuff when I have a block of text from it. It helps to enclose it in quotes.

Re:Truth

[AthanasiusKircher]

Huh? My definition? I was following YOUR exceptionally narrow definition of search engine and actually trying to expand it to cover an additional decade of history. And if you re-read my post, you'll realize that at no point did I say the approach Google has taken is invalid or bad or not useful. What I said is that I don't understand why their new approach NECESSITATED breaking the old search for people who want/need it. Google is now a great tool for answering broad questions with relevant links; I never said otherwise. I find it unfortunate that it can no longer function reliably for serious research though. Not only the ranking but the actual complete list of links that show up in a search are not consistent, even with verbatim or allintext turned on.

Re:Truth

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yeah, you obviously haven't tried this a lot for obscure searches. For an easy way to see this, try searching for an obscure phrase enclosed in quotes in Google Books using sources from, say 1950 to 2000. Then try the search again for years 1950 to 1975. You'll likely end up with a different list of results from the years 1950-75 in the two searches. You can try this with all sorts of verbatim searches; for example, word order (outside quotes) will cause hits to appear or get dropped... Not merely differently ranked, but to disappear from the complete list of hits. I could go on with dozens of ways I've seen results added or subtracted in supposedly verbatim searches with the exact same search terms. I'll grant you the vast majority of Google users don't use it this way, but there are clearly a lot of cases where some nontrivial percentage of people would like this capability (and for it to function reliably).

Re:Truth

[AmiMoJo]

Your reasoning is dangerous. Should we stop letting politicians and the state decide that the world is billions of years old and just let the kids Google it. Whoever spams Google the most gets to decide how old the Earth is and the correct answer on the exam is "my phone confirms 6,000 years".

Is there really no way we can flag up things like "vaccines cause autism", "the would is 6000 years old" and "Hillary Clinton runs a paedophile ring out of a pizza restaurant" as heavily disputed?

Re:Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps I am weird but I don't understand why anyone would want to type complete sentences into a search engine. Natural language is bad at being precise and machines aren't exactly good at interpreting it.

Re:Truth

[swillden]

Perhaps I am weird but I don't understand why anyone would want to type complete sentences into a search engine. Natural language is bad at being precise and machines aren't exactly good at interpreting it.

Try it. It's what people naturally tend to do, so it's what Google optimizes for. It really does work very well, regardless of what you might expect.

Re:Truth

[Cinnamon Beige]

There may be, but it also needs to not be so wide open to abuse that it's absolutely certain it will be.

One of these things is not like the others.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Offensive" is not the same sort of thing as "misleading", "false", and "low quality".

Re:One of these things is not like the others.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has long been misleading, false, and low quality. This latest announcement makes it also offensive.

Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Mainstream media is responsible for the propagation of a large percentage of fake news.

Re: WE DON'T WANT YOUR REAL NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

A negative Trump comment will net a "+1" on /.

Any negative liberal comments will be -1.

Oh well. Back to Reddit.

Re:WE DON'T WANT YOUR REAL NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

We want the news filtered by the Conservative media.

"Fake news" or "offensive content"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fake news" and "offensive content" are quite different.

Moreover, an algorithm designed to suppress offensive content would promote fake news, because fake news are constructed to please the reader.

There is no truth

[Anonymous Coward]

A LIE become True when it is repeated often enough. Control the media, control the culture, control the country, control reality.

you lot me at "offensive"

[Anonymous Coward]

because reality is often "offensive".

Track down "misleading" if you can

but leave "offensive" alone.

Or become the true enemy of free thought

an extension of SafeSearch ?

[swell]

Google has long offered users an option to filter search results. No doubt many parents and some others prefer this. Why should this be a problem?

"SafeSearch can help you block inappropriate or explicit images from your Google Search results. The SafeSearch filter isn't 100% accurate, but it helps you avoid most violent and adult content."

A filter bubble for every man-women and child.

[Neuroelectronic]

The only reason Google sucks so much is that there's nothing that sucks less in the search *business*. Maybe a non-profit Search engine is the solution? Academia may be a great way to incubate such a product.

Those who object the loudest

[coinreturn]

Those who object the loudest believe the most lies.

There is no escape.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is *impossible* to remove political slant from news reporting. Impossible.

People say they want objective information, but the instant that information contradicts their forgone conclusions they deride it as fake. And *everyone* does this, while adamantly insisting they do not do this.

It is really quite uncanny. I have seen people do it in a single breath. "It is an objective fact that guns increase violence!," "It is an objective fact that allowing men into ladies restrooms puts the women in danger!" Etc.

There is no market for objective news. People spend their attention and/or money on news with their desired political slant. And then they convince themselves that their biased news source is the only objective one out there.

Anyone that actually offers anything remotely resembling true objectivity will be rejected by the majority of people on both sides of the spectrum, with just a precious handful of true moderates appreciating the information.

That's pretty much the reality we face.

Re:There is no escape.

[epyT-R]

I agree it's impossible to eliminate it entirely, but the mainstream media doesn't even try. In fact, they go out of their way to be as biased as possible without stepping into blatant lie territory (most of the time). Then they cry about 'fake news' and 'alternative facts' from the liars on the other side.

Hypocrites all. Perhaps they should apply the scientific method to their 'journalism' to see just how hokey most of it probably is.

Fake people saying real things

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh.. dogs CAN be milked. They're mammals.

Re:Fake people saying real things

[Anonymous Coward]

#fakenews!

Simple solution: Unpaid Mechanical Turk

[gurps_npc]

Step 1. Find a good set of sources of a variety of fake news. At least one conservative (Brietbart), Russian (RT), and Liberal (Huffington Post) to start.

Step 2. Set up software to track everyone that regularly reads any of those three as your secret mechanical Turk testers. Everything those people like, post, or otherwise support will be fake news.

Step 3. Create a solid scoring system based on your testers.

Basically, use the stupidity of the users against them. Once you find people stupid enough to believe the fairly obviously low production value of fake news, you have your testing machine.

You just have to make sure you get all strains of bias. If new strains show up, be sure to add them to step 1.

Re:Simple solution: Unpaid Mechanical Turk

[Mike Van Pelt]

Mod parent up.

Re:Simple solution: Unpaid Mechanical Turk

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you equate "bias" with "fake"?

Huffington Post slants everything to make Republicans & conservatives look bad. Breitbart likewise spins things to put Democrats & liberals in the worst possible light, but are they really "fake"?

RT may be biased toward Russia, but their news is every bit as real as what you get from the mainstream USA media(which is totally USA biased). In some ways, RT is even better because they provide coverage of events that get almost no mention in the mainstream USA media.

Re:Simple solution: Unpaid Mechanical Turk

[gurps_npc]

"Fake News" does not just mean not true. That is called slander and libel. Nor does it refer to just true facts that are not "news." (Then it would include all of sports reporting).

Instead the term Fake News was created because of people avoiding the libel and slander laws by taking a fact and stretching it all out of proportion to reflect something that a certain mindset will either love or hate.

In this manner, the clear and obvious successor to " Pravda", called "RT", achieves its goals of lying to America and the west without being held legally responsible. In America, rather than the government, it is the political parties that desire to slander and libel people, so we get Conservative Breitbart and Liberal Huffington Post.

In other words, BIAS is exaclty the source of all Fake News. It doesn't mean that all biased things are fake news, it just means all Fake news comes from bias.

While it is true that fake news becomes profitable, that only happens after fake news creates it's own market in a feedback loop.

To get those feedback loops start, you need the bias.

So use the essential ingredient to root out the problem.

Re:Simple solution: Unpaid Mechanical Turk

[Cinnamon Beige]

If you're conflating bias and "fake news," then what you might want to do is invert your plan, and instead build a 'consensus' news aggregation algorithm that picks sources according to their factual reliability and transparently flag sources for their biases. You might even give more weight to sources known to be honest enough to report stories that are harmful to their side--especially, perhaps, when those stories are hitting the news--and give 'sets' so people can read how multiple sources report the same story, without much effort, if they want to.

You also would want to ensure that no single source or set of sources sharing the same bias dominates the feed--this is really just plain good sanitation issues, to keep down any given editorial staff's influence and reduce overall bias. (It might be best to actually have the feed algorithm set up to always favor low-scored sources, and try to have every edition's sum of bias scores be 0.)

the answer: boycott google

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither do I. Already changed my default search to duckduckgo and quit using chrome entirely. Looking for an android alternative for my phone (don't want iOS either). Google is dead to me.

define offend

[neghvar1]

Disagree in any way with a liberal snowflake and they are highly offended to point of needing counseling or playing with puppies and kittens.
Kiss in a public place in the presence of a prude and they are offended
Be observed eating meat in the presence of a PETA member and they are offended
the list goes on...

Google Search Manipulation

[AnalogDiehard]

Really - the same Google who manipulated their search engine to bury news that were damaging to the Clinton campaign is now promising to protect us from fake news?

Frankly with Google's record of integrity, I don't trust them to decide for me what is fake news.

Re:Google Search Manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you can fact check, you have to define what Fake News means. Right now, this just means instead of bias media, you have bias fact checkers and bias google users, so there is no improvement at all, just a displacement of responsibility.

Re:Google Search Manipulation

[bongey]

They are still doing it and it even over-rides your personal 'Adjust Sources'. http://imgur.com/HM89EbE

Most of this comes from certain Net block regions

[WillAffleckUW]

Just don't let them post news without it being verified first.

Problem solved.

Their motivation is to lie to get the click ad dollars. They will do whatever Russia asks them to get the sweet bonus spiff for pushing Russia fake news, since they get both the ad dollars and the Russian extra.

Pleasant Day! Fake news is gone. Watch our news.

[Anonymous Coward]

We define what is fake news. That is how you know it is fake. Did you Google it? If not, it's fake! Now you can watch the only non-fake news. We will tell you what to think, tovarich. Is Truth!

Huh, funny timing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty crazy that Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia are all launching similar initiatives at the same time. I guess their masters are really riding them over that election. They thought they had the net all sown up. We already live in a world where it is much easier to find certain topics on duckduckgo than it is on google. If a study shows up that challenges the status quo in science, searching for it by name on google will return pages of results of people discussing and debunking it. On duckduckgo, you'll go directly to the article. Since DDG mostly pulls from Bing, this means that no one has yet met Microsoft's asking price to censor information- I imagine that by 2020, even this will be amended.

Yeah. This can't go wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like what the talking head says; OFFENSIVE CONTENT! The news report/article contains information I disagree with; FAKE NEWS!! Meh.

N,iggerdot, we love you soo much

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook launches fake news checker!

Google launches fake news checker!

Jimmy wales launches fake news checker!
slashdot: we are fucking retards who love promoting the CIA's agenda

Fuck google, facebook, and wikipedia, which are CIA/jew assets and control the flow of information.

Would Google censor news about fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to know if Google would censor news about fake news. Double the censorship.

Google isn't as important as they think they are

[zerofoo]

Does Google really think that Salon, Infowars and Breitbart readers are getting to those sites via Google? I'm sure some do, but I'll bet most go right to their site of choice.

In our world of ideological teamism - the players have picked their sides and I'm willing to bet that Google had very little to do with their choice.

be a skeptic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm skeptical of all news sources. If that makes me un-American, so be it.

I for one would like to congratulate them

[Anonymous Coward]

And invite them to enjoy the cheese the moon is made of while they shove loads of cocks up their own asses the bunch of faggots...

Google overreach

[Anonymous Coward]

Google really doesn't get to decide these things, and if they do start to further censor their services, people will just go elsewhere, as they have already begun doing with mainstream media. The left is just intent on hammering the nails in their coffins, and Alphoogle doesn't seem to understand that nobody with at least two brain cells trusts them any further than they can throw them.

Offensive Content?

[bjwest]

Offensive content is purely subjective, how are they going to determine this? Are we going to have a SJW controlled Google now? Fuck that shit.

Re:Offensive Content?

[overlook77]

I would argue you already have one. Try finding anything at best neutral regarding race relations on Google. Hell, Google "Best Netflix Movies". Literally the second thing that comes up is "Dear White People", followed by "13th". Google something about race and IQ, and guaranteed one of the top, if not the top article will be some liberal op-ed. It happens all the time. It seems very intentional.

T'would be amusing if Slashdot tried to lead, eh?

[shanen]

Too early? One "funny" modded comment that wasn't much. Several "insightful" mods, apparently on some sort of confusion of wit with insight. Brevity is only the soul of wit, sorry.

Actually, I sort of think that the (increasingly evil) google has a good idea there, even if it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Reputation is ultimately a human thing, and it is ultimately based on a network of trust. Three obvious problems:

(1) Abuse of anonymity breaks the foundation of the trust network.
(2) The google is biased by the love of money and wants "extra" trust to sell more ads.
(3) TMI

Improved moderation could make Slashdot a model of possible solutions, but there's no funding model to drive change here. Would you actually pay REAL money for more reliable information? Especially when there's an effectively infinite supply of "information" just a few short clicks away?

Since it will never happen on Slashdot, does anyone know of a discussion website where the network reputation of each source is displayed next to the avatar? Various ways to do it, but it would be easiest for me to interpret a multi-dimensional radar diagram based on reactions to the work published by that source. (Details available upon polite request, as the sad joke goes.)

Re:Google isn't as important as they think they ar

[Anonymous Coward]

Same could be said about CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and DailyMail. Fact is traffic is driven there if the search results find it. By calling anything fake news Google with then downgrade the site on their search results and yes make it propagate less.

It will become a censorship tool by political orgs

[mike2006]

A tool that political organizations will fire up their supporters to abuse. No doubt the ideologs at Google and their elitist silicon valley peers will not call into question.

The choice is to continue to use Google where ideologs decide what you see and do not see or non-partisan alternatives like Newslookup.com

Ushering In Censorship, with YOUR Consent

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats all nice and stuff, but this is an obvious ploy for censorship, with our consent.

They will begin to censor any news that many in power would prefer that the American people do not know.

Totalitarianism won't be forced upon us. We will welcome it, in order to make us feel "safer".

Re:Ushering In Censorship, with YOUR Consent

[mike2006]

Exactly. Criticism of the policy will and is being censored so they can push the false narrative that the majority of people are for it.

Anecdotal, but I am seeing that kind of censorship of my tweets showing concern for Googles new fake news tool on Twitter. My tweets still exist under the news publishers that reported on Google. However all my tweets criticizing Google have disappeared from Twitter search that did appear in search all day today. Although I still see them when I login and search, so effectively a shadow ban.

Same sheet, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess that would be because we saw the leftist Democrats of old dress in white sheets to physically assault blacks, for example at their 1912 Klanbake, and now we see leftists dress in black sheets to physically assault whites as Antifa.

So we have to wonder if indeed they've actually learned anything or if it's essentially the same sheet on a different day.

Re: Same sheet, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, those KKK Democrats of old were right-wing conservatives of the strongest stripe. Just read William Jennings Bryan's speeches.

Probably the greatest irony of today is that it is Republicans in Louisiana who were fighting to keep up the Civil War monuments in New Orleans.

Including the one that memorialized an insurrection against a biracial government to institute white supremacy. Quite expressly. Putting a sign over it didn't change its origins.

Re:Most of this comes from certain Net block regio

[BlueStrat]

...without it being verified first.

Verified? By whom? By whose standards? Who determines the definitions used? Do citizens get to vote for these people? How far can they go, what are their powers? What kind of checks against political/ideological-weaponization will there be?

You allow anyone the power to control what you see/read/hear, you allow them the power to make you their slave. It's always the edge-cases, the socially-repugnant extremes that authoritarians use to justify removing your choices and freedoms. It's happened over and over in nearly every country that fell to authoritarianism.

Will we sit in apathy and/or join the raging throngs drunk on identity politics and allow history to repeat itself yet again at the cost of freedom stolen from both ourselves and multiple future generations, likely accompanied by obscene numbers of human lives lost? Ultimately, only we know the answer.

Strat

Yay! Leftist indoctrination for everyone!

[Chas]

Fuck that noise.

Freedom of speech. It's for everyone, not just those who agree with you.

Fake news is not offensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous. Fake news is not offensive, it's simply lies. The news is meant to anger, offend, and upset people by publishing the truth. No subject is too sensitive for print, no word spoken should be kept out of the papers. If I publish the truth and it sparks World War 3, a second holocaust, or brings down society with riots, then I've done my job.

  "It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell" -The Chicago Times

Re:Yay! Leftist indoctrination for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Google are "leftists", you are probably delusional. Do you think of Coogle/Alphabet corp as leftists?

Offensive?

[xenobyte]

Didn't the Supreme Court strike down every new version of the CDA on the exact grounds that 'offensive' wasn't clearly defined? - Because what is offensive to one may not even remotely be to others... Doubt that Facebook can do better in defining this.

Re:Google isn't as important as they think they ar

[mjwx]

Does Google really think that Salon, Infowars and Breitbart readers are getting to those sites via Google? I'm sure some do, but I'll bet most go right to their site of choice.

In our world of ideological teamism - the players have picked their sides and I'm willing to bet that Google had very little to do with their choice.

Those who dont want their views challenged will be going to sites like Breitbart direct as they don't want to risk running into anything that may make them question their preconceptions.

However that is a very small number of people. The masses tend to use search engines and social media.

If anyone can successfully and accurately fight fake news, it is someone like Google. Fake news is best defined as non-fact based articles pretending to be news. Google with their experience in search and data management would be able to build a comparison engine that could compare the content of the article to known facts. Look at the content, not just the source, sure we know that what comes out of Fox News is almost entirely bollocks, so you would weight that news source as being less reliable, but they will still have their broken clock moments.

Looking at the content will also make the more legitimate news sources rely less on cheap cliches and appeals to fear/emotion.

Re:Most of this comes from certain Net block regio

[Anonymous Coward]

then you're not serious about this.

nobody cares about your failing pretense of a country in (fill in name)

Flat earth

[NewYork]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...