Slashdot Mirror


Google Bombs Are Our New Normal (wired.com)

mirandakatz writes: Tech companies' worst crises used to come in the form of pranks like Google bombs: Users figured out how to game search results, such as when a search for "miserable failure" turned up links to information about then-president George W. Bush. Today, in the era of fake news and Russian interference, that's basically our new normal -- but as Karen Wickre, a former communications lead at companies like Google and Twitter, points out, tech companies' approaches to dealing with the new breed of crises haven't evolved much since the age of Google bombs. Wickre suggests a new, collaborative approach that she dubs the "Federation," writing that "No single company, no matter how massive and wealthy, can hire its way out of a steady gusher of bad information or false and manipulative ads...The era of the edge case -- the exception, the outlier—is over. Welcome to our time, where trouble is forever brewing."

94 comments

  1. The age of Russian interference? by Train0987 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Good grief msmash. The Russians! nonsense is just embarrassing at this point.

    1. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No single company...can hire its way out of a steady gusher of bad information

      Case in point...slashdot

    2. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even when its true and well documented?

    3. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trumptard spotted. It’s okay. Just because the guy you voted for is Putin’s cuck doesn’t mean you need to lash out.

    4. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except both Facebook and Google have provided tons of evidence that the Russians were buying election ads to sway retards like yourself.

    5. Re:The age of Russian interference? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article:

      We trust our devices: We trust them to surface the correct sources in our information feeds, we trust them to deliver our news, and we trust them to surface the opinions of our friends. So the biggest and most influential platforms falling prey to manipulations upsets that trust—and the order of things.

      No, no we don't. We don't just trust everything we read, and for good reason. Typically, the more you know about the subject of a news story, the more you realize how inaccurate it is. That also applies to the news stories you don't know a lot about, you just may not be the one who has the right background on it. I like hearing from the people who do.

      massive platforms and services we rely on routinely communicate and coordinate, despite the fact that they are also competitors.

      No, we're not pining for the "good old days" when you only had to get the NY Times to preview a story for the three major TV network news teams and it became magically enshrined as the "truth" because no one ever got to see any other opinions.

      The answer to bad speech is more speech to compete with it, not censoring speech in order to "control the narrative". Deciding to federate all the Internet media companies into a shared censorship regime because a few spammers purchased a rounding error's worth of advertising in order to promote their click farms is completely out of proportion. It's almost like someone was waiting for an excuse to propose the solution they've been wishing for, a return to the days when not anyone could just speak, when you had to get past the "gatekeepers" in order to communicate to the masses.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    6. Re:The age of Russian interference? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Shame on Facebook and Google...

      Other than that, nothing to see here unless one campaign or the other was involved in breaking FEC rules, which seems unlikely at this point..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:The age of Russian interference? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Even when its true and well documented?

      What is well documented and by whom? Shame on Google and Facebook for selling the ads, but how's this important to me? It's not like you can stop the Russians from trying tripe like this in today's day and age if they want to. We better learn to live with it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:The age of Russian interference? by bobbied · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      That joke wasn't funny on the late night comedy shows the first time it got told. It's not getting better with age.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if things had gone the other way, and had it been demonstrated that the russians had influenced the vote in favor of Hilary Clinton, you'd be pulling your hair out and climbing up the walls instead of saying "nothing to see here, move along".

      And don't even try to pretend otherwise, fucking hypocrite. You'd only be embarassing yourself.

    10. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen evidence from Facebook OR Google. I know they keep saying they have something, but so did the FBI (which now doesn't have a single individual anywhere willing to testify under oath about Russian interference). So, I am going to assume Facebook and Google are both making stuff up as well.

      As for the FEC, the Clinton campaign DID break the FEC rules during the primaries. It was part of their strategy for rigging the primary against Sanders. I believe he actually has a legal suit against the DNC and Debbie Schultz over this. So we DO have actual evidence of FEC rules being broken, its just that is was Clinton doing it not Trump.

      Oh yea, we also have evidence of Russian bribing Clinton as well. I'm sure she used some of that money in her campaign, so we could conclude Russia interfered on the behalf of Clinton.

    11. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The answer to noise isn't more noise. If someone is popping off their motorcycle, that doesn't mean someone else has to buy a jet engine to drown out that sound. We are already dealing with a deluge of bullshit every day, with crap coming from all directions, and major social media sites actually paid to disseminate propaganda. Had FB existed in the 1980s US, the Feds would have dismantled and shut down the entire company for acts of sedition and overt treason, be it giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or disseminating enemy propaganda.

      What is really needed is a peer to peer signing and moderation system with trust delegations. That way, if I trust Alice on her opinions of news sources and articles, and if she downmods one place, then her negative weight will affect what I see. Similar if Bob rates another place very positively, that positive weight gets passed on. If I find Alice or Bob trolling, then I distrust them, and perhaps add more weight to what Charlie likes or not. This applies to multiple axes. For example, I would trust the Onion for humor, but I might not trust them for news honesty. While, some sources, I might just not trust whatsoever because they are propaganda depots, pure and simple, be it the ones funded by Soros and Bloomberg, or the ones by the Koch Brothers.

    12. Re:The age of Russian interference? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Russians! nonsense is just embarrassing at this point.

      That's exactly what a Russian dezinformatsiya agent would say.

      https://beta.theglobeandmail.c...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians! nonsense is just embarrassing at this point.

      Yes, mostly to Trump and those who support him.

    14. Re:The age of Russian interference? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry. Hillary has done plenty of illegal and legal, but unethical and unfair, shit. No one would give half of a Hershey Squirt about some foreigners trolling online or buying ads online.

      She lost because she's awful. Get over it.

    15. Re:The age of Russian interference? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Of course, if things had gone the other way, and had it been demonstrated that the russians had influenced the vote in favor of Hilary Clinton, you'd be pulling your hair out and climbing up the walls instead of saying "nothing to see here, move along".

      And don't even try to pretend otherwise, fucking hypocrite. You'd only be embarassing yourself.

      QFT. Also, to mention that both sides do it, and both sides are terribly hypocritical.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    16. Re:The age of Russian interference? by djbckr · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Hillary was (obviously) the worst candidate the DNC could have picked to run for POTUS, that even DT could win. I'm not really sure why Sanders was railroaded like he was, but that's why we are in the sad state we are in now. I don't blame the loss on foreign interference - unless that was what made the DNC decision to put Hillary in the running.

    17. Re:The age of Russian interference? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look, you people are seeing TEH ROOSHINS in every post, on every thread. If you think Slashdot has any reach anymore, you're sadly mistaken. Most stories barely get double digit comments these days. The whole "blame the foreigners" thing is such an obvious dodge to avoid accepting that Trump voters might have had a point. We all know Podesta came up with this dolchstoss-legende within 24 hours of Hillary's loss, right? You people are seeing TEH ROOSHINS under your bed, and it's honestly kind of sad seeing such great minds succumb to paranoia.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:The age of Russian interference? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Even when its true and well documented?

      What is well documented and by whom? Shame on Google and Facebook for selling the ads, but how's this important to me? It's not like you can stop the Russians from trying tripe like this in today's day and age if they want to. We better learn to live with it.

      Yeah, WHAT is true and well documented? Last I heard, there was a minor FB ad buy from some Russians, and many of THOSE ads would be considered anti-Trump.

    19. Re:The age of Russian interference? by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      Trumptard spotted. It’s okay. Just because the guy you voted for is Putin’s cuck doesn’t mean you need to lash out.

      Regular retard spotted.

    20. Re:The age of Russian interference? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Of course, if things had gone the other way, and had it been demonstrated that the russians had influenced the vote in favor of Hilary Clinton, you'd be pulling your hair out ...

      I guess that would be straw hair.

    21. Re:The age of Russian interference? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Trump voters might have had a point.

      You just lost all credibility.

      seeing TEH ROOSHINS under your bed

      That Russia worked to influence the 2016 election is not in doubt any more.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      The receipts have been found and displayed for all to see. Don't be so invested in Orange Julius that you refuse to see what's in front of your face.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:The age of Russian interference? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      That's exactly what a Russian dezinformatsiya agent would say.

      It's not at all clear to me why this non-falsifiable, modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism would get modded up so enthusiastically. Probably that thing about people not learning from history being doomed to repeat it.

    23. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still better than voting for Trump.

    24. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Even when its true and well documented?

      I know, right?!! They even used Pokemon Go! to influence the election! Those dastardly Russians!

      How dare Train0987 call it nonsense!!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    25. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that you guys who are accusing people of being Russians are the ones who keep using Russian words? What on earth does dezinformatsiya mean, anyhow?

      Also, you keep telling us that their goal is to divide us... so why are you helping?

    26. Re:The age of Russian interference? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Look, TEH ROOSHINS didn't cause Hillary to lose. Hillary lost because she ignored the Democratic blue-collar heartland. Trump showing up doing 3 a day events in the rust belt saying "we will never forget you again" while Hillary didn't show up at all is what won him MI, PA and WI. Win those states and Hillary is president today.

      It's so sad to see smart people dissolve into "blame the foreigners", the oldest trick in the book. It's not healthy. Believing in the backstab legend is what got the Nazi party started. The American people are hurting, and Trump was the only answer available other than Hillary's "more of the same, but harder."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:The age of Russian interference? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The Russians! nonsense is just embarrassing at this point.

      That's exactly what a Russian dezinformatsiya agent would say.

      https://beta.theglobeandmail.c...

      Congratulations; your opinion is hermetically sealed.

    28. Re: The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanders was Not pro war. Thats Bad for mic bribes.

    29. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1. When I read something I am a subject matter expert on, it is always incorrect. I assume everything I get from a journalist is seriously suspect. My favorites are the ones hiding in plain sight. In Santa Barbara, the local water supply is a lake, and the news reports on the water in the lake in units of Acres. As in we have 21 million acres of water. Journalist doesn't understand the difference between area and volume!

      Even better, every time there is a car chase on TV, and the wheel comes off the car, the journalist will call it a tire. "Look at that tire come off the car." Ummm, no. That's a wheel. How the hell does the journalist not know the difference between wheel and tire? Same way they don't know why voltage doesn't flow.

    30. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, but I couldn't help noticing "the answer to bad speech is more (bad) speech"... if carried that way.

      In the 90s, you started to see this monopoly being broken as people online would compare a multitude of sources now available, and easily see contradictions and slants. Not everyone had this access, so typically these were reposted, talk about online and on radio, passed on by word of mouth, and gotten out.

      Everyone has access to sources now - still it takes time to analyze every story. So the function seen at the beginning of the mass network age is still valuable -- the editor function, because the solution to bad speech is truth, and it sometimes takes time to get it.

    31. Re:The age of Russian interference? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's so sad to see smart people dissolve into "blame the foreigners", the oldest trick in the book.

      Buddy, Trump's entire campaign was based on "blame the foreigners". Now all of a sudden you don't like that approach? Have you changed your mind because the Russians are white people? Because the same white nationalist sentiment that keeps Putin in power is what got Trump elected?

      https://www.realclearpolitics....

      https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/...

      https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, even here in Canada people saw them put Clinton as candidate and thought...... well now they're going to lose.
      How did they not see this?
      It was the most hilarious election I've ever witnessed and we already knew who the winner would be, why were your media so shocked?
      What a disaster.

    33. Re:The age of Russian interference? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's not at all clear to me why this non-falsifiable

      Of course it's falsifiable, but you have to prove the evidence presented is not true.

      That's how evidence works: The prosecution (or scientist) presents the evidence, and it is proven up by a court (or peers). The defense can try to cast doubt on that evidence (falsification) or on witnesses. A prosecution (in this case a political prosecution) is not a hypothesis.

      We're past hypothesis now. Hypotheses can be falsifiable (or not). We're now at the proving up stage. There is hard evidence that Russia endeavored to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump. We have hard evidence of meetings between Trump campaign officials and agents of the Russian government where a deal to exchange the lifting of sanctions for campaign help. And this is only one small part of the entire Russian effort to illegally influence the election.

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

      This is not fake news. There are emails from Trump officials about the meetings and testimony from Russian officials about the intent. There are receipts. If there's some part of that you believe is false, you are free to falsify.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the Trumptards don't get or refuse to admit is that it does NOT matter if Clinton would have lost anyway.
      The fact that it's clear there was collusion between the Trump campaign & Russia is a crime even if it got them ZERO extra votes or even if it COST them votes.

    35. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to Pokemon Go to jail, Drumpfy! It's all over for you and your treasonous cabal.

    36. Re:The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're right, just not in the way they think. Just search the word "russia" on google - or for that matter "hitler", "nazi", or "bad" - and you'll get assaulted with anti-Trump nonsense.

    37. Re:The age of Russian interference? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Of course it's falsifiable, but you have to prove the evidence presented is not true.

      * * *

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

      * * *

      There are emails . . . There are receipts.

      Um, ok. Unsurprisingly, neither of the articles you linked show any of the actual emails or receipts you claim to be evidence of "a deal to exchange the lifting of sanctions for campaign help." In fact, the original WaPo article your ABC News link mentions says exactly the opposite -- that the new emails bolster the Russian lawyer's story that the meeting had nothing at all to do with campaign help:

      It could offer evidence backing up the Russian lawyer’s claims that she was meeting with Trump Jr. solely to discuss a 2012 law despised by the Kremlin that imposed financial sanctions on wealthy Russians as punishment for human rights abuses.

      If there's some specific "evidence" you'd like to specifically direct me to and specifically say why you feel it proves the deal you mention, I'm very happy to talk about it. But I'm frankly not holding my breath given your well-established tendency to... er, embellish.

    38. Re:The age of Russian interference? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Of course it's falsifiable

      And just to be clear, my reference to "this non-falsifiable, modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism" was referring to your reflexive labeling of the OP as "a Russian dezinformatsiya agent." That stands.

    39. Re:The age of Russian interference? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      referring to your reflexive labeling of the OP as "a Russian dezinformatsiya agent."

      I did not label him as such. You made an inference. Read my post again.

      Your misapplication of logic and willingness to jump to a conclusion to satisfy your bias are part of the reason dezinformatsiya works so well.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:The age of Russian interference? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Oh, stop. Your intent was crystal clear. Attempting to scurry back behind a veneer of plausible deniability just makes you look weak.

    41. Re:The age of Russian interference? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh, stop. Your intent was crystal clear. Attempting to scurry back behind a veneer of plausible deniability just makes you look weak.

      Looking "weak" is something that scares you, isn't it?

      That's another reason dezinformatsiya is so effective.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    42. Re: The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, Comrade PopeRatzo. How's the air pollution in Beijing today?

    43. Re:The age of Russian interference? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      We're talking about why Hillary lost. It wasn't because of TEH ROOSHINS. It was because the Democrats abandoned the white working class and planned to drown them in immigrants. Deal with it, learn, and maybe in 2024 you can win an election again. I mean, fuck, the Democrats are the party of Harvey Weinstein.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    44. Re:The age of Russian interference? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I think we are on the same page here.. I was pointing out to the anti-Trump mind that this is basically meaningless. Russia going to do what Russia going to do and we'd better get used to it.

      Actually, I believe that about all we can really do is draw attention to this kind of thing. Maybe then folks will pause and think about what they are reading a bit, and not just reacting to this garbage.

      Yea I know... Fat chance it will help.. But we can at least hope for a better informed voter..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    45. Re: The age of Russian interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention pro-Communism. Just we need, a Commie-In-Chief.

  2. Remember the /. SCO GoogleBomb in 2004? by grub · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hard to believe this was back in 2004, but it worked!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  3. Google algorithms are trivial to trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    judging by all the SEO stuff happening right now. Did Google stop hiring smart people?

    1. Re:Google algorithms are trivial to trick by grub · · Score: 2

      Google's smartest people aren't concerned with search results, they're priority is figuring out how to shovel relevant ads at you.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Google algorithms are trivial to trick by grub · · Score: 1

      they're / their
      me dumz

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:Google algorithms are trivial to trick by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Diversity implies a mix of both smart and dumb people.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Google algorithms are trivial to trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's smartest people are no more a threat to me than its smartest termites.

    5. Re:Google algorithms are trivial to trick by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I'd say it is split between shoveling ads at you, and slurping as much analytics/telemetry/etc. as much as they can, until the EU laws come into effect that will seriously put some pain on them.

    6. Re:Google algorithms are trivial to trick by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Smart or dumb, doesn't matter as long as they're leftists. Diversity really is our greatest strength!

  4. New normal? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Google bombs have been common for years now. If anything, they're the old normal.

  5. George W Bush still appears as "Miserable failure" by Subm · · Score: 0

    Searching for "Miserable Failure", George W. Bush still dominates the top results.

    Can we finally conclude the result is legitimate?

  6. Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want a search for "More evil than Satan" to land directly on your company homepage, history has shown that the best way to avoid this scenario is making a minimal effort to be less evil than Satan.

  7. You get the news you deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google, Twitter, and Facebook are not in the business of delivering news. They are in the business of delivering you to advertisers. They don't care about fake news so long as the eyeballs keep coming. If you look to corporations for unbiased reporting then you get the news you deserve.

    1. Re:You get the news you deserve by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Exactly...

      When the business of News is obviously in the tank for profits from advertisement, what do you expect from the likes of Google and Facebook? Unbiased commentary and search results? Please.... It's all about profits and getting paid to push advertisements onto your browser, you phone, your tablet, you big screen TV where you have to see them.

      The internet is starting to look and sound like a bazar where *everybody* from the kookiest on up get's paid the same way, ad clicks. The crazier you can be, the most interesting spectacle you can produce is what matters, not facts or truth. If you have enough money, you can also just buy viewership from the providers of spectacle but in the end, what you see is about money.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: You get the news you deserve by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      If you expect to find "unbiased reporting", you will be led like the sheep you are.

  8. Typo alert! by Archtech · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Today, in the era of fake news and Russian interference..."

    Presumably this should read

    "Today, in the era of fake news about Russian interference..."

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  9. Missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's missing the case where Google, Twitter, etc. are the SOURCE of the false/misleading information, and it is THEM who are "Google bombing" search results.

  10. Re:George W Bush still appears as "Miserable failu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George W. Bush was a progressive masquerading as a conservative. He did more for eroding American freedoms than any other president. As far as he's concerned he was a resounding success.

  11. Forget Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get the original book on bomb making.

    1. Re:Forget Google... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Pay $33 to Jeff Bezos for a hardcover copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook?

      Truly irony *is* dead.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Forget Google... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Shitty affiliate link detected!
      Fuck off!

    3. Re: Forget Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creimer affiliate link. Please mod down.

  12. Re:#MAGA #TrumpGonnaDeportTheRagheads by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're just jealous because they took your job because they could do it faster and cheaper than you could.

  13. Re:George W Bush still appears as "Miserable failu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, repeating something enough times eventually makes it true?

    No thanks, that's not how things are supposed to work.

  14. Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the "russian interference" only started for this election and before it was all flowers and sunshine?
    As long as you educate well enough your population, people will understand the different messages that is aired and choose well. But if someone was purposefully dumbing down education, I could see why having external messages be a problem.

    Just a quick really interesting interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    capcha: matrix
    Fitting I'd say

  15. And it's all not his fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because you elected an unprepared guy for such a dangerous post.

    Let that be a lesson so that you vote with greater care in the future and never repeat that same mistake again.

    Oh, wait...

  16. Re: #MAGA #TrumpGonnaDeportTheRagheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deyyyy tewkkkk ourrr jerbbzzzzz?

  17. ENOUGH "Russian Interference" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    .. we all know it's a line of BS being blown out of proportion to get people to support stupidity against Russia.

    1. Re:ENOUGH "Russian Interference" by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      FTFA: "I hope for a time when, for example, experienced editors—who know how to assess content for accuracy, research, and presentation"

      OP is obvious Rushing Troll(tm). Why are the editors allowing this? We need The Federation to step in!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:ENOUGH "Russian Interference" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who's "we" here? I have yet to see a single whiff of evidence that it wasn't Russians! And until I do, I will have no reason to think otherwise.

  18. It's been a quick decline by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    My friend looks up my social media account through google and slowly they got pushed to the second page. I mentioned search results had started to suck since last year and he told me about my social media stuff and it made me wonder why google's search has been worse and worse. Russians I guess, they did it all!!!

  19. Odd that fake news is now a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the era of fake news
     
    We heard "Faux News!!!111!!!" as a dismissal for anything that was reported that they didn't like for years and now the left is upset because the right is doing the same thing? Wow. Just wow. The left is crazier than most of us thought. They're digging their own hole. This "crisis" was brought about by their own hand and I'm glad to see it. The sooner we get a bit of integrity the sooner we can stop this race to the bottom.

  20. You fuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could be a pile of shit out of someone's asshole!

  21. Information distrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll quickly realize that we cannot trust the information we see. Google is not infallible, and the value that it has to us is proportional to the reliability of its results. If someone invents a better search engine that produces better results, we'll use that instead. But I think it is unlikely that we'll come across a perfect system for managing information and discerning the difference between fact, opinion and intentional deception.
    Before the Internet Age we had Newspapers. They had the same problems and never did solve them either. We trusted newspaper articles up to a point because we also know there were mistakes and intentional abuse in the past. (now you shouldn't trust newspaper, it's a dying medium and it could start becoming erratic soon.)

    Trust no one is an impractical philosophy. Trust, but verify is how a pragmatic approaches this problem of misinformation and disinformation that has been with us since ancient times.

    1. Re:Information distrust by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Trust, but verify

      "Trust but verify" makes no logical sense at all, and never has. If you're verifying, then trust is not required.

    2. Re:Information distrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust, but verify

      "Trust but verify" makes no logical sense at all, and never has. If you're verifying, then trust is not required.

      It's a Russian expression - Doveryai, no proveryai

  22. I find it curious... by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    ...that the OP mentioned "fake news" and "Russian Interference" in the same sentence inveighing against bad information spread widely.

    --
    -Styopa
  23. I believe by pprboy · · Score: 1

    half of what I see, nothing of what I hear, and only some of what I read without checking and questioning.
    but then I've been around a looong time.
    and I've been burned, hence my skepticism

    In the initial stages of a disaster you will get extremely detailed information.
    It will be wrong
    how long this lasts depends on many factors

  24. Re:JEWgle Judenbaums != normal at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be stating facts. They try to hide your posts with minus mods and JustAnotherOldGuy is your proof https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11228639&cid=55361525/

  25. JEWgle JUDENbaums = filthy abnormal enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/

    Harvey Weinstein the child molester tops it all off.

    There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:

    1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)

    2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)

    3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.

    They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.

    The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a wa

    1. Re:JEWgle JUDENbaums = filthy abnormal enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews try hide what they can't deny in your post 6 times now. Proof is this deluded psyhopath scumbag jew https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11228639&cid=55361525/ and they can't stand it. I am laughing at those Harvey Weinstein swine.