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."

4 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.