Slashdot Mirror
Google News Will Purge Sites Masking Their Country of Origin (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg:
Google moved to strip from its news search results publications that mask their country of origin or intentionally mislead readers, a further step to curb the spread of fake news that has plagued internet companies this year. To appear in Google News results, websites must meet broad criteria set out by the company, including accurately representing their owners or primary purposes. In an update to its guidelines released Friday, the search giant added language stipulating that publications not "engage in coordinated activity to mislead users."
Additionally the new rules read: "This includes, but isn't limited to, sites that misrepresent or conceal their country of origin or are directed at users in another country under false premises." A popular tactic for misinformation campaigns is to pose as a credible U.S. news outlet. Russian Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-backed organization, used that technique to reach an audience of nearly 500,000 people, spread primarily through Twitter accounts, Bloomberg reported earlier.
Additionally the new rules read: "This includes, but isn't limited to, sites that misrepresent or conceal their country of origin or are directed at users in another country under false premises." A popular tactic for misinformation campaigns is to pose as a credible U.S. news outlet. Russian Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-backed organization, used that technique to reach an audience of nearly 500,000 people, spread primarily through Twitter accounts, Bloomberg reported earlier.
This is not rocket science.
"This includes, but isn't limited to, sites that misrepresent or conceal their country of origin or are directed at users in another country under false premises." A popular tactic for misinformation campaigns is to pose as a credible U.S. news outlet.
How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news? One such site was mentioned by our president recently.
Now, to be fair, listen to this clip at the 1:38 mark.
Then you wonder why the ordinary folk fee the way they do, about our media.
Another arms race begins.
Let them do what they want- I won't be using Google News as long as they waste my screen space and my time. Why do they need three columns, two of which are mostly empty, for their presentation? Why do they need, in addition to the three columns, a header and a footer? Why do I only get 4 headlines per page-down, on a page 4 feet long?
Yes Slashdot and many other sites are also guilty. But you might expect Google to be more thoughtful; to offer some design leadership.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I entered the OP text into "Google Translate", here's what I got:
We're making a bunch of private rules which are ill-defined, fuzzy, and overly broad. We're going to couple these with selective enforcement backed by AI algorithms using a high false-positive rate, and use it to remove sites without warning or identifying what specific sections are in violation or what rules are violated.
In that way, Google will strip out all fake news, ensuring that only true and correct news remains.
They already exclude anything to the right of Trotsky.
It's even worse than that.
There are actual published papers, such as this one, that can't tell the difference between fake and real.
The cited paper specifically calls out the infamous spirit cooking article from InfoWars.
The problem is, although that article sparked a torrent of fake claims, everything actually presented in that article was verified. None of the "fakeness" came from the article, only by people repeating the information and adding hyperbole. John Podesta did get an invite, it was a spirit cooking invite, and Abramovic did in fact pose with a bloody goat's head. Nothing to do with Clinton, and Podesta declined the invite.
That article was roundly derided on the internet because it went against the narrative. It's now enshrined as a classic piece of fake news simply because the informations presented were politically motivated and "inconvenient".
It almost seems like we're entering a new age of internet news, where what is considered "fake" is judged by the consensus of likes and dislikes.
so they're gonna block foxnews, infowars and breitbart? sweet. so i can use google news again. that's great!
So Al Jazeera has an American office. Does that make their country of origin USA or Pakistan?
China owns a good chunk of some of the US media companies now and others kowtow their message to Chinese interests or they'll be cut out of the China market. Do "American" media companies then get automatic verified even though they're majorly backed by Chinese interests? Y'know... like GOOGLE?!
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/15/this-sputnik-moment/
"The experience of New Zealand and Australia suggests that what begins with the cultural and social progresses to the political. In November, an Australian commercial publisher postponed its commitment to publish a book by a highly respected professor, Clive Hamilton, detailing China’s efforts to shape and censor public expression in Australia. The clumsy cave-in to China’s sensitivities, reflecting rising Chinese pressure on Australian publishers and media companies, outraged the Australian public and appeared to confirm the book’s title: Silent Invasion: How China is Turning Australia Into a Puppet State.
More recently, as reported in the Telegraph this week, “An Australian MP was forced to quit over revelations he adopted pro-China positions after accepting donations from a wealthy Chinese property developer with links to China’s Communist Party.” As accounts have piled up of Chinese government-linked donations to Australia’s two major parties, Australia’s government has proposed legislation that would ban foreign donations to political parties and groups that lobby the government and institute a public register for foreign lobbyists. The political scandal—coming amid years of accelerating Chinese influence activities—may represent a “Sputnik moment” for Australia."
Who watches the watchers?
Stupid answer: in Soviet Russia, country of origin masks YOU!
Slightly less stupid answer: it won't work. They'll find some flaw, bodge, frig or loophole.
At the bottom of the
This is a very reasonable form of defense (this is information warfare after all) but I hope they coordinate with other sites too. Sure they know a bunch of Twitter accounts point to false/misleading news but will they then automatically alert Twitter so that they can investigate and possibly take down rings of accounts created to mislead or halt the links made by fooled bystanders?
I know this is a dangerous technology because it can be misused but the same could be said about the internet but we still have it. Information warfare is real and we've already been lambasted. It's time to defend ourselves.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Preved medved, rebyatki. Nakonets-to v google news budet menishe derima iz prokremlevskih smi.
Spasibo, Gugl!
Presumably Google AI is now able to read the minds of people posting articles to know their intention they harbor in their hearts with over 98% accuracy. Sometimes even when even the said people are completely unaware of it!
Google will stretch forth its will to censor and arbitrate discourse supported by brainless illiberal leftists
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
They are not trying to mask their country of origin, so they can still spread falsehood and mislead people to their content.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You should get the Blinkers browser extension. You tell it whether you're a Republican or Democrat and it filters out any sites that might cause you unpleasant cognitive dissonance and only shows you stuff you'll agree with.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
so they're gonna block foxnews, infowars and breitbart? sweet. so i can use google news again. that's great!
Google. Helping you build your liberal echo chamber since 1998, one biased filter at a time.
lucm, indeed.
No, it doesn't. Homosexuality indicates that they enjoy sexual activity with the same sex. It doesn't mean they can't procreate, or that they won't. Nor does it mean that the homosexual cannot, or will not, adopt. If they are prevented from adopting, that's a social issue — not a sexual one.
Turn in your Vulcan card as you leave the building, thanks for playing. There's a helpful novitiate at the door who will help you pull T'Pau's boot from your nethers.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You guys bitch when Google doesn't do anything about the fake news and political hacking, and then bitch more about when they do. I'm beginning to think you just like bitching about things.
Serbian scammers sculpting scandalous scoups sucks!
You guys bitch when Google doesn't do anything about the fake news and political hacking
This has never happened. You're the one posting fake news.
lucm, indeed.
if they intend to stick to their own words.
Fake news isn't the problem, it's the idiots in this country who believe it.
We should not be astonished that there is a full court press against education, science, and independent thinking in this country.
Strip from search results all of the companies that use domain hiding services, like Domain By Proxy. Force them to post their real contact information which gets you to a live human.
That will stop plenty of scammers, and unscrupulous companies, much better than what they currently propose.
This has never happened. You're the one posting fake news.
da Komrade. You are the one who has right. All the other ones are Sovietski fake sources.
No one has EVER bitched about "fake news" other than people who desperately need a scapegoat for Trump's victory, and these people's desperation is opening a massive gaping hole for the tech giants who control an ever-increasing amount of all human communication to start Ministry-of-Truthing the internet.
There's been bullshit floating around the internet for 30+ years and we've never needed big brother to help us sort through it before now.
Hey buddy, do you watch porn like that - only stuff you hate, and find unpleasing?
What people do is read opinion pieces about analysis of events, now some are very biased and and blind agendas, some might expose others bias, or their coverups.
Like wise, do you personally go out and read hours of anti-semitic stuff, just because its unpleasant cognitive dissonance and it doesnt agree with your truths? No you dont.
Everyone will read stuff they mostly agree with, or to find out who doesnt agree with you.
When US government-sponsored and corporate-sponsored/owned media target the population in countries where the US and its allies have certain political interests, you can bet they don't tout their US backing. Hell, even CNN doesn't make it clear that "we are from the US" in the international/non-English versions of their channel and website. Not to mention the fact that Facebook, Twitter, and Google News themselves originate in the US, and since they filter their content - anything they present is effectively US-origin material.
So, I'm pretty sure the only thing that's going to happen basically is that Google censors RT (http://www.rt.com) and independent progressive anti-establishment news sites (like The Intercept, WikiLeaks, AlterNet, World Socialist Website News, Counterpunch and so on) - most of which have already suffered demotion / erasure from search results.
. . . Slashdot has censored the "censorship" tag on this story.
Who needs a scapegoat? The responsibility for Trump's election is obvious. A faulty electoral system and an entrenched partisan division that would lead to a pair of space aliens being the leading contenders if they had the proper letter across from their names.
There's no desperation, except by those who are frenetically in denial that their standard-bearer is a corrupt, lying, fraudulent, pompous, charade of a man, and the fact is, we have needed help to sort through the lies, that's why dozens of websites exist for the express purpose of identifying them.
I mean, you could just assume if their lips are moving, that a politician is lying, but then we'd run out of rope.
Seriously, over and over again I'll follow a link to some local news site, and not once do they say on the story page what city their site or the story is in. You have to dig around on their site for some kind of address, and even sometimes that fails and you have to look them up on google or wikipedia. Those news sites have no clue how to manage presence in an international medium.
A faulty electoral system
What is the Connecticut Compromise? California knew the rules in 1850; no one was forcing them to apply for statehood.
Also, anyone bitching about the electoral college who isn't simultaneously bitching 100 times as hard about the Senate is, once again, selectively outraged and fishing for excuses.
There's no desperation, except by those who are frenetically in denial that their standard-bearer is a corrupt, lying, fraudulent, pompous, charade of a man, and the fact is, we have needed help to sort through the lies, that's why dozens of websites exist for the express purpose of identifying them.
"The sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day, and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were—in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less."
A faulty electoral system
What is the Connecticut Compromise?
A flawed and broken idea that was so badly done it was revised within years(seriously, by the second real election under it, the protocols were obviously faulty), and still fails us(after four documented examples), but we struggle onward with it(because we can't bother to do things right).
California knew the rules in 1850; no one was forcing them to apply for statehood.
Actually, the rules changed in the 1920s. That's when they stopped apportioning the House with new members, but forced a squeeze play, and back then, California was barely in the top 10. And Florida, well, Florida was still under a million.
Also, anyone bitching about the electoral college who isn't simultaneously bitching 100 times as hard about the Senate is, once again, selectively outraged and fishing for excuses.
Not only do I have little respect for the current legislative system, I've bitched about the apportionment in the House, and the nonsense that is the map of states as well. I know you can't know it, but I know what I've done, so I'm covered, thank you very much.
There's no desperation, except by those who are frenetically in denial that their standard-bearer is a corrupt, lying, fraudulent, pompous, charade of a man, and the fact is, we have needed help to sort through the lies, that's why dozens of websites exist for the express purpose of identifying them.
"The sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day, and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were—in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less."
Oh my, you can quote 1984.
But can you quote something like:
There were two things, they told Doremus, that distinguished this prairie Demosthenes. He was an actor of genius. There was no more overwhelming actor on the stage, in the motion pictures, nor even in the pulpit. He would whirl arms, bang tables, glare from mad eyes, vomit Biblical wrath from a gaping mouth; but he would also coo like a nursing mother, beseech like an aching lover, and in between tricks would coldly and almost contemptuously jab his crowds with figures and facts—figures and facts that were inescapable even when, as often happened, they were entirely incorrect.
But below this surface stagecraft was his uncommon natural ability to be authentically excited by and with his audience, and they by and with him. He could dramatize his assertion that he was neither a Nazi nor a Fascist but a Democrat—a homespun Jeffersonian-Lincolnian-Clevelandian-Wilsonian Democrat—and (sans scenery and costume) make you see him veritably defending the Capitol against barbarian hordes, the while he innocently presented as his own warm-hearted Democratic inventions, every anti-libertarian, anti-Semitic madness of Europe.
Give us something that expresses the real nature of the problem, not your badly veiled references to Antisemitism. That's just lazy. Lazy and shallow thinking.
A flawed and broken idea that was so badly done it was revised within years(seriously, by the second real election under it, the protocols were obviously faulty), and still fails us(after four documented examples),
It only "fails" if you assume in advance that it's supposed to be doing something it's explicitly not designed to do.
Actually, the rules changed in the 1920s. That's when they stopped apportioning the House with new members, but forced a squeeze play, and back then, California was barely in the top 10. And Florida, well, Florida was still under a million.
The rules for changing the rules were also part of the rules.
the while he innocently presented as his own warm-hearted Democratic inventions, every anti-libertarian, anti-Semitic madness of Europe.
You're seriously calling the biggest shill for Israel in recent memory an anti-semite? Do you even know how upset the (extremely few) real nazis are with Trump because of stuff like, for example, hiring Kusher and keeping him around despite being mostly useless? Every time a liberal starts frothing at the mouth about some potential scandal involving Kushner I just laugh at how clueless they are.
Give us something that expresses the real nature of the problem,
"The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure."
not your badly veiled references to Antisemitism.
Lolwut? Did I miss the news where Trump convert to judaism?
That's just lazy. Lazy and shallow thinking.
Says the one whose entire case against Trump amounts to litanies of single-word insults.
Pirates and evil sites use Cloudflare to mask their origin. Remove them.
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-android/issues/1743
Google masks its own country of origin. And for good legal reasons.
Pi Ca Chew
Ha ha
Speaking of which, they haven't blocked Fox or Brietbart either, that was just the paranoid ranting of a /. AC. You reacted like it had already happened.
Fake news indeed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
so they're gonna block foxnews, infowars and breitbart? sweet. so i can use google news again. that's great!
Google. Helping you build your liberal echo chamber since 1998, one biased filter at a time.
Thanks for your opinion, Ivan.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I go and listen to what liberal cunts have to say because it's so insane, over the top cut loose from all reality and they take it seriously and really mean it which makes it absolutely hilarious.
So why is RT still in Google News?
I never heard anyone telling people to question dogma, only to switch from one dogma to the other.
That's how America worked since the Mason-Dixon line. But recently a few big tech companies and the mainstream media have decided that one of the dogmas didn't deserve to be discussed anymore, discarding the fact that 49% of the population thinks otherwise, and they have used their power to push their agenda.
We need (at least) two points of view. But real ones. You know what I want for Christmas? Politicians who actually represent the values of their party and who go head to head on real issues, instead of having crooks and sociopath paving the way to WWIII in their scheming to get or keep power. Can you imagine having a Sanders / Romney debate? A debate where Sanders doesn't have to pretend he's in favor of unchecked immigration and where Romney doesn't have to pretend that he's opposed to abortion and gay marriage?
But no. Let's keep looking at $50,000 worth of foreign ads in a campaign where Trump/Clinton spend 80 millions and pretend this has changed the outcome, and let's also keep looking at a $2 million donation from Putin's cronies to the Clinton foundation to get a business deal approved by Clinton. As if the world didn't have more important issues to address.
lucm, indeed.
Google, Facebook, Twitter are actively engaged in pro-liberal agendas. CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post as well.
There is a reason why over the last century or so the first thing that leaders of military coups used to do was to take control of national radio, newspapers and later tv stations. It's because when you control information, you control people.
Yes, there's breitbart and fox news and a few others, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the giant liberal players. I don't know how things are in UK, maybe you can tell us, but here in America there is a de facto liberal monopoly over news, and it's not even difficult to see it.
lucm, indeed.
I just love big companys making the decisions about what i'm allowed to see.
captcha:democrat (lol. really.)
So deranking search results informs users?
How about going back to been a search engine and not just adding more SJW guidelines.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
the search giant added language stipulating that publications not "engage in coordinated activity to mislead users."
That would get rid of most mainstream media, no?
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
What I do care on the other hand is that fox news is spreading blatant lies. People keep complaining about "fake news" but the reality is one of the biggest purveyor was not the russian (which *maybe* did it for the election) but fox news which does it 365 days/year. They distort most of the time and outright lies sometimes. That may be my scientific training, I can't stand such bullshitter attitude.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The biggest question is "CNN is on that list?" if it is the I will be laughing. Google is Pravda :-)
I hear you loudly demanding the tyranny of the majority, while at the same time absolutely denying that trump won because the Clinton DNC proudly betrayed the working class and Trump gave them a voice. He's not a republican. The republicans don't like him. However, the middle class voted against shrill bitches in the political parties.
this can be easily fixed by throwing out the corporate overlords and going back to a party that actually represents the working class, but the political overlords won't let that happen,mans the progressives would riot.
A flawed and broken idea that was so badly done it was revised within years(seriously, by the second real election under it, the protocols were obviously faulty), and still fails us(after four documented examples),
It only "fails" if you assume in advance that it's supposed to be doing something it's explicitly not designed to do.
So you don't care that by its very nature, it doesn't work properly and effectively in giving America confidence in a meaningful election system, but instead papers up an excuse for a system that accomplishes nothing in any particularly meaningful way and tends towards a haphazard result that tends to fail with some regularity.
Well, if you accept that, then your standards are low enough why are we to give your opinion any consideration whatsoever?
Actually, the rules changed in the 1920s. That's when they stopped apportioning the House with new members, but forced a squeeze play, and back then, California was barely in the top 10. And Florida, well, Florida was still under a million.
The rules for changing the rules were also part of the rules.
Nope. They're not in the rules at all. It's an absence of contrary authority that lets the principles of sound governance be subordinated. That lack is yet another section of the problem. Long-established as recognized, but still, like so many things, nobody nerves themselves up to admit it.
Hence, of course, your protestation that the rules were set before the institution of a particular state (the choice of which reveals more of your own desire to stigmatize and scapegoat), which rather puts you in the place of your own words being faulty expressions of the reality of the situation on that basis alone. So no great shock what strenuous efforts you go to ignore any form of the iniquities in flawed governance.
A flaw, instituted by ignorance, warped by malice, as deeply offensive as could be. Yet you spend considerable effort to sputter and rage at the indignity at the mere thought of criticism of it. Mysteriously, of course, when it comes to your own, however, I suspect you are sharply insistent upon them being respected.
And hey, you left out part of my post:
Not only do I have little respect for the current legislative system, I've bitched about the apportionment in the House, and the nonsense that is the map of states as well. I know you can't know it, but I know what I've done, so I'm covered, thank you very much.
Tisk-tisk. I wanted to add a bit, namely about how Puerto Rico remains a second-class stepchild, the remaining remnant of American Colonialism. Now I have to add it in! It's ok, I'll also add in the quote you cut rather than read the whole.
There were two things, they told Doremus, that distinguished this prairie Demosthenes. He was an actor of genius. There was no more overwhelming actor on the stage, in the motion pictures, nor even in the pulpit. He would whirl arms, bang tables, glare from mad eyes, vomit Biblical wrath from a gaping mouth; but he would also coo like a nursing mother, beseech like an aching lover, and in between tricks would coldly and almost contemptuously jab his crowds with figures and facts—figures and facts that were inescapable even when, as often happened, they were entirely incorrect.
But below this surface stagecraft was his uncommon natural ability to be authentically excited by and with his audience, and they by and with him. He could dramatize his assertion that he was neither a Nazi nor a Fascist but a Democrat—a homespun Jeffersonian-Lincolnian-Clevelandian-Wilsonian Democrat—and (sans scenery and costume) make you see him veritably defending the Capitol against barbarian hordes, the while he innocently presented as his own warm-hearted Democratic inventions, every anti-libertaria
Why not let me decide what news is "fake" or fake? Censorship is a very slippery slope, and what starts as a well-meaning effort always ends up getting taken over. Let me inform myself and choose which source can be trusted and which ones need to be tossed out. I realize that Google can choose what sources it puts up on its website, and the criteria does make sense. But where does it stop?
I hear you loudly demanding the tyranny of the majority,
I notice you randomly inserting pet phrases without actually seeking substantial validation beforehand.
You really need to do less regurgitation and more cogitation.
while at the same time absolutely denying that trump won because the Clinton DNC proudly betrayed the working class and Trump gave them a voice.
Yes, yes, I see you insisting that the working class was betrayed by the Clinton DNC, and Trump gave them a voice. Hardly.
Trump is the one who has been betraying, exploiting, and disadvantaging them for decades, he's merely shouting more vehemently in his promises. But then I already quoted it.
There were two things, they told Doremus, that distinguished this prairie Demosthenes. He was an actor of genius. There was no more overwhelming actor on the stage, in the motion pictures, nor even in the pulpit. He would whirl arms, bang tables, glare from mad eyes, vomit Biblical wrath from a gaping mouth; but he would also coo like a nursing mother, beseech like an aching lover, and in between tricks would coldly and almost contemptuously jab his crowds with figures and facts—figures and facts that were inescapable even when, as often happened, they were entirely incorrect.
But below this surface stagecraft was his uncommon natural ability to be authentically excited by and with his audience, and they by and with him. He could dramatize his assertion that he was neither a Nazi nor a Fascist but a Democrat—a homespun Jeffersonian-Lincolnian-Clevelandian-Wilsonian Democrat—and (sans scenery and costume) make you see him veritably defending the Capitol against barbarian hordes, the while he innocently presented as his own warm-hearted Democratic inventions, every anti-libertarian, anti-Semitic madness of Europe.
Nonetheless, he actually made minimal gains, if any, and sometimes suffered losses as he underperformed George W. Bush in some places. Not exactly the hordes of support he believed, even aside from his fault claims about a rigged election or swarms of illegal voters.
He's not a republican. The republicans don't like him.
True, he's got no sense of support for a republic, but would prefer his own populist tyranny. That many of his erstwhile followers will loudly cheer as he insists on the need to unquestionably follow in his leadership is hardly surprising though, they don't understand the concept of a republic.
However, the middle class voted against shrill bitches in the political parties.
Nope. The top two got their votes, just as expected. Wasn't even a meaningful protest like good ole Ross Perot managed back in the days of the dinosaurs.
At most, you can say more people didn't vote, but what's that really mean?
Not so much. Really, you need to look at the data, and it doesn't show what you want at all.
this can be easily fixed by throwing out the corporate overlords and going back to a party that actually represents the working class, but the political overlords won't let that happen,mans the progressives would riot.
Yes, yes, the Democrats need to change, meanwhile the great Trump proclaims that their socialist perfidity is the greatest terror of it all, meanwhile, well...oh wait, I already quoted it.
Sorry man, but you've got it all backwards and wrongheaded. The corporate overlords are the ones who got the riotous masses to throw them in, and of course, Trump's bold proclamations of his overweening popularity and tide of support are clear indicates that the people want his strong authoritarian rule.
Or maybe not.
...to support net neutrality. Now that Google is editing the internet it's time to swing the anti trust hammer.
What explains this fetish for the working class? What is the working class?
> You guys bitch when Google doesn't do anything about the fake news and political hacking, and then bitch more about when they do. I'm beginning to think you just like bitching about things.
You are conflating two entirely different groups with two entirely different ideas about how to deal with contrary viewpoints.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Maybe the problem is on the consumer end?
Does Google have any journalists on its payroll? No? Then, why the fuck is anyone looking to Google for news?
People who rely on tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. for news are the problem. Social media is just that. It is social. In other words, it is gossip. And, gossip is rarely, if ever, driven by facts. It is almost ALWAYS driven by an agenda, by someone with an axe to grind. Don't like someone, spread nasty gossip about them.
Do you call your plumber when you want to have a pizza delivered? If you want news, real news, do NOT look to Silicon Valley. Look to the few remaining, decent journalism outlets. Support them before they go bust. Maybe, just maybe, the species can be saved.
Censorship is rarely if ever the answer. The fact that a giant alt left company is doing it does not make it better. The solution to propaganda and disinformation is more accurate, factual information, and historical perspective.
The reason we are in this mess to begin with is the news media degenerated from it's original goal of reporting "Just the facts, mam." to actively shilling for the alt left and the Democrats, often using he said/she said with no underlying facts or background on the parties involved or deeper investigation into the truth.
Thus, about 65% of the country (the 35% alt left don't even notice the echo chamber) have lost confidence in the MSM to give them the truth on any kind of contentious situation or topic. This was a long slide for the MSM, from the rise of talk radio in the 90s through to the foundation of online only outlets like Breitebart and The Drudge Report. At this point, the majority of people in the US spend more hours online than watching TV and it is just a natural extension that they would rather get their news online than listen to the alt left propaganda coming out of the MSM.
Russia is just the latest foreign power to recognize this trend and utilize it to spread their propaganda. People who get their "news" from Facebook or Google are at the same level as those who get it around the water cooler, as it is essentially gossip and not much more. Facebook and Google want it to be more, but until they start to honestly and impartially vet sources across the ideological spectrum, they are nothing more than another alt left gossip rag.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I'm getting loads of of French and Polish spam on my gmail accounts. Go Ogle wants to serve Norwegian ads on my phone when I'm connected on my Wi-FI network. I live 80 miles from the Norwegian border the way bird flies. My landlord is getting the Internet and IP-television from Viasat, a Norwegian company.
For the love of Pete ... we didn't need Russian "fake news" to not want to vote for Hillary. (Nor did most of use even see any, but whatever.)
No, really, we didn't. It's a great story to tell yourself, but we didn't. She was no-votable all by herself. With stuff she really did and said. Really.
this
Jump to a solution, any, right now!
Don't think, be stupid!
Stop the internal propaganda first, k?
Posting as AC to keep my mods. What Google is proposing seems to be technically impossible. If you're running a crew of Russian sockpuppets, you just buy a couple of dozen shell companies in the US, staff them with a few technicians who will keep their mouths shut, and send your content to the shell companies to post. It wouldn't surprise me if they were doing this already.
Can Google News filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
I don't think so.
Casteism