Do Not Trust Google(lukeboyle.com)
lukeboyle.com
Do Not Trust Google
https://lukeboyle.com/blog-posts/2020/08/do-not-trust-google
12 comments
Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing.
I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked.
That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked.
That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
This is exactly the problem, though. By suppressing this stuff, they validate the narrative that “THEY don’t want you to know the truth” (whoever the hell they is). This stuff doesn’t go away. It just migrates to different platforms and every time it’s taken down it gains credibility among the faithful.
This is the current paradox that plagues us.
This is the current paradox that plagues us.
Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add legitimacy to them
So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less visible?
This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts.
Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.
This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and facts.
Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.
Thanks for your point of view. I'm going to keep researching to find some alternative examples
> it gains credibility among the faithful.
Among whom it already had enough credibility.
Among whom it already had enough credibility.
I guess what I'm getting at there is, content aside, Google has made a conscious decision to step in here and de-rank that website. We don't know what their motivations for that are because they haven't stated that they de-ranked Breitbart.
Sundar Pichai was asked during testimony if they censor websites and he said (wording might be a bit off) "only in cases where it's a legal requirement or a copyright issue". If Breitbart being de-ranked was one of those then I'm sure they would have let Breitbart know. But as far as I can tell it was a concerted effort to suppress that website in particular.
If you come across any data about other sites that are similarly affected I'd love to know!
Sundar Pichai was asked during testimony if they censor websites and he said (wording might be a bit off) "only in cases where it's a legal requirement or a copyright issue". If Breitbart being de-ranked was one of those then I'm sure they would have let Breitbart know. But as far as I can tell it was a concerted effort to suppress that website in particular.
If you come across any data about other sites that are similarly affected I'd love to know!
Funny how people go all conspiracy on Google, with zero evidence, when we have actual evidence of known right-wing Facebook executives personally intervening to delete misinformation strikes against Breitbart et al.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook...
This seems like a legitimate HN story but it was flagged to oblivion when it was posted yesterday.
Don't talk to me about cancel culture.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook...
This seems like a legitimate HN story but it was flagged to oblivion when it was posted yesterday.
Don't talk to me about cancel culture.
How was that 3 hours of lectures by doctors faked, I'm curious. What about it was fake, and what about it was putting anyone In danger?
If this is an honest question, Snopes has a good rundown: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-do...
The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
Please try to avoid insults like "if it's an honest question".
Obviously the video isn't "fake". That's crying wolf. The video is real, you just don't like what those doctors have to say.
The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
Yeah, or maybe it's the opposite. That's a medical discussion. Snopes and Google should have nothing to do with it. And calling it fake is just manipulation.
Obviously the video isn't "fake". That's crying wolf. The video is real, you just don't like what those doctors have to say.
The video puts people in danger by telling them to not wear masks and instead take zinc.
Yeah, or maybe it's the opposite. That's a medical discussion. Snopes and Google should have nothing to do with it. And calling it fake is just manipulation.
Here's my problem with that. Twitter, Facebook, and Snopes likely don't have physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists on their staff. So who are they to determine truth or harmfulness of those doctors' positions? Snopes (and most of the media) largely attacked the unrelated views of one of the doctors. And yeah, she sounds like an odd duck. But that doesn't change the fact that FB and TWTR took it down for being "harmful," which they are not qualified to judge. Also, I find Snopes aggravating, because of stuff like this. They said they couldn't find evidence the doctor treated 200+ patients with COVID, thereby implying the doctor was lying. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack of truth. Plus, that's clinical data. Wouldn't it be illegal for Snopes to have access to that without patient consent?
It's all dogma and authoritarianism masquerading as science and reason. It's a dangerous time for free thought right now.
You do not have to be a qualified doctor to check the sources. You do have to be thorough in checking the consensus and recommendations of major health organisations and verify scientific papers, a lot of which is published in the open on for instance PubMed, big name journals etc.
This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research.
It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.)
And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public.
Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.
This one was easy - the claim was not backed by any amount of previously published research.
It is legal and easy to check for a registered trial. Something this big and cheap and likely to have major consequences should have been pre-registered. (Literally deadly consequences.)
And even if it were, it should be reproduced first before being followed by general public.
Most importantly article claims that it is unnecessary to wear masks, while the trial did not involve masks at all.
[deleted]
"- what kind of users go to that websites (and does the user searching fit that profile)?
- how much traffic does the website get?
- how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)?
- and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?"
Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'. It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get detailed insights". I know it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all this trickery has become...
- how much traffic does the website get?
- how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)?
- and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?"
Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'. It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get detailed insights". I know it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all this trickery has become...
Yeah absolutely, GA is quite terrifying. And they just ignore "do not track" settings on browsers. Recaptcha is another one trojan horse imo. With recaptcha v3 you get that single score to determine how legitimate of a user you are. I've been outright blocked from sites because of my recaptcha score.
> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Google is manually making these decisions to block conservative websites
So show us the evidence.
So show us the evidence.
The graphs of traffic flatlining overnight aren't convincing evidence to you?
There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in "Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories):
https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl...
See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".
There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in "Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories):
https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl...
See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".
I'll add some more sources to support that claim, but the main one would be about the Google exec meeting after Trump got elected. https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/13/media/google-leaked-video-t...
Haven't vetted this source but I believe it's the right one
Haven't vetted this source but I believe it's the right one
> As people increasingly are using search to navigate the web (as opposed to typing a URL into the address bar), this traffic increases, those people see more ads, Google makes more money.
Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay per click and not pay per impression?
Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay per click and not pay per impression?
The ads appear above search results and so are often clicked on.
Google puts ads organic search results, so there's a good chance your users will click your ad instead of the search result. And if you don't advertise, then your ad-buying competitors will show up in search results ahead of your own site, if your site shows up at all: https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gvdsu1/entire_googl...
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but perhaps a site trying to seriously discuss bias against Breitbart shouldn't use :ok: as a favicon.
invidio.us appears to be shutting down, which is a shame, as I was happy to learn there was a sort of startpage.com for youtube.
Yeah that's unfortunate. Seems like the maintainer is feeling burned out.
invidiou.site is another instance you can import your invidious data to
invidiou.site is another instance you can import your invidious data to
"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong."
I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier.
I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their 'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's more content to compete with too.
If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them ranking lower years down the road isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but a company serving the needs and desires of its users?
I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier.
I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their 'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's more content to compete with too.
If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them ranking lower years down the road isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but a company serving the needs and desires of its users?
I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion.
I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist
I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist
If a search engine should not take a stance, then who also should not? Publishers? (Incl. YouTube, which takes some big stances.) Libraries? Social media? Governments?!
Everything is political in some form after all.
Everything is political in some form after all.
Impressive mental backflips.
Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
Look at the graph in 2012 - it spiked UP a huge percent in a very short time. Then again in 2015 - looks like visibility doubled in 6 months. Was that 'deserved'? Was that 'censoring' other sites?
Doubling in six months is entirely normal behaviour for websites, that's not even especially fast. Viral growth is something seen many times, especially for news sites which can easily grow several multiples in 24 hours if something interesting is happening.
For traffic to drop to zero overnight when nothing much is happening, and especially for election related terms, is unheard of.
Look, elsewhere on HN there is a story about how Facebook banned Breitbart because they posted a video of doctors talking about COVID, and they banned Trump for saying children aren't infectious: a claim widely made by many scientists. Tech companies are utterly untrustworthy when it comes to Breitbart. They want to erase it from the internet because it's conservative and those firms have hired far, far too many extreme leftists who loathe anything conservative.
For traffic to drop to zero overnight when nothing much is happening, and especially for election related terms, is unheard of.
Look, elsewhere on HN there is a story about how Facebook banned Breitbart because they posted a video of doctors talking about COVID, and they banned Trump for saying children aren't infectious: a claim widely made by many scientists. Tech companies are utterly untrustworthy when it comes to Breitbart. They want to erase it from the internet because it's conservative and those firms have hired far, far too many extreme leftists who loathe anything conservative.
Withdraw unto yourself and your immediate/close community.
Sure, and then when they are wrong you go down with the ship, oblivious.
Hmmm... Btw that was a joke to showcase the universality of trade-offs. And the idea that you do you and with that comes the responsibility to bear the consequences. Anyway be well.
this is some pretty enlightened centrist content
29athrowaway(3)
Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking?
(Granting, yes, perfect balance for any actor or reference frame is impossible; and accepting that some degree of filtering-scare-quotes-censorship is a positive, pro-social quality in a search engine.)