Using censorship to fight censorship (don't actually do this) - DuckDuckgo to donkrank russian sites related to war.

[williamcll]

 

Popular search engine DuckDuckGo has decided to adjust search results related to the current Ukrainian-Russian conflict. This has led to controversy.

Quotes

Quote

DuckDuckGo founder Gabriel Weinberg's Wednesday announcement that the search engine would update its search results so websites known for spreading Russian disinformation would be downranked was not received well by its fans on Twitter. The decision was criticized by those who see the website as a counter to the filter bubbles created by other Big Tech companies. "It is sad to see DuckDuckGo join the ever-growing 'Ministry of Truth,'" tweeted Michael O'Fallon, founder of religious organization Sovereign Nations. "DuckDuckGo destroys their only value proposition with a single tweet," political commentator Tim Pool said. 

 

The downranking is not the company's first move to remove Russian influence from its platform. DuckDuckGo announced on March 1 that it had "paused" its partnership with German search engine Yandex as the war between Ukraine and Russia began. DuckDuckGo distinguished itself from other search engines by not tracking user data or selling that information to third parties while relying on affiliate links and nontargeted ads for its funding. This made DuckDuckGo notably popular with the Right, particularly those prone to seeking alternative perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines or the 2020 election. However, the company claims its user base has a mixture of political orientations based on internal surveys.

 

My thoughts

What's the point of using DDG if all the things you read are the same anyway? Seems very biased to think that disinformation only exists on one side when last week the "ghost of kiev" turned out to be just a video game recording.

>Inb4 tankie

 

Sources

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/duckduckgo-slammed-for-downrating-russian-search-results

[Kazooduck]

On 3/11/2022 at 8:54 AM, williamcll said:

 

Popular search engine DuckDuckGo has decided to adjust search results related to the current Ukrainian-Russian conflict. This has led to controversy.

Quotes

 

My thoughts

What's the point of using DDG if all the things you read are the same anyway? Seems very biased to think that disinformation only exists on one side when last week the "ghost of kiev" turned out to be just a video game recording.

>Inb4 tankie

 

Sources

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/duckduckgo-slammed-for-downrating-russian-search-results

My take is that they aren’t removing the false information, just making it harder for people to find it accidentally. If you want to read it its still there. In the end they made their algorithm and they didnt even need to make a public statement. The fact that they told their users is still respectable. They were never supposed to be a free search engine, just one stripped from trackers(not censorship).

Edited March 14, 2022 by Kazooduck
Browser > search engine

[starsmine]

What boggles my mind the most about this, is complaints I am reading from DDG users saying they use DDG for unbiased searches.... like that means something
It is mathematically impossible for an algorithm to not be biased. DDG already was biased towards websites that gamed their algorithm.

It already was biased. And when you have a country astroturfing the web with SEO disinformation, you need to pivot your algorithm otherwise your search results are useless. 
Its NOT saying disinformation only exists from one side or the other, its that they can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that there is a source of disinformation and it would behoove them to make a good faith attempt to change the algorithm to not be biased towards known sources.

If you are searching for Russian propaganda intentionally, DDG isnt delisting it, just down ranking it, you can still find what you are searching for. you just have to actually search for it rather then stumble into it when searching for something else.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

What boggles my mind the most about this, is complaints I am reading from DDG users saying they use DDG for unbiased searches.... like that means something
It is mathematically impossible for an algorithm to not be biased. DDG already was biased towards websites that gamed their algorithm.

It already was biased. And when you have a country astroturfing the web with SEO disinformation, you need to pivot your algorithm otherwise your search results are useless. 
Its NOT saying disinformation only exists from one side or the other, its that they can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that there is a source of disinformation and it would behoove them to make a good faith attempt to change the algorithm to not be biased towards known sources.

I dislike the slippery slope argument usually BUT....

 

Who exactly gets to decide what is and isn't misinformation? What evidence is that person using to make that decision? Isn't the entire concept of misinformation subjective?

 

We've seen it time and time again, apparent good faith changes that usually end in catastrophe because the wrong person was put in charge of the wrong thing, human bias kicked in and things were done that shouldn't have been.

 

Yes they should be trying to keep on top of SEO manipulation however a human actively choosing what is and isn't shown is going a bit too far. Just like there is no unbiased search engines, there are no unbiased people as well.

[Blademaster91]

Well all DDG did is de-rank results, not really censorship because if someone wants to read propaganda disinformation they're still going to find it.

But inb4 the lock this topic is politics.

[LuxorAB]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

What boggles my mind the most about this, is complaints I am reading from DDG users saying they use DDG for unbiased searches.... like that means something
It is mathematically impossible for an algorithm to not be biased. DDG already was biased towards websites that gamed their algorithm.

It already was biased. And when you have a country astroturfing the web with SEO disinformation, you need to pivot your algorithm otherwise your search results are useless. 
Its NOT saying disinformation only exists from one side or the other, its that they can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that there is a source of disinformation and it would behoove them to make a good faith attempt to change the algorithm to not be biased towards known sources.

But it's stated, that they're only lowering russian websites with desinformation.

Why not move lower all websites known for desinformation? Even if 90% are Russian, or whatever.

[Kazooduck]

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

What boggles my mind the most about this, is complaints I am reading from DDG users saying they use DDG for unbiased searches.... like that means something
It is mathematically impossible for an algorithm to not be biased. DDG already was biased towards websites that gamed their algorithm.

It already was biased. And when you have a country astroturfing the web with SEO disinformation, you need to pivot your algorithm otherwise your search results are useless. 
Its NOT saying disinformation only exists from one side or the other, its that they can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that there is a source of disinformation and it would behoove them to make a good faith attempt to change the algorithm to not be biased towards known sources.

If you are searching for Russian propaganda intentionally, DDG isnt delisting it, just down ranking it, you can still find what you are searching for. you just have to actually search for it rather then stumble into it when searching for something else.

Lol, i use ddg, but not for being unbiased, I’m fully aware that they are company trying to make money, i like the slightly more privacy focused ideaology than google, but i also like ducks

Edited March 11, 2022 by Kazooduck

[Kazooduck]

2 minutes ago, LuxorAB said:

But it's stated, that they're only lowering russian websites with desinformation.

Why not move lower all websites known for desinformation? Even if 90% are Russian, or whatever.

No, that’s just most relevant.

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I dislike the slippery slope argument usually BUT....

 

Who exactly gets to decide what is and isn't misinformation? What evidence is that person using to make that decision? Isn't the entire concept of misinformation subjective?

 

We've seen it time and time again, apparent good faith changes that usually end in catastrophe because the wrong person was put in charge of the wrong thing, human bias kicked in and things were done that shouldn't have been.

 

Yes they should be trying to keep on top of SEO manipulation however a human actively choosing what is and isn't shown is going a bit too far. Just like there is no unbiased search engines, there are no unbiased people as well.

Who is a person who tries to stay ethical about it. But to ask that question and say, let a known biased algorithm (aka all) rip without reflecting on it just seems far more reckless. 
What people can do, which a computer can not, is self reflect. 

You have to start (this isnt starting, they and all other makers of algorithms like this are constantly trying to tweak them to meet some arbitrary metric) somewhere and address issues as they come up in terms of magnitude of the issue. 

The Whataboutism towards other sources of disinformation is a bad argument, What about it? well argue they should address that to. Dont use that to say, Ignore problem A, because problem B exists.
 

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

The Whataboutism towards other sources of disinformation is a bad argument, What about it? well argue they should address that to. Dont use that to say, Ignore problem A, because problem B exists.

The thing is problem A and problem B aren't mutually exclusive.  They are very much intertwined.  The announcement that they are doing a targetted campaign against misinformation by a certain party is what bothers me.  If they are going to say "misinformation" then they very much need to put in the same effort to dissuade from the other side.

 

Examples being, when the western world were stating masks made no difference at the beginning...and people were getting censored for saying the truth [that masks were important].  During the Beijing protest there was a video that all the news sites posted showing the "police brutality" of a cop beating a man, but watching the full video (not shown on news sites) you see the protestor literally hitting the cop with a stick.

 

Or when the Canadian press decides to utilize total number count to express how bad things are elsewhere, when per capita counts are roughly the same.  There rarely is a day I go by watching the news where I see actual factual reporting (without bits of misinformation or lacking information misrepresenting what happened).

 

There is actually an US news company that I can think of right now that is equally bad at constantly putting up misinformation.  At a certain point, it's about how do you know something is misinformation.

 

The thing is, if they decide to tackle problem A, then they need to tackle problem B because otherwise it's just them essentially saying they getting political.  I think it's the general idea of filtering search results.  After all, if DDG was around for the invasion of Iraq would they be filtering the US sites that spread the word about WMD?

[starsmine]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The thing is problem A and problem B aren't mutually exclusive.  They are very much intertwined.  The announcement that they are doing a targetted campaign against misinformation by a certain party is what bothers me.  If they are going to say "misinformation" then they very much need to put in the same effort to dissuade from the other side.

 

Examples being, when the western world were stating masks made no difference at the beginning...and people were getting censored for saying the truth [that masks were important].  During the Beijing protest there was a video that all the news sites posted showing the "police brutality" of a cop beating a man, but watching the full video (not shown on news sites) you see the protestor literally hitting the cop with a stick.

 

Or when the Canadian press decides to utilize total number count to express how bad things are elsewhere, when per capita counts are roughly the same.  There rarely is a day I go by watching the news where I see actual factual reporting (without bits of misinformation or lacking information misrepresenting what happened).

 

There is actually an US news company that I can think of right now that is equally bad at constantly putting up misinformation.  At a certain point, it's about how do you know something is misinformation.

 

The thing is, if they decide to tackle problem A, then they need to tackle problem B because otherwise it's just them essentially saying they getting political.  I think it's the general idea of filtering search results.  After all, if DDG was around for the invasion of Iraq would they be filtering the US sites that spread the word about WMD?

Misinformation and disinformation are not the same thing, 

All disinformation is misinformation sure, but not all misinformation is disinformation. 

Misinformation is just wrong or misleading information, unintentionally or intentionally, disseminated.
Disinformation is wrong or misleading information Intentionally and maliciously disseminated. 

People get things wrong, and thats... ok, so long as they make a good faith effort to do better and try to be correct. It is incredibly hard to judge how good faith it actually was, but if someone honestly believes something and shares it, that's not disinformation. 

Disinformation, has intent, its astroturfing, gaslighting, etc. 

DDG did not say they are targeting misinformation, they said they are targeting disinformation, a much more malicious thing. 

Which is why this algorithm shift affects known SOURCES of disinformation, not the information itself. Its not making a judgement call on the information. 

[WolframaticAlpha]

I mean after all, try are already sourcing their results from bing's indices. They didn't just wholesale downgrade stuff like yandex indices from their algorithm. Personally, while I still use Google on my phone, I have a Firefox and DDG on my desktop and I am not switching. If you want to search for bad info, then so be it. You just have to scroll more now.

[wanderingfool2]

43 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Misinformation and disinformation are not the same thing, 

All disinformation is misinformation sure, but not all misinformation is disinformation. 

Misinformation is just wrong or misleading information, unintentionally or intentionally, disseminated.
Disinformation is wrong or misleading information Intentionally and maliciously disseminated. 

People get things wrong, and thats... ok, so long as they make a good faith effort to do better and try to be correct. It is incredibly hard to judge how good faith it actually was, but if someone honestly believes something and shares it, that's not disinformation. 

Disinformation, has intent, its astroturfing, gaslighting, etc. 

DDG did not say they are targeting misinformation, they said they are targeting disinformation, a much more malicious thing. 

Which is why this algorithm shift affects known SOURCES of disinformation, not the information itself. Its not making a judgement call on the information. 

Semantics.  You completely missed the entire point though.  Again, under the whole concept of censoring if they conclude they need to sensor russian disinformation then they NEED to also do the same for the west.   Examples again, being WMD in Iraq

 

The thing about disinformation and misinformation is all about the source.  Notice how all the examples I said can be construed as disinformation.  Again, the police brutality situation (intentionally dropping the bit where the officer was attacked first), WMD in Iraq (government said so, and the media ran with it), masks don't prevent spread (media took it an ran with it)...until the government said "new evidence" suggests it did.  Those are all disinformation campaigns that are misinformation because the bodies don't have as much evidence.

[williamcll]

1 hour ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

I mean after all, try are already sourcing their results from bing's indices. They didn't just wholesale downgrade stuff like yandex indices from their algorithm. Personally, while I still use Google on my phone, I have a Firefox and DDG on my desktop and I am not switching. If you want to search for bad info, then so be it. You just have to scroll more now.

So instead you get Ukrainian misinformation.

 

No side is innocent in this conflict.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, williamcll said:

So instead you get Ukrainian misinformation.

 

No side is innocent in this conflict.

Now that's a flamin hot take right there

[Brooksie359]

38 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Semantics.  You completely missed the entire point though.  Again, under the whole concept of censoring if they conclude they need to sensor russian disinformation then they NEED to also do the same for the west.   Examples again, being WMD in Iraq

 

The thing about disinformation and misinformation is all about the source.  Notice how all the examples I said can be construed as disinformation.  Again, the police brutality situation (intentionally dropping the bit where the officer was attacked first), WMD in Iraq (government said so, and the media ran with it), masks don't prevent spread (media took it an ran with it)...until the government said "new evidence" suggests it did.  Those are all disinformation campaigns that are misinformation because the bodies don't have as much evidence.

They aren't censoring though. You can still find the info it's just not at the too anymore. They are doing this by entity so If you censored both sides as you suggest then who is left to deliver news? Because unfortunately basically all new sources like to spin things and and not 100% accurate. 

[Ydfhlx]

Today Russia is the enemy, and it is clear to anybody.

 

However, yesterday truckers were the enemy; and who knows who will be tommorow. I'm worried about this concept of government/corporations controlling what you can or can't see being normalised.

[wanderingfool2]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They aren't censoring though. You can still find the info it's just not at the too anymore. They are doing this by entity so If you censored both sides as you suggest then who is left to deliver news? Because unfortunately basically all new sources like to spin things and and not 100% accurate. 

My point is that both sides are spinning their own narratives, and if they are willing to downgrade the searches (which pretty much has a same kind of effect of censoring) then it does create issues.  Don't get me wrong, it's a tricky situation to navigate, but to effectively nerf the order it shows just because it's viewed as disinformation is a very dangerous precedent to set.  Again, if WMD/Iraq kind of rhetoric happened now should DDG filter the western sites for pushing that narrative/hiding the truth? 

[LuxorAB]

22 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They aren't censoring though. You can still find the info it's just not at the too anymore. They are doing this by entity so If you censored both sides as you suggest then who is left to deliver news? Because unfortunately basically all new sources like to spin things and and not 100% accurate. 

But the aren't removing or moving credible sites. Only russian sites spreading desinformation. How is it better than just "sites spreading desinformation" in general?

 

Hot take: You also can find all the info without moving anything. It's not like desinformation removes any other results.

[Blademaster91]

56 minutes ago, williamcll said:

So instead you get Ukrainian misinformation.

 

No side is innocent in this conflict.

There is a significant difference with misinformation, using combat sim game footage is probably misinformation, and doesn't really detract from factual info.

And disinformation, which is intentional false info or refusing to report news, anyone paying attention to the news knows who is gaslighting.

[Brooksie359]

13 minutes ago, LuxorAB said:

But the aren't removing or moving credible sites. Only russian sites spreading desinformation. How is it better than just "sites spreading desinformation" in general?

 

Hot take: You also can find all the info without moving anything. It's not like desinformation removes any other results.

Well to be fair the Russian news is run by the government and is used specifically to spread their version of the facts so it kinda makes sense that if you are trying to get an accurate account of the facts then the Russian news isn't a great source of info so I don't blame them for this decision. Is there misinformation on both sides? Absolutely but you have to realize that there is a difference when the government runs the news vs third parties.

[thechinchinsong]

I'm fine with this censorship. It's reasonable in my opinion. There will be censorship and always will be some level of censorship whether that comes from a individual, an organization, a company, a government, or a culture. What's new nowadays is that people actually know that things are censored and depending on where you live, have certain ability to seek out uncensored information or information that is censored in a different way.

[starsmine]

In this thread, multiple people conflating misinformation and disinformation repeatedly, after it getting spelled out for them... repeatedly.

yes its semantics, but its semantics with a distinction. Its the literal don't attribute malice to what can be attributed to ignorance. Truckers may have been disinformed, but after that truckers were spreading misinformation because they actually they thought what they knew was correct.  WMD there was some... noncredible evidence. And yes you can say in retrospect they were wrong, and that there is a strong chance disinformation was at play... but only after the fact could you say that, with confidence. This whataboutism DOES NOT APPLY. You have to be able to say with zero doubt that wrong information was propagated intentionally to call it disinformation.
And yes you can look back to moments where it was used and say what about. but also recognize you did not have the tools to prove that at the time. 

You can make arguments x or y is disinformation, but its very difficult to say x or y IS.
Stop both siding the issue, stop doing whataboutisms. 
Instead argue something is disinformation and also should be down ranked. If you have evidence of Ukraine pumping out disinformation, cool, present that to DDG so those government agencies can also be down ranked, but dont argue something is disinformation just because it turned out to be not fully correct.
 

[wanderingfool2]

3 minutes ago, starsmine said:

In this thread, multiple people conflating misinformation and disinformation repeatedly, after it getting spelled out for them... repeatedly.

yes its semantics, but its semantics with a distinction. Its the literal don't attribute malice to what can be attributed to ignorance. Truckers may have been disinformed, but after that truckers were spreading misinformation because they actually they thought what they knew was correct.  WMD there was some... noncredible evidence. And yes you can say in retrospect they were wrong. This whataboutism DOES NOT APPLY.
 

No there wasn't, the amount of evidence is likely the same amount of inteligence that Russia is current using.  The fact is, I think it's a very dangerous move to say they are doing it for "disinformation" again, all of the examples I wrote were disinformation.  Sure I used the word misinformation, but there isn't much difference between misinformation and disinformation when the media parrots the governments stance.  Otherwise, I could claim some of the Russian sites that are going to be downgraded for disinformation are merely just presenting the information that is being said by the government.

 

I get that there is a difference between what is going on, but things should be held equally.  It's why I am saying it's semantics, because the cases I said can very well be construde as disinformation.   Again, start of the pandemic (even when it was clear it was being spread by air-bourne) the government response was still that masks weren't necessary [with a general though being they said so to try protecting the supply chain for N95]...but it was still information that was put out to the media by the government.

 

You think whataboutism doesn't apply, but the fact is when beginning to talk about censorship yea it very much applies.

[Kazooduck]

3 minutes ago, Caroline said:

Who defines what's "false information" though? under what criteria?

"I don't like this guy so everything he says is a lie/fake news and people should believe me instead" kind of?  dumb af.

I was intentionally vague, the whole point is ddg is a corporation with their own views. They aren’t removing items from search like google does, and they are being transparent about their *choices*, so it shouldn’t negatively affect the end user. If you want a completely customizable cencorship free search engine that looks through multiple databases, try SearX, i just don’t care enough right now.