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

[suicidalfranco]

How to kill your business with one tweet

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

I never said it did, I think you're missing the point which is that Humans are biased and make mistakes. They might believe something to be true when it isn't.

right, but you are asking who "decides" if something is true or not. no one does. Its either true, not true, or unverifiable.

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

When you go home you say to your Wife, "Hey honey, did you know that 7 ate 9 because of X?". Did you just lie to your wife?

yes. That is spreading misinformation.

[Middcore]

46 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

How to kill your business with one tweet

 

What we have here is a case where a business's customers found out too late the business's product wasn't what they thought it was, and a business finding out too late many of its customers are nucking futs. 

[starsmine]

48 minutes ago, poochyena said:

right, but you are asking who "decides" if something is true or not. no one does. Its either true, not true, or unverifiable.

yes. That is spreading misinformation.

or context matters, like is brown a color?

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

right, but you are asking who "decides" if something is true or not. no one does. Its either true, not true, or unverifiable.

Fair enough but you don't seem to grasp the issue still. There is a huge difference between knowingly spreading false information and passing on what you believe to be true but really isn't.

 

As I said earlier, one is ignorance, the other is malicious.

 

You cannot be lying if you genuinely believe that what you are saying is true. Wrong? Yes. Lying? Nope.

[steelo]

I'm pretty disappointed over ddg's decision. I understand Russian disinformation is potentially harmful, but as I've mentioned on another thread, the end user is the one who should decide. 

 

Yes, I know the ddg CEO doesn't really give a rats behind that I just uninstalled their browser. However, they have lost my faith and I have no real reason to use their search engine over any other that very openly skews search results.

[gamagama69]

On 3/11/2022 at 12:07 PM, 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.

Me, I decide. Your wrong, I'm right.

[starsmine]

21 minutes ago, steelo said:

I'm pretty disappointed over ddg's decision. I understand Russian disinformation is potentially harmful, but as I've mentioned on another thread, the end user is the one who should decide. 

 

Yes, I know the ddg CEO doesn't really give a rats behind that I just uninstalled their browser. However, they have lost my faith and I have no real reason to use their search engine over any other that very openly skews search results.

The end user does still decide here. Nothing is being delisted, you can still find the Russian disinformation if you search for it.

Down ranking only makes other tangential searches more accurate to what the person is actually searching for. 

[steelo]

7 minutes ago, starsmine said:

The end user does still decide here. Nothing is being delisted, you can still find the Russian disinformation if you search for it.

Down ranking only makes other tangential searches more accurate to what the person is actually searching for. 

Maybe, but what incentive does one have to use ddg's search engine over any other? Sure, I might be able to find the information on page 12, but why would I do that?

 

What assurances do I have that they are not down ranking info based on their own political views?

[starsmine]

15 minutes ago, steelo said:

Maybe, but what incentive does one have to use ddg's search engine over any other? Sure, I might be able to find the information on page 12, but why would I do that?

Im so lost to your complaint here. 
DDG has only ever advertised itself a privacy focused, and non targeted ads rather then collecting your user data.
Never once have they advertised as "non bias "because that would be a lie, as in that's mathematically impossible, and anyone who claims they want this has a shockingly poor understanding on how algorithms with this much data works. You only have to think about how you can search for any individual keyword and get junk back. Like oh I want to learn about space grade technology, and instead get a hit from every single space science fiction show in existence.

Lets take an example, if you searched for, say, Where is the closest super massive black hole to earth, you would hope the algorithm would return the results of center of the universe, rather then some SEO spam filled website with a bunch of key words that just makes a your mom joke. That is a useless result. Or some weird cult trying to recruit people and say there is a black hole in the center of the earth.

If you searched, what is the current situation in Ukraine, you would want accurate information. Not literal lies Astroturfed and SEO blasted website. those are literally useless results, but people will go, oh its number 2 in my results, it must be true.

If you want to see state DISINFORMATION on it, you would search Russian state media on Ukraine,  you would get the Russian state media statements on Ukraine, as a top page result even.

Down ranking only effects tangential searches like I said, as in searches where DISINFORMATION is not wanted or welcomed 

Im sure every single person here has had run ins with websites like these, where you go, oh I wonder if Grand theft auto 6 was announced, googled it, and because no legit news exists every single result is some SEO bot made website just trying to get clicks. 

[steelo]

6 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Im so lost to your complaint here. 
DDG has only ever advertised itself a privacy focused, and non targeted ads rather then collecting your user data.
Never once have they advertised as "non bias "because that would be a lie, as in that's mathematically impossible, and anyone who claims they want this has a shockingly poor understanding on how algorithms with this much data works. You only have to think about how you can search for any individual keyword and get junk back. Like oh I want to learn about space grade technology, and instead get a hit from every single space science fiction show in existence.

Lets take an example, if you searched for, say, Where is the closest super massive black hole to earth, you would hope the algorithm would return the results of center of the universe, rather then some SEO spam filled website with a bunch of key words that just makes a your mom joke. That is a useless result.

If you searched, what is the current situation in Ukraine, you would want accurate information. Not literal lies Astroturfed and SEO blasted website. those are literally useless results, but people will go, oh its number 2 in my results, it must be true.

If you want to see state DISINFORMATION on it, you would search Russian state media on Ukraine,  you would get the Russian state media statements on Ukraine, as a top page result even.

One of the main appeals of ddg was that they claimed not to skew or downgrade search results. Yes, I don't care to read Russian disinformation, but WHO decides what is disinformation and what is not? This is a dangerous path, especially when politics are so polarized right now.

[starsmine]

  

1 minute ago, steelo said:

One of the main appeals of ddf was that they claimed not to skew search results.

 

DDG has never claimed that, or implied that, ever. because ITS IMPOSSIBLE. I have no idea where people are getting this idea, or why its being spread. There is no such thing, and anyone who pretends that there is a way to do that without giving you only noise, is trying to sell you a flying pig from planet X. 

2 minutes ago, steelo said:

Yes, I don't care to read Russian disinformation, but WHO decides what is disinformation and what is not? This is a dangerous path, especially when politics are so polarized right now.

Its a provable known source of disinformation. what do you mean who decides and it being a dangerous path

Thats like saying its dangerous for a search engine to down rank the your mom joke or down rank the cult claiming the center of the earth is the closes black hole to earth.

As I have also said, its not the information that is being downranked. It's specifically RUSSIAN STATE MEDIA, known source. its making ZERO judgement on what is or is not disinformation.

[steelo]

17 minutes ago, starsmine said:

  

DDG has never claimed that, or implied that, ever. because ITS IMPOSSIBLE. I have no idea where people are getting this idea, or why its being spread. There is no such thing, and anyone who pretends that there is a way to do that without giving you only noise, is trying to sell you a flying pig from planet X. 

Its a provable known source of disinformation. what do you mean who decides and it being a dangerous path

Thats like saying its dangerous for a search engine to down rank the your mom joke or down rank the cult claiming the center of the earth is the closes black hole to earth.

As I have also said, its not the information that is being downranked. It's specifically RUSSIAN STATE MEDIA, known source. its making ZERO judgement on what is or is not disinformation.

What you fail to see is that, this filtering of 'disinformation' will likely grow based upon ddg execs political leanings. It's just human nature.

 

I welcome you to do a search of a controversial subject using googles search engine. Now, use ddg and notice just how much google skews and downgrades certain results.

[starsmine]

You are making this about partisanship when its not. 

Its literally known lies (aka disinformation) used as propaganda. Its not misinformation here, its malicious Disinformation from a source. and you can, and i cant stress this enough. Still find it by searching for it, its just not applicable to tangential searches where the information is not applicable because of being down ranked. And again, I cant stress this enough, its not down ranking the disinformation itself, its down ranking the SOURCES. Your favorite news media outlet can still report on it, and still have it be top result on your DDG searches with tangential searches

There is no slippery slope here. 

[steelo]

11 minutes ago, starsmine said:

You are making this about partisanship when its not. 

When any search engine owned by a partisan corporation with biases of their own filter the results it doesn't want you to see based on politics, it absolutely is.

 

Corporations serving as information 'gatekeepers' is a very dangerous thing.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, steelo said:

One of the main appeals of ddg was that they claimed not to skew or downgrade search results. Yes, I don't care to read Russian disinformation, but WHO decides what is disinformation and what is not? This is a dangerous path, especially when politics are so polarized right now.

You realize the entire job of a search engines is to get good search results aka they have to prioritize some information providers over others otherwise who would you list first? Who would be listed second? This is based on algorithms that do the prioritizing. Also if you think Google and any other search engine isn't doing the same then you are sadly mistaken. Also the fact that you think Russian government run propaganda being put lower on search engine results is taking a political stance is kinda crazy as that is what any normal search engine would do if it was working properly. 

[starsmine]

13 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You realize the entire job of a search engines is to get good search results aka they have to prioritize some information providers over others otherwise who would you list first? Who would be listed second? This is based on algorithms that do the prioritizing. Also if you think Google and any other search engine isn't doing the same then you are sadly mistaken. Also the fact that you think Russian government run propaganda being put lower on search engine results is taking a political stance is kinda crazy as that is what any normal search engine would do if it was working properly. 

To give him some credit. he did claim google is doing it (whatever it is) worse. 

[ewitte]

The problem with "fighting disinformation" is there is always someone making that decision for you...

 

 

[steelo]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You realize the entire job of a search engines is to get good search results aka they have to prioritize some information providers over others otherwise who would you list first? Who would be listed second? This is based on algorithms that do the prioritizing. Also if you think Google and any other search engine isn't doing the same then you are sadly mistaken. Also the fact that you think Russian government run propaganda being put lower on search engine results is taking a political stance is kinda crazy as that is what any normal search engine would do if it was working properly. 

Yes, I am fully aware of how google skews results. Do I understand HOW it works? No, and I'd venture to say 99% of the world has no clue either. I also understand filtering out the garbage results. In the case of google and others, it has been revealed that they've skewed search results on known political opponents/allies and movements. This is not banning disinformation, this is banning information they don't like.

 

The issue I have is these algorthms are written by people with their own political beliefs. 

[steelo]

2 hours ago, ewitte said:

The problem with "fighting disinformation" is there is always someone making that decision for you...

 

 

And that really is my point. It is a bit troubling to me that these corporations, who often donate heavily to specific political parties get to decide what we are allowed to see and not see.

 

It almost sounds like a conflict of interest, but what do I know...

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, steelo said:

Yes, I am fully aware of how google skews results. Do I understand HOW it works? No, and I'd venture to say 99% of the world has no clue either. I also understand filtering out the garbage results. In the case of google and others, it has been revealed that they've skewed search results on known political opponents/allies and movements. This is not banning disinformation, this is banning information they don't like.

 

The issue I have is these algorthms are written by people with their own political beliefs. 

The issue is that there is going to be one source that is going to be proritzed over the other so as to determine what comes first and what comes second and so forth. In this case they are moving a known entity that is responsible for Russian propaganda that includes many lies down the priority list like any sane person would do. I feel like you are attributing this so much to politics when it is largely them not wanting organizations who deliberately distribute false information to be at the top of the list for obvious reasons. 

[LuxorAB]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

when it is largely them not wanting organizations who deliberately distribute false information to be at the top of the list for obvious reasons. 

Then why it isn't stated in that way?

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, LuxorAB said:

Then why it isn't stated in that way?

It was stated that way. They legit just said that they are downgrading websites that's are associated with Russia misinformation. Sure they also said they stand by Ukraine as well but tbh I don't see that as a very radical stance seeing as a metric ton of companies have done the same be it banning their products from Russia or shutting down their stores in Russia. 

[Kisai]

On 3/11/2022 at 9:07 AM, Master Disaster said:

 

 

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?

 

 

What you do is you analyze the subject and pick the judges based on objectivity.

Is it about Covid? Then you listen to people who actually work on pandemics. Not clowns on entertainment shows.

Is it about War? Then you listen to journalists actually out on the field, because there's no objectivity with war. You definitely do not listen to state-run/owned news services (which includes RT, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, etc) , these sources exist, but you're not going to get objective information out of it. It will either be tilted towards the presently elected government, or tilted towards the status-quo.

 

But you know what's worse? Corporate-owned news sources (pretty much everything in the US.) They have a responsibility to their shareholders, so they're going to throw away stories that aren't going to generate advertisement revenue. 

 

The closest thing we have out there for unbiased fact-checking is snopes.com. You definitely do not want some corporate entity owning that site. That is what Facebook uses for fact checking.

 

 

[steelo]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The issue is that there is going to be one source that is going to be proritzed over the other so as to determine what comes first and what comes second and so forth. In this case they are moving a known entity that is responsible for Russian propaganda that includes many lies down the priority list like any sane person would do. I feel like you are attributing this so much to politics when it is largely them not wanting organizations who deliberately distribute false information to be at the top of the list for obvious reasons. 

I am not arguing that deprioritizing Russian propaganda is a bad thing. However, as I and several others have stated, this is a very slippery slope. It is all too easy for a corporation to see a certain political side as 'evil' or 'misinformed' and therefore label everything they say as 'disinformation'. This often is based on the cancel culture we are currently living in...ban the speech from the people we don't like or we will boycott and harass you into submission...Of course there ARE situations where hate speech that presents a danger to society should be banned.

 

You keep mentioning that you feel my posts are politically based. To an extent, they are. In my opinion, it is imperative that (American) society have free speech to share information, even if a certain group dislikes this information. And yes this includes information that goes against my personal beliefs as well. I have faith that the majority of my fellow neighbors will do their research and come to an intelligent conclusion without a tech corporation skewing results and essentially making the decision for them.

 

They are playing a dangerous game when it comes to information gatekeeping.