Daily Mail owner sues Google over search results(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Daily Mail owner sues Google over search results
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56828173
377 comments
I could absolutely believe that there is a "quality" ranking that pushes Daily Mail stories down because the domain contains such poor quality content, or that the pages are loaded down with so much crap that people hit 'back' almost immediately after clicking on one of their links.
That said, and as much as it pains me to side with the Daily Mail on anything, I think there's an interesting argument to be made here that Google's "quality" ratings are entirely opaque and the public should be given better access to them.
That said, and as much as it pains me to side with the Daily Mail on anything, I think there's an interesting argument to be made here that Google's "quality" ratings are entirely opaque and the public should be given better access to them.
Here’s a Google AMP page of a Daily Mail page that crashes on every page load for me on my iPhone’s default Safari browser. They probably need to hire a front-end developer or web performance specialist to diagnose it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...
Slow or failing page loads negatively affect search rankings on all search engines & 80% of users abandon your site if it takes more than 10 seconds to load.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...
Slow or failing page loads negatively affect search rankings on all search engines & 80% of users abandon your site if it takes more than 10 seconds to load.
This became my most upvoted comment of all time (+22) so it must’ve gotten a lot of attention and is probably worth me following up on. The Google AMP link above now loads impressively fast in under 1.5 seconds in the same iPhone Safari browser. If you click-through the AMP link to get to the Daily Mail’s full version of the page, that loads in 9-10 seconds on the first view and about 6 seconds on subsequent (cached) views.
WFM
Safari is notoriously the new IE. It's probably a perfectly spec-compliant page that happens to trigger a bug.
The problem with that is if people know the exact formula for quality, sites can work to game it. Basically, once the formula for quality is known, it no longer is a formula for quality.
There are ways to perform 3rd party assessment without directly exposing intellectual property to interested parties.
But the point isn't 3rd part assessments, the issue is that people want transparency of the algorithms; i.e. the intellectual property is exactly what people want to see.
Agreed and I'd be willing to bet that a significant portion of those people may have conflicting interests here.
Unless you think it's even in the realm of possibility to have a human being do the assessment, at the end of the day it's still going to be an algorithm that can be gamed.
This is the key problem. All automated moderation is essentially a wicked mix of an iterated prisoner's dilemma and Goodhart's Law.
> I think there's an interesting argument to be made here that Google's "quality" ratings are entirely opaque and the public should be given better access to them.
It's a tricky problem, in principle I agree with you, but on the other hand more transparency also means more information for people who are gaming the system.
And there are many MANY people who (try to) game Google. Never underestimate the amount of ridiculous effort some people will go to to make a buck. Arguably Google's largest value is that it's actually reasonably good in preventing this.
So ... I don't know.
It's a tricky problem, in principle I agree with you, but on the other hand more transparency also means more information for people who are gaming the system.
And there are many MANY people who (try to) game Google. Never underestimate the amount of ridiculous effort some people will go to to make a buck. Arguably Google's largest value is that it's actually reasonably good in preventing this.
So ... I don't know.
Good? Are you kidding? Google results nowadays are a funfest of SEO abusers and quality is VERY LOW.
[deleted]
The main reason I gave up Google as default search engine is that results were not good and I couldn't find material.
Duckduckgo provides generally better results and has some very cool gadgets (like stack overflow answer expansion).
Google is winning on businesses' opening hours and safe search on images is not as safe as Google, which is the single caveat I need to remember about before looking for something.
Duckduckgo provides generally better results and has some very cool gadgets (like stack overflow answer expansion).
Google is winning on businesses' opening hours and safe search on images is not as safe as Google, which is the single caveat I need to remember about before looking for something.
Why should the public be given access to that information? Google should be under no obligation to provide any of that unless we "nationalize" the idea of search engines and declare them a human right. Until then, it's a voluntary service to be consumed.
Of course google isn't under such a legal obligation. But then they should be explicit: "We are ranking results on our own quality metric which we won't disclose, you'll just have to like them", and let the market react. This position can then be taught in schools to kids, and used whenever google search results are being evaluated by the public. Right now google brands its search results as being driven by the public.
It's like when people say google (or fb, etc) has no [first amendment] obligation to allow freedom of speech. Fine, but then don't constantly describe yourself of defenders of free speech, say from the outset you will police speech as you see fit, drop the pretense that your policing is somehow objective, and let the market digest that.
It's like when people say google (or fb, etc) has no [first amendment] obligation to allow freedom of speech. Fine, but then don't constantly describe yourself of defenders of free speech, say from the outset you will police speech as you see fit, drop the pretense that your policing is somehow objective, and let the market digest that.
> Right now google brands its search results as being driven by the public.
Where does it do that? Google search results being an opaque algorithm is not a big secret, given how Google clearly refuses to talk about details every time this comes up.
Where does it do that? Google search results being an opaque algorithm is not a big secret, given how Google clearly refuses to talk about details every time this comes up.
[deleted]
Governments would be absolutely salivating at the prospect of such simple censorship if they owned the search engines. And be under no illusion that all without exception would abuse that power in some way or another.
All limited-liability companies are government-supported entities and it's perfectly fair to impose corresponding social responsibilities on them. In this case Google is in a monopoly position which means they have a stronger responsibility to not only be fair but be seen to be fair.
FYI Google's leaked docs on the subject:
https://www.zachvorhies.com/msm_rankings.html
https://www.zachvorhies.com/msm_rankings.html
If you ever want to play censorship scavenger hunt, try to get Google to link to breitbart.com without including the word breitbart. You can search article titles word for word in quotes and the names of the authors but google will not return a single breitbart.com link.
I know I’m a sample size of one, but I just searched for the string (without any quotes) ‘biden doj to investigate mpls police joshua caplan’ on Google, the story on breitbart.com was the 2nd result, the first result was the same article on ‘newsbreak.com’
That is an interesting observation. I can confirm I get those results too. Perhaps they are relaxing their algorithms now that elections are over. I originally tried this month (or maybe a few) ago and was unable to get any link to breitbart.com even if I googled entire paragraphs.
Some sources aren't merely low quality they are poison. A website on fragrances isn't liable to show you which sort of toxin would make your corpse smell most sweet after you have choked on your own death.
An ethical take would be trying not to spread poison is the right thing to do. Inaction in the face of evil isn't neutral its evil.
An ethical take would be trying not to spread poison is the right thing to do. Inaction in the face of evil isn't neutral its evil.
I'd rather decide for myself what is "evil" and "poison" rather than have that decision made for me by a search engine who's only job is to return the information I'm asking for. I could want this "evil" information for any number of non-evil reasons, it is not their nor anyone else's job to make that decision on behalf of the user.
I think I will be better off if social media and search engines don't help people poison their minds. That is to say its possible that your desire to be informed and my desire for you not to find what you are looking for might be opposed.
If you think that you are missing out on legitimate information pick a different search engine or make one.
If you think that you are missing out on legitimate information pick a different search engine or make one.
There are lots of oppressive things we can do to help people not "poison their minds". Strictly controlling the information your citizens interact with, as is done in places like China, shows what an implementation of this may look like.
It's also roundly criticized as repressive, anti-freedom, and ripe for almost unlimited abuse by every first world nation.
It's also roundly criticized as repressive, anti-freedom, and ripe for almost unlimited abuse by every first world nation.
You're right, but the question is, how absolutist should we be on that principle? The results of free sharing of "information" can be seen in measles outbreaks, for example.
Completely, in my mind, because the alternatives have unbounded abuse potential.
Even if you had freedom from legal coercion it doesn't imply a platform ought to use that freedom to help poisonous crap spread. Lets give an obvious example there was a lady spreading nonsense about how you could cure your autistic kid by giving them bleach anally. She is encouraging dumb people to torture their vulnerable mentally challenged children.
Whether the government ought to let her spread her malicious lies is an entirely different question from whether for example amazon ought to carry her book or google ought to index her site. If your absolutist free speech position doesn't allow you to admit to the idea of the government censoring her I understand. However if you think that amazon and google ought to be morally obligated to help her spread her poison I don't understand your position at all.
A rational person can tell the difference between a grey area obvious nonsense and pretending that there aren't plenty of trivially definable black and white situations in which not carrying poison makes the world a better place is complete nonsense as is the idea that ANY editorial discretion magically leads to 1984. Life is literally the finding a balance point and I think we can reasonably discover a point of homeostasis between free heroin on every corner and constantly strip searching everyone for drugs.
If you don't think so you haven't considered the problem very deeply.
Whether the government ought to let her spread her malicious lies is an entirely different question from whether for example amazon ought to carry her book or google ought to index her site. If your absolutist free speech position doesn't allow you to admit to the idea of the government censoring her I understand. However if you think that amazon and google ought to be morally obligated to help her spread her poison I don't understand your position at all.
A rational person can tell the difference between a grey area obvious nonsense and pretending that there aren't plenty of trivially definable black and white situations in which not carrying poison makes the world a better place is complete nonsense as is the idea that ANY editorial discretion magically leads to 1984. Life is literally the finding a balance point and I think we can reasonably discover a point of homeostasis between free heroin on every corner and constantly strip searching everyone for drugs.
If you don't think so you haven't considered the problem very deeply.
I thought we were speaking mostly about governments in this discussion, but quite frankly, the amount of power that Google and Facebook combined have over the average internet user's information intake puts them in a similar place. I believe the "moral obligation" is to act like the common carriers they play at being when it's expedient to do so, keep their hands off, and allow the government apparatus equipped to handle incitement to violence to do its job.
The problem at the end of the day is that we're not talking about extreme, contrived examples like the one just mentioned. We're talking about ideological things that rational people can disagree about in good faith, and there is no downside for tech companies to boost their preferred ideologies/candidates/etc and suppress their non-preferred ones.
That is a huge problem with, just like the governments, unlimited abuse potential... except it's more insidious. Government suppression of speech comes at the point of a gun, tech suppression of speech happens passively, in that you won't know it's happening unless you know to look for it, or its application is exceedingly blunt.
It's handwaved because many people find the list of boosting and suppressing targets acceptable.
The problem at the end of the day is that we're not talking about extreme, contrived examples like the one just mentioned. We're talking about ideological things that rational people can disagree about in good faith, and there is no downside for tech companies to boost their preferred ideologies/candidates/etc and suppress their non-preferred ones.
That is a huge problem with, just like the governments, unlimited abuse potential... except it's more insidious. Government suppression of speech comes at the point of a gun, tech suppression of speech happens passively, in that you won't know it's happening unless you know to look for it, or its application is exceedingly blunt.
It's handwaved because many people find the list of boosting and suppressing targets acceptable.
> Google's "quality" ratings are entirely opaque and the public should be given better access to them.
There's only so many top spots in Google search results, I'd rather those not be awarded to parties that are the most litigious.
There's only so many top spots in Google search results, I'd rather those not be awarded to parties that are the most litigious.
Nobody is entitled to a particular place in ranking and making this maximally transparent would almost certainly result in people gaming them more effectively decreasing the quality of search results for all users.
Furthermore what are you supposed to do with this data? If you ultimately find that one site is given one score and another is given another and you disagree with this are you going to demand that google show other people the sites you prefer in a higher rank? Nonsense.
No matter how they rank showing their hands would almost certainly be harmful to google because it would allow political groups of any stripe to put pressure on them to "fix" their results on any number of dimensions. Google would in short be crazy to give this to you and you aren't entitled to it.
Furthermore what are you supposed to do with this data? If you ultimately find that one site is given one score and another is given another and you disagree with this are you going to demand that google show other people the sites you prefer in a higher rank? Nonsense.
No matter how they rank showing their hands would almost certainly be harmful to google because it would allow political groups of any stripe to put pressure on them to "fix" their results on any number of dimensions. Google would in short be crazy to give this to you and you aren't entitled to it.
"Nobody is entitled to a particular place in ranking and making this maximally transparent would almost certainly results in people gaming them more effectively decreasing the quality of search results for all users."
According to this logic, if results were listed alphabetically (i.e., based on a truly objective criteria), we would see folks naming everything beginning with "0" or "A".
The above statement seems to ignore the history of search engine paid placement (people are certainly entitled, so long as they pay) which has evolved into "Ads by Google" appearing above search results. Further, the statement admits gaming occurs ["gaming them more effectively"] regardless of Google secret "solutions".
Listing search results by subjective criteria while portarying this as some sort of pseudo-objective "search" is not helpful. The "web search engine" has become a front for an online ad services business. The public is absolutely entitled to an index of the public information web, not controlled by a private company selling ad services. One day, we may get it.
According to this logic, if results were listed alphabetically (i.e., based on a truly objective criteria), we would see folks naming everything beginning with "0" or "A".
The above statement seems to ignore the history of search engine paid placement (people are certainly entitled, so long as they pay) which has evolved into "Ads by Google" appearing above search results. Further, the statement admits gaming occurs ["gaming them more effectively"] regardless of Google secret "solutions".
Listing search results by subjective criteria while portarying this as some sort of pseudo-objective "search" is not helpful. The "web search engine" has become a front for an online ad services business. The public is absolutely entitled to an index of the public information web, not controlled by a private company selling ad services. One day, we may get it.
> According to this logic, if results were listed alphabetically (i.e., based on a truly objective criteria), we would see folks naming everything beginning with "0" or "A".
This is seen in practice. The yellow pages were?(are?) alphabetical, which is why you see so many business that start with the letter A.
This is seen in practice. The yellow pages were?(are?) alphabetical, which is why you see so many business that start with the letter A.
The Yellow Pages still exist IRL. There was an interesting book I read some years back about the history of the phone book and it included some history behind the yellow pages.^1
The YP allowed an advertiser to pay for a larger type font, or a quarter/half/full page ad, in addition to the free listing. It is also divided into subject catgories.
What has been lost with Google's web search is the concept of the accessible free listing. It is only accesible under Google's secret rules. The ability to finger through the pages to get to, say, the last entry beginning with "Z" is not possible with Google search. Google will hide the bottom of the list and only display the first several pages. This creates pressure to buy ads or SEO services (game the search) in order to "appear at the top", which is "the only way to be found". Absurd. Google will not even return more than 400 results anymore.
While the phenomenon of naming things to begin with "A" may be seen in pratice outside of the web, this has not rendered the system of alphabetical listing obsolete.^2 Not even close. Also, there are likely other factors influencing the decision to name things beginning with letters like "A". As many computer nerds know, not all letters are equally common in the English language. Anyone who has looked at large zone files knows that domain names tend to begin with "A", but such choice of name is not done to game alphabetical ordering.
1. About 11 years ago I read a book by Ammon Shea called The Phone Book. It had some discussion of the history of the Yellow Pages.
2. Last year, Judith Flanders published a book on the history of alphabetical order.
The YP allowed an advertiser to pay for a larger type font, or a quarter/half/full page ad, in addition to the free listing. It is also divided into subject catgories.
What has been lost with Google's web search is the concept of the accessible free listing. It is only accesible under Google's secret rules. The ability to finger through the pages to get to, say, the last entry beginning with "Z" is not possible with Google search. Google will hide the bottom of the list and only display the first several pages. This creates pressure to buy ads or SEO services (game the search) in order to "appear at the top", which is "the only way to be found". Absurd. Google will not even return more than 400 results anymore.
While the phenomenon of naming things to begin with "A" may be seen in pratice outside of the web, this has not rendered the system of alphabetical listing obsolete.^2 Not even close. Also, there are likely other factors influencing the decision to name things beginning with letters like "A". As many computer nerds know, not all letters are equally common in the English language. Anyone who has looked at large zone files knows that domain names tend to begin with "A", but such choice of name is not done to game alphabetical ordering.
1. About 11 years ago I read a book by Ammon Shea called The Phone Book. It had some discussion of the history of the Yellow Pages.
2. Last year, Judith Flanders published a book on the history of alphabetical order.
It's not obvious to me what the bounds of "all websites" are.
The list of all phone numbers is obviously enumerable. There's a registry and a flat list of phone numbers. But, resource constraints aside, is it possible to enumerate all websites? I suppose you could theoretically enumerate every domain name, but that isn't necessarily the same thing.
The list of all phone numbers is obviously enumerable. There's a registry and a flat list of phone numbers. But, resource constraints aside, is it possible to enumerate all websites? I suppose you could theoretically enumerate every domain name, but that isn't necessarily the same thing.
> The public is absolutely entitled to an index of the public information web, not controlled by a private company selling ad services. One day, we may get it.
You aren't entitled to one paid for by google but I don't think there is any reason you can't fund the PBS of search engines. There in fact save lack of interest or motivation why you couldn't start working on it tomorrow and lobby for government support.
You aren't entitled to one paid for by google but I don't think there is any reason you can't fund the PBS of search engines. There in fact save lack of interest or motivation why you couldn't start working on it tomorrow and lobby for government support.
The Daily Mail seems to do more real reporting of events in America than prestigious American newspapers do.
In what possible world could that be true?
Ummm no?
"Real" === "fits my biases"
You think the news is about 'takes'. It's not, real news is about scoops.
Other than celebrity news, what meaningful scoops are the Daily Mail getting? Genuinely curious.
here’s one from today
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9521649/amp/Fundrai...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9521649/amp/Fundrai...
Fair. All financial conflicts of interest should be reported on equally, like when Kyle Rittenhouse received funds.
Like, non-celebrity-related events?
Like what? I don't see anything that's not covered by other outlets.
I do see stuff like "Can you THINK yourself thin? A hypnotist to the stars says you can - and reveals the five-step technique to try if you want to shed the 'lockdown stone'"[1]
Taken from the front page right now. The article is even worse than the title suggests.
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
[1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9492639/Hypnotist...
I do see stuff like "Can you THINK yourself thin? A hypnotist to the stars says you can - and reveals the five-step technique to try if you want to shed the 'lockdown stone'"[1]
Taken from the front page right now. The article is even worse than the title suggests.
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
[1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9492639/Hypnotist...
>Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
Ahhh this takes me back. What an amazing video. Made 11 years ago and it's just as accurate as it was back then.
Honestly? Fuck the Daily Mail. Also The S*n, Daily Express, etc.
Ahhh this takes me back. What an amazing video. Made 11 years ago and it's just as accurate as it was back then.
Honestly? Fuck the Daily Mail. Also The S*n, Daily Express, etc.
The Piers Morgan episode of Have I Got News For You, from when he was still the editor of The Daily Mail, is also a hilarious watch; highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TcgfjcOPU or full episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeOIfKrWyVA
The Daily Mail stalked Ian Hislop for years after this in an effort to find "dirt" on him (never found any), all because Piers made a complete arse of himself :-/
The Daily Mail stalked Ian Hislop for years after this in an effort to find "dirt" on him (never found any), all because Piers made a complete arse of himself :-/
https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+rossi+grace+church
NY Times has conspicuously not been covering this NY story, whereas Daily Mail and NY Post have.
NY Times has conspicuously not been covering this NY story, whereas Daily Mail and NY Post have.
Is that... like... a story though? "Private school you've not heard of in NYC has minor curriculum and staffing dust-up". That should struggle to make any part of the paper in a major city, and if it does, maybe a little column buried in the middle.
The only way that could possibly count as international news, certainly, is if you're looking for examples of some certain phenomenon and failing to come up with any more important or relevant than that.
The only way that could possibly count as international news, certainly, is if you're looking for examples of some certain phenomenon and failing to come up with any more important or relevant than that.
It is a local story, of no interest, if it doesn't validate your worldview. If it props up your side, and make the other side look dumb, then it is of international importance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/us/slave-trade-auction-sn...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/texas-chivalry-assignm...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/us/slave-trade-auction-sn...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/texas-chivalry-assignm...
Completely agree. "Prestigious" American newspapers do so much selective coverage it's insane...most people have absolutely no idea the extent of it. It produces the result of censorship without needing to actually censor. Just look at the Hunter Biden laptop story for an example -- initially blacked out and denied by American media, blanket rejection of underlying premise of story & suppression of relevant facts, eventual subtle admission on page 10 that everything was true all along.
The average person on the left will deny and reject this since the communist American owned media only feeds them stuff they want to believe. Truth hurts sometimes.
The average person on the left will deny and reject this since the communist American owned media only feeds them stuff they want to believe. Truth hurts sometimes.
This doesn't follow, the laptop story's premise doesn't pass the sniff test at all.
A laptop is left with a computer repair salesman for some reason, in Delaware for some reason, and for some reason no contact information is given for the laptop's return, and for some reason the repairman both wanted to and was capable of getting a direct line to Rudy Giuliani who for some reason gave the only copy of the hard drive to the NYT without screening any other news outlets.
The repairman goes on to give contradictory statements repeatedly about the origin of the laptop. The FBI acquires the device for investigation into Russian disinformation campaigns.
A laptop is left with a computer repair salesman for some reason, in Delaware for some reason, and for some reason no contact information is given for the laptop's return, and for some reason the repairman both wanted to and was capable of getting a direct line to Rudy Giuliani who for some reason gave the only copy of the hard drive to the NYT without screening any other news outlets.
The repairman goes on to give contradictory statements repeatedly about the origin of the laptop. The FBI acquires the device for investigation into Russian disinformation campaigns.
Adam Schiff's "Russian disinformation campaign" assertion was denied by the director of national intelligence, and yet it persists.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-ratcliffe-rejec...
“This is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign. The intelligence community has not been involved with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Hunter Biden is a U.S. person, and he would be subject to any investigation regarding fraud, or corruption would be rightfully the jurisdiction of the FBI. So, the FBI has had possession of this, and what I can say without commenting on any investigation that they may have in corruption or fraud — is to say that their investigation does not center around Russian disinformation, and the intelligence community is playing no role with respect to that,” Ratcliffe said. “Adam Schiff saying that this is part of some Russian disinformation campaign and that the IC has assessed that or believes that is simply not true, so I appreciate the opportunity to be able to tell the American people that that is the case."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-ratcliffe-rejec...
“This is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign. The intelligence community has not been involved with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Hunter Biden is a U.S. person, and he would be subject to any investigation regarding fraud, or corruption would be rightfully the jurisdiction of the FBI. So, the FBI has had possession of this, and what I can say without commenting on any investigation that they may have in corruption or fraud — is to say that their investigation does not center around Russian disinformation, and the intelligence community is playing no role with respect to that,” Ratcliffe said. “Adam Schiff saying that this is part of some Russian disinformation campaign and that the IC has assessed that or believes that is simply not true, so I appreciate the opportunity to be able to tell the American people that that is the case."
I suggest you read up on the scandal more, you either leave out details willingly or you are severely ignorant of the facts.
When you say "for some reason" you are alluding that there is no answer and you're trying to downplay it, you are lying.
The laptop was turned in by Hunter because it was waterlogged. He signed the form. When he didn't come back in to get it and the owner noticed the illegal things on it, a copy of the hard drive was first given to the FBI, another was later given to Rudy because nothing was done by the FBI.
The emails and photos on the laptop have not been disputed. His business partner has confirmed the emails, and the DKIM of at least one of the emails have been verified.
When you say "for some reason" you are alluding that there is no answer and you're trying to downplay it, you are lying.
The laptop was turned in by Hunter because it was waterlogged. He signed the form. When he didn't come back in to get it and the owner noticed the illegal things on it, a copy of the hard drive was first given to the FBI, another was later given to Rudy because nothing was done by the FBI.
The emails and photos on the laptop have not been disputed. His business partner has confirmed the emails, and the DKIM of at least one of the emails have been verified.
Ironically, DM did enough journalistic leg work that they managed to get their hands on a copy of Hunter Biden's hard drive and had "forensic expert" examine it. Something the rest of the "reputable" media couldn't do.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9445105/What-Hunter...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9445105/What-Hunter...
Based on the source how do we know they just didn't literally make it up?
> After obtaining a copy of the hard drive, DailyMail.com commissioned top cyber forensics experts Maryman & Associates to analyze its data and determine whether the laptop's contents were real.
Company name is listed. You'd have to go ask the cyber-firm they used, any outlet could verify it and write a story debunking it if they wanted. Something tells me they don't want to because they know it's true.
An email from the laptop has been DKIM validated, here's the repo: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
What are you suggesting was made up?
Company name is listed. You'd have to go ask the cyber-firm they used, any outlet could verify it and write a story debunking it if they wanted. Something tells me they don't want to because they know it's true.
An email from the laptop has been DKIM validated, here's the repo: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
What are you suggesting was made up?
That an individual stolen email could be released without ever having a laptop belonging to you. If they had jack shit they would have leaked everything.
Look how hard you're trying to ignore and twist facts to mold them to what you want to believe. It's literally astonishing to see.
Look up what cognitive dissonance is. You're experiencing a serious case of this here. I'd urge you to reanalyze how you reach conclusions moving forward, there's probably other areas of your life where you're doing the same thing.
Look up what cognitive dissonance is. You're experiencing a serious case of this here. I'd urge you to reanalyze how you reach conclusions moving forward, there's probably other areas of your life where you're doing the same thing.
Giuliani is an incredibly unreliable source, a known and prolific liar. Without the ability to interogate the evidence directly anything that comes from him is as reliable as he is.
That is literally how human communications networks work reliability of speaker is a pre filter for analysis of evidence. Do you specifically suggest that Giuliani is a reliable source?
If he's not anything whose exclusive providence is established through him is contaminated. Anything anymore including video is trivial to fake if you have resources and the laptop which whose very existence seems so unlikely turned up with maximal political convenience.
In brief we are supposed to believe Hunter filled a laptop with incriminating evidence, then dropped it off at a trumptards computer repair shop in a state he doesn't live in and forgot about. We are also to believe that he happily gave him the login to unlock the encrypted drive full of potentially election killing data that just happened to come into ghoulianis hands.
It's amazing that you believe this shit without hard evidence.
That is literally how human communications networks work reliability of speaker is a pre filter for analysis of evidence. Do you specifically suggest that Giuliani is a reliable source?
If he's not anything whose exclusive providence is established through him is contaminated. Anything anymore including video is trivial to fake if you have resources and the laptop which whose very existence seems so unlikely turned up with maximal political convenience.
In brief we are supposed to believe Hunter filled a laptop with incriminating evidence, then dropped it off at a trumptards computer repair shop in a state he doesn't live in and forgot about. We are also to believe that he happily gave him the login to unlock the encrypted drive full of potentially election killing data that just happened to come into ghoulianis hands.
It's amazing that you believe this shit without hard evidence.
They did "leak" everything, from Hunter fucking prostitutes, high on crack, missing his teeth, and all his business emails,
Nothing I said is false, any of you downvoters want to dispute what I said?
No, because when you're so deep, you can't be saved. I'm sorry. I wish you all the best.
Projection. This is scary to you because you're not allowed to know it's true. Your President and his son are corrupt.
--- to others in the thread ---
> After obtaining a copy of the hard drive, DailyMail.com commissioned top cyber forensics experts Maryman & Associates to analyze its data and determine whether the laptop's contents were real.
Company name is listed. You'd have to go ask the cyber-firm they used, any outlet could verify it and write a story debunking it if they wanted. Something tells me they don't want to because they know it's true.
An email from the laptop has been DKIM validated, here's the repo: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
What are you suggesting was made up?
--- to others in the thread ---
> After obtaining a copy of the hard drive, DailyMail.com commissioned top cyber forensics experts Maryman & Associates to analyze its data and determine whether the laptop's contents were real.
Company name is listed. You'd have to go ask the cyber-firm they used, any outlet could verify it and write a story debunking it if they wanted. Something tells me they don't want to because they know it's true.
An email from the laptop has been DKIM validated, here's the repo: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
What are you suggesting was made up?
He literally presented all facts and hard evidence, but your brain somehow rejected all that, offered no response to anything he presented, and instead came up with this completely unintelligent response.
You should seriously reanalyze how you reach conclusions and look up what cognitive dissonance is.
You should seriously reanalyze how you reach conclusions and look up what cognitive dissonance is.
What does it matter? The information on the laptop is still subject to all the normal procedures of journalism: follow-up, look for corroboration, seek confirmation, ask questions, look for evidence tampering, and so on. Instead, the story was buried and ignored. It boggles my mind that anyone could defend this as proper behaviour by the press.
> The information on the laptop is still subject to all the normal procedures of journalism: follow-up, look for corroboration, seek confirmation, ask questions
And The New York Post did none of this.
There are plenty of other articles written by about it by almost every news outlet[1]; it was never "buried". The difference was they treated the suspicious weird story as exactly that, instead of immediately rushing to conclusions.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hunter+biden+laptop
And The New York Post did none of this.
There are plenty of other articles written by about it by almost every news outlet[1]; it was never "buried". The difference was they treated the suspicious weird story as exactly that, instead of immediately rushing to conclusions.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hunter+biden+laptop
The laptop is/was real. Are you actually maintaining that it is fake?
Of course there is a real laptop, and the content published from it is probably real too, and the laptop may very well have belonged to Hunter. But we don't have the full context, and the initial reporting was suspicious as hell.
And none of this means the narrative it's used for is real (i.e. the claim that Joe Biden has corrupt connections to Ukraine). We saw this with previously leaked emails of DNC, Weiner, etc. where the intended meaning was twisted to "prove" some grand conspiracy. The emails were real, the conspiracy was bullshit.
That Hunter Biden is a bit of a screw-up is not controversial. That this somehow automatically reflects badly on his father is.
And none of this means the narrative it's used for is real (i.e. the claim that Joe Biden has corrupt connections to Ukraine). We saw this with previously leaked emails of DNC, Weiner, etc. where the intended meaning was twisted to "prove" some grand conspiracy. The emails were real, the conspiracy was bullshit.
That Hunter Biden is a bit of a screw-up is not controversial. That this somehow automatically reflects badly on his father is.
We live in a world of subjective truths. "Hunter Biden laptop is fake" is to the left what "wide spread voter fraud" is to the right. People are too emotionally invested to have adult conversation on these topics.
There is ample evidence of a fair election I have seen zero verification that the laptop belonged to hunter Biden in the first place and a lot of reasons to believe that the story is largely fabricated. Specifically its entirely sure that the laptop exists. It's possible it contains some actual stolen data in the same way that a lot of celebrities nudes are now out there due to a vulnerability in icloud.
Its not clear to ME that the physical device ever belonged to Hunter Biden or that it contains anything like what they claim it contains. The single source of truth is massively tainted because the source is a lying scumbag with zero integrity. If you conclude otherwise I conclude its because its the answer you wish were true.
Its not clear to ME that the physical device ever belonged to Hunter Biden or that it contains anything like what they claim it contains. The single source of truth is massively tainted because the source is a lying scumbag with zero integrity. If you conclude otherwise I conclude its because its the answer you wish were true.
Zero verification minus the dozens of Hunter Biden dick pics and pics of him around drugs or whatever. Could easily scrape metadata to figure out if it was def his laptop or not. Macs send data to their servers whenever an application is open...and also probably have location data on the specific device ID. Could simply cross reference that with the location of Bidens house. Or even look at the wifi connections....does it have the password saved for Hunter Biden's home wifi? Simple stuff to find some answers but the truth is you want to believe it's a conspiracy theory so you will instead bury your head in the sand and be ignorant of facts.
Also, there's ample evidence of an unfair election as well and zero credible verification of any results.
Also, there's ample evidence of an unfair election as well and zero credible verification of any results.
You are totally missing the forest for the trees. Is there a single piece of information or revelation from the “laptop” that has been disputed, denied, or debunked? No. More importantly, have the mainstream American press managed to get the Bidens to address any of the insinuations stemming from materials? They haven’t even tried: they’ve decided to settle for whatever generic comment the Bidens put out through their press agents.
The story is unproven nonsense. The burden of proof lies with the accuser and it has never been met in the first place.
That doesn't really apply when theres a bunch of dick pics on an ACTUAL COMPUTER EVERYONE REFUSES TO LOOK AT. Jesus just check the saved wifi network passwords....if Hunter Biden's house network is saved on it, safe to say it's his laptop. Instead ppl like you unintelligently refer to it as "unproven nonsense" and bury your head in the sand.
>If you conclude otherwise I conclude its because its the answer you wish were true.
Confession through projection.
Confession through projection.
Do you have an example handy?
I haven’t been keeping a list, and sometimes it’s not so much a major scoop/exclusive as it is providing details and getting quotes on stories that are missing elsewhere. But it’s a definite trend I’ve noticed over time.
Some examples I can think of
- locating where Ghislaine Maxwell was hiding out
- Anthony Wiener sexting scandal
- Floyd arrest body cam footage
This article chronicles their American operation. They do aggressive tabloid reporting/investigation, which may generate a lot of forgettable celebrity content, but is also brought to bear on politicians, officials, and other ‘important’ news subjects. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/...
Some examples I can think of
- locating where Ghislaine Maxwell was hiding out
- Anthony Wiener sexting scandal
- Floyd arrest body cam footage
This article chronicles their American operation. They do aggressive tabloid reporting/investigation, which may generate a lot of forgettable celebrity content, but is also brought to bear on politicians, officials, and other ‘important’ news subjects. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/...
I was about to say, this article makes perfect sense to me. The Daily Mail is one of my last choices of news, and I generally don’t use it as a source at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google’s algos have figured out the same thing many of us have…
And remember that search results are personalized unless you browse incognito.
Wikipedia agrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
tl;dr best quote (imo) "The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
tl;dr best quote (imo) "The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy."
Wikipedia's editors are significantly biased.
Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning.
God forbid you have to use it for research of any political topic, always check the references and compare to right leaning sources.
It's funny because their critique of DM can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole.
Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning.
God forbid you have to use it for research of any political topic, always check the references and compare to right leaning sources.
It's funny because their critique of DM can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole.
> Any somewhat political article is extremely left leaning.
I've seen that same argument before to argue how the Nazis, and modern neo-Nazi groups are supposedly all "left wing", their categorization on Wikipedia as right wing and far right is allegedly only the result of that very same "left leaning" bias you are claiming.
Which, as a German, is just a tad bit weird, because it wasn't Wikipedia that defined these groups as such, those results come out of the political sciences. Nazis being right-wing, and neo-Nazis having moved further into the far-right is a very established fact in Germany.
I've seen that same argument before to argue how the Nazis, and modern neo-Nazi groups are supposedly all "left wing", their categorization on Wikipedia as right wing and far right is allegedly only the result of that very same "left leaning" bias you are claiming.
Which, as a German, is just a tad bit weird, because it wasn't Wikipedia that defined these groups as such, those results come out of the political sciences. Nazis being right-wing, and neo-Nazis having moved further into the far-right is a very established fact in Germany.
Their name has "socialist" right in the middle of it. You might argue over definitions of socialism and whether it's left or right. But I don't think you can say "a group that calls itself socialist has at least this one left-leaning trait" isn't a position reasonable people can disagree on.
What I find worse than people going both ways on wether nazis are left or right leaning, is someone in a position of authority like wikipedia saying, one side is objectively right [about a question that isn't even rigorously posed] and will be treated as such.
What I find worse than people going both ways on wether nazis are left or right leaning, is someone in a position of authority like wikipedia saying, one side is objectively right [about a question that isn't even rigorously posed] and will be treated as such.
I suppose you believe the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is democratic then?
Oh, I don't think socialism is only in the name of nazis, I think their nationalization of many practices and aspects of culture is key. Do you think "nazis had socialist tendencies" is a position that no reasonable people can take?
I didn't mean to suggest taking the name itself as the only evidence of socialism.
I didn't mean to suggest taking the name itself as the only evidence of socialism.
> Do you think "nazis had socialist tendencies" is a position that no reasonable people can take?
Yes, because a socialism that benefits only members of the "Aryan race" while excluding, oppressing and murdering others in the same country is not socialism at all.
Yes, because a socialism that benefits only members of the "Aryan race" while excluding, oppressing and murdering others in the same country is not socialism at all.
That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.
I think the divergence in views is in the definition of socialism we have; I see it as an economical doctrine of state centralisation, you probably have other egalitarian ideals attached to it.
Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank? I think they were closer to socialism that nowadays mainstream left wing parties
I think the divergence in views is in the definition of socialism we have; I see it as an economical doctrine of state centralisation, you probably have other egalitarian ideals attached to it.
Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank? I think they were closer to socialism that nowadays mainstream left wing parties
> That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.
This is like calling ancient Sparta - where the Spartans lived in an egalitarian structure while simultaneously oppressing their Helot slaves - socialism.
Or for a more a recent example, apartheid South Africa, where whites received a great deal of support via government policy that practically ensured their prosperity. That wasn't socialism, either.
Socialism is not about centralized state control. It's about whether the state plays a strong role in ensuring a standard of living for all it's citizens. In successful examples (like Social Security and Medicare in the US) it has accomplished this while the majority of the economy is not under state control.
This is like calling ancient Sparta - where the Spartans lived in an egalitarian structure while simultaneously oppressing their Helot slaves - socialism.
Or for a more a recent example, apartheid South Africa, where whites received a great deal of support via government policy that practically ensured their prosperity. That wasn't socialism, either.
Socialism is not about centralized state control. It's about whether the state plays a strong role in ensuring a standard of living for all it's citizens. In successful examples (like Social Security and Medicare in the US) it has accomplished this while the majority of the economy is not under state control.
That's exactly my point, there is a difference between the ideals of socialism and the economic doctrine which plays out when socialism gets implemented.
In terms of economic policy, all the examples you cited are on the left side or going left in my book. There is definitely nothing capitalistic about state intervention.
It also makes sense historically: it took us a long time to understand that capitalism is the most efficient way to create value and advance technology. Even the communist dictatorship that is China understood that and it's using this to rule the world, while the western world (especially the USA) marched back on their capitalism and hampered their economy with more and more regulations.
I think we still don't have enough capitalism and we need a completely unregulated market and no government at all.
In terms of economic policy, all the examples you cited are on the left side or going left in my book. There is definitely nothing capitalistic about state intervention.
It also makes sense historically: it took us a long time to understand that capitalism is the most efficient way to create value and advance technology. Even the communist dictatorship that is China understood that and it's using this to rule the world, while the western world (especially the USA) marched back on their capitalism and hampered their economy with more and more regulations.
I think we still don't have enough capitalism and we need a completely unregulated market and no government at all.
> That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.
Using that same line of reasoning one could frame the American slave trade as "socialist" in nature because the slave owners were "socialized" by the exploited slaves.
> Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank?
Which is kinda meaningless, if you want to see were Nazis stood on what you gotta look at their actions past abstract economic theories and their own PR, you have to look at the people they oppressed, persecuted, killed and for what reasons they did it.
Or you could also look at what kind of people [0] and ideas [1] in large parts inspired them.
Those weren't socialist/communist ideals out of the East, that inspiration came nearly exclusively from the West, a lot of it from over the pond, straight down to originally coining the term "Untermensch" and the associated race theories [2]
[0] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/henry-ford-grand-cross-1938...
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology
Using that same line of reasoning one could frame the American slave trade as "socialist" in nature because the slave owners were "socialized" by the exploited slaves.
> Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank?
Which is kinda meaningless, if you want to see were Nazis stood on what you gotta look at their actions past abstract economic theories and their own PR, you have to look at the people they oppressed, persecuted, killed and for what reasons they did it.
Or you could also look at what kind of people [0] and ideas [1] in large parts inspired them.
Those weren't socialist/communist ideals out of the East, that inspiration came nearly exclusively from the West, a lot of it from over the pond, straight down to originally coining the term "Untermensch" and the associated race theories [2]
[0] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/henry-ford-grand-cross-1938...
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology
I'd say that's a staple of socialism/communism/marxism.
From Mao to Venezuela, the core idea depends upon excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class.
The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race not class, though Communist China is targeting Uighur and other minorities in their country.
From Mao to Venezuela, the core idea depends upon excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class.
The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race not class, though Communist China is targeting Uighur and other minorities in their country.
> excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class.
> The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race
The government excluding, oppressing, murdering based on race ... so the American south was socialist then right?
> The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race
The government excluding, oppressing, murdering based on race ... so the American south was socialist then right?
> But I don't think you can say "a group that calls itself socialist has at least this one left-leaning trait" isn't a position reasonable people can disagree on.
It is to anybody actually familiar with the history of the NSDAP. The "socialism" in their name was mostly PR, what little socialist currents existed in the early NSDAP, represented by the Strasser brothers, was bloodily purged during the Night of the Long Knives.
It's for that reason the very first victims in the concentration camp Dachau were not just Jews, they where German leftist political opposition Jews: Communists, socialists, antifascists, killed as early as 1933. The very same reason why Nazis considered the communist USSR as their arch-nemesis.
> What I find worse than people going both ways on wether nazis are left or right leaning, is someone in a position of authority like wikipedia saying, one side is objectively right [about a question that isn't even rigorously posed] and will be treated as such.
All this information can be found on Wikipedia, not just there, but also local Wikipedias from the places it actually happened. Like the Fuerth Wikipedia being even more in-depth and detailed [0], which is the city next to Nuremberg, both very relevant places for the early rise of Nazism.
That's why it's really not this "open debate" you make it out to be. The only people who insist on that are usually US Americans, due to the caricature "atheist socialist leftist" boogeyman that's been peddled to them for decades and some Eastern Europeans with post-communism shock, to justify their ideological hard shift to the right into often straight up fascism.
[0] https://www.fuerthwiki.de/wiki/index.php/Rudolf_Benario
It is to anybody actually familiar with the history of the NSDAP. The "socialism" in their name was mostly PR, what little socialist currents existed in the early NSDAP, represented by the Strasser brothers, was bloodily purged during the Night of the Long Knives.
It's for that reason the very first victims in the concentration camp Dachau were not just Jews, they where German leftist political opposition Jews: Communists, socialists, antifascists, killed as early as 1933. The very same reason why Nazis considered the communist USSR as their arch-nemesis.
> What I find worse than people going both ways on wether nazis are left or right leaning, is someone in a position of authority like wikipedia saying, one side is objectively right [about a question that isn't even rigorously posed] and will be treated as such.
All this information can be found on Wikipedia, not just there, but also local Wikipedias from the places it actually happened. Like the Fuerth Wikipedia being even more in-depth and detailed [0], which is the city next to Nuremberg, both very relevant places for the early rise of Nazism.
That's why it's really not this "open debate" you make it out to be. The only people who insist on that are usually US Americans, due to the caricature "atheist socialist leftist" boogeyman that's been peddled to them for decades and some Eastern Europeans with post-communism shock, to justify their ideological hard shift to the right into often straight up fascism.
[0] https://www.fuerthwiki.de/wiki/index.php/Rudolf_Benario
I've read extensively on the subject and I'm aware of the claims of using socialism as PR and I'm aware of the great purge.
At the same time, Hitler viewed Marxism not only as a philosophy close to its own, but also as a rival. I don't think the first victims of Dachau prove anything.
The only data I use to argue nazis were closer to socialism than free market capitalism is that their economy (despite having a semblance of a free economy) revolved around the state: prices, wages were fixed, members of the nazi party were put in control of private companies who disobeyed.
Hitler was definitely to the right of Stalin, but he was left of most modern left wing parties.
I also disagree with you that something is not open to debate, and I think it's worrying to hear people hold this view - especially on something so subjective as political categorisations.
Some more reading material:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-s...
https://fee.org/articles/anti-racists-should-think-twice-abo...
At the same time, Hitler viewed Marxism not only as a philosophy close to its own, but also as a rival. I don't think the first victims of Dachau prove anything.
The only data I use to argue nazis were closer to socialism than free market capitalism is that their economy (despite having a semblance of a free economy) revolved around the state: prices, wages were fixed, members of the nazi party were put in control of private companies who disobeyed.
Hitler was definitely to the right of Stalin, but he was left of most modern left wing parties.
I also disagree with you that something is not open to debate, and I think it's worrying to hear people hold this view - especially on something so subjective as political categorisations.
Some more reading material:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-s...
https://fee.org/articles/anti-racists-should-think-twice-abo...
[deleted]
That's a well established fact everywhere. That's what every kid studies in school.
I don't think it's correct.
The main problem is that left wing and right wing are meaningless terms. Left and right generally apply to the economical sphere which goes from communism (entirely state operated economy) to libertarianism (entirely de-regulated market). Usually when people talk about left wing vs right wing they attach some authoritarian / anarchic connotations. The politicalcompass.org (which is kind of left leaning) has a nice explanation of this problem.
Going back to nazis: if you look at their policies and how the economy operated in nazi Germany, nazis are closer to socialism than libertarianism. There is a nice analysis here: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-s...
Sure, Hitler may have been to the right of Stalin, but he was much more left leaning than any of nowadays left wing parties.
The main problem is that left wing and right wing are meaningless terms. Left and right generally apply to the economical sphere which goes from communism (entirely state operated economy) to libertarianism (entirely de-regulated market). Usually when people talk about left wing vs right wing they attach some authoritarian / anarchic connotations. The politicalcompass.org (which is kind of left leaning) has a nice explanation of this problem.
Going back to nazis: if you look at their policies and how the economy operated in nazi Germany, nazis are closer to socialism than libertarianism. There is a nice analysis here: https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-s...
Sure, Hitler may have been to the right of Stalin, but he was much more left leaning than any of nowadays left wing parties.
Yes because Wikipedia's opinion and some random quote on there should be what matters above all...
You realize Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable or credible source for anything right?
You realize Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable or credible source for anything right?
If I’m searching for coverage of a news story via a search engine, I will always choose any other option than the DM even if its ranking is lower. It is a source of right wing hate, propaganda, racism, and generally all round poor journalism.
It doesn’t deserve a click.
It doesn’t deserve a click.
and I strongly believe that YOU get to make that decision. I don't believe that google in their monopoly position gets to make that decision on your behalf without clarity into how it's made.
How would that work? Google always decides the order of search results. Are they supposed to show a random result that matches the search terms just to be „fair“?
I also decide by choosing search engines that are more likely to deliver the results I'm looking for.
Daily Mail should not be able to litigate their way to my eyeballs.
Daily Mail should not be able to litigate their way to my eyeballs.
When monopolies exist. Do we let the government tell them what to do (beyond the laws applicable to all businesses)? Or do we just break them up?
Let's say I accept your claim about Google being a monopoly. Should the government force them to rank sites the way the government wants? Or do we just break up Google?
Let's say I accept your claim about Google being a monopoly. Should the government force them to rank sites the way the government wants? Or do we just break up Google?
Google doesn't have anything like a monopoly and the barrier to switching is microscopic.
Google has over 90% market share* in the search engine space worldwide. They most certainly do have a monopoly on web search.
* https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share#monthl...
* https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share#monthl...
Having a large share of a market doesn't constitute a monopoly.
> exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
Google doesn't own exclusive control of the supply of answers to queries about the rest of the web in fact it would almost be silly to even talk about such. Its also not the only game as far as ads
What people are worried in fact is google controls access to a very large share of incoming eyeballs in terms of organic unpaid for results such that ranking you poorly or not at all could harm you despite having no business relationship with google.
This however isn't business because the only customers are searchers and the ads on top of the results.
Whether you appear 3rd or 37th is material to your business but not a matter of google having a monopoly on my eyeballs. The framework which you understand commerce doesn't fit the situation.
If you believe it's worth addressing it will have to be via unique legislation that actually suits.
> exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
Google doesn't own exclusive control of the supply of answers to queries about the rest of the web in fact it would almost be silly to even talk about such. Its also not the only game as far as ads
What people are worried in fact is google controls access to a very large share of incoming eyeballs in terms of organic unpaid for results such that ranking you poorly or not at all could harm you despite having no business relationship with google.
This however isn't business because the only customers are searchers and the ads on top of the results.
Whether you appear 3rd or 37th is material to your business but not a matter of google having a monopoly on my eyeballs. The framework which you understand commerce doesn't fit the situation.
If you believe it's worth addressing it will have to be via unique legislation that actually suits.
It's not an either/or in the US. Trusts can be ordered to stop engaging in anticompetitive behavior as well as be broken up.
Sure, google should just start... randmomizing results I guess? Makes total sense.
It's well known that Google uses clicks on search result as a preference signal to modify its ranking. This way, decisions by users turn into decisions by the algorithm.
it's much more likely that it doesn't appear in results because people don't click on it when it does
Why does this feel like the standard HN "things didn't work because you suck" ad hominem attack on daily mail
> and much of society at large ignored the nonsense from The Daily Mail.
Isn't it one of the most sold newspapers in the UK? I like how elitist folks are. In Romania everyone I know would also go "no one buys Libertatea" (one of our trashy newspapers) but it is the most sold newspaper in Romania.
High brow people badly underestimate how much influence these tabloids have. There's a reason their readers made folks like Kim Kardashian a billionaire.
Isn't it one of the most sold newspapers in the UK? I like how elitist folks are. In Romania everyone I know would also go "no one buys Libertatea" (one of our trashy newspapers) but it is the most sold newspaper in Romania.
High brow people badly underestimate how much influence these tabloids have. There's a reason their readers made folks like Kim Kardashian a billionaire.
It sells quite well but not necessarily for good reasons. One of it's nicknames is the Daily Hate https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Daily%20Hate
You can check out their coverage of Romanians if you want some examples https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk+rom...
You can check out their coverage of Romanians if you want some examples https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk+rom...
> It sells quite well but not necessarily for good reasons.
Who cares? That only means that a lot of people want that hate (and probably feel that hate).
Who cares? That only means that a lot of people want that hate (and probably feel that hate).
Love is the answer!
Also newspapers stirring things does sometimes muck up politics. Like in the 30s the Mail used to support Hitler and Mussolini who then went on to cause some bother.
Also newspapers stirring things does sometimes muck up politics. Like in the 30s the Mail used to support Hitler and Mussolini who then went on to cause some bother.
Sure, but that doesn't mean these particular articles were also widely shared or read.
I think this is confusing the general ("Daily Mail is the most read paper in the UK") with the specific ("this article was shared, linked, and read a lot").
I think this is confusing the general ("Daily Mail is the most read paper in the UK") with the specific ("this article was shared, linked, and read a lot").
Yes, many media outlets are sensationalist, have a poor record of journalistic integrety, yet their product is consumed by millions of people. That doesn't make them a good source; it makes them a liability.
It is high brow left wing types in particular that delude themselves about the oddness of their own beliefs. The Daily Mail becomes a special object of hate because it is a reminder that they are - at least politically - very strange.
Food animals need to find comfort in the crushing presence of their fellows as a sign of safety even while they are all headed to slaughter together.
[deleted]
Remember when Piers was caught in the phone-hacking scandal and f*ked off to the US in shame? Why'd he ever come back..
maybe it's simply that few people bother to link to Daily Mail pages
If I had a mental s/Daily Mail/Reputable Newspaper/g I'd be able to give this article a little more time. The Daily Mail do seems, from my anecdotia, to be gaming the system.
I suspect few would care if Google gave manipulative scientology articles a relatively poor search rank. The Daily Mail is absolutely no where near that bad. But they are certainly close to the definition of dog-whistle manipulation.
Where's the line? This, of course, assumes their poor search rank isn't because Google has detected they're doing something shady, which due to the Daily Mail's history is not unlikely.
I suspect few would care if Google gave manipulative scientology articles a relatively poor search rank. The Daily Mail is absolutely no where near that bad. But they are certainly close to the definition of dog-whistle manipulation.
Where's the line? This, of course, assumes their poor search rank isn't because Google has detected they're doing something shady, which due to the Daily Mail's history is not unlikely.
> That is despite the Daily Mail writing multiple stories a day about his comments around that time and employing him as a columnist.
Sounds like they take a manual approach to manipulating their search ranking; spam is worthy of downranking.
Sounds like they take a manual approach to manipulating their search ranking; spam is worthy of downranking.
Doesn't part of PageRank involve sites linking back to the dail mail? Isn't it possible they just aren't referenced as much as others?
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of other signals that the Google search engines considers over and above back-links. This includes which links users click on the results.
Google has been caught doing a lot of seriously anticompetitive things, like colluding with Facebook to establish a duopoly, in exchange for things like scanning WhatsApp chat backups uploaded to Google Drive. Or adding an artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads.
It wouldn't surprise me if this claim is true: here's to the discovery process to figure it out.
It wouldn't surprise me if this claim is true: here's to the discovery process to figure it out.
I believe you're referring to the lawsuit from last year filed by the Texas attorney general. It's a complaint where nothing has been proved in relation to the scanning of WhatsApp backups.
Unless there's something new on this case that I haven't seen?
Unless there's something new on this case that I haven't seen?
I know nothing about the case, but surely "nothing has been proved" just means there hasn't been an outcome yet? Attorney generals tend not to file cases unless they believe something to be true, at the very least on the balance of probabilities.
This is not true in Texas and other red states. The Attorney General of Texas files political cases that have no basis in law or fact. He filed the election lawsuit which was soundly rejected by SCOTUS, for instance.
To be fair, the merits of that case were never decided.
The case was rejected on procedural grounds for lack of standing - a decision that has been hotly debated by many legal experts.
Did you ever actually read the filing? [1] I recommend it, very approachable.
If nothing else, the math and statistics cited should be of interest.
[1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
The case was rejected on procedural grounds for lack of standing - a decision that has been hotly debated by many legal experts.
Did you ever actually read the filing? [1] I recommend it, very approachable.
If nothing else, the math and statistics cited should be of interest.
[1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
I've perused that filing in the past. Most of the language is about how votes "could" be fraudulent, with little to no actual proof that votes were cast or counted fraudulently.
I do remember it using that "1 in quadrillion" statistic that appeared pretty questionable even on the surface.
I do remember it using that "1 in quadrillion" statistic that appeared pretty questionable even on the surface.
> If nothing else, the math and statistics cited should be of interest.
This is true, but only because it is such an amazing example of bad statistics. It asserts that there is a “less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States”. It bases this on two things.
First is that Trump had an early lead, so it is statistically impossible for Biden to have ended up winning. Obviously, it fails to account for the fact that votes are not randomly distributed and mail in votes heavily favored Biden.
Second, that Biden performed better when compared to Clinton in 2016. Obviously, it fails to account for the fact that people vote differently at different times and for different people. The same differences would be seen comparing Kerry/Obama or Dole/Bush.
This is true, but only because it is such an amazing example of bad statistics. It asserts that there is a “less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States”. It bases this on two things.
First is that Trump had an early lead, so it is statistically impossible for Biden to have ended up winning. Obviously, it fails to account for the fact that votes are not randomly distributed and mail in votes heavily favored Biden.
Second, that Biden performed better when compared to Clinton in 2016. Obviously, it fails to account for the fact that people vote differently at different times and for different people. The same differences would be seen comparing Kerry/Obama or Dole/Bush.
> Attorney generals tend not to file cases unless they believe something to be true, at the very least on the balance of probabilities.
This is pretty easy to debunk.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/el...
This is pretty easy to debunk.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/el...
Silicon Valley is an industry that always relied in anti-competitive tactics and they pay billions in legal teams / lobbying each year.
Do you think they would spend it if they were on the right side of the law ?
Do you think they would spend it if they were on the right side of the law ?
Yes, they would spend it even if they were on the right side of the law.
This is an interesting example of a prisoners dilemma. If N companies are competing without lobbying, their lobbying costs are zero.
But if one company 'defects' and start lobbying to tilt the regulatory landscape, then every other company must also start lobbying to prevent it.
The end result is that every company lobbies against each other for no net benefit[1], despite large amounts of money spent on lobbying. Good for lobbyists, bad for the companies.
So a company spending money on lobbying doesn't really tell us anything. They may be a bad actor, a good actor, or anything in between. There are valid reason for every position in the spectrum to spent money on lobbying.
[1]. Obv the real world is far more complex than this. The lobbying may provide industry wide benefits, or may prevent the entry of new competitors, or there may be semi-random fluctuations in the regularly landscape, etc, etc, etc.
This is an interesting example of a prisoners dilemma. If N companies are competing without lobbying, their lobbying costs are zero.
But if one company 'defects' and start lobbying to tilt the regulatory landscape, then every other company must also start lobbying to prevent it.
The end result is that every company lobbies against each other for no net benefit[1], despite large amounts of money spent on lobbying. Good for lobbyists, bad for the companies.
So a company spending money on lobbying doesn't really tell us anything. They may be a bad actor, a good actor, or anything in between. There are valid reason for every position in the spectrum to spent money on lobbying.
[1]. Obv the real world is far more complex than this. The lobbying may provide industry wide benefits, or may prevent the entry of new competitors, or there may be semi-random fluctuations in the regularly landscape, etc, etc, etc.
I agree that silicon valley companies are anti-competitive, but I think you are dead wrong about lobbying.
Lobbying can be a lot of things, but one of the most common is basically marketing & PR for lawmakers. If you're going to be in the news, you pay some clever marketers to make hyper-focused versions of what happened for every single individual law maker. The company wants their view to be easily understood by the 535 voting humans who are seated in congress right now. It's the second oldest trick in the book (after bribery which also ofc happens to a degree).
Lobbying can also include skullduggery and dirty tricks and also other mundane things, but it is not (and never will be) a clear sign that a company is doing something wrong.
Lobbying can be a lot of things, but one of the most common is basically marketing & PR for lawmakers. If you're going to be in the news, you pay some clever marketers to make hyper-focused versions of what happened for every single individual law maker. The company wants their view to be easily understood by the 535 voting humans who are seated in congress right now. It's the second oldest trick in the book (after bribery which also ofc happens to a degree).
Lobbying can also include skullduggery and dirty tricks and also other mundane things, but it is not (and never will be) a clear sign that a company is doing something wrong.
> Or adding an artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads
A quick search came up empty. Could you share a source?
A quick search came up empty. Could you share a source?
Did you happen use google to search for misdeeds by google?
I don't think Google search censors anti-Google results. Not only it is likely to backfire but it is also hard work, there are millions of articles about the misdeeds by Google.
For effective censorship, one would need to first determine that the article indeed is anti-Google and then censor it in a way that doesn't damage the results (and ad revenue) too much. Google could probably pull it off but for what? Google hate drives views, and ironically, these are commonly monetized by Google itself.
Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive. However, if you quote "non-AMP", you get the expected results. Google seems to have a peculiar way of handling dashes and the "non" in "non-AMP" seems to get lost.
Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive. However, if you quote "non-AMP", you get the expected results. Google seems to have a peculiar way of handling dashes and the "non" in "non-AMP" seems to get lost.
> For effective censorship, one would need to first determine that the article indeed is anti-Google
You might call that "sentiment analysis". Google has published papers on it. They've refined it so much that they even turned it into a well-documented feature of their Natural Language API [0].
> Google could probably pull it off but for what? Google hate drives views, and ironically, these are commonly monetized by Google itself.
If you could assign a monetary value to showing someone an advertisement (or several), would you? Google has.
If you could assign a monetary value to someone's knowledge about government/justice actions against yourself, would you?
If you could categorize sentiment into something that can generate revenue... or perhaps something that could hurt revenue... would you?
There's money in censorship.
> Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive
Let me make it much less inconclusive . The two searches [1] [2] both reveal the lawsuit by the Texas AG which has explicit allegations [3].
[0]: https://cloud.google.com/natural-language/docs/sentiment-tut...
[1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+lawsuit
[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+laws...
[3]: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
You might call that "sentiment analysis". Google has published papers on it. They've refined it so much that they even turned it into a well-documented feature of their Natural Language API [0].
> Google could probably pull it off but for what? Google hate drives views, and ironically, these are commonly monetized by Google itself.
If you could assign a monetary value to showing someone an advertisement (or several), would you? Google has.
If you could assign a monetary value to someone's knowledge about government/justice actions against yourself, would you?
If you could categorize sentiment into something that can generate revenue... or perhaps something that could hurt revenue... would you?
There's money in censorship.
> Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive
Let me make it much less inconclusive . The two searches [1] [2] both reveal the lawsuit by the Texas AG which has explicit allegations [3].
[0]: https://cloud.google.com/natural-language/docs/sentiment-tut...
[1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+lawsuit
[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+laws...
[3]: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
Are you suggesting that Google would censor Google Search search results relating to Google's censorship of Google Search search results? If so, could you provide a source?
A quick search I imagined doing (I even imagined that I used a VPN) turned up 10,000,000 results, 49 of which were news articles from the last 15 years detailing what, but not how, Google Search search results were censored. When I imagined clicking "Next" to see the rest of these results, I imagined that I was presented with a No CAPTCHA, asking me to identify which colored block of visual noise most closely resembled hell itself.
Edit: Oh, and then I did the search for real, and got 4.95m results of similar composition.
A quick search I imagined doing (I even imagined that I used a VPN) turned up 10,000,000 results, 49 of which were news articles from the last 15 years detailing what, but not how, Google Search search results were censored. When I imagined clicking "Next" to see the rest of these results, I imagined that I was presented with a No CAPTCHA, asking me to identify which colored block of visual noise most closely resembled hell itself.
Edit: Oh, and then I did the search for real, and got 4.95m results of similar composition.
One second delay, but yea here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718
That's from a lawsuit by a notoriously corrupt republican flak. He also filed a massively frivolous election lawsuit and is under indictment for fraud.
> scanning WhatsApp chat backups uploaded to Google Drive
I've always assumed this was the case, but has this been proven?
I've always assumed this was the case, but has this been proven?
Aren’t they heavily encrypted?
AFAIK, it hasn't been yet
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/8/22319136/whatsapp-cloud-ba...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/8/22319136/whatsapp-cloud-ba...
Source?
I agree. Regardless of the quality of the Daily Mail, the following claim of theirs from the article is damning:
> It alleges Google "punishes" publishers in its rankings if they don't sell enough advertising space in its marketplace.
Whether that's true or not is another thing...guess we'll have to wait and see.
> It alleges Google "punishes" publishers in its rankings if they don't sell enough advertising space in its marketplace.
Whether that's true or not is another thing...guess we'll have to wait and see.
So how does the Guardian rank so well for the terms the DM was complaining about? I don't see the Guardian buying many PPC adds.
I feel like I am going crazy that this fact is not discussed at all.
I recall google from a decade ago being able to answer all my questions, where as now all I get is mediocre, politically-safe, canned answers with a ridiculous amount of ads.
It is enough to look at recipe websites to see that Daily Mail’s claim is clearly true. Recipe sites providing a user hostile ad-filled experience gain the top place, where as simple recipes without stories and tons of ads are nowhere to be found.
Why would Google do anything else? Website owners are paying Google to be ranked higher by essentially buying ads from Google. The difference between the ppc of a competitor and Google is the price the website owners pay. In return, Google will rank the website higher.
I recall google from a decade ago being able to answer all my questions, where as now all I get is mediocre, politically-safe, canned answers with a ridiculous amount of ads.
It is enough to look at recipe websites to see that Daily Mail’s claim is clearly true. Recipe sites providing a user hostile ad-filled experience gain the top place, where as simple recipes without stories and tons of ads are nowhere to be found.
Why would Google do anything else? Website owners are paying Google to be ranked higher by essentially buying ads from Google. The difference between the ppc of a competitor and Google is the price the website owners pay. In return, Google will rank the website higher.
What strikes me the most is that simple queries ("how much sun does [plant] need") only return 5 page keyword soups that barely answer your question. Google works reasonably well for more specific technical questions, but really struggles with the basic ones.
I'd wager there's vastly different quantity of spam sites for things like gardening than more technical topics.
> Google works reasonably well for more specific technical questions, but really struggles with the basic ones.
In the past it did, but when I try to search a line of logging output, or a line from a stack trace, Google decides to omit much of my search terms, and even goes as far as replacing some of my search terms with other terms that do not fit the context of my queries at all.
In the past it did, but when I try to search a line of logging output, or a line from a stack trace, Google decides to omit much of my search terms, and even goes as far as replacing some of my search terms with other terms that do not fit the context of my queries at all.
What plants are you having trouble finding that number for? I just tried corn, strawberries, rhubarb, and beans and got the answer in the first or second link.
I just remembered this because of the latest plant I bought, but I forgot which one it was. It's just an example. I felt similar frustrations with other simple questions, for example related to cooking.
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=how...
The top promoted answer leads to what looks like a reasonable site.
I think the greatest problem here is individual user bubbles. My take is that this would all go away as a problem if Google did away with behavioural tracking - thus the same query would lead to same answers globally.
The question is, how much would that degrade search quality?
The most obvious is location - 'show me chinese takeaways' is a different query depending on where you are and your past ordering profile. But its a solvable problem
The top promoted answer leads to what looks like a reasonable site.
I think the greatest problem here is individual user bubbles. My take is that this would all go away as a problem if Google did away with behavioural tracking - thus the same query would lead to same answers globally.
The question is, how much would that degrade search quality?
The most obvious is location - 'show me chinese takeaways' is a different query depending on where you are and your past ordering profile. But its a solvable problem
I believe you've got the cause and effect completely backwards. Someone that has a recipe site with no ads and no stories isn't in it for the money. In contrast, recipe sites with a ton of ads solely exist for the ad revenue—the recipes are just there as bait.
The difference is that the ad-laden sites spend 90% of their time getting their rankings up in google, the recipes are usually taken/copied from elsewhere and the big long stories are there to make the site look unique to Google, to fool it into thinking there's legitimate content there.
In the end, of course the person who spends all their time gaming Google is going to rank higher than someone who actually cares about their recipes and spends 90% of their time curating, experimenting, etc.
It's a sad state of affairs, but spammers have ruined Google.
The difference is that the ad-laden sites spend 90% of their time getting their rankings up in google, the recipes are usually taken/copied from elsewhere and the big long stories are there to make the site look unique to Google, to fool it into thinking there's legitimate content there.
In the end, of course the person who spends all their time gaming Google is going to rank higher than someone who actually cares about their recipes and spends 90% of their time curating, experimenting, etc.
It's a sad state of affairs, but spammers have ruined Google.
It’s gotten especially bad in the past few years. I had a minor health scare recently and found it incredibly difficult to find relevant search results given hundreds of different queries describing my condition.
The amount of health-related blogspam on Google is criminal, IMO. I've come across dozens of sites soliciting health advice, treatments, and "cures" that were not only not approved by the FDA, but weren't written, approved or edited by medical doctors at all.
There are going to be sick or desperate people who follow that advice, or attempt to use those "cures", and some of them will be harmed because of it.
There are going to be sick or desperate people who follow that advice, or attempt to use those "cures", and some of them will be harmed because of it.
The amount of spam in general is horrible, lack of legislative methods to stop spammers is wasting a lot of human resource every second.
Did you try using a different search engine?
it is hard to talk about an issue for which no solid data is available. To make a comparison, a decade ago, one would have needed to have started recording searches. Unfortunately, and this is why algorithms can be so insidous, collecting data to prove the decline of google is almost impossible.
So despite being blindingly obvious, it is difficult to make a mature discussion based on 'feelings', vague as they are.
A research that would work would be to show how irrelevant current results are. Certainly, that wouldn't be hard to prove, even without comparing it to external data.
So despite being blindingly obvious, it is difficult to make a mature discussion based on 'feelings', vague as they are.
A research that would work would be to show how irrelevant current results are. Certainly, that wouldn't be hard to prove, even without comparing it to external data.
I agree, it seems like results are getting worse, a few years back I could ask a question and get an answer. Now I don't even bother and go straight to sites to search, be it wikipedia/ github/ stackoverflow/ ebay. Googling for it is just a waste of time.
Over the last few years, Google has prioritized blogspam that also happens to be filled to the brim with AdSense ads.
> [DM] alleges Google "punishes" publishers in its rankings if they don't sell enough advertising space in its marketplace
> Google [says] "The Daily Mail's claims are completely inaccurate. The use of our ad tech tools has no bearing on how a publisher's website ranks in Google search."
Not a fan of either party, but I hope we get to find out who's accurate.
> Google [says] "The Daily Mail's claims are completely inaccurate. The use of our ad tech tools has no bearing on how a publisher's website ranks in Google search."
Not a fan of either party, but I hope we get to find out who's accurate.
If anything google should downgrade the daily mail even more. Not for its content (which i personally dislike, but censorship is a risky business), but rather for its spammy practices and clickbait titles.
Then you might as well include every major media organization there is since they all thrive on sensationalism. Google should not be in the business of deciding what's appropriate for us to see. I didn't vote them in as the arbiter of truth.
if you use google, then yes you did
Google is not in that business. The Daily Mail does not allege that Google is preventing it from being accessed. Censorship is not part of this conversation.
Google has 70% market share in searches. Any change to downgrade or not show a specific site is in fact censorship when you have a monopoly like that. The outcome is the same. Stop making excuses for these companies because they're going to do this to things you don't want them to at some point.
No, but by using Google you did decide they were most likely to have a good answer to your query (or that they were most convenient), and if they're not allowed to rank results because of 'fairness' that would kind of break the entire value proposition of a search engine
The core service that Google provides its users is filtering out useless stuff.
Who's deciding it's useless? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. You're making it sound like it's showing results that aren't what's be searched for.
If I search for something and it's related to what I'm searching for then it is not useless.
If I search for something and it's related to what I'm searching for then it is not useless.
The service they provide is to decide that it's useless on your behalf, to save you wading through useless shit.
If I pay an offshore content farm to do content stuffing, do you want my gibberish in your results?
Then it becomes a question of which algorithm you want. Filtering out daily mail bollocks is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to google. Am I concerned about the implications? sure; but here and now, it's doing exactly what I want.
If I pay an offshore content farm to do content stuffing, do you want my gibberish in your results?
Then it becomes a question of which algorithm you want. Filtering out daily mail bollocks is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to google. Am I concerned about the implications? sure; but here and now, it's doing exactly what I want.
The irony of the daily mail talking about manipulation
The only way we win is if they both dump many millions into lawyers handling the case, then both get a ruling that restricts what they're doing. Just like like the Oz / FB / Google issue, I'd love all sides to lose.
Manipulation 101: If you manipulate, make sure to project that you oppose manipulation.
Whilst demanding what could be compared to a participation trophy (unearned search rankings)
Not particularly liking the DM as they have their fair share of shady dealings, but I support anyone going after Google and other big companies abusing their position.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
As long as the enemy has an actual valid claim.
The core doctrine of US foreign policy.
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." - Schlock Mercenary Maxim #29
Not when it’s the Daily Mail.
I don’t like Google either, but the mail is an absolutely drain on society, and in my opinion has done much, much worse than Google ever has
Yeah google suppresses competition, and shamelessly sells your data, but they aren’t deliberately and carefully peddling hate and dog-whistle racism. Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. They don’t directly benefit from a less-educated society
Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis
I don’t like Google either, but the mail is an absolutely drain on society, and in my opinion has done much, much worse than Google ever has
Yeah google suppresses competition, and shamelessly sells your data, but they aren’t deliberately and carefully peddling hate and dog-whistle racism. Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. They don’t directly benefit from a less-educated society
Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis
“Hurrah for the Blackshirts”. Not a headline that aged well, even in the relatively short term.
""At this next vital election Britain's survival as a Great Power will depend on the existence of a well-organised Party of the Right, ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Mussolini and Hitler have displayed.... That is why I say Hurrah for the Blackshirts! ... Hundreds of thousands of young British men and women would like to see their own country develop that spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy. They cannot do better than seek out the nearest branch of the Blackshirts and make themselves acquainted with their aims and plans."
1st Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (15th January, 1934)
https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm
1st Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (15th January, 1934)
https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm
You can find numerous quotes by British and American politicians of the time approving Hitler or Stalin. E.g. Churchill praises Hitler in his 1935 book (after the purge of up to 1000 people in 1934). Roosevelt and his wife's enchantment with Stalin is another example.
That's hardly justification. Plenty also condemned them.
> Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that.
Ever heard of the Youtube alt-right rabbit hole? Google absolutely profits from hateful, extremist content.
Ever heard of the Youtube alt-right rabbit hole? Google absolutely profits from hateful, extremist content.
They profit from it, sure, but it’s not them creating the content. Google are the people selling printing presses.
The Daily Mail, Prager U, that little Speedy Gonzalez Jewish prick, and Alex Jones are the ones making the content.
That’s the difference
The Daily Mail, Prager U, that little Speedy Gonzalez Jewish prick, and Alex Jones are the ones making the content.
That’s the difference
That is demonstrably wrong. Google is not a printing press provider, they are a bookstore.
Printing press manufacturers do not provide book recommendations. Youtube does, 24/7, for every single customer walking through its doors.
Printing press manufacturers do not provide book recommendations. Youtube does, 24/7, for every single customer walking through its doors.
yet any attempt to counteract that (natural human) perversion of the platform they provide, and an angry mob forms and yells "censorship" and "anti trust"
What about organizations like CNN, that spend months and sometimes years on conspiracy theories, only to move on to the next one when the previous turns out to be false?
Here's for reference an example:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...
It’s been getting harder to find references like these online.
Stories I’ve read about can not be found anymore.
It’s like someone is messing with the search results to only give one political viewpoint.
On the plus side it’s fun learning about what your not supposed to know by seeing the fact checkers disprove a story I hadn’t yet heard about. So convenient that the refutation ranks higher.
It’s like someone is messing with the search results to only give one political viewpoint.
On the plus side it’s fun learning about what your not supposed to know by seeing the fact checkers disprove a story I hadn’t yet heard about. So convenient that the refutation ranks higher.
They're not the wrong side and adhere to the appropriate ideology. So, they get to lie all they want.
The article you refer to exaggerates its first claim so disingenuously that I won’t bother to read the rest. It claims:
> The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick's skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died
While the referenced (archived) NYT article says:
> At some point in the chaos [...] he was struck with a fire extinguisher
and
> He returned to his division office and collapsed,
There is no cause of death claimed by the NYT. No “bashing until he died” claimed.
For background, that at least one rioter (Sanford) threw a fire extinguisher and hit three cops in the head (two wearing helmets) is alleged by the FBI based video evidence[1].
[1] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%...
> The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick's skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died
While the referenced (archived) NYT article says:
> At some point in the chaos [...] he was struck with a fire extinguisher
and
> He returned to his division office and collapsed,
There is no cause of death claimed by the NYT. No “bashing until he died” claimed.
For background, that at least one rioter (Sanford) threw a fire extinguisher and hit three cops in the head (two wearing helmets) is alleged by the FBI based video evidence[1].
[1] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%...
They started this rumor, the rumor went around all the television stations on repeat for weeks, and then when it turned out this was based on nothing, that it was some kind of fabrication, the NYT doesn't do a front page retraction with a humble apology for stirring up the country.
Was the NYT article edited after the fact? That happens fairly often. I remember having to calm my gf down after she was so upset by the news that someone had their head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. It was definitely reported, and definitely false.
Unlikely. The article linked to, and I read, the web archive copy of the NYT article and not the NYT directly.
Here's the quote I see from articles alleging the NY Times reported and spread a false story: "Mr. Sicknick, 42, an officer for the Capitol Police, died on Thursday from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials."
It appears to have come from this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/politics/flag-lowering...
As best as I can tell the fire extinguisher was a different event in which officers were struck by a thrown extinguisher. Sicknick did suffer brain injuries (a stroke). The medical examiner hasn't attributed fault to possible exposure to bear spray that some protestors might have used, so his stroke is determined to be from natural causes. I think we have to wait for the accused protestor's trials to determine finally whether they assaulted Sicknick.
It appears to have come from this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/politics/flag-lowering...
As best as I can tell the fire extinguisher was a different event in which officers were struck by a thrown extinguisher. Sicknick did suffer brain injuries (a stroke). The medical examiner hasn't attributed fault to possible exposure to bear spray that some protestors might have used, so his stroke is determined to be from natural causes. I think we have to wait for the accused protestor's trials to determine finally whether they assaulted Sicknick.
> Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis
Google supports China though, and that's not too far removed. You know people back then didn't believe that Germans ran camps despite all the evidence. It seems like the same thing is happening now - there is evidence of camps in China, but people happily buy products because it is cheap and companies wipe their faces and continue to do business there. You know in the 30s IBM has provided the infrastructure to run those camps. So you are making a bold claim here.
Google supports China though, and that's not too far removed. You know people back then didn't believe that Germans ran camps despite all the evidence. It seems like the same thing is happening now - there is evidence of camps in China, but people happily buy products because it is cheap and companies wipe their faces and continue to do business there. You know in the 30s IBM has provided the infrastructure to run those camps. So you are making a bold claim here.
Curious, how does "Google support China?"
Not seeing anything about support in there, what are you seeing?
There’s a big difference between releasing articles in direct support of the people and the ideology, and operating your business in that country.
You mention IBM. That’s just one example. The US as a whole benefited enormously from selling weapons, vehicles and fuel to both sides of WW2.
By your logic, the entire US economy since the war might as well have written persuasive articles in support of the Nazis.
It’s basically nonsense
You mention IBM. That’s just one example. The US as a whole benefited enormously from selling weapons, vehicles and fuel to both sides of WW2.
By your logic, the entire US economy since the war might as well have written persuasive articles in support of the Nazis.
It’s basically nonsense
I guess I'm in the minority, but I actually like the Daily Mail. They have stories with videos and photos that I cannot get anywhere else on the Internet.
In my experience, they have better American news than many local America news outlets (much more detail and photos/videos).
While some of their stories are sensational, they also have a lot of great articles with solid journalism.
In my experience, they have better American news than many local America news outlets (much more detail and photos/videos).
While some of their stories are sensational, they also have a lot of great articles with solid journalism.
I like it as well, whenever there's some breaking story of some scandal and I want to see 'pics', DailyMail always seem to have the pics first. Like a kid, I look at the images more than I read the articles.
It’s worth noting that standard news practice of selective choice of images is going to give you a skewed a perspective.
Ok, I might get roasted for this, but will still take a shot at it.
At what point do we say that Google has a moral responsibility to provide unbiased information? I'm not sure we can.
It is a free market after all, and Google is a private corporation. Even if the Daily Mail's allegations are true, Google is still doing what is in it's best interest, and not illegal (afaik its not illegal to modify the algorithm of one's core product, happy to be corrected)
At what point do we say that Google has a moral responsibility to provide unbiased information? I'm not sure we can.
It is a free market after all, and Google is a private corporation. Even if the Daily Mail's allegations are true, Google is still doing what is in it's best interest, and not illegal (afaik its not illegal to modify the algorithm of one's core product, happy to be corrected)
It is literally impossible for a search engine to provide unbiased results. There will always be some biases in how the ranking algorithm is designed.
If you query Google for the shape of the Earth should it return "round" and "flat" pages equally so as to avoid bias?
If you query Google for the shape of the Earth should it return "round" and "flat" pages equally so as to avoid bias?
yes, I agree.
Whatever we do, we can't eliminate bias.
And, adding to that, as a society can we force a private company to change their algorithm to better suit our taste?
I am not sure we can.
There needs to be a larger debate on this. Maybe the courts are the right place for such a debate.
The courts are specifically not a place for debate. Courts are supposed to interpret the law independent of public opinion. Debates should occur in the legislative branch of government.
I don't think it's reasonable to compel private companies to change their search ranking algorithms because that would violate fundamental free speech principles and there is no objective standard for bias. A better solution would be to impose stricter limits on market share and dominance even on companies that aren't monopolies. That would preserve competition and give consumers real choices on which services to use.
I don't think it's reasonable to compel private companies to change their search ranking algorithms because that would violate fundamental free speech principles and there is no objective standard for bias. A better solution would be to impose stricter limits on market share and dominance even on companies that aren't monopolies. That would preserve competition and give consumers real choices on which services to use.
> The courts are specifically not a place for debate
uh, no, debate is literally 100% of the purpose of courts.
uh, no, debate is literally 100% of the purpose of courts.
...about interpretation of existing law and of material facts. Not about "what we should do".
Yes, my bad, you are right. Courts are not the place for debate, parliaments and assemblies are.
Apart from that, I think this might turn it into the classic socialism vs capitalism debate. Which I don't want to get into
Just closing out with this cool video, watch it if you haven't, I always go back to this when I get into such debates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0
Apart from that, I think this might turn it into the classic socialism vs capitalism debate. Which I don't want to get into
Just closing out with this cool video, watch it if you haven't, I always go back to this when I get into such debates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0
The market is only as free as society decides. Regardless of current legality if society decides something is immortal eventually it'll be regulated.
You ask about moral responsibility and then give nothing but legal reasoning. Those are not synonymous. Google acting within the law has nothing to do with whether they are acting morally, only legally.
We can say they don't have a responsibility once we begin holding accountable those who do have a responsibility and yet still use Google to help fulfill that responsibility.
For example, I think we can agree that a teacher should have a moral responsibility to teach students in an unbiased manner. If that is the case and their teaching involves the use of google, then is the teacher not at risk for introducing bias and should be held responsible? Otherwise why even put the standard on the teacher if it can be done away with by outsourcing some of the work?
For example, I think we can agree that a teacher should have a moral responsibility to teach students in an unbiased manner. If that is the case and their teaching involves the use of google, then is the teacher not at risk for introducing bias and should be held responsible? Otherwise why even put the standard on the teacher if it can be done away with by outsourcing some of the work?
I understand your point.
But think of it as a random stranger on the street instead of a "teacher".
Just that we all like that stranger's looks. He looks intelligent and well read. Almost like a teacher at a school. Should we trust him to give us unbiased information?
Advertising models will be extinct soon enough. If only the get rich quick assholes moved elsewhere, actual protocol development could do it this decade.
The daily mail is trash. I'm glad google is filtering out such low quality blog spam.
So its the Daily Mail best known in the industry for their ability to rank barely legal pop starlets in revealing outfits
I suspect what happened is the daily mail was considered a low quality news site which the majority of the UK population would agree its a fair assesment.
And Piers Morgan is pretty much one of the most hated hacks in the UK.
I suspect what happened is the daily mail was considered a low quality news site which the majority of the UK population would agree its a fair assesment.
And Piers Morgan is pretty much one of the most hated hacks in the UK.
Sounds a bit similar to what the WSWS has been dealing with [0].
[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
This is absolutely disgusting. Google has appointed themselves the unaccountable police of the Internet, secretly blocking websites for unspecified "compliance issues".
> It is highly significant that—after more than three years of stonewalling and refusing to answer any questions or respond to a single demand—CEO Pichai has admitted that the technology firm controlling nearly 90 percent of worldwide search traffic has been suppressing WSWS content all along.
Political censorship is equally harmful whether done by the government or by a megacorp. When the megacorp becomes more powerful than government, it's time to either break them up or make them a public utility.
> It is highly significant that—after more than three years of stonewalling and refusing to answer any questions or respond to a single demand—CEO Pichai has admitted that the technology firm controlling nearly 90 percent of worldwide search traffic has been suppressing WSWS content all along.
Political censorship is equally harmful whether done by the government or by a megacorp. When the megacorp becomes more powerful than government, it's time to either break them up or make them a public utility.
I can imagine their CTO, Oleg Vishnepolsky’s deposition:
We hired a FELON to do our SEO
Nobody would give him a CHANCE after he lost his HOUSE.
The other companies FIRED him because they thought it was his FAULT because their google PR was LOW.
We hired a FELON to do our SEO
Nobody would give him a CHANCE after he lost his HOUSE.
The other companies FIRED him because they thought it was his FAULT because their google PR was LOW.
I think the Mail is going to have a real tough time proving Google is doing anything nefarious because the algorithm used by Google is closed source.
I'm not up on law. I wonder what actual law they've allegedly broken. Are there any legal precedents implying you have to rank the Daily Mail high in your organic results?
I mean I understand the words "anti-competitive" but not sure how that translated to me needing more Piers Morgan in my search results or how the judge is supposed to even rule on that.
I mean I understand the words "anti-competitive" but not sure how that translated to me needing more Piers Morgan in my search results or how the judge is supposed to even rule on that.
Fair competition, google sells their rankings position of keywords to their clients in form of adsense. It now stands to reason that if Google manipulates the ranking, it's also giving or returning money. Hiding behind " THE ALGORITHM " is a scam that won't last very long.
Though say for argument's sake that Google were to rank results higher for those who spend more on ads but put a disclaimer to say so. What law would that break?
In the US, it would be the Sherman Antitrust Act. Basically, if Google is abusing their market position, they’re breaking the law. Whether they are or not, I can’t say.
[deleted]
We're not ranking high enough on Google, better get the government involved!
[deleted]
Hopefully this makes it to a discovery phase where google is forced to reveal the baked in censorship params.
The Daily Mail can definitely simmer down.
If you build your business on clickbait and bullshit "journalism" you can't complain when your main source of traffic decides to squeeze a bit more cash out of your enormous money pit.
Cry me a river.
If you build your business on clickbait and bullshit "journalism" you can't complain when your main source of traffic decides to squeeze a bit more cash out of your enormous money pit.
Cry me a river.
I have no idea if The Daily Mail claims have any merit, but you do not want to live in a country where thief cannot report burglary.
This is exactly the completely deregulated free-market economy that op-eds in the daily mail have been asking for for decades.
They don't like it when it comes back to bite them.
They don't like it when it comes back to bite them.
Being pro-free-market is against the interests of incumbents, and if in fact an incumbent was pro-free-market regardless then that is laudable. Incumbents are protected by regulations.
There is a lot to dislike about the Daily Mail I'm sure (I don't read it). But you aren't catching them in a moment of hypocrisy here. Everyone hates losing, doesn't mean they are wrong about what the rules of the game should be.
There is a lot to dislike about the Daily Mail I'm sure (I don't read it). But you aren't catching them in a moment of hypocrisy here. Everyone hates losing, doesn't mean they are wrong about what the rules of the game should be.
s/burglary/theft then
"No capitalist ever saw a market and wished it free."
Of course people don’t want to compete. Too bad.
Capitalism is about increasing efficiency / resources through brutal competition.
Just don’t let them make laws giving one group special treatment. Like banning the competition.
Capitalism is about increasing efficiency / resources through brutal competition.
Just don’t let them make laws giving one group special treatment. Like banning the competition.
Who don't want to compete with who? This is between a news publisher and a search engine; they're not exactly in the same business.
Sure they are: they both make money from selling ads don’t they?
If they're equals does it make sense to ask when's the last time the DM sent traffic to Google?
[deleted]
Google news
The article says the DM is accusing Google of burying the DM's results in favor of other news outlets'. The dispute is not about Google favoring its own news, as if there were such a thing, over the DM's.
A completely deregulated free-market economy would have no recourse to the courts. Such does not exist. I have no idea regarding the merits of the case but so far we don't know who's to get bitten.
Courts are integral to a free market. Without them all sorts of markets evaporate completely.
More generally, having a market does not mean having a government that supplies no public goods -- that is, having a government, since supplying public goods is all a government does.
More generally, having a market does not mean having a government that supplies no public goods -- that is, having a government, since supplying public goods is all a government does.
The confusion may be a linguistic one -- conflation of the terms "competitive" and "unregulated", and of "a" market with "the" market.
The existence of some free markets does not imply that every market is free. Excepting failed states, nowhere is every market free -- the markets for grenades, ivory, medical licenses, political appointments, assassinations, etc. are all things most of us want either tightly controlled or entirely suppressed.
And even in an extremely competitive market, like the ones for lettuce or generic drugs, there are still important roles for government to play. Of course regulation can be and often is grossly wasteful, even corrupt. But it's also critical to our safety.
The existence of some free markets does not imply that every market is free. Excepting failed states, nowhere is every market free -- the markets for grenades, ivory, medical licenses, political appointments, assassinations, etc. are all things most of us want either tightly controlled or entirely suppressed.
And even in an extremely competitive market, like the ones for lettuce or generic drugs, there are still important roles for government to play. Of course regulation can be and often is grossly wasteful, even corrupt. But it's also critical to our safety.
> where thief cannot report burglary
Written from the perspective that the most straightforward explanation is true:
Bad analogy. Nobody entered anyone else's business.
The defendant prefers that its users get good quality information, and the plaintiff's reputation for low quality information runs afoul of that practice.
Also, why would a thief report his own crime?
Written from the perspective that the most straightforward explanation is true:
Bad analogy. Nobody entered anyone else's business.
The defendant prefers that its users get good quality information, and the plaintiff's reputation for low quality information runs afoul of that practice.
Also, why would a thief report his own crime?
I don't think it's meant as an analogy, it's an idiom.
> Also, why would a thief report his own crime?
The thief isn't reporting their own crime, they are reporting that they have been robbed by someone else.
> Also, why would a thief report his own crime?
The thief isn't reporting their own crime, they are reporting that they have been robbed by someone else.
It's an idiom. It basically means that someone who committed a lesser, but similar crime wouldn't be able to report a crime themselves.
> The defendant prefers that its users get information that a) maximises the defendant's ad revenue and b) advances the defendant's preferred narratives.
FTFY
FTFY
Why not?
The poor thief is just trying to support his 20 orphan kids.
People should feel honored when they are robbed and left for dead.
> you do not want to live in a country where thief cannot report burglary
There was a Daily Mail article about a thief who was unable to report a burglary? Or what exactly did you mean by that?
There was a Daily Mail article about a thief who was unable to report a burglary? Or what exactly did you mean by that?
It appears to be an idiom for a party in the wrong (Daily Mail for clickbait article) from being allowed to report that they were wronged (manipulated search results by Google) since the parent poster seemed to suggest that Daily Mail somehow deserved that treatment and two wrongs make a right.
That's a weird idiom, then, considering that Daily Mail is in the UK and Google is in the US. And considering that Daily Mail is not a search engine, so they're not comparable entities to begin with. And that I'm not even sure that Google was in the wrong here in the first place. So I was confused on multiple levels, apparently.
Per Wikipedia, 70% of the Daily Mail's web traffic is from outside the UK, mostly from the US.
Not quite sure what this has to do with the idiom's inapplicability, unless "country" in it meant "world". But clearly the reason for what you point out is that the English-speaking world is way larger than the UK.
I agree with what your saying, but have no sympathy for the rag that is the Daily Mail
I used to be very much of the same opinion. But increasingly I find the Daily Mail to be the only place to turn for a sensible reaction to woke hysteria – like the supposed "rape culture" in schools, and the recent walkouts over the flying of the Union Jack at the Pimlico Academy.
Wait.. what? You find the DM a home for "sensible reaction" to cultural issues? That's horrifying.
I would have been amazed even 5 years ago too. For example, I listened to Harry and Meaghan's cringeworthy new podcast on Spotify. Afterwards I clicked around the web, trying to find some commentary that would truly sum up my feelings.
Eventually I landed on the Daily Mail's site and what do I see? A headline: "Woke Word-Salad". At that point I had to concede: okay, maybe this is where I belong.
Eventually I landed on the Daily Mail's site and what do I see? A headline: "Woke Word-Salad". At that point I had to concede: okay, maybe this is where I belong.
God help us all if people like you become judges; "I don't like the plaintiff so this case is automatically invalidated"
That's fine, I have no plans to become one. I'm not legally trained, nor do I pretend to be.
The Daily Mail, however, has spent the last few years describing the UK judiciary as "Enemies of the People", so they can continue to cry me a river.
The Daily Mail, however, has spent the last few years describing the UK judiciary as "Enemies of the People", so they can continue to cry me a river.
Arguably shouldn't judges follow their judgement on the cases they work on ? Throwing out baseless cases happen every day, a company abusing the system having their ridiculous complaints thrown out would be reasonable.
To me that is the basic reason for having humans in the process.
To me that is the basic reason for having humans in the process.
I think the point was the case should not be thrown out because the judge doesn't like the plaintiff but only if the case is baseless. You can't judge the validity of a case just because preconceived notions about the plaintiff.
Wether a case is deemed baseless is not cold and dry facts, there is a judgement of merit and intention of the filing side.
Also taking into account the surroundings of a case, including who’s involved and their history is not preconception (or then everything becomes preconception).
It’s not the same if you’re a CEO filing a suit against a grandma who shouted insanities at you when you fired their son, and if you’re a worker subject to verbal abuse from your boss.
Also taking into account the surroundings of a case, including who’s involved and their history is not preconception (or then everything becomes preconception).
It’s not the same if you’re a CEO filing a suit against a grandma who shouted insanities at you when you fired their son, and if you’re a worker subject to verbal abuse from your boss.
The DM are worse than clickbait. They actively attempt to manufacture rage for clicks
Kind of sounds like the New York Times.
It enrages me to see this kind of hot take on HN. People here used to be rational.
Seriously, what is wrong with people? How can anyone look at the Guardian and Daily Fail, and conclude they are of the same quality.
The only difference is that the Guardian/NYT's lies are accepted enough to be dangerous.
See: russiagate; russian bounties for american soldiers; the lack of representation of blacks and minorities in initial Covid coverage, leading many to assume it did not affect them; etc.
See: russiagate; russian bounties for american soldiers; the lack of representation of blacks and minorities in initial Covid coverage, leading many to assume it did not affect them; etc.
You're going to have to do better than that. Please provide articles from The Guardian that were stating incorrect facts (not reporting allegations or personal opinions) that weren't recanted later when new evidence came to light.
Edit to clarify: you're making a statement, you should be able to provide direct proof.
Most sources claim the Guardian is mostly factually correct:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ ( which is American-centric, so ignore the bullshit liberal and conservative arguments) says they're mostly factual with the `Failed Fact Checks` section including opinion pieces and reporting as per X (e.g. https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronav...) , and the fact check saying X's report is wrong, not that the Guardian are misrepresenting facts.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliabil... says they're very reliable.
Edit to clarify: you're making a statement, you should be able to provide direct proof.
Most sources claim the Guardian is mostly factually correct:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ ( which is American-centric, so ignore the bullshit liberal and conservative arguments) says they're mostly factual with the `Failed Fact Checks` section including opinion pieces and reporting as per X (e.g. https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronav...) , and the fact check saying X's report is wrong, not that the Guardian are misrepresenting facts.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliabil... says they're very reliable.
Yeah... I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole for you. You have to have been paying attention. These things turned out to be false but were continuously reported on at length as if they were true, even though plenty of sound skepticism existed at the time and a basic, continuous, genuine application of journalistic standards would have compelled then to ask, what is this based on? And discovered it was nothing or made-up.
When it comes to your links, consider that media ranking the media is perhaps not the least-biased judgment. Outlets branding themselves as fact-checkers are often particularly egregious. Snopes, for example, can't even dispassionately and accurately rate stories that do not fit a woke worldview.
I once read a NYT "fact check" that was checking a trump quote. One of the quotes was "we've been fighting in the middle east for 17 years." They rated this statement False, flat-out. Why? The correction stated, "We've been fighting in afghanistan for 17 years, but afghanistan is not the middle east. We've been fighting in the middle east for 16 years."
It completely ignored the point of the statement to issue a False rating on a technicality. Any reasonable interpretation would not have done so.
This is an example of the accuracy of modern-day "fact-checking." It's basically made up.
When it comes to your links, consider that media ranking the media is perhaps not the least-biased judgment. Outlets branding themselves as fact-checkers are often particularly egregious. Snopes, for example, can't even dispassionately and accurately rate stories that do not fit a woke worldview.
I once read a NYT "fact check" that was checking a trump quote. One of the quotes was "we've been fighting in the middle east for 17 years." They rated this statement False, flat-out. Why? The correction stated, "We've been fighting in afghanistan for 17 years, but afghanistan is not the middle east. We've been fighting in the middle east for 16 years."
It completely ignored the point of the statement to issue a False rating on a technicality. Any reasonable interpretation would not have done so.
This is an example of the accuracy of modern-day "fact-checking." It's basically made up.
Original comment: “They actively attempt to manufacture rage for clicks”
From the front page of the NYT website right now: “Proposed G.O.P. Bills Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters With Cars”
I rest my case.
From the front page of the NYT website right now: “Proposed G.O.P. Bills Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters With Cars”
I rest my case.
The GP's comment is not baseless - swap White and Black, and the following title could be right out of the Mail:
A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim...
A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim...
That's not equivalent at all. The dreadlocks story is a legitimately outrageous and racist attack. It's not journalistic ethics to write stories like a robot. The context is important. The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader. "Kids Cut Another Kid's Hair" just sounds like juvenile hijinks and isn't doing justice to the story.
The Daily Mail will actively gin up uninteresting or patently false stories with the hottest headlines they can possibly get away with. They'll skip coverage of important news if they can find a story about a prominent person misspeaking about something inconsequential. Look at the lawsuit. They were upset that publishing multiple stories a day about Piers Morgan weren't all getting top search ranking. The world doesn't need multiple stories per day about Piers Morgan any more than it needs multiple stories about celebrity bikini bodies like what's on their front page right now. DM is fluff, it's pandering, it has no redeeming value.
The Daily Mail will actively gin up uninteresting or patently false stories with the hottest headlines they can possibly get away with. They'll skip coverage of important news if they can find a story about a prominent person misspeaking about something inconsequential. Look at the lawsuit. They were upset that publishing multiple stories a day about Piers Morgan weren't all getting top search ranking. The world doesn't need multiple stories per day about Piers Morgan any more than it needs multiple stories about celebrity bikini bodies like what's on their front page right now. DM is fluff, it's pandering, it has no redeeming value.
> "Kids Cut Another Kid's Hair" just sounds like juvenile hijinks and isn't doing justice to the story.
The alternative take is that story pretty much is just juvenile hijinks, and the NYT is pretty much ginning up a story. A lot of the kids I knew in school were horrible to each other and nobody wrote an article about them.
Most print journalism has gone to the gutter these days, the NYT isn't a respectable institution. There is a bunch of stuff on the internet that is more reliable.
The alternative take is that story pretty much is just juvenile hijinks, and the NYT is pretty much ginning up a story. A lot of the kids I knew in school were horrible to each other and nobody wrote an article about them.
Most print journalism has gone to the gutter these days, the NYT isn't a respectable institution. There is a bunch of stuff on the internet that is more reliable.
But it is juvenile hijinks, and did turn out to be patently false.
> The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader.
Lets see which details were no longer relevant once the story turned out to be false, and the Times (to their credit, unlike the Mail) changed the headline to reflect that:
Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault, and Family Apologizes - https://web.archive.org/web/20191001003852/https://www.nytim...
> The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader.
Lets see which details were no longer relevant once the story turned out to be false, and the Times (to their credit, unlike the Mail) changed the headline to reflect that:
Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault, and Family Apologizes - https://web.archive.org/web/20191001003852/https://www.nytim...
The NYT and most other mainstream news outlets go out of their way to avoid making people angry -- often too much so, IMO.
Many truths are infuriating. Reporting them does not in itself imply a lack of ethics.
Many truths are infuriating. Reporting them does not in itself imply a lack of ethics.
I would not consider anything that is written in the Daily Mail "truth" by any reasonable understanding of the word. They write op-ed pieces at best, and more often than not just make things up or deliberately twist things out of proportion or context.
Sounds like YouTube and Facebook.
All online "journalism" which uses advertising as its main source of revenue does exactly this. For example in Australia we have news.com.au who uses the exact same tactics. In fact their headlines and blurbs are even shorter than Daily Mails, forcing you to click to learn what the carefully worded (yet extremely manipulative) headline is talking about. This is not exclusive to Daily Mail.
I'd argue the DM was one of the pioneers of this approach. Ad-supported and not-garbage online news sites _do_ exist, although they are a dying breed.
The Daily Fail is a hate-filled stain on the name of good journalism. It ran the headlline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in the 1930s and it hasn't changed much since. It bears no small part in the UK's currently catastrophic situation. I hope Google takes every penny they have.
Right but if true the Daily Mail probably aren’t the only people they’re doing this to.
Their business so thoroughly dependent on SEO it's probably worth their while to sue. Even if they lose, getting Google to loosen up a tiny bit out of caution is worth the price.
> If you build your business on clickbait and bullshit "journalism" you can't complain when your main source of traffic decides to squeeze a bit more cash out of your enormous money pit.
Is that a legal argument?
Is that a legal argument?
Absolutely not. I'm not a lawyer, just a citizen of the UK who has to live in a society that the DM has poisoned over decades.
I have no sympathy whatsoever, but as for the legal case I have no idea how this plays out.
I have no sympathy whatsoever, but as for the legal case I have no idea how this plays out.
I'm pointing out you're not really adding anything to the discussion. Saying you morally disapprove of the Daily Mail without substantiating it with facts isn't for HN.
The facts are easy to check.
The DM regularly loses libel cases for publishing fake smears about various victims. But apparently it considers these losses a cost of doing business.
It has been called out for its racism on numerous occasions.
It's notorious for wildly exaggerated tabloid abuse of legitimate refugees and immigrants.
It called judges who forced proper constitutional proceedings during Brexit "enemies of the people" - sparking a record number of complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Its comments section is a cesspit of race hate and petty ignorance.
It literally supported Hitler before war was declared.
There isn't a rational case to be made for not disapproving of it morally.
The DM regularly loses libel cases for publishing fake smears about various victims. But apparently it considers these losses a cost of doing business.
It has been called out for its racism on numerous occasions.
It's notorious for wildly exaggerated tabloid abuse of legitimate refugees and immigrants.
It called judges who forced proper constitutional proceedings during Brexit "enemies of the people" - sparking a record number of complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Its comments section is a cesspit of race hate and petty ignorance.
It literally supported Hitler before war was declared.
There isn't a rational case to be made for not disapproving of it morally.
> There isn't a rational case to be made for not disapproving of it morally.
That, and I say this with sadness, doesn’t follow from your other points.
It just means they have different morals from you and I.
That, and I say this with sadness, doesn’t follow from your other points.
It just means they have different morals from you and I.
No, that's a both sides false equivalence kind of argument.
In context - and especially in light of yesterday's verdict - it's really rather unconvincing.
In context - and especially in light of yesterday's verdict - it's really rather unconvincing.
>> It literally supported Hitler before war was declared.
So did the Daily Mirror. And the Guardian was a big supporter of eugenics. All irrelevant to the current papers.
So did the Daily Mirror. And the Guardian was a big supporter of eugenics. All irrelevant to the current papers.
Unlike the rest, the Mail continues to be owned by the same family.
Interestingly, the writer of the article in The Mirror that supported Hitler was one Lord Harmsworth - great grandfather of the current owner of the Mail.
Harmsworth also used to own the Mirror before it was sold and changed its political orientation.
Interestingly, the writer of the article in The Mirror that supported Hitler was one Lord Harmsworth - great grandfather of the current owner of the Mail.
Harmsworth also used to own the Mirror before it was sold and changed its political orientation.
The nicknames for the Daily Mail are quite illuminating:
The Daily Lie, The Daily Hate-Mail, The Daily Heil
Of course these could all have been generated by the left wing liberal elites who have an issue with straight forward honest reporting. Best you have a bit of a google/search engine of choice to determine which is more likely to be true. You could of course try visiting their website and seeing for yourself.
The Daily Lie, The Daily Hate-Mail, The Daily Heil
Of course these could all have been generated by the left wing liberal elites who have an issue with straight forward honest reporting. Best you have a bit of a google/search engine of choice to determine which is more likely to be true. You could of course try visiting their website and seeing for yourself.
[deleted]
So, you support doing this to every major media outlet on the planet? Because they operate on sensationalism just like DM. I'm guessing there's particular outlets you don't want this to happen to because you agree with their bs more than opposing outlets.
Your argument can be summed up by just saying you only want information that supports your preconceived notions available. Which, is obviously bad for a variety of reasons....
Your argument can be summed up by just saying you only want information that supports your preconceived notions available. Which, is obviously bad for a variety of reasons....
Bad things happening to bad people is still bad if it’s done unjustifiably so. There’s nothing really about this story that prevents it from happening to a site you like.
To me, this is just a tired hot take. The Daily Mail regularly covers stories that others don’t, and they do so with perspectives and plain speak that others don’t provide. I feel like everyone here attacking the Daily Mail doesn’t actually read them, but are blindly repeating an opinion they’ve been told to hold, because the Daily Mail’s existence is inconvenient for other newspapers and for certain ideologies. It’s tactically easier to attack the source rather than individual pieces of content. We see the same thing with the N.Y. Post.
During these polarized times when censorship is rampant and diverse perspectives are hard to come by, I’m glad to have someone like the Daily Mail around. A recent example of a great article is their story on COVID vaccines potentially affecting menstruation (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9446907/Some-wome...), which they wrote about before any other major news media. Read for yourself and decide how you feel about the content.
During these polarized times when censorship is rampant and diverse perspectives are hard to come by, I’m glad to have someone like the Daily Mail around. A recent example of a great article is their story on COVID vaccines potentially affecting menstruation (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9446907/Some-wome...), which they wrote about before any other major news media. Read for yourself and decide how you feel about the content.
When you engage in chumbox journalism don't be surprised that all your content gets treated with suspicion.
Daily Mail can fuck themselves. They published an article a complaint I filed with the Oklahoma coroners office in 2012 because it was taking 12+ months to get results when my 5yo son died. They also spun it as parents in "outrage" to get clicks and refuse to take the article down even now that there is no way it is producing revenue for them.
CountDrewku(4)
Sorry for your loss, hope you're in a better place since then. No parent should ever have to go through that. May your son rest in peace.
LatteLazy(2)
Has DM tried hacking their voicemails? Seems to be a Rupert Murdoch go to.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...
DM is one of the few rags not owned by Murdoch
Google Search no longer exists to deliver relevant results outside the ads at the top.
They curate it heavily to match with their preferred ideology.
They curate it heavily to match with their preferred ideology.
So when I search for code issues or bugs I get the preferred ideology on fixes? That’s good to know I guess my code has been Google ideologic for years.
I guess we can only expect searches for technical issues to be unbiased. Thanks for the tip!
The conflict of interest between Google's Search and Advertisement divisions is too problematic and these divisions need to be split into separate companies.
Ad ranking and search ranking are surprisingly similar problems: show what the user is likely to click. Main difference is what dataset you draw from. So you'd likely find that there is quite a lot of overlap between their search and ad divisions and little would change by splitting out the non search ads from the search ads.
They may be similar from a technical standpoint, but as a user I think the two (ad and search) are quite different and I have almost diametrically opposed feelings about them.
Stop using Google, it's a bad company with bad practices and it's search engine is becoming increasingly worse at providing good results. There are other options that are just as good now.
Our worthless government needs to do their job and break them up.
Our worthless government needs to do their job and break them up.
'The Daily Mail' has a case. Go and visit their site right now [1] and tell me where the inflammatory or irresponsible headline is.
Now try 'The Daily Beast' [2], it's I think a little bit worse, and you have this flame-nugget: "White Violence Links Black Lives From Emmett Till to Floyd" which is an interesting thesis, but kind of racist.
The DM really isn't that bad, and much like the issue of 'Fidel Castro' it's a litmus test to see if people are emotionally clouded ideologues or not.
DM is a regular tabloid, that's it.
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html [2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/
Now try 'The Daily Beast' [2], it's I think a little bit worse, and you have this flame-nugget: "White Violence Links Black Lives From Emmett Till to Floyd" which is an interesting thesis, but kind of racist.
The DM really isn't that bad, and much like the issue of 'Fidel Castro' it's a litmus test to see if people are emotionally clouded ideologues or not.
DM is a regular tabloid, that's it.
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html [2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/
How about go and visit the Daily Mail’s mobile page and a few articles, and tell me again that they have a case.
The mail should be spending more on web development and less on lawyers.
Of course they can’t turn web development into self-sustaining sensationalism though, can they?
The mail should be spending more on web development and less on lawyers.
Of course they can’t turn web development into self-sustaining sensationalism though, can they?
The same thing applies to the Daily Beast and any number of other outfits.
That you would pick on this one highlights the bias in the system.
If there were a 'disconcerting rag' it would be Brietbart, not the Daily Mail.
That you would pick on this one highlights the bias in the system.
If there were a 'disconcerting rag' it would be Brietbart, not the Daily Mail.
the daily mail website is literally unusable on mobile. other sites are bad, but I’ve not seen a single other one where you literally can’t scroll down the page
that I would pick on this one doesn’t highlight the bias in the system, it highlights that the article I’m commenting on is about the daily mail
I don’t see how breitbart is relevant
that I would pick on this one doesn’t highlight the bias in the system, it highlights that the article I’m commenting on is about the daily mail
I don’t see how breitbart is relevant
The issue has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with 'quality' information ranking and Google's supposed bias with regards to who they deem 'credible' and not.
Breitbart is a much more aggressive tabloid, and individuals within Google wanted to ban it outright, arguably because of their 'poor quality' but mostly because their political bias.
My point is that if there is a 'right wing tabloid with questionable legitimacy' that might make people uncomfortable, it's Breitbart. Not The DM.
People are lamenting the DM here because they use 'click bait' headlines and 'misrepresent' information, people are using shamefully hyperbolic language on this thread.
But in reality The DM is just a regular tabloid, and it's not that bad - technical quality issues notwithstanding.
Breitbart is a much more aggressive tabloid, and individuals within Google wanted to ban it outright, arguably because of their 'poor quality' but mostly because their political bias.
My point is that if there is a 'right wing tabloid with questionable legitimacy' that might make people uncomfortable, it's Breitbart. Not The DM.
People are lamenting the DM here because they use 'click bait' headlines and 'misrepresent' information, people are using shamefully hyperbolic language on this thread.
But in reality The DM is just a regular tabloid, and it's not that bad - technical quality issues notwithstanding.
Should Google give the Mail a pass for having a shit website because their content is controversial?
A quick test does bear out this claim[1], I see no Daily Mail articles with that search even though they are indexed[2]. However DuckDuckGo has similar results[3], so...
A much more likely explanation is that 1) The Daily Mail is just a shitty "newspaper" hardly even worthy of the title and not generally considered to produce high-quality content, and/or 2) that the other articles were much more widely shared, linked, etc. and much of society at large ignored the nonsense from The Daily Mail.
There's a reason The Daily Mail is generally not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
Aside: I am flabbergasted that Piers Morgan managed to survive this long at all, considering he's been one of the most disliked people on TV for a long time (and for good reason IMO).
[1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Piers+Morgan+Duchess+of+Su...
[2]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Piers+Morgan+Duchess+of+Su...
[3]: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Piers+Morgan+Duchess+of+Sus...