
Evidence of Google blacklisting of left and progressive sites continues to mount - fmblwntr
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/08/goog-a08.html
======
eropple
So my bona-fides as one of HN's loud mostly-left-leaning people are pretty
good, and--seriously, guys? _Truthout_? Like, at times they've historically
had some alright commentary--I originally wanted to say "mostly by
mistake"\--but it is one of the more obvious crank magnets I know of on the
left. It's like a poor man's Alternet (and that's saying something).

If Google's dinging stuff like Truthout at the same time they're getting the
right wing all aflutter at their epistemic closures being pushed down Google's
SERPs, I don't really have a problem with that. The amount of information
warfare directed at average citizens from all sides is titanic and
Truthout/WorldNetDaily etc. have no inherent right to credibility among people
literally unable (through many factors, not all of which are ignorance or
stupidity--this stuff also just requires an investment of time to really
understand and be able to critically evaluate, and time is at a premium when
you are getting paid fifteen bucks an hour or less) to ascertain the prudence
of that credibility for themselves.

~~~
jacquesm
> If Google's dinging stuff like Truthout at the same time they're getting the
> right wing all aflutter at their epistemic closures being pushed down
> Google's SERPs, I don't really have a problem with that.

I do, and I'm pretty left leaning as well. What bothers me is that Google is
using human judgment rather than their supposedly infallible algorithms to
punish certain sites to the advantage of others. There is a good chance that
what they're doing to one side of the spectrum today will be done to the other
at some point in the future.

~~~
eropple
Algorithms are human judgment put into code; there's no meaningful difference.
I am all in favor of a neutral arbiter for search engines; one doesn't exist,
though, so, there you go. It all comes back to people eventually.

There is a hierarchy of threats to deal with. The information war being
directed at everyday citizens to empower _real scary dudes_ is being carried
on the back of willful and knowing disinformation campaigns from both non-
state and (external) state actors, in the U.S. and elsewhere. The defenses we
have are limited, and while I agree with you that it very well may be
problematic down the line: if that means I'm in a foxhole with Google, I can
live with that for now and work to fight that threat later.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Furthermore, those algorithms are designed to reflect the prevailing winds of
the market, if you will. So an unintended (?) bias, plus changes in backlinks,
searches, etc. will be reflected in SERP. This happens all the time.

That said, nothing surprises me any more. I'm sure there are plenty of
intelligence community "double agents" embedded in the tech Giants with any
kind of influence.

------
Sophistifunk
The left: "Google is trying to ban us" The right: "Google is trying to ban us"

And nobody stops to think maybe the problem is advertiser funding trends to
sensationalist yet substantively bland content, it's gotta be political bias
against us, the righteous underdogs.

------
heroprotagonist
Usually when I click a link titled "Evidence of X", I expect to see, well..
evidence. I see some correlations being made of traffic reduction, with no
sources, as well as some selective paraphrasing of guidelines to Google
evaluators.

At a casual glance, the lack of evidence and sources makes it seem like
Google's alleged approach of floating more authoritative content to the top is
working, at least in this case.

------
iamnothere
This is having a pretty extreme impact if their numbers are correct:

"Truthout, a not-for-profit news website that focuses on political, social,
and ecological developments from a left progressive standpoint, had its
readership plunge by 35 percent since April. The Real News , a nonprofit video
news and documentary service, has had its search traffic fall by 37 percent.
Another site, Common Dreams , last week told the WSWS that its search traffic
had fallen by up to 50 percent."

"As extreme as these sudden drops in search traffic are, they do not equal the
nearly 70 percent drop in traffic from Google seen by the WSWS."

It would be nice to have some independent verification of these numbers, if
only because some will doubt their veracity due to the source(s) being
considered part of the political "fringe."

------
jacquesm
Which political side gets blacklisted isn't even relevant, what is relevant is
the power that companies like Google, Facebook and a few others hold and how
media giving airtime can make or break political candidates, swing elections
and quietly manipulate public opinion one way or another. This makes them
powerplayers in the political arena without any checks on that power.

------
logfromblammo
The article leaves open the possibility that left and progressive readers are
switching to other search engines.

We cannot draw our own conclusions unless we also know about changes in total
traffic to the sites, in addition to change in number of visitors referred by
Google search.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Or, just getting similar news elsewhere. As a fringe cause (if you will) goes
mainstream (so to speak) some of the core infrastructure gets left behind.

You sell yellow widgets. They catch on. I start to sell them as well. I could
very likely steal market share from you.

------
sqeaky
I didn't see any evidence in this, it is heresay with numbers.

Even if the numbers are accurate maybe there was just an algorithm update in
Google's search.

They have no evidence there was malice and the numbers they have aren't that
strong.

------
sctb
Related discussion from yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975338](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975338)

------
petraeus
Go google!

