
Google Rewrites Its Powerful Search Rankings to Bury Fake News - rayuela
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/google-rewrites-its-powerful-search-rankings-to-bury-fake-news
======
monochromatic
One man's unpopular idea is another man's fake news. I'm not sure I want
google making such editorial decisions.

Also:

> We noticed that you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the
> performance and content on Bloomberg.com

That is VERY fake news right there.

~~~
SerLava
Trump has conflated biased news with fake news. Google is running off the 2016
definition of fake news - remember what it meant way back half a year ago?

It means headlines like "Shocking - senate hearing erupts into fistfight" or
"Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million"

Fake - written by Moldovans for Facebook revenue. Not simply biased.

~~~
cookiecaper
What you're calling "fake news" has been called "spam" for a long time. If
they're talking about spam, why do they need to color it under some new action
instead of just saying "We're detecting more spam"?

It's because they know that "spam" is not a credible way to censor the voices
that they want to censor.

"Fake news" emanated from John Oliver. It was the excuse the establishment
offered for the mainstream media's horrendous and transparently detached
coverage of the election cycle, assuring the public that a Clinton victory was
a near-certainty, engaging in fear mongering by indicating that a Trump
victory would be a dystopian nightmare, etc.

Oliver said to his followers, on behalf of the whole broadcast establishment
(CNN and HBO are both owned by Time Warner), "It's not us, it's them." It is,
after all, probably the only logical thing to say.

In predictable but hilarious fashion, the "fake news" mantra almost
immediately backfired on the establishment, as the same masses that elected
Trump instantly (and appropriately) applied the label to reporting from the
MSM, which had just been _proven_ vibrantly "fake" by the election outcome
that they refused to acknowledge as a possibility.

Approximately half of the American public is stubbornly conservative. It
greatly irritates the broadcast media that it's no longer simple to control
the narrative; their propaganda is now challenged and rejected by online
voices. This makes the establishment very unhappy, so they've attempted to
label all such challenges as "fake news".

~~~
xapata
> fear mongering by indicating that a Trump victory would be a dystopian
> nightmare, etc.

I do, on occasion, feel like I'm living in a dystopian nightmare. I'm
certainly wondering about the ethics of having children, knowing that they'd
live to see dramatic climate change and all the horrors of it.

Colbert's "truthiness" was eerily prescient, meant in satire, yet followed by
Conway's "alternative facts" without irony.

~~~
cookiecaper
>Colbert's "truthiness" was eerily prescient, meant in satire, yet followed by
Conway's "alternative facts" without irony.

"Alternative facts" is an irrelevant quibble over wording. Everyone understood
the intention. It's exactly these quibbles over technicalities that everyone
thought would end Trump's campaign, but it doesn't work; if anything, it
generates more sympathy for the speaker.

Conway was not saying there is no such thing as objective reality (a belief
called "relativism", which is much more repugnant to the conservative side of
the aisle than the liberal one). Rather, she meant "we have different
sources". Come now, that's not really such a crazy thing to express, is it?

The MSM heartily strains at these gnats to try to promote their agenda (not
surprisingly, it seems Democratic politicians rarely make such snafus). They
are apparently unconscious that all they're doing is spreading the message
that these strategic gaffers want spread.

~~~
xapata
> different sources

That's not how I understood it. I find the alternative facts and related
screed to be more similar to wearing your team's colors than expressing an
opinion.

Some years ago, back when Bush was in office, I tried to argue/discuss​
politics with someone who held quite different beliefs than mine. We went back
and forth for a while as I tried to find some common ground. At one point, I
realized he had asserted something that was false, according to several
sources. I showed him the relevant Wikipedia article. He laughed and replied,
"You got me, I lied." I suddenly realized he had no intention of finding
anything to agree on, but simply wanted to "win."

~~~
cookiecaper
Sorry to be daft, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, one can
choose to interpret the statements of politicians either charitably or
uncharitably. Yes, some people are interested only in tribalism.

How is this related to demanding Conway's statement be interpreted as a credo
of relativism instead of a) an unfortunate turn of phrase with accidentally-
negative connotations; or b) a gaffe intentionally planted with the
expectation that the media would seize upon it and spend 3 days nitpicking a
technicality, unaware that they're only broadcasting the intended message to
the open-minded listeners in the public, who will disregard the media's
hostile spin?

Liberal use of (b) is exactly how and why Trump won. He beat the media at
their game by allowing them to think that foaming at the mouth over
technicalities of his ambiguous wording was doing him damage, when it was
actually helping.

~~~
xapata
I think there are more ways to interpret Conway and Trump than those you've
suggested. It's not relativism per se, but the belief that for some topics,
being correct is less important than demonstrating loyalty.

Further, it's possible that Trump and team just say whatever comes to mind
without planning. Sometimes​ life is just dumb luck.

------
dmix
I'm curious what liberal bias looks like in algorithm form?

> Google is also setting new rules encouraging its “raters” -- the 10,000-plus
> staff that assess search results -- to flag web pages that host hoaxes,
> conspiracy theories and what the company calls “low-quality” content.

Oh that's how, it's going to be trained by people...

Considering how often I've seen Snopes get stories wrong, or are subtlety
misleading (such as marking something as false because an insignificant part
of a statement is incorrect, by that I mean if it was deleted from the
statement the overall meaning wouldn't change, but the general statement as a
whole was still actually true).

This is really concerning. I get marking hoaxes and to a lesser extent
conspiracy theories. But "low-quality content" and "fake news" in general is
not just difficult to identify but open to abuse. And there will likely be no
appeal process. It will happen transparently and silently.

------
vlunkr
I think there's an interesting question here that I haven't really seen
discussed: Is it the responsibility of Google/Facebook to filter out "fake
news"?

Obviously both of them already do some content filtering for illegal content
etc. but where do we draw the line? Personally I think it's unfair to be
blaming them, considering they never claimed to filter this type of content.
Also, if it is decided that they should be responsible, how do you determine
what is and isn't fake? Seems like a dangerous thing to be in charge of.

edit: since it took me so long to finish typing this, everyone is now asking
similar questions. whatever

~~~
xienze
> Is it the responsibility of Google/Facebook to filter out "fake news"?

Their employees certainly think it is.

The reason Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. are so obsessed with fake news
at the moment is because their employees believe that their product, which was
supposed to "change the world for the better!" inadvertently helped Trump be
elected. I'm sure more than a few Valley employees have had nervous breakdowns
over this.

Now, banning Trump from Facebook or Twitter would be a little bit too obvious,
so they're doing the next best thing: making sure, under the guise of "keeping
you safe from fake news", that Trump or Trump 2.0 can't leverage their
offerings to help his cause.

~~~
darpa_escapee
I find it more likely that their advertising partners don't want the brands
and companies they represent to be associated with fake, possibly libellous
and politically inflammatory content.

~~~
xienze
Yeah they _just_ figured out that this kind of stuff exists on the Internet...

~~~
darpa_escapee
It _just_ started reaching the mainstream and causing serious controversies.

------
mnglkhn2
At this moment, is there a general consensus or definition as to what is a
"fake news" and how and who decides upon it?

~~~
xienze
General consensus? No, but it seems that nearly everything emanating from a
conservative-leaning source is labeled as such. _Purely a coincidence_, I'm
sure.

Who decides it? Well right now traditional media sources are leading the
charge, and our benevolent Silicon Valley overlords are working feverishly to
help out. Media and tech companies are both filled with people of a left-
leaning persuasion. Again, pure coincidence I'm sure, and we all know these
people are above injecting their own personal biases into protecting us from
fake news, so we're in good hands.

~~~
makomk
Stuff that's from conservative-leaning sources can be accepted just fine, so
long as it's anti-Trump. So for example really dubious claims from Louise
Mensch, a conservative who thinks Russia is involved in literally _everything_
, are fairly widely accepted. Likewise, people were quite happy to take Glenn
Beck at his word as soon as he came out against Trump. It's bizarre.

~~~
xienze
> Likewise, people were quite happy to take Glenn Beck at his word as soon as
> he came out against Trump.

What's even funnier is to see people on r/politics say "you know I always
thought Beck was an OK guy, just a little misunderstood" after he went nuts
about Trump.

------
Mendenhall
Gee I wonder if the 10'000 "raters" will have a bias. I have no problem with
such an idea in concept, but I know the process and what is being driven down
will be opaque as possible.

I wish they would change their search engine to how it worked years ago
instead. The search results now are so packed with nonsense that I had to stop
using them.

------
neuro
Are there any alternative search engines? I would rather decide what's fake.

~~~
taude
I've been using DuckDuckGo [1] as my default search engine for a couple years.

By adding a !g to your duckduckgo, you can then search Google easily if you're
not finding desired results.

[1] [https://duckduckgo.com](https://duckduckgo.com)

Edit: added actual url to DuckDuckGo

~~~
cookiecaper
Is there any way for DDG to confirm that it's not engaging in the same type of
censorship?

IMO this is really the time for a Ethereum-esque solution to shine. These
algos should be adaptable, confirmable, pluggable.

------
segmondy
Google is playing a dangerous game. What else is there "powerful search
ranking" burying? If I decide to compete with Google tomorrow, would they bury
every site that mentions my business?

~~~
cookiecaper
Yes. You wouldn't get far. Falling out of Google's favor is a disaster for any
company that relies on "organic" search traffic. Many have died from this.

I don't think many people really appreciate the extent of influence Google has
over individual behavior. Local businesses die when they get pushed out of the
"local box". Platform vendors have a _huge_ amount of control over the
ecosystem.

We need to update our legal structures to make the internet available for open
competition instead of locking it up in Google/FB server farms. Of course,
there's no reason to do so as long as Google is playing ball with the elites.

------
KernlPanik
Who decides what is and isn't fake news? Surely an enormous corporation whose
leaders are active in only one political party will be a fair and impartial
judge.

~~~
eropple
With respect: after literal decades of the right wing using its stranglehold
on talk radio to inculcate some awfully racist, awfully homophobic, and
downright untrue things into members of my family (who I love very dearly
despite it), I'm pretty okay with the shoe being on the other foot with
regards to _literal fictionmongers_ like Alex Jones on the Internet.

I'm sure, if The Market cares that much (and the right wing loves The Market),
then there will be a thriving Conservoogle that will rise to provide unskewed
results a-plenty where InfoWars and friends can cavort at the top of the
SERPs.

~~~
Karunamon
_I 'm pretty okay with the shoe being on the other foot with regards to
literal fictionmongers like Alex Jones on the Internet._

The problem isn't that Infowars won't be ranked highly for news queries, the
problem is exactly what GP said and what you glossed over: SV/academia people,
who are overwhelmingly left-leaning (by location if nothing else), are not
impartial arbiters of factuality.

And it's not like anyone is, but _only the SV /academia types are getting
input here_.

That is a problem.

There is no way, none, that this won't be used against factual news with a
conservative bent. I'd wager my entire net worth on it.

Eropple, please stop deleting your comments. You've done it twice now, and it
makes having a conversation very difficult. Many of us are using a
notification service and so your words remain in email inboxes.

------
nvr219
Will they let fake news providers buy ads still?

~~~
eplanit
Indeed. Buying ads would be an act of redemption, and will bring Legitimacy.

------
tyingq
Really skeptical about the false positives/negatives. The ML they are using
around "rich snippets" is pretty lousy. I can find lots of bad autogenerated
answers in just a few minutes.

Or would this use some approach radically different, and more accurate[1],
from what's driving rich snippets?

[1] well, as much as you can be accurate for subjective measures

------
mnglkhn2
Sometimes, to build immunity, you need to be exposed to the raw, unfinished
stuff.

If you manicure everything you will lose the ability to build critical
thinking and discern among various opinions.

From this angle, the "curation of fake news" looks very paternalistic, if not
even a sign of patriarchy. :)

------
LeeHwang
In light of this new politico article: The media bubble is real.
[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-
bubb...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-
journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048)

I think this is a bad idea. Fake news is already a loaded term combined with
the media bubble it will just make things exponentially worse.

We need to deal with the media bubble bias first, to restore faith in real
news.

------
_up
Aren't Ads the ultimate Fake News? Is Google the "Ad Company" also now only
allowing modest and critical endorsements instead of Ads?

------
ksk
If the plan is to remove misleading results, most of the advertisements need
to be removed as well.

------
mtgx
I wonder what else it will be burying, going by its recent fiasco of
demonetizing legitimate YouTube channels that weren't "brand-friendly" (quite
different than "extremist").

~~~
virmundi
I don't think that view is popular here, even if it is supported [1]. You
should only read and watch videos approved by the intersection of the DNC and
Bernie.

1 -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RslP2HGBqWI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RslP2HGBqWI)

------
criddell
Sounds good to me.

The use of the adjective _powerful_ stood out to me. If Microsoft does the
same thing with Bing, would a different adjective be chosen? Would it even be
news?

~~~
r00fus
Yeah, it's a sloppy way of saying "market-dominating", ultimately an
unnecessary puff-piece worthy adjective.

~~~
criddell
I thought it was unnecessary as well. I assume Bloomberg knows their audience
and if that's not something their readers know I guess it makes sense to
include it.

------
justncase80
They should just rebrand it as the ministry of truth already.

------
Tanegashima
Google… I don't understand the praise of it's search engine.

For example, when I search for my App name, pirate sites come first, and when
I search for functionality keywords, 2011 blog posts from Apps that have been
disappeared off the map appear first.

When I was writing my thesis, Google Scholar offered no help. Engineering
Village did everything.

Google emphasises too much on blogs and other ephemeral content, which as we
all know, is often written in a careless manner, rarely maintained, and even
just completely made-up. Google doesn't understand that, and I don't think
it's accidental.

~~~
monkpit
Sounds like your seo game needs some work.

~~~
Tanegashima
1\. It's not a game.

2\. No it doesn't, I did everything.

3\. It appears first result on the AppStore.

------
notliketherest
This whole "fake news" problem feels like a giant ruse. Their candidate
(Hillary) lost, thanks in a large part to the democratization of media on the
internet and right leaning online media outlets, and now they're trying to
bury those same sources from being on the front page. The thousands of liberal
/ globalist engineers and business people feel so guilty that they helped get
Donald Trump elected president that now they're actively censoring websites.
All under the guise of "fake news". Sure there are some blatantly fake news
articles, but it's nothing I don't see on the magazine rack at the super
market and laugh off. This is much more than that, this is active censorship
from the left wing globalist who control Google.

~~~
konradb
Hi - can you define what a 'globalist' engineer is please? How would I tell if
I was one?

