
Do Not Trust Google - DlSGUSTING
https://lukeboyle.com/blog-posts/2020/08/do-not-trust-google
======
joe-collins
> You don't have to agree with them politically to see that Google is applying
> different standards to conservative content than to more liberal content.

Or, perhaps a _balanced_ set of standards is being applied, and the author's
Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative"
content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for
search ranking?

(Granting, yes, perfect balance for any actor or reference frame is
impossible; and _accepting_ that some degree of filtering-scare-quotes-
censorship is a positive, pro-social quality in a search engine.)

~~~
cowpig
Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing.

I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a
video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were
fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was
faked.

That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people
in imminent physical danger.

~~~
burke_holland
This is exactly the problem, though. By suppressing this stuff, they validate
the narrative that “THEY don’t want you to know the truth” (whoever the hell
they is). This stuff doesn’t go away. It just migrates to different platforms
and every time it’s taken down it gains credibility among the faithful.

This is the current paradox that plagues us.

~~~
DlSGUSTING
Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm actually not very familiar with
Breitbart's content so I don't know if it's really a conspiracy website as is
being suggested here. But yes I believe censoring these websites does add
legitimacy to them

~~~
AstralStorm
So, is the Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy or anti-
vaccine even more legitimate because it's more deranked or otherwise less
visible?

This logic does not work. However, conspiracy theories do not use logic and
facts.

Breitbart is not being suppressed for their views or opinions, but uncritical
spreading of dangerous falsehoods. Sadly, some people do not understand the
difference as they drunk the "post-truth" Kool-Aid.

~~~
DlSGUSTING
Thanks for your point of view. I'm going to keep researching to find some
alternative examples

------
bergstromm466
_" \- what kind of users go to that websites (and does the user searching fit
that profile)?

\- how much traffic does the website get?

\- how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)?

\- and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?"_

Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of
analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared
to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'.
It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA
snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get _detailed insights_ ". I know
it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all
this trickery has become...

~~~
DlSGUSTING
Yeah absolutely, GA is quite terrifying. And they just ignore "do not track"
settings on browsers. Recaptcha is another one trojan horse imo. With
recaptcha v3 you get that single score to determine how legitimate of a user
you are. I've been outright blocked from sites because of my recaptcha score.

------
amanaplanacanal
> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Google is manually making these
> decisions to block conservative websites

So show us the evidence.

~~~
thu2111
The graphs of traffic flatlining overnight aren't convincing evidence to you?

There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in
"Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories):

[https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl...](https://pv-
uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-black-list-site-for-google-
now.txt)

See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".

------
paulcole
> As people increasingly are using search to navigate the web (as opposed to
> typing a URL into the address bar), this traffic increases, those people see
> more ads, Google makes more money.

Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay
per click and not pay per impression?

~~~
jay_kyburz
The ads appear above search results and so are often clicked on.

------
rvieira
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but perhaps a site trying to seriously
discuss bias against Breitbart shouldn't use :ok: as a favicon.

------
dundarious
invidio.us appears to be shutting down, which is a shame, as I was happy to
learn there was a sort of startpage.com for youtube.

~~~
DlSGUSTING
Yeah that's unfortunate. Seems like the maintainer is feeling burned out.

invidiou.site is another instance you can import your invidious data to

------
mgkimsal
"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is
wrong."

I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as
high as they did earlier.

I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No
one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and
doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as
they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their
'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is
taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are
they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's
more content to compete with too.

If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or
perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less
appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them
ranking lower _years down the road_ isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but
a company serving the needs and desires of its users?

~~~
DlSGUSTING
I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take
a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in
when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of
them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion.

I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it
was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with
similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they
do exist

~~~
AstralStorm
If a search engine should not take a stance, then who also should not?
Publishers? (Incl. YouTube, which takes some big stances.) Libraries? Social
media? Governments?!

Everything is political in some form after all.

------
johnnujler
Withdraw unto yourself and your immediate/close community.

~~~
AstralStorm
Sure, and then when they are wrong you go down with the ship, oblivious.

~~~
johnnujler
Hmmm... Btw that was a joke to showcase the universality of trade-offs. And
the idea that you do you and with that comes the responsibility to bear the
consequences. Anyway be well.

------
ezluckyfree
this is some pretty enlightened centrist content

