An interesting article in The New York Times about "fake news" and how it might be filtered out by search engines. The article then morphs into "marginalized voices"
It brings up interesting questions about what is "fake" what is "marginalized".... then should this stuff be censored or filtered or demoted or whatever.
Perhaps they are looking at the wrong angles. Perhaps they should be looking for "what is accurate".... "what is true"...
A "socialist" or an "evangelist" website of any kind should not be filtered or censored or demoted if it is accurate.
At the same time you have sites like The Onion... that writes goofy stuff for its entertainment value.
That's very different from advertising hiding behind a headline or an image... and then the advertising purpose is not disclosed or worse yet "understood" until the reader gets down to the last line... and maybe some readers never realize that they were snookered.
This isn't a simple question and it goes far beyond news and advertising and into content that is produced without any regard for accuracy and expertise.. it was only made for Adsense.
Edited by EGOL, 20 November 2017 - 01:46 PM.