Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Fake News And The Censorship, Filtership, Bullship Blur


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6,404 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 01:43 PM

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"

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-bias-claims.html

 

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.


#2 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5,517 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 03:32 PM

Fake news and slanted news and similar are highlighting the - to date - failure of Google search and it's vaunted machine learning. The failure to identify and remove pages of nonsensical 'keyword' strings, one can't actually name them sentences, is of long standing, as is a significant (currently 3-5% minimum) number of factually incorrect 'answers' currently given precedence in results.

If G can't solve those more simplistic concerns why should anyone believe that they can solve more subjective concerns? It takes knowledgeable competent human intervention and that only occurs when a particular media threshold is crossed.

In today's (and for some time previous) world Google's indexing and serving of the world's information is straight up GIGO.



#3 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6,404 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 04:45 PM

 

In today's (and for some time previous) world Google's indexing and serving of the world's information is straight up GIGO.

 

lol   Right!   That's what it is.   I enjoy when you make things so simple.

 

 

 

If G can't solve those more simplistic concerns why should anyone believe that they can solve more subjective concerns?

 

Google talks about "looking at the author" to determine if they are experienced, authoritative and trustworthy.  Google calls this EAT and it is an important part of their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines.

 

Although those Guidelines are written for humans.  The goal is to find information on the website being evaluated or other websites of importance that can be used as a proxy for being "subjective".  

 

If "fake news" and inaccurate content is getting through then Google isn't doing a good job of looking at the author or looking at the publisher.   I'd think that it would not be very hard for an organization with the resources of Google to accomplish.

 

I keep seeing prattle on garbage websites of the eHow variety rank above organizations that are small, but the "world's foremost authority" in their field, with dozens of degreed and certified experts on their staff.   That simply shows that google is giving links an enormous weight over EAT - even for "Your Money Your Life" topics. 

 

So, until Google "learns" that organizations staffed by the world's leading experts should trump links their "machine learning" sucks... and before they can build "artificial intelligence" they have to have subjective common sense as a foundation.


Edited by EGOL, 20 November 2017 - 04:46 PM.


#4 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3,439 posts

Posted 21 November 2017 - 02:55 PM

How coincidental. I spent the better part of Sunday looking at articles and listening to TED talks on the subject. No one had a solution of course.

 

Almost everyone agreed social media was a major cause. It has reduced our attention span and helped to polarise us since there are now thousands of "news sources". One gave the example of inauguration day in January. Another stated two different groups come to two different conclusion given the exact same news event. We can't even agree on what is fact. In the days of print and mainstream TV not one would dare to NOT report on a major event.

One presenter mentioned that facts are easy to verify and gave an example which I will relate using a "today" example. November 8, 2107 Le Journal de Montreal reported Charles Manson had died at age 83. Not that I care but I was astounded. How come I have not heard. I subscribe to three newsletters and read a portal. "Was this censored so we don't glorify him more than he is?" I thought. We know why I had not heard. Bet they got lots of clicks.
 

Google talks about "looking at the author" to determine if they are experienced, authoritative and trustworthy.

How would Google rate the president of a country on these three points. Let's use Macron for example ;). It would have to be top points. Now what if he started to spew garbage?

I read this in May. (not intended as support)
Grappling with facts in the age of Trump
http://www.dw.com/en...rump/a-39050549

Read the part of the walking incident and golf cart and the "not listening incident".

I'm sure this article has been modified since because there was also the finger incident. (Search: g7 trump finger italian prime minister) It's what caught my attention because I've seen myself in that pose and I was not giving the finger.

Inside all "fake news" there is some "real news" and inside all "real news" there is some "fake news". Anyone who has seen an event from the inside or close to the inside knows this; usually done via omission, "out of context", or editorializing... and today by total fabrication.

 

Today I don't know what to believe or not and am skeptic of everything.

 

This was interesting: (4.27 minutes)


Edited by bobbb, 21 November 2017 - 03:09 PM.


#5 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6,404 posts

Posted 21 November 2017 - 08:40 PM

Wow.  That's amazing.  Frightening at what it might produce.





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users