There goes the Interwebz
- Thread starter RackMaster
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,735
From when I can interpret in the article, it is not going to remove content that may be offensive or inappropriate, just not have it pop up as part of a relevant search.
I think this paragraph from the article is a good example:
The guidelines cite an example of "Holocaust history" as a search query. A resulting website listing "Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn't happen" would get flagged.
It is not saying that you cannot Google information about holocaust deniers, just that those types of links will not pop up when you are trying to do research on the topic. I have no problem with that.
I think this paragraph from the article is a good example:
The guidelines cite an example of "Holocaust history" as a search query. A resulting website listing "Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn't happen" would get flagged.
It is not saying that you cannot Google information about holocaust deniers, just that those types of links will not pop up when you are trying to do research on the topic. I have no problem with that.
"Which doesn't fit the company's worldview"? That's a bullshit sentence. This measure strengthens the credibility of the top search results, and saves the user time form having to sift through a bunch of garbage to find what they really need. I think this is a good move, albeit a massive undertaking.
That's the key line right there and it's a slippery fucking slope. Our Universities and Colleges already make it difficult for anyone to have an alternative view, now the main resource for searching is essentially going to push the same lines and now they get to shove anything they don't believe in to the bottom. Which some content should be but it's up to them to decide what's "upsetting or offensive"; which in the current climate could be just about anything.
@TLDR20 no one makes you be a dick either. Google is the current Internet standard and if you use Android, it's pretty much the only choice if you actually want shit to function. You're "higher educated" what did you use for research?
@Ooh-Rah I know that it's not removing content and some content is complete bullshit. It's up to the individual to decide for themselves. This could go down the road just like Facebook and their "war" on gun related pages.
Consider this my last post for a long time and I doubt it stays up long. I normally don't give a shit but I've been here a long time, Ive donated a lot of time and money to this site. I'm done with @TLDR20 and his bullshit passive aggressive attitude. Give me a vacation all you want, I'm not coming back until you grow the fuck up.
It's difficult to have an 'alternative' point of view on a college campus? That might make a great conservative narrative online but that's total bullshit. There are plenty of points of view on college campuses. What you don't get to have - or at least they're harder to have - is a point of view that's not based in some level of evidence.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
No one is going to edit or delete your posts.
If I am being a dick by telling you you don't have to use google, then I don't know what to say.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Also, for university research google scholar may be used sometimes. For the vast majority of research most students utilize their libraries online catalogues.
Those can be easily and freely used to narrow your search specifics down, to things like "academic research paper, peer reviewed, journal, etc" google scholar gives you the abstract and a link to the journal. The library system actually gives you access or will get you the print version...
Those can be easily and freely used to narrow your search specifics down, to things like "academic research paper, peer reviewed, journal, etc" google scholar gives you the abstract and a link to the journal. The library system actually gives you access or will get you the print version...
I know for the collegiate courses I have taken, results from Google weren't considered credible academic sources. We used the University provided library of articles, journals, periodicals, etc. Sometimes assignments allowed for the use of results from a search engine like Google, but those generally when the assignment had some component of translating pop culture, popular view, etc into what the academically approved research showed/proved.
Hey brother, I think you're taking it too far here. I think your reaction to this article was more emotional than anything, and you're digging in. Cool, we all do it sometimes, but I think you're wrong here. This has nothing to do with colleges and universities controlling viewpoints. Like was already said, most of those institutions require you to use their libraries to pull sources from anyways. I think you're being too defensive with TLDR20 on this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 438
Lots of efforts to establish censorship as a cultural norm these days. Whether it's skewing search results to fit them to some "worldview", legislating away consequence, or protecting the childrens.
Relevant to this discussion: NY State Bill A05323 'Right' to be Forgotten
And a copy-paste of my reaction to this from elsewhere:
This isn't really about privacy at all - it's about rights. What rights are, where they come from, and how they are grounded (justification, legitimacy, etc.).
In the US tradition at least, legal rights derive from (what were taken in the 18th century to be) natural rights. Let's take a look at the preamble from the US' Declaration of Independence:
It is important to note here that this document does not, nor does it purport to, bestow any rights. It merely acknowledges those Natural Rights which exist.
The second sentence is also important. It lays out the duty of government (to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness) and the source of its authority to carry out that duty (consent of the governed).
Legal rights, when created, should be principle-based; should serve to secure the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and be grounded in the consent of the governed.
The problem with something like a 'right to be forgotten' is that there simply is no such thing. None of us has a right to dictate what others may or may not remember. We have no claims on the content of each others' minds or thoughts. There is no more a 'right' to be forgotten than there is to be remembered.
Or, to put it another way, there is no principle under-girding such a 'right'. It is utterly and inherently arbitrary - there is no principled way to determine what might be subject to such a right or what wouldn't be.
We might as well magic up a right to be rich and famous. Or to be liked. At core, this is a 'right' to control how other people view and think of me.
Relevant to this discussion: NY State Bill A05323 'Right' to be Forgotten
And a copy-paste of my reaction to this from elsewhere:
This isn't really about privacy at all - it's about rights. What rights are, where they come from, and how they are grounded (justification, legitimacy, etc.).
In the US tradition at least, legal rights derive from (what were taken in the 18th century to be) natural rights. Let's take a look at the preamble from the US' Declaration of Independence:
It is important to note here that this document does not, nor does it purport to, bestow any rights. It merely acknowledges those Natural Rights which exist.
The second sentence is also important. It lays out the duty of government (to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness) and the source of its authority to carry out that duty (consent of the governed).
Legal rights, when created, should be principle-based; should serve to secure the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and be grounded in the consent of the governed.
The problem with something like a 'right to be forgotten' is that there simply is no such thing. None of us has a right to dictate what others may or may not remember. We have no claims on the content of each others' minds or thoughts. There is no more a 'right' to be forgotten than there is to be remembered.
Or, to put it another way, there is no principle under-girding such a 'right'. It is utterly and inherently arbitrary - there is no principled way to determine what might be subject to such a right or what wouldn't be.
We might as well magic up a right to be rich and famous. Or to be liked. At core, this is a 'right' to control how other people view and think of me.
Why are conservative speakers are faced with violent protests if alternative points of view are accepted?
policemedic
Verified SWAT
The accuracy of your statement is completely dependent upon the subject about which your view is outside the norm.
I can argue that the standard model equation is inaccurate because it is dependent upon the Higgs particle. I'd probably be wrong but if I made a cogent argument--even an inaccurate one--it wouldn't be too much of a problem.
Of course, that's a purely academic and scientific disagreement. The same could be said of a difference in opinion on how to treat accidental opioid intoxication in dogs, or whether Freud had it right.
Introduce something polarizing like politics (the conservative viewpoint in particular) and things change. How much depends on which university you're at, but it can be significant as we've seen recently.
If I wore a sandwich board proclaiming a theory taught in business school to be crap, I'd either spark intellectual and reasoned debate or be ignored. If I wore a sign praising Trump's temporary travel ban or advocating the deportation of illegal aliens, the reaction would be much different from both students and faculty.
You're right, one can have an "alternate" point of view on college campuses all day long. It's harder to have (or at least express) a conservative point of view, especially at elite universities.
I'm curious to know what point of view is not "based on some level of evidence." Isn't all evidence subjective? Some people might take a sample size of 1 and extrapolate that onto the entire country. Others may fundamentally misattribute the root cause of major problems and use that to support their worldview. Others might hold up a 1,000 year old book as "evidence" for their believes. So what point of view in this thread is "not based on some level of evidence?"
This was an interesting, thoughtful, and well-argued post.
I agree. I use the hell out of Google and Google Scholar (and Wikipedia, for the sources) in my research.
@RackMaster check PM
Let people see "alternate facts" and make up their own minds. I Googled "Holocaust History" just now and I didn't see "Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn't happen" page in the top ten results (maybe Google already censored it out?) but I went and looked it up. It's a Stormfront blog post. For those of you who don't know, Stormfront is affiliated with white supremacists and I don't recommend you follow the link to the page through a work computer. But go ahead and read it at home, and see what Google is trying to protect the world from.
Given Stormfront's relatively small following and the huge interest (51,000,000 Google entries?) in the Holocaust (which totally did happen, by the way) my guess is that if this result comes up high in the search listings, it's because a lot of people who DON'T believe what that site is spewing are sharing it around like "look at this stupid shit." And it really is pretty stupid. IMO there's no need for Google to be the though police on this one, as it simply exposes idiots for what they are.
Moreover, any type of legitimate research involves (or should involve) addressing counterarguments. Let the counterarguments come up in the initial search, and let the readers/researchers make up their own minds. If you're filtering out anything that could be "objectionable," you're not protecting people you are the thought police.
The problem is the subjectivity of what is "garbage." The original article stated that the censorship would include things that people find "upsetting." Many liberals find the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election "upsetting," should we have censored inauguration coverage? Some of my grad school friends find "blue lives matter" upsetting. Some of my religious friends get upset when people promote evolution. Others get upset when I criticize Israel... and others when I support Israel. The problem with the "upsetting" standard is that it's a constant race to being "most offended" and the group with the most vocal and intimidating acolytes is the one that comes out on top. That's not the way a free society is supposed to work.
And what happens when political parties, or rich companies, figure out that they can pay people to claim they are "upset" and they can get content they don't like suppressed or removed from the world most important search engine, one with 1.6 BILLION unique monthly users?
*whew* it's a relief to know that West Coast "liberal elites" would never attempt to censor things they find politically objectionable. Oh, hello there Facebook!
No need to take a vacation brother, you've said what you think you needed to say and we can all move on. TLDR and I disagree on many things, but I have to give him full credit in that I've never known him to edit/delete anyone's posts or to ban people for disagreeing with him, even when it's heated. You're an important and valued member of the site and you have interesting things to say, and it is my sincere hope that continues. That said, issues with staff members are probably best resolved one-on-one with that staff member or in PM with other members of the staff. Again, check PMs. Hope to see you back up and posting again in the very near future.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Facebook and google are private companies. Facebook has a user agreement. If you don't like using it then fucking don't. There is nothing more to it than that. The "liberal elites" can only censor you on their platforms...
You know who else has a user agreement that allows the staff to edit or delete posts? ShadowSpear... whargarble...
You know who else has a user agreement that allows the staff to edit or delete posts? ShadowSpear... whargarble...
Facebook and Google are indeed private companies, and in the main I agree that any private business should be able to run their business in whatever manner they seem fit.
For example, I'm totally fine with a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding. There are dozens... hundreds... of alternatives.
I'm totally fine with a "no whites" policy on private restaurants for the same reason.
But in cases where there is an overriding public interest in ensuring equal public access, or when alternatives are limited or less desirable, the government should take an interest. For example, a "whites only" policy in hotels in major Southern cities infringed greatly on the rights of non-whites, because there were not legitimate, adequate alternatives to people passing through. The government was right to take an interest in that case. And they would be right to take an interest in media outlets that have a undue or monopoly-like influence on public opinion, especially when that influence has a distinct political bent.
And the people should DEFINITELY take an interest, or at least be informed of, the actions those companies are taking so they can make an informed decision about whether to continue to give those companies their business.
There are, as you've identified, many different search engines out there. Google is the biggest and, IMO, the best. I count on them to provide me unbiased and unfiltered content, but it appears they are not going to give me that anymore. Maybe it's time to find a different search engine. Maybe not. But what alternative is there for Facebook? I can't think of any.
The government, and private citizens, should take an interest in what influential companies do and the impact their actions have on the fabric of America. That's what makes these kinds of topics interesting and useful.
For example, I'm totally fine with a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding. There are dozens... hundreds... of alternatives.
I'm totally fine with a "no whites" policy on private restaurants for the same reason.
But in cases where there is an overriding public interest in ensuring equal public access, or when alternatives are limited or less desirable, the government should take an interest. For example, a "whites only" policy in hotels in major Southern cities infringed greatly on the rights of non-whites, because there were not legitimate, adequate alternatives to people passing through. The government was right to take an interest in that case. And they would be right to take an interest in media outlets that have a undue or monopoly-like influence on public opinion, especially when that influence has a distinct political bent.
And the people should DEFINITELY take an interest, or at least be informed of, the actions those companies are taking so they can make an informed decision about whether to continue to give those companies their business.
There are, as you've identified, many different search engines out there. Google is the biggest and, IMO, the best. I count on them to provide me unbiased and unfiltered content, but it appears they are not going to give me that anymore. Maybe it's time to find a different search engine. Maybe not. But what alternative is there for Facebook? I can't think of any.
The government, and private citizens, should take an interest in what influential companies do and the impact their actions have on the fabric of America. That's what makes these kinds of topics interesting and useful.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Alternatives for Facebook/crap as many here call it? LinkedIn, and Instagram are two of the simplest to identify. By extension Snapchat, as the now link almost without permission to news sports and major events.
Facebook loses its relevancy every time a grandpa likes lesbian porn, or your uncle makes crazy racist comments. Most millennial aren't using Facebook except as a means to show families stuff. Instagram is far more popular, at least with us youngins...
Facebook loses its relevancy every time a grandpa likes lesbian porn, or your uncle makes crazy racist comments. Most millennial aren't using Facebook except as a means to show families stuff. Instagram is far more popular, at least with us youngins...
