ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Smells like disruption

Google appears interested in presenting an opportunity to competitors:
The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links. THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.
Considering what we've learned about a) the lies committed by corrupt scientific researchers, b) the inferiority and corruption of the U.S. educational system, and c) the proclivity for complete fiction on the part of the U.S. news media, it's not difficult to predict that this will be a complete debacle if Google is foolish enough to implement it. If I were a competitor to Google search, I would be on my knees praying that they would follow through on this concept in the most extreme manner possible.

You know this is most likely an SJW-driven affair, because only SJWs would be dumb enough to risk a corporation's entire business model in the interests of their ideology. If this is simply a genuine attempt to improve their offerings, Google will introduce it as an option for those interested in it and it will either succeed or fail on the merits of the implementation. If it is an SJW attempt to drive the narrative, it will be imposed as a replacement for the link-based system and people will rapidly turn to competitors who don't seek to impose their reality on the masses.

I tend to doubt that the ABCNNBCBS cabal will be buried deep within the "truth-based" links due to their near-complete disassociation with observable reality. But you never know. Perhaps this is Google's stealth means of taking on the mainstream media indirectly.

Labels: ,

86 Comments:

Anonymous karsten March 04, 2015 8:05 AM  

"But you never know. Perhaps this is Google's stealth means of taking on the mainstream media indirectly."

Not in this world.

This will simply render the rest of the Web as biased to the Left as Wikipedia, that other entity supposedly reflecting "truthfulness."

Blogger Salt March 04, 2015 8:08 AM  

Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth.

Truth by consensus. Think it's time to get some Dentyne chewing gum; 9 out of 10 dentists recommend so I've been told on TV.

Anonymous Orville March 04, 2015 8:23 AM  

So Google is going full retard. At least there are more than a few options for search engines. A competitor should mercilessly mock Google starting with pictures of Sergey Brin as Simple Jack.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar March 04, 2015 8:31 AM  

I epect they will go full retard. Remember these are the assholes that celebrated Cesar Chavez's Birthday instead of Easter. Cesar Chavez is one of those socialist heroes that only Hardcore Marxists remember. Even though he's Mexican, even most Mexicans have no idea who that guy is!
Unless every search engine follows suit due to "Net Neutrality" by the Kenyan Bozo Death Wish Society, Google is about to become the new AOL!

Anonymous NorthernHamlet March 04, 2015 8:36 AM  

To be fair: Google's search results have been shit for the past few years. More than half of it is spammy junk.

Blogger rycamor March 04, 2015 8:38 AM  

As I've pointed out before, real life has a habit of routing around the best-laid plans of mice and men. For example, Twitter is fast becoming one of the primary ways people find content on the internet, and I'm sure something else is waiting in the wings.

Anonymous Mark K. March 04, 2015 8:41 AM  

Facts the web unanimously agrees upon are, by definition, not an element of this. They couldn't be. The purported utility of this plan is in direct proportion to the extent that it filters out the small amount of "factual" sites from the larger field of noise.

Evidently, one of the facts Google knows is that people are such dullards that you can have a bald-faced lie like this and it will just be swallowed whole. If Google already has every fact in existence, why bother having the rest of the internet at all?

This is a just a re-branding of censorship; something the founders warned us is essential for establishing and maintaining tyranny. I wonder if they could have imagined a tyranny of industries and academia?

The "problem" this addresses is a problem the mainstream is having, not the customers of Google: too many people are finding out enough of the facts (despite the overwhelming noise of mainstream "science") to be sceptical of things like AGW, vaccine safety, etc. And it is much harder to dominate a population that has a healthy scepticism.

Vast numbers of people are not joining flat earth societies. But vast numbers of people are asking questions about things companies like Google apparently think they should just shut the hell up about and go back to doing as they're told.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 March 04, 2015 8:44 AM  

Ooooo....The Bureau of Truth!

CaptDMO

Anonymous Ridip March 04, 2015 8:44 AM  

Much to my surprise, in terms of what I'm looking for, I've been finding Bing to be better than Google lately. I was hoping Microsoft might do something different. Then I read the article and what do you know one of the lead developers of this type of technology is a Microsofty. So much for that hope.

Anonymous zen0 March 04, 2015 8:55 AM  

This means that any sites with government statistics about the economy will be very hard to find, right?

Blogger Yohami March 04, 2015 9:02 AM  

"Facts the web unanimously agrees on" Truth by committee.

OpenID cailcorishev March 04, 2015 9:02 AM  

Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth.

I assume this particular article will be down-ranked for misusing the word "unanimously," then. (If the web were unanimous about them, there would be no problem to solve here.)

Anonymous Salt March 04, 2015 9:04 AM  

Google is succumbing to the tendency of those who soar so high, the crash and burn of Icarus.

Anonymous CIA March 04, 2015 9:06 AM  

The Google seed money was ours.
It's all ours.
You're ours.

Blogger Hd Hammer March 04, 2015 9:08 AM  

"Knowledge Vault" - Oh crap, it even sounds sinister enough to have been taken straight from 1984!
Your punishment for second degree thought crimes - six years in the Knowledge Vault...

Anonymous Curt March 04, 2015 9:09 AM  

Yandex

Blogger bob k. mando March 04, 2015 9:13 AM  

zen0 March 04, 2015 8:55 AM
This means that any sites with government statistics about the economy will be very hard to find, right?



what? every mature intellect KNOWS that it isn't real science ... ahem, excuse me ... Real Science is self-revising.

heck, Real Science isn't even close to accurate until after it's been revised at least thrice.



Voxxy Poo
a) the lies committed by corrupt scientific researchers, b) the inferiority and corruption of the U.S. educational system,


even better, the lies committed by the corrupt educational systems.

if this were a forum, i'd start a thread laying out some of the lies everyone is taught AND the obvious evidence against it. in spite of which, these theories continue to get promulgated at the University level, in some cases for well over a century.

Freudian psych and Marxist political philosophy are obvious gimmes. Vox would demand both Keynesian and Monetarist econ.

Blogger bob k. mando March 04, 2015 9:19 AM  

oh snap.

remember a couple threads back where i pointed out again ( ad nauseum ) that dueling would cull neuro-deviant males but do nothing about neuro-deviant women? maybe we don't really need to cull the women ...

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2015/03/04/we-are-genetically-more-like-our-fathers/

Blogger Wayne Earl March 04, 2015 9:34 AM  

Fundamental misunderstanding of googles business model. They are an advertising company, full stop. Their entire business model is to provide services so that we generate content (email, documents, etc) that they use to model behavior and deliver ads.

I come from a advertising background, and personally own IP in the targeted behavior modeling and analysis. At this point, Truth can't be modeled.

Blogger JartStar March 04, 2015 9:34 AM  

I was wondering when the powers that be would start editing and restricting the web for our own good.

Anonymous Samuel Scott March 04, 2015 9:35 AM  

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

This is my field, so I hope I won't write too much.

That paragraph is not exactly accurate. There are roughly 200 ranking factors in Google's algorithm -- links are an important part, but it's not the only part. Years ago, people could get a website to #1 in Google for a desired search query by getting enough links pointing to it (though any means necessary) with that query as the anchor text of the link. (Called a "Google Bomb.")

Today, it's a lot harder because Google is getting scarily smart. If I, Vox, or any reader searches Google for the same search query, we'll likely see different results because Google is moving towards personalization. Your location, your language, your Google+ activity, your prior search history, the websites you visit while logged into Google, the type of device on which you are searching, and a lot more will all influence the search results that you see specifically.

More to come.

Blogger Josh March 04, 2015 9:35 AM  

The anti vax angle is worrisome, but what would be wrong with Google nuking fake / satire news sites in their search results?

Anonymous Alexander March 04, 2015 9:45 AM  

Huh. And here I thought that the consensus had just agreed that one packet of data on the internet was just the same as any other packet of data and it was unfair to discriminate against one or the other.

Blogger bob k. mando March 04, 2015 9:46 AM  

there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

the problem being, of course, the people in charge of this. and, thence, the way they're going to administer it.

it's the same order of stupidity as putting a guy named Barack Hussein Obama in charge of combating global Islamic Terrorism.

Anonymous Pope Cleophus I March 04, 2015 9:47 AM  

Google wants to base page ranks on facts ...

I guess Wikipedia entries will fall off the first page of results. At least I wont have to suffer with Jimmy Wales crying for cash like PBS.

Blogger D. Lane March 04, 2015 9:49 AM  

Huh. And here I thought that the consensus had just agreed that one packet of data on the internet was just the same as any other packet of data and it was unfair to discriminate against one or the other.

Google's exemption is in the rules.

Anonymous Samuel Scott March 04, 2015 9:49 AM  

Here are two examples of the Knowledge Vault:

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0b94jk1x37 (when is mothers day)

http://awesomescreenshot.com/07c4jk3564 (see Barack Obama to the right)

Google's Knowledge Vault culls facts from the Internet that have unanimous (or close to it) agreement. Then, Google can display those facts in what is called the Knowledge Graph or Knowledge Box within search results for given queries.

Google's goal is not to be a "search engine" but to be an "answer engine." It wants to get an answer to the searcher as quickly as possible because Google's entirely business rests on providing the best search results to people. The moment that people become dissatisfied with the results, Google is toast.

But that doesn't seem to be happening. Last month, Google had 58% of the world's search-market share. Source: https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0

It's been declining a bit, but nothing too worrisome yet.

OpenID dalrock March 04, 2015 9:58 AM  

The stated purpose is to get away from listing pages based on popularity, but the solution is to rank pages based on facts, which Google ranks based on popularity. At best Google is chasing its own tail here, and at worst it is a cover for Google to put its thumb on the scales.

Also, even if the SJWs haven't already packed the group, they will. They will want to be there more than anyone else, and they know how to break in and take over groups.

As you say, this is good news for Google's competitors.

Anonymous Alexander March 04, 2015 9:58 AM  

But if that was truly what it cared about, then it would want to give the 'false' answer if the odds were good that that was what the person in question wanted to find.

But now google is shifting from 'get the answer the customer wants to the customer' to 'get the answer we want the customer to have'. That's concerning, because it indicates that google is throwing its business model at risk in order to be ideologically pure.

Anonymous RatDog March 04, 2015 10:02 AM  

I think what they mean is that they are going to rank articles based on "truthiness," not "truthfulness." Thanks to Stephen Colbert for that word.

Blogger Josh March 04, 2015 10:03 AM  

But guys their motto is don't be evil, so obviously they aren't going to do anything evil...

Anonymous Porky March 04, 2015 10:06 AM  

Dudes....it's the internet. It's not reality.

Anonymous Alexander March 04, 2015 10:07 AM  

Oh goody, rain, meet parade.

Anonymous Viidad March 04, 2015 10:08 AM  

@Josh

First they came for the Onion... and I said nothing, because alliums make my eyes water...

Anonymous Porky March 04, 2015 10:08 AM  

As you say, this is good news for Google's competitors.

Kidding, right?

Watch how fast Microsoft comes up with it's own Truth Engine.

(It will, of course, suck.)

Blogger Student in Blue March 04, 2015 10:12 AM  

>Implying Bing isn't that already.

Blogger dw March 04, 2015 10:15 AM  

Since its a company run by the leftists, the chances that it's not about controlling the narrative are slim to none.

Blogger The Remnant March 04, 2015 10:15 AM  

"Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth." This right here gives up the ghost. Consensus is never a proxy for truth; often quite the opposite.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 04, 2015 10:22 AM  

The key is to program people with what you want them to believe, while they are in a receptive state.

"How do you correct people's misconceptions? People get very defensive," Stempeck says. "If they're searching for the answer on Google they might be in a much more receptive state."

Sounds like something Google will be working on in combination with the government of Red China.

Blogger YIH March 04, 2015 10:23 AM  

Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.
Ah geez, that depends on who's defining ''truthfulness'' isn't it?
It's like with 'Net Nanny' type software - sure it blocks about 95% of pr0n (and for the employers that use it stuff that's nearly as bad as pr0n, like Fecesbook and Amazon).
The only real beef I have with such software is the category ''violence/hate/racism'', VDARE, Amren, iSteve, Lawrence Auster and a few other notable sites...
Wouldn't be surprised if this blog has appeared on a $#!+ list or two as well.
My guess, Google will define (for example) AGW as ''truthful'', ect.

Anonymous HalibetLector March 04, 2015 10:25 AM  

if Google is foolish enough to implement it

They're definitely foolish enough to implement it. Considering how cozy they are with the NSA and the state department, it wouldn't surprise me if this was COINTEL dressed up as SJW. Then again, with those people, it could be either or both.

Cesar Chavez is one of those socialist heroes that only Hardcore Marxists remember.

Not in the Bay Area. More people observe Cesar Chavez day than memorial day there.

Anonymous zen0 March 04, 2015 10:25 AM  

> Dudes....it's the internet. It's not reality.

Sure, but maybe some people like access to ALL the bullshit, not just the bullshit THEY want to feed you.

Blogger CarpeOro March 04, 2015 10:25 AM  

Since I have greater disdain for Google than Microsoft, Google is second or third on my search engine list (Yahoo beat them because I still use my yahoo.mail account). They may as well have "Let's Be Evil" as their motto. My bet is on the SJW truth engine, not business driven.

Blogger CarpeOro March 04, 2015 10:27 AM  

Slightly off topic, but Palemoon has begun to become bloated. Any suggestions out there on alternatives? I mention this because Chorme is my browser of last resort.

Blogger Chris Scena March 04, 2015 10:37 AM  

Any suggestions on search engines? Google has been my standard for a while, but with this change coming, I wouldn't touch it again.

Blogger Doom March 04, 2015 10:39 AM  

Right as they (Google) is trying to begin operating as a broadband carrier? As such, I greatly expect them to be trying to fulfill one of those shovel-ready jobs Zero was on about a while back. Shoveling shit to the masses by the heaping helping full, and then making their broadband all that is available. Tidy. Nasty. Typical crony capitalism, probably tied to the new FCC rules. Gotta wonder if they weren't the architects of that, or certainly party to it.

Anonymous Anubis March 04, 2015 10:40 AM  

Within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) March 20, 2000 - How truthy is that?

Darn its already started working I cant find a video of Al "Jazeera" Gore talking about the poles melting by 2013. Let me try "blacks attack Asian whites" PAGE NOT FOUND!!!!!, what happened to WORLD STAR HIP HOP & WHITE GIRL BLEED A LOT? You better download Bait Car episodes while you can. I thought it was bad enough that they deleted the suggestions for AMERICAN WOMEN ARE SO.

Anonymous Anubis March 04, 2015 10:42 AM  

"Any suggestions on search engines? Google has been my standard for a while, but with this change coming, I wouldn't touch it again."

STARTPAGE- the worlds most private search engine other than TOR

Anonymous Samuel Scott March 04, 2015 10:43 AM  

Any suggestions on search engines? Google has been my standard for a while, but with this change coming, I wouldn't touch it again.

Just so you know, this may never actually happen. Google experiments with countless things, and a lot of things are shelved. This is just a hypothetical possibility.

One example: Google ran some tests to see how the search results would appear if the number and type of links to websites were removed from the algorithm as a ranking factor. Google reportedly determined that the search results were of lower quality, so that idea was shelved.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 04, 2015 10:46 AM  

CarpeOro: "Slightly off topic, but Palemoon has begun to become bloated. Any suggestions out there on alternatives?"

Iron!

Anonymous FP March 04, 2015 10:48 AM  

"Dudes....it's the internet. It's not reality."

You're not my reality supervisor! Neither is google.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 04, 2015 10:52 AM  

Chris Scena: "Any suggestions on search engines?"

(1) startpage
(2) ixquick
(3) DuckDuckGo

Anonymous Porky March 04, 2015 10:54 AM  

So wait...when I search for boobies the fake ones will not show up?

THIS CANNOT STAND!

OpenID easilyangered March 04, 2015 11:02 AM  

so, I admittedly don't know if this would be affected at all, but how will this work when you are looking for a site that is specifically dealing in fiction? So let's say I specialize in alternate past books and someone wants to find my site because they heard about this book where the Axis won WW2, will man in a high castle be on result page 1000?, 2000?

Blogger Joshua Sinistar March 04, 2015 11:04 AM  

HalibetLector, the bay area is nothing but Hardcore Marxists. Even Moscow during the Soviet days didn't have as many Marxist idiots!

Blogger hank.jim March 04, 2015 11:04 AM  

You can't force people to search for "the truth". If people are looking for anti-vaccine articles, they don't want to find pro-vaccine articles. Google is better off being an impartial provider.

Anonymous Stirner March 04, 2015 11:06 AM  

CarpeOro, if you are looking for an alternative browser, check out the Iron Browser.

It is an open source fork of the Chrome/Chromium browser code. It is basically identical to Chrome, but it strips out some of the marginally creepy Google tracking and reporting functions.

Blogger Bob Wallace March 04, 2015 11:08 AM  

Before Google was the default search engine it was Profusion, which is no longer around. Perhaps they need to come back.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 04, 2015 11:21 AM  

Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth.

If nothing else spilled the beans this was a SJW effort, that sentence right there would. Only a SJW would think anything has unanimous agreement, becuase only they and their rabbit followers would ignore anything disagreeing with their version of events.

It would be more like MSNBC when it gave up pretending to be objective and went full-retard trying to capture the left wing viewership.

Blogger Chris Scena March 04, 2015 11:49 AM  

Thanks, Titus Didius Tacitus.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2015 12:03 PM  

"Watch how fast Microsoft comes up with it's own Truth Engine."

say porky.. just asking but did you also predict that Bing would censor firearms related search results like google does?

Blogger bob k. mando March 04, 2015 12:09 PM  

Porky March 04, 2015 10:54 AM
So wait...when I search for boobies the fake ones will not show up?
THIS CANNOT STAND!


obviously not, real boobs can't approach the structural integrity of saline and plastic. they just kind of droop.

yet one more way that 'man-made' bests Mother Nature.

Blogger Quadko March 04, 2015 12:11 PM  

Nice, I missed that implication when seeing that headline yesterday.

And, TENS pro/con discussions.

And once this works, next Google can present you with a version of a site with "all the wrong facts corrected by the Knowledge Vault", especially useful in their news site to make sure the "accurate, correct" news is all that is reported.

Anonymous Porky March 04, 2015 12:16 PM  

Bing would censor firearms related search results like google does?

Is this true?

Not that I'm shocked. But yeah, I would have predicted that a large corp would be overly cautious in a potentially litigious environment.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 04, 2015 12:24 PM  

I would have predicted that a large corp would be overly cautious in a potentially litigious environment.

Microsoft certainly hasn't been perfect in this regard, but they've been far less willing to bend over than Google.

Anonymous Chris Ritchie March 04, 2015 12:28 PM  

I saw it immediately as well. What an open door for a competitor. The link based system is based on statistical research about the wisdom of crowds. Surely Google sees that and understands it. It's so laughable that it makes me wonder if this announcement is a feint in some way.

Anonymous Chris Ritchie March 04, 2015 12:39 PM  

This is a just a re-branding of censorship; something the founders warned us is essential for establishing and maintaining tyranny. I wonder if they could have imagined a tyranny of industries and academia?

Wouldn't that be the Roman Catholic Church and the Trade Guilds of the Middle ages? Not exactly a one for one match, but it does rhyme.

Blogger kurt9 March 04, 2015 12:40 PM  

If Google does implement this change in their search algorithms, it is possible they will simply do it and not tell anyone. On the other hand, they must be very sensitive to how their search algorithms work as it was unannounced changes in the Altavista search engine that destroyed it. In any case, Goggle needs real competition.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 04, 2015 12:52 PM  

Of course blogs could eventually be evaluated and improved the same way.

Anonymous Donn March 04, 2015 12:57 PM  

We said goodbye to 'Ma Bell' for a while now we'll say hello to 'Mother-may-I-Google'. It's all good. I've been expecting my tv and telephone to spy on me for the last couple of decades thanks to working in TEMPEST shielded buildings and reading Dean Ing.

Freedom is getting kicked in the nuts everywhere. Ain't it grand.

Blogger MATT March 04, 2015 1:15 PM  

Its like they hate themselves.

Anonymous patrick kelly March 04, 2015 1:39 PM  

"Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth."

Those are stored in the Rainbow Farting Unicorn barn....

Blogger Nate March 04, 2015 1:46 PM  

'Is this true?

Not that I'm shocked."

Google does.. and has for years now.

Bing does not and never has.

Anonymous patrick kelly March 04, 2015 1:58 PM  

I seem to be able to find all the firearms related stuff I search for with Google, but maybe I just don't notice the difference between filtered and non-filtered searches.

Also Google provides me better results when searching for Microsoft related software development information than Bing.

OpenID simplytimothy March 04, 2015 2:05 PM  

Watch how fast Microsoft comes up with it's own Truth Engine.

Truth Engine Personal
Truth Engine Home Premium
Truth Engine Enterprise
Truth Engine 360

You want the truth? You gotta upgrade.

I grin at the thought of developer tools.

T#
T#.net
...

Anonymous Porky March 04, 2015 2:24 PM  

Bing does not and never has.

Well they don't have to because they just copy Google's results anyway.

I read it on Wikipedia.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar March 04, 2015 2:31 PM  

Google sure is asking to join the scrapheap of history. Did you hear Target is laying off thousands of workers? Happy Holidays Target Dog! How's J.C. Penney after Ellen started pushing homosexual consumerism? Not so good? Not to worry, the Left doesn't admit mistakes, they blame the World, just not Mother Earth though cause that's Gaia the Greek Goddess who gave birth to the Titans with the Sky God Uranus. Heh, Uranus...

Blogger rycamor March 04, 2015 2:57 PM  

Nate March 04, 2015 1:46 PM

'Is this true?

Not that I'm shocked."

Google does.. and has for years now.

Bing does not and never has.


Weird... I remember when I was on your show and you did a Bing search for "Walther PPK stovepipe" and nothing came up, but then got tons of results on Google. Now I do it and Google gives 4,500 results while Bing provides 829,000. That can't be right.

Anonymous Harsh March 04, 2015 3:14 PM  

Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

So all pages about climate change will receive a very low ranking. Good to hear.

Blogger CM March 04, 2015 3:30 PM  

Bing would censor firearms related search results like google does?

Wait... so that's why I can't find shooting ranges near me on google?

Anonymous Theta Otter March 04, 2015 3:54 PM  

A search of the team's paper turns up nothing for "satire," "satirical," "genuine," "endorse", various prefixes of these terms, or anything to suggest they've considered the problem of whether the presence of a factual statement indicates that a factual assertion is being made.

Consider "Obama is a Muslim" vs "Here are some false statements that liberal commie homosexuals believe: ..., Obama is not a Muslim, ..."

Or: "Obama is not a Muslim. Also, pigs fly."

It's possible that they've concluded that most apparent assertions by authors are actual assertions, so that when you consider all the factual assertions a site makes, you end up getting the right answer (or at least the political result you wanted). If so, I kind of wish they'd made it more obvious in their highly user-unfriendly paper that they'd looked into this.

Anonymous Apollo March 04, 2015 4:41 PM  

Guess it depends on whats in that knowledge vault - the thing they use to judge truth. How they control what goes in and what gets taken out....

The examples given of non "truthy" things (maybe just made up by New Scientist, but still) don't fill me with hope...

Anonymous Mr.A is Mr.A March 04, 2015 6:23 PM  

According to this source, that crowdsourcing thing ("wisdom of crowds") didn't end up working all that well for DARPA:

https://medium.com/backchannel/how-a-lone-hacker-shredded-the-myth-of-crowdsourcing-d9d0534f1731

Let's see how Google fares, I guess.

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2015 10:40 PM  

> The anti vax angle is worrisome, but what would be wrong with Google nuking fake / satire news sites in their search results?

The fact that it's almost impossible to tell the difference any more?

Besides, a good chunk of the time I'm actually looking for the satire and not the real thing.

> Any suggestions on search engines?

IXquick (also available as www.startpage.com) and Duck Duck Go seem to be the two primary contenders.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 05, 2015 12:29 AM  

Bing does not and never has.

Oddly enough, despite Gate's invovlment in the whole 529 crap, Microsoft has quite an active shooter community. At least among the white guys who are left. The (dot-not-feather) Indians... not so much.

Anonymous CorkyAgain March 05, 2015 2:54 PM  

Chris Scena: "Any suggestions on search engines?"

(1) startpage
(2) ixquick
(3) DuckDuckGo


The first two apparently use Google's search engine under the hood, and therefore will have the same shortcomings.

I like DuckDuckGo myself.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts