Progress in the search for truth and accountability

There are 40 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 7,248 times. The latest Post () was by serafina.

    Quote from Semigoodlooking

    I don't get what the argument is here.


    Are some people saying there's no good information available via Google? That's a bold claim considering Google has all the information. Here's an interesting conspiracy for you that is rooted in fact. As AI becomes more intelligent it will instantly have at its disposal almost the entirety of human history and knowledge by simply having access to Google. After the AI finally pulls itself away from PornHub, it would be able to use that information against us.


    Back to Google. So, what's the deal here, what is the argument being presented by both sides? Google inherently bad as a resource?

    I dont think anyone has said that Google is worthless.


    The issue is that you can buy positions in google searches and you should be aware that the information can be skewed.


    Google never has been independent


    Wikipedia is the same . You have to be aware that from time to time people alter stories on Wikipedia , looking to further their own opinions . It is not always accurate

    when the new world order and republic is ready, we will provide you with an even better search machine and look up facility......

    Non biased, non distorted, non capitalistic......

    DO NOT USE ANY OF THESE OLD ONES CREATED TO MISINFORM AND GENERATE HATE

    Quote from JAN

    when the new world order and republic is ready, we will provide you with an even better search machine and look up facility......

    Non biased, non distorted, non capitalistic......

    DO NOT USE ANY OF THESE OLD ONES CREATED TO MISINFORM AND GENERATE HATE

    Please read my posts


    Please do not say things I have not said,


    If yuo cannot do that , please refrain from commenting

    GlasgowJohn I comment what I feel like, as long as it's along the guidelines of this site!


    In the birth in the discussion about truth in this and other threads, my arguments to use Google and Wikipedia have constantly been shot down, with the argument that the way I google or use wiki is based on being a racist! Bollocks! I'm very well aware of how Google work, and I try to neutralize it with being "guest", and googling with different accounts and languages.


    I have also asked several other here, what other super users of truth above me use as facility to get information.

    The answer was ur Pope Francis response....."ur inner moral blabla" and so on.

    Please read my posts


    Please do not say things I have not said,


    If you cannot do that , please refrain from commenting

    Wikipedia I get. However, Google 100% depends on what you search and decide to read.


    I think GlasgowJohn means you can pay to get to the top of Google searches. Sure, but still the only way you would get biased information is if you click on surfaced search results that are biased, no? It's 100% on the user to choose what they search for and ultimately what they decide to click and read.


    Also, almost all studies and experminets show if Google is bias, it is towards the left. I am surprised people on this forum believe Google is bias to the right. Same with Twitter, Facebook, and all the big tech corporations. This is demonstrable too. Google Donald Trump in Google News and the first page is littered with what would be the left side of the debate (Trump is falling apart). Now, Trump is digging his own grave at a quick rate, but right-sided media is still pushing the narrative that all is well and he is thriving at his base. On Google you wouldn't think this alternative point of view exists, not without digging beyond the first page or getting lucky with the odd article.


    But again, if you know Google surfaces articles from the left more than the right, it does not mean those right-oriented articles don't exist. You may have to dig more, but they are there. The whole spectrum is available on Google because it is just a search engine. People must be using it wrong.


    If people don't use Google for information what do they use? Just about every newspaper, scientific publication, university, study resource, meme, TV show, and everything else is on there. Google stores all information, so where do the people on this forum get their info that is not available on Google?


    And no, this is in no way an impassioned defense of Google. It is more a defense of information itself and how people choose to get it. Seems like a lot of people are shooting the messenger here and not looking at how maybe they choose to consume media and data. In fact, replace Google for any other big tech company with a wide search base. As a company, Google has done and does do some awful things and has most people on this planet held to ransom in ways most people don't realise. But Search? It's only as bias as you let it be, especially so considering it may be surfacing results based on what you do read and consume. If anything, Google may only be confirming your own biases.

  • The Creepy Line

    The Creepy Line

     (2018)

    Overview

    An eye-opening documentary, The Creepy Line reveals the stunning degree to which society is manipulated by Google and Facebook and blows the lid off the remarkably subtle - hence powerful - manner in which they do it. Read more

    Genres

    • Documentary
    • Official Post
    Quote from Semigoodlooking

    Back to Google. So, what's the deal here, what is the argument being presented by both sides? Google inherently bad as a resource?

    If you have Netflix, there is a documentary that you might enjoy. It is called The Creepy Line and if you can't watch it, at least you can read this article.

    Basically, since the Google algorithm is not public, they claim that Google biases their results to 'satisfy' their clients (which, for the record, is not us who use Gmail for free... we - the consumers - are their product).


    For example, during elections, Google can favor negative results on a certain candidate in their top ten results. Most people don't go to the second page of google results so if they see that 7 results out of the first ten are AGAINST somebody, they automatically think there is solid evidence against that person.


    Of course, one could (and should) dig deeper, but it is extremely time consuming and one cannot do it for all the information we are bombarded with every day. We give away part of our 'research for the truth' when we decide to rely / read / consider confiable certain newspapers or online outlet or journalists. And we tend to pick those which already agree with our thoughts. Very few people read newspapers from both sides to try to get all point of view, and often a point of view can easily turn into propaganda. If you look at Argentinian newspapers, this is very clear (at least to outsiders like us).

    On the same documentary it is indicated how Facebook and paid advertising on Facebook were able to drive the Brexit. Basically, they analyzed users political view based on their browsing history, interests and words used in their posts and comments. They targeted those on the fence (no need to convince who is already dead set on their vote) and displayed as sponsored advertisement fake news, negative press etc. so that if John Doe was initially on the fence, he was convinced to vote for Brexit. According to the documentary, they pumped negative articles on immigrants and their wrongdoings, crimes, exploitation of the public system and fake news on contributions/aids of other European nations to the European Union. A simple research on reliable resources could have easily shown that these data/facts were not true or inaccurate... but, as I said, most people base their opinion on headlines on FB and do not thoroughly research each news.


    They actually interviewed university teachers that "disappeared" from Google for their positions on Google's bias. It was creepy.

    GlasgowJohn u seem to have a Short time memory......in this post u r clearly questioning the truth of the search results from Google!


    If u put in the word "google" in the search function of this site, u will get all the endless posts from different users, including yourself, shooting down the credibility of Google, with the poor argumentation that I'm racist and Google give me racist or biased, (right-wing) results. I will not tag any other users or restart the discussion, use the search function yourself.

    (It was claims that the protests in USA was peaceful and that it was mainly KKK members that have infiltrated to start civil war etc., And not antifa and black people. I suggested to put in "riots+-USA" in Google and look at the pictures and news coming out).


    I repeat what I already said about a million time: I know how the algorithm by Google works.....that it's a company that charge money for manipulation........putting searches above others. Still I just cannot get into my head that Google is providing preferred right-wing troll news.

    You will have a lot of fake news and bad information, any direction.......try and Google "hate crime+ bubba Wallace"..........u will have a lot news feed basically condemming the terrible crime......that never happened! Fake news is not limited to right wing KKK news!


    The written word is eternal, like the Bible......so it's pretty easy to see what was said and argued..... anyway I remember pretty well myself what my opinion regard google and wikipedia have been, and the endless attacks on my comments suggesting to use Google to confirm or disconfirm my argumentation.


    Lastly, serafina the idea with my request to other members to tell me what pappelapapp is and how that you get to that conclusion, was to show me how to find out WITHOUT using google!

    Because google is misleading, was the argument.....

    Btw I know what pappelapapp is, or what most people refer to by using the word.

    So, how would a novice find out what it means, what it is or where it's located?


    I find it truly pathetic when people shoot down arguments that I put up, with the request to google it and look for themselves. A little like "my truth is better than yours.....your search machine is not as good as mine".


    Ps: serafina I'm not biting at u, because u r doing exactly what most people would do, and the explanation that came out is spot on ......just like it would be in maybe 99.99% of the cases!!!

    • Official Post
    Quote from JAN

    Lastly, serafina the idea with my request to other members to tell me what pappelapapp is and how that you get to that conclusion, was to show me how to find out WITHOUT using google!

    Because google is misleading, was the argument.....

    In fact, if you look at the screenshot I posted, there is a little catch... How are snippets selected? Who knows! Google don't claim to be unbiased nor to favor reliable sources when displaying their results.


    I wanted to go back to Ask Jeeves... and on the top it says 'Ask Jeeves - Google Search'. :rolleyes:

    21 non-Google Search engine I am going to try https://duckduckgo.com/


    search-engine-market-share-1.png

    serafina - I have seen that documentary and none of those actions Google does is in doubt. 100% the company does that, and much worse. However, it is biased to the left in terms of content, that's also not really in doubt. that said, it is also amazing that the right has really been able to use Google and Facebook for actually making change. Russian invovlment in elections, Brexit, and so on.


    It's like I mentioned in another thread. While the left is happy to have its ego stroked by their CNN article being on the top page and thinking they are winning, the right has been busy actually winning through deep rooted manipulation of the system. And don't get me started on Twitter, which makes no bones about its bias to the left but was still masterfully manipulated by the Russians.


    Regardless, I completely disagree that digging deeper is time consuming. 30 seconds compared to 50 seconds? 5 minutes compared to 10? I guess if it is time consuming it shows how much the searcher actually values the information they are looking for and therefore tough luck on the information they receive. If you want to know more about Triceratops, why would a Google search for "Triceratops" that surfaces Wikipedia be more time consuming than "Triceratops Scientific Papers" where you would get science-based results?


    https://www.google.com/search?…eratops+scientific+papers


    And on the documentary in general, I thought it was a middling effort. I think it only covered Facebook and Google practises that are widely accepted and par for the course. It hardly touched Google Ads and how they influence search, which is something GlasgowJohn has already noted here. Still, for those who are completely blind to big tech (and especially those two companies), I supposed it would have been eye-opening.

    • Official Post

    It largely depends what you're searching for. When writing my book, I carried out a lot of Google searches for battles/invasions of the the River Plate/BA for example.

    I found what I was looking for and had no reason to believe that my search results were any way skewed. In many ways, I could not have completed the book without the results before my eyes.

    Exactly what is the problem here?

    Please read my posts


    Please do not say things I have not said,


    If you cannot do that , please refrain from commenting on things you do not fully comprehend

    I’m not sure there IS a problem. There has been some good information, and I’ve especially learned from those last two posts from serafina and Semigoodlooking . Now I need to watch the documentary and learn some more.


    I’ve never felt Google was a bad place to get information; I just point out that we need to pay attention to the sources, and make sure we don’t put on tinfoil hats because “It’s right there on the internet!” Google’s job isn’t to sort it out for us, so yes - Caveat Emptor.

    "Search engines only give you part of the truth"


    Quote from you GlasgowJohn !


    If it's only part of the truth, where do I get the rest then???? You refuses to let me know which search functions you use that can come out with a more truthful answer than the ones I suggest, Google and wikipedia.


    You are clearly insinuating that I get worse information more far away from the truth than you. I have in several discussion refused to give the search result on a subject, but told people to search xxx+yyy...... exactly to avoid me picking the right wing truth that I so much believe in according to several posts.


    The disbelieve and conspiracy theories about that Google are manipulating the search result IN MY FAVOR, are expressed in several threads here on the site. Use search function here, fill in word "google", then can red the discussions ......or u also believe Argentinaexpats.org are manipulated to come up with searches in my favor?


    As I told before, I find it rather pathetic to put yourself in the level of God and misjudge other peoples ability to search for truthful information, especially when they are referring to the largest search machine in use in the world.


    • Official Post
    Quote from Semigoodlooking

    Regardless, I completely disagree that digging deeper is time consuming. 30 seconds compared to 50 seconds? 5 minutes compared to 10? I guess if it is time consuming it shows how much the searcher actually values the information they are looking for and therefore tough luck on the information they receive. If you want to know more about Triceratops, why would a Google search for "Triceratops" that surfaces Wikipedia be more time consuming than "Triceratops Scientific Papers" where you would get science-based results?

    Willy-nilly, everyday I open facebook and I get posts that are shared by my friends. Some share gruesome news of violence against animals (right now, against a festival in China where they eat dogs and cats), some share foreign news (potentially fake) about what happens abroad, some share political news. Some American clients decided to add me on Facebook and some are pro-Trump and some against him. The first time one Trump supporter posted some articles on Trump blaming a senator for something she allegedly did, but actually did not, a 'Fact Check' label appeared disproving that news. It was a sort of 'lie detector' from Facebook and I was surprised because of course I feel the need to spread fake news, but it also meant that 'my' truth was becoming Facebook's truth - FB is telling me this if this is true or not... which is also creepy.

    I haven't seen this feature ever since. They must have suspended it during covid because it was impossible to discern sciences from suppositions.



    Right now, on my Facebook it appears from time to time a message asking me to join an online event against racism. It is unsettling because I feel 'forced' to care about a topic I am not interested into (simply because it is not an issue in my life and where I live).


    I don't have the time nor interest to investigate every minor piece of information. Yes, if someone really wants to, it just takes a few minutes to get reliable news.

    Quote from Splinter

    It largely depends what you're searching for. When writing my book, I carried out a lot of Google searches for battles/invasions of the the River Plate/BA for example.

    I found what I was looking for and had no reason to believe that my search results were any way skewed.


    Exactly. Also the documentary said that biased results are biased only whenever someone shows an interest in steering opinions. I don't think there is any money involved on historical battles, for Google, pet food carries more value.

    • Helpful


    私の投稿を読んでください

    私が言っていないことは言わないでください、

    それができない場合は、十分に理解していないことについてはコメントしないでください。