Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday April 29 2017, @01:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Google says it has new ways to combat its so-called fake-news problem in search results.

Over the last few months, Google, along with Facebook and other digital platforms, has struggled to keep hoaxes and fake news stories from appearing in search.

The examples were pretty unsettling, including Holocaust denials, a claim that President Barack Obama was running for a third term, and a wide range of other conspiracy theories.

On Tuesday, Google will have new feedback tools in its search results so users can flag content that appears to be false or misleading. (Facebook launched similar tools earlier this year, along with tips to help you spot fake news.) This will help teach Google's search algorithms to weed out hoaxes and, in theory, keep them buried in search results.

Google also says its algorithms have now been trained to demote "low quality" content based on signals like whether the information comes from an "authoritative" page.

I can't see how this can do anything but fail spectacularly. You?

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-launches-new-search-tools-to-combat-fake-news-2017-4


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:11AM (9 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:11AM (#501473) Journal

    Your basic mistake, one you are not capable of perceiving, is that there are no ideas and opinions in fake news. There is only malice and ill-intent. The point of fake-news is to bamboozle, to discombuberate, to, as we now say, "pull a Milo". There is not serious positions, no good faith debate. There is only the dark side. Ann Milo does not want to debate, they want to be protested. Why? They really have nothing else. Kind of like Congress that can't get rid of Obamacare, because if they did, what would they do? Kind of like The Micturated Buzzsawyer, who has nothing to say but that it "promotes discussion". Ha! If there was an actual position behind that, it would almost be acceptable. But there is not. So, I am going to tell you, if you read Breitbart, you are a fool, you are being used, you are part of the zombie masses that the Dark Enlightenment is counting on to destroy the world as we know it, including you. You really think you do not need to be protected from your own ignorance, so you do not become part of the destruction of the world, of your community, your family, and your own poor sorry ass? Well, if you do not see it, those of us who are (make no mistake, we actually are) you betters need to have pity on your ignorant misguided souls. Gonna save you, bro. It's gonna hurt. Tough love, my brother!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:33AM (#501489)

    Your basic mistake, one you are not capable of perceiving, is that there are no ideas and opinions in fake news. There is only malice and ill-intent.

    And your basic mistake is presuming malice where stupidity and ignorance are adequate explanations.

    Ann Milo does not want to debate, they want to be protested.

    Oh, he wants to be debated alright, in fact people have to protest to stop him from debating. Now, I'm not saying it is unreasonable to protest against listening to Milo's debating style, that is certainly a cruel and unusual punishment to inflict upon people, however it is unreasonable to protest because you don't want him to express his ideas especially to those who want to listen to them.

    There is not serious positions, no good faith debate.

    Yeah, right. I've seen that before with GamerGate and MRAs, the extremists will be used as a justification to shut down the reasonable majority as always.

    The Micturated Buzzsawyer, who has nothing to say but that it "promotes discussion".

    If you think Buz doesn't genuinely holds his opinions, you are delusional. He gets a lot of shit from this community, so I wouldn't hold his attitude against him, one can only be so polite when people like you keep antagonizing them at every step.

    So, I am going to tell you, if you read Breitbart, you are a fool, you are being used, you are part of the zombie masses that the Dark Enlightenment is counting on to destroy the world as we know it, including you.

    Oh don't be such a drama queen, one can read bad ideas without believing them. I've read Mein Kampf and in the end the only person I wanted to send to the gas chambers is the author.

    You really think you do not need to be protected from your own ignorance, so you do not become part of the destruction of the world, of your community, your family, and your own poor sorry ass?

    No, what I need to protect the world from your attempt to enforce your ignorance upon our collective intellectual space.

    Well, if you do not see it, those of us who are (make no mistake, we actually are) you betters need to have pity on your ignorant misguided souls. Gonna save you, bro. It's gonna hurt. Tough love, my brother!

    Yeah, yeah, I've been told that before. I used to live in a totalitarian hellhole in my youth after all, you aren't the first of my "betters" to try to "protect" me from my choices. They also had the tough love thing too incidentally, I've seen what happens to the people who get "loved" so forgive me if I'm not thrilled about the idea. Your means may not be the same but your mindset certainly is.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 29 2017, @10:04AM (5 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday April 29 2017, @10:04AM (#501497) Homepage Journal

    Sorry that you've never seen Milo debate. You must not have because if you had you'd know he loves it roughly as much as a pig enjoys mud wrestling. And like said muddy pig, he almost always wins.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday April 29 2017, @04:50PM (4 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday April 29 2017, @04:50PM (#501581) Journal

      And like said muddy pig, he almost always wins.

      I suppose that depends on your definition of "debate" and "win." I've watched a couple Milo debates online. He only appears to "win" for those who already agree with him. He fights dirty (often just ignoring any opposing arguments or summarily declaring them "untrue" without evidence) and isn't generally interested in reasoned discourse. Of course that's also a way to "win" a debate -- by twisted and contorted rhetoric instead of argument. Sure. What's hilarious is that that sort of strategy is EXACTLY what brought him down. Nobody cared about the nuances of what he was trying to say -- he was just painted as defending pedophilia (one of the few places even a troll can't go without risking supporters turning against him).

      So, if you think Milo "wins" debates, then you must also adjudicate the take-down of him in the media as "fair" too. Same rules. No nuance**, ignore the substantive objections (in this case the nuances he was trying to explain) and just see the fluff and takedowns.

      ---

      [**Nuance: Milo is actually right that there's a difference between pedophiles (i.e., people sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children) and ephebophilia (i.e., attraction to POST-pubescent teenagers, who are sexually mature but may be below the legal age of consent). Generally the latter term is only used by psychologists to identify people who are SOLELY or primarily attracted to young people, even if it's "inappropriate" for an older adult to be attracted to a young person. But generally speaking, lots of adults find post-pubescent sexually-mature teens attractive in a more "adult" way than actual pre-pubescent children. We would not have a term "jailbait" if this were not a widespread issue. I'm not actually defending Milo's comments about abolishing age of consent or whatever, but he was trying to include some nuance in a complex debate. And frankly, one that NEEDS to be given more attention, because most of the people arrested for sexually assaulting young people are NOT pedophiles: they're having relationships with post-pubescent teenagers. And if we were more realistic about those distinctions in stats, we might be a little less crazy about worrying that 7-year-old Johnnie might be endangered because an adult man just happens to say "Hi" to him in an innocuous context, and more concerned about where 15-year-old Johnnie (or Jennie) are, and what Uncle Jim or neighbor Tim or coach Sam might be doing when he's spending so much time with them. So, I'm NOT agreeing with Milo that we should lower ages of consent to 13 or puberty or whatever, but I do agree with him that there's nuance there. Of course Milo peppered his original comments with a bunch of more outrageous statements, as usual, and they didn't help his case. And see: I'm actually interested in nuance and will even listen when Milo says something right.]

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 29 2017, @06:37PM (3 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday April 29 2017, @06:37PM (#501615) Homepage Journal

        See, you're barking up the wrong tree there. I only ever agree with Milo in his opinions of the left. He's a conservative and I'm most assuredly not. When I say he wins debates I mean he wins debates on strength of argument more often than not. The other side only ever seems to put screeching harpies who can do nothing but regurgitate sound bytes. Being louder and more shrill than your opponent does not mean you win the argument.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday April 29 2017, @09:57PM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday April 29 2017, @09:57PM (#501684) Journal

          Again, matter of perspective. Where you see "screeching harpies," I have seen people reminding Milo again and again of valid points he simply sidesteps or ignores. Do all sides do this in political debates all the time? Of course. But Milo is a master of deflection and is amazing at defusing questions by making it seem like he's not saying something, but then goes on to basically say it.

          The only way you see Milo "win" is if you think his other rhetoric (which often has some interesting points) allows him to ignore giant elephants in the room just because he deems them not to be there. If you agree with Milo that the "screeching harpies" don't actually have any valid points (which is how most conservatives seem to see him), then yeah, he seems to win. I'll give you that Milo has a talent for riling people up, but it's frequently because they're exasperated when he just talks about what he wants and ignores his opponents' points.

          Just as "being louder and more shrill" doesn't win a debate, neither does "appearing to be calmer and intelligent" while actually ignoring main points of contention. A lot of what he says is his opinion (or "facts" that are deliberately stated in a misleading fashion), but he states it with intelligence and eloquence that make it seem rational. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily substantive or factual, and he deploys just about every rhetorical sleight of hand in the book. But, at least to me, his strategy is pretty transparent unless you already tend to agree with what he's saying.

          Also, I'm not sure exactly which "debates" you are referencing, but it doesn't help the case when a lot of so-called "debates" you see on Youtube or wherever involve Milo trashing a somewhat inarticulate college student. Milo is very intelligent and (compared to even well-educated people today) is a master of rhetoric; it's no wonder some average 20-year-old feminist or gay person or black person can't stand a chance against him. Most of my remarks above are referencing his actual debates against adults who have a reasonable chance against him, not these "take downs" that seem to be posted frequently as proof of the superiority of Milo's arguments (when they're mostly about the weakness of college students' debate skills).

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday April 29 2017, @10:20PM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday April 29 2017, @10:20PM (#501692) Journal

          BTW - I agree with some of Milo's criticism of the extreme Left too. On the other hand, he frequently tends to go too far and claim that problems don't exist where they do or to argue against strawmen or extremists rather than addressing the "meat" of the issues in a balanced fashion.

  • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday April 29 2017, @02:44PM (1 child)

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Saturday April 29 2017, @02:44PM (#501548)

    @ aristocat-

    *sigh*
    your argumentation is flawed on numerous levels, but let's take the most basic:
    IF you actually believe in freedom in general, and free speech in particular, that INCLUDES the FREEDOM to fuck up, to say stupid/hateful/incoherent shit, to make 'bad' (YMMV) choices, to CHOOSE to do stupid/bad stuff...
    IF you do NOT allow that as part and parcel of FREEDOM and free speech, then you are actually for neither...
    please don't pretend otherwise...
    thanks in advance...

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:52PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:52PM (#501666) Journal

      FREEDOM to fuck up, to say stupid/hateful/incoherent shit, to make 'bad' (YMMV) choices, to CHOOSE to do stupid/bad stuff...

      Freedom, of course. No one is saying not. But that does not mean you have a right to be taken seriously, to have your opinion considered, to not be mocked and ridiculed for being such an ignorant and careless excuse for humanity. Have you no shame, Sir? At long last, have you no shame?

      Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

      http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html [americanrhetoric.com]