SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 29 2017, @10:04AM (5 children)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 30 2017, @12:28AM
That he does. It's all part of the show. He's most definitely an entertainer first and a pundit second.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.