Hacker News Reader

Comment by supergirl | Hacker News Reader

> Brave Search doesn’t use secret methods or algorithms to bias or censor results

I'm sold.

Then I open and type "rt". The autocomplete tells me this is a "state controlled Russia network", while for BBC it says "public service broadcaster". So much for "no bias" (technically all they said is the bias is not secret, but still). Not sure where they get these snippets from. Looks similar to wikipedia but it's not verbatim.

View on HN

> BBC it says "public service broadcaster"

I'm not the biggest fan of the BBC, but it certainly is not state controlled like RT is.

BBC is just way way better at it, way more subtle, having been doing this for 100 years. When push comes to shove they toe the line just like Russian or Chinese media. RT just doesn't have the same funding or talent to make stories more sophisticated. Obviously, the gov must hide any links to BBC to maintain the appearance of free press. But I'm sure pressure is exerted one way or the other, for example:

> From the late 1930s until the end of the Cold War, MI5 had an officer at the BBC vetting editorial applicants.

Looking at how UK and EU now outright banned Russian TV and media, I think it would go unnoticed if they started removing or just not hiring certain inconvenient journalists. Certain thoughts are just forbidden these days; it's career suicide to even doubt the gov line, just like during covid when it was practically forbidden to question gov measures or vaccines.

The BBC sometimes expresses a fairly conservative world-view (I mean conservative in the traditional sense, not populist like Boris Johnson) which sometimes happens to broadly align with the government's perspective. I think the BBC often seeks the outsider perspective, but seldom centres it.

The current UK government is not as enthusiastic about the BBC as they might be; and the BBC's senior management treats its relationship with the government as something to be managed.

The BBC is not a monolith. Even if the government was able to unduly influence some people inside the BBC, that influence wouldn't extend to much of the BBC's output, because frankly the BBC is not very good at operating as a single joined-up entity.

If anything the Tory governments have more control over it because they actively threaten its existence.

That's an absurd comparison. Tory may threaten BBC. There are still articles which stop just short of "here's how Boris lied" (https://www.bbc.com/news/60679290) On the other hand RT publishes what Kremlin wants it publish. There is no opposing view allowed. They'd simply not exist if they wanted to be independent.

I'm not playing in your RT vs BBC sandbox.

They're literally legally required to do that by EU sanctions, and Eich has been clear that they comply with the law, but no more.

A lot of other search engines could also be doing only that, but are not communicating the scope and whether they're doing more than what they're compelled to. The chief concern is with search companies editorializing out of their own volition.

> So much for "no bias"

Welcome to reality.

They have to go with the flow or they money is cut.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com