Comment by ppseafield | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ppseafield | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> it's easy to objectively identify it as such [scams], and everyone agrees it's one.

Is it actually easy to identify all scam content? Then why is it possible to find scams in search results?

> When it comes to Ukraine vs. Russia and propaganda, it is entirely impossible to have objectivity.

So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked? Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.

> ...to classify all Russian outlets as spreading misinformation and all Ukrainian outlets as objective truth

Is that what they did? Because what I read was that they would "down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation." So you have to dig a few pages deeper to get to 'Russian disinformation', and I don't see any anything indicating that 'Russian disinformation' means everything published by a Russian News outlet (re: the invasion).

I don't think something being a top search results implies that it is an objective truth either, especially with ongoing news reports.

>Is it actually easy to identify all scam content? Then why is it possible to find scams in search results?

I think to a knowledgable observer and moderator, sure. Algorithmically it's probably more difficult, which is why you still see it in some search results. These scams are less prone to subjectivity, which is why you rarely see Twitter uproars about a bitcoin pyramid scheme being booted off a search engine.

>So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked?

Yes....

>Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.

....and that is the reason for why they should be equally ranked. You can see on the initial page load the full spectrum of reporting from MSNBC to Fox News. Of course one of them has to be ranked above the other in the UI (it's a list of items) but that should relate to objective things like what words from the search query appear, etc.

>Is that what they did?

I think what people take issue with is that we're trusting these sites to determine what disinformation is. How is DDG deciding what is and isn't misinformation? Without a clearly defined process for misinformation, this becomes subjective.

>> "Weinberg didn’t elaborate on the decision, or how the down-ranking will work."

But other sites are simply doing a blanket ban:

>> "Since then, the internet industry has responded by blocking access to Russian state-sponsored media outlets such as RT and Sputnik News for users in the EU. In addition, Twitter has placed warning labels on tweets linking to Russian state media. (Google News decided to de-rank RT and Sputnik News back in 2017 for allegedly circulating propaganda.)"

>I don't think something being a top search results implies that it is an objective truth either, especially with ongoing news reports.

Not right now, no, and that's the issue. Most people assume it to be though.

>>So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked?

>Yes....

>>Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.

>....and that is the reason for why they should be equally ranked.

Just because you can find a fault with a source does not mean that all faults are equal. For instance, the AP should probably be ranked above the National Enquirer.

> I think what people take issue with is that we're trusting these sites to determine what disinformation is. How is DDG deciding what is and isn't misinformation? Without a clearly defined process for misinformation, this becomes subjective.

It is an inherently subjective process and always will be. There are organizations that have attempted to make the process objective (i.e. fact checking organizations) but they can all be criticized as subjective as well. Pure objectivity simply isn’t possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com