Why is it pathetic that civilized people would find it horrific that fraud and corruption are promoted? It is the job of the civilized to be horrified by cthuloid barbarism.
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not. And it has no good answer. If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net. If you say yes, you get a "morality" that is dictated by those with power, which may well be worse.
I think "reality in the net" is what people are trying to avoid in favor of "reality in the real world", because the two are often not the same. Every uninformed opinion posted online is not somehow equivalent to truth of what actually happens in the world. The "vaccine debate" or climate change are perfect examples, where there are a very small number of vocal opinions which somehow get amplified and equated with the much larger number of fact-based studies. You end up with a picture that these issues are hotly debated when they're really not, they're really a lot more settled than the online discussion would lead someone to believe.
And how do you propose to do that? Force all people to post their opinions and then add a "reality" or "truth" score? The only thing a search engine can give you truthfully is the reality on the net, nothing else. Everything else will be some ones or some parties interpretation of how the world is or should be and it will be skewed.
That said, I do see your point and it would be nice to have a way to represent full truth in a search engine, but I am pretty sure it cannot be done and any attempt to do so will
I think you've got me confused with someone else, I am not a search engine engineer. It's not my job to propose things like that. People smarter than us, or at least higher-paid, are working on that problem. I would imagine that it still requires a fair amount of human intervention and correction at this point. Microsoft's AI "Tay" is plenty of evidence regarding the problems of unleashing an AI to try to understand the internet.
Part of the problem is that there is a certain segment of the population, w
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not. When light from the sun reflects off a given object, that light has a certain wavelength. The fact that different people might interpret that light differently does not change the objective fact that the wavelength is measurable and constant. The wavelength of that light is an objective fact even if different eyes interpret the same wavelength as different colors.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not.
This is not about reality, but descriptions and perceptions of reality. They are very subjective.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
It is impossible to determine objectively the truth of most things that involve people and, especially, politics. This is something many people do not understand though, usually because they are convinced they have the truth in an effect that Dunning and Kruger described nicely.
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has opinions. Some people stick to their opinions regardless of any evidence contradicting them. Others are open to changing their opinions when presented with counter evidence. I like I think I'm in the latter group on most issues. Many people are in the former.
I'm just not a search engine engineer, that's not what I work on. I work on other problems, that's where my focus is. I don't particularly care to drop what I'm doing and focus on someone else's job in a volunteer
Well, I am just a bit tired of people asking for technology to do things it cannot actually do and then chickening out when asked "and how do you think that could work?". I do get your stance now (I think), so my apologies and thanks for the explanation.
That didn't happen. What did happen, and yes, what is a good example, is that a small group of people gamed the system to make it behave the way they wanted it to. It would not be correct to say that "the gay community" as a whole did that though. Like with any other group of people, it only takes a very small subset to make themselves vocal. In the case of Rick Santorum, he probably should have known to expect some kind of backlash when he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality and making un-American
Walled gardens need to identify themselves as such. Also, there needs to bea choice - I don't have a problem with a (self-declared) censoring search engine, if I have an alternative, any more than I object to searches having a "safe search" mode as long as I can turn it off.
I'm worried about the effect this will have on DDG to the extent it still fronts Bing, however.
DDG was originally an anonymizing front-end for Bing (as Startpage is for Google). They've been moving away from that over the years, but a damaged Bing still damages DDG.
If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net.
No. Example: non-batshit people aren't searching for "do vaccines cause..." at all. Hence the only history the search engine has for auto complete are the things the batshit people are searching for. The fact that a few batshit people searched for something doesn't make it the "reality in the net".
In response to the events in Europe, CDC reviewed data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
CDC recommends influenza vaccination as the best way to protect from influenza disease and its complications. See CDC influenza vaccine
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit,
And.... so? What are you trying to say? The CDC concluded no evidence by studying a populace that was not given the vaccine? Is that what you think?
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
Oh hi there troll. I can tell your level of conviction by the way you can't even associate an account here on/. with your posts. You must *really* believe in this stuff.
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not.
Are these search engines run and usage mandated by the Government... No you say... Then there is no censorship what so ever.
Microsoft, Google, Whomever owns DDG, these are all private organisations. They can display whatever results they like as long as the law is complied with, they can also choose not to display what they don't like. For a private, profit driven organisation it then becomes a question of "will this make or lose us money" and well, lets face it, the overwhelming majority of people don't
Horrifying? (Score:0)
If this horrifies you,you are pathetic
Re: Horrifying? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it pathetic that civilized people would find it horrific that fraud and corruption are promoted? It is the job of the civilized to be horrified by cthuloid barbarism.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:2)
What's the problem with Concurrent Versioning System aside from the fact it's old and newer alternatives are better?
Re: Horrifying? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not. And it has no good answer. If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net. If you say yes, you get a "morality" that is dictated by those with power, which may well be worse.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:4, Interesting)
a true picture of reality in the net.
I think "reality in the net" is what people are trying to avoid in favor of "reality in the real world", because the two are often not the same. Every uninformed opinion posted online is not somehow equivalent to truth of what actually happens in the world. The "vaccine debate" or climate change are perfect examples, where there are a very small number of vocal opinions which somehow get amplified and equated with the much larger number of fact-based studies. You end up with a picture that these issues are hotly debated when they're really not, they're really a lot more settled than the online discussion would lead someone to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
And how do you propose to do that? Force all people to post their opinions and then add a "reality" or "truth" score? The only thing a search engine can give you truthfully is the reality on the net, nothing else. Everything else will be some ones or some parties interpretation of how the world is or should be and it will be skewed.
That said, I do see your point and it would be nice to have a way to represent full truth in a search engine, but I am pretty sure it cannot be done and any attempt to do so will
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you propose to do that?
I think you've got me confused with someone else, I am not a search engine engineer. It's not my job to propose things like that. People smarter than us, or at least higher-paid, are working on that problem. I would imagine that it still requires a fair amount of human intervention and correction at this point. Microsoft's AI "Tay" is plenty of evidence regarding the problems of unleashing an AI to try to understand the internet.
Part of the problem is that there is a certain segment of the population, w
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that reality is very subjective.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not. When light from the sun reflects off a given object, that light has a certain wavelength. The fact that different people might interpret that light differently does not change the objective fact that the wavelength is measurable and constant. The wavelength of that light is an objective fact even if different eyes interpret the same wavelength as different colors.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
Now
Re: Horrifying? (Score:1)
Jew here.
Your "conspiracy theories" are often rooted in truth, if not outright facts, but called conspiracy by people who don't like their narrative disrupted.
Asians are generally better at math. Demonstrably so.
Orthodox jews cut off the tips of baby penis, and then suck the blood from the wound. You can see pictures and videos of it, but only on Bing.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that reality is very subjective.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not.
This is not about reality, but descriptions and perceptions of reality. They are very subjective.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
It is impossible to determine objectively the truth of most things that involve people and, especially, politics. This is something many people do not understand though, usually because they are convinced they have the truth in an effect that Dunning and Kruger described nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they have reasonable data to support that then of course I'm willing to change my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are not qualified to offer a solution, but you presume to be qualified to judge data that supports a specific solution? That does not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has opinions. Some people stick to their opinions regardless of any evidence contradicting them. Others are open to changing their opinions when presented with counter evidence. I like I think I'm in the latter group on most issues. Many people are in the former.
I'm just not a search engine engineer, that's not what I work on. I work on other problems, that's where my focus is. I don't particularly care to drop what I'm doing and focus on someone else's job in a volunteer
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am just a bit tired of people asking for technology to do things it cannot actually do and then chickening out when asked "and how do you think that could work?". I do get your stance now (I think), so my apologies and thanks for the explanation.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Such as how the gay community managed to create a new definition that shows up first or second in response to their dislike of Rick Santorum?
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't happen. What did happen, and yes, what is a good example, is that a small group of people gamed the system to make it behave the way they wanted it to. It would not be correct to say that "the gay community" as a whole did that though. Like with any other group of people, it only takes a very small subset to make themselves vocal. In the case of Rick Santorum, he probably should have known to expect some kind of backlash when he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality and making un-American
Re: Horrifying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Walled gardens need to identify themselves as such. Also, there needs to bea choice - I don't have a problem with a (self-declared) censoring search engine, if I have an alternative, any more than I object to searches having a "safe search" mode as long as I can turn it off.
I'm worried about the effect this will have on DDG to the extent it still fronts Bing, however.
Re: (Score:2)
DDG was originally an anonymizing front-end for Bing (as Startpage is for Google). They've been moving away from that over the years, but a damaged Bing still damages DDG.
Re: (Score:2)
If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net.
No. Example: non-batshit people aren't searching for "do vaccines cause..." at all. Hence the only history the search engine has for auto complete are the things the batshit people are searching for. The fact that a few batshit people searched for something doesn't make it the "reality in the net".
Re: Horrifying? (Score:1)
I agree, we wouldn't want those batshit people to find stuff like this:
Link [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh, someone actually read those articles.
In response to the events in Europe, CDC reviewed data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
CDC recommends influenza vaccination as the best way to protect from influenza disease and its complications. See CDC influenza vaccine
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf... [cdc.gov]
From that lil' old group known as the Center for Disease Control. But what do they know?
Re: (Score:1)
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit, with no adjuvant added. From that lil' old group the CDC, asshole:
Link [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
That's the article I linked genius.
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit,
And.... so? What are you trying to say? The CDC concluded no evidence by studying a populace that was not given the vaccine? Is that what you think?
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
Take a moment and read that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hi there troll. I can tell your level of conviction by the way you can't even associate an account here on /. with your posts. You must *really* believe in this stuff.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not.
Are these search engines run and usage mandated by the Government... No you say... Then there is no censorship what so ever.
Microsoft, Google, Whomever owns DDG, these are all private organisations. They can display whatever results they like as long as the law is complied with, they can also choose not to display what they don't like. For a private, profit driven organisation it then becomes a question of "will this make or lose us money" and well, lets face it, the overwhelming majority of people don't
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you do.
There is no absolute free speech, even in an anarchy, nor should there be.