[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I think a lot of you just don't understand how google and other search engines actually work. I'll explain in the way my coding teacher explained arrays to me, since it's pretty much the same thing.

Google collects information. Google doesn't judge the information, but it does categorize it. It categorizes it based partly on the source, and partly on whether or not a company is paying for it to show up as a "sponsored" result. If it comes from a news outlet, then it's categorized as news. If it comes from a medical journal or science website, then it's categorized as science. And so on.

Each of these categories exist in a virtual file cabinet, unsorted. The newest bit of information goes in the front, the oldest in the back, but otherwise - it's just a mish-mosh of information.

When someone types in "climate change", Google checks the phrase, and discovers that the phrase matches with a whole lot of things in the "science" file cabinet. So it opens the science file cabinet, and takes out all the "sponsored results" that involve climate change, and puts them at the top of the list. It then goes through the rest of the cabinet seeking references to "climate change" and pulls out the files that match, in order of how many people have MOST RECENTLY checked the files. If most people have been RECENTLY checking the "climate change is a hoax" file from Breitbart news back in 2015, then that file will go on the top of the list immediately beneath the sponsored posts. It'll then open other cabinets to check for files that include the phrase "climate change." It'll toss all related files onto the list under the most recent and sponsored.

When it's done doing all this, it spits the entire list out for readers. Every time a reader clicks on one of those entries, the click is counted and marked as "recent." It's tallied with all the other recent clicks. So if 500,000 people click on a "Climate Change is Real!" file that was written yesterday and posted in the New York Times, and only 300,000 click on the one from Breitbart back in 2015, then the NYT post will replace Breitbart as the #1 post beneath the sponsored posts.

If you scroll over and click to results pages after the first, you'll also find articles from Entertainment Weekly about some celebrity divorce, and how there's been a real "climate change" in their household due to hostilities between the couple and their oldest son.

In short, Google doesn't manipulate what shows up on the top of the search results, OTHER than sponsored results. It ONLY looks for how many people are clicking on the links, and inclusion of the phrase in the correct category.

Edited to add: It does filter out certain things restricted by law - such as vulgarity and porn.

Math and computer programming are quite objective except when you start adding in who clicks on what. That brings in people and their prejudices, fears, hates, loves, etc.

[Altawood]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

Truth was struck a mortal blow in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

The objective today is to inflame and enrage to reap more ad revenue.

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

"Truth"? If you want to fact check if something is accurate/truth, there are several legitimate fact check sites other than Google. Just don't believe the Noise cable propaganda networks that are sued and lose over three quarters of a billion dollars law suits. Not to mention being sued for a billion and a half in another suit!

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Wondering

"Truth"? If you want to fact check if something is accurate/truth, there are several legitimate fact check sites other than Google. Just don't believe the Noise cable propaganda networks that are sued and lose over three quarters of a billion dollars law suits. Not to mention being sued for a billion and a half in another suit!

If they own their bias and market it that seems to be a dead giveaway that they are anything but objective.

The various nightly news providers are usually very objective except for those selling a skewed narrative which makes them the target of lawyers.

[phylt]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

If they own their bias and market it that seems to be a dead giveaway that they are anything but objective.

The various nightly news providers are usually very objective except for those selling a skewed narrative which makes them the target of lawyers.

Sometimes a skewed narrative is subtle enough to pass nearly unnoticed, I remember hearing a talking head on a Sunday news program , claiming no bias, taking of one group meeting behind "closed doors" and when the opposing group was mentioned they were "meeting in secret"

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Sometimes a skewed narrative is subtle enough to pass nearly unnoticed, I remember hearing a talking head on a Sunday news program , claiming no bias, taking of one group meeting behind "closed doors" and when the opposing group was mentioned they were "meeting in secret"

Meeting in secret implies criminal intent. That is all I am going to say.

Al Capone certainly did that a lot. Except when he did not need too because he controlled who was saying what in areas of Chicago and elsewhere. He did that through the threats of violence and having no regard for laws.

And if you are meeting behind closed doors that implies legitimacy of your meeting place. Eliot Ness met behind closed doors. Eliot Ness - Wikipedia

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by phylt

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

I'm still curious to see one example of a search where Google censors a topic while DuckDuckGo does not.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Math and computer programming are quite objective except when you start adding in who clicks on what. That brings in people and their prejudices, fears, hates, loves, etc.

It's still objective. The Google algorithms don't measure or give any particular value to WHO is clicking the links. They don't care who is clicking them. They are counting clicks (or "views"). Anyone who does NOT have a google account, or is NOT logged into their google account while they use the google search engine - is not being judged by Google.

If millions of people are viewing conspiracy nonsense and fewer than millions are viewing anti-conspiracy nonsense, then the conspiracy nonsense will be at the top of your google search. It's a binary system.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's still objective. The Google algorithms don't measure or give any particular value to WHO is clicking the links. They don't care who is clicking them. They are counting clicks (or "views"). Anyone who does NOT have a google account, or is NOT logged into their google account while they use the google search engine - is not being judged by Google.

If millions of people are viewing conspiracy nonsense and fewer than millions are viewing anti-conspiracy nonsense, then the conspiracy nonsense will be at the top of your google search. It's a binary system.

I do think nonsense sells newspapers. Look at the Publix check-out racks. Candy bars and junk media. Actually, some of the magazines are quite good if pricey. Not the stars' latest romances, diets, fat photos, etc.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by phylt

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

I just did this using simply "covid" as my search criteria. Here's the results:

Google:

Top stories: CNN, The Independent, sky news, Forbes, Newsweek, the Times, Fox News (more news).

Perspectives: The Hill, Substack, The Mercury

Search results:

CDC, WHO, Johns Hopkins, COVID.gov, floridahealthcovid19.gov, whitehouse.gov, UN.org, more CDC, Worldometer, covidactnow tracker, Mayo Clinic, Wikipedia, vaccines.gov, cnn, Yale medicine, OSHA, CBS, CNBC, floridahealth.gov, CA.gov tracker in California, NIH.gov, ABC, Pan American Health Organization, TN.gov, CT.giv, combatcovid.hhs.gov, floridahealthcovid19.gov (sponsored), FDA.gov, CBS News, clevelandclinic.org, publichealth.lacounty.gov, and so on.

DuckDuckGo:

1. a box explaining COVID-19 with summary, vaccines, symptoms, tips, statistics, sourced from Wikipedia.

First search result: CNN

Then Recent News from Newsweek, CNN on MSN, Fox, and "more news."

Then CDC, NPR, CDC, NYT, Mayo Clinic, CDC, worldometer, UC Davis.edu, webmd, and "more results."

Looks to me like Google is offering a much more robust variety of info on its first page than DuckDuckGo is.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I do think nonsense sells newspapers. Look at the Publix check-out racks. Candy bars and junk media. Actually, some of the magazines are quite good if pricey. Not the stars' latest romances, diets, fat photos, etc.

But that has NOTHING to do with the topic - which is to use a search engine when looking for information.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

But that has NOTHING to do with the topic - which is to use a search engine when looking for information.

A lot of the material filtered out is often junk science and propaganda. It does depend on the Search Engine though.

Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science - Scholarly Open Access 2023

[threeonemiles@outlook.com]

Truth is now the new hate speech.

[Boomer]

In Orwell's 1984, 'Doublespeak' was the method of communication. In the language of doublespeak the meanings of words were deliberately obscured -- or reversed.

The government of Oceania held 4 ministries. The Ministry of Truth was one of those. But those who worked for the Ministry of Truth had the job of writing propaganda. They did this by rewriting history and changing word meanings to fit Big Brother's hold on power.

The only reason the book was titled 1984 was because Orwell wrote it in 1948 and needed a title. Orwell missed it by about 30 years -- and that it is getting more egregious every day.

My high school classes read 1984 in 1984. At the time, my assignment for the essay at the end (always not to exceed two proofread, edited pages) was to look around the current (1984) world and to cite examples of things that were happening around us that seemed to foretell events that were in Orwell's work of dystopian fiction.

At the time (1984) violence in movies was becoming quite common and more graphic. In the book, Big Brother kept the Proles amused by producing extremely violent movies, with the goal of saturating the people with violence to make them immune to the violence used by Big Brother to remain in power and to use more power to take over other countries in their world.

The Proles in 1984 were the class of citizens of Oceania who had no real power for themselves, but could be easily manipulated and used by those whose goal was to remain in power forever.

There were two other things the government provided for the Proles, besides the violent movies. The other two were cheap gin and lotteries. The lottery winners were not real. Propaganda news made them real to the Proles. (As I recall, they very rarely threw in a real winner just to keep it "real." All the rest were fake winners.)

Most of the short essays the students wrote about 1984 were about movie violence. But that was in 1984 real-time.

Fast-forward to now, it would not be possible, in a two-page essay, to cover all the things being done by power-grabbers that we are seeing all around us. It would have to be a dissertation.

But. . .my point is moot (or is it?) because teachers would not be allowed to teach 1984 in many schools across the country now because digging into the book might cause critical thinking skills.

As far as the discussion in this thread of where is Truth and Google v. DuckDuckGo goes, I am sadly summing it up by paraphrasing that famous philosopher Mick Jagger who wrote, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.".................

To paraphrase Jagger, for that "do your own research" routine, "You can't always get what you need. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you want."

Boomer

PS: Dare I say -- think about it?