6 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 31.1 ms ] thread
Is DuckDuckGo turning on its users, or did they misunderstand the search engine to begin with?
People want to believe that there really is a good guy out there somewhere that will always do the right thing.
How would you prefer disinformation sites to be ranked?
If I search "giraffe height" and there's some truly abject madman out there who wants to tell me "20cm," then I would rather not have that as the first result. That's where my fear of disinformation starts and ends. There can be no technical truth filter against queries that involve foreign language, competing ideologies, and the fog of war. So please show me information based upon how well it matches my criteria and let me do the filtering.

Of course this question would be easier to answer (and this whole discourse less contentious) if we were ever provided concrete samples of (dis|mis)information.

> … I would rather not have that as the first result. That's where my fear of disinformation starts and ends.

Remember how Pinterest results dominated pretty much any Google search because they figured out how to game SEO exceedingly well?

How many of the top spots is too many to be filled by disinformation?

> if we were ever provided concrete samples of (dis|mis)information.

Have you looked for it? I’ve seen many in news articles. But I’m afraid they’re from mainst^H^H^H^H non-exclusively-Conservative news sources. Would you like links to them?

I would like links to Ukraine-related disinformation that is demonstrably false and malicious like my giraffe example. Because I think it is rarely that clear cut once there are enough variables at play. I wouldn't want to read news stories along the lines of "there is no war; it's all a hologram," but a generic story framed in pro-Russian terms still has value and is not "disinformation" just because we disagree with it.