Indeed. My other half decided to buy one against my wishes, but I can confirm the answers given, and recorded it. You'd think there's plenty context in today's modern web to answer the question, especially in comparison to older presidents.
I looked at the video, tested it myself with Google Assistant, Siri and Alexa and Google is the only one doing it.
Everyone knows Google censors search results. I expect nothing different from them censoring results about the World Socialist Website to the Orange Man.
Is anyone honestly shocked that this actually happens with Google? It does seem kind of strange that they would pick such a high profile as Donald Trump to do this with but this is simply an extension of basic marketing adage of "if you don't like what's being said you change the conversation."
When there's actual serious conversations about getting rid of public libraries in favor of private companies. When people have willfully given away their culture to effectively infinite copyright. When we have groups of people espousing the idea that the public cannot be trusted with information to make informed decisions on. This is the end result. We get a curated response from the technology overlords that we put in place and then wave our hands private company not beholding to free speech or free information.
What's surprising to me more than something like this is that there are people in the open source community that support this kind of closed information and curated disclosure. They have forgotten the core principles that knowledge and information should be free. If you can convince someone to willfully put the shackles on their mind and accept that the idea of thoughts can be owned or thoughts by themselves can be dangerous you have them convinced that person to give up their freedom and that person will thank you for it.
When you ask an individual or a political figure about their political viewpoints you're expected to get a political biased answer. When you ask an information indexer, that should have no political narrative bias, about information you expect to get as best as can be provided neutral information.
I'm not sure if you just didn't watch the video or if this is some sort of straw man question you're tossing out there. But for an information indexer to refuse to respond at minimum with the Wikipedia article about who Donald J Trump is is clearly some sort of information bias that they're putting out there. I would hope regardless of our political opinions on the man the idea of free information is something everyone can support.
Spot on. Information neutrality seems to mean nothing to Google search now. It was suffering a slow death under the less obvious practice of "personalisation", and is falling fast with algorithmic answers "keeping you on the SERPS page". Actions like this on legal content are a death blow.
It quite something that web search pioneers have totally devalued information neutrality. Perhaps truth never mattered to the founders, as it does to us.
Had to check it out, on a device myself. Surely this is fake, but no, it's real. You can say "so what, this is a business decision; Google can do what they like." Maybe it makes some people feel good. But meanwhile it makes others even angrier. The contribution is further division of society, and not just in the US. As a citizen actions like this trouble me greatly.
What are the factors in Google's business decision here?
Not directly related to the 45th President, but along the same lines...I actually found it funny that when I search for "NCAA basketball schedule" or "NCAA March Madness" and the top results are from the women's tournament, which of course very few people watch or are interested in. This has been happening all through March Madness. Thought it was just a cache issue or some other explanation so I had a few other people test it and they all got the same thing.
So what do we have here, the "most useful result that the user is searching for" (which is the official Google position on SERP's) or a company trying to use its control over information to decide what we are supposed to see?
And of course this is only obvious in cases like the above, imagine all of the shit they hide (or manually modify results for) that you wouldn't know since you don't know what you don't know..
13 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 43.2 ms ] threadYour point is?
I looked at the video, tested it myself with Google Assistant, Siri and Alexa and Google is the only one doing it.
Everyone knows Google censors search results. I expect nothing different from them censoring results about the World Socialist Website to the Orange Man.
When there's actual serious conversations about getting rid of public libraries in favor of private companies. When people have willfully given away their culture to effectively infinite copyright. When we have groups of people espousing the idea that the public cannot be trusted with information to make informed decisions on. This is the end result. We get a curated response from the technology overlords that we put in place and then wave our hands private company not beholding to free speech or free information.
What's surprising to me more than something like this is that there are people in the open source community that support this kind of closed information and curated disclosure. They have forgotten the core principles that knowledge and information should be free. If you can convince someone to willfully put the shackles on their mind and accept that the idea of thoughts can be owned or thoughts by themselves can be dangerous you have them convinced that person to give up their freedom and that person will thank you for it.
I'm not sure if you just didn't watch the video or if this is some sort of straw man question you're tossing out there. But for an information indexer to refuse to respond at minimum with the Wikipedia article about who Donald J Trump is is clearly some sort of information bias that they're putting out there. I would hope regardless of our political opinions on the man the idea of free information is something everyone can support.
Had to check it out, on a device myself. Surely this is fake, but no, it's real. You can say "so what, this is a business decision; Google can do what they like." Maybe it makes some people feel good. But meanwhile it makes others even angrier. The contribution is further division of society, and not just in the US. As a citizen actions like this trouble me greatly.
What are the factors in Google's business decision here?
So what do we have here, the "most useful result that the user is searching for" (which is the official Google position on SERP's) or a company trying to use its control over information to decide what we are supposed to see?
And of course this is only obvious in cases like the above, imagine all of the shit they hide (or manually modify results for) that you wouldn't know since you don't know what you don't know..