Pseudoscience advocate enraged by Google plans for truth rankings

[Underseer]

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/ant...freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/

Google came up with a remarkable technology that learns what you like and shapes your search results to fit your preferences. In the case of pseudoscience, this has disastrous results because it serves to reinforce the opinions of people who believe things that are not very likely to be true.

I'm sure we've all run into it. You tell a 9/11 truther to look up something on the internet for himself and their search results will only return pages that support his claims. The same thing happens with creationists, biblical literalists, anthropogenic climate change denialists, etc.

Recently with the anti-vaccine movement, we see how incredibly harmful this can be. Children are being hurt by the lies they get on the internet.

So Google plans to implement truth rankings so that the internet can go back to being something that informs people instead of something that reinforces false beliefs.

You'll never guess who is engaged by this.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/ant...freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/

You'll never guess who is engaged by this.

No surprise. Anthony Watts, like, Watts up with that http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I was hopeful it could be more like from Ford, Disney, etc, etc, etc,

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcmIU1DGPaA[/YOUTUBE]

- snap -

 

[rjh01]

Do not hold your breath. It could be several years before this is implemented. The article is not very clear how the rankings will be made. It would be very expensive for experts to rank everything.

 

[Underseer]

An algorithm will make the determination, which is both good and bad.

 

[bilby]

An algorithm will make the determination, which is both good and bad.

Actually, it is neither good nor bad - it is in the category of 'Not enough information to make any moral determination at all'.

Only if we know the details of what algorithm is to be used will we have enough information to determine whether the use of that algorithm for this purpose is good, or bad, or both.

Of course, we can have a meta-discussion about whether it is good or bad that we don't (and/or might never) know those details; And I would say that keeping the details secret might be both good and bad...

 

[Underseer]

An algorithm will make the determination, which is both good and bad.

Actually, it is neither good nor bad - it is in the category of 'Not enough information to make any moral determination at all'.

Only if we know the details of what algorithm is to be used will we have enough information to determine whether the use of that algorithm for this purpose is good, or bad, or both.

Of course, we can have a meta-discussion about whether it is good or bad that we don't (and/or might never) know those details; And I would say that keeping the details secret might be both good and bad...

If I remember right, the article was vague but mentioned going off of the number of sources that agree on a conclusion. Depending on what they mean by conclusion, this ranking could be vulnerable to Google bombing tactics.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually, it is neither good nor bad - it is in the category of 'Not enough information to make any moral determination at all'.

Only if we know the details of what algorithm is to be used will we have enough information to determine whether the use of that algorithm for this purpose is good, or bad, or both.

Of course, we can have a meta-discussion about whether it is good or bad that we don't (and/or might never) know those details; And I would say that keeping the details secret might be both good and bad...

If I remember right, the article was vague but mentioned going off of the number of sources that agree on a conclusion. Depending on what they mean by conclusion, this ranking could be vulnerable to Google bombing tactics.

So we have an objective measure of some subjectively determined relevant sources. Wow. This is certainly a problem for pseudoscience.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The algorithm is based on verifiable factual information. The more verifiable factual content a website has, the higher it's trust rating will be. An example I recently heard was a search for Carl Sagan. Google it now and you'll to the right see the verifiable information. Birth date, death date, education, etc. This is the type of data that is used. In the case of websites without objective factual information (art websites, etc) the ranking won't be used.

Personally, I think it's a great idea, especially if they would implement it as a selection. There are times when one may wish to search by popularity (as it is now) like when you're researching, say pseudoscience, or you may wish more verifiable, trusted info.