rant 0003
so what happens when a non-leftist posts on a google site? were i a well-known blogger, i suspect that my posts would either vanish into the ether, or the blog would be taken down, given that they use the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) as a reference for their search rankers. google folks are not stupid, however, so i'm betting that if they have anything to say about the ranking of this blog in their search results, it will come out somewhere near the end of the search results, regardless of the specificity of the search.
google uses very sophisticated databases and algorithms to rank search results, and from what i understand, it's an AI sort of thing. folks everywhere are always trying to use SEO to ensure that *their* pages rank high in search returns, so google learned long ago that it was a Good Idea to fight these attempts if they wanted the public to trust the lists of links they return. an AI ranker would need training, or at least some feedback on what is a valid or invalid return, so they also use people - about 10 000 of them, if what i have read is correct - to continually tweak findings. as part of this tweaking process, they have added the capability of marking naked search results from the AI with particular flags so as to either raise or lower the ranking. one of the "flags" added recently is "hatespeech."
now "hatespeech" sounds like it has a simple definition, which would be the words forming the term; hence, hateful speech would appear to be its meaning. those who invented this term would have U go no further; after all, its meaning is simple, so when a person is accused of practicing it, there is little more to discuss: guilty as charged! when one looks just below the surface, though, the question of whose definition of "hate" is to be used *has* to occur to the reasonable person. one need not look too far on the right, the left, or the crazy (but i repeat myself) to find orthogonal definitions of hatred. there is no legal definition of hate, however, so being accused of "hatespeech" is a fuzzy attack against which defense is difficult. and that is the intent.
google apparently began their "hatespeech" flagging in july of 2017, perhaps earlier. the 160-page PDF i have of their "search quality evaluator guidelines" is dated 2017-07-27, so i guess we can go with that date. in any case, the document discusses "low-quality" sites in section 7, with section 7.9 on page 43, entitled "Promotion of Hate or Violence," listing several sites to be used to for "reputation research." one of those "reputable" sites is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which calls ayaan hirsi ali a hatemonger. ms. hirsi ali, who was raised as a muslim, tries to expose the anti-woman practices of islam to the world. she is a victim of FGM, and is working to end this vile ownership practice. yet these nazis attack her, and better yet, google refers their search quality evaluators to them. hey google, i have an idea; why don't U use "mein kampf" to rate human beings? it would be no less vile or objectionable than using the nazis of the SPLC.
so, no, google doesn't have any bias. they have a mainstream orientation, and desire only to ensure that reasonable people can take part in the discussion. if people disagree with the mainstream, they are abviously nazis, and should not be allowed to speak. google will route such folks to the bottom of the heap, and if they should dare to gain any traction, they will pull the plug on them. obviously, freedom of speech means that only the right things should be said in public; wrong things should not. and google is the arbiter. no possible problem there.
google is not the only group of electronic fascists; we also have facebook, twitter, instagram, et al. BTW, i just saw a great moniker for facebook, who i have been calling faKebook: fascistBook. mr. zuckerberg has the same brownshirt tendencies as the good folks at google, and it fits so well that i couldn't stop laughing for a couple of minutes. of course, twitter is twister, with their tweet shadowing (when a conservative speaks). since half of the population of the nation is leftist, half of the folks at these companies see no problem with shutting off speech for people they dislike. these corporations are not the State, but they are in each instance virtually the only platform. others are struggling to gain traction, but almost always in vain. i just want *everybody* to be heard - even real nazis and communists, repulsive though their thoughts are. it is very sad to see that there are native-born americans (of all colors, religions, etc.) who think that free speech means that i must agree with them, or shut up otherwise. the education system has failed (actually, it is working *very* well, but that's the subject of another rant).
google uses very sophisticated databases and algorithms to rank search results, and from what i understand, it's an AI sort of thing. folks everywhere are always trying to use SEO to ensure that *their* pages rank high in search returns, so google learned long ago that it was a Good Idea to fight these attempts if they wanted the public to trust the lists of links they return. an AI ranker would need training, or at least some feedback on what is a valid or invalid return, so they also use people - about 10 000 of them, if what i have read is correct - to continually tweak findings. as part of this tweaking process, they have added the capability of marking naked search results from the AI with particular flags so as to either raise or lower the ranking. one of the "flags" added recently is "hatespeech."
now "hatespeech" sounds like it has a simple definition, which would be the words forming the term; hence, hateful speech would appear to be its meaning. those who invented this term would have U go no further; after all, its meaning is simple, so when a person is accused of practicing it, there is little more to discuss: guilty as charged! when one looks just below the surface, though, the question of whose definition of "hate" is to be used *has* to occur to the reasonable person. one need not look too far on the right, the left, or the crazy (but i repeat myself) to find orthogonal definitions of hatred. there is no legal definition of hate, however, so being accused of "hatespeech" is a fuzzy attack against which defense is difficult. and that is the intent.
google apparently began their "hatespeech" flagging in july of 2017, perhaps earlier. the 160-page PDF i have of their "search quality evaluator guidelines" is dated 2017-07-27, so i guess we can go with that date. in any case, the document discusses "low-quality" sites in section 7, with section 7.9 on page 43, entitled "Promotion of Hate or Violence," listing several sites to be used to for "reputation research." one of those "reputable" sites is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which calls ayaan hirsi ali a hatemonger. ms. hirsi ali, who was raised as a muslim, tries to expose the anti-woman practices of islam to the world. she is a victim of FGM, and is working to end this vile ownership practice. yet these nazis attack her, and better yet, google refers their search quality evaluators to them. hey google, i have an idea; why don't U use "mein kampf" to rate human beings? it would be no less vile or objectionable than using the nazis of the SPLC.
so, no, google doesn't have any bias. they have a mainstream orientation, and desire only to ensure that reasonable people can take part in the discussion. if people disagree with the mainstream, they are abviously nazis, and should not be allowed to speak. google will route such folks to the bottom of the heap, and if they should dare to gain any traction, they will pull the plug on them. obviously, freedom of speech means that only the right things should be said in public; wrong things should not. and google is the arbiter. no possible problem there.
google is not the only group of electronic fascists; we also have facebook, twitter, instagram, et al. BTW, i just saw a great moniker for facebook, who i have been calling faKebook: fascistBook. mr. zuckerberg has the same brownshirt tendencies as the good folks at google, and it fits so well that i couldn't stop laughing for a couple of minutes. of course, twitter is twister, with their tweet shadowing (when a conservative speaks). since half of the population of the nation is leftist, half of the folks at these companies see no problem with shutting off speech for people they dislike. these corporations are not the State, but they are in each instance virtually the only platform. others are struggling to gain traction, but almost always in vain. i just want *everybody* to be heard - even real nazis and communists, repulsive though their thoughts are. it is very sad to see that there are native-born americans (of all colors, religions, etc.) who think that free speech means that i must agree with them, or shut up otherwise. the education system has failed (actually, it is working *very* well, but that's the subject of another rant).
Comments
Post a Comment