> You don't have to agree with them politically to see that Google is applying different standards to conservative content than to more liberal content.
Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking?
(Granting, yes, perfect balance for any actor or reference frame is impossible; and accepting that some degree of filtering-scare-quotes-censorship is a positive, pro-social quality in a search engine.)
Yeah... using Breitbart as an example was really unconvincing.
I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked.
That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
"- what kind of users go to that websites (and does the user searching fit that profile)?
- how much traffic does the website get?
- how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)?
- and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?"
Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'. It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get detailed insights". I know it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all this trickery has become...
Yeah absolutely, GA is quite terrifying. And they just ignore "do not track" settings on browsers. Recaptcha is another one trojan horse imo. With recaptcha v3 you get that single score to determine how legitimate of a user you are. I've been outright blocked from sites because of my recaptcha score.
> As people increasingly are using search to navigate the web (as opposed to typing a URL into the address bar), this traffic increases, those people see more ads, Google makes more money.
Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay per click and not pay per impression?
Google puts ads organic search results, so there's a good chance your users will click your ad instead of the search result. And if you don't advertise, then your ad-buying competitors will show up in search results ahead of your own site, if your site shows up at all: https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gvdsu1/entire_googl...
"If you believe in a free and open internet then you have to agree this is wrong."
I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier.
I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their 'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's more content to compete with too.
If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them ranking lower years down the road isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but a company serving the needs and desires of its users?
I see where you're coming from. In my opinion the search engine shouldn't take a stance when it comes to politics, though. They claimed they only step in when it's illegal content or copyright, but I haven't seen any evidence of them removing left-leaning sites in this fashion.
I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist
Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
[+] [-] joe-collins|5 years ago|reply
Or, perhaps a balanced set of standards is being applied, and the author's Overton Window is off-kilter, and the supposedly "(merely) conservative" content described therein remains outside of the actually-balanced metric for search ranking?
(Granting, yes, perfect balance for any actor or reference frame is impossible; and accepting that some degree of filtering-scare-quotes-censorship is a positive, pro-social quality in a search engine.)
[+] [-] cowpig|5 years ago|reply
I recently spent an hour of my life trying to convince an acquaintance that a video she found on breitbart claiming the "Frontline Doctors of America" were fighting to expose a conspiracy to suppress a 100% effective covid-19 cure was faked.
That's not "conservative" content, that's propaganda that puts people people in imminent physical danger.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bergstromm466|5 years ago|reply
- how much traffic does the website get?
- how relevant the content is to the search term (SEO magic)?
- and, most importantly, does this website fit an acceptable narrative?"
Google analytics seems like a real trojan horse. Surveillance with a side of analytics. Google benefits much more from such a product themselves, compared to the site owner/manager, who supposedly gets thses analytics 'for free'. It's all such a clever and deceptive trick: "just install this small GA snippet and maybe use our tag manager and get detailed insights". I know it's nothing new, but sometimes it just dawns on me how socially accepted all this trickery has become...
[+] [-] DlSGUSTING|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amanaplanacanal|5 years ago|reply
So show us the evidence.
[+] [-] thu2111|5 years ago|reply
There are definitely blacklists. Here's one that was leaked for news in "Google Now" (aka assistant/suggested stories):
https://pv-uploads1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/08/news-bl...
See the bottom section labelled, "sites flagged for peddling hoax stories".
[+] [-] DlSGUSTING|5 years ago|reply
Haven't vetted this source but I believe it's the right one
[+] [-] paulcole|5 years ago|reply
Pardon my ignorance but I thought all of Googles search advertising was pay per click and not pay per impression?
[+] [-] jay_kyburz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbecker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvieira|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dundarious|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DlSGUSTING|5 years ago|reply
invidiou.site is another instance you can import your invidious data to
[+] [-] mgkimsal|5 years ago|reply
I don't have to agree. Perhaps it was 'wrong' before that Breitbart ranked as high as they did earlier.
I can still go to Breitbart.com - no one is stopping me from going there. No one is stopping them from setting up their servers, hosting their content, and doing all that stuff. They don't get as much 'free' exposure via google as they used to. Other sites now get more visibility. So what? If BB kept their 'visibility' in the search index, every search result they show up in is taking space from a different site that might have shown up instead. Why are they owed anything from google? Google changes their algorithms, and there's more content to compete with too.
If we make some sort of assumption that google's algorithms get modified or perhaps simply adapt to the audience's searches, perhaps... there's less appetite for Breitbart content and ideas across google's user base, and them ranking lower years down the road isn't some grand left-wing conspiracy, but a company serving the needs and desires of its users?
[+] [-] DlSGUSTING|5 years ago|reply
I can't prove that what Google did specifically targeted Breitbart but if it was just changes to the algo then we should have seen other popular sites with similarly dramatic drops in visibility. I'd love to see other examples if they do exist
[+] [-] thu2111|5 years ago|reply
Appetite for stories doesn't drop overnight like in those graphs. You're in denial - Google is censoring search results to try and manipulate your mind.
[+] [-] johnnujler|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ezluckyfree|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnHonestComment|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cowpig|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] googthrowaway42|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] biggidywiggidy|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]