Google Seeks To Break Vicious Cycle of Online Slander (nytimes.com) 76
Google is changing its algorithm as part of a major shift in how Google polices harmful content. From a report: For many years, the vicious cycle has spun: Websites solicit lurid, unverified complaints about supposed cheaters, sexual predators, deadbeats and scammers. People slander their enemies. The anonymous posts appear high in Google results for the names of victims. Then the websites charge the victims thousands of dollars to take the posts down. This circle of slander has been lucrative for the websites and associated middlemen -- and devastating for victims.
Now Google is trying to break the loop. The company plans to change its search algorithm to prevent websites, which operate under domains like BadGirlReport.date and PredatorsAlert.us, from appearing in the list of results when someone searches for a person's name. Google also recently created a new concept it calls "known victims." When people report to the company that they have been attacked on sites that charge to remove posts, Google will automatically suppress similar content when their names are searched for. "Known victims" also includes people whose nude photos have been published online without their consent, allowing them to request suppression of explicit results for their names. The changes -- some already made by Google and others planned for the coming months -- are a response to recent New York Times articles documenting how the slander industry preys on victims with Google's unwitting help.
Now Google is trying to break the loop. The company plans to change its search algorithm to prevent websites, which operate under domains like BadGirlReport.date and PredatorsAlert.us, from appearing in the list of results when someone searches for a person's name. Google also recently created a new concept it calls "known victims." When people report to the company that they have been attacked on sites that charge to remove posts, Google will automatically suppress similar content when their names are searched for. "Known victims" also includes people whose nude photos have been published online without their consent, allowing them to request suppression of explicit results for their names. The changes -- some already made by Google and others planned for the coming months -- are a response to recent New York Times articles documenting how the slander industry preys on victims with Google's unwitting help.
Not slander... (Score:5, Insightful)
You look silly when you use the wrong word.
Re: (Score:1)
Not quite. Libel is _printed_ in the classical sense (newspaper). A posting in some online forum falls right in the middle and is neither. And here "slander" fits better, because it is the informal version.
Re: (Score:1)
Slander: defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
Seems the dictionary disagrees...
Re: (Score:2)
curious.
would this be an unintended first step to the rule set that describes harm to a human.
apologies to the asimov estate
Re: (Score:2)
Um? (Score:5, Informative)
So, BadGirlReport.date and PredatorsAlert.us don't seem to exist. As in, those domains do not appear to be registered.
Like (Score:3, Funny)
You don't need to verify that the reporting is true, citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to verify that the reporting is true, citizen.
It's funny that you say that, because if I'm searching for something that woke America doesn't like, I simply use Yandex.
Yes, I'm forced to turn to Russia for unfiltered* search results.
Ironic, no? * And yes, they filter, too, but on different subjects.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably changed them slightly to avoid sending people to them.
I'm wondering if I can sign up for this even without being on one of those sites, or maybe post on them myself, so as a kind of prophylactic.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Saying things like that doesn't counter what was said, and instead makes you look more partisan than you perceive they are being. Someone can call out one person, without saying that another person is innocent. Calling out corruption shouldn't automatically make you jump to partisanship.
Re: (Score:2)
But I read about them on the normally-reliable example.com!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.badgirlreports.dat... [badgirlreports.date]
I like my search unfiltered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If you use DuckDuckGo and Google for search on any controversial or political topic you will see how much Google is already filtering your search results. They do this even if you are not logged in. More of the same but on more and different subjects is not the answer. The answer is for society to allow people to move on by making it socially unacceptable to dig up old stuff.
So you don't believe in holding people accountable for things they may have done or said in the past?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Any good thing can be abused. Easy access to information can be abused by posting deceptive information. Efforts like this, to filter out the harmful information, can be abused by filtering out embarrassing-but-true information that people have a legit reason to want to know.
Sometimes companies, politicians, what-have-you, do things that aren't illegal but sure are unpopular. People want to know this stuff and the desire to suppress that knowledge is obvious. The courts wouldn't be involved at all, in t
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't believe in holding people accountable for things they may have done or said in the past?
How do you know they actually did something in the past when the reports are anonymous. Years ago, I ended up on a site called dontdatehim.com because the ex-boyfriend of the woman I was dating sent in an anonymous report and there was no way to get it off without paying hundreds of dollars to the company that ran the website.
Re:I like my search unfiltered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wanting unfiltered search would make you a rare exception, so you shouldn't expect any well-known search engines (including duckduckgo) to be offering that anymore.
Most people don't want their search unfiltered, because they want actual information they can use nearly-immediately, instead of spam and chaff that they have to sort through for an hour or two. Relavance turned out to be an extremely important factor in search for the overall marketplace, which is why all the commercial search engines filter so much. None of them want to be the next AltaVista.
I dunno (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
"harmful content"?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Is not it sadly ironic, that the purported champion of free speech — heroically publishing even the classified information [wikipedia.org] — will ever use the term like "harmful content"?
The words can hurt after all — justifying even all sorts of "sticks and bones" in return, eh?
Then, again, a fellow Slashdotter [slashdot.org] just accused me of using illegal arguments — pleasing the crowd — the rot sure trickled down fast...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For the stupid: The irony is in the very term "harmful content". As if content — words — can be harmful. At all...
So harmful, they are worth banning...
For decades — centuries — kids sang "words would never hurt me" [wikipedia.org], and stern judges presiding over cases of brawls were asking: "Who threw the first punch?" — because mere words uttered before the actual violence did not matter.
Re: "harmful content"?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is not. If it is Ok to denounce a race [harvardmagazine.com], it is certainly Ok to call your mamma fat or you — an idiot, or, indeed, to denounce any other race too. "Ok" as in "not harmful"...
You're confusing impolite with harmful. Confusing, or deliberately conflating...
Re: (Score:3)
Then, again, a fellow Slashdotter [slashdot.org] just accused me of using illegal arguments — pleasing the crowd — the rot sure trickled down fast...
I think you may be misinterpreting the point the poster was making:
Adding absurd arguments that are plainly illegal under the rule of established law doesn't support your position and rather just makes you look silly.
is probably in response to:
Can the government "decide collectively" to sacrifice 100 virgins?
in your original post. I think the sacrifice is plainly illegal, rather than posting the comment. Perhaps "absurd hypotheticals" would be better phrasing. Obviously I may have misinterpreted the comment, but it doesn't seem to say what you think.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it is illegal today in America. In ancient Athens it certainly was not [wikipedia.org], and the calls to "stop thinking about yourself" are that old, if not older....
But that's not relevant, the fellow referred to my arguments being illegal, not the sacrifices, and that's that...
Re: (Score:2)
No. You misread.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part? Try rephrasing his sentence to make any other sense, I'll wait...
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not relevant, the fellow referred to my arguments being illegal, not the sacrifices, and that's that...
The victimhood is strong with this one. The reading comprehension, not so much.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Then, again, a fellow Slashdotter [slashdot.org] just accused me of using illegal arguments â" pleasing the crowd â" the rot sure trickled down fast...
Apparently you and two idiots with mod-points didn't read your link. He was saying that your strawmen wouldn't exist because there's already a mechanism in the law the address them. He wasn't saying making the argument was illegal, he was saying acting out your suggestion is illegal.
This is why his post is 'Insightful' and your reply to him was 'Troll'. Your reading comprehension is terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Is not it sadly ironic, that the purported champion of free speech — heroically publishing even the classified information [wikipedia.org] — will ever use the term like "harmful content"?
No, it's not ironic. Freedom can't make something not harmful or not bad. Every supporter of freedom has to have limits where one person's freedom harms others or infringes on other's freedom. That is, unless you have a thing for tyrants.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." See? Harmful speech, we understood this concept thousands of years ago.
And from your link:
"The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A can
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, what I'd say about any "slander" posted online.
There, there, the "harming others" again — harming by words...
Your mamma is fat.
Can't us this for abuse.... like... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets say I wanted to remove all traces of my ex from the internet, couldn't I just get her listed as a victim and boom, it's like she never existed according to Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can't us this for abuse.... like... (Score:2)
Why even index this shit at all (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Most current references to Trump and Republicans are about Jan 6 and the Big Lie; conservatives really want that to vanish because it makes them look like insurrectionists who hate democracy, while liberals want it to stay for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Faith in Humanity: DAMAGED. (Score:1)
"THE SPECIAL HELL". That's what some people deserve, if there was such a place to send them.
Me: *utterly disgusted*
I'll know it works when ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, is this about Trump not having the money to pay for quality Russian hookers? That is embarrassing!
Take Down at the Source (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Friends of Privacy? (Score:2)
So if I want to "disappear" from Google search, I just have to put up a page that says I'm a bad guy, then tell Google that the site is slandering me, and then Google will put me on the known victims list so I won't be googleable anymore. I wonder if, for a small fee, I could do this for other people (slander them at their o