DuckDuckGo's Down-Ranking of Russian Disinformation Caused by Microsoft's Bing (rawstory.com) 115
Slashdot reader nickwinlund77 quotes the New York Times (also quoted here):
DuckDuckGo has little control over its search results because they are provided by Microsoft's Bing, which announced that it would follow the European Union's order to restrict access to the Russian state news agencies RT and Sputnik. But the criticism from the far right was directed at DuckDuckGo. The conservative website Breitbart said DuckDuckGo was "adopting the censorship policies" of Big Tech. In social media channels devoted to conspiracy theories, users vowed to switch to alternatives like the Russian search engine Yandex....
In a statement, Kamyl Bazbaz, the vice president of communications for DuckDuckGo, said that the affected sites were engaged in "active disinformation campaigns," meaning they were similar to other low-quality websites already penalized by search algorithms. "This isn't censorship, it's just search rankings," he said....
The company also announced this month that it would pause its relationship with Yandex, the Russian search engine, which was providing certain links for results in Russia and Turkey.
In a statement, Kamyl Bazbaz, the vice president of communications for DuckDuckGo, said that the affected sites were engaged in "active disinformation campaigns," meaning they were similar to other low-quality websites already penalized by search algorithms. "This isn't censorship, it's just search rankings," he said....
The company also announced this month that it would pause its relationship with Yandex, the Russian search engine, which was providing certain links for results in Russia and Turkey.
Search Engine Doing it's Job (Score:3)
Seems like the search engine was just doing its job by promoting accurate information over inaccurate information. Maybe they could add a flag "fake" or something that people could check if they want to see made up stuff
Re: Search Engine Doing it's Job (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some stuff is also called "Truth". Russia's been trying to hide that and shutting down any news organization that reports on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting for them to start doing that to US disinformation from likes of CNN and msDNC.
Whatever, vlad. We realize you don't like the truth being told about how you're deliberately shelling civilians in Mariupol, including a maternity hospital. Or the deliberate shelling of a children's cancer hospital in Mykolaiv. Or the radio intercepts of Russian soldiers bragging about raping women or shooting civilians. Or the Russian IFV which deliberately fired upon a civilian car killing a man and a woman.
With the Russian economy in a tailspin and thousands of Russian troops killed so far, expect th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back. Who was it that said that... Oh yeah, it was Obama. It's funny how gas prices were kept low(which hurts Russia) and Russia didn't invade Ukraine while Trump was in office yet once Biden was back in the Executive Branch gas prices went up(which helps Russia since gas is a global supply) and once again Russia is invading Ukraine with Biden providing only pro forma action against him.
Re: (Score:3)
So just to be clear, Trump was helping Russia by supporting US energy independence, supporting Canadian oil production(Keystone), pushing for the US and Canada to supply Europe's natural gas supply and thus ensure their energy generation sector wasn't reliant on Russian supply, opposing NordStream 2, and selling Ukraine weapon systems(something Obama refused to do entirely and Biden has currently blocked when Poland attempted to give them some fighter planes, but only after the planes were in US custody and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump treated Putin like a rival businessman in public while sapping his ability to do anything significant on the world stage with his actual actions. Biden, or rather Biden's handlers since Biden isn't making any decisions, did everything in their power to allow Putin the latitude to act, and even in the middle of the invasion are actively blocking other European nations from assisting Ukraine. But somehow Trump was Putin's ally and Biden's his enemy. Keep telling yourself that.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the parts where he attempted to extort Ukraine into fabricating evidence against Biden as part of the weapons sale.
No fabrication of evidence was needed, Biden actually was bragging, in public about getting the Prosecutor fired that was investigating corruption at the Ukrainian company Biden's son Hunter was on the board of, by threatening to withhold U$ billion in aid. Trump was literally impeached for asking Zellinski to look into it.
Joe Biden Brags About Withholding Ukraine Aid in Council on Foreign Relations [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Quite funny how the dems are now pretending to be all anti-Russia all of a sudden, when it's your senile moron of a president that pretty much handed them Ukraine on a silver platter.
I have no idea what this gibberish is. Speak English. Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin didn't want another democracy on his border. Everything that's happening is because of Putin's frail ego having nothing else to distract the Russian people from his abject failures as a leader.
By arming Ukraine, President Biden, and all European leaders, are handing Russia another humiliating defeat. Russia already lost over 3,000 soldiers with their failed invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and now they've added anothe
Re: (Score:2)
Quite funny how the dems are now pretending to be all anti-Russia all of a sudden, when it's your senile moron of a president that pretty much handed them Ukraine on a silver platter.
I have no idea what this gibberish is. Speak English. Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin didn't want another democracy on his border.
And also because when he was very obviously telegraphing his intention to attack to see what the western leaders would do, the senile moron Bidet said he can have some of Ukraine as long as he doesn't take too much, and later added that if he does take too much the response will be sanctions, and very empathically *not* military intervention. And sanctions won't even involve shutting down Nord Stream. Basically he gave Putin all the assurances he wanted.
If Reagan was president, NATO would have been running
GOP deleted arms for Ukraine in 2016 platform (Score:2)
You might recall that during the Trump presidency he was first impeached by Democrats for delaying weapons shipments to Ukraine that has already been approved by Congress. The intent was to pressure Ukraine to create a false narrative about a Trump po
Re: (Score:2)
First, your claim is wrong as explained HERE, five years ago. It's a dishonest stale Democrat party talking point that has been recycled through Democrat-aligned media outlets ever since Hillary lost the 2016 election and started claiming Trump was a Russian stooge.
Second, the Obama administration REFUSED to provide ANY lethal weapons to Ukraine; they provided blankets and medicine and unarmed vehicles but Obama absolutely refused any lethal aid.
Third, Trump actually DID provide the Ukrainians with the Jav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to refresh your recent memory [latimes.com]:
You might recall that during the Trump presidency he was first impeached by Democrats for delaying weapons shipments to Ukraine that has already been approved by Congress. The intent was to pressure Ukraine to create a false narrative about a Trump political opponent. Sad to see that Putin is paying you to shitpost on Slashdot. The quality of your shitposts isn't even worth a devalued Ruble. How does it feel to wake up living in the new North Korea?
Apparently having problem with how the west handed Putin Ukraine on a silver platter makes me a russkie? How fucking brainwashed you people can be?
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how most of the Republicans were for a time (and some still are) being anti-Russian. It actually reminds me of the lead-up to the American involvement in WWII, where the Republicans were the isolationists, not wanting the US to get involved in the European war. Until finally Hitler declared war on the US (11 Dec 1941).
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting for them to start doing that to US disinformation from likes of CNN and msDNC.
Already done -- it's labeled: Fox "News" and/or RNC
Re: (Score:2)
That Fox News does disinformation doesn't suddenly make CNN's spew worth reading. CNN used to be a good if biased news source, then completely quit the news business by late 2015/early 2016 and hasn't taken a step back since.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that they are being paid to carry American propaganda(Obama had a law passed legalizing the use of propaganda against US citizens on American soil) that is unlikely.
Re: Search Engine Doing it's Job (Score:2)
And you know how to accurately and precisely discern between the two?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Search engines have no knowledge of, or way to measure accuracy. You mistake popularity with accuracy
News websites frequently arrive on top when searching for about anything; there is no such thing as an accurate news website.
Re: (Score:2)
The job of a search engine is to provide the best results for a search. Most often that's results that are accurate. Popularity is also a factor, but in this case they're pushing accuracy over popularity. Some news websites are more reputable than others and as such can be viewed as more accurate. I don't know why you would say "there is no such thing as an accurate news website" - of course there's such thing as an accurate news website. If the website is accurately reporting the news (as a reputable
Re: (Score:2)
The job of a search engine is to provide the best results for a search. Most often that's results that are accurate.
As said news articles come on top; news is only accurate until it happens to be an article about that one field one is a genuine expert in oneself. Then, it is suddenly flagrantly and obviously inaccurate.
“best”, much as with Facebook, is what keeps the user engaged to view more advertisements, not what is most useful to him. The commercial incentive of these websites is to keep users on them for as long as possible. — This means having them try multiple candidates till they meet the right
Re: (Score:2)
“best”, much as with Facebook, is what keeps the user engaged to view more advertisements, not what is most useful to him. The commercial incentive of these websites is to keep users on them for as long as possible. — This means having them try multiple candidates till they meet the right o
It's different for search engines as if the user is consistently not getting good results, they'll go to an alternative. That's not as easy with a social network which requires the user to convince all their friends to move too.
“reputable” is a word used by people to mean news outlets that ideologically agree with them, and people come to very different conclusions on what is “reputable” depending on their own ideologies.
It may be, but it's also a word used to mean they have a reputation for accurate reporting and can be trusted. Some people may not like the reporting of a news organization but it could still be reputable because they research their stories well, properly fact check, and present th
Re: (Score:2)
They enjoy such a reputation with people with similar ideologies; such a reputation tends to disappear when asking people of very different ideologies. — All of them are right that the opposing newspapers are full of nonsense; all of them are wrong when they believe the newspapers that feed them the ideology they wish to hear is accurate.
There is absolutely no incentive for newspapers to be ac
Re: (Score:2)
I can see you don't trust any sources so in my view you're unable to properly discern truth from fiction. Hopefully you can work on that or you'll just end up spreading more propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm perfectly capable of discerning it; that is why I do not trust news because I've discerned that all news websites are laden with inaccuracies.
Clearly you can't, if you still haven't figured this out.
Re: (Score:2)
I've discerned that all news websites are laden with inaccuracies.
I guess I'm just better at determining levels of trust in a source rather than viewing it in black and white.
Re: (Score:2)
When it happens every single time when one happens to be knowledgeable on the subject, coupled with the fact that they have no incentive nor legal obligation to tell the truth, a man can draw his patterns and conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
So in your view, every single site is the same, regardless of their staff or history. In every single subject they all have the same percentage of statements that are true? That's an astounding view!
Re: (Score:2)
No, in my view, every single news site and article is completely inaccurate and unreliable.
Some may be more unreliable than others, but all are so unreliable that they are useless as a source of information in a situation where obtaining the truth is paramount.
No businessman who stakes a substantial capital on the veracity of something would ever use a news website and assume it's contents as truthful to decide his investment in the knowledge that he would stand to loose substantially if the information pro
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I just looked on Google News and grabbed one of the top sites: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/1... [cnbc.com] (sorry if this is illegal content in your country).
Are you saying this article is completely inaccurate? Can you point to sources which dispute any part of it?
Re: Search Engine Doing it's Job (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess most people would want the search engine to retrieve accurate information. Some people might want it to show garbage, but I guess they should find a search engine with a less advanced algorithm. Definitely going to get a lot more spam that way
Okay... and? (Score:2)
Why exactly should we care what Breitbart says again?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they mostly controlled all the information Trump got, and Trump controls the minds of the majority of Republican legislators and governors.
Re: (Score:2)
Criticism is fair (Score:2)
Personally I thought DuckDuckGo was not just useful for not being tracked, but also free from manipulation of results... I do agree there's not much DDG can do about the results they get, but I think it's fair to criticize them for approving of manipulated results, rather than just broadcasting what is being manipulated and saying "sorry we can't change this".
The problem I always see with labeling sits as "misinformation" is that often the people doing the labeling have very little fact to base that label o
I can't simply but laugh... (Score:2)
Quote: "Personally I thought DuckDuckGo was [...] also free from manipulation of results..."
LOL (with proper capitals) Do you know what an "algorithm" is?
There's NEVER EVER any algorithm for a search that is "free from manipulation of results". That's why there are thousand of different algorithms because each and every one of them are tweaked to ponderate which results to show you first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when the American conservatives go to a Russian web site for their news, then you know we're in Bizarro world.
He he laughs first, is not thinking (Score:1)
LOL (with proper capitals) Do you know what an "algorithm" is?
Yes, do you know what manipulation in question is happening here? It's Bing taking the results from that algorithm, and manually altering results.
LOL indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
DuckDuckGo was about hiding tracking, not really about having a better search algorithm. It goes though other search engines usually.
Re: (Score:2)
"Manipulation" ultimately comes from the Latin manus, meaning "hand." There is a legitimate distinction to be drawn between letting the BackRub-style [stanford.edu] page-ranking algorithm discover (and encode) biases naturally present in the data, and adding tweaks to it with the conscious intent of producing certain results. It is also not unreasonable to call the difference between these two conditions "manipulation," as it fits with the etymology of the word and its many cognates, like "manual." In practice there's alw
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to reply to this, and then saw who posted it.
Re: (Score:2)
"manipulation of results" has such a negative connotation. In reality, it is de-manipulation of results. The misinformation campaigns are targeted, SEO-optimized efforts designed to increase their own rankings in the search engine results--the very definition of manipulation.
Modern search engine algorithms are not designed to show the most relevant results to a person's search, but to show the most relevant results to a persons *interest*. The algorithms tend to bring click-bait to the foreground.
Selective de-manipulation (Score:1)
In reality, it is de-manipulation of results.
I partially agree, however read what I said again as it still applies - the "de-manipualtion" that is being applied is selectively all pro-Russia content, even though for sure some results that are pro-Ukraine are being manipulated, and also misleading and should theoretically be de-manipulated as well...
My argument is that since they cannot tell what is truly being manipulated, and cannot evenly correct this manipulation, they should just let results stand as t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since I learned Japanese, I have to say it has been enlightening how different reports in Japanese about Japan are to reports in English about Japan, even from websites such as Japantimes in English.
Simply learning a new language often exposes one to a very different view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried using DuckDuckGo at one point as I was tired of the filter on sex-based content and giving me politics when I searched for data, but alas it did the same as other search engines.
There was a time when so-called “incel” websites were surprisingly hard to find on about any search engine as well, but that has been reverted now it sees. — Can I not simply want to see what it is actually like on those boards out of curiosity without moral guardians telling me I cannot be exposed to it, w
Re: (Score:2)
I would really love to see some of this Ukrainian propaganda you're so desperate to oppose. Is it the report from Médicens sans frontières [msf.org] about Mariupol being turned into a smouldering crater that you consider to be based on "very little fact," or the IAEA worrying about the health of Chernobyl [iaea.org]'s facilities and people?
Russian dictators have always suffered from their delusions not being compatible with reality, and have used disinformation to bridge the gap. That's why the English words "prop
"This isn't censorship, it's just search rankings" (Score:1)
You can tell yourself, "This isn't censorship, it's just search rankings", but we all know that if something disappears past page 1 of the search rankings, it's as good as gone for almost all searchers. It's like saying that particular books aren't censored if they're required to be kept under the counter of the book seller where no one will ever look for them.
While it's true that the first page of hits is a scarce resource and some thought must be given to what ends up on the first page, any algorithm wei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake is taking Putin's demands at face value. He made completely unreasonable demands that he knew had zero chance of being accepted. When someone makes demands like that, there's no reason to believe that they're acting in good faith. It's generally better to assume that they aren't, and that if you give in to their demands, they'll just make more demands.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. In what alternate universe do live where it is acceptable for one nation to dictate to another who they may ally or trade with and to carve out pieces for themselves?
Or... do you imagine for a second that the US would or should tolerate Canada:
1) Ordering it to leave the WTO and commit to never re-joining?
2) Unilaterally deciding they like the looks of Maine, stealing it, and declaring it to be part of Canada now and forever?
3) Unilaterally deciding that Florida and Georgia shouldn't be part of
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, we might be willing to sacrifice Georgia in exchange for them taking Florida. We're keeping Maine though!
Re: (Score:2)
In order to understand how to bring the war to a conclusion, we actually have to *listen* to the other side. Instead, we are banned from hearing the Russian side of the story, and we're told that Putin is an irrational actor [.. blah blah blah ...]
Ukraine already tried the "listen to Putin, give him what he wants" strategy - giving up on Crimea and the break away republics and going to a cease fire. Then he starts demanding more and kind of gets it with a special agreement he knew couldn't be accepted. Eventually the suggestion "listen to Putin and then we can come to a settlement" becomes literal misinformation. A lie. And that's what your "I'm reasonable" post is exactly. To claim that the Ukranians are unreasonable to fight is just a lie. When
"Misinformation" (Score:2)
On March 9, Gabriel Weinberg CEO & Founder of DuckDuckGo Tweeted this:
Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create. #StandWithUkraine
At DuckDuckGo, we've been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation.
That is straight from the horse's mouth. I didn't hear the news from Breitbart or any "far right sources." I don't know what sort of disinformation campaign I was subjected to, given that this tweet of DuckDuckGo's CEO was retweeted by the official DuckDuckGo Twitter account directly which is how I found out about it. If this move was caused by Microsoft and Bing, and they wanted people to know that, they could have led with that and
DDG Marketing (Score:2)
They can't say "Microsoft rolled out an update to us" because then they look like a reseller or a middleman for Big Tech, and their whole shtick is trying to differentiate themselves from Big Tech. It would contradict their marketing entirely. And it may not even have been a conscious attempt to mislead. People shit out social media posts with no self-reflection or thought, other than a surface-level "How does this make me look?"... Particularly on Twitter. The platform is the shallowest of the mainstream s
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo. Since conservatives were one of DuckDuckGo's biggest user groups, it looks like damage control is now underway.
"criticism from the far right" (Score:2)
You need to change it to: "criticism from the FAR RIGHT"...it's much more scary.
The West is winning the information war (Score:1)
CSPAN covered the Russian accusation (Score:2)
I posted this comment the other day about cspan. [slashdot.org]
https://www.c-span.org/video/?... [c-span.org] Link provided as information
Here's what I find odd. Every other speaker except the Russian one Vasily Nebenzya presenting evidence has closed captions. I don't know if this is how it usually is, but looking at other UN videos covered by CSPAN it appears not. Most guest speakers have full CC included. Why is this any different? I can't really just toss guessing out there, but it is odd.
That being said, I ended up listen
Re: (Score:2)
Scare quotes around the word "research" was your biggest slip up. The rhetoric of the conspiracy theorist is fascinating. You tried so hard to sound reasonable but it just didn't work. Like how you started out with a few citations, or how you implied motive without assigning it. The bit about how it's not a "Trump v. Biden" thing in an attempt to make yourself sound like a non-partisan was a nice touch, too. I mean, you might even be a non-partisan. But you clearly follow the broken logic of a conspiracy th
Re: (Score:2)
Coming from a guy who gives advice on how to escape vi in his sig.
oo - add a new line
d right arrow - delete what's to the right
d22 right arrow - delete 22 characters to the right
dd - delete the next line
EZ...
>I think you genuinely believe this bullshit so I'll give you a bit of advice: Sometimes things are as simple as they seem.
That's precious, coming from someone scared to learn vi, something useful as it's on all unix type systems. No, nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Here's some advice because
Re: (Score:2)
hERP dERP yOR a tROll
Re: (Score:2)
There is equipment and pathogens that are being "researched" the same way things were being researched in Wuhan. You would think after Covid, we would have learned our lesson.
We did. When people who don't understand shit start talking about wuhan we stop listening. Good day, sir.
Er (Score:2)
the conservative website Breitbart said DuckDuckGo was "adopting the censorship policies" of Big Tech.
Er, well ... by using Bing for results, they kind of literally are.
Whether they should is a separate question. But nobody is disputing that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, nothing is being censored. It is being downranked for being lower quality information sources. Which is exactly what search engines are supposed to do.
Meanwhile . . . (Score:2)
-- Kamala Harris, today at DNC general session.
I CALL BULLSHIT (Score:1)
The CEO of DDG posted on Twitter that DDG was itself down ranking information. He said NOTHING about MS Bing.
EditorDavid should at least go on this thread and acknowledge the bullshit fake news from the NYT that he has effectively promoted.
Lying to us? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can see all sides, and wildly differing views then they probably are not ... ..or at least not very effectively
If you are in China then you could easily prove that nothing happened in 1989 in Tiananmen Square at all ... .. here we can see what happened, but also people arguing the opposite
Re: Lying to us? (Score:2)
So What Search Engine Should We Be Using? (Score:2)
I recently started using DDG, because of brand recognition after Google started to be be really really slow for days in a row. I found no degradation of search results for stayed with it, but I had no idea it was just a rebranding of Bing.
Clearly after all this unethical bullshit the CEO is pulling their is no reason to stick with this particular middleman, so are their actually any good alternative search engines?
Re: (Score:1)
search.brave.com
NYT = fake news (Score:2)
NYT claims that DDG was criticized by the "far right." In actual fact, they were criticized by the far left, left, moderates, right, and not the far right. Breitbart is not far right. Far right is parties like KKK.
On twitter, the NYT author defended himself by saying that just because he said they were criticized by the "far right," it doesn't mean they were criticized "only" by the far right. So, he knows that he was basically lying.
Re: (Score:1)
You are mistaken. KKK was created by and continues to be run by the Democrats and the left. Go ahead, don't believe me. Look up Senator Byrd, a Democrat who died recently. Look at his history, how Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden spoke at his funeral and what did they say? Biden is on record using the N word repeatedly in the senate and not that long ago. Look up the KKK. The fact that no one Republican owned a slave prior to the civil war. The crime act of 1993 where Hillary called young black men crime preda
Re: NYT = fake news (Score:2)
The only reason I don't... (Score:2)
The only reason I don't use DuckDuckGo is it's search results are poor ... now I know why
Anyone who criticizes search engine rankings (Score:1)
Re: Anyone who criticizes search engine rankings (Score:2)