News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]. Parent comment

Re:Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video] by qwerty11111 on Thursday September 13, 2018 @09:33AM (#17978439)
Y is more far oppressive but is coddled while X gets all the flak and is stifled. Conservative sites like Breitbart are essentially stifled on Google while the oppressive Chinese government can manipulate any Google search results it wants. What is Google's reasoning for this?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video] by fcarraldo on Thursday September 13, 2018 @10:02AM (#17978665)
This isn’t a fair comparison. The Chinese government cannot manipulate search results outside of China, where companies must either comply with local law or be eliminated via the Great Firewall.

This policy, while controversial in itself, has nothing to do with what you perceive as “stifling” of Breitbart in, I presume, American search results. I’d argue that this is nearly blatantly untrue - try searching for a term that Breitbart has written about, and you’ll find results at the top [0] or for Breitbart itself, and you’ll get a full-featured overview of Breitbart content and articles [1].

What evidence is there that Breitbart is stifled by Google?

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+may+use+military+to+bu...

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=breitbart

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video] by hef19898 on Thursday September 13, 2018 @09:48AM (#17978552)
And just because one Party is really "evil" I can be as "evil" as I want unless I become the most "evil"? Really?

And you really Need an Explanation why a company adopts to reuls in specific country (not saying it is good thing) and treats a (fringe) news outlet differently (not sure if they actually do, so)?

[ Parent | on HN ]