Downranking "disinformation" could be seen as creating the sort of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble that Weinberg often denigrates.

> As a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles. The choices made by these algorithms are not transparent.

I don't think it's unfounded criticism.

One problem is how arbitrary the categorization of "disinformation" can be. Once you go down the path, it can also create a scenario where you tacitly approve the things you don't decide to censor/downrank. While I can argue both sides, it simply doesn't come without trade-offs.

No, it can't. A filter bubble is specifically defined as users getting personalized results for the same query based on what an algorithm knows about them. It's right there in the first paragraph on wikipedia.

A hyper-partisan search engine that only showed results that favor one viewpoint would be bad, but it wouldn't be a filter bubble.

When I read the wiki page, I don't personally think much swivels on whether a human or algorithm creates the filter since the reason it's an issue is the end result.

Or rather, "it's okay since it's not an algorithm doing it" doesn't wave away the concerns very effectively.

The argument you're responding to wasn't "it's okay since it's not an algorithm doing it". It was "it's not a filter bubble since it's not personalized".

This is not an us or them case, is a true or false case. And false and true don't share a value of 50/50%. Unless we want to use a browser as moron-classifier, false results had a value of 0 in a search.

False facts are valuable in a search only as if tagged as debunked as false in the same page.

With search taken as a whole, the search results a person gets varies depending on a personal factor (namely, their go-to search engine) and not just the query. That's similar to a filter bubble, even if it isn't precisely one.

Filter bubbles are personalized. This is not personalized.

No it doesn't. What creates filter bubbles is ranking sites differently for each person, what has no relation at all with the criteria you use on your rank.

Personally, I use DDG because it's useful. As long as the new ranking makes them more useful, more power to them. If they do it wrong, I'll start looking for some replacement.

If Google did that (as they do) it would require some discussion about censorship and monopolies, but yeah, there's nothing wrong with DDG doing it.

>No it doesn't. What creates filter bubbles is ranking sites differently for each person, what has no relation at all with the criteria you use on your rank

That's assuming there's only one platform. When users can choose other search engines (or social media sites, video platforms, etc) then it absolutely creates a filter bubble when each platform injects its own bias into its content. No algorithm is perfect but I'd generally prefer my search results without deliberate bias.

Plus you'd have to be knee deep in the koolaid to think that only russian sources are propaganda. It just ao happens they are obviously on the "other side" today but let's not pretend that US and Ukranian sources aren't coming with their own healthy dose of spin.

For example, all the recent reports of civilian infrastructure being bombed are most certainly leaving out that these buildings were being used by Ukranian forces, much like reports of Israel targeting civilian buildings. That doesn't justify the russian actions since putin is fighting an unjust war of aggression, but that important context is an example of spin that is all over the "approved" sources of information.

The case of different platforms is not a filter bubble. It's just a social bubble like it always existed.

The fundamental feature of a filter bubble is that you can not escape it. If all it takes is looking at another site, it's not it.

Anyway, I prefer my search results devoid of known falsehoods. I don't believe it at all that DDG can achieve this, but if there's a loud known source of that can be cut without false positives, I do prefer that it's cut. Unfortunately, verifying the mainstream news isn't such an easy task, so that DDG will become both more reliable and more biased at the same time. Personally, I don't care much for the bias. I care about the reliability.

(And yes, all of your conclusions are probably true.)

And in this specific case, it feels more like quality control of state-sponsored spam.

You can still find these sites—they come up first if you look for them directly, they're just treated as the low quality information than they are.

And why should anyone believe that State sponsored spam doesn't come from all angles? If I'm going to receive propaganda, I at least would like consistent sampling of it. And who cares about any of that - you have admonished an information search provider to determine what information it serves you based on subjective, undisclosed criteria of which there is good reason to believe is ideologically motivated.

Some people consume information from outlets like Al Jazeera because they would like something which might be a little more distanced from the West than things like Anglo outlets.

Right, but Al Jazeera is more like the BBC than it is like RT. I don't see anyone making a quality-based argument to downrank it, and I would disagree with them if they did.

Aljazeera is literally the Qatari state media. That means they are the media outlet of a slave state controlled by an absolute monarchy . Tell anyone in the Arabic world that aljazeera is neutral or BBC like and you will get laughed at. Even RT is probably not on as short of an editorial leash than al jazeera.

Your comment is actually an amazing example of why we should absolutely avoid media censorship (like the EU is doing right now); it seems like the people who are usually the most vocally pushing for it are also, not coincidentally, those who are also the most likely to be completely oblivious to propaganda even when it's right in front of them. Yet also think that they are impervious to it.

The BBC is literally the UK state media.

You ignored the "slave state with an absolute monarchy" part I think. Not like they are even comparable, unless you are saying the BBC journalists could justifiably be fearing for their lives if they criticize the UK government? All state media aren't created equal, and aren't equally independant. Otherwise the BBC, aljazeera and RT would be all equal since they are all state media after all.

You stated that you aren't British. You should probably ask some Brits what they think about the BBC and understand their criticisms. You may be surprised by the response.

They generally do not consider it unbiased at all and many would call it false propaganda, especially if they are Irish or Scottish.

I am British. The BBC is the best media service in existence, and although one must watch with open eyes (like any media), it is generally more free of bias than any other available source, especially when covering international matters.

If there were an option to pay the license fee from the US, I would.

I can’t decide your generalizations are pretty ignorant (at best parroting the Daily Mail and friends) or malevolent.

>The BBC is the best media service in existence

Hyperbolic claim, so I will ignore it.

>it is generally more free of bias than any other available source, especially when covering international matters.

I disagree, especially when the British have an interest in the outcome of an international situation.

Not the government, and they won't lose their lives for it, but they do live in a country that records "non-crime hate incidents" and shows them to people requesting your criminal record.

Have you remembered to renew your BBC license this year?

I'm not British but I still think a license based financing is still probably better than financing from the ruling family of a slave petrostate.

Also worth noting that Al Jazeera's coverage in English and Arabic are obviously different.

Cool, you can have a checkbox for 'Protect me from being stupid' and click it on each of your searches. This allows you to be protected from "state-sponsored spam" without imposing your intellectual shortcomings on everyone else.