Is Google Big Brother?

[Chuchi]

I’ve noticed for quite a while now that when I search for news topics I’m bombarded with results from The Guardian ,now as this newspaper has the least circulation of all the UK dailies,has never made a profit and survives on donations (possibly a billionaire who’s partial to a bowl of goulash) I have to question why it has such a major presence.

[vincemunday]

Yes I have noticed the same , the Independent too, two very left biased newspapers with minimal readership, very odd.

[joudon]

A couple of years ago a former BBC employee let it slip that the Guardian , Independent and I paper were the 3 dailys that the BBC newsproom staff were told to read and follow up leads from . Obviously the 80 % of the dailys most read in UK were sidelined. Not surprised at all. The BBC news productions today are so left wing, pro EU and pro immigration that the word biased does not even come close.

[tamada]

Free news websites probably have a higher hit-rate than subscription and the otherwise more restricted news websites. Since there are more hits on these free news sites, the google algorithms may elevate their listing in the search results order as being more likely to be what you are seeking. Maybe that's why for any chosen news event, the headline as it appears in the Guardian or Independent (or other free new sites) may be listed above the headline for the same event as presented in the Telegraph, Times or other pay-first, read-later on-line news service.

The browser history and accepted cookies may also 'steer' ones google search experience towards certain url's that based on your browsing history and stored cookies, google has determined you want to see or read.

Every so often, I will purge all that browser history, favorites, cookies and clutter and start over like a newbie. It can be cathartic and if any particular website was good enough to garner your attention befre, you will remember it and add it to the new favorites list as you progress in losing your internet 'virginity' (again).

[Chuchi]

Free news websites probably have a higher hit-rate than subscription and the otherwise more restricted news websites. Since there are more hits on these free news sites, the google algorithms may elevate their listing in the search results order as being more likely to be what you are seeking. Maybe that's why for any chosen news event, the headline as it appears in the Guardian or Independent (or other free new sites) may be listed above the headline for the same event as presented in the Telegraph, Times or other pay-first, read-later on-line news service.

The browser history and accepted cookies may also 'steer' ones google search experience towards certain url's that based on your browsing history and stored cookies, google has determined you want to see or read.

Every so often, I will purge all that browser history, favorites, cookies and clutter and start over like a newbie. It can be cathartic and if any particular website was good enough to garner your attention befre, you will remember it and add it to the new favorites list as you progress in losing your internet 'virginity' (again).

I took your advice and cleared the history on my iPad last night , checked this morning and has made no difference The Guardian and Independent still a strong presence , I should have added Tam that I have a google account and they are well aware of my likes and dislikes. Google algorithms , only Google themselves could tell us the thought process that goes into them , is this information held available to the Public ?

[Stantheman]

Don't use Google News but looked and when I start it see mostly U.S. news sources, so region where account started specific I think. As for googles process, it is mostly a close held secret and probably copyrighted

[Bouph]

[tamada]

Since some of google's servers are in disused ICBM silo's in Nebraska, I would suggest that one should wait maybe 24-hours for any cookie-clearing, Internet purges to be properly evaluated?

IMHO google is far more invasive/pervasive and downright manipulative than Suckerberg tries to deny his FB sheep herding utility is. For years I happily used a dated android 4.0 device for my daily work and play but in the first quarter of this year, I invested in a 7.0 powered hand held. I was initially appreciative of some of the nifty, hidden features including getting faster access to news and features that appealed to me. After 6-months, I am now regularly buggering around in the user menu's trying to disable whatever check-box(es) that enables them to send me more of the same and get back to my old-fashioned, long-hand, self-propelled searches for information and disinformation. ie. my TRUE choices.

Totally correct on SEO but I personally find it hard to appreciate that they all religiously tread the legal fine line between running an efficient, money-spinning search engine and manipulating (or being manipulated) into feeding me stuff that may not be 100% kosher.

Wasn't Cambridge Analytica guilty of abusing the terms and conditions of their 'agreement' on data sharing and customer confidentiality with FB?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

I recently opened a thread on 'Untelligence' *recently because for me, it raises some of the issues I see in the knee-jerk reaction to the too broad application of the 'fake news' brush and the increasing pillorying of MSM these days. Plenty websites posting unattributed stories that get increasing air-time based on "That's what I want to hear" rather than on "That's what actually happened."

* topic48376.html
150 reads, no comments (so far)

[neeemu]

People claim to be concerned by Google but then go and install Google Home devices. Why anyone would want a listening device in their house is beyond me, Google have already admitted that they can be used to listen even when in a standby state.

I do understand such devices can make less able folk's lives easier, they could potentially even save lives if someone had a fall for example. However, Big Brother is already everywhere outside, I don't think I'm being paranoid by not wanting to invite him in to my home.

[Natas]

Alot of bouncing around in this thread but no real direction..

• Clear your history.
  Change your IP.
  Stop using Google software.
  Use Mozilla ones like Firefox.
  Get a VPN..
  Stop using Apple Products (they are no better at not tracking).
  Encrypt Your Life https://medium.freecodecamp.org/tor-sig ... 593f2104c3

The bottom line is if you are worried and have something to hide maybe you should not be on the internet at all.

END OF LINE

[Chuchi]

Alot of bouncing around in this thread but no real direction.


Far from it ,interesting comments and enjoyed the link from Bouph regarding algorithms.My point that may have been lost is are we being directed to news sources google wish us to read, which is why I asked the question regarding The Guardian which has such low popularity in print but seems to be an internet sensation.

[Natas]

Alot of bouncing around in this thread but no real direction.


Far from it ,interesting comments and enjoyed the link from Bouph regarding algorithms.My point that may have been lost is are we being directed to news sources google wish us to read, which is why I asked the question regarding The Guardian which has such low popularity in print but seems to be an internet sensation.

It is alot of bouncing around with Googling info on SEO and Google Algorithms. No one knows what they are doing besides their engineering Team. MOZ and other SEO Companies just play along. Google is trying to feed you the content it thinks you want.
So
#1 Yes they are watching you. That is bottom line.
If you do not like it turn off your devices and disconnect.

What I provided was a direction to change how you do things.

[Chuchi]

Alot of bouncing around in this thread but no real direction.


Far from it ,interesting comments and enjoyed the link from Bouph regarding algorithms.My point that may have been lost is are we being directed to news sources google wish us to read, which is why I asked the question regarding The Guardian which has such low popularity in print but seems to be an internet sensation.

It is alot of bouncing around with Googling info on SEO and Google Algorithms. No one knows what they are doing besides their engineering Team. MOZ and other SEO Companies just play along. Google is trying to feed you the content it thinks you want.
So
#1 Yes they are watching you. That is bottom line.
If you do not like it turn off your devices and disconnect.

What I provided was a direction to change how you do things.

Google is trying to feed you the content it thinks you want.


Well then I suggest they sack their profiling department

If you do not like it turn off your devices and disconnect.

Absolutely not who gave them the right to play god. Any other business Monopoly (with much less influential power)would have been ordered to be broken up by now.

No one knows what they are doing besides their engineering Team.

Seriously ,well let’s hope Larry Page and Sergei Brin ain’t modern day versions of Elliot Carver and Max Zorin

[Giggle]

Google is trying to feed you the content it thinks you want.

Exactly what newspaper editors do every day. There are 2,000 stories and 300 photos, and the editor must select 50 stories and 20 photos/illustrations. What's the difference?

Town criers used to decide what was "news" before Gutenberg.

Why is Google suddenly evil for doing the exact same thing that has been done for centuries? I have an idea ... :-"

[tamada]

Alot of bouncing around in this thread but no real direction..

• Clear your history.
  Change your IP.
  Stop using Google software.
  Use Mozilla ones like Firefox.
  Get a VPN..
  Stop using Apple Products (they are no better at not tracking).
  Encrypt Your Life https://medium.freecodecamp.org/tor-sig ... 593f2104c3

The bottom line is if you are worried and have something to hide maybe you should not be on the internet at all.

END OF LINE

But this isn't about finding the skeletons in anyone's closet is it?

Initially the whole enterprise was supposedly geared towards steering advertisers in your direction based on your internet history. Sounds pretty basic, a win-win proposal and not too intrusive. However, if they start to pepper your news searches or 'preferences' with like-minded news stories and opinion, well that's a whole lot different and worrying than repeatedly suggesting that you simply cannot live without the new Gillette 5-blade razor... especially if you're a woman. This is more of a concern when the bona fides of a shiny, new website that parrots mainstream or (more likely) extreme news and viewpoints isn't easily verifiable.

I am sure that FB, google, et al are all doing as much due diligence as they can on what is news and what is fake news. But the sheer dynamics, the high-speed rate-of-change) of the internet with increasing users and abusers suggests to me they will forever be behind the proverbial 8 ball, perpetually playing catch-up.

Taking FB's recent admission on the local manipulation by the Burmese junta (I don't have a similar "for-instance" for google yet!) where for a long time FB only had a couple of Burmese-speaking staffers doing moderation of their singularly dominant Myanmar social media presence. Allegedly, this laxity was very heavily abused by the army and radical pro-Buddhism and anti-Muslim internet actors. It's a worry when the default settings of such customer-dependent entities seem to err towards allowing more private data to be accessible. This is either through unknown or misunderstood licensing agreements with third parties (like the aforementioned CA) or more-likely by the blithely checked 'I agree' button when they make changes to their policy and bring it to the users attention. Who actually re-reads the whole new privacy agreement when it pops up and needs your 'approval'?

[Natas]

You are right this is not about finding Skeletons.
But other readers might think that way. I get asked alot of questions about this and that. Again as you said you are being force fed the news, ads whatever.
Looking at the Google Analytics reports for some of the sites I manage. They can track exactly how long you are on a section on the page.. Region.. pretty much everything.
A friend of mine worked for this company (pre 2000) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick This company now owned by Google. They place a cookie that can be used by affilate sites to suggest ads based on previous sites you have been on..
Does not matter if this is Google, Apple Microsoft, BBC.. It will never end and really only get worse.
Personally i find it annoying.