I hope Google never acts on a site providing misinformation. Part of what makes the web democratic is that both sides have a chance to voice their opinions.
Who is the to be the judge of who is right and who is wrong. Fortunately, Google knows better than to fill that role.
Stan_Schroeder
· 9 months ago
I agree. I don't like the idea of Google censoring the web. What I'm after here is the fact that Google's actions towards some chunk of data on the net might ultimately become equally (or more) important as the actual web site that hosts it.
BW
· 9 months ago
Article says: "...perhaps in the future they will also need to consider whether they should act if a site spreads misinformation." I don't think they will ever put themselves in a position to make this call. If they do, their search engine will lost it's integrity. Oddly enough, maintaining their search integrity results in Google crawling things that may go contrary to Google's human integrity, but that is the only way it can be.
Matthew Loop
· 9 months ago
I'll admit it... I used to think that the Google = Internet equation was spot-on. Google is so massive, it's kind of hard not to sometimes. Recently, it seems that they've dealt social media a slap, as sites that used to rank high and pull alot of link-juice have kind of fallen off a bit.
Good post :)
@MatthewLoop
AskJamesHolmes
· 9 months ago
Stan - It is amazing to witness the emergence of Google and their dominance in search along with it's growth into other web based platforms through acquisition. Your comments on just how deep our internet footprint really is causes one to pause and carefully consider what you post yourself and warrants monitoring what others are saying about you.
From Google's perspective the question is openness and who decides how content posted in an open forum - if anyone. The Internet can be a two edged sword for some; I am fairly certain that I wouldn't want it any other way. This is an interesting topic, thank you for bringing it to light.
"Perhaps in the future they will also need to consider whether they should act if a site spreads misinformation " Wow, THAT sounds scarry!
What would Google consider "misinformation"? "Google sucks" "Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon" "China media are free" Which page or site containing one of those assertions would Google "block"?...
Faintdreams
· 9 months ago
For now, however, Google only acts when sites are spammy or spread malware; perhaps in the future they will also need to consider whether they should act if a site spreads misinformation.
Uhm. No.
I do not want Google to act as an arbitray censor for the web.
Reducing the indexability (if taht is a word) of spammy or malware site - yes, becuase those are actions designed to undermine how the 'tarnets actually continue to work. But spreading of misinformation ? Why then in theory Google would have to ban links to the entirity of Wikipedia!
Google are at the very heart, a commercial enterpirse. I do not want any single business entity censoring what I can and cannot find on the internet. Yes I know I could access specific sites via another avene, but I might not be able to find them or know they exsist without them being google cahced first .
thom singer
· 9 months ago
my 94-year-old father thinks that "Google" and the "Internet" ARE the same thing.
If figured at 94 he did not really nead to hear his 40-something son tell him the difference. Thus, for some, Google IS the internet!
lindayanng
· 9 months ago
Well, if you ask me, thats a little nutty to expect GOOGLE to have to take off a website that spreads "Mis Information" Thats a HUGE JOB.
Isn't it up to the HOST of the server to take off any websites that breach certain "terms" of the internet? I mean, the HOST/SEVER is really the ulitmate one to take it off the net.. I know many hosts will shut down a site if it's inflicting malware or is spammy..
Google shouldn't be held responsible
search engine marketing guy
· 9 months ago
I really can't see that ever happening. Google's function isn't to remove misinformation or anything similar to this even if the information might be incorrect. The other issue here is what is defined as misinformation and what isn't and this in many cases this is a very grey area.
If someone writes or says something that others believe to be misinformation then it's very unlikely that Google or any other major Search Engine will ever take one side over another. I agree with a previous comment that Google is correct in this.
Essentially it is perfectly possible to build a webiste that is nothing but misinformation and then use SEO techniques to achieve top positions on Google even though the site might be full of nonsense. I can't see Google doing anything about this as their aim is not accuracy but relevance and the two are very different. This is a fascinating subject of discussion though and thankyou for the excellent blog post
All Comments
Who is the to be the judge of who is right and who is wrong. Fortunately, Google knows better than to fill that role.
Good post :)
@MatthewLoop
From Google's perspective the question is openness and who decides how content posted in an open forum - if anyone. The Internet can be a two edged sword for some; I am fairly certain that I wouldn't want it any other way. This is an interesting topic, thank you for bringing it to light.
James
http://Twitter.com/AskJamesHolmes
Wow, THAT sounds scarry!
What would Google consider "misinformation"?
"Google sucks"
"Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon"
"China media are free"
Which page or site containing one of those assertions would Google "block"?...
Uhm. No.
I do not want Google to act as an arbitray censor for the web.
Reducing the indexability (if taht is a word) of spammy or malware site - yes, becuase those are actions designed to undermine how the 'tarnets actually continue to work. But spreading of misinformation ? Why then in theory Google would have to ban links to the entirity of Wikipedia!
Google are at the very heart, a commercial enterpirse. I do not want any single business entity censoring what I can and cannot find on the internet. Yes I know I could access specific sites via another avene, but I might not be able to find them or know they exsist without them being google cahced first .
If figured at 94 he did not really nead to hear his 40-something son tell him the difference. Thus, for some, Google IS the internet!
Isn't it up to the HOST of the server to take off any websites that breach certain "terms" of the internet? I mean, the HOST/SEVER is really the ulitmate one to take it off the net.. I know many hosts will shut down a site if it's inflicting malware or is spammy..
Google shouldn't be held responsible
If someone writes or says something that others believe to be misinformation then it's very unlikely that Google or any other major Search Engine will ever take one side over another.
I agree with a previous comment that Google is correct in this.
Essentially it is perfectly possible to build a webiste that is nothing but misinformation and then use SEO techniques to achieve top positions on Google even though the site might be full of nonsense. I can't see Google doing anything about this as their aim is not accuracy but relevance and the two are very different. This is a fascinating subject of discussion though and thankyou for the excellent blog post
Jeremy Spiller
http://www.whitehatmedia.com
To follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jeremyspiller