Not sure what is going on with those URL params, but I see results just fine at https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Atass.com and in any case an easier way to do things is to not use a site search but just put the domain or name in the query like 'ukraine tass' and something from that site will usually come up on top.
People complain about search engines like Google being full of garbage and fake info. DDG takes actions against that and people cry that it’s not fair.
Are they supposed to just let governments astroturf their way to the top with propaganda?
I think some people are under the impression that it’s possible to build a useful search engine that is completely algorithmic and unbiased. It’s just not possible, though.
Any algorithm for which there is incentive to game, people will game. And legitimate sources often have no incentive to game the algorithms. There’s no one algorithm that will do everything perfectly. Eventually you’ll have some phishing scam, life-threatening suggestions, or illegal content popping up as a top result, and you’ll have to add manual exceptions.
I think it all comes down to the type of curation being done and if the choices are made out of objectivity of subjectivity.
Like prioritizing a legitimate website over a scam website isn't punishing the scam website because of a controversial opinion or the search engine operator didn't like the content, it's because the website is objectively a scam, it's easy to objectively identify it as such, and everyone agrees it's one.
When it comes to Ukraine vs. Russia and propaganda, it is entirely impossible to have objectivity. As angry as this will make some people, opinions on the war in Ukraine are subjective. Russian outlets shouldn't be ranked lower than Ukrainian ones solely because a lot of people are on the side of Ukraine.
I'm sure some Russian outlets are spreading objective falsehoods, and some Ukrainian outlets are spreading objective falsehoods. These individual outlets should be punished in search rankings, but to classify all Russian outlets as spreading misinformation and all Ukrainian outlets as objective truth completely demolishes the objectivity a lot of people want their search engines to have.
It's a difficult topic, I feel like I talked in circles writing this comment.
I think people are running with the idea that DDG is only punishing Russians. Russian media also loves pushing this idea.
I'm not convinced that DDG isn't downranking all junk. Russian disinfo spreaders and consumers just scream the hardest when their garbage is rightfully pushed aside. Same as the Q-worshipping crowd.
> it's easy to objectively identify it as such [scams], and everyone agrees it's one.
Is it actually easy to identify all scam content? Then why is it possible to find scams in search results?
> When it comes to Ukraine vs. Russia and propaganda, it is entirely impossible to have objectivity.
So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked? Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.
> ...to classify all Russian outlets as spreading misinformation and all Ukrainian outlets as objective truth
Is that what they did? Because what I read was that they would "down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation." So you have to dig a few pages deeper to get to 'Russian disinformation', and I don't see any anything indicating that 'Russian disinformation' means everything published by a Russian News outlet (re: the invasion).
I don't think something being a top search results implies that it is an objective truth either, especially with ongoing news reports.
>Is it actually easy to identify all scam content? Then why is it possible to find scams in search results?
I think to a knowledgable observer and moderator, sure. Algorithmically it's probably more difficult, which is why you still see it in some search results. These scams are less prone to subjectivity, which is why you rarely see Twitter uproars about a bitcoin pyramid scheme being booted off a search engine.
>So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked?
Yes....
>Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.
....and that is the reason for why they should be equally ranked. You can see on the initial page load the full spectrum of reporting from MSNBC to Fox News. Of course one of them has to be ranked above the other in the UI (it's a list of items) but that should relate to objective things like what words from the search query appear, etc.
>Is that what they did?
I think what people take issue with is that we're trusting these sites to determine what disinformation is. How is DDG deciding what is and isn't misinformation? Without a clearly defined process for misinformation, this becomes subjective.
>> "Weinberg didn’t elaborate on the decision, or how the down-ranking will work."
But other sites are simply doing a blanket ban:
>> "Since then, the internet industry has responded by blocking access to Russian state-sponsored media outlets such as RT and Sputnik News for users in the EU. In addition, Twitter has placed warning labels on tweets linking to Russian state media. (Google News decided to de-rank RT and Sputnik News back in 2017 for allegedly circulating propaganda.)"
>I don't think something being a top search results implies that it is an objective truth either, especially with ongoing news reports.
Not right now, no, and that's the issue. Most people assume it to be though.
>>So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked?
>Yes....
>>Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.
>....and that is the reason for why they should be equally ranked.
Just because you can find a fault with a source does not mean that all faults are equal. For instance, the AP should probably be ranked above the National Enquirer.
> I think what people take issue with is that we're trusting these sites to determine what disinformation is. How is DDG deciding what is and isn't misinformation? Without a clearly defined process for misinformation, this becomes subjective.
It is an inherently subjective process and always will be. There are organizations that have attempted to make the process objective (i.e. fact checking organizations) but they can all be criticized as subjective as well. Pure objectivity simply isn’t possible.
This kind of thinking is exactly why the Russian misinformation campaigns have been extremely successful (especially in Russia). Russia doesn't care about the individual outlets as long as they help spread lies, no matter how absurd or obvious. This doesn't have to be done as carefully or subtly as the western world seems to think.
Russia is discrediting truth as a concept entirely, the narrative being "we are obviously lying, but so is anyone else". That others might not be lying as much seems to be harder and harder to understand by the targets of these campaigns (based on firsthand witnessing). With objective facts / reporting discredited what's left is opinions. Opinions generated by a carefully managed army of influencers promoting whatever cause is deemed useful (from bloggers to friendly/financed foreign government officials). And this _is_ done with the secrecy and subtlety you'd expect.
It might not be possible to have complete objectivity regarding the invasion of Ukraine, but imho a blanket ban of any media with Russian ties would be a heck of a lot better than to let Russia continue to destroy objective reporting, one of the foundations of our modern society.
I think we should try to enforce transparency and make sure that false information can be disputed.
If Russia sends armies of trolls to clandestinely influence social media consumers as part of their information warfare operation then we should try to stop that.
But if Russia officially publishes its own position under the name of its own news agency or in their government media then we should not censor it and we should not keep it off western platforms where it can be clearly marked and disputed.
I want to know how Russia justifies its brutal war of aggression against a neighbour. I fully expect that their justification is full of lies and distortions. But it's truth in the sense that it is in fact how Russia justifies the war. I want to know that truth.
"Manufacturing consent" was written in 1988. Did Russia's campaign against the truth was already happening?
When I was growing up, certainly before even RT existed, it was common knowledge that journalist will cover the events according to their own (or bosses) interests. IME (not russian, but also not american), the idea of objective reporting is the anomaly.
Google. It provides better results than DDG in many cases. The one case where DDG provided better results than Google was unfiltered news and opinion. That is no longer the case, so I'll use the shitty search engine which works a bit better for things like technical searches.
what type of content did they censor? Do you have a link with more info?