Stalinist Stanford “Visiting Scholar” Wants Search Engines to Warn People About Websites That Contain Conspiracy Theories, Browsers Should Flag Information That Does Not Conform to Mainstream Views

January 24th, 2012
Via: Slate:
Well, perhaps, it’s time to accept that many of these communities aren’t going to lose core members regardless of how much science or evidence is poured on them. Instead, resources should go into thwarting their growth by targeting their potential—rather than existent—members.
Today, anyone who searches for “is global warming real” or “risks of vaccination” or “who caused 9/11?” on Google or Bing is just a few clicks away from joining one of such communities. Given that censorship of search engines is not an appealing or even particularly viable option, what can be done to ensure that users are made aware that all the pseudoscientific advice they are likely to encounter may not be backed by science?
The options aren’t many. One is to train our browsers to flag information that may be suspicious or disputed. Thus, every time a claim like “vaccination leads to autism” appears in our browser, that sentence would be marked in red—perhaps, also accompanied by a pop-up window advising us to check a more authoritative source. The trick here is to come up with a database of disputed claims that itself would correspond to the latest consensus in modern science—a challenging goal that projects like “Dispute Finder” are tackling head on.
The second—and not necessarily mutually exclusive—option is to nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries? Thus, whenever users are presented with search results that are likely to send them to sites run by pseudoscientists or conspiracy theorists, Google may simply display a huge red banner asking users to exercise caution and check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds.

Quote

Today, anyone who searches for “is global warming real” or “risks of vaccination” or “who caused 9/11?” on Google or Bing is just a few clicks away from joining one of such communities.

I haven't heard about global warming lately, even from its defenders, what planet does this reactionary anti-conspiracy-theorist live on?  

That's what I was thinking.

It's ridiculous -- it smacks of desperation -- can't beat the truth down, so they want to resort to outright persecution of it. Pathetic.

The people who promoted liberalism and its false views of reality (for example the global warming scare) over the years have always talked about the "marketplace of ideas" - but that was only when they felt certain they could control publishing and broadcasting.  In reality they've always relied on controlling information, and if the internet has to be changed to ensure that control, they will reverse the rhetoric they have always used in a heartbeat.

The market of ideas work...

If that's true why should liberals advocate the end of internet anonymity and the attempt to suppress search results?  

They don't believe in a marketplace of ideas, any trip to the library will disabuse any sensible person of that notion.  They believe in the control of ideas.

In the end, the internet will not change, nor does anyone think it will.  It is however quite possible that one or some search site will adopt a form of guidance like proposed in the article and it is then that the market of ideas will go to work

They will keep trying to change the internet.  In time I suspect it will have happened and people won't be aware of it.

I have seen pages censored from google searches.  And it's not just a countermeasure to black hat iso.  I've seen books on google books mutilated too, and then restored.

Control of search results already happens to some extent, there's little doubt of that in my mind.

Telesphorus, where do you get the idea that liberals want to do such things?

Cynicism and lack of trust that gives rise and keep conspiracy theories alive are neither liberal nor conservative; ie, there are plenty of liberal cօռspιʀαcιҽs and as well, several conservative dedicated to truth preservation and quality information.

What this article address, is the consequences of poor critical thinking skills and ways to patch the problems.  I don't really agree with the article and think that rather, basic thinking skills that help and spot bull shit should be thought in schools in from a young age to.

Google now as a +1 feature that rewards search results that people have found useful.  As a leading provider, it's headed down the path of the market of ideas, not away from it.  

SS, SOPA does not address the topic discussed.  It's got nothing to do with identifying and highlighting disputed claims.  What's more, and this may come as a shock to you, but no one really give a rats behind for trad cath sites so there is no reason for seeing them go down within 5 years.   Perhaps after long enough of being wrong all the time and on just about everything, you will start and question your whole mode of thinking. 

You're off topic SS.