People are not as DUMB as they appear!

[Moonjuice]

If you haven't seen the documentary "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix yet, it is definitely worth a watch. There were a few key takeaways for me, that I think about every time I try to research a topic online.

1. Any digital service that is offered for free (any free app), browser, etc. is not a product. YOU are the product being sold to advertisers.

2. The "purpose" of social media platforms like Facebook, Youtube, Instagram etc. is to keep you engaged as long as possible. The longer you are engaged, the more valuable you are as a commodity because they are able to serve more ads to you.

3. Google tailors search results that keep you engaged, based on your personal browsing history. Google has no interest in "getting you the correct answer". If you are trying to find out what is "true" by typing in a question, the results have nothing to do with giving you the facts needed to make a decision. You will be given information based on what you are most interested in. What will keep you engaged. In other words, WE DO NOT ALL SEE THE SAME INFORMATION when we research a topic on the internet. If we do not all have the same information, its no surprise we disagree on so much, so often.

For example, if a Christian and an atheist type in a question like "Was Noah's Ark Real" or something like that, the information that is displayed will generally support the viewpoint of the person asking the question. The Christian, theoretically, would get results that support the narrative he already holds true, and the atheist would as well. Neither would have easy access to all of the same information the other has. You could do what you think is very detailed and thorough research and still primarily only see biased versions of the "facts" tailored to you.

Admittingly, having access to the same information certainly doesn't mean you will agree (how many different kinds of Christians are there all reading the same bible?). It also means that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily as dumb as they appear, they simply have been convinced based on different information. Perhaps if we all had the same information, we would find ourselves less divided?

 

[Heyo]

It also means that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily as dumb as they appear, they simply have been convinced based on different information. Perhaps if we all had the same information, we would find ourselves less divided?

If they have different information and that different information is given to them by Googles algorithm and that algorithm is giving them their information based on their search history, then they have been as dumb as they appear before they used Google.
Don't blame Google for your stupidity, it gives you only what you deserve.

 

[Friend of Mara]

A bit terrifying really. I have always supported legislation that limits this. There was a candidate back in the dem preliminaries that wanted to make it illegal for social media sites to sell your data. That would be a good step. Another one is targeted adds. The justification is that they want to divert you to things you would like to buy rather than bombarding you with things you know you won't want. But that is a weak excuse and everyone knows it. Everyone who googles something should get the same result. You shouldn't be hit with targeted adds. Your phones listen to you even if you don't type anything. If you don't believe me set your phone next to audio speaking a language you don't know and suddenly you will start seeing adds in that language.

Internet neutrality is also a must and I don't know why people aren't kicking down the doors to the whitehouse for Biden to reinstate net neutrality.

 

[WalterTrull]

Don't know who else got the bid, but a while back, Amazon offered me 10 bucks for a good review. I didn't take it, and from then on I no longer believe online reviews. I have to know someone who likes a certain service or product before buying.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you haven't seen the documentary "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix yet, it is definitely worth a watch. There were a few key takeaways for me, that I think about every time I try to research a topic online.

1. Any digital service that is offered for free (any free app), browser, etc. is not a product. YOU are the product being sold to advertisers.

2. The "purpose" of social media platforms like Facebook, Youtube, Instagram etc. is to keep you engaged as long as possible. The longer you are engaged, the more valuable you are as a commodity because they are able to serve more ads to you.

3. Google tailors search results that keep you engaged, based on your personal browsing history. Google has no interest in "getting you the correct answer". If you are trying to find out what is "true" by typing in a question, the results have nothing to do with giving you the facts needed to make a decision. You will be given information based on what you are most interested in. What will keep you engaged. In other words, WE DO NOT ALL SEE THE SAME INFORMATION when we research a topic on the internet. If we do not all have the same information, its no surprise we disagree on so much, so often.

For example, if a Christian and an atheist type in a question like "Was Noah's Ark Real" or something like that, the information that is displayed will generally support the viewpoint of the person asking the question. The Christian, theoretically, would get results that support the narrative he already holds true, and the atheist would as well. Neither would have easy access to all of the same information the other has. You could do what you think is very detailed and thorough research and still primarily only see biased versions of the "facts" tailored to you.

Admittingly, having access to the same information certainly doesn't mean you will agree (how many different kinds of Christians are there all reading the same bible?). It also means that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily as dumb as they appear, they simply have been convinced based on different information. Perhaps if we all had the same information, we would find ourselves less divided?

Funny thing though, when I talk with younger folks (teens) about this, many of them have a completely different take. Where older folks like me are troubled by tech companies collecting and selling off our information, the younger folks mostly just shrug and say "So what?" To them, it just means they get targeted ads and personalized search results, neither of which they see as necessarily bad.

I think it's the difference between growing up with an expectation of privacy, versus growing up in an environment where it's generally assumed you're constantly being tracked, recorded, monitored, and analyzed.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Don't know who else got the bid, but a while back, Amazon offered me 10 bucks for a good review. I didn't take it, and from then on I no longer believe online reviews. I have to know someone who likes a certain service or product before buying.

I got offered $10 for giving a 5-star review of a game controller I bought, by the game controller manufacturer, on Walmart dot com - so yeah, I back your story up, certainly.

I didn't do the review.

 

[epronovost]

For example, if a Christian and an atheist type in a question like "Was Noah's Ark Real" or something like that, the information that is displayed will generally support the viewpoint of the person asking the question. The Christian, theoretically, would get results that support the narrative he already holds true, and the atheist would as well. Neither would have easy access to all of the same information the other has. You could do what you think is very detailed and thorough research and still primarily only see biased versions of the "facts" tailored to you.

This seems to me like a clear exaggeration of how the Google search algorithm works. When I asked "Was Noah's Ark Real", the first result I got was an interview of Bill Nye on a US mainstream media website. The second is a debunking of the Noah's Ark story based on engineering. The third one is a Wikipedia page on Noah's Ark. The fourth one is from creationist website Ark Encounter own by Creationist hack Ken Ham. The fifth one is a Christian blog detailing the possible interpretation of the story of the Ark and the sixth one is a Youtube video that claims that science proves the story of Noah. I am a Canadian atheist and who has spend over a decade as a member of the most important skeptic organization of my Province. I have made plenty of research to debunk that sort of stuff on my PC. When I log out my google account, I get the same results. When I used a VPN tunnel faking a IP address in New York and still not logged on my account I got almost the same results. All in all, that I am connected to my account, that I am not, that I am cloning a fake IP address or not, my research results are the same with perhaps the order in which the first 10 links are placed, but with very little differences overall. The information and arguments remain the same.

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't know who else got the bid, but a while back, Amazon offered me 10 bucks for a good review. I didn't take it, and from then on I no longer believe online reviews. I have to know someone who likes a certain service or product before buying.

I only look at the bad reviews, and see if they're based on something important (like an actual flaw in the product, not "the installer looked at me funny").

 

[Nakosis]

If you haven't seen the documentary "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix yet, it is definitely worth a watch. There were a few key takeaways for me, that I think about every time I try to research a topic online.

1. Any digital service that is offered for free (any free app), browser, etc. is not a product. YOU are the product being sold to advertisers.

2. The "purpose" of social media platforms like Facebook, Youtube, Instagram etc. is to keep you engaged as long as possible. The longer you are engaged, the more valuable you are as a commodity because they are able to serve more ads to you.

3. Google tailors search results that keep you engaged, based on your personal browsing history. Google has no interest in "getting you the correct answer". If you are trying to find out what is "true" by typing in a question, the results have nothing to do with giving you the facts needed to make a decision. You will be given information based on what you are most interested in. What will keep you engaged. In other words, WE DO NOT ALL SEE THE SAME INFORMATION when we research a topic on the internet. If we do not all have the same information, its no surprise we disagree on so much, so often.

For example, if a Christian and an atheist type in a question like "Was Noah's Ark Real" or something like that, the information that is displayed will generally support the viewpoint of the person asking the question. The Christian, theoretically, would get results that support the narrative he already holds true, and the atheist would as well. Neither would have easy access to all of the same information the other has. You could do what you think is very detailed and thorough research and still primarily only see biased versions of the "facts" tailored to you.

Admittingly, having access to the same information certainly doesn't mean you will agree (how many different kinds of Christians are there all reading the same bible?). It also means that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily as dumb as they appear, they simply have been convinced based on different information. Perhaps if we all had the same information, we would find ourselves less divided?

I kind of expect it now. Doesn't mean I never fall for it, just less so.

 

[Revoltingest]

One can either complain about the lack of privacy in using
free services, or one can complain about the cost of private
services. I'll take the lack of privacy.

 

[Friend of Mara]

One can either complain about the lack of privacy in using
free services, or one can complain about the cost of private
services. I'll take the lack of privacy.

Well most of these "free services" still make plenty of money. Facebook would still be lucrative even if they didn't sell data. The selling of data started well after google and many other sites were widely used and profitable. Its just an extra layer usually.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well most of these "free services" still make plenty of money. Facebook would still be lucrative even if they didn't sell data. The selling of data started well after google and many other sites were widely used and profitable. Its just an extra layer usually.

They're "free" if they don't charge me.
I expect no privacy from them.

 

[Friend of Mara]

They're "free" if they don't charge me.
I expect no privacy from them.

I don't expect it either. Its why it should be mandated by law. I wouldn't "expect" my doctor to be qualified if it wasn't mandated by law.

 

[Jose Fly]

This seems to me like a clear exaggeration of how the Google search algorithm works. When I asked "Was Noah's Ark Real", the first result I got was an interview of Bill Nye on a US mainstream media website. The second is a debunking of the Noah's Ark story based on engineering. The third one is a Wikipedia page on Noah's Ark. The fourth one is from creationist website Ark Encounter own by Creationist hack Ken Ham. The fifth one is a Christian blog detailing the possible interpretation of the story of the Ark and the sixth one is a Youtube video that claims that science proves the story of Noah. I am a Canadian atheist and who has spend over a decade as a member of the most important skeptic organization of my Province. I have made plenty of research to debunk that sort of stuff on my PC. When I log out my google account, I get the same results. When I used a VPN tunnel faking a IP address in New York and still not logged on my account I got almost the same results. All in all, that I am connected to my account, that I am not, that I am cloning a fake IP address or not, my research results are the same with perhaps the order in which the first 10 links are placed, but with very little differences overall. The information and arguments remain the same.

I went to Bing and searched "Was Noah's Ark Real". The first five hits were: 1) the Ark Encounter, 2) Answers in Genesis, 3) Live Science, 4) Institution for Creation Research, and 5) Discovery.org (a creationist site).

Google gave me: 1) Ark Encounter, 2) Wikipedia, 3) National Center for Science Education, 4) NBC News, and 5) Biologos.org (a mainstream/non-creationist Christian site).

Duckduckgo gave me: 1) Kiwi Report (news story about ark maybe being found), 2) Institute for Creation Research, 3) Realnoahsark.com (creationist), 4) NatGeo (story about claims ark was found), and 5) Live Science.

I am not logged into any accounts and I have my privacy settings set to not keep my search history.

 

[ecco]

Another one is targeted adds. The justification is that they want to divert you to things you would like to buy rather than bombarding you with things you know you won't want. But that is a weak excuse and everyone knows it. Everyone who googles something should get the same result. You shouldn't be hit with targeted adds.

The pop-up ads I get on RF are targeted to products I have searched for. The concept is ridiculous.

After I do a little investigation for a new electric drill, I get pop-up ads for drills for months. Apparently, the ad-buyers think I still haven't made a purchase and I'm still looking. I don't mind them wasting their money.

 

[Moonjuice]

This seems to me like a clear exaggeration of how the Google search algorithm works. When I asked "Was Noah's Ark Real", the first result I got was an interview of Bill Nye on a US mainstream media website.

It could be a little exaggerated. BUT, you had 3 results that showed up first that were all likely anti-Ark is real results, before you got the alternative Creation Museum result. I'm willing to bet for most Christians, the results will be positive first. The Creation Museum results will probably be first on the list. Let's test it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't expect it either. Its why it should be mandated by law. I wouldn't "expect" my doctor to be qualified if it wasn't mandated by law.

I'm fine with licensing doctors, & with HIPAA.
But I see no need to greatly limit data selling.

 

[ecco]

I only look at the bad reviews, and see if they're based on something important (like an actual flaw in the product, not "the installer looked at me funny").

Bad reviews can be a double-edged sword. Some years ago I was looking for new sliding glass shower doors. I saw one that seemed good. I came in chrome and bronze trim. I read the (one) review for the chrome doors. It was one star and basically said: "This is a piece of junk. After a week, I barely touched it and it fell off the tracks and shattered."

I almost decided to look elsewhere but decided to read the reviews for the bronze version. All reviews were 4 and 5 stars. Since the product was identical except for the trim, I realized that the one-star reviewer, or his contractor, did a poor job installing the doors. I got the chrome version and never had any problems.

Generally, if it is a company new to me, I look for reviews from multiple "scam" sites. If people say: "Horrible service - never received the product - etc." I'll look elsewhere.

 

[Jose Fly]

Bad reviews can be a double-edged sword. Some years ago I was looking for new sliding glass shower doors. I saw one that seemed good. I came in chrome and bronze trim. I read the (one) review for the chrome doors. It was one star and basically said: "This is a piece of junk. After a week, I barely touched it and it fell off the tracks and shattered."

I almost decided to look elsewhere but decided to read the reviews for the bronze version. All reviews were 4 and 5 stars. Since the product was identical except for the trim, I realized that the one-star reviewer, or his contractor, did a poor job installing the doors. I got the chrome version and never had any problems.

Generally, if it is a company new to me, I look for reviews from multiple "scam" sites. If people say: "Horrible service - never received the product - etc." I'll look elsewhere.

Yep, that's about how I approach it. If the bad review is about something specific and important, I'll consider it (especially if other reviews touch on the same thing). If it's just vague bashing, I ignore it.

 

[ecco]

I went to Bing and searched "Was Noah's Ark Real"

I entered that quote into Chrome and Chrome Incognito. The results were identical:

Was Noah's ark real? - Denison Forum
https://www.denisonforum.org › Resources

Was Noah's ark real? - Denison Forum
https://www.denisonforum.org › was-noahs-ark-real-2

Was Noah's Ark Real? - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com › watch

was Noah's ark real Archives - Truth Snitch

This is puzzling since Incognito supposedly does not track "history and favorites".