Fake news is too big and messy to solve with algorithms or editors — because the problem is….us.
It is a challenging aspect of an extensive and involved past, as it reveals different social, fiscal, cultural, technological, and political activities that cannot be settled by straightforward means. Rushing to put on temporary solutions may give a feeling of gratification, but I fear that this attitude merely serves to take our attention away and allows the root causes of the problems to remain and grow.
One proposal which I have heard mentioned frequently in the problem-solving approach is to require Facebook and Google to address the “fake news” issue by finding ways to keep it from getting circulated. I understand the irritation resulting from the power of technology companies to expand existing social issues, yet pressuring or controlling them to discover an immediate answer will not be helpful. From my vantage point, this approach immediately makes visible three differently scaled problems:
Nobody can arrive at the same understanding of what is considered “fake news” despite the countless words that are being used in an effort to explain it.
People appear to lack awareness of how the issue is changing and developing, the method of manipulation becoming more advanced, or the potential abuse of the ideas they suggest by adversaries with whom they strongly disagree.
It will not be possible to make changes to sites like Facebook or Google that will take care of the core factors forming the culture and information battles that the United States is presently battling against.
What is “Fake News?”
I don’t want to make an expert description of “fake news,” but I do want to show the inextricably linked concepts that are part of it. This frame helps call out all types of controversial material, especially if it is deliberately or mistakenly inaccurate, salacious, and designed to arouse panic or strong emotions, or it is a form of propaganda, from the government or from other groups and organizations. In the course of my work, I have observed the use of vague phrases (including bullying, online community, social networks, etc.) for political and economic ambitions, and have found that without a specific definition or an accurately stated issue, all that arises from investing in discussions on the perils of XYZ is merely drama.
Generally, I observe “false information” utilized by people to further their existing beliefs and aims. It is both accepted by those who have been critical of organizations having significant influence and authority, and by those on the right who utilize this view to enhance their scorn for the conventional media. Dozens of gatherings about “false information” have taken place, as people anxiously search for a remedy; pundits and advocates from all walks of life are demanding enterprises to deal with the dilemma without making an effort to specify the dilemma. A portion of people are being very careful with the level of accuracy and honesty in what they say, while some people are more concerned with how the content they present affects the public perception.
People who work for internet platform firms are struggling to develop rules concerning the material that can be implemented the same way all the time. I cannot help but be amazed at the unpredictability of opinions on what should or should not be encompassed under the term “fake news” — primarily from specialists.
Opening up the process doesn’t help. People are encouraged to inform on items they deem to be false or fraudulent, which has led to numerous men asserting that feminist blogs criticizing male hierarchy are mistaken. Young adults and individuals who maliciously distort issues have similarly disavowed all kinds of claims.
Seeking out a different person for assistance doesn’t bring much better results. It is difficult for experts to determine which organizations should be considered to be hate groups and which are just engaging in the constitutionally-protected right to free expression. (I’m partial to the SPLC list , but that shows my political bent. And even its list doesn’t account for all of the groups that progressives might want to label as hate groups.) Just ask folks where they stand on blocking tabloid journalism or Breitbart and you’ll see conflict immediately.
The topic of “fake news” has received much attention with considerable focus on stories that are heavily disseminated and utterly ridiculous. Nevertheless, some of the most pernicious content is not glaringly obvious. The dissemination of this information is not expansive, and those who are sending it along do so in opposition. This material is not especially outspoken, but it is precise and tends to be framed with prejudice, leading people to come to risky inferences that are not directly stated in the article. The allure of rhetoric that is thought-provoking is that it produces contemplation without trying to impose an idea on its audience. Instead, it encourages the listener or reader to draw a conclusion. The message conveyed is much more effective than if it insinuated that aliens have descended in Arizona.
As we divert our attention to content that is created for financial reward (usually circulated by those who are appalled by its accuracy rather than those who accept it), multiple parties are developing the aptitude to manipulate others with less visible material. They are exploiting the attention-based system and continuously making adjustments as people attempt to stop them from doing certain activities. The reason “meme magic” is so remarkable is that it establishes frames and thought-processes which can be activated through citings of memes, making it implausible to put a stop to them.
Googlers Statements On SEO Information
What Googlers say about SEO is generally limited to four topics:
- Actions to avoid a negative outcome.
- How to increase indexing.
- How to help Google better understand your webpages.
- Confirmation that site promotion is important.
Google employees do not provide schemes or methods to meddle with search engine rankings. The data they share is helpful and congruent.
An example of something a Google employee would not be able to confirm is that Google has a programmed system dedicated to detecting and eliminating guest blogging for SEO-related links.
Experts in SEO suggest that guest posting is now an out of date practice and should be avoided.
By taking this action, the Googler will be assisting the publishers to stay away from a potential consequence or not having to spend money on an approach that will not give them the sought-after effects.
It makes sense to seek out what Googlers say. The most reliable source about Google operations is the actual words of Googlers.
Why Google Has A Webmaster Outreach
Matt Cutts, previously a Googler, supports Webmaster outreach because of the positive impacts it has on avoiding errors and preventing the spread of incorrect information among the search community.
He got in contact with different publishing companies by using a forum name, GoogleGuy.
Here’s a post from 2004 where GoogleGuy introduced himself and explained the origin of Google’s outreach and his motivation:
” Around three years back, I kept myself occupied by studying the comments people had posted regarding Google while I waited for a program to finish compiling.
I recollect coming across an inquiry from a website proprietor about how to organize his website for improved indexing by web crawlers, and musing about how great it would be if a Google representative could simply drop by to reply to tech inquiries like that.
And then I thought, I’m a Google engineer. I can answer technical questions like that. So, I did.
Since then, I have made an effort to post roughly 2,000 discussions in multiple online discussion boards, always attempting to make sure the facts are accurate.
Are Googlers Inconsistent?
People frequently express their frustration with Google appearing inconsistent. If what is being said is accurate, how can you rely on what Google personnel have expressed regarding SEO not being deceptive?
The contradictions are not typically attributable to the person from Google. The blame is always to be placed on the author of the text when they describe what a Googler has said.
From my time of tuning in to the Google Company-wide conference calls for many years, Googlers have a strong practice of maintaining the same approach, even when checking previous statements going back more than ten years. Their advice is always constant and not at odds with past comments.
Listening carefully to what those who work at Google say has always been a wise thing to do. If what is reported by a source does not agree with an earlier remark, pay attention to the statement itself.
For illustration, some websites publish ranking factors based on the information that a former Google employee conveys in a video.
When one watches the video, it becomes evident that the former Google employee did not say what has been reported.
Despite that, the incorrect assertion concerning an untrue position determinant continues to be shared across the web due to the lack of attention to the video.
Don’t take what someone writes for granted.
Be sure to verify the accuracy of a video, blog post, or podcast before taking it as fact.
Google Search Engine Is A Source Of SEO Misinformation?
Although Google employees can be viewed as reliable sources of SEO data, Google’s own information about SEO may not be accurate.
Searching Google for SEO information yields inconsistent search results.
For example:
- Searching for LSI keywords (which Mueller above says doesn’t exist) shows several websites that say that LSI keywords do exist.
- Searching PBN links (links on blogs) yields a top-ranked page that sells PBN links.
- Searches for “Link Wheels” (building blogs and linking to your own content) yields results that recommend the practice.
These days, the highest ranked webpages when researching topics related to search engine optimization can generally be trusted.
If you are deliberately hunting for risky methods of SEO, such as link wheels or PBN links, chances are Google will produce search results that are favorable to said strategies.
Rather than relying on algorithms, it could be of more assistance to discover a SEO discussion group or a Facebook group where one could seek assistance from a real person concerning SEO.
Should You Ignore What Googlers Say?
Google employees are in support of the search engine while publishers and SEOs are taking the opposite stance. We both experience search differently.
It is reasonable to assume that different people have various points of view when it comes to various subjects, in particular what is justifiable and what is pertinent.
In certain zones on the internet, it is suggested that following advice from Googlers should be avoided.
Others regularly recommend that people do precisely the contrary of what Google employees suggest.
Some individuals appear to possess an animosity, constantly providing pessimistic perspectives concerning Google.
Accounts of Google Artificial Intelligence (AI) workers being dismissed for questioning the organization’s ethical practices have been reported in the news.
Should Google Be Believed?
It is advantageous to pay attention to the people from Google who interact with the online advertising sector.
Gary Illyes and John Mueller of Google have a lengthy history of providing the search marketing world with an abundance of valuable data.
The details of what they discussed are accessible on YouTube, Twitter, and Google blog posts.
When John Mueller does not know the response to a query, he admits it. When he is certain, his answer is unambiguous.
Danny Sullivan used to report on search marketing before he was hired by Google.
He is an ally of ours who can be relied on to answer questions, voice worries and propose solutions when it comes to matters concerning the search sector, such as writing a piece on Core Algorithm Changes in response to questions about what they are and how content creators should cope with them.
Be wary of anyone who continually tells individuals to disregard Google’s advice.
Discern Between Opinion And Fact-Based Insight
It is essential to make sure that the author is referencing and connecting to a dependable source, rather than just giving their own opinion.
When someone provides evidence, such as a Googler’s comment, patent, or research paper, to back up their statement about Google, that opinion is elevated to an informed point of view. This is due to the fact that the notion is now based on facts rather than a mere opinion.
It is possible that the things written about Google may not be accurate, however, there are indications that they could be valid.
Unless a person employed by Google confirms something is true, we can’t really be sure.
Therefore, the most someone can do is present anything like a statement from a Googler, a scholarly article, or a patent as corroboration that something could be accurate.
For centuries, it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe based on basic reason and observation. Using good judgment instead of facts and figures is not adequate.
Opinions that are not backed up by evidence, no matter how logical, cannot be relied on.
Googler Statements Must Be In Context
Some people have agendas. When this occurs, people will often take Googler declarations without the full context, in an effort to further their goals.
The goal of the usual program is to give rise to fear and doubt in order to draw more customers.
It is not rare for people working in the search engine optimization field to claim that those employed by Google are not consistent in their communications.
I noticed that Google’s employees, especially John Mueller, are incredibly consistent.
There is a discrepancy in how some people interpret what he says.
In a podcast, John Mueller of Google complained that the majority of his statements that are attributed to him are either inaccurately quoted or presented in an inappropriate context.
