Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Those groups have very specific agendas.

I'm not sure what that means; doesn't every group have an agenda? I think the implication is that these groups' agendas are no better than any other groups' agendas. I think that's clearly wrong; we can't take politically correct relativism and openness to a logical extreme - we must make distinctions between good and bad (though carefully reasoned ones). Though I agree we should be careful, and no group or agenda is perfect, the agendas of hate groups are not just as good as the ADL's, for example.

> They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda.

Is that the standard used by Google?



The ADL appears to be picked because they're a very powerful political lobby in Washington. This move is a fairly blatant attempt to curry political favor.

I wouldn't say that there's a moral equivalence between the ADL's agenda (promoting Israel) and, say, Amnesty's agenda (ending torture & political imprisonment).

Amnesty got hit by the latest "fake news" google update:

https://mronline.org/2017/07/28/new-google-algorithm-restric...


I had no idea that was happening. Thank you for making this important point.


The question isn't whether one group can be assumed better than the other (obviously, the ADL is less bad than ISIS). It's whether any group is "correct" enough to be trusted with controlling the spectrum of the conversation.

Beyond that basic observation, I can't speak to the other groups, but to me, the degree of anti-Arab bias that the ADL exhibits is really appalling, and I have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to fairly filter the news for the masses.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: