Objectivity is an Asset

[Riggerjack]

Would you mind providing more details about this?

Well, awareness is more of a defense than most people put up. Any effort at all, is fringe behavior.

I don't use most social media. Not that I'm too smart/good for it, but because the ways social media hacks users has been a topic here forever.

As a former soldier, I know I can be hacked. So the benefit just didn't seem worth it, to me. I know I am susceptible, that changes the math.

But I do use search engines, and video sites, and podcasts, etc. So I do have some algorithm exposure.

I try to let the algorithm run. It's meant to be helpful. It is our own laziness that let's the algorithm steer.

I tend toward contrarian thinkers. From all over the map. That flags me for other shows. It's just another fun pattern to watch, seeing where I am being pushed. And because I am looking for depth of analysis, the push is obvious.

It comes as someone culturally similar, but entirely different quality. An algorithm match. Since I am not looking for people I agree with, the cultural match is off-putting.

I regularly use multiple search engines, Google/Chrome, then run the most successful query thru Firefox/duckduckgo, to see what is different.

When I'm looking for something, and not finding it, I will go to umbuntu. I keep an old PC with Linux, but don't use it often. It works for helping me find neutral.

One can never really know the limits on what one knows. Am I subject to the effects of algorithms? Absolutely. But I try to error correct by watching how I am being steered.

[Riggerjack]

I had been lied to "over the airwaves" by multiple sources who generally claimed indisputable objectivity. A healthy dose of cynicism in my makeup meant I wasn't shocked, but on a lark I started putting more and more news to the test in the same fashion. The results back your assertion pretty well as the deception in that first item subjected to the iDave Fact Check Team played itself out repeatedly across multiple topics.

As I expanded this "feeling out" procedure, my anger at the deception passed. It's natural to assume one who is actively trying to deceive you is hostile. But the pattern doesn't fit hostility.

I saw people running around, acting like sheepdogs. Trying with action and noise to keep people safely together. With no awareness of the landscape, all they need is a preference for density of opinion, and the inate intelligence of dogs.

Much like sheepdogs, their intent isn't to harm the sheep. Rather they want to help the flock, and only care about sheep they see staying. Because wandering is bad. Not being surrounded is unsafe.

Once I understood their game, it's just easier to acknowledge their "good intentions", and walk away from the yapping.

They have a message, it's just not meant for me. But it seems to be popular among the flock.

[chenda]

They have a message, it's just not meant for me. But it seems to be popular among the flock.

Maybe you are also unwittingly part of the flock?

[Riggerjack]

Yeah, that occurred to me. But out where I am there are no sheepdogs, and damned few sheep.

I think that if I am part of the flock, we have redefine "flock".

And I think that would unnecessarily upset the sheepdogs.

[NewBlood]

Thanks for expounding, Riggerjack.

I guess we have similar strategies. I don't do youtube (except targeted videos, I just don't let it autoplay or look at suggestions) or podcasts, but I do have an account on facebook. I follow one person whose writings I like, real people from my life who now live far from me, and one news website on the opposite side of the political spectrum from what I usually read (not on facebook). There is nobody on my feed I don't actually know in real life.

I have trained myself not to even see the "sponsored" content, although once in a while I intentionally look at it to see what facebook thinks I'm interested in. Clothes, running shoes (hahahaha), tylenol.... ok facebook I guess most people would prefer the suggestions to be on point.

I actually revived my old laptop with linux mint, and a month ago finally decided to just nuke the windows partition. I've used linux exclusively for about a month and haven't found anything I can't do just as well yet. And I mostly use Firefox with adblock.

[Riggerjack]

Yeah, my efforts are more intentional algorithmic balance rather than defense.

But that makes me think. I always thought that my balance technique was probably pretty mild/Luddite by comparison to what some of the others around here do.

So for those of you haven't chimed in yet:

What efforts do you put into bubble control?

[white belt]

What efforts do you put into bubble control?

Browser Plugins (mostly use Firefox)
-Cookie Autodelete
-Disconnect
-NoScript
-Ublock Origin

Some of the plugins are more security and privacy focused, rather than specific to countering algorithms, although they are also somewhat effective for that purpose. Note that they will also break some sites and make the internet less convenient to use. The positive side is you will rarely see ads and pages will load faster.

Using sites without logging into an account in combination with a VPN and deleting cookies will make it harder for sites to fingerprint you. This is one reason some sites force you to make an account (e.g. facebook and instagram). Youtube still allows full viewing functionality without an account. Twitter allows viewing functionality but sometimes stop you from digging too deep into threads without a login. The principle holds that if a company's business model is to profit off of collecting your information, then you can bet they have some cutting edge algorithms doing the work.

Partisan mainstream "news" sources might be useful for identifying banners that different groups are waiving, although most of the banners are predictable. Ditto with online sources. It will at the very least give you the talking points the various sides will use around a specific event and may provide some insight based on what "news" is conspicuously left out.

[NewBlood]

Thanks white belt! I'll play around with these plugins.

I do look at stuff on twitter (relinks) without an account, it's a bit annoying, but not that bad.

I haven't gone the route of using a VPN on my personal computer. Maybe I should. Any drawbacks? Any VPN recommendation?

[jacob]

I haven't gone the route of using a VPN on my personal computer. Maybe I should. Any drawbacks? Any VPN recommendation?

There's one. VPNs are often used by spammers and so risk false positives in my spam account detection heuristics.

[NewBlood]

Ah. that's a big one

Good to know, thanks.

[macg]

I haven't actually tried this yet, but I find this interesting - https://pi-hole.net/

I don't think it affects algorithms per-se, looks like it is more for blocking ads at the network level.

[theanimal]

My understanding of browsers is that almost all of them go through Google's servers when you access any site. This is regardless of whether or not you performed a search function on google.com or use other google services. This includes browsers beyond Chrome, such as Firefox and Safari. This is one of the reasons why some people argue that Google has a monopoly on the internet and can more or less "shut it down," as they did for an hour or so in the middle of the night on a weekend (so as not to affect any financial markets) in the late 2000s. Another example in Japan here.

I switched to Brave after learning this, which operates on its own servers (ie does not go through Google) and has built in Ad blockers, does not track and does not use identifiers which allow your IP address to be tracked. You can add any plugin you'd like to the browser as well.

[Jean]

Maitaining friendships on other corners of thé political spectrum helps a lot.

[NewBlood]

Thanks animal! I hadn't heard of brave, testing it now.

pi-hole sounds interesting!

[slsdly]

@theanimal

It is true that Firefox defaults to the Google search engine. It is also true that it defaults to DNS over HTTPS, so your DNS traffic goes through CloudFlare for Americans (it uses CIRA here in Canada), but is now hidden from your ISP; your mileage may vary depending on who you trust less . And while Google certainly does have tracking code on many websites, that is the content author who chose to incorporate that, not the browser vendor. Can you point me to any articles/proof that Firefox/Safari explicitly share data with Google that Brave somehow avoids? I am very interested in reading that.

[theanimal]

@slsdy- Most of the information I read or heard is from Dr. Robert Epstein at American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. The reason that google can track where you go on Firefox, Safari etc is because according to Dr. Epstein those browsers check Google's blacklists prior to visiting the site and in the process share the information with Google. Brave was created by one of the software engineers who created Firefox who left over free speech concerns and at least for the moment is committed to privacy. Their browser does not go through Google's blacklists.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... -regulated

Epstein writes:
So far, all I've told you is that Google's crawlers scan the internet, sometimes find what appear to be suspect websites and put those websites on a quarantine list. That information is then conveyed to users through the search engine. So far so good, except of course for the mistakes and the delisting problem; one might even say that Google is performing a public service, which is how some people who are familiar with the quarantine list defend it. But I also mentioned that Google somehow blocks people from accessing websites directly through multiple browsers. How on earth could it do that? How could Google block you when you are trying to access a website using Safari, an Apple product, or Firefox, a browser maintained by Mozilla, the self-proclaimed "nonprofit defender of the free and open internet"?

The key here is browsers. No browser maker wants to send you to a malicious website, and because Google has the best blacklist, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox – and Chrome, of course, Google's own browser, as well as browsers that load through Android, Google's mobile operating system – check Google's quarantine list before they send you to a website. (In November 2014, Mozilla announced it will no longer list Google as its default search engine, but it also disclosed that it will continue to rely on Google's quarantine list to screen users' search requests.)

https://medium.com/@re_53711/seven-simp ... 0dcbb9fa82

Epstein writes:
Kill Chrome. Google developed the Chrome browser because the massive amount of information they were collecting about you from their search engine (see below) and your emails wasn’t enough for them. With Chrome, they can see which web pages you visit — and what you do on those pages — even if you go to those pages directly rather than going through their search engine. If you value your privacy, never use Chrome, even in the bogus “incognito” mode, which still tracks you. Instead, use https://Brave.com, which is what I use. Brave blocks all ads, is faster than Chrome, and was developed by the software engineer who built Firefox. And what about other browsers? As I reveal in “The New Censorship,” Google can still get information about you when you’re using Firefox, Safari, and most other browsers, because they all check Google’s “quarantine list” before they take you to a website. Go with Brave.

[Slevin]

I also use brave for all my non-work stuff. Very nice and well featured and also all the things @theanimal is mentioning above.

[theanimal]

Epstein suggests using the Brave search engine, as like the browser there are no ads, tracking, increased focus on privacy etc. I tried it for a while and found the results to be very poor. Unlike Duckduckgo, which values privacy but uses an index from another site (Google? I already misremembered once in this thread regarding terms and seem to now be misremembering again), Brave is trying to start a search engine from scratch. As a result, and due to the low number of current users, the results are very lackluster and certainly off. Hopefully it improves. For now I still use duckduckgo.

[slsdly]

@theanimal,

Thanks, that was enlightening. I think in the past I heard of safe browsing / phishing protection, but it was definitely off my radar. I spent some time this evening looking at the Firefox code, and by no means was I thorough, but it seemed to confirm what I read afterwards:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ho ... re-enabled

Essentially, your browsing in general is compared against a locally cached list, but if you do go somewhere on the naughty list, it may communicate that fact with Google "to confirm" the result (!!!). Not exactly comforting, but not as bad as I was fearing based on the original article . I'm not sure if there is a way to get the former without the latter.

I don't believe I've ever encountered a website that triggers this, but I suppose my browsing habits aren't all that interesting .

Edit: DuckDuckGo uses Bing at its heart. I compare the Google and DDG results when I am dissatisfied, but the truth is, Google almost always returns the same things in those cases. Search is just getting worse in general.

[Riggerjack]

I compare the Google and DDG results when I am dissatisfied, but the truth is, Google almost always returns the same things in those cases. Search is just getting worse in general.

How deep do you go in your search results? I get very different results from DDG vs Google. Google throws more results, overall. DDG gives similar but different results. 4 pages into a google search is usually still vaguely on target. DDG is off target by page 2.

SEO is a real problem on Google. For instance, when I am looking for a recipe, I skip to page 3 before looking at results. The first 2 pages are going to be websites optimized for search, rather than recipes.