I saw two news this morning that I could not help but saw on both sides of the same coin. Brazil has elected a person who looks like a subversive pioneer to win the war with social media as a weapon. I posted a news feed on my mobile homepage.
These two things are of course irrelevant. But once we get to know about two domestic terrorists who have undergone radicalism by social media, we can think about our new effort to unlock the algorithmic news feeds after the weekend, "Hey, Google, read the harassing room."
It is a time when you will see the tragedy of the real world inspired by the terrible things about social media everyday. We sometimes struggle to clearly define online causal relationships to these tragedies, but it is not that difficult in the last few weeks. So it's a pretty inappropriate time for Google to decide to insert another news feed in front of millions (or billions) of people. Although Google probably did not have time in 2018 when I could decide to start a new news feed that I could not feel this way, it looks like it was especially bad this week.
I apologize for using the question about the headline of this story, but now I think it is appropriate because there are more questions than answers. The question "Why now?" Is probably best answered in the most common way for all technology companies. Our news feed was announced in September, but it's ready to roll out now. But the underlying "why" is more difficult. Everyone, including Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter, definitely wants to participate in news aggregation games. It's probably a good way to let people see your web page, and seeing a web page is fundamentally how Google makes money.
But the more urgent question is, "What does this mean?" Because it seems to mean because the world's busiest web page gets news feeds. And as far as I can tell, just by answering the question "What does this mean?" Will have more questions.
I've been knocking on this drum for months, but Google has put a news feed on its huge homepage. It's a huge problem. Facebook and Twitter can make the same mistakes they made in the feed.
– Dieter Bohn (@backlon) October 29, 2018
I am in danger of social rather than proliferating before I enumerate them. Https: //t.co/3dYmOFfxsH
Here are some situations. Facebook has faded as a traffic driver for news sites The Verge and others have confirmed that their traffic has changed to Google AMP. This is the company's fast load webpage standard. With AMP, we can increase the traffic on your news site to a greater extent than ever before because websites that participate in AMP can appear in the carousel of major articles appearing above the search results. These stories now appear in Google News feeds on mobile search pages. I think it will cause a tremendous amount of traffic.
This feed is already included in Google's mobile app, in addition to the newly launched Google News app. Swipe left on the homescreen of many Android phones. These screens drive traffic to the news site, but not as far from the AMP search carousel as we can tell.
The important thing in this context is that placing a news feed on your Google homepage is a big deal. I will underestimate the existing trend already. More traffic is coming from Google's algorithmic feed, which means there are more incentives to stimulate the algorithm.
Google is pretty good news for presenting recent news in a responsible way, based on credit. The Google News app is screened, has a lot of visual indicators, explains why you are watching, and helps you see fewer buttons. But do not make mistakes. Google has a tremendous responsibility by allowing machines to display news stories on the most popular websites on the planet.
* My * Google feeds are not good. It is the sources I trust mostly. For those who have an unhealthy news diet, what does the feed look like?
Viral spread via social news feeds is a democracy that causes problems, but most of it is publicly visible.
– Dieter Bohn (@backlon) October 29, 2018
Is Google responsible for continuing to distribute the news? Will the filter bubble increase? Will it contribute to the radical development of politics? Although Google Newsfeed is driven by algorithms that can make the same mistakes as Facebook, it is extremely difficult to answer such questions because it is not fundamentally social.
News feeds sometimes say that your company is "your own personal Google". When Google puts inaccurate information in the carousel menu, we could duplicate the search and discover the issue, but if Google's news feed gives misleading information to someone else's search page, the only person to know about it is the reader and Google . Facebook news feeds are difficult to duplicate, but Facebook's individual stories show Likes and shared metrics. There is no way to measure what happens to your Google News feed.
Mechanic is important about who can see what, when, and how. Just choose one of YouTube's other content feeds from Google that are algorithmically driven. It is a haven for extremism and conspiracy, and YouTube is aggravating through the next video proposal that can send you quickly into an evil, dark hole. I have not seen many reports of similar issues with Google News, but it's worth noting that we do not have a movie record.
By following a literal postmortem on terrorism and elections we can see many messages people are posting on various social networks and tracking their spread and popularity. You can count likes and retweets and graph the spread of information across platforms. Google's news offering does not risk spreading false information, but it is also a black box. If there is a problem, there is a very good chance you will never know.
Whether or not Google will know is, in fact, another question. This is an advanced feature of computer learning and artificial intelligence. Why computers are not always understood. So even if you imagine a scenario in which the user informs the world that you showed the wrong information to the user in a news feed, Google may not be clear about the reason for . 19659020] Also, one last thing: from the perspective of the company is the purpose of the news feed to place ads between stories, right?
Dieter Bohn (@backlon) October 29, 2018
I have another question. It has become very online recently. Trying to manage the information you have is difficult and increasingly difficult. Now we will give the curator another piece of information.
The following is a very small example. I am going to be less interested in American football. My reason is personal (concert and NFL owners trying to stop the freedom of speech), but it takes time for Google to get a message. Since I know that I am a huge viking fan, I show scores and summaries. You can say that you are not interested in Google by clicking on the various buttons, but it may be visible from time to time. Now every time I turn my phone upside down, I worry that every time I stay in the press, every tab, every scroller, is sending the wrong signal to Google. It literally explodes something I feel guilty about.
That's just football, and it's also a personal experience for those who think a lot about the news. I get more information about how and why they work than the public. When I meet another news feed, most people will think, experience and feel. Maybe you do not know anything, but who knows?
Maybe it's okay. Maybe Google, which is pushing harder for the news overall, is good. Perhaps the company is improving the quality and accuracy of information available online, genuinely thinking about it, and putting news feeds on the homepage is a powerful balancing point in the valley of cultivation from other sources. (By the way, that's what Apple said it is doing with Apple News) or it's all over the top, and nobody really goes to Google dot com anymore. And this is not a big deal.  It is a lot of maybes. Maybe you will never know the answer to this question.
Public: My wife works at Oculus, a division of Facebook. You can see my Ethics Statement .