July 24, 2020 6:33 AM HomePoliticsMorning Reads for Friday, July 24, 2020 Morning Reads for Friday, July 24, 2020 By Ginny Politics 2 Comments Georgia film industry still active. For those of us following the restoration of the Little House in Louisville (a.k.a Louise), this is heartbreaking news. There will be a run on popcorn next Tuesday. Logic? That was thrown out the window a while back. Opening Day(ish) is finally here. As baseball timidly dips its toe in the water, football fans are pessimistic. LOLz. Hope you don’t need a lawyer in Louisiana any time soon. This is not a bad thing. This will be a big seller in the Deep South, as soon as it’s available stateside. Blacklists? Nothing to see here, move along. Got an ancient Windows worm on your Bingo card? It’s your lucky day! Share this:TumblrFacebookRedditTwitterEmailPrint Related About Author Ginny Get off my lawn. 2 Comments armanidog “Blacklists? Nothing to see here, move along.” I read this story. It is full of “perhaps”, “possibly”, “may have”, “could have”, and “theorized”. Not one shred of a concrete evidence. Why are conservatives so fond of conspiracy theories? Q-anon is a big example. Is it a basic insecurity? Is it a desire to invent “facts” to support their philosophy? How about you post real facts/stories and not rely on a wacko conspiracy in the Morning Reads? The fact you do this means you are part of the problem and not the solution. We need to work together these days. You seem more interested in dividing us than helping. Turn off Rush Limbaugh, et al and learn about what is really happening. July 24, 2020 7:33 AM Log in to Reply bethebalance I think the first- and perhaps only- problem is using the word “blacklist”- by anybody. Blacklists are list that are put together purposefully, intentionally, to discriminate, isolate, punish, etc. They are done for intended purposes. If there is an actual problem with search engines, that level of intent doesn’t seem to exist. It’s hard to see why it would even exist for a business, esp. for a business so focused on money and market share. Even the subject of the article, though, acknowledges that if there is a culprit, it is likely a programming issue. He states that the search program may find “something about the affected websites so offensive — such as the way users share their content, or the keywords used by those sites” that they are omitted from search results. I find this relatively plausible. It is not an intentional list intended to exclude, but the result of the characteristics of the websites themselves. Do you use offensive keywords for SEO purposes? Do bots or fake users share your content in such a way that makes the program suspect the content is fake or generated by bots? Those seem plausible to me, mostly because I’ve seen articles written by bretibart and such that literally get amplified by seemingly hundreds of random blog sites, with the headlines and content simply cut and pasted. If a search program sees that kind of activity, it may very well see a bot or fake account. These search results may be being impacted by the very way the alt-right (plus fake users/bots) have used to amplify the content. July 24, 2020 2:02 PM Log in to Reply Add a Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.