Open letter to Google. Shame on them.

[mBrutis]

Last night I opened Google, and a story popped up with the abbreviated headline "E-cigarette aerosol exposure shown to cause facial defects in embryonic... " Now, as the mind will do, I read the headline as "E-cigarette aerosol exposure shown to cause FETAL defects." I clicked in horror, skipped the pages headline and started reading. The setup was beautiful, first paragraphs about women turning to vaping instead of smoking. Then a paragraph on pregnant women switching because they think it's safer. Then, we mention, FROGS. I re-read the headline, and roll my eyes. Later we get to possible defects in zebra fish larvae. Good stuff, lol. All presented with a clear bias.

Then I check sources as I always do. The article was all based on a paper from, ummm Richmond, Virginia, home of Big tobacco. Furthermore the paper revealed no methodology or control group. Were the larva that showed mouth defects subjected to a constant stream of vape, in a closed environment at 400 degrees, or constant puffs at cooler temps?? The good folks in Richmond didn't say.

And did I mention this paper appears in one "peer-reviewed" blog???

But it gets worse, and here's where Google pisses me off. They recycled the story again today, but with a different, even scarier headline teaser "E-cigarette aerosols cause embryo defects in the Laboratory " Shame on you Google. I hit the Leave Feedback button and let them know.

Screenshot below. I hate to give the link because I hate the thought of them making advertising money off biased anti vape propaganda, but it's https:// www. medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319854.php
E-cigarette aerosols caused embryo defects in the laboratory and tie original paper from Richmond is http:// journals. plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185729
E-cigarette aerosol exposure can cause craniofacial defects in Xenopus laevis embryos and mammalian neural crest cells

 

[retired1]

First off: PLEASE READ! Breaking Links to Junk Science and Other Rubbish Posts

Second, I don't think you realize how Google works with news articles. All Google does is pull in various feeds and aggregates them into one central source. It's all automated.

If you want to get outraged and indignant, go after the original publishers for publishing such drivel.

 

[mBrutis]

Yeah, I'm aware of how they work, but after clicking on it, it doesn't show up on my feed again. They reaggregated based on a new headline tag.

And as sure as I was to track down the source, I was leaving feedback all the way.

 

[mBrutis]

And sorry about the link policy, that makes total sense

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

That story showed up in your new feed because you are allowing Google to tailor your news feed and advertisements based on your browsing history. If you spent most of your time browsing sports forums, you'd see stories and ads geared to a sports fan.

You can tell your browser to turn off such tracking, but no site has to stop tracking your browsing history.

There are other ways to make it harder for websites to track you and fine tune content you're presented with, but the days of easy anonymous web surfing are over.

 

[BrotherBob]

But it gets worse, and here's where Google pisses me off. They recycled the story again today, but with a different, even scarier headline teaser "E-cigarette aerosols cause embryo defects in the Laboratory " Shame on you Google. I hit the Leave Feedback button and let them know.

I hear you. The stories about the exploding batteries get me.
Could check:
10 Ways to Spot a Fake News Article - EasyBib Blog

 

[mBrutis]

That story showed up in your new feed because you are allowing Google to tailor your news feed and advertisements based on your browsing history.

Yup, that's the way I like it. But after viewing, it's supposed to drop from the feed. It was added back in based on a change in tags. I used to get away with that as a designer, but they cracked down. Obviously they need a re-tweak in their algorithm, Ive seen it three times now.

Either way, even if you throw out the source of funding, it's crap science.

 

[VHRB2014]

LOL, I thought Google, Facebook, et all were going to start going after fake news like the good stewards of society they claim to be.

 

[smacuser]

Anyone see the Project Veritas expose on the New York Times and Google?

Left wing bias. American Pravda.

 

[Saltdiscus]

I am not surprise by these add when google and facebook have some really dark weird article all over the net.

 

[stols001]

Nothing google does surprises me. I fully expect a robot google to show up at my door at some point (they're in competition with Amazon, and I love amazon). I won't even use google anymore except for my gmail account, frankly. Don't get me wrong, Bing really isn't the greatest search engine, but it's not stalking me with clickbait and ads... yet. I'm uncertain whether Microsoft 10 hates google so much they support the Edge as the best browser, but Chrome has gotten unbearable and it's such a security risk. I have THREE antivirus softwares running on my computer (the husband is paranoid, and he's right to be, I'm the type of person who used to open penile extension ads for fun and to see what they were) and I am STILL getting popup ads, endlessly. I have no clue why, but chrome just sucks for me now, but that's okay, I am NO google fan, that's for sure.

*Mandatory disclaimer*: Google, I'm kidding, please don't send the bot!

Anna

 

[ScottP]

A Few things, it's not just Google, but all media sites are resorting to more and more outlandish headlines to compete for clicks (click bait). I have seen a ton of articles lately on Yahoo, Google, and Bing, and not just related to ecigs, where there is some wild outlandish title and once you open it, you realize it is a far cry from what the article really says. To me it is deceitful, dishonest, and disingenuous but that is the reality we are in. They post those titles to get you click, b/c they know you will pass right over some mundane but more accurate title.

As far as browsers go I will never use anything other than Firefox for security reasons. Firefox has an addon called "NoScript" that allows you allow or block Javascript on a domain by domain basis. So you can allow only the scripting that is absolutely required to run. Nearly every single site on the internet now is running scripts from many different domains that are outside of the host sites control so even they don't know what all the code their site is running actually does.

Take ECF for example, they are running scripts from the following domains:
e-cigarette-forum.com
google.com
cloudflare.com
servedbyadbutler.com
facebook.com
twitter.com
gstatic.com
googlesyndication.com

I have seen some sites with as many as 40 of these scripts from various domains designed to track you, tag you, follow you, target you for ads, and collect your behaviors and habits to SELL to other companies. I block most of that with the addon previously mentioned.

I also use another addon called Cookie Controller to block most of those tracking cookies, and to only allow cookies from the main domain and then deletes all cookies when the session ends to help curb further tracking.

 

[MyMagicMist]

As far as browsers go I will never use anything other than Firefox for security reasons

Not sure you're aware but Firefox now has teamed with various media to help track browser use. There's something a bit more advanced than Javascript they're using. I saw it recently and only skimmed enough to note that it will be hard-coded into the browser software itself. they altered the EULA too. You're not allowed to go tampering or *ahem* hacking *ahem* the browser's coding in order to disable or misdirect the tracking.

I understand you may think NoScript is the bee's knees, but there's more than one way to skin a cat and it seems Firefox/Mozilla is joining with the Panopticon culture. You might want to look at CyberFox, Vivaldi, Waterfox, PaleMoon instead of Firefox. These browsers as of yet do not include nor have plans to include the aforementioned tracking code. I do think at least two out of those four still retain Open Source licenses. You're free to put the code in a toaster oven if you want.

There's also Midori browser. I think it remains fairly conscious of privacy concerns. Also remember always, if you want it kept absolutely safe online, ... don't put it online. Not being snarky or smarmy in that, it is merely factual and good common sense. Even any novice thief can tell you no lock cannot be broken or gotten around.

ETA: I might be in error with what I'm mentioning regarding Firefox. If so I apologize and will stand corrected. I did though see something of an article discussing this. If I recall correctly the coding used will be Rust. this is allegedly also how they're attempting to eliminate a lot of bloats in the code.

 

[MrStik]

Is Google evil? They are as "evil" as you let them be. You like getting the most relevant and quick search results, there is a price for that. You like how well Google Maps works? You like getting good traffic reports overlayed on top of said maps? There is a price for it. What about Youtube? And the "freedom" of Android?

All of these "free" services by Google (and any other site) can only exist if they can make money off of them. The only way to make said money is to give the most accurate ad results as possible. The only way to do that is to know you as intimately as possible. The only way to get to know you that way is to offer you free goods that allow them to track your browser usage. IF you do not want to be tracked, stay off the internet.

 

[MyMagicMist]

The only way to get to know you that way is to offer you free goods that allow them to track your browser usage. IF you do not want to be tracked, stay off the internet.

I can agree with this up to a point. Yes, I understand a need to earn revenue. That aside though when you are tracked and sites begin kettling you by patterns of your habits, search results, possibly political/religious views and the like; Well, that's too much. You should be free to look at the worshipers of the Holy Pine Cone's site even if you are a devout worshiper of the Holy Hurricane, and no search site ought to act as your intermediary authority to reign you into a box or bubble.

 

[ScottP]

Not sure you're aware but Firefox now has teamed with various media to help track browser use. There's something a bit more advanced than Javascript they're using. I saw it recently and only skimmed enough to note that it will be hard-coded into the browser software itself. they altered the EULA too. You're not allowed to go tampering or *ahem* hacking *ahem* the browser's coding in order to disable or misdirect the tracking.

I understand you may think NoScript is the bee's knees, but there's more than one way to skin a cat and it seems Firefox/Mozilla is joining with the Panopticon culture. You might want to look at CyberFox, Vivaldi, Waterfox, PaleMoon instead of Firefox. These browsers as of yet do not include nor have plans to include the aforementioned tracking code. I do think at least two out of those four still retain Open Source licenses. You're free to put the code in a toaster oven if you want.

There's also Midori browser. I think it remains fairly conscious of privacy concerns. Also remember always, if you want it kept absolutely safe online, ... don't put it online. Not being snarky or smarmy in that, it is merely factual and good common sense. Even any novice thief can tell you no lock cannot be broken or gotten around.

ETA: I might be in error with what I'm mentioning regarding Firefox. If so I apologize and will stand corrected. I did though see something of an article discussing this. If I recall correctly the coding used will be Rust. this is allegedly also how they're attempting to eliminate a lot of bloats in the code.

I will have to look into those claims, if true, I will have to find a Firefox clone with that code removed. Worse come to worst I'll take the FF source and rip it out myself. I doubt I'll have to someone else will do it an release it under a different name I am sure.

I know the old adage, and I am not overly paranoid or anything, but there are plenty of ways to disrupt most of the tagging, tracking, and such. I am a person damn it, NOT a product.

 

[MrStik]

I can agree with this up to a point. Yes, I understand a need to earn revenue. That aside though when you are tracked and sites begin kettling you by patterns of your habits, search results, possibly political/religious views and the like; Well, that's too much. You should be free to look at the worshipers of the Holy Pine Cone's site even if you are a devout worshiper of the Holy Hurricane, and no search site ought to act as your intermediary authority to reign you into a box or bubble.

You are using their product and have agreed to the terms of using their product. That tracking is done to ensure better ad placements. The amount of information they have on you is pretty insane, but it is no more than what you agreed to let them collect. Just because I am a pine cone, doesn't mean that I shouldn't educate myself on what Hurricanes worship. The search engine isn't judging you.

 

[MyMagicMist]

You are using their product and have agreed to the terms of using their product. That tracking is done to ensure better ad placements. The amount of information they have on you is pretty insane, but it is no more than what you agreed to let them collect. Just because I am a pine cone, doesn't mean that I shouldn't educate myself on what Hurricanes worship. The search engine isn't judging you.

Correct, it may not be judging me but somewhere along the lines I'm sure another human being is judging other human beings on their search engine algorithm use. I do not use Google search much and have weened away from Firefox and do not use Google's Chrome browser but the Open Source version Chromium.

I also use other Open Source browsers and software. I do not use Microsoft software, come to think of it I don't use any software that is not Open Source, at least not that I'm aware. Software and technology as you point out do not judge, yet can be used for such an intention. Air brings us life yet if someone intended it air could also bring us death, and no not merely by tainting it, pressurizing and flooding someone with air can kill by suffocation.

Gestures, objects are as you point out correctly, neutral. That is not what I'm disagreeing with, rather I disagree with nefarious and or deceptive intentions which can be applied to gestures and objects.

 

[bobwho77]

I've never really expected privacy from ANY form of electronic communication.
What I DO find disturbing is that these companies are making money from data that I generate for them, and I'M NOT GETTING PAID FOR IT!

 

[MrStik]

Correct, it may not be judging me but somewhere along the lines I'm sure another human being is judging other human beings on their search engine algorithm use. I do not use Google search much and have weened away from Firefox and do not use Google's Chrome browser but the Open Source version Chromium.

I also use other Open Source browsers and software. I do not use Microsoft software, come to think of it I don't use any software that is not Open Source, at least not that I'm aware. Software and technology as you point out do not judge, yet can be used for such an intention. Air brings us life yet if someone intended it air could also bring us death, and no not merely by tainting it, pressurizing and flooding someone with air can kill by suffocation.

Gestures, objects are as you point out correctly, neutral. That is not what I'm disagreeing with, rather I disagree with nefarious and or deceptive intentions which can be applied to gestures and objects.

Google or anyone within Alphabet, or even Facebook and Microsoft are not going to nefariously use your data against you. It does not make any sense to. No one at said companies are going to individually judge you on your search results. I understand privacy, but a lot of people are being overly paranoid for no reason. We can agree to disagree.

BTW, if you use any smartphone, you are giving that operating system a whole lot more data than you would over a browser and search result.