Google said it "took action within hours" and changed its autocomplete results. The search engine company "did not comment on its decision to alter some but not all those raised in the article," the Guardian reported.
So when the public notices the autocomplete results are hateful, Google decides to take action? Why is this not being filtered in the first place!
This is the crux of the problem: Google can only show you information if it exists on the web.
This raises the question of who is to blame: Google for displaying the articles or the users for not fact checking the articles presented?
The main thing to understand about these boxes is that they are chosen and filled out not by a dedicated editorial staff, but by Google’s search algorithm — a complex hive of weighting and ranking functions that determine where a link falls on the list.
Google displays what it thinks is the answer we are looking for when we search a question based off an algorithm. Too often we take this answer at face value and move on!
Concern about the phenomenon led Facebook and Google to announce that they’ll crack down on fake news sites, restricting their ability to garner ad revenue. Perhaps that could dissipate the amount of malarkey online, though news consumers themselves are the best defense against the spread of misinformation.
While this is a good first step, it does not prevent people from sharing fake news to others that they are friends with when they share a post.
Twitter users seem almost to prefer sharing falsehoods.
I am not an avid Twitter user, but I know that some users will circulate false information simply to draw attention to their account.
The drug raised the risk of heart attacks
My bioethics class studied an entire unit on the ethics of medical research publications. While journals somewhat check articles for the accuracy of the results, false claims are made by thousands of articles a year. There has even been retraction teams assembled to try and weed out falsified publications.
But those gains have not been mirrored in the last-author position, which is of particular importance in the biological sciences.
Despite being given credit for the work, female biologists are still not being promoted to positions of leadership and power.
In 2010 alone, the last year for which full figures are available, the proportion had inched up to 30 percent. "The results show us what a lot of people have been saying and many of my female colleagues have been feeling," says Ms. Jacquet. "Things are getting better for women in academia."
This is promising progress for women working in the academic world, but there is still plenty more ground to cover.
Author order is very important. "If I were to give people a vita of two people who had the exact same number of publications and one person was first author on a lot of papers and the other had publications in the same journals but was second through fourth author, I guarantee you people will prefer first," says Ms. Correll.
There are politics of the academic world that I had no idea existed.
Were women and men equal in this fundamental coin of the academic realm, a currency that buys tenure, promotions, and career success?
This is such a realistic concern for female researchers. Being published is how someone employed in the scholarly realm survives. My Biology professors often say "publish or perish."
I learned from my Latin American colleagues that they are essentially forced to cite North American or Western European researchers in all their work in order to get published,
This reminds me of a global feminism conversation from one of my other courses. It was said that many Latin American and Asian feminists must write in English or relate their work to a Western feminist to be taken seriously.
A commons is meant to be the antithesis of colonialism, neoliberalism, and capitalism.
I think this is such a powerful statement that the author uses to define commons. It amazing how the definition and purpose of inclusive word can be twisted to mean whatever the people in power wish.
The UC system was paying the company more than $10 million a year for journal access.
That is absolutely insane. I had no idea that universities paid that much to have information made available to students.
My students all have remarked that theywant to be social change agents and are on a quest to figure out what that means for them.
I think this statement is an accurate summation of how I feel as a student on Wake Forest's campus. With information being more accessible than ever, it can be somewhat overwhelming to process and reflect upon. I often have difficulty deciding what exactly my stance is on a subject.
avoid taking any unnecessary intellectual risks
I have personally exhibited this behavior in my academic career. When completing assignments I often find myself taking the "safer" route instead of pushing my thought boundaries because my main focus is to earn a high grade. I am content to limit my intellectual efforts and simply follow what is outlined by the assignment, because I am afraid deviating from the outline will harm my grade.