How the page rank of the Internet affects our way to think about things?

The term "polarization of information" means that only one version of the data is shared on the Internet. In that model, we have the right to remove all information that is not supporting our conviction. We must only hear things that are supporting our opinions. The same thing happens when homepages or other information somehow feel uncomfortable. Or those things don't support our way to think about them. 

We don't have to look at things that we do not tolerate. And that means we can select our sources and information from the homepages that are making us feel comfortable. If somebody disagrees with that thing, we might yell "shut up". And we must not hear people who have counter-arguments. 

The problem with the Internet is that the information that people are getting is turning one-sided. We are searching and look at things that feel comfortable to us. And we don't even want to hear counter-arguments. Those are calling in the question or criticize our way to think about things. 

A thing called "page rank" determines the place of the homepages in the list of internet searches. When somebody is clicking the homepage, that thing rises its position in the PageRank list. And that causes problems because cool-looking websites and well-known actors are getting more clicks than some little-known actors. 

That causes that the information is getting from the point of view of the well-known actors. If some homepage is getting more clicks than others that thing puts it before that other homepage. 

The Internet revolutionized information technology and we are facing one thing. We get more information than ever before. But how to select useful information, and what is the correct information? We might forget that people who play an expert might be something else. And separating confirmed and true information from fake news is important. 

But the biggest threat is that the diversity of the information is losing. People are clicking only the homepages that are high in the page rank because those pages are first in the list that causes that the information that people get is turning one-sided. We are reading and looking at the information that pleases us. 

We are not seeing homepages that are against our conviction because we are not clicking homepages that are feeling uncomfortable. And the problem is that when we are clicking something we are looking for cool highlights. The cool name of the homepages is the guarantee for clicks. And clicks are rising the position of the homepage in the page ranks. 

The problem is that we can see decisions only by using the data that is in use at that moment. When we are making decisions. This is why we are making the wrong decision. We cannot officially see to the future. And that is the reason why the decisions are sometimes wrong.  We believe that we are safe, but the Internet is spying on us. And the Internet is the ultimate tool for people who want to affect others. 

Believing something is more dangerous than we believe. We believe that our computers are safe because we are protecting our computers by using the most effective firewalls that we can find from markets. 

But we don't remember that hackers can strike communication between computers. They can record that data or they can put their files in that data flow. 

The biggest threat for the Internet is that the diversity of information is gone. 

But the hackers are not the biggest threat on the Internet. The biggest threat for the Internet and its ability to share information is that the large-size and well-known actors are getting more audience than the little-known actors. 

Because well-known Internet actor gets more clicks than the little known web actor that thing causes that the page-rank that calculates the clicks are ranking the homepages of the well-known actors to the upper position on the screen. And when we are searching for some data, are we ever click the next page in search results? 

Because the page ranking favors the well-known actors. That means the information that got from the net is one-sided. The page-ranking system is originally made for commercial use. It should not use outside its purpose. 

Page-ranking systems have been created for searching products from web stores. That system is not shared political or some commute information. This is the weakness of the page ranking which is made for serving customers who want to buy sneakers. Page-ranking system uses the same method for sorting other web pages. And that thing makes the information unilateral. 

When the page-ranking systems are sorting the homepages of the political parties they are just calculating the clicks that those homepages are getting. This is the reason why the parties. That have so-called "cool names" are getting very much attention. The cool name will bring more clicks. And that is rising the position of the homepages in the page ranking. 

The page-ranking that sorts the homepages by calculating clicks is made for making people easier to find sneakers from the net. That thing was important when people were buying something from the net that paid in minutes. But if we are using page-rank (or any other tool). For a purpose that they are not made, that thing causes the unexpected effect. 

()https://kimmoswritings.blogspot.com/

The thing about the eavesdropping what Amazon and Google are doing

The thing about the eavesdropping what Amazon and Google are doing

The thing in this kind of eavesdropping is that Google and the other kind of actors can get every information about the people, who are using its products. And why this is so difficult question is that data, what Google and other actors are collecting is very wanted and those companies have money. The information is collected even people know about that thing and sometimes is introduced an idea, that the people will shut down their mobile devices, but that thing is impossible. 

This is the reason, why people and politicians have problems with this kind of actors because if the politician would not please Google, that thing would cause a lack of funding. So be very nice with those companies, and the way as they are working is simple, they say that people have a choice to select the product, what Google makes, or some other product. That means that the user would turn the collector of the personal data to another actor in Internet marketing, and that's it.

Of course, a politician can cooperate with Google, or somehow the artificial intelligence or the page ranker of Google would not notice the homepages of that politician. When we are thinking about the offer to choose some other search engine, we don't actually know, how many search engines are owned by Google or how many of these alternative search engines are using the results, what they take from Google. 

Google will also offer more and more services like payment tool for mobile telephones, which means that the system will control more and more data about our private life. And the private life of the people is always going thinner. And because Google has ordering position in the search engines, that means that everybody, who would not please Google can be removed from the page ranks, and this guarantees that media will be really nice to that actor, or it can register the new domains.

Google and its complicated relationship with the Internet

Google and its complicated relationship with the Internet

Google is the company, which is a very big problem on the Internet, and the thing is that if we would want to make the competitor for it, we must create the indexing algorithms, what are the same time effect, what Google uses, and when we are thinking about search engines, the thing, what makes Google so effective is that it has collected data from the searches over 20 years.

And the thing is that in the databases must be data, what the indexing algorithms would index and sort. This is the problem with Google, which has the ultimate power in the world of the Internet. When we are thinking about media services like YouTube, there is one thing, what makes the competitor hard to get in service. The users must find that new service, and as you might see, the use of social media and media channels is a free willing choice. The thing what makes YouTube so popular is that it is easy to use.

If we would create a new social media or media service, we must have powerful servers, and if we would make that thing ourselves, we should have money and staff for that thing. The moderators should work 24 hours per day every each day of the year. And that thing costs money. The electric bill of the powerful servers must also be paid, and when the user would select the social media service, the question is that those people probably wanted to be seen in the media, so nobody wants to be the only user in the social media service.

When the social media service would collect money it can choose the source for that financial income. It can collect it from the users or somewhere else, and in the western world that somewhere else means actually the marketing offices, who would want to show their commercials for people. The thing is that Google dominates the Internet is a very complicated problem because the channels like YouTube are free and they show the free material if the owners of the channel accept the information, what is delivered by using that channel. And that is the problem with freedom. The thing what makes this information very problematic is that there is no channel, where we can get the information, what is not connecting to Google or YouTube.

The problem is that if Google doesn't like you homepages, they would be removed if the owner is Google, and the domain belongs to Google if it would be free. The texts that are written in there belongs to the writer. If the home pages are under the paid domain, the thing is that Google would not just index that homepage, and that means that nobody finds those homepages. This makes YouTube like the vegetable, which would quell other vegetables around it. The thing is that no competitor has the same kind of material to offer than YouTube, and that brings the users to that thing.

But there are arguments, what makes this kind of things more complicated than we ever can imagine. There are things in YouTube what do not please the politicians and other people because there are things, what they would not want to show people, or what would you like about the priest, who will drink alcohol and slags of the people or acts awry, who should listen to that person?

Those things make YouTube a little bit uncomfortable thing for some people. And the world is changed. In the world of yesterday, we can just call politicians for help. They make laws, and they can deny YouTube, but here we must realize that also the actors like YouTube and Google has money for lobbying the politicians and paying their campaigns.

So if we would like to deny those channels, we must know, that there are politicians, who would be supported by Google. And when we are thinking about the election campaigns, Google can decrease the page rank of the homepages of the politicians who those people would not like. And this makes that kind of laws very difficult to create.