Brian Howell
Jan 4, 2017, 2:30:10 PM1/4/17
to Ipse Dixit
Recent research by The Guardian and its affiliate site, The Observer, shows how hate groups and fake news sources are manipulating search results and auto-suggestions to their benefit. And Google—and other search engines are complicit.
On December 11th, typing "did the holo" into Google resulted in the suggestion "Did the Holocaust really happen?" For which the answer, apparently, is No. tThe first result was to an article titled "Top ten reasons why the Holocaust didn't happen," from the site stormfront.org, a strident Neo-Nazi hate site. For many people, the page's position at the top of the search results implicitly declares it to be the most authoritative source on the Internet.
Here was Google's initial response to the Guardian's article: (made to Fortune magazine)
"We are saddened to see that hate organizations still exist. The fact that hate sites appear in Search results does not mean that Google endorses these views," said the spokesperson in a statement. According to the company, a site's ranking in search results is determined by computer algorithms using hundreds of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.
"We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content, malware and violations of our webmaster guidelines," the spokesperson said.
This shouldn't be surprising given the stance of Google's founders—who are both Jewish. In 2004, when interviewed by Stephen Levy for the book Plex, Sergey Brin, said of anti-semitic results on Google "that he didn't want to impose his world view. 'It's a bad technology practice.'"
In 2008, Brin elaborated that stance:
An important part of our values as a company is that we don’t edit the search results.
What our algorithms produce, whether we like it or not, are the search results.
I think people want to know we have unbiased search results.
Finally, around December 24th, after intense social pressure, Google altered its search results so that content from stormfront.org no longer appeared in search results. (It later reappeared in the #10 position.) And other "hate results", such as whether blacks are less intelligent than whites also shifted or disappeared.
On top of this there is the whole issue of fake news, which given Brin's and the company's spokespersons comments
Google—mostly—and its brethren, for much of the Internet-connected, have become the de facto arbiters of information, for both news and reference, and both with regards to importance/newsworthiness, and accuracy.
Given the critical role that these resources now play in our society, and the rapid decline of journalistic oversight and counterweight, should search engines be regulated?
References:
Craig Good
Jan 4, 2017, 2:33:22 PM1/4/17
to Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
> On Jan 4, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Google—mostly—and its brethren, for much of the Internet-connected, have become the de facto arbiters of information, for both news and reference, and both with regards to importance/newsworthiness, and accuracy.
>
--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com
"If you see the lion's fangs, don't think it is smiling."
--Arab proverb
David Fetter
Jan 4, 2017, 2:56:58 PM1/4/17
to Ipse Dixit
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 11:32:58AM -0800, Craig Good wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Google—mostly—and its brethren, for much of the
> > Internet-connected, have become the de facto arbiters of
> > information, for both news and reference, and both with regards to
> > importance/newsworthiness, and accuracy.
>
> Yet another reason I never use Google for search. Try this query on
> duckduckgo.com.
I don't understand how your personal boycott could be pertinent to the
>
> > On Jan 4, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Google—mostly—and its brethren, for much of the
> > Internet-connected, have become the de facto arbiters of
> > information, for both news and reference, and both with regards to
> > importance/newsworthiness, and accuracy.
>
> Yet another reason I never use Google for search. Try this query on
> duckduckgo.com.
matter raised. Boycotting had every chance to fix the lunch counter
problem. The wait caused real harm to real people as it dragged on.
When that failed, regulating worked.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Craig Good
Jan 4, 2017, 3:06:32 PM1/4/17
to David Fetter, Ipse Dixit
> On Jan 4, 2017, at 11:56 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
>
> I don't understand how your personal boycott could be pertinent to the
> matter raised. Boycotting had every chance to fix the lunch counter
> problem. The wait caused real harm to real people as it dragged on.
> When that failed, regulating worked.
"The difference between faith and insanity is that faith is the
ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with
the evidence, whereas insanity is the ability to hold firmly to a
conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence."
--William Harwood
Scott Hotes
Jan 4, 2017, 8:19:49 PM1/4/17
to Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Recent research by The Guardian and its affiliate site, The Observer, shows how hate groups and fake news sources are manipulating search results and auto-suggestions to their benefit. And Google—and other search engines are complicit.On December 11th, typing "did the holo" into Google resulted in the suggestion "Did the Holocaust really happen?" For which the answer, apparently, is No. tThe first result was to an article titled "Top ten reasons why the Holocaust didn't happen," from the site stormfront.org, a strident Neo-Nazi hate site. For many people, the page's position at the top of the search results implicitly declares it to be the most authoritative source on the Internet.Here was Google's initial response to the Guardian's article: (made to Fortune magazine)"We are saddened to see that hate organizations still exist. The fact that hate sites appear in Search results does not mean that Google endorses these views," said the spokesperson in a statement. According to the company, a site's ranking in search results is determined by computer algorithms using hundreds of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.
"We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content, malware and violations of our webmaster guidelines," the spokesperson said.
This shouldn't be surprising given the stance of Google's founders—who are both Jewish. In 2004, when interviewed by Stephen Levy for the book Plex, Sergey Brin, said of anti-semitic results on Google "that he didn't want to impose his world view. 'It's a bad technology practice.'"In 2008, Brin elaborated that stance:An important part of our values as a company is that we don’t edit the search results.What our algorithms produce, whether we like it or not, are the search results.I think people want to know we have unbiased search results.Finally, around December 24th, after intense social pressure, Google altered its search results so that content from stormfront.org no longer appeared in search results. (It later reappeared in the #10 position.) And other "hate results", such as whether blacks are less intelligent than whites also shifted or disappeared.
For the record, marketers have been "manipulating search results" from the beginning. There is a
whole industry dedicated to this (SEO). And it's an odd perspective to say that Google is "complicit"
in this. It is in fact their core business. It is how they make money.
Also, stormfront.org, from what I could see, is not fake news. It's not news. It appears to be people's
opinions. Yes, sure, I happen to not agree with their opinions, but I think it's fair to say that doctoring
up search results to get content like this down-modded is no doubt a form of censorship.
Is Fox News "fake news"? It's made to look like a news station. It has all the trappings of other news
outlets. Is there a difference between "fake news" and "biased news"? Is there such a thing as
"unbiased news"? I don't really understand the battle that is being fought here.
Regarding the Guardian reference to yet-another-comment from Cathy O'Neill:
“It simply can’t go on pretending that it has no editorial responsibilities when it is delivering these kinds of results. It is simply not defensible for it go on claiming ‘plausible deniability’. It has clearly become a conduit for rightwing hate sites and it must urgently take action.”
I don't believe she has made her case here. There are plenty of other conclusions that could be
drawn about what is happening here, where Google does not hold culpability, such as:
- It's not Google, but the Internet generally that has "become a conduit for rightwing hate sites".
That's entirely possible, and Google is simply putting up what is most popular. Remember, The
O'Reilly Factor is the most popular "news program" on cable. It it not possible that this is the
garbage people actually want to watch/read?
- Maybe it's not Google or the Internet, but simply a broad social phenomena.
If Google were to suddenly start taking on it's "editorial responsibilities", and start down-
modding content it found disagreeable, the would be doing neither themselves, nor any of us
a favor.
Scott
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages