21–30 of 212 posts
I swear, sometimes I think the world is inhabited by p-zombies, who don't actually think things through, but just mindlessly recombine previously consumed memes into (slightly) novel variants.
Was this written by a second grader?
I have made this case before, but I will make it again. The Internet is the largest information system in the world, and Google is the primary portal into that information system. Google's "organic" results are accompanied by AdWords results, which are based on a mixture of bid price and relevance. These ads are marked with a small "Ad" label that many people miss, and even those who know they're ads can't really "un…
The library is a catalog of books produced by publishers for the sake of making money. Your example doesn't hold weight, as there is no "purity of information". Even your own insights are filtered through the perspective of your personal influence, your wants, your desires, your history, etc. Google is no different. The organic search results are largely from commercial, or at a minimum, self-interested sources. That…
The Internet should not be a place where those with more money get to cut the line in front of those with less. Let PageRank sort it out.
Also, what's this about my example not holding weight because "information purity" doesn't exist? It's not about the information itself being pure, it's about purity of ranking. Let's just spell this out:
money !== relevance, therefore any influence of money on search engine rankings is, by definition, noise.
I have made this case before, but I will make it again. The Internet is the largest information system in the world, and Google is the primary portal into that information system. Google's "organic" results are accompanied by AdWords results, which are based on a mixture of bid price and relevance. These ads are marked with a small "Ad" label that many people miss, and even those who know they're ads can't really "un…
I don't think it's so bad, and more importantly I don't see the solution. Google does what it does to make money, and ads are how it does that. If there's a more ethical solution it'll only be implemented if it's also more profitable. All that is fine with me; Google doesn't have any obligations to me or you or anyone besides their shareholders.
This read like anti-Google FUD. The basic argument is search engine rank determines trustworthiness of a source. This influences people's opinions on politics, what they buy, what they think, etc. This is absolutely true, and the core of their research (it seems). But then it goes into FUD territory when talking about Google backing Hillary. Hillary and Trump have received the lion's share of attention in media, soci…
The article provides both scientifically acquired evidence and some analysis. That's more than your comment provides, IMO.
It also provides evidence that Google as a company likely supports Hillary to at least some degree. Of this I also have no doubt.
But it uses FUD to say you should connect the dots and state that Google is actively manipulating rankings to assist a particular candidate. Of this, they provide no evidence other than "they could".
It's that last bit I take issue with. There's no analysis to support this notion.
If they did such an analysis I'd be very impressed as it would very much help discuss the deeper issues of Google's power over opinion. Essentially, Google is the portal to information for most people. They are a private company operating for profit that uses an algorithm that must be secret for it to work. I understand the unease with that situation and enjoy reading discussions about it.
However, their choice to essentially accuse Google of altering their algorithm to support Hillary is unsupported at this time. By adding it in it hurts their broader argument that gatekeepers of information should be subject to increased scrutiny and potentially to new regulations to ensure their neutrality.
This is a really interesting study but it's hard for me to believe in the conspiracy theory that the hundreds of engineers that work on Google Search would be OK implementing a complicated vote manipulation algorithm and keeping it secret. But it's possible, criminal conspiracies involving many people seem to happen regularly in the financial industry.
I'll give an example. The establishment corporate media is already biased. That much has been clear this election (although it's been happening for many years or even decades).
The Internet is "pretty free" right now, and people can Google, or go on Twitter and see "news" that doesn't necessarily come from that establishment media. However, that is already starting to change.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter can all change that by giving "brand name" media much better ranking results through their algorithms. In some cases, such as with the recent "AMP" project, these companies won't even have to rely on good search ranking. They just benefit from having partnerships with Google and being shown at the top of the page automatically. What this means is that the corporate media's brainwashing continues almost unfettered going into the future.
The upside is that people can still look for other sources and views on the Internet, while they can't really do that on TV. So in that way the Internet is still better (as long as it doesn't start implementing "ISIS & others filters" with a new US president. But the portals through which most people get their information are getting tighter and tighter relationships with establishment corporate media, and voter education will suffer for that.
Ideally, what I'd like Google to do, unless it actually wants that kind of "bias" on its search pages (whether it comes from the results or otherwise), is for them to use their increasingly more advanced AI to figure out which elections stories are "biased" and fact-free, and which are the closest to the facts and use the least biased language in them.
"Journalism" is supposed to be about the facts, and Google search should be promote that kind of stories over the biased hit-jobs. And Google should also verify those facts itself with its AI, so it shouldn't just promote stories with false "facts".
It's not going to be easy to do something like that well enough, but I think Google could do it, and I think AI has reached a point where that may be within its grasp within a few years.
This read like anti-Google FUD. The basic argument is search engine rank determines trustworthiness of a source. This influences people's opinions on politics, what they buy, what they think, etc. This is absolutely true, and the core of their research (it seems). But then it goes into FUD territory when talking about Google backing Hillary. Hillary and Trump have received the lion's share of attention in media, soci…
I agree; the Hillary portion of it seemed like a bit of a silly conspiracy theory to me. They'd still need to provide evidence rather than innuendo, but it'd be more believable (albeit attract fewer HN upvotes) if the article had claimed Google has a pro-Bernie bias, since he's the candidate who likely has the most support amongst Google employees and especially engineers.
I don't think the (potential) issue is so much Google actively putting its thumb on the scale for one candidate, as the influence outside activists can have on how they create their algorithm.
Suppose that the (Hillary-endorsing) New York Times runs a front-page story saying that a study found Google search results systematically are more negative towards female candidates than they are to male candidates. The subtext of such a story would be that the NYT is pressuring Google to alter its algorithm to be more favorable to Hillary. I think there'd be a pretty decent chance Google would in fact alter its algorithm in response to such a story. I doubt they would alter their algorithm in response to a similar criticism from a conservative source.
Similarly, if one of the top results for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were a scatological reference, as with Rick Santorum, I think that Google would very quickly remove that page from its results.
Now, there's nothing wrong with getting rid of bias in search results directed at left-of-center politicians. But if Google (hypothetically, of course) is much more aggressive with eliminating bias towards left-of-center politicians than it is with eliminating bias towards right-of-center politicians, the net effect will be a general left-of-center bias in Google search results.
None of this is any kind of pre-planned conspiracy, just brain chemistry. We're wired to easily perceive bias, incivility and lying when directed at those we agree with, but justify, rationalize or ignore it when directed at those we disagree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beat me to it. Also recommended to read Bernays' works themselves, particularly "Crystallizing Public Opinion" and "Propaganda." Its like reading an engineer's manual for social control.
Yeah, Bernays is great. He called it 'propeganda' to begin with - but realized that it needed a better name. So he called it 'public relations'. The best thing about PR is that people who practice PR have PR practiced on them - they don't even know the history of PR. Curtis' documentary is the best source I have come across for the history of PR. But this article is quite something. It helps explain the Trump effect…
Do journalists, corporate communication professionals or others who end up in PR know him? That is up for debate.
EDIT: Clarity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's so bad, and more importantly I don't see the solution. Google does what it does to make money, and ads are how it does that. If there's a more ethical solution it'll only be implemented if it's also more profitable. All that is fine with me; Google doesn't have any obligations to me or you or anyone besides their shareholders.
"I don't see any problem with the way the world's most powerful system for freeing the mind has been co-opted by for-profit enterprise. I am ignorant of any possible alternatives. Capitalist businesses sell goods and services in exchange for money. I accept that no effort will be made to find more ethical alternatives unless it can produce even more money. We as a society have no control or influence over what indivi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's so bad, and more importantly I don't see the solution. Google does what it does to make money, and ads are how it does that. If there's a more ethical solution it'll only be implemented if it's also more profitable. All that is fine with me; Google doesn't have any obligations to me or you or anyone besides their shareholders.
"I don't see any problem with the way the world's most powerful system for freeing the mind has been co-opted by for-profit enterprise. I am ignorant of any possible alternatives. Capitalist businesses sell goods and services in exchange for money. I accept that no effort will be made to find more ethical alternatives unless it can produce even more money. We as a society have no control or influence over what indivi…