Does Google hard-code bias into its search engine?
It makes you wonder what they might do politically as well, considering where most of their employees’ political contributions go.
7 thoughts on “Just In Case You Believed That Motto About Not Being Evil”
Comments are closed.
I see that most of the commenters on Slashdot reject the thesis of the article pretty vigorously. That said, there may be an element of “what would make you think we are biased” mentality at Google similar to my perceptions of that mentality in the traditional news media. Given those perceptions it’s not hard to imagine that bias influencing algorithms for search results on political subjects.
I don’t mind their having a bias for their own products and services, but they should be open about it, particularly if they are going to claim a “Don’t Be Evil” motto.
They already make a distinction between search results and paid results. Perhaps they should consider results pointing to their own services as a paid result? Then a claim of no bias in the search results would have some support (it could still be a lie of course.)
How does any algorithm not have a bias? Everything humans do tends to have a bias even though not consciously intentional. Being blind to your own bias tends to insure it will be included.
Slashdot: where the pugnaciously ignorant and the aggressively stupid battle for the last word!
Well. Let’s try it. I type in “Barack Obama” and I get:
1. A Reuters news story on the tax cuts.
2. A Chicago Tribute article on his tour of a Chrysler plant.
3. A CNN blog by James Carville.
4. A link to his PAC, “Organizing for America.”
5. Wikipedia.
6. The White House
7. Some more Reuters storys.
8. His Twitter (!) feed.
9. CNN’s and MSNBC’s coverage of the 2008 election.
10. Books about him, such as “Barack Obama : Working to Make A Difference”.
Now I try “George Bush” and I get:
1. Wikipedia
2. Random House on his new book.
3. An artlcle from the Salt Lake Tribune reporting on someone calling him a “war criminal.”
4. An article from USA Today on Leno thanking Bush for “all the material.”
5. An NPR blog on the “Mission Accomplished” sign.
6. The White House for his father.
7. His library at Texas A&M.
8. Articles about him from the Guardian.
9. Links to videos on Youtube title “Bloopers!” and “George Bush idiot”.
10. A link to “Bushisms”.
Now of course, it could certainly be that most of the links on the Internet about Obama are to adoring articles about him in CNN and MSNBC, and that most of what’s on the Internet about Bush is still obsessed about his “Mission Accomplished” sign and his slips of the tongue. That’s certainly a hypothesis that doesn’t violate CPT or conservation of energy.
When I read articles like this, I just think “duh!”. Of course they do that. We would do far better as a society to get people to be reasonably cynical in general, rather than presuming that there’s some way to successfully enforce objectivity.
It depends on how you define “evil”.
Hard coded bias, unlikely. Biased data fed to the filters they use to ‘improve search quality’, most likely. No coordinated effort needed, just need biased associates to submit web sites contrary to their view as garbage sites.
Same reason you can’t trust wikipedia on some hot topics, insufficient controls to keep the delusional out of the data.