Employee leaks hundreds of Google documents revealing its search-results manipulation and biases

[steelo]

4 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It's not that, it's moreso people know the implications but couldn't give a shit about it because it benefits them, their ego, their views, etc. A lot more people here think it's funny for things to only go their way rather than things not go their way.

Frankly, it's why fanboyism is rampant on this forum with more well-known members.

Sadly, the U.S. is more divided than ever. You are absolutely 100% correct, each 'group' only looks after their own while telling everybody else to 'screw themselves'

[EarthWormJM2]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

Keep in mind that a hyperpartisan piece isn't really news, either, even if it's not overtly lying.  It may rely heavily on opinion over facts; it may selectively omit 'inconvenient' facts (Fox News does this often); it may creatively reinterpret facts to come to a false conclusion.

 

And like I said earlier, the truth isn't fair.  "Both sides" is valid in political debates, where policy is a matter of opinion.  It's not valid when you're discussing whether or not something actually happened.  A disproportionately large number of conservatives are climate science deniers, for example -- they may be very vocal about it, but that doesn't change that their claims are unsupported by evidence and should be ignored.

Again, I am not supporting either side here. And I agree in facts are facts and the truth a lot of people would rather ignore or spin for their own benefit. All I'm saying is based on the list of blocked sites I saw, it leans heavily on suppressing right leaning sites instead of left leaning ones, and that raises a lot of questions.

 

Unless we know for a fact that each one of those sites have tried spreading blatantly false information (not just having a discussion about differing opinions or being satire) then yes, I agree they should be blocked. BUT, if I type in "information about the flat earth", I should get both the crazies websites and the factual ones, just have a red disclaimer next to the search result saying something like "This site has been known to post or spread false information in the past", and let me still find the information I'm looking for. I don't think it should be completely ignored especially with something like flat-earthers, as they obviously need the science, just presented in a different way.

 

Like, Political stories, most of the time we don't have all the facts and it is all mostly speculation until the truth eventually comes out at a later time. But until there is proof to back up that truth, let both sides show up in searches so you can see both sides of the argument. Then once the truth is out, put a disclaimer on the false sites/articles like I mentioned before.

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Project Veritas is partisan and they have been caught trying to set companies up to fall for stings. However, they also have exposed a lot of incontrovertible truth with their undercover videos including corruption in the DNC campaign which led to the firing of a campaign manager, undercover footage of Twitter engineers saying that Twitter has teams of people who read private DMs, and undercover footage of NYT managers confirming that they skew the presentation of their news to work against Trump.

"Incontrovertible truth" is really stretching it.  Even when they haven't outright lied, they've been known to highly distort what they find as supposed proof of their right-wing fantasies.  The whole point is that you can't trust them for anything because they always shoehorn whatever they find into their preconceived narrative, objectivity be damned.

 

5 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But the search term in the example given is not Islam, and is instead Paul Joseph Watson's YouTube page. To not give the result for his YouTube page when it is specifically searched for is an example of Google not delivering useful information.

Why did you cut out the part where I addressed this?  In a sense you're behaving just like Project Veritas, purposefully omitting and spinning facts to suit your agenda.

 

9 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That is fine for a news service. However, it isn't for search results. When people search for something, they could have any reason for why they're looking for what they're looking for and shouldn't be preached a narrative - they should just be given the accurate result for their search. A lot of searches have nothing to do with fact versus fiction.

It is if you're trying to look for information.  And remember, Google integrates news with its search results; it has a certain obligation to be sure that the news you see first is accurate.  Moreover, it's not as simple as leaving search results to how closely they match keywords, because people try to game the system that way -- ultimately, you have to make a judgment call on which sources are more likely to be relevant and correct.

[EarthWormJM2]

13 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Not that I'm defending Google, I assure you I'm not but I don't think they ever claimed their search results were fair. They have a very lengthy end user license agreement that basically says they can show you whatever results they want.

I gotcha. And I am a proponent of EULAs that everyone signs and no-one reads. They are legally binding which a lot of people forget. I haven't looked into Googles, but if that is that case then they shouldn't act like they are all innocent or that they aren't messing with anything. I'm not sure if they ever specifically said 'fair' but the way Google spins everything in the news is like they are the good guy, they are doing it to protect you, or for your benefit, but then when using Google, nowhere does it say "35 results were hidden" or "some results may not appear" or anything to hint that they are messing with the results. I get they are skirting the legal grey area with their claims (or non-claims)... but it's real shitty.

[steelo]

"it has a certain obligation to be sure that the news you see first is accurate"

 

Even if that means not receiving the search results I asked for? I've personally had this happen probably dozens while researching political topics.

[Blademaster91]

18 minutes ago, steelo said:

Sadly, the U.S. is more divided than ever. You are absolutely 100% correct, each 'group' only looks after their own while telling everybody else to 'screw themselves'

Indeed, people can't look beyond their own biased view and it only causes more division. This topic was fine until people had to insert their own political opinion and complain about the source.

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

Again, I am not supporting either side here. And I agree in facts are facts and the truth a lot of people would rather ignore or spin for their own benefit. All I'm saying is based on the list of blocked sites I saw, it leans heavily on suppressing right leaning sites instead of left leaning ones, and that raises a lot of questions.

 

Unless we know for a fact that each one of those sites have tried spreading blatantly false information (not just having a discussion about differing opinions or being satire) then yes, I agree they should be blocked. BUT, if I type in "information about the flat earth", I should get both the crazies websites and the factual ones, just have a red disclaimer next to the search result saying something like "This site has been known to post or spread false information in the past", and let me still find the information I'm looking for. I don't think it should be completely ignored especially with something like flat-earthers, as they obviously need the science, just presented in a different way.

 

Like, Political stories, most of the time we don't have all the facts and it is all mostly speculation until the truth eventually comes out at a later time. But until there is proof to back up that truth, let both sides show up in searches so you can see both sides of the argument. Then once the truth is out, put a disclaimer on the false sites/articles like I mentioned before.

That disproportionate clampdown on right-wing sites might raise questions, but I don't think those questions will lead to any big changes.  Let's be honest: the falsehoods largely come from one side in the current political climate, and there's a good chance Google's approach reflects that.

 

I generally agree that flags would be better if you're searching for terms that could be open to opinion.  With that said, don't expect the conservatives crying "censorship!" to play ball -- they'd object to the very notion that sites could be flagged as false.

[EarthWormJM2]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

they'd object to the very notion that sites could be flagged as false.

...and in reality, I'd fully expect that. I was only talking about this information coming from Google (supposedly) and if it was accurate what they should be doing. I know in reality these days logic and reason never win... 

[steelo]

21 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Indeed, people can't look beyond their own biased view and it only causes more division. This topic was fine until people had to insert their own political opinion and complain about the source.

I grow so tired of hearing, 'Well, you heard that from a right (or left) wing source. Indeed, we have become so polarized that I honestly fear for the future of our nation. It's really simple...elections have become about what elected officials can do for THEM, not what's best for the nation.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, steelo said:

I grow so tired of hearing, 'Well, you heard that from a right (or left) wing source. Indeed, we have become so polarized that I honestly fear for the future of our nation. It's really simple...elections have become about what elected officials can do for THEM, not what's best for the nation.

Well... That's how the world has always been going... It's just that now the information comes much more quickly and people don't have time to process it and integrate it.

But that's also where education and critical thinking are important. And both are linked.

When you have information you need to think about it and then decide, for yourself, where you stand. It has always been like that and it will always be like that. At least in countries where you have freedom.

Freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of decision.

 

It's just that we are at a point in our history where these freedoms have never been more in danger, and not always in the way one could expect.

And that's also even more the reason why education is so important. Education gives you the tools to understand, process and exercise these freedoms.

 

And when you see the attemps which are made in some countries, countries which glorify themselves as "champions of Freedom" where education is in such desperate state, where ignorance is prized and curiosity and thirst for knowledge is frowned upon as "unnecessary"? That is scary, real scary for the future...

 

When you look at all the markers, at the global situation we are a the stage "Hope and work for the best, but prepare actively for the worst!"

And I'm not talking about "war", but massive loss of freedom and liberties, auto-censorship because of the trend that you can find in all countries at the moment for mass surveillance in order for governments to "guarantee social peace"!

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

saw this earlier, i think to an extend it has a good purpose for filtering out negative stuffs like piracy & to down right conspiracy as absolute truth, but they sneaked in their own agenda in between that.

 

it's kinda like watching a church library slowly removing stuff that doesn't adhere to their notion of knowledge alongside evil books, they decide what you get to read & believe.

[rcmaehl]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[Commodus]

1 minute ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

saw this earlier, i think to an extend it has a good purpose for filtering out negative stuffs like piracy & to down right conspiracy as absolute truth, but they sneaked in their own agenda in between that.

 

it's kinda like watching a church library slowly removing stuff that doesn't adhere to their notion of knowledge, they decide what you get to read & believe.

That's not really a good example.  It's more like a school library; there's a level of accuracy they want to maintain, and that means ensuring that junk literature isn't confused with books that promote actual knowledge.  It's just a matter of ensuring that the selections and exclusions are well-chosen.  If Google were a "church" that insisted on pushing left-wing ideology, it wouldn't give Fox News and other conspicuously conservative sites as prominent a placement as they get.

[Blademaster91]

The problem is Google is skewing news sources, and they are pushing a left wing bias. And Fox News is pretty left biased, and centrist for the most part compared to most of the mainstream media, also CNN and MSNBC constantly smear them, which I think is a serious problem that only contributes to the political division in the US. These companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple need to be platforms not publishers placing a bias on information.

[Unixsystem]

2 hours ago, DragonTamer1 said:

This just in: The sun is hot.

I'm afraid that I'm gonna need an unbiased source for that. 

[Trik'Stari]

Sigh.

 

CALLED IT.

1 hour ago, steelo said:

This is not news, anybody with 2 working brain cells knows google manipulates search results. What's more alarming is most people are too ignorant to care about the implications.

But now we have evidence, and the Federal government can hopefully step in and stop this bullshit.

 

Anyone behind this should be charged with treason, or at least conspiracy against the government of some kind.

 

1 hour ago, Suika said:

"Google is actively censoring news and content! How evil! I don't understand the first amendment but surely this goes against it!"

 

*Google removes bias*

 

"Google is putting white supremacist hate articles and disinformation campaigns at the top of their search results! What values does this company hope to instill in its users?!"

 

Y'all can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's two different groups. One with a legitimate claim (Google is actively censoring one side of the political divide to the benefit of their preferred political party and ideology) and the other side, which screeches "racism!" "facism!" and "hate speech!" at anything that disagrees with them.

 

Which is ironic, because that's part of the set of behaviors, of a fascist. Create an in-group and an out-group, anything you don't like goes into the out-group and is subsequently dehumanized and violence is somehow "justified" against that thing.

 

For the Nazi's it was "The Jews", for the white supremacists it was "non-whites" now for the communist left its "racists, fascists" etc.

[Tech_Dreamer]

28 minutes ago, Commodus said:

it wouldn't give Fox News and other conspicuously conservative sites as prominent a placement as they get. 

to an extend yes, but you do see them appear less prominent behind the far less rated journalism done by MSNBC& CNN upfront on the same subject matter, Just for regular name search it's usually the case.

 

For example the last 2 years anything "Donald trump" search term on it would bring up stuff tagged which right now as the proper investigations brought to light wasn't linked to "Russia" , but they at that time excruciatingly pushed it upfront with zero backing to a point it created a conspiracy havoc that lead to Muller investigation.. that was in fact maybe yellow-page journalism tactic but eitherways they were intentionally with crude intent were misinforming public on the subject matter without any proper evidence, for what? that's almost a literal definition of a targeted conspiracy which orange boi kinda rightfully called 'witch hunt'. which in turn lead to wasted tax dollars & whatever, you get the point.

 

but at this point when it was proven that they were spinning rumors & conspiracy without absolute conformation for political gain whatever reason, they still dont lose points for that at this moment, they still get to do it without any repercussions. that kind of tactic is ideological & relating to political beliefs. that's why a church library is a perfect example. if they believe something is "evil".  they will act accordingly. if it was for pure academic conflict of facts , it could've been looked as a school library case, but they dont do that for regular subjects. not to this extend they wont spin it or try to make it look worse. they report it as it is. 

[Lurick]

21 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Sigh.

 

CALLED IT.

But now we have evidence, and the Federal government can hopefully step in and stop this bullshit.

 

Anyone behind this should be charged with treason, or at least conspiracy against the government of some kind.

 

That's two different groups. One with a legitimate claim (Google is actively censoring one side of the political divide to the benefit of their preferred political party and ideology) and the other side, which screeches "racism!" "facism!" and "hate speech!" at anything that disagrees with them.

 

Which is ironic, because that's part of the set of behaviors, of a fascist. Create an in-group and an out-group, anything you don't like goes into the out-group and is subsequently dehumanized and violence is somehow "justified" against that thing.

 

For the Nazi's it was "The Jews", for the white supremacists it was "non-whites" now for the communist left its "racists, fascists" etc.

So the government needs to step in and tell a private company with many alternatives to stop doing something and the left is now akin to Nazis because they disagree with those on the right?

What about all the sites on the other side that call for death and attacks on the left over the years? Those are fine and dandy?

 

Edit:

Oh, and you just called for those in charge of Google to be killed by proxy because they dare disagree with the current government. Keep that in mind.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

That disproportionate clampdown on right-wing sites might raise questions, but I don't think those questions will lead to any big changes. 

 

You do realize that, even assuming no lawsuits are involved, this is the death knell for any attempt by Google/Youtube to fight Trump's Section 230 guidance right? That leaves Twitter and FB to put up any significant resistance.

[Taf the Ghost]

PhillyD clearly isn't trying hard enough. 

[SenKa]

In other news... Wait, that joke is played out.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, steelo said:

I grow so tired of hearing, 'Well, you heard that from a right (or left) wing source. Indeed, we have become so polarized that I honestly fear for the future of our nation. It's really simple...elections have become about what elected officials can do for THEM, not what's best for the nation.

"Objective" journalism has never existed. It was a narrative created during the early Radio period so the Networks weren't under constant attack from political factions. It leads to the same reason that Google et al want to be thought of as "search providers" but everyone involved knows they can & do manipulate things to their own ends. Same was true of Radio and TV News Networks, but the majors used to be rather more subtle about it. It was always a Pro-Washington DC, Pro-Corporate line. Policy positions changed over time but the Alignment stays the same. If you want a fun time, watch who's defending Google, because Google does manipulate search results though it's done by Machine Learned-based algos these days. Since they do that, it hurts the quality of the search results and, thus, their bottom-line. (I switched to DDG because Google had become pretty crappy for most topics.) 

 

Also, US Politics is based on regional factionalism. Which has always been the case. (The USA is a "Nation-State" not a wholly unified National Identity, and the regionalism has been there since before 1700.) What's merely changing is that the Coastal Enclaves are devolving to their ideological underpinnings, which means we're going to see a City-Countryside split in politics really hard. Happened plenty of time throughout history, though it needs to be noted it almost always ends with the City (or City-State, if you go back to the Greco-Rome period) burning quite brightly. Economy is too good for it to descend into open warfare too quickly, but give it 20 years and we'll see what happens.

 

[Edit: more a note for myself, I wonder if it's the population ratio between Central Cities and Growing Regions that dictates when things tip over. Hard to measure in the ancient world, but it would be an interesting study.]

[dDave64]

1 hour ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

Again, I am not supporting either side here. And I agree in facts are facts and the truth a lot of people would rather ignore or spin for their own benefit. All I'm saying is based on the list of blocked sites I saw, it leans heavily on suppressing right leaning sites instead of left leaning ones, and that raises a lot of questions.

 

Unless we know for a fact that each one of those sites have tried spreading blatantly false information (not just having a discussion about differing opinions or being satire) then yes, I agree they should be blocked. BUT, if I type in "information about the flat earth", I should get both the crazies websites and the factual ones, just have a red disclaimer next to the search result saying something like "This site has been known to post or spread false information in the past", and let me still find the information I'm looking for. I don't think it should be completely ignored especially with something like flat-earthers, as they obviously need the science, just presented in a different way.

 

Like, Political stories, most of the time we don't have all the facts and it is all mostly speculation until the truth eventually comes out at a later time. But until there is proof to back up that truth, let both sides show up in searches so you can see both sides of the argument. Then once the truth is out, put a disclaimer on the false sites/articles like I mentioned before.

 

I’m not certain but I think labeling certain sites as potentially false information could lead to lawsuits. Sounds like defamation to me and is likely worse than just resorting search results a bit.

 

It seems that most of the tech connected world is ok suppressing right leaning opinions and sources. Most of Hollywood, most major news networks, Facebook, google, Twitter, etc. it’s just something you need to know.

 

It’s becoming a real problem.

 

I, personally, don’t think I want the government stepping in and trying to “fix” the problem. It seems most things government touches gets ruined.

 

I lean pretty heavily to the right and would rather see liberal owned companies suppressing conservative ideas on their platform rather than have the government try to fix it. As bad as it is, I do think they have a right to suppress and filter what is said on their own platform. The ethics of that is a totally different question.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Project Veritas is partisan and they have been caught trying to set companies up to fall for stings. However, they also have exposed a lot of incontrovertible truth with their undercover videos including corruption in the DNC campaign which led to the firing of a campaign manager, undercover footage of Twitter engineers saying that Twitter has teams of people who read private DMs, and undercover footage of NYT managers confirming that they skew the presentation of their news to work against Trump.

You're arguing with someone who's main source as to why Veritas lies is a Wikipedia article, whose sources conflict with each other and usually attack the (often illegal) methods Veritas uses, not the actual material they push. And when they do attack the actual material, it's with unsubstanciated claims.

 

 

What's funny is that Ted Cruz's time with Google heads during the last anti trust basically confirmed Veritas' claims.

[thorhammerz]

22 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Economy is too good for it to descend into open warfare too quickly, but give it 20 years and we'll see what happens.

In such a scenario, I'd wager it depends whether the Mississippi basin and the Eastern seaboard find themselves capable of co-existing - one controls the production of goods / raw-materials, while the other controls the inflow/outflow of said goods and capital.

 

The West will always be their own little enclaves (never capable of fully resisting whichever power controls the Central/Eastern part of the continent, but in turn are never fully subjugated either) until humans figure out how to mass-transport goods (and people) over/on/under mountains (or even flat land) as cost-effectively as they do on waterways.