
Google is not just a platform – It frames, shapes and distorts how we see - CarolineW
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/google-frames-shapes-and-distorts-how-we-see-world?CMP=fb_gu
======
yongjik
I think the author is missing an important point: people who are genuinely
curious about Holocaust usually don't type "did the holocaust happen".

Instead, they will more likely type "holocaust statistics", "holocaust
wikipedia", "what is holocaust", or simply "holocaust". Each of these queries
brings up a "clean" result page.

On the other hand, it is those people who already think/suspect Holocaust
isn't real that disproportionately type in "did the holocaust happen", they
find the stormfront website, and they click on it because it matches their
preconception. Google learns that users typing this particular query likes
this result, and acts accordingly.

To Google's algorithm, this is exactly like learning that people typing
"introduction to algorithms" love to go to the Amazon page selling the
venerable CLRS. Nothing inherently nefarious.

In other words, I think it's not StormFront that's "gaming" the system. The
system is made of people, some of whom really really like StormFront, and
Google's results (for better or worse) just reflect that reality.

~~~
twblalock
> In other words, I think it's not StormFront that's "gaming" the system. The
> system is made of people, some of whom really really like StormFront, and
> Google's results (for better or worse) just reflect that reality.

This needs to be more widely recognized. Google autocomplete results, fake
news on Facebook, etc. are they way they are because a significant number of
people lack critical thinking skills or seek affirmation of their current
beliefs. People _want_ to read those things -- if they didn't click on them,
they would not end up being so visible.

This means that tweaking Google's algorithm, or filtering fake news from
Facebook, will backfire and appear to be censorship. It will drive the people
who are interested in reading fake news to work harder to find it, and it will
erode their trust in mainstream media. In other words, such a solution would
worsen the problem it intends to solve.

This isn't really a technical problem. It's a consequence of human nature, and
I'm pessimistic about the viability of the technological solutions that have
been proposed so far.

This also reinforces my view that most people don't have good critical
thinking skills. I've taught college students who would believe pretty much
anything they read online. Nobody ever taught them that they should verify
what they read before they believe it. I really wish school curricula would
include better education in this area. But some of my Facebook friends who
"like" the fake news stories are teachers, so I'm pessimistic about this as
well.

~~~
justinph
> This means that tweaking Google's algorithm, or filtering fake news from
> Facebook, will backfire and appear to be censorship. It will drive the
> people who are interested in reading fake news to work harder to find it,
> and it will erode their trust in mainstream media. In other words, such a
> solution would worsen the problem it intends to solve.

Good. Make it hard to find. Make people have to dig into the vile corners of
the internet to find it.

Google isn't a public utility that is obligated to serve these hate groups.
Stormfront doesn't have to be blocked from having their packets routed. Google
just doesn't have to take any part in helping them surface their beliefs.

~~~
halflings
Whether explicit or implicit, that would still be targeting certain opinion
groups... because yes, antisemitism and many types of racism and hate speech
are still just opinions until acted upon.

If somebody is looking for hate speech, they should find hate speech. I
understand that search engines should avoid promoting hate speech when it is
not needed, but like the parent comment showed that _is_ currently the case
for Google.

~~~
fjdlwlv
Storefront is an interesting case because Southern Poverty Law Center has
counted 100 murders committed by their users (or registered members, I forget
which). I don't know stormfront's usage numbers, by I bet that's a pretty high
ratio for a web site.

------
jayajay
The author wonders why shit like this appears on google, but then you see her
first paragraph:

"Did the Holocaust really happen? No. The Holocaust did not really happen. Six
million Jews did not die. It is a Jewish conspiracy theory spread by vested
interests to obscure the truth. The truth is that there is no evidence any
people were gassed in any camp. The Holocaust did not happen."

What Google sees with this paragraph is a highly ranked page asking a
legitimate question. This woman seems to be reputable, so let's just take her
word for it.

Pretty ironic -- last time I checked sentiment analysis wasn't even close to
figuring out what sarcasm is. Her joking actually exacerbates any problem she
thinks there is. And honestly, me quoting her is just making the problem a
tiny bit worse!

~~~
brobinson
That keyword-laden first paragraph is probably what will show up in the blurb
for that page in a SERP, too.

~~~
ojosilva
Which in turn reafirms, recursevely, the author's assertion of gamed Google
algorithms.

I think web search is still flawed, like it was 15 years ago when Google came
along. The problem is that now the flaws are more subtle, hence more dangerous
since search (and feed) ordering, interactions and suggestions are capable of
influencing people in an almost subconscious level. It will take years to
understand its implications.

------
Animats
Wikipedia comes up as the second site. Google is doing OK. If the holocaust
industry doesn't like their SERPs, they can mobilize their chain of holocaust
museums to get better ranking. In fact, they've already done this; the
Washington holocaust museum is now in the third result position.

Stormfront ("White Pride World Wide") has been around for years, and kind of a
joke. Post-Trump, they're more mainstream. Stormfront gets a high ranking
because they've been saying this for decades and they're now getting traffic
from the alt-right. So they have both popularity and stability, which Google's
algorithm likes. They're not gaming the algorithm. They just lucked out on a
political trend.

If you want to see gaming of Google's algorithm, search "binary option".
Binary options are basically a scam.[1] There are a vast number of binary
option web sites and companies, mostly affiliates of two back-end companies in
Tel Aviv. They plug binary options and each other endlessly, disseminate
recent financial news to get traffic, and appear as an entire ecosystem of
bogus info. That's gaming the algorithm. Wikipedia is in the top position at
the moment, with a rather negative article on binary options. (This despite
massive efforts by the binary option industry to get favorable Wikipedia
coverage, including offers of $10,000 for anyone who could "fix" certain
articles.)

[1] [http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-
israels-...](http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels-vast-
amoral-binary-options-scam-exposed/)

~~~
adrianm
The "holocaust industry"? It may just be because I lost family in the
holocaust, but this can't be an acceptable thing to say here.

~~~
Animats
Norman Finkelstein, author of "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the
Exploitation of Jewish Suffering"[1] coined that phrase. He lost ancestors to
the Nazis.

[1]
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4J76/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008GZ4J76/)

~~~
fjdlwlv
A book arguing that the Holocaust has been exploited is not justification for
denying the Holocaust happened, and it's insidious to insinuate such.

Its disgusting to say that if Google is leading people to believe that the
Holocaust didn't happen, the people who profit from it happening should just
invest in better SEO.

------
MustrumRidcully
Google is a search engine of indexed webpages. Not a universal delivery
machine of the TRUTH (tm) nor an annex of your brain.

Besides, this kind of debate is one step away from lyssenkism where only
google-friendly opinions will be displayed. If you fight for freedom of speech
only in the case of opinions that you like, then it's not freedom of speech.

~~~
adevine
> If you fight for freedom of speech only in the case of opinions that you
> like, then it's not freedom of speech.

The fact that the Holocaust happened is not an opinion.

~~~
prodigal_erik
If we let society keep a list of facts that may not be questioned, it will
inevitably have crap like "the sun orbits the earth" and "a god named zeus
created the universe" that _need_ to be questioned.

~~~
daveFNbuck
There's a difference between not allowing dissent and promoting wrong answers.

~~~
prodigal_erik
When you declare an answer to be wrong and suppress it, the only difference is
whether you go on to murder/imprison/exile the heretic or merely silence them.

~~~
daveFNbuck
I think the difference between murdering someone and not putting their website
at the top of a search result page is pretty significant. That the Holocaust
happened is a fact. Giving correct responses to factual queries should not be
a controversial goal.

When I type 5 + 6 into Google search, are people being oppressed when the top
result is 11? Would this be similar to murdering ideological opponents if my
page declaring the answer to be 13 wasn't at or near the top of the results?

------
dep_b
Google is a search engine not a truth engine. I would say "here it is: if you
don't like it, complain to the site owners". Otherwise if you start editing
things then you will be asked sooner or later why you didn't X and Y as well.
And before you know it you're responsible for the pool of vomit with some nice
chunks in it called the internet.

If you arrive at stormfront.org and you're greeted with white power signs, of
course you don't think "this seems like a really unbiased website". If you are
attracted to this shit already it's already too late. For Google, your
parents.

~~~
throwaway729
_> Google is a search engine not a truth engine_

IMO "truth engine"s of various forms are the future of search. Think e.g.
Wolfram Alpha or any of the newfangled chat bots. Or even, increasingly,
Google itself.

I don't want a link to some guy's page; I want a definitive answer. Maybe the
answer I want is the truth (probably more often than not). Maybe the answer I
want is _my_ truth (probably more often than not for political topics). But in
any case, this sort of curation is going to happen, so at some point search
engines are going to have to wrestle with this reality -- will you be the
truth engine people want, or will you be the truth engine the people need? ;-)

~~~
wutbrodo
This is the direction Google has been moving in for uncontroversial facts for
years: the barriers to them doing this completely are mostly technical, not
product-based.

For questions where there's any sort of controversy, this broad a solution is
by definition unsolvable. It requires taking an explicit side on _literally
every controversial issue the human race is talking about_, which means they'd
spend roughly 100% of their time fending off mobs demanding to know why they
said X.

Since we're on the topic, let's use history as an example. There are TONS of
things in history that "everyone knew" where the "cranks" turned out to be
right and overturned our entire understanding of a given time and part of the
world. The scientific and academic methods are messy and iterative and (for
the soft sciences) often subjective, attempting to provide a "best guess" for
what the human race knows. To ask one entity to explicitly answer questions,
stamp out unsupported theories but somehow magically spare contrarian theories
that ultimately end up being correct is simply insane.

------
snadal
This is an awful result, but it raises a difficult question: should the SERP
be moderated or they should be fully automatic and allow this kind of results
to be in the top of the result pages? Because a human moderated results could
be even worst in the short them (who decides the ideology).

IMO, what must be addressed is our and our children ability to discern,
analyse and put in doubt everything that we read, and this kind of results
does more good than bad on this sense.

~~~
empath75
It seems like the alt right network of sites that are gaming the results
should be pretty easily discoverable and their weighting adjusted downwards
until legitimate sites are at the top.

~~~
cptskippy
That's the misunderstanding pervading this article. There is no gaming of the
system. The article provided absolutely no evidence that any gaming was
occurring.

Algorithms like PageRank are indiscriminate and if the Atl-right network of
sites is as big as the author claims then it should be pretty obvious why
those results appear.

Right or wrong, good or bad, there isn't any foul play or exploitation
occurring. These sites are playing by the rules Google established.

I think the problem is that groups that would challenge the Atl-right could do
so using their own network of sites but instead want to just change the rules
to shut them down instead.

~~~
empath75
Holocaust denial itself is foul play. You seem to think the only thing wrong
that could be happening here is cheating the algorithm.

~~~
cptskippy
What is your definition of wrong? Is it crazy tin foil hat shit that could
cause potential civil unrest or other problems? Then yes it's wrong. Is it
violating the rules of law or the rules of Google? No.

The thing that's really disturbing is that rather than combat this problem on
a level playing field, people are proposing changing the rules because they
can't be bothered to play the game the way the rules are setup.

Once we have a system in place where we can shut down any disagreeable idea,
who decides when and how to use it?

------
lyjackal
There's a really big ethical question about automation. These kinds of news
results remind me of Microsoft's racist Tay bot fiasco on twitter.

It seems like Machine Learning automation of anything "intelligent" (giving
the "best" answer to a question as in Google's results, or creating a
humanlike bot personality), needs metrics for some kind of quality, or
feedback loops of accountability, according to some kind of set of ethical
limits. Otherwise your algorithm is just a slave or a mirror to your data set
and your business interests.

Company's really need ethical motivations defined, especially company's with
automation and no accountable human to point the finger at if things get out
of hand.

------
aikah
So basically another guardian journalist that only wants to see results on
google he/she agrees with. And google should then manipulate results to fit
the guardian's political line ... making Google yet another echo chamber. The
fact is, echo chambers always fail to draw a clear picture of the real world.
Shouldn't journalists be interested in the truth rather than validating their
own bias on every possible medium ? or are so called journalists activists ?
i.e. reporting the facts that support their agenda ?

------
blakesterz
I always wonder if an open search algorithm would be better or worse? If
Google let everyone see the magic, would outsiders be able to make it better
so things like this don't happen? Would the white hats wing against the black
hats if it was open to all?

~~~
FT_intern
no one would understand the algorithm

~~~
placeybordeaux
We analyze and compare things that we don't understand all the time.

------
Tempest1981
The Guardian also ran this article where Google would suggest "Are women evil"
if you typed "are women". A day later, that suggestion was gone (removed by
Google).

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-
de...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-
truth-internet-search-facebook) (The HN comments on this story became
political, so it was flagged.)

~~~
iiiggglll
Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103774)

------
chrispeel
The world is full of conflicting information. Part of one's implicit Internet
education is that the first link you get when searching is not always the
best. The second link shown in the article (Wikipedia) is likely a good source
of info.

Perhaps a better approach would be to register didtheholocausthappen.com and
put a big sign that says "Yes" on it. Then put a link to that in your article,
and get others to link to it.

~~~
mtgx
The problems start to appear when Google (or Apple, or Microsoft) start
showing people the "One True Answer" when asking G. Assistant/Siri/Cortana.
Google has also been increasingly emphasizing a "main answer" in its search
results.

~~~
wutbrodo
That's why Google has been so incremental about only surfacing
"uncontroversial" facts. It's very much not in their best interests to spend
all day arguing with half the world about _literally every single issue the
human race is interested in_.

------
rrggrr
I think this is inseparable from the current fake news controversy. The US
Government to the rescue, in the same manner as the 1950's Red Scare, and the
1790's.

H.R. 5181, which passed Congress and awaits the President, gives the USGOV $20
million to allocate to companies, NGO's and other institutions to correct
anything it deems misinformation on the internet.

H.R. 6393, not yet passed will Give the USGOV additional authorities to choose
which news it deems to be misinformation and to take action.

I can't recommend enough Richard Rosenfeld's "American Aurora", or because its
over 900 pages long this mixed review:
[http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...](http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=fac_articles)

Striking is the similarity in vitriol, personal smears and false allegations
among papers in the 1790's and the internet today. We're doomed to repeat past
mistakes and learn over again past lessons. This manufactured crisis will be
no different.

------
bsaul
Maybe a solution would be to also suggest "opposite" popular search, or simply
"around the same subject". That would be fun, and show what are the broad
topics around a subject.

You may think of it of phase 2 of search engine role. Now that it's almost
perfect at finding things you're looking for, it could start showing things
that you _should_ be looking for ?

------
mojuba
I think what the article misses with this particular search is that Google's
function most of the time is to get you pages that contain the phrase, and not
necessarily the answer to the question. In some cases it does "feature" an
answer (e.g. 2+2, or What is the capital of Australia?) sometimes it doesn't.

Similarly, if you ask "Is the Earth flat?" you will see some results from the
flat Earth conspiracy theorists.

One other aspect of this problem is that Google absolutely can and it does
manipulate the results. At least a lot of work is done to eliminate spam, SEO
abuse, or what Google thinks is spam and abuse. They are not a media outlet
and are totally free to tweak their algorithms in any way they want or in any
way that makes sense within their business model. So if they do deliberately
lower StormFront's ranking, nobody can blame them for that.

------
contextfree
bing has the stormfront link at the bottom of the first page, and the
Wikipedia holocaust denial page at the top (with a special Wikipedia nav bar
that tends to make it look more visually prominent). It has fairly different
results overall, though they do contain a couple of denialist links and
suggest a "10 Reasons The Holocaust Never Happened" 'related search'.

it's interesting to think about why, possibilities that come to mind are

1\. bing's system just naturally doesn't favor the stormfront link as much?

2\. there's a deliberate effort on the part of microsoft/bing to specifically
suppress stormfront or some class of sites it's in?

3\. stormfront is at the top of the google results due to a deliberate effort
by some group to game this and they just haven't put the effort into gaming
bing?

------
getpost
Carole Cadwalladr's points are well taken. I tried the queries myself when I
saw these articles and got the same results she did.

Apparently Google is listening, since some of these results have been changed.
Was it a manual fix? So, Google's results are the output of an algorithm,
except when they're not? Who decides which results will be manually fixed? And
fixed how?

I think many, if not most, Internet users do treat search results as
authoritative, even though the cognoscendi know they're not intended to be.

The real question is, can this situation ever be fixed in the general case?
Reporting what is "true," and not just popular. I doubt it. Some things are
clearly not true, but what is true? That's the biggest AI problem ever.

------
mattnewton
This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and google is working on it. I
can't see regulators doing a better job than they are, honestly.

~~~
draugadrotten
> _I can 't see regulators doing a better job than they are, honestly._

The idea isn't that regulators should do a better job and be closer to the
truth, but rather that regulators want full control.

The narrative is that there are "bad search results" and it is also assumed
that there are Good(TM) search results that only a select group of Good(TM)
individuals appointed by the True Power can ensure you get them.

The "False news" narrative is another example of this direction, where the
narrative also assumes that there are "True news" and that a select group of
prie...aum, Good(TM) people can guarantee that you get the Truth and nothing
but the Truth.

------
phozy
I'm still distracted at why she thinks the world is getting worse? I know the
populist movement started around 2014 is picking up momentum, but we are
solving more problems. The world is moving forward connecting people online,
feeding more people than ever, and supplying a larger quantity of goods and
services, than previously.

------
aarbor989
Lol at the author saying a leading expert on Google search is someone who
doesn't even work at Google.

------
inlined
I wonder if the solution could just be removing the answer box for questions
with very conflicting answers. The system is harder to game if the user is
stuck doing a bit of research.

------
Joeboy
Also Googling "Did the Gulf War take place" brings up links about
Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place.

------
xupybd
"The right is on the rise"

So now "The right" means racist?

Just because these horrible people fall into the general category of the
right, I don't think it's fair to paint this as typical of people who also
fall on the right. Some of us just want small government and have conservative
social views. But are just as revolted by the Holocaust deniers as any one
else.

------
zython
shame on you for putting that clickbait title, for a split second I actually
thought that google's algorithm was broken

------
gorer
What would be the the only right result in your opinion Carole Cadwalladr?
Please post 10 links which Google should show to everyone to make your day.

------
sisndhdhriro
Give me a more asked answer to the question 'did the holocaust...' and I
will...

