
The Rise of Hate Search - pmcpinto
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-hate-search.html
======
slavik81
> A search for “are all Muslims terrorists?” for example leaves little to the
> imagination about what the searcher really thinks. Searches for “I hate
> Muslims” are even clearer.

Is it _actually_ clear what the searcher thinks? I enter phrases I'm searching
for into Google. I don't just type my current thoughts in there to let Google
know.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Let's say that it makes it clear which way the person is leaning. You've
bought into nine tenths of the paradigm and are assuming its premises to
direct your questioning attention.

Despite being a bias this feels like nothing, because your beliefs about
reality are aligned with the paradigm. You can only feel the bias when your
beliefs are very much _not_ aligned with the paradigm.

"Are all white people racists?" You can feel that one, can't you?

~~~
rl3
> _Let 's say that it makes it clear which way the person is leaning._

Unless they're searching those phrases for a myriad of other reasons that have
nothing to do with that person being a racist. In which case, your argument
kind of falls apart.

> _" Are all white people racists?" You can feel that one, can't you?_

I'm not sure if that comment is more presumptuous than it is condescending, or
vice versa.

------
stinos
_A search for “are all Muslims terrorists?” for example leaves little to the
imagination about what the searcher really thinks_

Actually it does. I know I'm proably a minority, but I have typed such
questions into google (well, DDG to be fair) to find such topics on sites
likes skeptics.stackexchange.com or just when I'm bored and feel like reading
some of the huge crap which is out there on the internet.

~~~
V-2
If someone truly believes that all Muslims are terrorists, they aren't all
that likely to be searching for websites that question this point of view. I'm
not googling for "are all humans mammals?" etc.

------
jkot
> _In November, there were about 3,600 searches in the United States for “I
> hate Muslims” and about 2,400 for “kill Muslims.”_

It is sad that NY Times had turned into yet another "news generator".

~~~
mahouse
I wonder if you know the same NYT that I know, because they have been shitty
for years now.

------
okasaki
> While hate searches were about 20 percent of all top searches about Muslims
> before the attack, more than half of all search volume about Muslims became
> hateful in the hours that followed it.

> The search data also tells us that changes in Americans’ policy concerns
> have been dramatic. They happened, quite literally, within minutes of the
> terror attacks.

I don't know how they got this "within hours" and "literally, within minutes"
data, when they previously say the data was weekly

> Yes. Using weekly data from 2004 to 2013, we found a direct correlation
> between anti-Muslim searches and anti-Muslim hate crimes.

~~~
golergka
They didn't say that they have access _only_ to weekly data. But using week as
a period to draw correlation between crimes and searches makes much more sense
than trying to make this correlation on a minute-per-minute basis.

------
xupybd
I can't help but wonder if this is the aim of groups like ISIS, to drive a
wedge between Muslims in the west and the non Muslims. It certainly would help
them recruit. Also I'm not sure if Google searches are the best indicator,
perhaps trumps support after suggesting banning Muslims is a stronger
indicator.

~~~
HaseebR7
That is exactly what ISIS wants Westerners to do.

[http://www.thenation.com/article/assault-on-
life/](http://www.thenation.com/article/assault-on-life/)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-marshall/want-to-
help-i...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-marshall/want-to-help-isis-
hate-a-_b_8584142.html)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16/the-
islamic-state-wants-you-to-hate-refugees/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/17/isis-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/17/isis-
wants-you-to-hate-muslims/)

~~~
acqq
What exactly ISIS actually wants:

[http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/597254/ISIS-Map-Europe-
Terr...](http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/597254/ISIS-Map-Europe-Terror-
Organisation-Andrew-Hosken-Caliphate-Abu-Musab-al-Zarqawi)

------
rl3
> _There are about 1,600 searches for “I hate my boss” every month in the
> United States._

That sounds far too low. Since most people don't search like that, I'd imagine
"hate boss" probably has a far higher amount, with the collective tally for
queries that have near-identical semantics being astronomical.

------
brianjoseff
I wonder why Google has become a sort of window into the hidden recesses of
the public mind. It's a search box, built to return relevant web pages, but it
seems people use it as a repository for unfiltered thoughts as well. Perhaps
because the search box is a totally dispassionate, nonjudgemental listener.
And it even responds! It serves up links that it thinks are relevant to what
we say to it. It's like the stuffed teddy bears we confided in as
children...but algorithmically powered, antiseptic white, and it talks back to
us...albeit in a garbled speech comprised entirely of links and ads.

------
V-2
No science like social science based on google search statistics and
correlation ; ) And what would you make of that?
[https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=i%20hate%20jews%2C%2...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=i%20hate%20jews%2C%20i%20hate%20muslims%2C%20i%20hate%20white%20people&date=1%2F2010%2061m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1)
I would also recommend [http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-
correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)

~~~
acqq
Better: proof that hate against Muslims doesn't increase in comparison with
the raise of ISIS:

[https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=ISIS%2C%20i%20hate%2...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=ISIS%2C%20i%20hate%20muslims)

------
coldtea
> _People often have vicious thoughts. Sometimes they share them on Google. Do
> these thoughts matter? Yes. Using weekly data from 2004 to 2013, we found a
> direct correlation between anti-Muslim searches and anti-Muslim hate
> crimes._

I hate it that we're so spineless to venture an actual judgment without the
support of some "study" or "statistic" stating the obvious.

Of course tons of people searching for "kill Muslim" matters.

In fact, it would matter even if it wasn't correlated with increase with hate
crimes (though, of course, it obviously is).

~~~
V-2
Correlation is not causation though, so it could be the other way round:
reported anti-Muslim crimes lead to a spike of interest in the subject, not
necessarily the other way round. Or both are caused by a third factor (say,
Boston bombings), but don't affect eachother directly.

~~~
coldtea
> _Correlation is not causation though, so it could be the other way round:
> reported anti-Muslim crimes lead to a spike of interest in the subject, not
> necessarily the other way round._

Yeah, but my point is we could just use mere prior knowledge of how the world
works to rule that out. I wouldn't expect many people to be typing "kill
muslims" in order find muslim related hate-crime reports, especially in the
aftermath of an terrorist attack attributed to muslims (and I wouldn't expect
reality to be counter-intuitive to such an expectation either).

~~~
V-2
But "wouldn't expect" isn't really _knowledge_ , is it? It's just a
presumption. It may or may not be valid. It could be based on a false premise,
too. Apart from searching for hate-crime reports, there are many other
possible reasons why someone would be googling for "kill muslims" that don't
assume hateful emotional involvement. Curiosity, boredom; having read about a
rise of anti-muslim comments. In what proportion? I don't know, and I don't
claim to know, and if someone claims they do, I'm really sceptical about it.
That's why I see these findings as rather useless. Too many unknowns for
drawing conclusions.

~~~
coldtea
> _But "wouldn't expect" isn't really knowledge, is it? It's just a
> presumption._

Yes, and my point is that presumption is enough in lots of cases -- and
especially enough to be sure that "kill muslims" as a search term shows
negative "emotional involvement" and not a desire to find out about muslim
hate crimes...

~~~
V-2
Well, it's still not based on anything, which is why I remained unconcinved.
Let's agree to disagree.

------
seren
Really interesting to see that a political speech has a direct and measurable
effect.

Maybe the future of poll is a kind of a global real time sentiment analysis.
Imagine someone delivering a speech or participating in a political debate and
having a feedback in real time.

~~~
coldtea
> _Maybe the future of poll is a kind of a global real time sentiment
> analysis. Imagine someone delivering a speech or participating in a
> political debate and having a feedback in real time._

PR companies for politicians etc have been doing these sort of things (with
Twitter etc) for several years...

------
leni536
What could be actually interesting how it affects Google's suggestions. Now if
I type "are all muslim" into google then it gives two suggestions:

> are all muslim extremists

> are all muslim marriages arranged

There was a pretty bad "accidentally" racist search correction of Google. If
you searched "white people stole my car" it responded with "Did you mean:
_black_ people stole my car". Apparently they fixed it by now.

------
compbio
Absolute and utter FUD article, with zero basis in science and all the
markings of another self-fulfilling social research trick.

Of to Google "Are all The New York Times articles shitty journalism?" Our
research shows that in the months after these searches, the number of shitty
articles on The New York Times seems to rise. We know this before the FBI does
so, because we wield the power of Google Trends.

