Google shows users what other users like, and most of Google's current users favor a small number of major outlets.
I can appreciate that you may love RC Cola. But it shouldn't surprise you that most gas stations mostly stock Coke and Pepsi products.
If you think gas stations need to be more "fair" about which pop they sell, then I'd love to hear you explain how you think that should be done.
Section 230 , which in theory was supposed to protect free speech, is actually doing the opposite and giving Google and other major media companies the power to censor free speech and decide what you can see or not.
I'm sure the gas station would be held liable if RC Cola made their customers sick and they kept selling it.
Google is not liable for anything they publish/display, but still have the power to choose what they publish/display.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Choosing how to respond to a query string is the very nature of what a search engine does. It's utterly impossible to have one without the other. The more charitable interpretation of your argument is that there should be more "neutrality" in the algorithm, but that's also difficult... Should they be neutral to whether or not people are trying to manipulate algorithms with dishonest SEO? Should they be neutral to what other users like? Neutral to who else links to the page? Who decides which neutrality prevails where they conflict? Who decides if a certain kind of neutrality is more important than user preferences or market demands?
This is a rabbit hole of mutually exclusive goals and inevitable trade-offs that requires complex judgment. Government regulation in this area would be extremely difficult and troublesome, not just for economic reasons but also for first amendment ones. Free market competition in this area is going to be limited due to economies of scale, so that isn't perfect either.
And if you think that imposing traditional publisher liability for search engines is likely to make search engines censor _less_, you might want to think a few steps further down the strategic consequences.
I'm not proposing that we have a "fair" algorithm. I think two simple actions would suffice:
1) Google (and other platforms) should stop removing content from people they do not agree with in their platforms.
2) They also should publicize why one result was chosen over the other. That would give users the necessary information to decide if Google is biased or not. Everyone would make decisions based on publicly available information.
That alone would make things way more transparent and level the playing field a bit.
Unless Google doesn't want that. If that's the case, them they are a publisher and not a platform.
There are no politics baked in.
Google news will display what its users want to see.
Your issue is not with Google News. Your issue is with the users of Google news.
> They also should publicize why one result was chosen over the other.
Seems like this would make it much easier for the SEO spam sites to manipulate.
I believe it's factual to say that significantly more "conservative-related" accounts are banned than liberal ones? Is that because "they don't agree with" the conservatives more than the liberals? I dunno.
I can probably find a lot more, but I guess this is enough to make the point, right?
> Unless Google doesn't want that. If that's the case, them they are a publisher and not a platform.
Would you rather fight spammers and keep free-speech alive or give it up over to Google and other platforms?
I know where I stand.
Spam is a form of censorship. Too much of it and it becomes a denial of service attack that makes publishing impossible.
Let's say you claim you have free speech, because you can go into any park, stand on a soapbox, and give a speech. Only, I have blanketed every major park with loud speakers that overwhelm what you say with noise, or GPT-2 generated fake speeches run through WaveNet.
I used to believe that 'the solution to bad speech is just more speech', but this was a naive pre-mass internet view of how speech and publishing works. In a word where robots can literally saturate every one of your media channels, spam up your email, your phone with robo calls, your text messages, the idea of these platform providers NOT filtering and censoring is itself a form of assault on free speech and public conversation in the town square.
What you described is a real problem and I believe that’s the problem we have to solve.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure that situations like the one you described where free speech is negated are already addressed on the law. So spammers would be treated by it.
In that case, platforms would work to identify the sources and work with the justice department to prevent specific actors from performing crimes such as spamming and DDOSing.
This would be fine, in my opinion, because now everybody would be working against known criminals with specific and objective criteria as to why they should be “deplatformed”.
However, what Google is doing today is removing or de-prioritizing content that diverge from its opinion without any recourse for the person affected because they are not treated as publishers and THAT is not okay.
Alex Jones, for example, can run his own video hosting site if he wants. He's rich and could surely hire someone to build a site one on of the cloud providers, it's getting cheaper everyday. A big chunk of the HN audience could probably build it in a few weeks sprint on AWS on the cheap.
The whole point of the internet is that anyone can run a server on it. He is not entitled to publish from YouTube. And in fact, the argument that he has a right to be heard on there is only strengthening Google's monopoly and centralizing the internet by arguing almost the only way to host video, and exposing him to risk of deplatforming.
If you were a regular writer for say, the New York Times, or Readers Digest, or the Wall Street Journal, and had a huge audience, you had the same risk of sudden deprioritizing and deplatforming if the editor decided you were toxic. You don't have a right to free speech and free audience on private media platforms.
And let's be frank, what the tech companies are doing is responding to the public pressure, because the vast majority of people object to the content that's being deplatformed, and their advertisers object to advertising on platforms where most of the customers object to the content being associated with the product. A small percentage of angry political zealots on the extremes of both political wings are turning themselves into "victims".
The internet and web is the real public square here, the real printing press, NOT YouTube, Facebook, et al. And just like decades ago, if you found yourself unpopular and couldn't get your fringe magazine distributed on the shelves of major book stores, you'd self publish and self distribute to build your audience.
We need to get back to the way the internet used to be anyway. More people need to run their own websites.
What also makes sense for a private company and, in this case, a publishing company is that they are liable for what they publish.
That means that people can take action in the justice system if they think a contract was broken or any sort of harm was made.
Unfortunately, that is not the case with these platforms. You can't take action against them because they are not categorized as publishers, but as platforms instead which do not make them liable for things that they would otherwise be.
Make Google, Facebook and other "platforms" into publishers and this problem is solved.
I know downvoting is a tool that is available to us, but it really strikes me when someone is willing to cast a "negative" vote anonymously and most likely with no fundamentals attached to it instead of engaging in a respectful argument where all opinions are presented.
You can ask, beg, threaten, whatever all you want to for people to be objective and measured and to follow the stated principles, but people will simply vote you into invisibility simply because they have a knee-jerk, primate-brain reaction to the ideas being posted. This is not a problem that can be solved, here, or anywhere else.
It's a human problem, not a tech problem.
On that note, it's best to never complain about being downvoted. It only attracts more downvotes.
If you look into my comments, you will see that most of them are downvoted simply because I differ from the main opinion of the demographics.
While it makes me a little sad to see an unjustified downvote I think that in the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter.
I'll keep voicing my opinion, for as long as I can even if that means I'm going to be downvoted. Ah, that includes "complaining" about downvotes as well just to fulfill the profecy ehehehe.
The notion that you're somehow victim of a political bias is not well supported. You're essentially shouting, "Debate me you cowards" and that's why you're going to get downvoted more.
As a courtesy to you, I will explain that it's extremely likely you're being downloaded because your argument is essentially (although perhaps unwittingly? who can say!) an argument to censor all tech companies as publishers. This is an argument to use the government to compel conservative speech on private industry, while at the same time not once asking questions like, "Should we then force 20 minutes of Marxist/Leninist or Anarchist (or even just a scientist calmly explaining the reality of climate change) content onto Alex Jones's or Rush Limbaugh's show?
Indeed, throughout the course of this argument you're simultaneously arguing that Alex Jones should have unlimited speech but if Google does the same thing (highlighting what they consider to be reputable 3rd parties) they should be treated as a "publisher" and subject to fairness doctrine and stripped of safe harbor.
That's an awful idea. But what's more, it's patently obvious that you're arguing a double standard to anyone who is not eagerly to use the State's authority as a literal-and-figurative club even as the State itself skirts freedom of speech laws. And as such, it's likely folks are reading your argument, assuming it's offered disingenuously, and hitting downvote.
Here’s my point of view. The purpose of discussion, I believe, is to convince people of a given point of view.
That is done through rational and logical debate.
So when you say that I’m inviting people for a debate I have to agree. After all, isn’t that the purpose of a public forum?
If we can’t go deep and have meaningful discussions what’s the point?
Just do some virtue signaling and bash whoever is the person we are bashing this time?
When I invite argumentation I’m honestly looking for people to present arguments that can convince me. I’m open to be convinced, just not by empty argumentation and fallacies. What I’m getting, instead, is downvoting which reinforce the bias you said I have. Right?
Also, you mention that what I’m proposing it’s an awful idea with no counter argumentation. Is this how we suppose to convince people now? Especially the ones on the other side of the isle?
I used to do that too, but then, through argumentation I was thought that it is not how it should be done and in the journey I was able to help some other people to see that too and I’m proud of it.
I think that as long as there is respect we all can have a discussion and learn from each other so for whoever reads this and see any of my comments in future threads, please know that all my positions and arguments are made in good faith and only have the goal to promote intellectual challenging.
Lastly, I have not defended Alex Jones in any comment I made. To be honest, I read and hear a lot about him but I have no idea what his thoughts are. I’m just pointing out the fact that people are being “deplatformized” arbitrarily and I don’t agree with that.
This is what you'd like from this forum. Actually, political debates are not what I'm here for even though I participate sometimes.
> If we can’t go deep and have meaningful discussions what’s the point?
You're not really entitled to a sympathetic audience here. Nor is it necessarily obvious that you're debating.
> Just do some virtue signaling and bash whoever is the person we are bashing this time?
If you're mad that humans tend to influence one another, why are you here? Does it not infuriate you?
And what is virtue signaling if not this very post you've written, trying to appeal to a Hitchens-ian notion that only through debate of your style and terms can we reach truth. You're constantly reminding people of the importance of debating you foe the sake of the public forum and talking about "profecy" that no coward dares to debate you. Is that not itself a kind of virtue signaling?
> I’m just pointing out the fact that people are being “deplatformized” arbitrarily and I don’t agree with that.
The guy literally went to court, swore and oath to tell the truth, and told the court his entire show was an act to sell soy supplements. He's not news, he's not a content creator, he's a weird surrealist advertiser of postmodernist medical products. Advertisers don't get free rides, they have to pay.
Just as a datapoint, I just googled "Alex Jones" about 5 minutes after your comment and his Infowars website is prominently shown on page 1 as the 3rd result.
I don't have a Facebook account but it doesn't look like Google Search in particular has deplatformed Alex Jones.
(To the downvoters, this thread's topic is the Columbia Journalism Review story and it's about referrals from Google Search and not Youtube. The comment by liara_k is also specifically about the Google search engine and that's what tucaz was replying to. If my screenshot of Google search engine results does not contribute to the discussion, please explain why.)
Attempting to co-opt that for "free speech" by injecting stories onto their pages that are more agreeable to a "balanced" interpretation is not a free speech approach.
What's more, many of the headline proposals in this article text (e.g., Kaepernick and Tax Reform) are tough to give the rightward view on without facing direct misinformation, because the politicians on the right have engaged very directly in misinformation about taxes and deliberately tried to intimidate free speech in atheletes (above and beyond what influence the average American has). Saying that any news outlet should make a special exemption for calling these out to be "balanced" is to propose that telling the truth is a liberal approach, and I find that idea pretty repugnant on it's face for a variety of reasons (not the least of which being that it gives way too much credit to the center left of America).
As for Alex Jones, I don't know how many brazen and horrifying lies you need to literally go to court and plead that you're a comedy show for before you lose the right to use the veil of serving the public interest. Is a transparent desire to lie with the intent to deceive not a DQ for being a "journalist" now? At what point DO we say, "You do you, Alex, but we're not a part of this anymore?" And if Alex gets that privilege, are you going to fall over yourself to similarly defend the Democratic Socialists of America and antifa actions? I suspect for most people that is a "No."
> Would you rather fight spammers and keep free-speech alive or give it up over to Google and other platforms?
You appear to be mixing search and youtube. If I search for Alex Jones, the second hit is infowars. First is wikipedia.
Just to see for myself, I picked a search that should churn up a guy that they might find irritating and did 10 seconds of anecdotal research.
Search was 'vox day blog'.
Google, Yandex, Startpage return his blog as the first entry (perhaps after an ad).
Goduckgo it was the sixth entry.
Bing, it never showed up. I got bored after the first dozen pages.
What exactly does this prove? Not being a web/seach engine guy I don't know.
What I'd like to find is a search engine for which I could build a great big list of curated sites with zero results from others. I tend to look up the same things a lot and after a year or two of additions it might be a really nice thing to have.
Thus if you have more examples, I would be interested.
They are not two separate things. Google enjoys the status of a platform in all of its products.
The links I provided talk about YouTube and other platforms and demonstrate how they act as a publisher and not as a platform and the submitted article demonstrates how search results are skewed towards a direction.
Can you please point where my argument is flawed?
> You might be worried that, because of deplatforming, the remaining sites and writers and YouTube posters have to “walk the line” more than ideally would be the case. That to me is a genuine concern, but still let’s be comparative. Did you ever try to crack the New York publishing scene in the 1990s, or submit an Op-Ed to the New York Times before the internet was “a thing”? Now that was deplatforming, and most of it was due to the size of the slush pile rather than to evil intentions, though undoubtedly there was bias in both settings.
What do you think was happening before?
Before humans figured out agriculture, people regularly starved. Would you walk up to someone starving to death today, shrug at them, and say "we used to starve all the time"? Your position is inheritly anti-progress.
Hardly any conservative sites make the cut - Fox News is 10th, but the Drudge Report is 23rd and the NY Post is 26th.
Meanwhile, CNN is third, trailing only Google News and Reddit. NYTimes is 4th, WaPo 11th, Bloomberg 17th and USAToday. Meanwhile, 222,000+ sites link to the NYT. Fox News has just 52,000.
Google’s algorithm lets the Internet vote on which news sources it trusts the most. As it turns out, very few right wing sites make the cut.
Perhaps not the biggest surprise, as right now, according to Breitbart, the biggest story in the entire world right now isn't Zuck, isn't Trade Wars with China, it isn't even Julian Assange, it's that Jussie Smollett's 'Empire' just got cancelled.
That said, the obvious counter-point to your point is that conservative sources are ranked lower because they are intentionally deprioritized by platforms like Google and Alexa. I'm not sure that I believe that, but the current state of affairs is not always self justifying.
In fairness the China back/forth is static quo for the Trump era, the fact the Sweden reopening is just nonsense fake politic showboating. Empire being cancelled is really interesting and speaks to something deeper / culturally important. The: you must believe everything that comes out of my mouth because I identify as these groups who have historically been oppressed narrative has changed. People who normally would be afraid to question his story have started to. The change happened after the Saturday night live bit a few weeks ago. His responses put in that context made his side so absurd his supporters couldn't defend him.
Right, but clearly not so much that Fox et al aren't running under 25% of more respected outlets numbers. If it had have changed that much, the vast majority of people wouldn't be flocking towards the latest micro update in a macro story that by and large hadn't changed in weeks over the latest update on a culture wars proxy story.
You are not required to present all of the information on your platform at once in order to be considered a platform. Indeed, it is generally accepted that platforms, by their very nature, are not able to do so.
Censorship can come from anyone and anywhere. Especially when a private company like Google has more power that many governments in the world. Google could even be considered an un-elected government depending on how you look at it.
What they are doing by de-platforming people is censorship.
They offer no clue as to how their algorithm works or why some people get up on the list while others don't.
While they could theoretically show all 1,690,000,000 results, we know for a fact that just the first or second page at tops is what matters. So, in all practicality, the other results do not exist.
If the other results do not exist, then they are a publisher and should be treated as such since they pick the winners and losers.
If there's nothing wrong with what they are doing, what's the problem of calling then a publisher? Why not embrace it and take full responsibility?
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
If I have a blog, and I ban someone from commenting, I don't lose my 230 protections. Even though I've 'de-platformed' someone from my blog. Google is no different than a blog, just scaled up.
He is saying that any hit not on the first two pages of google's search results, doesn't exist, and is therefore being deplatformed?
That's a ludicrous position. Those hits do very much exist, and google will display to you each result in turn hoping you find something to click on. If his argument is taken at face value, the vast majority of hits, on every search term, for every user, is being deplatformed. That's just not the case. You can't really say you're being deplatformed, because you're not on the first page.
When I refer to deplatforming I’m talking about users and opinions being banned from the plaftorms (YouTube, Twitter, FB, etc).
When I’m referring to search engine results what I’m saying is that Google is promoting a few selected sites over others based on a undisclosed criteria. The undisclosed criteria here is what makes a world of difference.
By not making it clear they are picking winners and that should not happen.
Just because a problem is hard to solve it doesn’t mean that an authoritarian solution is acceptable.
It seems like you don't agree. Maybe you could make the case about the reason you don't agree and we can go from there.
Just on a technical basis, no, it won't: https://www.google.com/search?q=testing&start=1090: "Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 1090.)"
Arguments based on that are therefore void.
To nitpick: no it's not. Government censorship is worse than other forms because the state is an entrenched, nearly irreplaceable power structure with lots of inertia, but that doesn't mean non-state censorship is perfectly fine.
Any platform that curates content is censoring. Sometimes that's fine (illegal content), and sometimes it's just not acceptable.
"I see you edited our software in violation of the DMCA, the police will arrive shortly"
They are not a public service.
Everyone needs to get from point A to point B and roads are a key way that we accomplish that.
In a similar vein, everyone needs to search for information and search engines are a key way that we accomplish that.
With Google, it's almost like one company owns 90% of the roads. On multiple continents.
It is sort of like a utility company, except way beyond that.
I personally think that platforms with this scope should be built on public, open, decentralized protocols and networks. Something like YaCy might be the right direction.
Then maybe we could have companies built on top of that platform to add value. But the core functioning of the platform would be auditable.
That's already true - consider a site like Reddit and the perceptions of /r/politics compared to /r/the_donald or the insulated bubble you can easily find yourself in on YouTube if you follow the recommended videos rabbit hole. The bubbles can, and already do, exist on the same platform.
2 - Claiming that google influences people to search for "FOX", or "CNN" is as ludicrous as claiming that google is influencing people into searching for "how to kill blacks", or "how to make bombs". My own suspicion is that people decide what they're going to search for long before they come to google. It's certainly not google influencing people to type in certain terms on its famously empty homepage.
I don't believe this is simply an effect of giving the crowds what they want.
- Blocked sources: https://news.google.com/settings/feedback
- Favorite sources: https://news.google.com/my/library
What I have noticed is that the filters don't seem to apply if you click on "Full Coverage" of a topic anymore (via the little icon with the colorful rectangles), perhaps in response to those echo chamber complaints.
Google and the rest are pretty much the same.
Returning to the soft drinks analogy, why don't they sell RC Cola?
They buy cola by the crate and there is a better margin selling a case of the presumably more expensive crate of Coca Cola.
If RC Cola retails at 50c and Coke retails at $1 then they are not going to stock RC Cola. The supermarket are in a different situation, they are selling multi-packs and they have their own brand stuff, the RC Cola and the real Coke product for their customers, Coke having the best shelf.
If the gas station had demand from customers for RC Cola then they could stock it. However, 50c of revenue would be walking out the door with every sale of a cola-style beverage. Even if RC Cola have better margins when buying at trade that 50c difference is a big one.
The supermarket can increase footfall by offering RC Cola at a competitive price, people coming in for it might buy other stuff where the real money is made.
With the gas station a reduced price RC Cola offering is not going to increase footfall. Plus gas only has slim margins to it there is no elasticity there. The beverage and candy options are therefore really important for profit. Hence only certain products can be sold, the business cannot afford to stock anything that gets sub-par revenue or put that tap there for people to obtain limitless quantities of wholesome tap water.
If you think gas stations need to be more "fair" about which pop they sell
Not a good analogy. With social media and the desire to exert control over what's trending, it's more like, in the earlier days of 5 Hour Energy, when sales were growing rapidly, gas stations and convenience stores refused to try it out for reasons beyond sales. In reality, they're fairly enthusiastic about trying such things out. In reality, the space next to the register is fairly market driven.
“Getting it next to the register isn’t hard. Keeping it there? Very hard. Anything that sells, the stores will try. To own that space is really hard.”
Sometimes I see the entire pantheon of legacy media news channels on YouTube presented to me, when it should be obvious that I never click on those links. Funny that.
It’s like when Facebook or Instagram only shows me certain posts, and I react to those posts because they’re all I am presented with. Then, their logic is that I just love posts like that, and it’s all they should show in the future.
This provides data about what the gas station is stocking, but we do not have data about what Google's current users favor. It may well be that the users do prefer RC Cola.
And setting aside user preferences, the gas station doesn't stock what people want to buy. They stock what will make the most profit. The users may want RC Cola, but by refusing to stock it they may be able to force users into buying their higher-profit-margin Coke.
Well seeing that for every product Apple sells or give away, there are competing products in the App Store, there is an existence proof that this isn’t true....
Apple Pay - there are plenty of QR code based pay apps on the store
AirDrop - any one can write a share sheet extension to duplicate the functionality.
Phone app - there has been a voip API that let third party apps integrate with the native phone screen forever. Hopefully you don’t consider third party apps being able to intercept phone calls a “feature”? How many security issues have arisen because of that on Android?
AppleTV - you mean a remote app? Streaming from your phone - the Roku app lets you stream video from your phone and Apple just announced third party AirPlay integration.
SMS App- Google Voice. If you mean allowing third parties to intercept your native SMS phone messages, that has been one of the many security nightmares on Android.
Also “as far as the App Store itself”, the original poster said that there are no products “in the App Store”. Are you expecting Apple to sell an App Store within the App Store?
How are people supposed to know about these products/services if Google is showing what people already like? i.e. incumbents. They are forced to buy ads!
This is just one example why it's so important to show "neutral" results to everyone. The good news is that politicians like Warren understand these issues. Regulation and possibly break-ups are coming.
As shown in Manufacturing Consent governments and powerful organizations can get the effect of censorship by manipulating visibility. A social climate where virality essentially belongs to just one political faction is dangerous. It would be the 1950's equivalent of only Republicans getting to appear on TV and radio.
i.e. What search engines like DuckDuckGo do.
That idea is probably at the core of all modern Search Engines (including DDG).
Thus, all modern Search Engines (including DDG) are almost certainly based upon user activity. That being the users who build web pages and links to them.
That's the problem with Google and I think we're too far down this path for them to fix it. We've been watching this slow walk to where they are for a long time and I think people have just become to used to it to notice how insidious the situation has become.
If Google was simply a provider of information then the answer would be that those are one and the same. But they obviously are not. One conflict that already provides an irreconcilable conflict of interest is the fact that they are primarily an advertising company - and the world's largest one at that. There are countless other issues that could also be brought up to emphasize conflicts of interest, but that's not really necessary. That their primary business is selling advertisements creates too large of a conflict of interest to ever expect "customized" search results to be anything but manipulative.
In fact, if they find out that you've ever endorsed RC Cola anywhere ever, you can't get gas.
Google presenting particular results influences users.
Pretending that Google is merely passively reflecting user preferences rather than actively shaping them makes no sense.
We are where we are, because most users have gotten us there.
> Pretending that Google is merely passively reflecting user preferences rather than actively shaping them makes no sense.
It has content and advertising just like a gas station does.
It's a market. Literally, it's a market.
Except that the NYT and Safeway don’t pretend that their product isn’t the result of curation.
There is nothing ‘organic’ about organic search results.
But I agree that there are comparisons with a Gas station.
A gas station is there for one reason - to sell you what the owners find profitable. What is sold and what is displayed are chosen for that reason only.
Google is exactly like this.
What it is not, is a responsible organizer of the world’s information or a search service, or in any way responsible to the interests of searchers unless they align with the interests of advertisers.
A) Information is not Soda, it's not an arbitrary choice
B) Soda is also a physical distribution business - Coke and Pepsi dominate physical distribution, shelf space etc. - these problems don't really exist in news, or rather, in totally different ways.
So - 1) they are different kinds of 'products' in terms of their civil relation (i.e. we don't care about gossip information), and 2) the businesses are actually different.
With what level of certainty do we actually know this? Sounds like an assumption to me.
There are people who like cable news web sites, and search for them on Google.
Let's say for instance that 2/3 of the people who search for news on Google are people who like cable news web sites. Then, by a ratio of almost 2 to 1, cable news web sites will be favored.
Rephrased: Perhaps people are actively consuming CNN through the Google searches on the web, and people are passively consuming Fox through cable.
Not that it's strong evidence, but consider: "According to Nielsen ratings, the median age of Fox’s audience was 66 in 2016."  
Some people come to Google, and go past the Fox News result, and seem happy with the CNN result, or NYT, or WP, so Google thinks they're awesome.
And if Fox News viewers think Google is biased, and then avoid Google, then Google will become more biased. It's a vicious cycle, or virtuous cycle, depending on how you look at it.
I get where you're coming from, but if you're not a card-carrying progressive then this statement feels egregiously false. The Washington Post was at the forefront of the Covington debacle. NYT pushes editorials about how mixed race dating is bad (from a "woke" perspective), among other crazy, far-left ideology.
What gets me about this whole subject is that everyone I know who watches Fox News knows that they're watching partisan spin, even the elderly ones. It's kind of a theater of overblown, right wing outrage that they're willing participants in. Most people I know who watch CNN think that it's objective, which couldn't be further from the truth.
New flash: people aren't getting their news from TV as much as they used to. CNN's audience being mostly online would be a reflection of that.
... Consider this from yesterday, where one of the foremost experts on the field of transsexualism, a major contributor to the DSM-V was suspended from twitter  for explaining transsexualism.
If "the algorithm" is ready to block anyone for anything that could be offensive to one group but actively allows threats, doxxing, and attacks on another - you aren't talking about RC Cola vs Coke.
It's not at all unreasonable to say that Google and SV as a whole are clearly biased. We don't need more ways to make a bubble, and we certainly don't need Google deciding the narrative themselves. I think the analogy to physical sodas don't really hold up to digital delivery of news. Sodas range has a phsyical limitation, digital news does not, if sodas were a digital resource you would sometimes get to try RC Cola.
Try and consider how fast it could turn around on you. Cool, today you agree that coke and pepsi are better than RC Cola. What happens when RC Cola is politically tied to Google's fate and they push that instead?
I disagree with your assessment about "always". Frequently Google results are very anti-liberal as well.
I can find more examples if you like. YouTube suggests awful right-wing content ALL THE TIME.
The other article from 2017 doesn't give me the fake MLK result, so does that mean Google DID adjust their search results?
Should Google be manually currating results? Sometimes, but I think they've proven they don't draw the line exactly straight.
What would convince you that you were wrong?
Look at the examples given. One is Google doing nothing to "fix a problem" (http://www.joebiden.info) and the other demanding Google fix an issue which they seem to have done - as being anti-left. Google being agnostic and not protecting Joe Biden is not them being Anti-Left.
I will not be bullied into thinking that Google doing nothing is them being anti-left. I disagree with many of the conservatives Google that have been deplatformed, but I recognize how quickly that pendulum could swing.
I actively wanted to read some of the extreme right wing stuff. (I believe strongly that we do everyone a disservice by silencing people. It harms the rest of us by isolated us from anything not "mainstream" and it further pushes the silenced into radicalism and vindicates/bolsters their argument that they are mistreated). I literally could not find it on Google, but just moving over to Duck Duck Go I found what I was looking for right away.
To everyone down-voting the parent, try it yourself. Think about some polarizing political topic and plug it into Google and then do the exact same search in Duck Duck Go (and maybe Bing, I haven't tried that but I will). You'll be shocked at the difference.
I absolutely agree that being "silenced" and feeling "persecuted" only serves to make extreme views more extreme. But I'm also not sure the bias is only directed one way as many of the far-right pundits would have people believe.
I also use DDG and avoid all things google as much as I can but the other day I searched "atlas" on YouTube (looking for the Greek mythological figure) and stumbled across a clip from the movie "Atlas Shrugged." I had read the book in high school and I know it's a favorite among conservatives so I figured it couldn't hurt to watch so I did, without thinking much of it. When I went back to my YouTube homepage later the recommend videos were very different from any content I would ever seek out: Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, the Ayn Rand Institute, and even one called "Why Immigration is Bad for Britain." From watching one movie clip.
I think Google's algorithms, for better or for worse, can very quickly discern what content a user "wants" and filters out the rest. I'm the last person to have anything nice to say about Google but I do genuinely believe it's more a case of algorithms enforcing the unconscious bias/preferences of our brains than anyone at Google maliciously "silencing" certain points of view.
I do wonder if these are different problems tho. One could make a good case that they aren't, but I tend to think of search results as more neutral whereas video recommendations would be highly personalized. If I use the YouTube search box I'd expect similar results to everyone. But my expectations are based on nothing except my personal subjective sense of the way things ought to be.
Which was revoked as soon as a human got a look.
This happens all the time on Twitter. Here's a liberal Twitter user who got suspended for saying "you really wanna die on this hill huh", which the algorithm interpreted as a death threat.
The current AI state-of-the-art is extremely stupid, and once you get past that the first level of human review isn't much better - it's unrelentingly boring minimum wage work. Confirmation bias turns this random capriciousness into conspiracies.
What also happens all the time is that accounts from conservatives get banned, while people like Louis Farrakhan can be openly and virulently anti-Jew. Bruce Carroll gets banned for referring to Chelsea Manning as Bradley Manning. Apparently that's more terrible than comparing an entire race of people to termites as Farrakhan did.
Drinking Coke/Pepsi is probably worse than smoking short/long term.
I would say that's partly true. The other part comes from all the flack that Google receives when they include niche or non-mainstream sources (which admittedly are more sloppy or more biased in their reporting). And it is a valid question whether Breitbart articles should be displayed alongside results from CNN or NYTimes or WaPo for generic news queries.
It just tells me that Google controls what news that you are able to see and that they are not very objective.
edit: of course I am not talking about showing bad results on your prime screen real estate... just choosing the best results from more sources (which is what I thought this article was about).
Should Google start preferring some CS undergrad's uncited poorly-formatted blog instead of stackoverflow as well?
b) It's not an argument to suggest that Google should be carrying some random student news paper. As if Google can't tell the difference between 'The Burlington Vermont Times' and random noise.
And there are individual blogs which have higher quality / better reporting than some regional newspapers. Should those be included as well? Which ones?
Once you start making decisions like these, you are quickly getting into controversial territory. So I can see why Google prefers to abstain and say "it's all users, not our fault!"
I don't think it's 'aggregate users choice' they use, I think it's ultimately 'page rank' reputation at the core of it.
Also, I think if they were using 'user choice popularity' the news would be HuffPo, Buzzfeed, TMZ, Breitbart etc. - we on HN don't read this stuff but it's very, very popular stuff.
Consider that HuffPo for example is more popular that most news orgs on that list, and they do actually have a lot of in-house content ... so why are they not added? Clearly Google has made some kind of editorial choice.
This is not just regular search, it's news, so this becomes more important.
I don't think there is a way around having some kind of editorial opinion, so it should hopefully be transparent, maybe pliable, possibly even regulated.
Second, the criteria for 'reputability' is a great deal of what's at stake here.
Similarly, Google has a ~5" device with about 15-20 slots to fill in.
The actual cost of buying a fridge/extra slot is marginal, the issue is the attention of the consumer.
Now, if I am looking at the google new results, and I see results from bbc.co.uk and "Random Guy's News Site", which one am I going to click? I'd choose bbc.co.uk every time.
So they will be marked as "relevant" and will rise to the top, while "Random Guy's News Site" will be marked irrelevant and fall to the bottom of the list where no one will ever see it.
It's a very good analogy.
Unless someone comes up with a method of somehow listing all 18,000 or whatever entries on the front page, the algorithm has to choose which ones are most popular.
1) "Google shows users what other users like, most of Google's current users favour a small number of major outlets"
This is only partly true, and we have no evidence of it. Google can do whatever they want their results and there are surely other factors. What are they? Why do they exist? etc.. There's room for all sorts of bias in there.
Also, I suggest it's actually not really true either: 'What people want' is BuzzFeed, HuffPo, Breitbart and TMZ. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the world. 'Most people' read that stuff. They want to know what Kim Kardashian thinks about it.
2) "But it shouldn't surprise you that most gas stations mostly stock Coke and Pepsi products."
This is a physical inventory and shelf space problem, google really doesn't have this so much: results can be tailored, represented in different ways, possibly randomized etc..
This situation is a great case for how systematic biases etc. are reinforced.