4 ms·

I would generally agree with you except for the fact that Google - through both algorithms and manual tweaking - determines what most people see on a daily basi

I would generally agree with you except for the fact that Google - through both algorithms and manual tweaking - determines what most people see on a daily basis. If Google is a monoculture and yet allows or even encourages dissenting opinion and discussion, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Alternatively, if Google is a monoculture and forces that monoculture on its visitors and users, then any out/other group is going to suffer and potentially not even realize it. And it turns out that the subtle manipulation is incredibly effective: > "We predicted that our manipulation would produce a very small effect, if any, but that’s not what we found. On average, we were able to shift the proportion of people favouring any given candidate by more than 20 per cent overall and more than 60 per cent in some demographic groups. Even more disturbing, 99.5 per cent of our participants showed no awareness that they were viewing biased search rankings – in other words, that they were being manipulated." Ref: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...

khazhoux 9y ago
> If Google is a monoculture and yet allows or even encourages dissenting opinion and discussion, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Alternatively, if Google is a monoculture and forces that monoculture on its visitors and users, then any out/other group is going to suffer and potentially not even realize it. I understand there's an issue of trust, however every Googler will tell you that impartiality of search results is an overriding priority.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  Except that the impartiality of a biased monoculture made up of human beings will not actually be impartial. But it strongly believe that it is impartial and be resistant to any change.
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    You can strike of "biased mono" and your statement is more generally true. The impartiality of Google search results is always going to be in question so long as there are humans in the loop. But... this has been recognized by Google's search team since day 1. It's not a new problem. Diversity issues did not suddenly introduce the question of bias into Google's search quality team. Though perhaps it's the first time many people outside Google have recognized the issue of potential bias.
- jboggan 9y ago
  Search results by definition are quite biased - it's returning an ordered list not an unordered set. Googlers' personal biases can and do enter into those results, often in a subtle way where they feel they are being (from their perspective) unbiased. It's an automated system but it's still written by subjective humans. I agree that every Googler will tell you that impartiality of search results is an overriding priority. It's the crucial tenet underpinning the entire edifice.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    Yes. If Google ever didn't say this, they'd be ruined by users trying to assert their independence and regulators riding the wave of public resentment. We have created a culture that depends heavily on certain implicit subtleties. Calling these out as invalid will make you a pariah. Using them to your advantage will make you powerful.
- rhizome 9y ago
  What if "every Googler" shares the same blind spots? Even if only one blind spot is shared, how does that allow them to root it out? What processes does Google use to gauge impartiality? Any?
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  And you believe them? More that 50% of the population will tell you that they are good drivers, which is statistically impossible. Would you believe them as well?
  - scottmf 9y ago
    Why is it statistically impossible for 50% of drivers to be good?
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > More that 50% was supposed to be "more than 50%"
mcguire 9y ago
As an aside,... "...allows or even encourages dissenting opinion and discussion..." ...framing the discussion here as regarding dissenting opinions after some of what has been reported... "...Google employees who opposed Mr. Damore found their internal company profile pictures posted on Breitbart, the Verge reported." ...begins to look a bit threadbare. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall-meeting-canceled-online-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall...

khazhoux 9y ago

> If Google is a monoculture and yet allows or even encourages dissenting opinion and discussion, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Alternatively, if Google is a monoculture and forces that monoculture on its visitors and users, then any out/other group is going to suffer and potentially not even realize it. I understand there's an issue of trust, however every Googler will tell you that impartiality of search results is an overriding priority.

freshhawk 9y ago
Except that the impartiality of a biased monoculture made up of human beings will not actually be impartial. But it strongly believe that it is impartial and be resistant to any change.
- khazhoux 9y ago
  You can strike of "biased mono" and your statement is more generally true. The impartiality of Google search results is always going to be in question so long as there are humans in the loop. But... this has been recognized by Google's search team since day 1. It's not a new problem. Diversity issues did not suddenly introduce the question of bias into Google's search quality team. Though perhaps it's the first time many people outside Google have recognized the issue of potential bias.
jboggan 9y ago
Search results by definition are quite biased - it's returning an ordered list not an unordered set. Googlers' personal biases can and do enter into those results, often in a subtle way where they feel they are being (from their perspective) unbiased. It's an automated system but it's still written by subjective humans. I agree that every Googler will tell you that impartiality of search results is an overriding priority. It's the crucial tenet underpinning the entire edifice.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Yes. If Google ever didn't say this, they'd be ruined by users trying to assert their independence and regulators riding the wave of public resentment. We have created a culture that depends heavily on certain implicit subtleties. Calling these out as invalid will make you a pariah. Using them to your advantage will make you powerful.
rhizome 9y ago
What if "every Googler" shares the same blind spots? Even if only one blind spot is shared, how does that allow them to root it out? What processes does Google use to gauge impartiality? Any?
CaptSpify 9y ago
And you believe them? More that 50% of the population will tell you that they are good drivers, which is statistically impossible. Would you believe them as well?
- scottmf 9y ago
  Why is it statistically impossible for 50% of drivers to be good?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > More that 50% was supposed to be "more than 50%"

mcguire 9y ago

As an aside,... "...allows or even encourages dissenting opinion and discussion..." ...framing the discussion here as regarding dissenting opinions after some of what has been reported... "...Google employees who opposed Mr. Damore found their internal company profile pictures posted on Breitbart, the Verge reported." ...begins to look a bit threadbare. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall-meeting-canceled-online-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall...