6 ms·

It astonishes me still how much of a free ride Google gets. The public consciousness of Facebook now is such that they're viewed as a pretty malevolent entity

It astonishes me still how much of a free ride Google gets. The public consciousness of Facebook now is such that they're viewed as a pretty malevolent entity in general, but no-one questions the harm that Google's ranking algorithms have done to society. Most people still believe that when they type a search into Google they're asking for objective results on a topic. (What it actually shows is the results it thinks the person asking the question wants to see, which is wildly different person-to-person, but presented as objective truth to the user). This audience knows that because we're deep in the industry, but Joe Public has no idea that Google works this way. Of course he thinks his own crazy ideas are true and shared by the majority. Google told him so (as he sees it).

krapp 8y ago
>The public consciousness of Facebook now is such that they're viewed as a pretty malevolent entity in general The general public doesn't consider Facebook as being even remotely malevolent. I think you're confusing the views within the HN/tech bubble for the mainstream.
- headmelted 8y ago
  I disagree, but the best evidence I can find falls somewhere in the middle: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-pollster-tavis-mcginn-honest-data https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuc... Facebook hired a pollster to survey opinion about them. 32% of respondents in one survey said they're harming society, while only 7% said the same of Google. I would suggest this difference is largely because the public doesn't understand how Google works, and believe it is as described above.
tuxxy 8y ago
I would put money on the outcome of some research (with "harm" being well defined) that Facebook has caused more harm than Google's ranking algorithms. Facebook has constructed a business model on captivating people to spend _as much time as possible_ on their site. Google's search engine does no such thing.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  But Google sure does spend enough time trying to be in every aspect of your life. They want to be your search engine, and your phone, and your TV (you tube), and your music service, and your voice assistant, and your watch, and your calendar, and your email, and your office, and your car, etc. etc.
  - creato 8y ago
    Maybe so, but that has no bearing on the economic incentives that make google search and facebook different, which was the parent's point.
    - disgruntledphd2 8y ago
      How do the incentives for Facebook and Youtube differ? From my perspective, they are exactly the same, but I'd be interested to know the thoughts of others.
      - creato 8y ago
        I don't think they are that different, and I think youtube is also problematic in similar ways to facebook. But, this thread from the start was specifically talking about google search and its impact compared to facebook. I also think there are differences (youtube has some value that isn't predicated entirely on being a social network), but the distinctions are debatable and opinions will vary.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Facebook does not pay for content the way that YouTube does. This creates very different economic incentives. Facebook needs to realy on content from people pushing an agenda. YouTube gets content from people directly trying to make money. Net result, it’s easy to find many videos for home repair or learning Calculus on YouTube, not so easy on Facebook.
        ModernMech 8y ago
TorKlingberg 8y ago
Google Search has done an ok job ranking search results. Not perfect, but it's not an easy problem. YouTube's recommendation algorithm on the other hand seems to push all kinds of garbage.
- bluedino 8y ago
  It's terrible. The first two pages of results for many searches are just blogspam and aggreggated information
- headmelted 8y ago
  The quality of the algorithm isn't the point. Say the algorithm worked 100% perfectly, 100% of the time. Joe believes the algorithm is engineered to answer his queries with facts. It's not. It's engineered to show Joe what other people that think like Joe (based on profiling he is unaware of) have clicked on in the past, in the hopes Joe will click more and generate ad revenue.
- asdff 8y ago
  You gotta fight with it with operators if you want a useful search. Google loves to remove useful operators or hit you with captcha challenges if you are using operators too much.
creato 8y ago
> (What it actually shows is the results it thinks the person asking the question wants to see, which is wildly different person-to-person, but presented as objective truth to the user). I don't think this is anywhere near as significant a problem as you suggest. I just tried a few incognito vs. not incognito searches of various conspiracy theories that have become much more visibly popular in the last few years. I saw little significant difference between incognito mode and not, and most of the results are about why the particular conspiracy theory is bullshit. In contrast, it's a small sample size, but I've seen first hand a small number of friends (and one family member) become much more extremist anti-vaccine crusaders, and the primary vehicle for me seeing this is facebook. I think youtube is much closer to having these kinds of problems than google search, but youtube is also a lot closer to being "social media", which is the general problem, not facebook in particular. Facebook is just far and away the biggest and most influential.
- cheschire 8y ago
  I'm interested in hearing if you get different results by using TOR browser instead.
- headmelted 8y ago
  Couple of things. You'd need to check with Tor for a fair comparison to rule out geographic/workplace affinity. also.. Your starting perspective governs the search term. I'm confident vaccines are safe overall - so I'll search for "are vaccines safe?" (positive connotation). Someone who believes that vaccines are causing brain damage has already formed a contrary opinion, so in all likelihood would be expected to search for "vaccines cause autism" (negative connotation). The question is the same, but it's been presented differently, and Google will respond to the question asked. Believe it or not, I'm not actually blaming Google for this. In essence, it's still trying to answer the question asked, but I think we need to seriously reassess what the heck we're doing and maybe launch public awareness campaigns about how this all works at a fundamental level.
  - creato 8y ago
    > Someone who believes that vaccines are causing brain damage has already formed a contrary opinion, so in all likelihood would be expected to search for "vaccines cause autism" (negative connotation). I understand this, in fact, "vaccines cause autism" was exactly one of my test searches. As for Tor: I don't have it and I'm not going to bother. And if nothing else, my region is a well known hotspot for anti-vaccine idiocy, so I would expect that to bias the test in favor of the filter bubble hypothesis, not against it.
threatofrain 8y ago
When is the American voter responsible for the quality of their clarity or their grasp on reality? Or should Facebook and Google be more in that business? How do we have faith in the notion of citizen communal leadership if we think people can't handle Google giving you what you want? How much faith do we have when we think the members of our community aren't trustworthy as vanguards of clarity, so we want Facebook to step in and judge what counts as dangerous delusion?
- creato 8y ago
  Facebook is already making these decisions today with the algorithmic feed. They're already stepping in and deciding what people should see and what people should not see. It's stupid to pretend that the status quo is some hands-off natural state of the world, and get upset at the suggestion that the way this is already being done should change.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    If you can't trust people to understand that Facebook promoting the post of a peer in your network, which you curated, isn't as popular as you think it is (Facebook doesn't generate content; the people you accept do)... What does that say about what we think of their judgment capabilities, and whether they can take on a more serious democratic challenge like a policy debate on Brexit, or the Californian initiative process? I view the judgment necessary for Brexit or other public policy as more than a magnitude harder than judging whether peers or posts in your network are as popular as Facebook wants you to think. Your response again makes me ask whether we have esteem for the clarity of our peers. Is there even faith that people can manage their own click?
    - creato 8y ago
      It's hard to argue against this point without looking like an asshole. But no, I have little faith that many people (including at least one family member) can handle the firehose of bullshit from facebook. I have one family member that was always anti-vaccine, but it was not really an issue until she got on facebook. The degree of radicalization she has now reached is intense, and I pretty directly blame facebook for this. Her sub-network of friends that post about this regularly did not exist before facebook. There are many firehoses of bullshit, but facebook is a singular example that has connected enough people to it via people they already trust that it seems to be having a real impact on the world's decision making abilities.

krapp 8y ago

>The public consciousness of Facebook now is such that they're viewed as a pretty malevolent entity in general The general public doesn't consider Facebook as being even remotely malevolent. I think you're confusing the views within the HN/tech bubble for the mainstream.

headmelted 8y ago
I disagree, but the best evidence I can find falls somewhere in the middle: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-pollster-tavis-mcginn-honest-data https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuc... Facebook hired a pollster to survey opinion about them. 32% of respondents in one survey said they're harming society, while only 7% said the same of Google. I would suggest this difference is largely because the public doesn't understand how Google works, and believe it is as described above.

tuxxy 8y ago

I would put money on the outcome of some research (with "harm" being well defined) that Facebook has caused more harm than Google's ranking algorithms. Facebook has constructed a business model on captivating people to spend _as much time as possible_ on their site. Google's search engine does no such thing.

ModernMech 8y ago
But Google sure does spend enough time trying to be in every aspect of your life. They want to be your search engine, and your phone, and your TV (you tube), and your music service, and your voice assistant, and your watch, and your calendar, and your email, and your office, and your car, etc. etc.
- creato 8y ago
  Maybe so, but that has no bearing on the economic incentives that make google search and facebook different, which was the parent's point.
  - disgruntledphd2 8y ago
    How do the incentives for Facebook and Youtube differ? From my perspective, they are exactly the same, but I'd be interested to know the thoughts of others.
    - creato 8y ago
      I don't think they are that different, and I think youtube is also problematic in similar ways to facebook. But, this thread from the start was specifically talking about google search and its impact compared to facebook. I also think there are differences (youtube has some value that isn't predicated entirely on being a social network), but the distinctions are debatable and opinions will vary.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Facebook does not pay for content the way that YouTube does. This creates very different economic incentives. Facebook needs to realy on content from people pushing an agenda. YouTube gets content from people directly trying to make money. Net result, it’s easy to find many videos for home repair or learning Calculus on YouTube, not so easy on Facebook.
      - ModernMech 8y ago

TorKlingberg 8y ago

Google Search has done an ok job ranking search results. Not perfect, but it's not an easy problem. YouTube's recommendation algorithm on the other hand seems to push all kinds of garbage.

bluedino 8y ago
It's terrible. The first two pages of results for many searches are just blogspam and aggreggated information
headmelted 8y ago
The quality of the algorithm isn't the point. Say the algorithm worked 100% perfectly, 100% of the time. Joe believes the algorithm is engineered to answer his queries with facts. It's not. It's engineered to show Joe what other people that think like Joe (based on profiling he is unaware of) have clicked on in the past, in the hopes Joe will click more and generate ad revenue.
asdff 8y ago
You gotta fight with it with operators if you want a useful search. Google loves to remove useful operators or hit you with captcha challenges if you are using operators too much.

creato 8y ago

> (What it actually shows is the results it thinks the person asking the question wants to see, which is wildly different person-to-person, but presented as objective truth to the user). I don't think this is anywhere near as significant a problem as you suggest. I just tried a few incognito vs. not incognito searches of various conspiracy theories that have become much more visibly popular in the last few years. I saw little significant difference between incognito mode and not, and most of the results are about why the particular conspiracy theory is bullshit. In contrast, it's a small sample size, but I've seen first hand a small number of friends (and one family member) become much more extremist anti-vaccine crusaders, and the primary vehicle for me seeing this is facebook. I think youtube is much closer to having these kinds of problems than google search, but youtube is also a lot closer to being "social media", which is the general problem, not facebook in particular. Facebook is just far and away the biggest and most influential.

cheschire 8y ago
I'm interested in hearing if you get different results by using TOR browser instead.
headmelted 8y ago
Couple of things. You'd need to check with Tor for a fair comparison to rule out geographic/workplace affinity. also.. Your starting perspective governs the search term. I'm confident vaccines are safe overall - so I'll search for "are vaccines safe?" (positive connotation). Someone who believes that vaccines are causing brain damage has already formed a contrary opinion, so in all likelihood would be expected to search for "vaccines cause autism" (negative connotation). The question is the same, but it's been presented differently, and Google will respond to the question asked. Believe it or not, I'm not actually blaming Google for this. In essence, it's still trying to answer the question asked, but I think we need to seriously reassess what the heck we're doing and maybe launch public awareness campaigns about how this all works at a fundamental level.
- creato 8y ago
  > Someone who believes that vaccines are causing brain damage has already formed a contrary opinion, so in all likelihood would be expected to search for "vaccines cause autism" (negative connotation). I understand this, in fact, "vaccines cause autism" was exactly one of my test searches. As for Tor: I don't have it and I'm not going to bother. And if nothing else, my region is a well known hotspot for anti-vaccine idiocy, so I would expect that to bias the test in favor of the filter bubble hypothesis, not against it.

threatofrain 8y ago

When is the American voter responsible for the quality of their clarity or their grasp on reality? Or should Facebook and Google be more in that business? How do we have faith in the notion of citizen communal leadership if we think people can't handle Google giving you what you want? How much faith do we have when we think the members of our community aren't trustworthy as vanguards of clarity, so we want Facebook to step in and judge what counts as dangerous delusion?

creato 8y ago
Facebook is already making these decisions today with the algorithmic feed. They're already stepping in and deciding what people should see and what people should not see. It's stupid to pretend that the status quo is some hands-off natural state of the world, and get upset at the suggestion that the way this is already being done should change.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- threatofrain 8y ago
  If you can't trust people to understand that Facebook promoting the post of a peer in your network, which you curated, isn't as popular as you think it is (Facebook doesn't generate content; the people you accept do)... What does that say about what we think of their judgment capabilities, and whether they can take on a more serious democratic challenge like a policy debate on Brexit, or the Californian initiative process? I view the judgment necessary for Brexit or other public policy as more than a magnitude harder than judging whether peers or posts in your network are as popular as Facebook wants you to think. Your response again makes me ask whether we have esteem for the clarity of our peers. Is there even faith that people can manage their own click?
  - creato 8y ago
    It's hard to argue against this point without looking like an asshole. But no, I have little faith that many people (including at least one family member) can handle the firehose of bullshit from facebook. I have one family member that was always anti-vaccine, but it was not really an issue until she got on facebook. The degree of radicalization she has now reached is intense, and I pretty directly blame facebook for this. Her sub-network of friends that post about this regularly did not exist before facebook. There are many firehoses of bullshit, but facebook is a singular example that has connected enough people to it via people they already trust that it seems to be having a real impact on the world's decision making abilities.