6 ms·

> Google is not liable for anything they publish/display, but still have the power to choose what they publish/display. Choosing how to respond to a query stri

> Google is not liable for anything they publish/display, but still have the power to choose what they publish/display. 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.

tucaz 7y ago
Maybe we should start with easy problems. 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.
- deelowe 7y ago
  > Google (and other platforms) should stop removing content from people they do not agree with in their platforms. Citation needed. > 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.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    Here is a list from wikipedia on twitter suspensions, not sure how up-to-date it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions 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.
    - deelowe 7y ago
      What does Twitter have to do with Google?
- tucaz 7y ago
  @deelowe, sure. - https://boingboing.net/2019/05/02/facebook-just-deplatformed-a-b.html https://boingboing.net/2019/05/02/facebook-just-deplatformed... - https://mashable.com/article/deplatforming-alex-jones-2018/ https://mashable.com/article/deplatforming-alex-jones-2018/ 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.
  - jasode 7y ago
    >deplatforming Alex Jones Just as a datapoint, I just googled "Alex Jones"[0] about 5 minutes after your comment and his Infowars website is prominently shown on page 1 as the 3rd result[1]. 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.) [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones [1] https://imgur.com/a/KDVBHcJ https://imgur.com/a/KDVBHcJ
  - deelowe 7y ago
    The two links you provided were cases where Google acts as the publisher (e.g. youtube). This doesn't apply to the premise of the article, which was specific to search and curation of news outlets. > 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.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. We're not actually required to make this choice. Literally nothing forces you or anyone to use Google. The reason folks flock to their products despite costs and the occasional awkward depreciation is because they execute pretty well and they have one of the best security track records in the industry. 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."
- fjabre 7y ago
  Google News has no concept of 'agree with' it simply tries to find a news result based on what it thinks you want to see. 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.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    How do you know this?
amelius 7y ago
The only way to resolve this is to make the search algorithm public, so that we actually know how the results should be interpreted.
- VikingCoder 7y ago
  Are you in general violently opposed to Intellectual Property, or only in this case?
  - amelius 7y ago
    Only in this case. Search rules our entire economy and deserves a special status.

tucaz 7y ago

Maybe we should start with easy problems. 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.

deelowe 7y ago
> Google (and other platforms) should stop removing content from people they do not agree with in their platforms. Citation needed. > 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.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  Here is a list from wikipedia on twitter suspensions, not sure how up-to-date it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions 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.
  - deelowe 7y ago
    What does Twitter have to do with Google?
tucaz 7y ago
@deelowe, sure. - https://boingboing.net/2019/05/02/facebook-just-deplatformed-a-b.html https://boingboing.net/2019/05/02/facebook-just-deplatformed... - https://mashable.com/article/deplatforming-alex-jones-2018/ https://mashable.com/article/deplatforming-alex-jones-2018/ 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.
- jasode 7y ago
  >deplatforming Alex Jones Just as a datapoint, I just googled "Alex Jones"[0] about 5 minutes after your comment and his Infowars website is prominently shown on page 1 as the 3rd result[1]. 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.) [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones [1] https://imgur.com/a/KDVBHcJ https://imgur.com/a/KDVBHcJ
- deelowe 7y ago
  The two links you provided were cases where Google acts as the publisher (e.g. youtube). This doesn't apply to the premise of the article, which was specific to search and curation of news outlets. > 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.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. We're not actually required to make this choice. Literally nothing forces you or anyone to use Google. The reason folks flock to their products despite costs and the occasional awkward depreciation is because they execute pretty well and they have one of the best security track records in the industry. 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."
fjabre 7y ago
Google News has no concept of 'agree with' it simply tries to find a news result based on what it thinks you want to see. 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.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  How do you know this?

amelius 7y ago

The only way to resolve this is to make the search algorithm public, so that we actually know how the results should be interpreted.

VikingCoder 7y ago
Are you in general violently opposed to Intellectual Property, or only in this case?
- amelius 7y ago
  Only in this case. Search rules our entire economy and deserves a special status.