8 ms·

Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’

70 points by Cantbekhan 6y ago

strikelaserclaw 6y ago
Doesn't google filter search results for you based on your what it thinks you want to see? That should also be included in the list of "amplifier for idiots"
- naveen99 6y ago
  intelligent people like things targeted for idiots, because they don’t like using their brain unnecessarily either.
  - vanattab 6y ago
    I think this is a good point that needs remembering. All it takes is to read a "political" thread on HN and the comments from people on both sides to know its true.
- m463 6y ago
  Someone on one of the youtube channels pulled up a web page and all the ads around the edges were handguns, handguns, handguns. It was kind of funny. heh.
- Arnt 6y ago
  Obviously the search term you type is what you want to see, so in a sense you're right. But that wasn't what you meant, right? Google selects a large set of search results based on what it thinks your query means, then weighs each result according to many, many criteria, I've heard there are about 140 but that's a long time ago, and finally orders them by aggregate weight. You may assume that all of those criteria are "boost pages that seem to be written by idiots", but do you really think so?
  - ludocode 6y ago
    Google doesn't just use the search term. It also uses your search and browsing history. This is why if you're a programmer, you're more likely to get results from StackOverflow because your search is more likely to be about programming. It's one reason why people can get better search results from Google than, say, DuckDuckGo. If you've been watching lots of conspiracy YouTube videos and reading lots of conspiracy blogs, Google is more likely to give you conspiracy search results because it thinks that's what you want to see. This is called a filter bubble [1], and it's how social media as well as search amplify questionable content. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      It's also why you should be careful about directing people to "the first hit on Google". Whatever Google placed on top for me might be very different from what it places on top for you.
    - pixl97 6y ago
      Google: "hi, I see you watched a WWII video. Would you like to like to join the National Socialist party?"
    - Arnt 6y ago
      Google uses many things. Search for IBS where I live, and the company called IBS here is among the top result. There are also quite different companies called IBS in several neighbouring cities, but those aren't shown on the first page. We both know why: One of Google's factors is geography. Perhaps IBS is also a relevant abbreviation to your work, and Google can tell that you often search for that, so it'll also boost results that pertain to that sense of IBS if you search. None of this is about what you like. One is about where you are, the other is about your work. Perhaps your work interests you, perhaps one may say that your work necessarily interests you, in a compelled sense of "interest". But it's not about preferences or opinions. So you could say, fairly and honestly, that your interests as indicated by search history influences how Google interprets the search term. Returning to the "IBS" example, your search history hints to Google which IBS you have in mind. This is good, not bad, as long as there are more senses of IBS than will fit on the search results page.
fattegourmet 6y ago
said the pot to the kettle?
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just magically go back into the tube. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are doing their best to suppress information that goes against the popular narrative, but that's not helping me trust those narratives more, but instead making me trust those internet companies less. Address the issue of trust, and you can fix the real issues here. Not "idiot" amplification.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Trust is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I know that institutions and established media have systematic blind spots and an agenda, and I think everyone with some critical thinking skills should know that, too. But that doesn't mean that there is no value to news, it means that maybe you should read from multiple sources, try to correct for known biases, ask critical questions etc. Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here. (Also, empirically, while trust in media and institutions has eroded, I don't believe that "most" people don't trust institutions. Maybe that's the case in the US, but certainly not everywhere.)
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here What makes you say that? Isn't the purpose of a democracy so that the government can change with a changing population? (For those who don't know, vox populi means voice of the people.) As to your statement on the trust of institutions, there may be regional variations in this. In the Midwest, nobody I talk to trusts the government or media.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
notmyname9173 6y ago
Hypocrisy and PR spin aside, he’s not wrong. I think, on the balance, that social networks are a net negative development for humanity and should be destroyed.
- president 6y ago
  The internet is always hailed as empowering the people but in reality what it did was make the powerful even more powerful and give a voice to people who should not have a voice.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    You certainly will always be disappointed if you have such vague notions of who "should be" and "shouldn't be". You will at some point be shocked that leopards ate your face after advocating for unleashing face eating leopards upon people.
    - president 6y ago
      Who shouldn't have been given a platform: Terrorists, cartels, corrupt elites and government officials. These types of people only got stronger. Not every argument on the internet needs be responded to with snarky quips.
- jart 6y ago
  Yes and no. Problem is the media which cherry-picks the one thing in a thousand good people say which can be misconstrued as sounding bad and then amplifying it to the world to profit off hate-clicks. By that standard Eric is in the same boat as the rest of us. We're all idiots no smarter than our worst moment since coming online.
- dawg- 6y ago
  I think you are absolutely right about mass social networking, where people/pages can have millions of followers and advertisers have access to extremely granular filters. This form of the internet is not good for us. It's too big, too impersonal, and too public. I would be fine if Facebook and co. continued to exist - but the whole thing is maybe a little bit too connected. I really hope that the future of social media can focus on smaller and more intimate groups that (mostly) know each other IRL. For example I love my family's group chat, my little fitness group, etc. and all of those things happen on social media. Social media just needs to be scaled down to be a more human-friendly environment.
helen___keller 6y ago
I think this could be generalized to "amplifiers for everyone". There's just no barrier of entry left, except time and effort, to get your message out to millions of people.
wh1t3n01s3 6y ago
Misinformation is spreading because social networks (and Google search) AIs are tuned to improve users engagement. This causes exponential confirmation bias. So misinformation is created to feed the ‘idiots’ engagement.

70 points by Cantbekhan 6y ago

Doesn't google filter search results for you based on your what it thinks you want to see? That should also be included in the list of "amplifier for idiots"

naveen99 6y ago
intelligent people like things targeted for idiots, because they don’t like using their brain unnecessarily either.
- vanattab 6y ago
  I think this is a good point that needs remembering. All it takes is to read a "political" thread on HN and the comments from people on both sides to know its true.
m463 6y ago
Someone on one of the youtube channels pulled up a web page and all the ads around the edges were handguns, handguns, handguns. It was kind of funny. heh.
Arnt 6y ago
Obviously the search term you type is what you want to see, so in a sense you're right. But that wasn't what you meant, right? Google selects a large set of search results based on what it thinks your query means, then weighs each result according to many, many criteria, I've heard there are about 140 but that's a long time ago, and finally orders them by aggregate weight. You may assume that all of those criteria are "boost pages that seem to be written by idiots", but do you really think so?
- ludocode 6y ago
  Google doesn't just use the search term. It also uses your search and browsing history. This is why if you're a programmer, you're more likely to get results from StackOverflow because your search is more likely to be about programming. It's one reason why people can get better search results from Google than, say, DuckDuckGo. If you've been watching lots of conspiracy YouTube videos and reading lots of conspiracy blogs, Google is more likely to give you conspiracy search results because it thinks that's what you want to see. This is called a filter bubble [1], and it's how social media as well as search amplify questionable content. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    It's also why you should be careful about directing people to "the first hit on Google". Whatever Google placed on top for me might be very different from what it places on top for you.
  - pixl97 6y ago
    Google: "hi, I see you watched a WWII video. Would you like to like to join the National Socialist party?"
  - Arnt 6y ago
    Google uses many things. Search for IBS where I live, and the company called IBS here is among the top result. There are also quite different companies called IBS in several neighbouring cities, but those aren't shown on the first page. We both know why: One of Google's factors is geography. Perhaps IBS is also a relevant abbreviation to your work, and Google can tell that you often search for that, so it'll also boost results that pertain to that sense of IBS if you search. None of this is about what you like. One is about where you are, the other is about your work. Perhaps your work interests you, perhaps one may say that your work necessarily interests you, in a compelled sense of "interest". But it's not about preferences or opinions. So you could say, fairly and honestly, that your interests as indicated by search history influences how Google interprets the search term. Returning to the "IBS" example, your search history hints to Google which IBS you have in mind. This is good, not bad, as long as there are more senses of IBS than will fit on the search results page.

fattegourmet 6y ago

said the pot to the kettle?

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just magically go back into the tube. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are doing their best to suppress information that goes against the popular narrative, but that's not helping me trust those narratives more, but instead making me trust those internet companies less. Address the issue of trust, and you can fix the real issues here. Not "idiot" amplification.

Tainnor 6y ago
Of course, institutions are biased and partisan. The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Trust is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I know that institutions and established media have systematic blind spots and an agenda, and I think everyone with some critical thinking skills should know that, too. But that doesn't mean that there is no value to news, it means that maybe you should read from multiple sources, try to correct for known biases, ask critical questions etc. Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here. (Also, empirically, while trust in media and institutions has eroded, I don't believe that "most" people don't trust institutions. Maybe that's the case in the US, but certainly not everywhere.)
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Amplifying vox populi isn't the solution here What makes you say that? Isn't the purpose of a democracy so that the government can change with a changing population? (For those who don't know, vox populi means voice of the people.) As to your statement on the trust of institutions, there may be regional variations in this. In the Midwest, nobody I talk to trusts the government or media.
  - Tainnor 6y ago

notmyname9173 6y ago

Hypocrisy and PR spin aside, he’s not wrong. I think, on the balance, that social networks are a net negative development for humanity and should be destroyed.

president 6y ago
The internet is always hailed as empowering the people but in reality what it did was make the powerful even more powerful and give a voice to people who should not have a voice.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  You certainly will always be disappointed if you have such vague notions of who "should be" and "shouldn't be". You will at some point be shocked that leopards ate your face after advocating for unleashing face eating leopards upon people.
  - president 6y ago
    Who shouldn't have been given a platform: Terrorists, cartels, corrupt elites and government officials. These types of people only got stronger. Not every argument on the internet needs be responded to with snarky quips.
jart 6y ago
Yes and no. Problem is the media which cherry-picks the one thing in a thousand good people say which can be misconstrued as sounding bad and then amplifying it to the world to profit off hate-clicks. By that standard Eric is in the same boat as the rest of us. We're all idiots no smarter than our worst moment since coming online.
dawg- 6y ago
I think you are absolutely right about mass social networking, where people/pages can have millions of followers and advertisers have access to extremely granular filters. This form of the internet is not good for us. It's too big, too impersonal, and too public. I would be fine if Facebook and co. continued to exist - but the whole thing is maybe a little bit too connected. I really hope that the future of social media can focus on smaller and more intimate groups that (mostly) know each other IRL. For example I love my family's group chat, my little fitness group, etc. and all of those things happen on social media. Social media just needs to be scaled down to be a more human-friendly environment.

helen___keller 6y ago

I think this could be generalized to "amplifiers for everyone". There's just no barrier of entry left, except time and effort, to get your message out to millions of people.

wh1t3n01s3 6y ago

Misinformation is spreading because social networks (and Google search) AIs are tuned to improve users engagement. This causes exponential confirmation bias. So misinformation is created to feed the ‘idiots’ engagement.