Listen up, Syria, Google wants you invaded

Comments

1. Charles Liu says

   February 14, 2012 at 4:48 pm

   Well, it might be a reflection of certain POV being more prevalent in the West. Who knows what algorithm/population Google use/sample to determine what is popular

2. Allen says

   February 14, 2012 at 11:43 pm

   Even if Google didn’t tweak anything, this is the problem with private company monopolizing how we access internet information. Should there be laws that regulate entities (for-profit no less) on which people depend for knowledge, knowledge that form our own sense of identity and worldly norm? Does Google own a duty to create a public / common good? Can the (free) market – which presumptively give us choices – substitute for such laws / duties?

   The above aside, I searched syria on bing, yahoo, baidu … some results were better, but I don’t know if I can say anything statistically significant now…

3. silentchinese says

   February 15, 2012 at 7:59 am

   They would claim it is just the result of their search algorithms. they reflect the “will-and-mood of the people”, (never mind that the very product they produce has an effect on the very thing they claim they neutrally reflect)

   but, ofcourse, there is no independent way to verify it. so….

   and the fact that Foggy Bottom is now staffed with these “tech savvy” (oh good god when has “tech” being only about internet, social media and apps on your phone, but that’s gripping for another time… ) do gooders who are in-with the silicon valley crowd.

   does make one wonder does it?

   ==

   anyways

   the entire claim that these searches only “reflect” the mood and state of the internet is utter hogwash.

   The very product they sell affects the state of the internet.

   The same argument could be made for traditional media.

   Newspaper has long claimed both to reflect the will of the people, yet same time claim to be “Opinion leaders”.

   Bull. Shit.

4. Charles Liu says

   February 15, 2012 at 10:00 am

   IMHO it’s little wonder why Google results is so skewed on this – that’s what the media is pushing, a collective, even if not coordinated, “Google Bomb”, if you will.

   But Google can be leveraged. To find and amplify the opposing POV that’s currently invisible in a sea of voices, just add a few key terms you are looking for, for example:

   https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=Syria+Libya+humanitarian+imperialism

   This will filter out the echo chamber.

5. LOLZ says

   February 15, 2012 at 9:05 pm

   Google search algorithm works mostly by popularity. The fact that most of the Google Syria searches produce pro-opposition articles is more indicative of overall biased media coverage.

6. Joshua says

   February 16, 2012 at 6:17 am

   Google’s algorithm probably sorts most articles by what is most relevant to today’s users, and this obviously happens to be the news about the government’s crackdowns and use of violence. If there is a bias, it is in the news more likely than Google’s algorithm (as LOLZ points out). Why do you assume that this is Google “participating in the one-sided mass barrage of attacks against Syria?” You make quite a pointed assumption and throw in phrases like “If NATO ends up invading Syria, then arguably Google has some blood on its hands” in order to grab attention, good or bad, but where is the hard evidence?

7. YinYang says

   February 16, 2012 at 8:53 am

   Technically what Joshua said is correct. But the problem we have in the “democratic” world is they often equate popularity = right. That is nonsense, because such cannot be true all the time.

   Just because the majority of Americans believed it was “right” to invade Iraq, it does not necessarily make the invasion morally right.

   So, Google saying we are simply bringing out the most popular results, doesn’t necessarily excuse it from responsibility for balance, objectivity, and other criteria that could do real good for human societies.

   Google in fact keeps how it ranks results secret. I was a bit surprised in the .hk domain, the most popular results are all Western. NOTHING from the .hk domain in the top results!

   Google IS media, and hence what silentchinese stated above is absolutely applicable:

   >Newspaper has long claimed both to reflect the will of the people, yet same time claim to be “Opinion leaders”.

   Google does this at a more aggregate level by syndicating the various narratives they like.

8. Charles Liu says

   February 16, 2012 at 11:02 am

   It’s not even popularity = right. As Chomsky put it, it’s manufacturing consent. Look at the media vitriol against Iran, and all those reporting will again converge on Google’s algorithm, akin to Google Bomb, and rank up, drowning out the sane voices against war and violence.

   It’s a reflection on our military-industrial-media-complex.

   So what we can try is search for certain things on Google, like humanitarian imperialism in relation to Libya and Syria. Perhaps our activity will trigger the algorithm and tilt the mysterious windmill the other way?

   One can only hope, but I see what you’re getting at DW, Google’s probably replicating it’s US-based search rankings across regions. There could be other factors like language and geopol filters, but samples probably tilted west, from looking at the results.

9. YinYang says

   February 16, 2012 at 11:11 am

   That’s right Charles. It’s a good suggestion for people tag extra terms in their search to get more balance. But for the majority of people who are less critical, they won’t be doing it.

   So, it’s rather funny, but I think it’s when Google runs afoul of different country’s laws that gets it booted – that’s how some balance is achieved.