Google is about to walk into the Republican chainsaw...

Pages

Google is getting ready to add "trustworthiness" to it's search result rankings. It built it's reputation on a system that measured the number of external links to a web page to judge popularity, but now it's got what it calls it's Knowledge Vault, which will let it attempt to correct "misconceptions" based on a definition of facts that is related to their acceptance across multiple web sites. (I think there are some interesting implications of that, but we'll see...).

If you wonder why this will be important to the Koch Brothers and others in Movement Conservatism, you might want to refresh your memory about where current Republican methods came from. With a messaging strategy that's built around multi-media dissemination of talking points without regards to facts on the ground, they will surely attack this effort, most likely by trying to smear Google (and eventually working to subvert the system). It'll be interesting to watch this catch on and see how the reaction is managed, if it goes into production. I suspect they will label Google as partisan and a victim of the lamestream media, government propaganda and liberal elitist machinations.

By the time of the George W. Bush administration, Movement Conservatives had constructed a post-modern political world where reality mattered far less than the popular story of Conservatives standing firm against the “Liberal agenda” of godlessness and communism. As a member of the Bush administration famously noted to journalist Ron Suskind, “the reality-based” view of the world was obsolete. It was no longer viable to believe that people could find solutions to societal problems by studying reality. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” this senior advisor to the president told Suskind. “We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Does even Google have any chance against the Movement Conservative machine? Stay tuned...

Well, this should be fun.

/popcorn

I think the implications of this go far beyond current politics. The issue may end up getting framed in terms of political parties, but that's more a measure of our ideological divisions.

It'll be interesting in seeing what Google pushes up (and down) when their system goes live, and I expect there will be even more protests than there currently are about search rankings (which Google currently mostly manages by refusing to respond to anything at all).

Google already has a huge influence on what information people are likely to see. One of the effects of personalized search (the previous big search innovation) has been to push people deeper into their own bubbles. Social media has the same effect, with the exception of things like Facebook that are so big that you friend your relatives.

That said, anyone who doesn't like the results is probably just going to start telling everyone to use Bing.

People will immediately test it against Conservapedia and whatever the liberal equivalent is. Then the yelling will start.

Gremlin wrote:

That said, anyone who doesn't like the results is probably just going to start telling everyone to use Bing.

That would be the free market solution, right? Something tells me that won't be enough for the Koch brothers though. They'll use every trick they can to impede this.

Hell, maybe they'll just start their own "fair and balanced" search engine.

gewy wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

That said, anyone who doesn't like the results is probably just going to start telling everyone to use Bing.

That would be the free market solution, right? Something tells me that won't be enough for the Koch brothers though. They'll use every trick they can to impede this.

Hell, maybe they'll just start their own "fair and balanced" search engine.

Wait, the Koch brothers are buying Facebook?

Robear wrote:

People will immediately test it against Conservapedia and whatever the liberal equivalent is.

That's the thing. There isn't a liberal version of Conservapedia. There's just Wikipedia.

All this will do is send conservatives scurrying deeper into their pit of self-inflicted ignorance.

OG_slinger wrote:
Robear wrote:

People will immediately test it against Conservapedia and whatever the liberal equivalent is.

That's the thing. There isn't a liberal version of Conservapedia. There's just Wikipedia.

All this will do is send conservatives scurrying deeper into their pit of self-inflicted ignorance.

IMAGE(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/716/623/38b.jpg)

OG_slinger wrote:
Robear wrote:

People will immediately test it against Conservapedia and whatever the liberal equivalent is.

That's the thing. There isn't a liberal version of Conservapedia. There's just Wikipedia.

All this will do is send conservatives scurrying deeper into their shining Waco compound on the hill.

ftfy.

What are the chances that this system can be manipulated? I mean, one can sort of manipulate their online presence by downplaying or uplaying the traffic to various information they have about themselves, what's to say that corporations won't be able to do the same.

If it's using a metric of 'what is accepted across multiple sites', isn't it possible to manipulate that so that it's going to sites that are accepting whatever fact(s) they deem profitable?

There is a liberapedia website (a liberal wiki someone started). But it's nowhere near the level of Conservapedia in content or production. It's not even it's own domain; it's on wikia.

Nel, you may want to look into the Knowledge Vault and Knowledge Graph projects at Google, and I've seen mention of a similar project called Satori at Microsoft. The methodology also includes sources which originate outside the Web and thus can be judged objectively by humans as well machines.

Make no mistake - the crystal soul resonance and chemtrail and anti-vaxxer crowds on the left are going to hate it too. But they have not built a political machine based on woo-woo ideas.

Robear wrote:

Nel, you may want to look into the Knowledge Vault and Knowledge Graph projects at Google, and I've seen mention of a similar project called Satori at Microsoft. The methodology also includes sources which originate outside the Web and thus can be judged objectively by humans as well machines.

Does this ever happen in politics?

Seriously though, I think that is going to be the potential weak point. It could seem like thread policing on an enormous scale depending on your position, and the views of the "objective" judge.

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like. The main thing missing is the wrong person(s) in the "objective " position.

Nomad wrote:

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like. The main thing missing is the wrong person(s) in the "objective " position.

Well that and the fact that in Russia and China it is run by the government and not by a private person. So if anyone doesn't like it, they can make their own, as long as they are as popular as Google it will be used just as much.

Zaque wrote:
Nomad wrote:

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like. The main thing missing is the wrong person(s) in the "objective " position.

Well that and the fact that in Russia and China it is run by the government and not by a private person. So if anyone doesn't like it, they can make their own, as long as they are as popular as Google it will be used just as much.

I'd also say, Google isn't trying to shut down that content so it's not possible to view at all, it will just be ranked as less trustworthy in search results.

Nomad wrote:

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like. The main thing missing is the wrong person(s) in the "objective " position.

Does it matter whether the mechanism can be used for good *and* bad purposes? We don't remove axles from cars because they are used in tanks.

What matters is that the *content* reflect reality, and not fantasy or propaganda versions of the truth. Take Conservapedia. It's written with an announced bias, and while that might be satisfying for some conservatives, that bias is not based on any attempt to be objective. That's one kind of problem this system can address.

Another is the presence of outdated or incorrect descriptions of reality. For example, crystal therapy, or homeopathy, or astrology. It's pretty clear that if you consider the evidence for and against these versions of reality, they are considered to be far less reliable as descriptions of how the world works than other accounts based on validated observation and study.

And of course there are flat-out lies. Those should be non-controversial, even if they are widespread.

So I guess the concern is whether Google will actually strive for objectivity, or subtlely bias the results in their own interest. I'd argue that so far, the evidence points towards the former, not the latter. But the results will be extremely easy to judge, and of course a consensus will arise pretty quickly about it's accuracy.

Also, if you read the other article I included, you'll find that the Movement Conservatives were reacting to the phenomenon of both sides admitting reality pushing them towards the center, towards bipartisanship. So while it may not be something you've directly experienced in your life (it started going south in the early 50's), fact-based analyses of policy accepted by both sides, and causing changes of policy, definitely was part of the American system for decades if not centuries.

Nomad wrote:

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like. The main thing missing is the wrong person(s) in the "objective " position.

Well, looking at this -

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

It seems like it's more fact-by-consensus than some fact 'death panel' or whatever. Not saying that's necessarily better, but it's certainly not an issue of a few people deciding truth for everyone. Unless you want to get into the argument of a few powerful people spamming talking point stories across the web, I suppose.

Nomad wrote:

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like.

Pretty dissimilar. China force pushes search traffic through Baidu, which has an essential monopoly on Chinese search.
While google is dominant in the US, it ain't Baidu dominant.
The way China has been actively blocking others has been through DNS poisining.

I'm less familiar with the Russian systems, so I will refrain from comment there.

Bloo Driver wrote:
The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

It seems like it's more fact-by-consensus than some fact 'death panel' or whatever. Not saying that's necessarily better, but it's certainly not an issue of a few people deciding truth for everyone. Unless you want to get into the argument of a few powerful people spamming talking point stories across the web, I suppose.

Fact by consensus is a legitimate thing to worry about; there are enough cognitive biases that large swaths of humans strongly believe things that are not true. And I'm not talking the big political stuff either. Humans are nearly incapable of having an intuitive understanding of probability and statistics. People believe all kind of bizarre things about history that are demonstrably false. Ask a random person to explain Relativity, color theory, or how airplane wings work and they'll likely be very, very wrong.

There are even common debunkings of misconceptions that are widely believed even though the debunkings themselves are false. Further, a failed attempt at debunking a belief can lead the person you are trying to convince to hold their original belief even more strongly.

Basically, who wins in this algorithm: Snopes or the stuff Snopes debunks? Google may have come up with something that lets Snopes win, but they'll need to demonstrate that.

Nomad wrote:
Robear wrote:

Nel, you may want to look into the Knowledge Vault and Knowledge Graph projects at Google, and I've seen mention of a similar project called Satori at Microsoft. The methodology also includes sources which originate outside the Web and thus can be judged objectively by humans as well machines.

Does this ever happen in politics?

Seriously though, I think that is going to be the potential weak point. It could seem like thread policing on an enormous scale depending on your position, and the views of the "objective" judge.

PolitiFact and The Washington Post's Fact Checker are two instances of humans objectively judging the political claims that immediately come to mind.

But that's not going to be the weak point of this system. The weak point is going to be human psychology. We already know that when we're faced with accurate, objective information that directly contradicts a belief we hold we don't rationally accept that we were wrong and change our position. Instead we irrationally double down on our patently wrong position just so we can protect our fragile little ego and sense of self identity.

All this Google initiative will do is drive conservatives deeper into the bubble of false reality that they've worked exceptionally hard to create over the years. I mean we've already seen from the thread about the Pew Research study on media consumption that hardcore conservatives already consume far fewer news sources than anyone else and that largely has to do with the fact that they've swallowed the 40+ year old lie that any news source outside Fox News is highly suspect (i.e., liberal).

Having Google add trustworthiness to search rankings is just going to convince a lot of conservatives that the internet in general is highly suspect (all except for the known safe harbors and echo chambers of Fox Nation and various other conservative websites and forums, of course). And that means they'll listen less to any voice from the outside and listen closer to the voices that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes tell them are trustworthy.

I'll take a crowdsourced version of trustworthiness over one ginned up by a handful of individuals with a known political agenda (and a business that profits from pushing said political agenda).

Nomad wrote:

In fact, how similar is this to the systems that Russia and China have in place to quash net content that they don't like. The main thing missing is the wrong person(s) in the "objective " position.

This Google initiative isn't literally blocking "bad" information. It's just lowering its position in search results.

Think of it as a stupidity speedbump. You'll still be able to search about whether or not Obama is a secret Muslim hellbent on destroying America. You'll still be able to search for links between vaccinations and autism. It's just that you'll have to dig through the search results to find the forum post, blog entry, or YouTube video that "proves" those things. Some people will look until the see what they want to see, but more (hopefully) will realize that what they heard on talk radio, saw on Facebook, or read from the chain email that their aunt or uncle sent them is bullsh*t and move on with their lives.

A tool is as good or evil as the hand the wields it. I'm just saying they some people have an inordinate amount of trust in the "objectivity" of a few people at Google that could change over time. What happens should the Google board and executive committee become a bastion of ultraconservative thought?

OG wrote:

This Google initiative isn't literally blocking "bad" information. It's just lowering its position in search results.

This accomplishes almost the same end doesn't it? Buried info and blocked info are both inaccessible.

Nomad wrote:

A tool is as good or evil as the hand the wields it. I'm just saying they some people have an inordinate amount of trust in the "objectivity" of a few people at Google that could change over time. What happens should the Google board and executive committee become a bastion of ultraconservative thought?

OG wrote:

This Google initiative isn't literally blocking "bad" information. It's just lowering its position in search results.

This accomplishes almost the same end doesn't it? Buried info and blocked info are both inaccessible.

Doesn't matter. Unless the government is asking Google to block results, I'm fine with Google giving the Koch brothers search engine reacharounds, legally speaking. There are other search engines out there.

More seriously, if Google started using its trust with reckless abandon, its own trustworthiness would drop among conservatives and liberals and everyone in between.

nel e nel wrote:

What are the chances that this system can be manipulated? I mean, one can sort of manipulate their online presence by downplaying or uplaying the traffic to various information they have about themselves, what's to say that corporations won't be able to do the same.

If it's using a metric of 'what is accepted across multiple sites', isn't it possible to manipulate that so that it's going to sites that are accepting whatever fact(s) they deem profitable?

There is a 100% chance that this system will be manipulated, just like "Google-bombing" a normal search.

Continuous maintenance and tweaking of of the algorithm to avoid exploitation is a part of maintaining a search engine that Google already has a lot of experience with.

Nomad wrote:

A tool is as good or evil as the hand the wields it. I'm just saying they some people have an inordinate amount of trust in the "objectivity" of a few people at Google that could change over time. What happens should the Google board and executive committee become a bastion of ultraconservative thought?

OG wrote:

This Google initiative isn't literally blocking "bad" information. It's just lowering its position in search results.

This accomplishes almost the same end doesn't it? Buried info and blocked info are both inaccessible.

No. Blocked info you can't get to, buried info is tougher to search for.

Nomad wrote:

A tool is as good or evil as the hand the wields it. I'm just saying they some people have an inordinate amount of trust in the "objectivity" of a few people at Google that could change over time. What happens should the Google board and executive committee become a bastion of ultraconservative thought?

You seem to think that a few people at Google are going to be personally judging the trustworthiness of every web page or website. That's not happening. It is an automated system that judges the accuracy of information by comparing it to an ever-growing and continually cross-referenced knowledge base.

Any attempt to subvert that system and the various algorithms that run it to suit the nefarious ends of a theoretical future ultraconservative Google executive committee would also make Google's search engine less useful. That would would mean fewer people would use it and the company would make less money.

I've yet to see an example of where a corporation, even a tightly controlled one, sacrifices profit to push a political agenda. Greed always seems to trumps political partisanship.

Nomad wrote:

This accomplishes almost the same end doesn't it? Buried info and blocked info are both inaccessible.

Absolutely not.

In your Russian or Chinese example that information is literally blocked. No one can access it all. For all intents and purposes it simply doesn't exist.

In the Google example that information still exists and is accessible. It's just that it won't be the top search results or, gasp, people might have to click on the second page of search results to see it. Like I said, it's a stupidity speedbump.

I wonder how this will work with the search bubbling google already does behind the scenes.

Nomad wrote:

A tool is as good or evil as the hand the wields it. I'm just saying they some people have an inordinate amount of trust in the "objectivity" of a few people at Google that could change over time. What happens should the Google board and executive committee become a bastion of ultraconservative thought?

I'll use a different search engine?

At least this "tool" can't kill me like, say, a firearm.

I can't wait for "Conservative Google". This is my favorite part of stuff like this.

"Call now, and for a small donation to the RNC, our dedicated Cooglers will research your question for up to 3 minutes and tell you what they've found! Get a discount with your AARP or Medicare card."

Pages