What is Google up to?

Here is another one of Flineo’s (this guy is a genius) brilliant videos from during the primary (nobody can accuse us of not warning the people.) Watch it and then we will talk about Google.

Did you see Step #3: infect the media, infect the Internet?

This election season we saw how media outlets like the NYT or the MSNBC got infected with the Obama virus. But Google too?

A little background first. Our regular reader Teakwoodkite wrote this comment on my post, Obama’s Train Ride a la Lincoln:

Pm317, so I google “Lincoln’s train ride to inauguration”, and what do you know? Instead of getting Lincoln as the link, I get Obama this and Obama that. [snip]
On the 13th page there was this gem about Lincoln train ride on the CIA’s web site, about “Saving Mr. Lincoln”

The search string is “Lincoln’s train ride to inauguration” and did you see the word Obama in it, anywhere? No. The user Teakwoodkite’s intent is plain and simple — “give me search results pertaining to Lincoln’s train ride to inauguration.” Well, he found it on the 13th page. I repeated the search with mixed results also. The first result from the first page was about Obama’s train ride. There were one or two vaguely related Lincoln only documents on each page and I found the CIA report once on the 3rd page and another time on the 11th page. I tried the same search on Yahoo. Lo and behold, the first search result was in fact, Lincoln’s train ride story. Yahoo should think about capitalizing on this!

There was a time in the early 90s, when computer scientists struggled with a two dimensional world in black and white within the computer — the battle between keyword-based queries versus content/context-based queries in the evolution of search engines. The second category referred to removing the ambiguity in the user’s query about what they mean by attributing context to their queries, instead of doing a plain word match as in the first category. For instance, when the user looks for “restaurants in Paris,” does she/he mean Paris, France or Paris, Texas? In other words, how do we make the computer “read” the user’s mind or gather their intent when they search for information on the Web using words or phrases?

We still don’t have a solution for reading another person’s mind, especially with a computer. But with the advances in computing power and cheap memory we come close by building the context or content of the query. A user’s plain word query is modified into something closer to what the user may have meant by enhancing the keywords with relevant images, audio/video, maps and so on. Sometimes relevance feedback from users is incorporated to further refine a search. All of this is done in good faith to make the interaction with the user more effective and efficient.

In and of itself, it is not a bad idea to try to “read” the user’s mind that way. What we see, however, in Teakwoodkite’s and my experience is a potential for subversion. We may be forced to read what they want us to read, just like Orwell’s 1984.

Subversion of the kind that happens on NYT or MSNBC in replacing everything political with pro-Obama politics, to be a propaganda arm for his campaign and perhaps for his administration in the future. Has Google fallen prey to that temptation? Google’s VP for User Experience, Marissa Mayer recently admitted that editorial judgments of staff may be usurped into search results as reported in this article:

This week Marissa Meyer explained that editorial judgments will play a key role in Google searches. It was reported by Tech Crunch proprietor Michael Arrington – who Nick Carr called the “Madam of the Web 2.0 Brothel” – but its significance wasn’t noted. The irony flew safely over his head at 30,000 feet. Arrington observed: “Mayer also talked about Google’s use of user data created by actions on Wiki search to improve search results on Google in general. For now that data is not being used to change overall search results, she said. But in the future it’s likely Google will use the data to at least make obvious changes. An example is if “thousands of people” were to knock a search result off a search page, they’d be likely to make a change.”

Now what, you may be thinking, is an “obvious change”? Is it one that is frivolous? (Thereby introducing a Google Frivolitimeter™ [Beta]). Or is it one that goes against the grain of the consensus? If so, then who decides what the consensus must be? Make no mistake, Google is moving into new territory: not only making arbitrary, editorial choices – really no different to Fox News, say, or any other media organization. It’s now in the business of validating and manufacturing consent: not only reporting what people say, but how you should think.

Earlier in a 2003 article, the same author showed how easy it was to redefine an anti-war slogan by a handful of A-list bloggers in 42 days and not for the better. So, when Mayer talks about thousands of people able to make a change, how many thousands are actually needed to generate consensus in a democratic society? For example, can a few thousands of Obama supporters manufacture consent that is not reflective of the general population? How will Google prevent such abuse? Contrary to anticipating or preventing such abuse, it seems to me from Mayer’s comments above that they may be open to such user intervention regardless of its consequences. We may have seen results of such interference already during this election season, when search results are manipulated, videos have disappeared on YouTube, articles have been scrubbed on media outlets.

Abuse of the Web and the Internet disheartens me more than anything. Science and politics should not mix in the same way religion should be kept out of statecraft, especially when political or religious fanaticism rears its ugly head. Google can be a beautiful technological invention built to foster an intellectually honest deliberation/dialog in a democratic forum. To empower people in the way that only unbiased information can. Right now however, it seems to me that the integrity of the product can be easily compromised by a few for malicious purposes. Influenced by having allowed China to subvert its original version, is Google thinking that a little mischief in American democracy is inconsequential? Sergey Brin should perhaps have a heart to heart conversation with his parents who emigrated from Russia to the US looking for personal freedom and individual choice, neither of which can be fully realized with state-owned (figuratively or literally) media.

We don’t know what Google is up to. But we know that Google’s Chief Executive, Eric Schmidt has not been shy about his support for Obama and even advised and campaigned for him. He was the front-runner for a cabinet post on technology until he refused.

As a researcher with a personal stake in Google’s integrity, I want to see a separation between these behemoth technology companies and the Government.

I want to be able to find Lincoln’s train ride story before I find anything on Obama’s, especially if I did not ask for it.

If Bush eroded the constitution, Obama is beginning his tenure by eroding the fourth estate.

{Speaking for me only.}