I don't get what the article means by "Google Interferes" beyond what we already know.
I can't imagine any notion of neutrality applied to search results, except making your search algorithm public, but then, Google is not a public service, it's Google results you came looking for by using Google, if you don't like them, and more and more people are not happy with the results as well, something else will emerge and win.
True, but what is meant by "neutral"here is "search results that haven't been tampered with from PC POV". Google has been heavily criticized for NOT messing up with the results, so they finally did. Whatever they do, they'll never make everybody happy.
Altering results (other than to show you the most relevant pages) ruins Google's perceived neutrality. All of a sudden Google becomes liable for showing you something they shouldn't, instead of being a neutral third-party.
As mentioned by others, Google does "manipulate" search results too, but it is a slightly less sensitive/emotionalized topic because Google's content (web pages) is very different from Twitter's (personal utterances). The question is: what does "neutral" even mean in this context?
The dichotomy between neutrality and manipulation is artificial, although I do see the underlying assumption that the output of any algorithm would be "neutral" whereas manual interference with its results would be "manipulation".
In reality, however, the boundary is fluid. Would an algorithm that automatically excludes certain sites be neutral, while excluding the same sites manually is considered manipulation? Is "apply keyword search, then apply blacklist" an algorithm or manual manipulation?
On the other side, is an algorithm that automatically penalizes SEO-optimized (spam) sites neutral, even though a search term occurs much more frequently on that given site?
The whole point of search result rankings is to be non-neutral.
Of course there's a bias, towards useful and relevant results. A completely neutral search engine would be absolutely worthless.
Besides, don't people adhere to the caveat emptor philosophy anymore? If you disagree with the manner in which Google organizes their search results, you are free to choose another service, and in no way hindered in doing so.
Google can't interfere with its own search algorithms by definition. It is their design and theirs alone. The accusation isn't merely wrong but impossible generically.
The whole goddamn point of a search engine is to privledge certain results over another. The claims of armies of contractors reek of the zombie lies of their persecution complex.
Google is manipulating search results in bad faith: It has admitted engaging in political censorship of results to divert traffic away from undesirable sites.
Also, it seems to have a bias in favor of the larger websites generally, but this is an anecdotal observation of mine, there may or may not be evidence to support it.
Maybe we should also reconsider the claimed neutrality of search results provided by a company that makes its money by delivering targeted advertising.
The stated goal of search is to find relevant information. If Google somehow provides that information to me in a easy to digest way, who am i to refuse it? If not, i would go elsewhere for that information. Since net neutrality ensures that i can always go to an alternative source for information, i don't think search dominance is too much of a problem.
The search results are already biased, and they should be. That's the basis of Google Search, that it provides a biased, more useful result based on how many pages link to it.
Good on them - even if they may be totally hypocritical in doing that. Search should be a public utility. Perhaps even an international public utility.
Google's statement that "Google Search is designed to provide people with the most relevant and helpful results" is untrue. Google Search is designed to benefit Google (or rather Alphabet) Corporation. That involves providing relevant and helpful results - to some extent, but it also involves promoting results Google favors and demoting or filtering out results it disfavors. For example, political content which Google does or does not approve of, respectively:
this includes explicit conscious censorship of specific news and commentary websites (such as the World Socialist Website, AlterNet, etc. and sites on the political right as well, IIANM).
People seem to think that search is meant to be unbiased, thus any bias added after the fact is not just bad but is malicious just by being there.
But... even if the worst is true, and Google treats its search results like its own personal pulpit, is that so bad? Should Google be required to advertise for all its competitors in every field, just because they happen to have a website?
Google's algorithm is secret; there's nothing to imply that its results are anything except editorials.
It's an algorithm, so it is by definition neutral with regard to things that are invisible to algorithms. Back links are (were) a proxy for content quality, as are domains. Setting per-domain weights is not neutral, but incoming links as a measure is. That is to say, it is not open to political bias on the part of Google.
The shift towards increasing political interference with these algorithms raises additional issues. Google becomes responsible for what you are able to see, rather than just showing you what exists on the web relevant to your query.
You may remember that Google exited the world's largest market some time ago precisely because they were not willing to accept political influence on search results.
There is no such thing as "search neutrality", good search is subjective, also the sites in question seem like spammy link farms, nothing I would miss in my search results.
And why is a Texas AG conducting this investigation? not Google nor any of the other companies involved are based in Texas.
I can't imagine any notion of neutrality applied to search results, except making your search algorithm public, but then, Google is not a public service, it's Google results you came looking for by using Google, if you don't like them, and more and more people are not happy with the results as well, something else will emerge and win.
reply