If you remove user related data as an input to the search query, the results will be purely based on algorithm efficiency, rather than feeding on the biases of the users.
Such feedback loops, of showing content that is suitable to the user, will lead to information silos and gradual radicalization of the user.
All search engines are explicitly biased. That is the point, they generate a ranking of results. Heck even how you tokenize text is an explicit bias of what you match against.
I think it's clear from the context that OP was referring to manipulation based on ideological biases tainting search results, versus, mnipulation (ranking) based on relavence of search.
Absolutely, always consider potential bias and motivation when searching and judging content. I probably censor search results myself in the form of selective link-result clicking and phrasing of search queries :-)
This sort of personalization is no different than using a user's click history to determine whether he means cycling or motorcycling when he searches for "biking". It's no different than using history to determine whether someone is looking for a television schedule or coding help when he searches for "programming".
One person's "confirmation bias" is another person's "relevance". Increasing relevance to the user will naturally result in confirming their biases, because there's (probably) no programmatic way to discern contentious subjects in which confirmation bias is applicable from non-contentious subjects where it's not.
The only "shame" I see here is people who ascribe some sort of devious intention to what's clearly the natural result of trying to solve the most important problem in search.
> Lastly, the insinuation of the article is that "unbiased" search results are clearly preferable. I'm not convinced. I for one like that STD for me is associated with the C++ standard namespace (which I search for all the time) rather than sexually transmitted diseases (which I luckily don't have to care about as much).
On the other hand, authors could find better names for their libraries ...
Further, there are different solutions, where the user has full control over the context of their search. For instance by maintaining a fully user-controlled list of keywords that is remembered by a cookie (which can be deleted as well).
Not just that but bias, they intend to promote certain content and demote others and that introduction of human bias essentially dillutes the effectiveness of the algorithm; you don't get what you are searching for per-se but someones opinion of what you should get.
> Lastly, the insinuation of the article is that "unbiased" search results are clearly preferable.
the insinuation is that you should know if they are biased or that you should be able to get unbiased result if you so wish.
It also raises suspicions on how much google tracks each user.
From this point of view what would be interesting would be a local study, to see in 100 people all in the same neighbourhood with different browsing habits have different results. this would eliminate the "non-tracking" part of the personalization.
"We chose to use these keywords (abortion, gun control and obama) because they are both a) searches where many people want unbiased results..."
I suspect that someone searching for these keywords are looking for reinforcement of their predetermined beliefs. Which is exactly what personalized search would do.
[edit] I've been downvoted so I feel I should clarify. I'm saying that these keywords are "magic" for a reason. This test should be performed using keywords people actually want unbiased results for. A good example would be a good javascript library for making graphs. (something I searched for yesterday and wanted to see an unbiased comparison). These keywords return biased results because they are highly polarized topics and you probably situate yourself on one of those poles - not in the middle. If google knows this about you, good for them and you because you found what you were looking for.
If that's the case, it should be fixed by tweak in the ranking algorithm (rank informative sites higher than junk filled with hate), not by filtering out query suggestions.
That it is incorrect to say that personal bias or subjective interpretation has never played any role whatsoever in search results is a vacuous truth. It's a meaningless tautology. And it's fallacious to use it to excuse for injecting any sort of political ideology into search results.
In what sense would it be detrimental? If the top news for the day is a new Google product, and I don’t care about Google, why would it be detrimental to anyone if I didn’t see that?
I think you are conflating externally driven, top down algorithms, with users expressing their own preferences over what they see.
That comment shouldn't have aged well one nanosecond after it was posted.
Search results are bias. The entire idea of a "search engine" is to bias the set of all possible data in the crawled universe to select for the information you're searching for, then sort that information by "likeliest to be what you wanted" because the interface can't just cram all the results straight into your brain.
... and the company writing the search engine is always the final arbiter of what that means in implementation.
In this specific case, DDG is announcing they are aware of some sites where the information is likely to be untrue and they're downranking it on account of it being a datasource unlikely to deliver what the user wants. That's their job, in exactly the same sense that it's their job to figure out that when I search for "hacker news" I mean this site and not the r/hackernews Reddit mirror.
> Could skewing search results, i.e. hiding the bias of the real world
Which real world? The population you sample from is going to make a big difference. Do you expect it to reflect your day to day life in your own city? Own country? The entire world? Results will vary significantly.
Nope. You're assuming that just because the search results are biased in one (useful) way, that they cannot be biased in any other way.
There's a big difference between ranking all possible results with a PageRank-style algorithm, and dedicating space at the top for results that come exclusively from you.
> Besides, what's so bad about access to "disinformation"?
Disinformation doesn't just try to present an alternative view, it also tries to drown out other viewpoints. I don't think it's possible to accurately and neutrally present search results when bad actors try to subvert rankings.
I think propaganda can be interesting, I don't think it should be banned. But penalizing it seems fair to me. I don't want other searches to get flooded with clickbait.
When those language models are wrong or biased, the user will have a worse experience in all three of those scenarios. At least when we look at search results now, we can prune for the facts. Those language models are ingesting that same data to give a monolithic answer your a query. Less transparent, less safe.
If you remove user related data as an input to the search query, the results will be purely based on algorithm efficiency, rather than feeding on the biases of the users.
Such feedback loops, of showing content that is suitable to the user, will lead to information silos and gradual radicalization of the user.
reply