Do Inaccurate Search Results Disrupt Democracies? (wired.com) 49
Users of Google "must recalibrate their thinking on what Google is and how information is returned to them," warns an Assistant Professor at the School of Information and Library Science at UNC-Chapel Hill.
In a new book titled The Propagandists' Playbook, they're warning that simple link-filled search results have been transformed by "Google's latest desire to answer our questions for us, rather than requiring us to click on the returns." The trouble starts when Google returns inaccurate answers "that often disrupt democratic participation, confirm unsubstantiated claims, and are easily manipulatable by people looking to spread falsehoods." By adding all of these features, Google — as well as competitors such as DuckDuckGo and Bing, which also summarize content — has effectively changed the experience from an explorative search environment to a platform designed around verification, replacing a process that enables learning and investigation with one that is more like a fact-checking service.... The problem is, many rely on search engines to seek out information about more convoluted topics. And, as my research reveals, this shift can lead to incorrect returns... Worse yet, when errors like this happen, there is no mechanism whereby users who notice discrepancies can flag it for informational review....
The trouble is, many users still rely on Google to fact-check information, and doing so might strengthen their belief in false claims. This is not only because Google sometimes delivers misleading or incorrect information, but also because people I spoke with for my research believed that Google's top search returns were "more important," "more relevant," and "more accurate," and they trusted Google more than the news — they considered it to be a more objective source....
This leads to what I refer to in my book, The Propagandists' Playbook, as the "IKEA effect of misinformation." Business scholars have found that when consumers build their own merchandise, they value the product more than an already assembled item of similar quality — they feel more competent and therefore happier with their purchase. Conspiracy theorists and propagandists are drawing on the same strategy, providing a tangible, do-it-yourself quality to the information they provide. Independently conducting a search on a given topic makes audiences feel like they are engaging in an act of self-discovery when they are actually participating in a scavenger-hunt engineered by those spreading the lies....
Rather than assume that returns validate truth, we must apply the same scrutiny we've learned to have toward information on social media.
Another problem the article points out: "Googling the exact same phrase that you see on Twitter will likely return the same information you saw on Twitter.
"Just because it's from a search engine doesn't make it more reliable."
In a new book titled The Propagandists' Playbook, they're warning that simple link-filled search results have been transformed by "Google's latest desire to answer our questions for us, rather than requiring us to click on the returns." The trouble starts when Google returns inaccurate answers "that often disrupt democratic participation, confirm unsubstantiated claims, and are easily manipulatable by people looking to spread falsehoods." By adding all of these features, Google — as well as competitors such as DuckDuckGo and Bing, which also summarize content — has effectively changed the experience from an explorative search environment to a platform designed around verification, replacing a process that enables learning and investigation with one that is more like a fact-checking service.... The problem is, many rely on search engines to seek out information about more convoluted topics. And, as my research reveals, this shift can lead to incorrect returns... Worse yet, when errors like this happen, there is no mechanism whereby users who notice discrepancies can flag it for informational review....
The trouble is, many users still rely on Google to fact-check information, and doing so might strengthen their belief in false claims. This is not only because Google sometimes delivers misleading or incorrect information, but also because people I spoke with for my research believed that Google's top search returns were "more important," "more relevant," and "more accurate," and they trusted Google more than the news — they considered it to be a more objective source....
This leads to what I refer to in my book, The Propagandists' Playbook, as the "IKEA effect of misinformation." Business scholars have found that when consumers build their own merchandise, they value the product more than an already assembled item of similar quality — they feel more competent and therefore happier with their purchase. Conspiracy theorists and propagandists are drawing on the same strategy, providing a tangible, do-it-yourself quality to the information they provide. Independently conducting a search on a given topic makes audiences feel like they are engaging in an act of self-discovery when they are actually participating in a scavenger-hunt engineered by those spreading the lies....
Rather than assume that returns validate truth, we must apply the same scrutiny we've learned to have toward information on social media.
Another problem the article points out: "Googling the exact same phrase that you see on Twitter will likely return the same information you saw on Twitter.
"Just because it's from a search engine doesn't make it more reliable."
Re:Better Google than Twitter (Score:4, Interesting)
Regarding "wrong" results: if anything, Google has only gotten better at separating signal from noise. The problem isn't so much exactly what responses Google returns, but the extreme proliferation of online content, much of which has been slanted in one direction or another by varying interests. To complain about "inaccurate" answers is to oversimplify the problem. Most answers are neither "100% correct" or "100% wrong", but rather somewhere along the spectrum.
Re:Better Google than Twitter (Score:5, Insightful)
Without that the SNR of the search results can get as good as it could hypothetically could get, but people who never learned the value of critical thought, how to apply it, how to recognize your own biases, and how to handle it, will just reject the information they're presented with coming up with alternative explanations why their prejudice wasn't easily confirmed by their "own research".
Hypothetically (again), this is an issue that could be fixed via education where more emphasis on critical thinking is put.
Though unfortunately reality we're in a time where education is easily equated with indoctrination (in a negative sense) and other concepts like "grooming". All while the mantra of "ignorance is strength" is getting louder by the year.
For example if a person already believes that Biden stole the 2020 election and search for "how biden stole the 2020 election" and find dissatisfying results, that same person may think this is due to Google suppressing the evidence instead of thinking that maybe there isn't that much solid evidence to support the idea.
It's that kind of delusional circular reasoning that is quite common among conspiracy theory prone people, where "absence of evidence" is interpreted as evidence for suppression of that "absent evidence".
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not even get into the cases w
Re: (Score:2)
For example when I'd look for "flat earth arguments against gravity" then I expect to find what they're stipulating and not someone who "debunks" their claims. To me, in this case the latter would be "noise" and the former would be the "signal" (if we continue the the SNR analogy).
Likewise if I looked for something like "MAGA arguments for how biden stole the election" then I also expect to find those arguments.
After all in these par
Re: (Score:2)
What's more, Google can never know your intention, and will tend to show you things that *include* your intended results, but which are not necessarily 100% centered around those results. To oversimplify: if a pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's another problem, too; Google — necessarily at this point in time — treats popularity as a significant portion of the ranking algorithm. Popular is by no means synonymous with quality. Particularly when a large portion of the country is poorly educated, and/or bereft of
If you ASSUME they're correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Then yes, they can be a factor.
But why must we assume everything we read is correct? If you assume much of what we read is OPINION, then skepticism kicks in. Well, hopefully.
Re:If you ASSUME they're correct (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you ASSUME they're correct (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it is a more an insinuation that tech companies are the arbiters of democracy (or at least they try to place themselves to be).
As it is, most search results suck from what they use to be, and constantly deciding what I assume is what they think I meant, even if I use boolean search (apparently all that personal data they have been collected under the auspices of giving a more personalized experience was less than truthful).
Then there is also the assumption of the intent of the search, as if I am a fact finding mission.
The problem is search results have inserted themselves fact-checkers, and have the gall to act surprised at the results.
Re: (Score:2)
I have found that, when searching for IT-related answers, the answers that Google provides are frequently out of date and wrong.
Newer (and correct) answers are frequently ranked below older, wrong answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's no substitute for critical thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
The proper role of a search engine is simply a rapid index. It is not there to answer your questions, it is to provide you with a list of sources that claim to answer it. And their listing function is going to unavoidably create bias, so you need to be aware that a first result is not a "most credible" result.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the bigger issue is algorithms creating bubbles that people get stuck in.
Even that isn't new though. People get addicted to Fox News, which creates a disinformation bubble for them to inhabit.
It's less about wrong answers to questions and more about not being exposed to differing views or certain factual information at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking - Sir Joshua Reynolds
Of course they do (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that simple. It may not even be a matter of bias. Here's a fun example:
Try looking up the white house official who stole documents and took them home with him during the Obama administration. Can't find it? It's hard! If you start searching for that guy with the terms I used, you mostly just get results related to Trump and Mar a Lago. And why wouldn't Google try to show you something recent? But that's not very helpful if you have hazy memories about document thefts during the Obama administrat
Re: (Score:2)
Not to nit pick but I think the secret document theft by Sandy Berger occurred during the Clinton administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm yeah looks like you're right. See, hazy memories. It's been awhile.
Duhbanning books? (Score:5, Informative)
2009-2010 I researched and wrote screenplay based off Centrality of Man. Google cites were everywhere in the outline and beat sheet.
When I returned to finish dialog couple years later “Centrality of Man” returned crickets. Google had either depracted it out of search range or de-referenced the search term. Everything was broken.
Jonathan Haidt (Score:1)
Ask Bing (Score:2, Interesting)
There are large parts of the Internet that Bing refuses to index for unknown reasons. If you're using their search those sites don't even exist. Literally. Searching for site:whatever results in nothing at all. Search on any other engine and boom lots of results.
I've been battling this myself for years trying to get them to index programming blogs and similar but they just won't do it and their support is useless. Lots of other people complaining about this. It usually requires a manual intervention by a hu
Do they or should they, and who is to blame? (Score:1)
Yes (Score:2)
Inaccurate, or censored, information is a cancer.
We need a new (old?) search engine that indexes intelligently (like Page Rank before it was cracked), and otherwise indiscriminately. Something that doesn't care that what it's indexing might be a scientific paper, or porn; that it's news, or warez; that it's white hat, or black hat.
And we need to nuke SEOs, and any company found using them, on sight. Blacklist any company that attempts to use them.
The only real problem we're going to run into is hosting. An
Re: (Score:3)
And we need to nuke SEOs, and any company found using them, on sight. Blacklist any company that attempts to use them.
I used Google to see if your premise was factual, and I found this article that, somehow, was at the top of the search list. How Good Is Google at Detecting Rank Manipulation? [entrepreneur.com] (I agree with you that Google results can be manipulated)
One thing we should get good at is realizing "how" we phrase the question will also dictate what results are returned. (Survey creators have known this for years.) Someone looking for information on nuclear power vs solar power might try some of the following search phrases
Yes, but that is not the biggest problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
The BIGGEST problem is that people are so overstressed, they do not have the mental energy to to proper fact checking.
That is assuming you're even in a position to trust any organization to check your facts against but again, as long as most people are so overloaded from every day life that all they can do is turn on Netflix and turn off their brains, then democracy is not gonna work.
After all, the point of democracy is that more than half of the people, preferably all, built their opinion on good facts before they vote.
It would be half as bad if the media which keeps repeating statements over and over again (which is a very good way of subconsciously introducing statements as accepted facts in humans), were actually true to journalisms declared raison d'etre. But that isn't the reality we live in.
Right now democracy is failing hard IMO... the good thing about democracy, though, is that people are noticing and I think more and more people are pushing back... it'll take a while but I have hope.
Re: Yes, but that is not the biggest problem. (Score:1)
These people aren't really experts on politics
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy never worked great, but we know no better alternative. Personally I think democracy worked better (again far from perfect) when we had much smaller democracies, rather than one large one. Think "50 wolves and 10 sheep vote on what's for dinner". Today the trend is to increase the scope of democracies, which also means increase the size of the non-majority, leaving them wi
Separating fact from opinion (Score:2)
The issue is one of trust. Until websites can publicise a universally agreed measure of trustworthiness for each individual statement they make, we will always have a situation where people place more trust in what they hope, wish or already believe is true. Rather than in what some stranger with no credentials - or any reliable way of q
I do not enjoy building my own stuff. (Score:1)
I only do it because Ikea is less expensive for similar quality.
But I *hate* building it.
i bet government controlled search engines do (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a problem of relevance. Humans are too dumb to recognise the relevance of everything they read which is one of the reasons for the "right to be forgotten".
Some same countries have a right to not be remembered in the first place, where publishing names of people in court cases out those found guilty of crimes is itself illegal. The thinking is that a person's mistakes should follow them only to the point of the duration of a punishment.
For a practical example of stupid reactions to things which are i
SEO arms race (Score:2)
The Ikea bit is a sideways allusion to this paper: https://europepmc.org/article/... [europepmc.org] "The IKEA effect and the production of epistemic goods." which is doing the rounds in academic circles.
* Pro
Begging the question (Score:2)
AI fact checkers (Score:2)
It's nothing new (Score:2)
Look up yellow journalism and muckraking ...
... if the search engines will let you.
More like biased and ideologically driven results (Score:2)
Ideally anyone who Googles elections, vaccines, abortions and so on would find at least an acknowledgement that their viewpoint exists and the commonly offered arguments to support it. This does not imply neutrality when verifiable facts are involved, the summary can be "a lot of people are concerned about blood clots but actually unvaccinated are more likely to suffer from those because COVID also has this complication".
But instead, internet giants and mainstream media go out of the way to shush the discus