Google Search Results and The Truth
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001093.html
My inbox these days tends to be something of a barometer of Internet
hopes and fears, as comments and queries flow in from around the world
on a range of topics.
I keep my own informal tally of my inbox trends, and while the results
are usually fairly predictable based on what's in the news at the
moment, sometimes there are notable surprises.
So you might expect -- and be correct -- that lately there's been a
flood of email about the FCC's Net Neutrality decision -- mostly from
confused folks who have bought the false propaganda of a "Big Brother"
takeover of the Internet. However, no matter how essentially
ridiculous their concerns, my policy is that if they're polite to me I
always try to respond and explain realities as I see them.
But while the net neutrality brouhaha was predictable, my latest inbox
trend is much more bizarre -- people in a panic that Google search
results might be -- wait for it ... -- too truthful!
In particular, an array of (apparently mostly but not exclusively
right wing) commentators have gone ballistic at the rumored prospect
that Google might begin prioritizing -- that is, ranking more
highly -- search results that are objectively correct and truthful.
Facts being emphasized over falsehoods -- oh the horror of it all!
These nutty complaints can seemingly be traced back to a recent Google
research paper that discussed the technical issues surrounding the
estimation of "trust" in Web-based sources, and how that kind of data
could be usefully employed. The paper did not announce -- and Google
has not announced -- any plans to actually implement the techniques
described in that paper. Google may not ever use them.
But I'd be very happy indeed if Google did start giving truth a
specific ranking boost in that manner or through some other similar
procedure.
There's a twisted notion among the Google haters in particular that
search results should somehow be "neutral" -- advocates frequently
attempt to make loony and completely false comparisons with net
neutrality.
But "neutral" Google search results -- or from any competing search
service -- would be effectively worthless for the vast majority of
searches, effectively turning search into a telephone white pages
directory of unprioritized gobbledygook. The point of search is to
return the most useful, relevant results -- and that normally should
give a very heavy emphasis to truthful ones.
There's a saying that everyone has a right to their own opinions, but
not their own facts. And there are significant areas where opinion
reigns and objective truth cannot be reasonably ascertained to a level
that would be suitable for ranking boosts. Various religious
philosophies are in an obvious area where truth-ranking would likely
be impossible -- though that doesn't necessarily mean that widely
accepted historical facts regarding the impact of religions wouldn't
be subject to various degrees of validation. That said, I'd probably
avoid the whole area of religion in the truth ranking context.
Let's take an example like where President Obama was born. If you
throw that query into Google, you'll actually get a top "fact box"
that correctly notes Honolulu. Indeed, Google already usefully
provides various sorts of knowledge boxes that show immediate, direct
answers to common questions.
But the top organic search result currently is a page of Obama birth
conspiracy theories from Wikipedia, and more to the point the third
result is a page claiming Obama admitted to being born in Kenya.
How does a total wacko result rank so highly? Most likely because the
site in question has a lot of inbound links (presumably from other
wacko sites), which gives that result significant rank. If that
ranking included a truth factor as a signal, it would likely be pushed
much further down in the results -- where it rightfully belongs.
Now, one might argue that this really isn't such a big deal. After
all, anyone with half a brain knows that Obama was born in the USA,
and that the moon landings weren't faked, and that integrated circuits
aren't powered by fairies on teeny-tiny treadmills.
But there are other areas where high ranking of utterly false and
misleading information can do serious harm.
Anti-vaccine nuts continue to claim a connection between autism and
vaccinations, long after the study they usually cite was utterly
discredited. Global warming deniers spout all manner of fabricated
false evidence and imaginary statistics. The list of crackpot claims
that can do real damage to real people seems almost endless.
And while I would definitely not advocate muzzling these views -- I'm
a free speech guy, after all -- I do not see any reason why their
harmful and often hateful fantasies should rank highly along with
objectively correct facts.
You can see the same problem on cable news. There can be 10K experts
who agree that a vaccine is safe, but CNN or FOX News will seek out a
buffoon who doesn't believe this, and give them equal ranking in a
"debate" on air.
One might as well debate whether the Earth is actually flat as in
medieval imagery. Probably coming soon to a cable news channel near
you!
Folks terrified of truth in search rankings argue that Google
shouldn't be the arbiter of what's correct or false.
But the reality is that Google wouldn't be making those decisions.
Google would merely be reflecting objective facts that are
overwhelmingly accepted as truth, rather than giving nonsense similar
rankings merely by virtue of that silliness being widely publicized --
publicity does not equal truth.
So as far as I'm concerned, I'd love to see a Google Truth Mode in
search results as the default. Hell, provide an option users could
trigger to turn off Truth Mode if they wanted -- that could be very
amusing for comparison. If some people want to live in their own
fantasy mode that would still be their choice.
But I for one would prefer those fantasies not to be diluting truth
when I do a search.
And that's a fact.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
