Google’s algorithm is endangering access to Women on Web’s online abortion service
Venny Ala-Siurua, Executive Director of Women on Web: Google’s algorithm is endangering access to Women on Web’s online abortion service At least three times a year, Women on Web is forced to go through a stressful process that shapes our online strategy and work activities for months afterwards and has the power to paralyze or enhance our online abortion service. This process has nothing to do with the dedication of our staff nor with the number of individuals that we support in accessing safe abortions. Instead, it is an exercise powered by Google. It is called the Google Core Update, which is an update to Google’s algorithm that is rolled out several times a year to improve the quality and relevance of its search engine’s results. The impact of Google Core Updates Women on Web has been operating for over 15 years and our website has been re-evaluated numerous times by Google. However, it wasn’t until May 2020 that we fully grasped the power that these updates have over our service and the viability of our organization. During the May 2020 update, Women on Web lost 80% of its website traffic and as an abortion service that almost exclusively operates online, this update had a devastating impact on our operations. As a result, fewer people have been finding us on the Internet and we’ve seen a sharp decline in help requests to our service. On November 17th 2021, Google’s most recent update started and once again it felt like the rug was pulled out from under us. Right away we started to see a sharp decline in our traffic, while we know very well that the demand for remote services and abortions didn’t decline; individuals needed our service on November 18th as much as they did the day before. The only thing that changed was the algorithm. The thousands of women and pregnant people who access our service every year should be a sufficient testament of our expertise, trustworthiness and authority that should not be debated by the algorithm several times a year. Still, Google has the power to determine whether we operate a relevant service for people needing abortions, even in countries where our telemedicine abortion service remains the only safe and affordable way to end unwanted pregnancies. Google’s algorithm does not represent the needs of women seeking abortions To be clear, we understand why these updates exist and we are not protesting against strategies to ensure that search results correspond to the search intentions of people browsing the Internet. Instead, we are arguing that Google, through these updates, is not improving its search results or delivering relevant content for its users because people looking for safe abortions can no longer find our service. When Google de-ranks our website, the tech giant is not able to offer other more relevant websites on top of its search results simply because they don’t exist. Is the algorithm able to interpret the search intent of someone with an unwanted pregnancy living in a country with no access to abortions? Can the algorithm read the preferences of people looking for not just abortion care, but an online abortion service? We don’t think it can. Women on Web’s online abortion service is unique and reaches some of the most remote regions in the world. The service has provided over 100,000 medical abortion services since 2005 and published over 20 scientific papers on the positive outcomes of the service. Access to our service and safe abortions should not be decided by algorithms and instead a vital service like ours should be protected from these updates. Google needs to become accountable for the damage these updates cause and acknowledge that its algorithms are not neutral. They are built and trained by humans with specific backgrounds, intentions and blind spots. These are people who are disconnected from the global realities of abortion rights and access, and are therefore incapable of making accurate and unbiased decisions for women and pregnant people needing abortion services. Help us counter the Google Core Update Our service is vital and needs to be visible. Please share our website and service within your networks and advocate for holding big tech responsible for protecting online access to essential services. -- Jo van der Spek, M2M Amsterdam# distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Fwd: Who’s *really* backing Boris?
Open Democracy launches down to earth campaign to expose leading Boris Johnson and Hunt. -- * please, don't other me * Jo van der Spek M2M v. Ostadestraat 49 1072SN Amsterdam http://schipholbrand.net Doorgestuurd bericht Van: "Peter Geoghegan, openDemocracy" support...@opendemocracy.net Aan: j...@xs4all.nl Datum: donderdag, 13 juni 2019, 08:44p.m. +02:00 Onderwerp: Who’s *really* backing Boris? >Most of us won’t have a say in who becomes PM, but at the very least we should >know who’s funding them. >Unsubscribe >View in your browser >Dear friend of openDemocracy, >The race to replace Theresa May is on. >Soon we’ll know who’s moving into Number 10. But will we know who’s >bankrolled them? >openDemocracy has just revealed that the two frontrunners, Boris Johnson and >Jeremy Hunt, have received £25,000 each from a prominent climate change >sceptic. >Boris is yet to disclose the donation. >We also know that Lynton Crosby’s controversial PR firm is running a vastly >expensive pro-Boris campaign – but no one will say who’s picking up the bill. >We’ve got tons of leads to chase down on this story, but not much time. Will >you help us keep digging? > >Yes, I'll donate to openDemocracy >openDemocracy exposed the tricks that made a mockery of the 2016 Brexit >referendum – including the law-breaking by Vote Leave, fronted by Boris. >Now we want citizens to have the facts before the next British prime minister >is chosen. >Hunt and Johnson have received over £100,000 in donations – that we know of – >in recent weeks, with more set to pour in before the final ballot. >Millionaire hedge-funders, CEOs, and lobbying firms are among those emptying >their pockets. >Most of us won’t have a say in who becomes PM, but at the very least we >should know who’s funding them. >With your support, we can: >- dig deep on who’s bankrolling all the candidates , so that citizens know >who the next PM is leaving the door of Number 10 open to >- uncover who’s funding the secretive, lavish pro-Boris lobbying operation, >run by Lynton Crosby’s controversial PR firm >- expose the backroom deals and horse-trading going on behind closed doors >Yes, I'll donate to openDemocracy > This isn’t just about Britain, or Boris. It’s vital that any candidate >running for office is transparent about their funding. >Whatever the outcome of the Tory leadership race, fixing the ongoing abuses of >our democracy will need committed, forensic investigation over many years. >Our work gets results: prompting law change, criminal investigations – and >our investigation into Brexit bankroller Aaron Banks just got nominated for >Private Eye’s prestigious Paul Foot journalism prize. >With your regular support, we can strengthen our network of investigative >journalists – tracing dark money flows and holding secretive political >backers to account, both now and for years to come. >Please give what you can today and together we can uncover the truth about >who’s shaping our politics. > >Thank you, > > >Peter Geoghegan , >Investigations Editor, openDemocracyUK >Read more: Revealed: Climate change denier makes big donations to Boris >Johnson and Jeremy Hunt >Click here to change your subscription. Read our privacy notice here . >The Print House >18 Ashwin Street >London , E8 3DL >United Kingdom > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: apropos "relax dear"
Yes, the fundamental question lurking in any collective is "who cleans the
toilet?".
--
* please, don't other me *
Jo van der Spek M2M
v. Ostadestraat 49
1072SN Amsterdam
http://schipholbrand.net dinsdag, 06 november 2018, 00:19p.m. +01:00 van
Andreas Broeckmann a...@mikro.in-berlin.de :
>friends, i'm an active lurker on this list since 1996; my answer to
>angela's question ("What is Nettime's policy on whether or not it should
>give fascists a platform from which to recruit?") would be that
>"nettime" probably doesn't have a "policy" on anything, other than the
>openness to questions; i'm sure there are people here who can put this
>in a more nuanced theoretical language, but i imagine the list and the
>discourse it supports as "in flux" and as something that takes its shape
>through the things that people write, and through the ways in which they
>respond to each other. - in the given case, the point for me would be
>not to ask what some (general) "policy" might be, but to state clearly
>and concretely that i'm against allowing anything that smacks of fascist
>trolling or recruitment. a statement like this constitutes the quality
>of this list which has, as its "policy", only a certain, vague
>collective spirit which requires critical voices like angela's to
>express their opinion. therefore: i support ted's decision to moderate
>some of the contributions since, given 22 years of trust-building, i
>believe he is acting in the spirit of the list and the discourse it
>serves to constitute.
>(not sure whether this is an answer to julia's question.)
>regards,
>-a
>
>
>Am 05.11.18 um 01:57 schrieb Julia Röder:
> about that
>
>> dear angela,
>> relax dear.
>> it is ok.
>> noone is recruiting anyone here.
>> chill.
>> best,
>> w
>
> so, is that it? silence about this from the whole list except from angela?
> do you all not say anything because you think this is trolling or this
> is normal??
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 11:12:54 +1100
> From: Angela Mitropoulos < angela.mitropou...@gmail.com
>>
> To: Nettime < nettim...@kein.org>
> Subject: Re: apropos of nothing
>
> It is a simple and straightforward question that I would like
> answered. It
> makes no inferences about whether recruitment is effective, or even
> deliberate rather than aesthetic. But I'm grateful for the evidence
> you've
> furnished, dear, about the way in which women are told to calm down and
> shut up, no matter the tone they take, so that those who think women and
> black people are less than human and not entitled to take up space
> can keep
> ranting on at length about how everyone other than white guys are
> less than
> human. I mean, I'm grateful that you've illustrated the reason why I
> asked
> this question in the first place. That said, I have no interest in
> debating
> this further.
>
> I simply repeat my question, and would like it answered. Preferably
> in the
> negative. But if in the affirmative, then I would like to suggest that
> Nettime be shuttered because any benefit it had for creating a
> better world
> has long past. The world doesn't need a longform version of Gab, or
> Gab for
> that matter.
>
> Angela
># distributed via : no commercial use without permission
># is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
># more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
># @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:# distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
