Slashdot Mirror
New Campaign Tactic - Google Bombing
jeian writes "My Direct Democracy, a liberal group blog, is trying out a new campaign tactic — Google bombing. From the New York Times article: 'Searching Google for Peter King, the Republican congressman from Long Island, would bring up a link to a Newsday article headlined King Endorses Ethnic Profiling.' Google's policy has typically been to not intervene and let the algorithms work by themselves, but could this change if Google-bombing becomes a common tactic?"
The classic example is a Google Search for miserable failure that returns the WhiteHouse.gov biography for George Bush. Not surpisingly, Michael Moore's page also comes up in the first page of results in the tit-for-tat. Read more about how "ugly" Democrats and Republicans are using Political Google Bombs at Wikipedia.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
People have been google-bombing phrases like litigious bastards, miserable failure, french military victories, and so on for years. But these are all going about it backwards. If someone isn't looking for "litigious bastards," they're not going to find out you think it applies to SCO .
I'm amazed it's taken people (outside of black-hat SEO and comment spammers) this long to start with the keywords end-users are likely to start with -- in this case, the names of the candidates -- and aim them at a site expressing the desired POV, rather than the other way around.
I thought that when the idea first became popular Google worked on making it harder to google bomb something. Isn't this infact one of their key aspects on developing google itself? Return RELEVANT sites? not things with lots and lots of links and the same 2 words every time.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
If Google adjusts their code to "rectify" a politically-oriented gaming of the system, then Google would appear to many people as politically biased. "You fixed it for Johnny Blue, but you didn't fix it for Sally Red, so you must be one of them blue-state LIBeral activist fanatic type companies!" "You tweaked Sally Red's ranking but left alone Johnny Blue's sort results, so you must be one of them red-state NEOnazi NEOcon corporate welfare hack jobs!"
[
my gut feeling is let it be, and let the republicans do the same to democrats. welcome to politics. its nasty. always was, always will be
however, google in a very short time has come to inhabit a very important space in the media
it is largely unregulated in the usa now (not so in other countries), but it won't stay that way for long. too many powerful interests will have too many concerns about google and its power,and google will not survive unscathed
so i say: no regulation
but my brain tells me regulation of google is coming regardless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Negative attack ads" are considered poisonous to democracy, but using spammer SEO tactics which are sleezy and destructive to Google's usefulness are not considered even worse. This is nothing less than an attempt to create a propagandistic effect with Google, whereas "negative attack ads" have to operate in the clear and open and are already covered by libel and slander laws. There are no laws against using a Google bomb to create a potentially false impression by the order in which things come up. You could have a guy who's say... obsessed with ending the War on Drugs, but a Google bomb could make him out to be some racist ass by bombing up all of the links that point to the one time he said "blacks are the most common drug dealer suspects, so profiling them before anyone else is the most effective strategy for DEA to use." Even if it's out of context, who will know now?
This is why I'm against all of the restrictions on campaigning. Instead I support 100% transparency on money. If you want to publish an ad, all you should have to do is say "I'm __INSERT__NAME__ and have the following (non-)affiliation with Candidate X." Just transparency so the public can decide.
Ironically, all the "campaign reform" advocates in the public have done is to support the things that incumbents enthusiastically support, like negative, privately-funded campaign ads that highligh what Group X doesn't like about a candidate, thus informing the public. And... if it's false, the candidate can always sue for libel.
This is why I don't listen to radio or watch television during election season.
One might assume for the same reasons I might now stop surfing the net, but I won't for the simple reason I don't know anything about anybody or any proposition. I'll figure it all out the hours before I vote.
For those who trust the internet for information, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. You must be cautious.
this is not the candidate candidate you should be voting for...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned one of my personal favorite google-bombs...
Google for Santorum (as in Rick Santorum) and you will see the funniest ever.
Why is it that liberals use Google and other online technology to influence elections?
Because they believe more firmly that it will work. The other side is, well, conservative. They remain skeptical that the net has as much influence as its most starry-eyed dreamers say it has. They figure their time, money and effort is better put into old-fashioned politicking, e.g. local get-out-the-vote organizations, having people call their neighbors, or walk over and knock on doors come election day, or having the candidate over to the church after Sunday pancakes to talk, et cetera and so forth.
Soon enough we'll know who was right.
Frankly, I think that this is a very positive way to use the idea of Google bombing. The whole point of PageRank is that people vote with their links and other expressions of interest in certain pages. So when people pull a prank like linking 'miserable failure' to Bush or Moore, this is just sort of silly and unimportant. But when people really want others to know about an article that exposes an important aspect of a political figure, and they all link to that article, that seems to be perfectly in line with the spirit of Google. What's wrong - that they all chose to use the same link text? That they decided to coordinate their efforts and focus public opinion on one particular article? How is that different from a campaign choosing specific words and talking points to drive home in stump speeches, press materials, etc.?
I think the fact that the person who started this went out of his way to focus on substantive articles from real newspapers does a lot to distance this from the sort of 'prank' it could have been. If this were all focused on a parody site, or they were doing something deceptive like linking "John Kyl" to the site of a child molester with the same or similar name, I think that would be irresponsible. But especially when the first few entries are still his senate biography, campaign site, and wikipedia entry, I don't see the problem with this.
Interestingly, since a few hours ago when I read the article in the Times and first Googled "Jon Kyl," the article in question has disappeared from the first couple pages. Is Google actually taking a hand here? It sure looks like something has happened.
You can see the links here.
google in a very short time has come to inhabit a very important space in the media
I don't know about everyone else but I go to Google when I need information. I don't get a clear view of what's going on in the world from the infotainment media. Googleboming interferes with that. Anyone abusing Google's algorhythms as a political tool cares more about pushing their propaganda than my right to self education. I try to keep that, disrespect for me the end user, in mind as I look through my bombed search results.
We are all just people.
"Google's US politics are left wing extreme. They enjoy the slander and insults that go on"
Errmmmmm yeah. That must be why they link to hundreds of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity fan sites.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Your post reminds me of the Jon Stewart sketch regarding news programs (esp. Fox) and the question mark. You can claim anything you want as long as you frame it in the form of a question.
Of course, then you go beyond that and make a baseless claim without any evidence, with the claim being obvious hyperbole. (Well, obvious to anyone with a brain. I'm assuming that includes you, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, if you RTFA carefully (I know), you'll see that it starts with the phrase "If things go as planned for liberal bloggers in the next few weeks," when referring to "Jon Kyl", and "would bring up a link to" for Peter King. The article states what Direct Democracy hopes to happen and not what has already happened. To be fair, I misread it the first time, as well.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Google has recently registered a Political Action Committee.
. html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1930008,00
So we will see how they react to it. The claim is that it is for advocating the free distribution of information so it will be interesting to see if they intervene and if they do, how they intervene.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
how conservatives believe the Internet can be used?
Conservatives aren't motivated to rig Google. Guilty as charged. That's not the same as using the Internet.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
campaign was beginning.
Peter King: What happen ?
IT guy: Somebody set us up the Googlebomb.
Secretary: We get Newsday.
Peter King: What !
. . . So, have you had enough, or must I continue?
For great justice, move every page rank!
Start Running Better Polls
No, they are a core group of activists changing the indexed Google results for the web, not the web itself. They are manipulating algorithms that are designed to maintain neutrality as much as possible.
This is exactly what search engine optimization is--tricking Google into pushing your result to the top over others that are legitimately linked on the web. I don't know about you, but I don't want a search engine corrupted by special interests.
There's nothing wrong with publicizing an article by creating a web page. Simply because a group of people think their particular article is so noteworthy that it deserves to be viewed above all others despite Google's relevancy algorithms placing it low on the list doesn't mean they have the right to game the system. To support the tactics of this group is to support spammers who game Google; it is the same mindset of entitlement ("My results belong above everyone else's, just because I say so!").
"Sufferin' succotash."