Slashdot Mirror
Internet Search Engines May Be Influencing Elections
sciencehabit writes: Thomas Epstein, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research in Vista, California, has found that the higher a politician ranks on a page of Internet search results, the more likely you are to vote for them — 80% more likely in some cases. The story also suggests that the folks at Google may already be influencing elections. "Google's algorithm has been determining the outcome of close elections around the world," says Epstein. As predicted, subjects spent far more time reading Web pages near the top of the list (abstract). But what surprised researchers was the difference those rankings made: Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list.
Then that would be okay.
The researchers saw the most pronounced effects, as you'd expect, when their study included candidates that the subjects had no prior knowledge on. In their first study, they asked Californians about 2010 candidates for PM of Australia.
In their followup, they again note that it's only really effective on people who don't know what's going on (and aren't likely voters anyway): "Divorcees, Republicans, and subjects who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the easiest groups to influence, whereas participants who were better informed, married, or reported an annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible of any group: The manipulated search results increased the number of undecided voters who said they would choose the favored candidate by 80%."
When they tried a third study in India, about Indian elections, that impressive 80% figure dropped to only 12% (of undecided voters).
Donald Trump it is.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
First "Correlation is not causation" post!
News at 11.
and door knocks, too. and the answer is, heck yes, they damn well better influence elections, we're spending a tubload of money for it.
something else that influences elections... if you see a candidate that is batwing insane babbling total bullshit, remember that. don't vote for them.
there, now I'm evil, too. bwa-ha-haaaa, vote for tweedeldum.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Everything counts like it's a Total War. More and more the "everything" is going to replace the traditional marketing methods. After all the internet is a marketing tool most of all.
Also, that's why Jeb Bush is going to win the primaries and the others are going to look like minced meat when it's over.
the most popular politicians will be the most searched and discussed??? uhhhh
The summary, and article, imply that if google is manipulating results intentionally this is bad. But let's consider for a moment that these are undecided voters so ignorant that they are easily and greatly influenced by a single google search. Is it really any better to let these people "decide for themselves" than say, just letting google decide for them?
Page rank ranks a site based on how many sites links to it. If A candidate is popular, there will likely be a lot written about him/her.
I need to see some effort to control for effects like these, before believing Google page rank is affecting election results.
People hate Harper but he'd be in the first page of results.
That's how much he's despised.
"Internet Search Engines May Be Influencing Elections". It's the media's job to influence elections!
and door knocks, too. and the answer is, heck yes, they damn well better influence elections, we're spending a tubload of money for it.
something else that influences elections... if you see a candidate that is batwing insane babbling total bullshit, remember that. don't vote for them.
there, now I'm evil, too. bwa-ha-haaaa, vote for tweedeldum.
Now I'm voting for Trump, just to spite you.
This is nothing but pseudo science propaganda...
Unless they actually walked into the polling booth with the people they don't know that they even VOTED.
How do they even know they changed their mind based on search ranking and not by the FAKE WEBSITES they setup?!
But hey, it sez Republicans is stupid (Even though they did half their studies in Australia) so slashdot luvs it.
These low information voters usually stay out and do not vote at all. Or they vote based on inertia, "we always vote for DMK or BJP or CPI-M".If they take the trouble do a minimal google search before voting it is a step in the right direction. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. They may have a long way to go. But at least they have started the process.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The goatse guy?
It's also likely that their ranking is higher because people are searching for those candidates more. A simple case of reverse causation.
That is all.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
yep
If you are an imbecile who has no idea who to vote for and may be influenced by whatever you can read on the internet, then, for the sake of your country, DON'T VOTE. You are incompetent to take part in democracy. Period.
From TFA:
Except that it is an exaggeration.
So if someone searched for material on Abbott ... it would show sites for Gillard?
Like if you did a search for how to do something in Linux ... but all you got back were Microsoft pages.
I'd dump that browser. Is that an option? If not, then your "research" is flawed.
More likely that they didn't care enough to void your "research".
So someone who cannot be bothered to do any research on the people who are actually running is 12% more likely to vote the way a computer suggests s/he should?
How about another experiment where something positive is compared to something negative? How would you go about manipulating the search results to that "kick me in the face" is chosen over "give me ice cream"?
Undecided voters are undecided because:
a. there isn't any real difference between politicians.
b. THEY DO NOT CARE WHO WINS.
Give them a reason to care and see if the results are the same.
...Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list....
The article seems to paint the search engines as some sort of evil, brain-washing entity. Beware, the search engines can make you vote the way they want you to vote!
.
Yet the article offers no evidence that the search engines are intentionally skewing their results. Indeed, the article actually does say, "Presumably Google isn’t intentionally tweaking its algorithms to favor certain presidential candidates, but Epstein says it would extremely difficult to tell if it were."
So it looks like yet another researcher in search (no pun intended) of headlines.
Good Morning America spent like 10 minutes discussing that Donald Trump was the most searched for of the GOP candidates, like that is news in itself.
Thus begins the downward spiral, feeding in on itself...
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=news&tbs=li:1
I'm in Europe but even then, the search above gives me Fox News as first line, then Google News.
There might be a correlation, but did they get their cause and effect the wrong way around?
If people are more likely to vote for someone, they are more popular and would be likely to get more traffic and a higher Google ranking.
in Britain the higher a politician ranks on a search engine the more likely it is because s/he is somehow involved or implicated in allegations of serious child abuse.
Do you want a paedophile running the country?
(apparently there has been at least one (Edward Heath)).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Fox News pulled a fast one on yesterday's Republican Debate. You had to be a cable TV subscriber to watch it. Skynews.com had a live stream going on YouTube with almost 90,000 viewers and no lag... then out of nowhere YouTube killed it suddenly - citing a copyright complaint by Fox News.
Never forget when a company are dickheads like that, especially when fair coverage is the right thing to do.
Sure, I get the elections are all a sham anyway. I know the electoral college when combine with pre-media-screened candidates ends up with a show election. But to even ineffectively try to block the entirety of the world from viewing debates between presidential candidates of the foremost superpower country in the world... fuck you 100,000,000,000,000 times.
It isn't like Fox News had some great reputation to protect. Of course the public is aware of government media. That shit was over the top BS yesterday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_election
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/
And during the debate, it was said by the Fox News pundits at least once that "since it will likely be Hillary Clinton you are running against" ...
Does that sound appropriate? A debate held by Faux News that is only available live to cable subscribers... wherein the people asking the questions try to influence the sheep by dropping Democratic nominee "hints" ?
Fox News can not be un-shit ever again. Fox guarding the hen house. Watch Hen House News for less bias.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2489044,00.asp
If a candidate is popular, articles will be written about them, and their SEO will increase. (Yes, this may further increase their popularity, but they were already popular.) If anything, their original popularity is driving their Google rank *and* their likelihood of winning the election. I think the researcher takes two "effects," and says one is actually causing the other.
This study is really only interesting for its focus on "undecided voters," but in many electorates this is a really small sliver of the general electorate, so it's hard to say what exactly is swaying them. I mean, are people really Googling "Who should I vote for?", and then just reading the first few articles and deciding "Okay, this first one sounds good.,,"
Thomas Epstein, a research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research in Vista, California, might make a great Janitor but completely lacks the ability to understand cause and effect.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So the argument is that a politicians placement in google search results influences election results.
I think it's quaint that the authors imagine that American voters are curious enough to look up politicians online in order to inform their vote yet too lazy to read past the first few entries in Google.
"Post proc, ergo propter hoc"
The top results in Google are the stories flying around social media, and the stories flying around social media are the only stories most Americans are exposed to.
Ken