Google Employees Discussed Tweaking Search Results To Counter Trump's Travel Ban (wsj.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Days after the Trump administration instituted a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, according to internal company emails. The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to "leverage" search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be "islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Iran', etc." and "prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms `Mexico', `Hispanic', `Latino', etc." The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to harness the company's vast influence on the internet in response to the travel ban. Google said none of the ideas discussed were implemented. "These emails were just a brainstorm of ideas, none of which were ever implemented," a company spokeswoman said in a statement. "Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology -- not in the current campaign season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President Trump's executive order on immigration. Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies."

Comments

Manipulation

[rfengr]

I’m sure they’ll be tweaking results this upcoming election.

Re:Manipulation

[Crashmarik]

I’m sure they’ll be tweaking results this upcoming election.

Pretty much a given. Facebook opened a war room to deal with "Election Interference" (Yeah other than their own), Google has also been on that bandwagon, and has long been putting it's thumb on the scales with Youtube.

What's really funny though is you manage to torque some twit who thinks people won't be able to figure this out if they don't see your post.

Re: Manipulation

[jwhyche]

So much truth in one statement. More people voted against Hilary than voted for Trump. I believe if they had run anyone other than Hilary it would have been a slam dunk for them.

Re: Manipulation

[OYAHHH]

Why though?

Because she was a crook?

Yes, she was, is, and forever will be a crook.

But Trump is much worse, he has a track record of scamming and illegal discrimination.

Well enough people in the flyover states totally disagreed with you. Sorry.

Because they didn't think she was qualified?

Yes

Trump has proven his financial incompetence.

Hmm, apparently you haven't noticed the record low black unemployment numbers, the record low hispanic unemployment numbers, the record highs in the stock market. I'm sorry, but you are the one who is incompetent if you cannot look at those results and see how spectacular they are.

Because they didn't like her?

No they did not like her.

Hell of a thing to elect that buffoon just because of you don't like her personality.

Is the pot calling the kettle black here? Perhaps it's you who doesn't like Trump's personality.

There is no point trying to rationalize it.

Then don't because you are not very good at it anyway.

"Our processes and policies"

[Nutria]

LOL.

Anyone who's ever had a job with a BigCo and isn't terminally naive knows this is a steaming crock of delusion.

Non-story

[Sarten-X]

So let me try to summarize this:

Somebody at Google said "hey, we could abuse our power for good!" and management came back saying "it's still abuse, so we're not doing it", and that was the end of it.

Folks did their jobs, nothing bad happened, and everything worked as it should. It's nice to have a story that isn't sky-is-falling panic, but there's literally nothing newsworthy to report here.

Re:Non-story

[Crashmarik]

Somebody at Google said "hey, we could abuse our power for good!" and management came back saying "it's still abuse, so we're not doing it", and that was the end of it.

Now that's funny.

This would be the same Google that plans to closely track users of it's search services for the Chinese government and silenced people talking about it ?

https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Really it's still on the damn front page as I type this.

Re:Non-story

[Etcetera]

Somebody at Google said "hey, we could abuse our power for good!" and management came back saying "it's still abuse, so we're not doing it", and that was the end of it.

Compare it to: Somebody at Google said "hey, men and women are different and if we consider that then we could help increase actual diversity here for good!" and management came back saying "you're fired", and that was the end of it.

It's bad enough that Google even has this power, but between it and Facebook, there's clear pressure from the bottom up (thanks to the prevalence of thought in the Bay Area) to end up doing this. It's naive to think effort to effect these types of things end here.

Re:Non-story

[iMadeGhostzilla]

So you have one confirmed instance of employees' serious intent to rig search results, you have the management's *word* that it didn't happen, and from that you conclude that the story is not newsworthy because it follows no other instance of such intent ever occurred, or if it did it must also have been blocked by the management -- according to the management? After the leaked video showing clear and unequivocal political preferences of the management?

Re:Non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

Dalmore was fired amidst hate-filled rants and threats from far-left fellow employees, and Google said "He was fired for violating company policy (we don't know which one). Our employees are not far-left, and we would never act on those views (that they don't have)."

Then recently we discovered that right after the 2016 election, Google executives held a meeting, where employees expressed dismay at Trump's election. Many people, including multiple CEx officers, spoke about why it happened, and started brainstorming about ho to make sure that 'fake news' could never make it happen again. Google responded, saying "Yes, we have far-left employees, but they were just expressing their opinions (even the CEO). They would never think of acting on it."

Now we see that employees felt comfortable publicly brainstorming how to use Google's search results to manipulate public opinion and political views. Google's latest response: "Sure, we have far-left employees, and they spend their time thinking of ways to oppose the other political party. However, they would never actually do it. Our search result algorithms, which we will never show you, certainly don't include any deliberate bias for our chosen political views."

As you said, it is naive to believe them when they've lied so much in the past.

Re:Non-story

[NaCh0]

Management? More like the PR department said they didn't do it.

The social justice engineers probably still did it because everyone knows certain keywords get tuned by hand. Google has become a company whose denials have to be read with the same skepticism given to a lawyer/politician's statement. The specific carve outs and what is not said is as important as what they have told you.

Re: Non-story

[TuballoyThunder]

It is newsworthy. Google and other tech companies argue that they should not be liable for content on their servers because they do not exercise editorial control. An employee suggests that they should exercise such editorial control, which will put the company in legal jeopardy. How is that not newsworthy?

Re:Non-story

[commodore64_love]

> management came back saying "it's still abuse, so we're not doing it"

which is, of course, objectively untrue. In fact, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to meet with statesâ(TM) attorneys general next week to discuss possible criminal action against tech firms that bias their products against conservatives. Because who could ever forgot how Trumpâ(TM)s electoral victory caused such âoepanic and dismayâ among top Google executive

- Also one can't help but be skeptical considering that just before the 2016 presidential election, among the many leaks published by Wikileaks as part of its Podesta email campaign, was Google's "strategic plan" to help democrats win the election and track voters.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

Re:Non-story

[Raenex]

This would be the same Google that plans to closely track users of it's search services for the Chinese government and silenced people talking about it ?

It's also the same Google that used their platform to drive Latino votes during the election, in the hopes of upending Trump. But the Slashdot gatekeepers didn't want to tell you that story. They pulled that from the stories you could vote on within hours of my submitting it.

Re:Non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be the same Google that plans to closely track users of it's search services for the Chinese government and silenced people talking about it ?

It's also the same Google that used their platform to drive Latino votes during the election, in the hopes of upending Trump. But the Slashdot gatekeepers didn't want to tell you that story. They pulled that from the stories you could vote on within hours of my submitting it.

And the same Google that altered your search when you looked for "crooked hillary" last election. I remember reading that and then trying it, and sure enough it seemed dumbfounded by what was an extremely common phrase at the time. You could even throw any other politicians name in there and it didn't have a problem.

Sorry, but I am absolutely convinced Google is already tweaking search results and I don't believe them for a second when they pretend they won't do it again.

Re:Non-story

[hairyfeet]

Somebody at Google said "hey, we could abuse our power for good!" and management came back saying "We don't see how its gonna increase our profits or power, so we're not doing it", and that was the end of it.....FTFY.

Re: Non-story

[Agripa]

The employees that even suggested such actions should have been terminated on the spot.

No, termination is reserved for employees who do not contribute to Google's echo chamber.

Re:Non-story

[commodore64_love]

FOX is usually considered "centrist" in most media studies (while CNN, NBC are "left") so there's no reason to prosecute FOX.

- Chick Fil-A is no more anti-left than In N Out with its bible verses on the burgers/fries. Have we really reached a point where business people who are Christian are not considered "liable for criminal action" by the AG?

Re:Non-story

[commodore64_love]

Google could have targeted voters in Red states like Montana, Nebraska, Kansas..... they specifically avoided those states, because they didn't want to help Trump.

They wanted to help Hillary... therefore they were biased.

Google's problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Google needs to realize that by moving away from a neutral platform to one that is politically biased that they have lost the public trust. Not all of the public yet, but enough that people are talking about, even those that are not political. Whether it's here on Slashdot, at work or at the dinner table people are talking about Google's bias, even in liberal states.

Google needs to damage control and it's going to take more than claims of not being biased to do it. Google needs to come clean about past bias, remove the SJW weighting and be honest with people about what they did. Nothing less than a full mea culpa is going to work at this point.

They can claim they aren't biased all day long, but people keep seeing (and not seeing) the same results. Nothing has changed. When Google declined congresses invitation it showed a lot of people a company that is that is arrogant and completely out of touch with the average American.

As it is right now, your starting to see a lot of people who are looking at Google and declaring that their monopoly is overdue for antitrust action. This is starting to become much more prevalent in conservative media which has traditionally stood against antitrust actions.

Re:Google's problem

[davecb]

The cited discussions suggest that the majority, and even the management, was against political bias. I'm constantly surprised that companies (like mine!) succeed in actually discussing both sides of questions instead of jumping in on one side and firing anyone who disagrees.

I once had an ex-CTO that wanted to do evil as a matter of policy. He still gives me nightmares (;-))

That's fine...

[argStyopa]

...as long as the Federal regulators now recognize that Google DOES exert editorial control over its content.

Therefore, they are no longer simply a 'blind carrier' of information but in fact are showing that they are functionally liable for whatever they link, right?

Why you shouldn't use google search

[Karmashock]

I loved google when they delivered search results relevant to my query. But increasingly they've been tweaking results. You can do the same search in google and then in other search results and there are certain things that should be in the google search that aren't.

Lots of things are still good about google... their translate service is pretty cool, their maps service is great, their image list thing is pretty good for finding random images that are similar to search results.

Lots of positive things. But... the company has abandoned their "don't be evil" motto.

Time to recognize that and pop over to DuckDuckGo or something.

Whatever your politics, if you put any stock in classical Western Liberalism, then you can't be okay with the search engine trying to bias your political opinions by biasing the search. They've been doing it. Everyone knows. Time to acknowledge it and move on.

Re:But wait...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Sergey Brin. Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin. Born in RUSSIA! See? PROOF of Russian Interference in the election!

Re:More censorship

[commodore64_love]

STARTPAGE is good. Also duckduckgo