There has been lots of discussion on this seemingly misogynistic “correction” that Google provides, and those familiar with my research know that I’m a proponent of critiquing algorithm and system design for potential bias. But in this case I think it is more a function of the n-gram table of adjacent word frequencies. A user searches for “x y”, Google determines that “x z” is related, and appears more commonly in “natural language”, so it suggests that search as well.

There clearly is a broader cultural problem that “he invented” appears more often in language, but in this case it might just be Google’s algorithm reflecting a pre-existing cultural bias, and not creating it themselves. Now, of course, Google could decide to intervene and NOT allow this suggestion to appear – or to force similar suggestions in the reverse…..plenty of ways for them to “not be evil” here…..

Good related background reading:

• Friedman, B. & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems (PDF). ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3), 330-347.
• Introna, L. & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters (PDF). The Information Society, 16(3), 169-185.

• Domain registration could be used as a way to determine the “document inception date,” or an age associated with a page.
• The expiration date of a domain could indicate the “legitimacy” of a document, with short term registrations indicating more questionable pages.
• Changes, and the frequency of changes, in registration information, including contact information, hosting companies, and more, could also raise warning flags.
• Information about name servers, and other sites on those name servers could also play a role in a ranking score:
  

  A “good” name server may have a mix of different domains from different registrars and have a history of hosting those domains, while a “bad” name server might host mainly pornography or doorway domains, domains with commercial words (a common indicator of spam), or primarily bulk domains from a single registrar, or might be brand new.

There is some debate as to whether this is a proper use of WHOIS domain information (and general privacy concerns about the availability of WHOIS data persist), but to me this discussion points to the broader realization that Google’s algorithms are not some kind of magical and neutral nugget of code absent of biases.

Relying on domain information as described above reveals how biases are embedded in search engine algorithms. The relationship between a page’s expiration date and its legitimacy, or labelling a server as “bad” if it mainly hosts pornography might make logical sense, but they remain subjective decisions – biases. These biases are then programmed into the algorithm. I can’t repeat it enough: search engine algorithms are not neutral. Indeed all computer systems contain biases [PDF] with particular political and ethical consequences.

Now, according to John Battelle, it seems that this part of the deal might be gone. Since it seems to have been eliminated from their arrangement so quietly, I wonder if Google is trying to pretend they never considered allowing such a controversial practice. But, of course, they now readily admit that their search engine results are no longer purely organic…

“Do you have a sense that the mainstream public (not just the internet savvy) have a real growing distrust of Google’s services?”

I haven’t seen any direct evidence on how recent events have affected the general public’s level of trust/distrust with Google, but there have been some recent studies regarding trust in search engines overall, which might provide insight to how people might react:

Fallows, D. (2005) “Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting – but they are also unaware and naïve”. [PDF] Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Marable L. (2003). “False oracles: Consumer reaction to learning the truth about how search engines work: Results of an ethnographic study.” Consumer WebWatch.

The Pew study, for example, reveals that 68% of users view search engines as a fair and unbiased source of information, while only 19% explicitly stated that they don’t place that kind of trust in search engines. However, the study also revealed that the 68% of those who consider search engines fair and unbiased tend to be less knowledgeable, engaged, and experienced in the world of search than the 19% of those who are more skeptical. Once users were made more aware of search engine practices, their trust in search engines falls: one-third of the users indicated they would be “less likely” to use a search engine, for example, if they discovered that websites were paying for placement within the search results.

Trust in search engines is equally fragile when users consider the possibility that their search activities are being monitored and tracked by the search engine provider. According to the Pew study, over half of search engine users are not aware of the ability to track their search activity. When told about the ability for search engines to monitor activity, 44% of all users disapprove of the practice, and two-thirds of those would stop using a search engine if they learned that it was keeping track of their own searches. In total, 21% of all Internet users would stop using a particular search engine if they learned their searchers were being tracked.

To me, this drives home the importance of increasing “search engine literacy” among Internet users: educating and informing users about how search engines work, the business models that support them, the use and placement of paid results and advertising, the privacy implications, as well as the potential for censorship or other forms of bias in results.

In light of the China situation, do you think the shift in “principles” is merely a tipping point for a public that has been waiting for a clear-cut reason to be anti-Google?

I don’t think the general public has been looking for a reason to become “anti-Google.” From my perspective (and supported by Pew’s research), the typical web user (erroneously) feels Google is a neutral tool that inherently delivers the “best” and most useful search results. Few considered the fact that search engines could have biases or be political. I do think, however, that the China incident was an event that finally did bring these issues to light. The potential biases in how search engines operate has now come to the forefront of people’s minds. For those who already were concerned about the “politics of search engines,” the China incident was merely the latest manifestation. (see L. Introna and H. Nissenbaum. Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters [PDF]. The Information Society, 16(3):1-17, 2000.)

Is fear of Google, as some have said, just another example of paranoia about technology in general?

I don’t think this should be simply chalked up as paranoia about technology or a Luddite reaction. Search engines do provide a useful service to help navigate the Web. The key is to acknowledge that no technology is neutral – and that search engines do contain politics (again, this was first pointed out by Introna & Nissenbaum). It is not a matter of paranoia, but of coming to an understanding the political aspects of technology so that users can better understand these tools and the implications of their use. I would not suggest not using Google because of these issues; only that the use of Google must be informed by these concerns so users understand the broader issues at play and adjust their use and expectations of search engines accordingly.

Is the negativity a result of jealousy and an automatically dislike of companies that just get too big? Or is it related to a larger feeling of anxiety about privacy issues (perhaps fueled by other government vs. privacy scandals that have
come to light recently)?

I don’t think these reactions have anything to do with Google’s size, or even their potential monopoly role. Google has brought some of this attention upon themselves by taking the bold moral stance with their “do no evil” corporate motto, but to be fair, Google certainly is not alone with regard to both privacy concerns or China. Yahoo, for example, appears to have provided information to the Chinese government which led to the imprisonment of 2 Chinese citizens critical of the government. Microsoft reportedly also has helped the Chinese government track down dissidents.

The rising public concern over the privacy of our personal information and online intellectual activities has also helped make issues of search engine privacy more apparent to the average user, but again, I feel much more needs to be done to not only educate users, but also to better conceptualize (philosophically, legally, socially) the particular privacy and surveillance threats search engines represent.

I also noticed that you moved off of Blogger recently–any indication of your own personal attitude toward Google?

An astute observation! Yes, when I first experimented with blogging in January of 2005, I used Google’s Blogger platform: it was free and easy-to-use. But as my research into the ethical and value implications of what I have called “the google paradigm” progressed, I decided it would be best to move my blog off Google’s servers and to my own site. I do use Google for searching the web, and I have experimented with Gmail and their other services to become acquainted with how it works, but I do not log into their site, and I clear Google’s cookie from my browser regularly.

Previously Google’s Principles included this statement:

The order and contents of Google search results are completely automated. No one hand picks a particular result for a given search query, nor does Google ever insert jokes or send messages by changing the order of results. Occasionally, when a particular website is the subject of public attention, other sites begin linking to it. This may elevate its importance as gauged by our ranking software, which assigns a PageRank value based in part on who links to a given page. Higher ranking in Google results may lead to more awareness, which may lead to more links and so on.

But if you look at that page now, it has the headline, “Does Google ever insert jokes or send messages by changing the order of its results?” with this answer:

No. Occasionally, when a particular website is the subject of public attention, other sites begin linking to it. This may elevate its importance as gauged by our ranking software, which assigns a PageRank value based in part on who links to a given page. Higher ranking in Google results may lead to more awareness, which may lead to more links, and so on.

Notice what is missing: “The order and contents of Google search results are completely automated. No one hand picks a particular result for a given search query.”

It is amazing how easily one’s core principles can change.

[via Search Engine Journal]

It’s profound what being a public company can do to the core values of a young firm.

was less than two years ago that Google Inc. (GOOG) co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin thumbed their noses at the U.S. investment banking community with an auction-based IPO and their pledge not to cave in to the short-term demands of Wall Street.

Their mantra was “do no evil,” and the company’s statement still says Google’s goal is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

Even with one of the largest market valuations of any U.S. company, Google tries to set itself apart from its rivals…by underscoring its high-minded philosophical goal to “resist the temptation to make small sacrifices to increase shareholder value.”

It passionately claims that “Google has steadfastly refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site.”

Yet Google’s announcement Tuesday that it will comply with China’s repressive laws by doctoring its search results in that country makes a mockery of those values.

The previous policy read:

Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results. To learn more about Google’s search technology, please visit http://www.google.com/technology/index.html

The updated policy now states:

It is Google’s policy not to censor search results. However, in response to local laws, regulations, or policies, we may do so. When we remove search results for these reasons, we display a notice on our search results pages. Please note: For some older removals (before March 2005), we may not show a notice at this time.

[via Search Engine Watch]

From SFT’s press release:

“Students and young people worldwide are appalled by Google’s decision to become active partners in China’s censorship apparatus,” said Lhadon Tethong, Executive Director of Students for a Free Tibet. “Google’s participation in the Chinese government’s program of repression and information control renders the company motto “Don’t be evil” a terrible joke.”

Google rivals Yahoo! and Microsoft have already shown a willingness to cooperate with Chinese authorities. Last year, Yahoo! provided information that helped jail a Chinese dissident for ten years and last month, Microsoft shut down a Chinese political blogger’s site for “not complying with local law.”

“Political and corporate leaders constantly tell us that foreign business will contribute to a more open and democratic China,” added Ms. Tethong. “This is yet another sign that China is in fact forcing foreign businesses to be more closed and anti-democratic.”

Photos of the protest are here.

CNN posted this statement from Google on the matter:

In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy. While removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission.

As an emerging economic powerhouse, China is developing rapidly, thanks in no small measure to the Internet. We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China.

There’s plenty of coverage on this event, especially noting the irony given recent events:

• Search Engine Watch: “Less than a week after we hear that Google is ready to fight the US government in part to defend its users, now comes news that Google will cave into the Chinese government’s demands for its new Google China web site.”
• Good Morning Silicon Valley:”Apparently you can scratch “censorship in pursuit of profit” off your list of Things That Are Evil.”
• Google Blogoscoped: “By bowing to the Chinese government, instead of rejecting them, they implicitly support the government’s decision to restrict human rights and freedom of speech in China. If the censorship in Google.cn will work like that in Google.de, then the Chinese surfers won’t even know at all times they’re being cheated, and they may trust the positive Google brand. Google has entered very muddy waters here.”