But wouldn't bypassing influences theoretically give you the same result every time, or nearly the same result if done on different days.
To understand the algorithm, you would need to be able to feed it influences. Ideally, you would need to ability to set those influences. You'd then run multiple queries and compare them all.
To do all of this, we need transparency on how the search engines work.
Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I would be shocked if searches of all types aren't nudged in one way or another.
Its just a thing "humans" do. We mess things up.
Put it this way, if we were on Bizarro Earth and these companies were based in Alabama, I'd still be here arguing that there is bias in searches when you look for the morning after pill and all you get are directions to hell.
And yet scientifically speaking, I did a baseline TOR search for a few things against searches on my PC. Its a post elsewhere for this article.
Sites that I avoid appeared on my PC, and either weren't there at all on the TOR search or way down the list.
A TOR search for Media Bias had a TechDirt article I believe at 14. Tech Dirt didn't even appear at all in my results.
If Google is basing results off of my history, cookies, etc, it should know I avoid HuffPost and FoxNews like the plague. Yet I had them in the results and a handful more links than I got in the TOR results.
WHY? Is it the algorithm?
YEA!
But why, and it is exactly that reason why people perceive there is bias. And quite frankly, algorithms don't become "biased" all on their own.
With luck, that bias will result in users getting exactly what they want all the time with "some" opposing viewpoints thrown in.
However like my couple of searches showed before, and perhaps this is just "some" of is, we are getting no results from places we frequent, and results from places we don't tend or ever go to.
My understanding is that it goes even deeper. I use Chrome and tend to do so "logged into it". My understanding this gives Google even more information to build a profile for me on, along with my GMAIL and android phone searches giving them even more information.
Which if true, does make my post below interesting I think.
No included links to sites I frequent, three links included from a baseline search to sites I don't frequent. One of those three sites is a site I avoid like the plague.
I do partially agree, comparing a Google News (news.google.com) search on a browser on My PC against a search done through a TOR browser with a simply search for "President Trump" with the buttons pressed at nearly the same time (Tor first).
TOR 1 - Wash Post - 5000 false claims 2 - CNN - Jaime Dimon 3 - Kennebec Journal - veteran support 4 - CNN - Jaime Dimon 5 - People - Friend Deny Bad Behavior 6 - Snopes - 9/11 Fist pump, This even news? 7 - ABC15 Arizona - Trump signs measure election 8 - USA Today - Trump Fist Pump 9/11 9 - Esquire - Trump Puerto Rico 10 - CNBC - Jaime Dimon
Mine
1 - TIME - Trump threat to GOP prospects WITH a theHill article subposted about Trump shocking Nov Surprise 2 - Wash Post (Tor #1) - misleading Trump claims 3 - CNN (Tor #2) - Jaime Dimon 4 - Kennebec Journal (Tor #3) - veteran support 5 - CNN (Tor #4) - Jaime Dimon 6 - People (Tor #5) - Friend Deny Bad Behavior 7 - Snopes (Tor #6) - 9/11 Fist pump, This even news? 8 - ABC15 Arizona (Tor #7) - Trump signs measure election 9 - USA Today (Tor #9) - Trump Fist Pump 9/11 10 - HuffPost - Seth Meyers Shreds Trump
So the difference between the two is that Google thinks I'd be more interested in the Time, TheHill, and Huffpost article.
All three sites are ones I never go to.
HuffPost because that site annoys me just as much as FoxNews does.
TheHill and Time because I just don't
So frequently visiting those sites can't be the reason.
I don't do much celebrity searching at all, other than related to my streaming viewing habits which Seth Meyers doesn't fit into AT ALL.
And why wasn't any news orientated site that I typically view included at all considering the basic and simplistic search I did?
Heck a search in both for "Social Media Bias" turns up a TechDirt article at #14 on Tor. On my search, nothing...
So yea it is all about the algorithm.
However, algorithms are programmed. They can also be very buggy. They have to be designed to work certain ways. What information they take in, and what choices they make are not necessarily of their choosing.
I can create Techoogle tomorrow (not really), which would be a search engine utilizing an algorithm that delivers nothing but tech and geek orientated news and information from around the interwebs based with its state of the art algorithm.
What algorithm? The one I wrote, with all of the IF/ELSE statements (and bugs) I put in there.
Will there be bias? Heck yea! Star Trek articles always at the bottom of the page.
What bugs? When you search for Linux distros, you only get results for Mint. Ooops.
I'm scanning through the DataSociety study, but wouldn't any study on this have to deal with how Google itself delivers search results based on who is asking?
I see the Slate article trying to argue away the controversy in two ways, both of which I don't think work.
I'll start with how they close the article with a defense of free market capitalism, since that should appeal to the people on the right. Also, I was taught that you should close your debate/paper with your strongest argument.
On the surface, this argument makes sense on paper. However as I argue many times with my righty friends who like to talk about the failures of socialism, Socialist Island is right next to Free Market Capitalism Island in the Utopian Hemisphere.
Using Twitter as an example, you want to keep engagement strong. That is going to entail keeping your users happy, while getting more customers.Therefore we need to understand exactly who the users are, and then begin a balancing act to keep them happy while attracting more users.
All of these things to me seem to indicate that any marketing person would want to target a younger, richer, college educated, urban person. People who tend to be...???
The second point the article brings up is that the people who work for the social media companies at the start had/have seconds to decide if a content submission was afoul of regulations. As the companies and the technology evolved, AI is taking over.
What would everyone here expect the response to be if I walked into a Tennessee church with an album made by a bunch of Born Again Christians who enjoy the Grindcore Metal scene? It would be a hard sell, with most people not trusting that the band members have been saved, no? That there isn't a hidden message by Satan himself buried backwards in the album.
As far as Slate goes, here is a Washington Post story about a PEW poll putting them quite far on one side of the spectrum.
At the end of the day, myself and people I know who I believe are rather center orientated all think that the Socials (media companies) certainly are exhibiting a bias. Not a big bias, not an overwhelming one, but one nonetheless.
But that's ok, because ultimately a true free market will emerge with people of one political opinion on Twitter (for example) and people on the other version.
But that turns the Slate story entirely upside down then.
What is the over and under in years before the house you purchase isn't a home that you actually don't own because of the software that makes it a "smart" home?
At some point, these statements are just going to insult the intelligence of just about everyone.
I have a Samsung S3, and Samsung's website lists the dimensions as 5.38 x 2.78 x 0.34 inches and the S4 is .31" thick. The iPhone 4 is listed as being .037" thick, while the iPhone 5 is .30" thick.
While there is a .17 caliber bullet, the most common smallest rounds are the .204 and the .22 caliber rounds.
For argument's sake, a Samsung S3 built to be a gun using a .204 caliber round would have to have a barrel that is less than .07" thick. ( .34" - .204" = .136" AND .136"/2 = .068")
That gun would be a bigger threat to the person pulling the trigger than to the cop.
4a - After I buy it, will I need to pirate it so it will run on my PC. (Had to deal with this last year with Crysis)
4b - After I buy it, will I feel compelled to pirate it anyway so I can play it without dealing with draconian DRM measures. (IE; no cd-exe kind of stuff)
I did the exact opposite, and canceled OR rather declined the unlimited streaming option. Now I only have DVDs by mail, which is perfectly fine to me.
As it stands, there really is absolutely nothing of value for me or my family on Netflix's streaming service. About the only use we got out of it, was streaming some children cartoons. However, I also have Video on Demand from my cable provider so I can live without streaming Netflix.
Until Netflix's streaming library equals their DVD library in size, then I am not paying for it.
I am also not going to pay for them to slowly build the library to a size that I deem worthy, as I am obviously not getting my value during this "building process".
I however will go back to their streaming service once the value equals the quality, but not anytime sooner!!!
Re: Seriously?
"How does that stack up in court"
It didn't, it was struck down. Just search for "Leonia traffic ban"
Re: Re:
You've never been witness to a workplace romance gone bad???
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To understand the algorithm, you would need to be able to feed it influences. Ideally, you would need to ability to set those influences. You'd then run multiple queries and compare them all.
To do all of this, we need transparency on how the search engines work.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I would be shocked if searches of all types aren't nudged in one way or another.
Its just a thing "humans" do. We mess things up.
Put it this way, if we were on Bizarro Earth and these companies were based in Alabama, I'd still be here arguing that there is bias in searches when you look for the morning after pill and all you get are directions to hell.
Re: Re:
Sites that I avoid appeared on my PC, and either weren't there at all on the TOR search or way down the list.
A TOR search for Media Bias had a TechDirt article I believe at 14. Tech Dirt didn't even appear at all in my results.
If Google is basing results off of my history, cookies, etc, it should know I avoid HuffPost and FoxNews like the plague. Yet I had them in the results and a handful more links than I got in the TOR results.
WHY? Is it the algorithm?
YEA!
But why, and it is exactly that reason why people perceive there is bias. And quite frankly, algorithms don't become "biased" all on their own.
With luck, that bias will result in users getting exactly what they want all the time with "some" opposing viewpoints thrown in.
However like my couple of searches showed before, and perhaps this is just "some" of is, we are getting no results from places we frequent, and results from places we don't tend or ever go to.
Why?
Re: Re:
Which if true, does make my post below interesting I think.
No included links to sites I frequent, three links included from a baseline search to sites I don't frequent. One of those three sites is a site I avoid like the plague.
Re:
TOR
1 - Wash Post - 5000 false claims
2 - CNN - Jaime Dimon
3 - Kennebec Journal - veteran support
4 - CNN - Jaime Dimon
5 - People - Friend Deny Bad Behavior
6 - Snopes - 9/11 Fist pump, This even news?
7 - ABC15 Arizona - Trump signs measure election
8 - USA Today - Trump Fist Pump 9/11
9 - Esquire - Trump Puerto Rico
10 - CNBC - Jaime Dimon
Mine
1 - TIME - Trump threat to GOP prospects WITH a theHill article subposted about Trump shocking Nov Surprise
2 - Wash Post (Tor #1) - misleading Trump claims
3 - CNN (Tor #2) - Jaime Dimon
4 - Kennebec Journal (Tor #3) - veteran support
5 - CNN (Tor #4) - Jaime Dimon
6 - People (Tor #5) - Friend Deny Bad Behavior
7 - Snopes (Tor #6) - 9/11 Fist pump, This even news?
8 - ABC15 Arizona (Tor #7) - Trump signs measure election
9 - USA Today (Tor #9) - Trump Fist Pump 9/11
10 - HuffPost - Seth Meyers Shreds Trump
So the difference between the two is that Google thinks I'd be more interested in the Time, TheHill, and Huffpost article.
All three sites are ones I never go to.
HuffPost because that site annoys me just as much as FoxNews does.
TheHill and Time because I just don't
So frequently visiting those sites can't be the reason.
I don't do much celebrity searching at all, other than related to my streaming viewing habits which Seth Meyers doesn't fit into AT ALL.
And why wasn't any news orientated site that I typically view included at all considering the basic and simplistic search I did?
Heck a search in both for "Social Media Bias" turns up a TechDirt article at #14 on Tor. On my search, nothing...
So yea it is all about the algorithm.
However, algorithms are programmed. They can also be very buggy. They have to be designed to work certain ways. What information they take in, and what choices they make are not necessarily of their choosing.
I can create Techoogle tomorrow (not really), which would be a search engine utilizing an algorithm that delivers nothing but tech and geek orientated news and information from around the interwebs based with its state of the art algorithm.
What algorithm? The one I wrote, with all of the IF/ELSE statements (and bugs) I put in there.
Will there be bias? Heck yea! Star Trek articles always at the bottom of the page.
What bugs? When you search for Linux distros, you only get results for Mint. Ooops.
Why? Because it's mine and I can, dang it.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Slate?
I see the Slate article trying to argue away the controversy in two ways, both of which I don't think work.
I'll start with how they close the article with a defense of free market capitalism, since that should appeal to the people on the right. Also, I was taught that you should close your debate/paper with your strongest argument.
On the surface, this argument makes sense on paper. However as I argue many times with my righty friends who like to talk about the failures of socialism, Socialist Island is right next to Free Market Capitalism Island in the Utopian Hemisphere.
Using Twitter as an example, you want to keep engagement strong. That is going to entail keeping your users happy, while getting more customers.Therefore we need to understand exactly who the users are, and then begin a balancing act to keep them happy while attracting more users.
https://blog.hootsuite.com/twitter-demographics/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265647/sha re-of-us-internet-users-who-use-twitter-by-age-group/
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-me dia-use-in-2018/
All of these things to me seem to indicate that any marketing person would want to target a younger, richer, college educated, urban person. People who tend to be...???
The second point the article brings up is that the people who work for the social media companies at the start had/have seconds to decide if a content submission was afoul of regulations. As the companies and the technology evolved, AI is taking over.
The problem as I see it is that the companies are located on the coasts (The right coast mostly), and the people who work are likely to have a certain political bias. I don't care what you say, but people's beliefs will always bias them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201508/3-ways-your-beliefs-can-shape-your-re ality
What would everyone here expect the response to be if I walked into a Tennessee church with an album made by a bunch of Born Again Christians who enjoy the Grindcore Metal scene? It would be a hard sell, with most people not trusting that the band members have been saved, no? That there isn't a hidden message by Satan himself buried backwards in the album.
As far as Slate goes, here is a Washington Post story about a PEW poll putting them quite far on one side of the spectrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal- to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e6fd354e0fff
At the end of the day, myself and people I know who I believe are rather center orientated all think that the Socials (media companies) certainly are exhibiting a bias. Not a big bias, not an overwhelming one, but one nonetheless.
But that's ok, because ultimately a true free market will emerge with people of one political opinion on Twitter (for example) and people on the other version.
But that turns the Slate story entirely upside down then.
(untitled comment)
What news you reading
(untitled comment)
I have a Samsung S3, and Samsung's website lists the dimensions as 5.38 x 2.78 x 0.34 inches and the S4 is .31" thick. The iPhone 4 is listed as being .037" thick, while the iPhone 5 is .30" thick.
While there is a .17 caliber bullet, the most common smallest rounds are the .204 and the .22 caliber rounds.
For argument's sake, a Samsung S3 built to be a gun using a .204 caliber round would have to have a barrel that is less than .07" thick. ( .34" - .204" = .136" AND .136"/2 = .068")
That gun would be a bigger threat to the person pulling the trigger than to the cop.
WOW
Missing Steps
4b - After I buy it, will I feel compelled to pirate it anyway so I can play it without dealing with draconian DRM measures. (IE; no cd-exe kind of stuff)
(untitled comment)
I did the exact opposite, and canceled OR rather declined the unlimited streaming option. Now I only have DVDs by mail, which is perfectly fine to me.
As it stands, there really is absolutely nothing of value for me or my family on Netflix's streaming service. About the only use we got out of it, was streaming some children cartoons. However, I also have Video on Demand from my cable provider so I can live without streaming Netflix.
Until Netflix's streaming library equals their DVD library in size, then I am not paying for it.
I am also not going to pay for them to slowly build the library to a size that I deem worthy, as I am obviously not getting my value during this "building process".
I however will go back to their streaming service once the value equals the quality, but not anytime sooner!!!
Re:
I mean seriously NAB, you couldn't see this coming from the RIAA when you lobbied for the genie to come out of that bottle?
Now you get what you deserve!!!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Decadre.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt