« prev   random   next »


Google Interference Confirmed: Manual Search Engine Manipulation

By HonkpilledMaster following x   2019 Apr 10, 10:51am 323 views   7 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    

Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate.

Two official policies dubbed the “misrepresentation policy” and the “good neighbor policy” inform the company’s “XPA news blacklist,” which is maintained by Google’s Trust & Safety team. “T&S will be in charge of updating the blacklist as when there is a demand,” reads one of the documents shared with The Daily Caller.

“The deceptive_news domain blacklist is going to be used by many search features to filter problematic sites that violate the good neighbor and misrepresentation policies,” the policy document says. (RELATED: Meet The Five Google Staffers Who Circulated The Petition To Drop Kay Coles James)

That document reads that it was, “approved by gomes@, nayak@, haahr@ as of 8/13/2018.” Ben Gomes is Google’s head of search, who reports directly to CEO Sundar Pichai. Pandu Nayak is a Google Fellow, and Paul Haahr is a software engineer, whose bio on Google’s internal network Moma indicates that he is also involved in, “fringe ranking: not showing fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or science/medical/history denial unless we’re sure that’s what the user wants.”

“The purpose of the blacklist will be to bar the sites from surfacing in any Search feature or news product. It will not cause a demotion in the organic search results or de-index them altogether,” reads the policy document obtained by the Caller. What that means is that targeted sites will not be removed from the “ten blue links” portion of search results, but the blacklist applies to most of the other search features, like “top news,” “videos” or the various sidebars that are returned as search results.
1   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Apr 10, 10:56am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The petition’s signers described the appointment of Coles, a black grandmother, as a “weaponization of the language of diversity.”

The petition was promoted internally within the company by five individuals, some of whom have a history of leftist agitation. The Daily Caller obtained emails from a private listserv in which most of the petition’s sponsors made critical comments about the James appointment.

One of them, Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google’s Open Research Group, posted on a private Google listserv that, “I would disagree that their views are important to consider when those views include erasing trans people, targeting immigrants and denying climate change.”

Three of the other promoters of the petition are software engineers Joëlle Skaf, Nina-Marie Amadeo and Irene Knapp. The fifth is Emily Metcalfe, a privacy engineer. (RELATED: Google Employees Discussed Burying Conservative Media In Search)

“There is no debating the humanity of other people, especially ones who have had no power to fight policies advocated by entities like the Heritage Foundation,” wrote Skaf in an email on a private listserv the day James’ appointment was announced, continuing:

It is infuriating to see people on this thread give credence to despicable theories just because ‘marketplace of ideas’ or ‘more articulate people’ or whatever else. This is NOT a game. Google has enormous power, power that it frankly seems to not know what to use for. And asking entities like the Heritage Foundation for their opinions on how to use that power is misguided and will not lead an ethical use of AI. … In all cases, Google CONTINUES to show a total lack of leadership on these issues and a total capitulation to the political whims of the moment.

“Extremely well said, Joëlle,” Whittaker co-signed. She was identified by the New York Times as having been “openly critical of the Maven work,” in reference to a project for the Department of Defense that Google did not renew under pressure from activists.

An employee passes the Google logo during the press tour before the festive opening of the Berlin representation of Google Germany on January 22, 2019 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

In an earlier email, Skaf wrote that the James appointment was “not only problematic for its anti ­LGBTQ positions. Remember the role it played in pushing for murderous foreign policy (Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola, … I’m forgetting a lot, I bet), but also its positions on climate change (they don’t really believe it’s real), healthcare (sick poor people better croak … sorry I mean they better sign up for a market­ based solution to healthcare), immigration reform (not for it).”

“What can those of us who want to do something about this actually do? What are the correct channels for escalation?” replied Amadeo. (RELATED: Google Sponsored CPAC To Shape Narrative On Nationalism)

There was some pushback on the listserv from people with a more libertarian point of view. One said, “The notion of tolerance being bandied around here seems to amount to ‘tolerance for those who think like I do,’ which amounts to no tolerance whatsoever.”

But these voices were quickly shut down. “This line of thinking is just plain offensive and denotes a high level of privilege,” wrote Skaf. “No, it is not about ‘tolerance for those who think like I do’. It’s intolerance to those who don’t see me as human. And I am proud to be intolerant of such folks. … The sheer blindness to power and its workings on this mailing list is just stunning.”

“There is a difference between working with people we disagree with, and working with people who hold that people like me should not exist at all,” wrote Knapp. Knapp was previously best known for proposing in the Google shareholders meeting to scale executive pay by the success of diversity and inclusion efforts.

This picture taken on November 5, 2018 shows a woman passing a booth of Google at the first China International Import Expo (CIIE) in Shanghai on . (Photo by Johannes EISELE / AFP)

Several other Googlers made the point that, with both the left and the right now talking about the need to regulate or break up the company, having a conservative that could credibly vouch for the company to others on the right is very important. (RELATED: Google VP Stepped In After Employees Offended By Christian Video On Marriage)

Whittaker shot down this idea, “Instead [of] recognizing the historical gravity of our position, and rising to meet the occasion, we’ve invited a vocal bigot whose hand is on the lever of U.S. policy to shape our views on where, and how, to ‘responsibly’ apply this tech. I’m stunned by how many people’s mental energy is being expended finding a technicality on which to defend this.”

“Our goal is for Google to make ethical product decisions so that our work makes a positive impact on the world. It’s not to indulge on general snobbery on how good we are or how horrible someone else is. … But, as far as work is concerned, how do we ensure that AI and other advanced technology are used to help and not hurt people?” asked one libertarian Googler.

“First step: we refuse to take advice on how to use AI technologies from those who openly dehumanize many of our friends and colleagues,” said Whittaker.

Wow how has Silcon Valley has changed.from "let 1000 flowers bloom" to "They do NOT have a right to express a non-woke opinion".
2   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2019 Apr 10, 12:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't understand it. No matter what I search for, it comes up "IMPEACH TRUMP! Now, back to your regularly scheduled search".
4   HEYYOU   ignore (27)   2019 Jun 13, 1:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MAGA Trump/Rep/Cons will get right on that.
5   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 13, 1:27pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So Google is making its search engine LESS EFFECTIVE???
Let’s see how that plays out for it’s market share.
Something tells me to invest in competitors.

I’ve been using DuckDuckGo for two years now, and find it to be superior.
6   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 13, 4:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

DuckDuckGo does seem to pull up non-PC material much better than Google does.
7   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 13, 5:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Well, I know that a several years ago, I looked up statins on Google and was able to get balanced information pro and con on the first page. I repeated the search recently, and the 'con' articles I remember are now buried out four pages and beyond with everything up to that appearing to be beaming white coats and spokes-whores, even some usually reliable institutions, with nothing but favorable press. When they pull out the 'and seems to inhibit or reduce Alzheimer's' card, you know you are in the florid advertising scrip.

They've gone into the 'creepy zone' and beyond. They at least are bending over for Big Pharma. It's the exploitation of lazy fingers and lazy research, or, research for hire.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions