Today in class I collected two current event summatives from you and we worked on the Holocaust Denial packet.
Name ________________________
How to bump Holocaust deniers off Google’s top
spot? Pay Google
4 Sentence Summary:
3 Sentences of Personal Opinion:
2 Quotes and Why They Stand Out:
1 Question or Connection:
How to bump Holocaust deniers off Google’s top spot? Pay
Google
Google ‘is unhappy’ with
Holocaust denial beating the truth in its search results – but it probably
makes more money that way
The Holocaust did not happen. At
least not in the world of Google, it seems. One week ago, I typed “did the hol”
into a Google search box and clicked on its autocomplete suggestion, “Did the
Holocaust happen?” And there, at the top of the list, was a link to
Stormfront, a neo-Nazi white supremacist website and an article
entitled “Top 10 reasons why the Holocaust didn’t happen”.
On Monday, Google confirmed it
would not remove the result: “We are saddened to see that hate organisations
still exist. The fact that hate sites appear in search results does not mean
that Google endorses these views.”
The Independent ran the story. As did Fortune. And the Daily Mail. And the Jerusalem Post. And the
Drudge Report. But Google held firm. David Duke,
former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, tweeted his support for the
decision. And over on Stormfront – the website where Anders Breivik
nurtured his ideas – members celebrated.
And still, anyone searching for
information about the Holocaust – if it was real, if it happened, if
it was a hoax, if it was fake – was being served up neo-Nazi propaganda as the
top result.
Until Friday. When I gamed
Google’s algorithm. I succeeded in doing what Google said was impossible. I, a
journalist with almost zero computer knowhow, succeeded in changing the search
order of Google’s results for “did the Holocaust happen” and “was the Holocaust
a hoax”. I knocked Stormfront off the top of the list. I inserted Wikipedia’s
entry on the Holocaust as the number one result. I displaced a lie with a fact.
Google search screengrab.
Photograph: Google
How did I achieve this impossible
feat? Not through writing articles. Or shaming the company into action. I did
it with the only language that Google understands: money. Google has shown that
it will not respond to outrage or public sentiment or any sense of morality or
ethics. It does not accept that leading people with a genuine inquiry about
whether the Holocaust happened to a neo-Nazi website is grossly irresponsible
or that it demeans the memory of the six million Jews who died. But it was
prepared to take my cold, hard cash. A Google spokesman said: “We never want to
make money from searches for Holocaust denial, and we don’t allow regular
advertising on those terms.”
And yet, it has already made
£24.01 out of me. (This was the initial cost – it has since risen to £289.)
Because this is what I did: I paid to place a Google advert at the top of its
search results. “The Holocaust really happened,” I wrote as the headline to my
advert. And below it: “6 million Jews really did die. These search results are
propagating lies. Please take action.”
I did this via Google’s AdSense
programme. This is the bedrock of everything that Google does, its core
business: selling ads against search results. It’s this that contributes the
bulk of the $21.5bn (£17.2bn) profit that Google makes per quarter.
AdSense helpfully suggested
possible “Ad group ideas” and search terms that included: “holocaust hoax”,
“was the holocaust fake” and “did the holocaust happen”. And it told me how
many searches a month are made for these terms: all in, 9,480. Or 113,760 a year.
Or the population of Cambridge.
All of whom are being informed by
Google that the Holocaust didn’t happen. And are being directed to Stormfront,
the website where Anders Breivik used to hang out online and whose members
celebrated the death of Jo Cox.
Jewish children, survivors of
Auschwitz, Poland, February 1945. Photograph: Getty Images
Lilian Black, chair of The Holocaust
Survivors Friendship Association, and the daughter of a Holocaust
survivor, called it appalling. “I’m so shocked. Google has a responsibility for
its actions. It’s almost like saying we know that the trains are running into
Birkenau, but we’re not responsible for what’s happening at the end of it. They
shape people’s thinking and are disparaging the memory of people like my
grandparents who were gassed.
“More than that, it’s where this
leads. It’s about its relevance today as much as the past. Our learning centre
is in Kirklees, where Jo Cox was murdered. What is the matter with people?
Can’t they see where this leads? And to have a huge worldwide organisation
refusing to acknowledge this. That’s what they think their role is? To be a
bystander? To just stand by? They’re committing a hate crime, in my view.”
A Google spokesman said: “The goal
of search is to provide the most relevant and useful results for our users.
Clearly, we don’t always get it right, but we continually work to improve our
algorithms.
“This is a challenging problem,
and something we’re thinking deeply about in terms of how we can do a better
job. Search is a reflection of the content that exists on the web. The fact
that hate sites appear in search results in no way means that Google endorses
these views.”
Advertisement
Frank Pasquale, professor of law
at Maryland University, a leading expert on “algorithmic accountability”,
called it “gross hypocrisy”. “They frequently say that Google search is not
just about giving you a list of sources, but rather to answer your question.
And empirically speaking, people tend to treat Google like an authority. So
this is an appalling shirking of responsibility. It’s about money. It always
is. The commercial imperative trumps all other aims at the company, including
moral ones.”
The issue is not that Google is
refusing to “edit” the results about the Holocaust, the deeper question is
about why Stormfront is number one. Google said: “We handle billions of queries
every day and our goal is to give you the most relevant answer to your query as
quickly as possible. The issue you have raised is one where we are very unhappy
with the quality of the results.
“While it might seem tempting to fix the results of an individual
query by hand, that approach does not scale to the many different variants of
that query and the queries that we have not yet seen. So we prefer to take a
scaleable algorithmic approach to fix problems, rather than removing these one
by one.”
But Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine
Land, and a leading expert on search, in an article that was largely
sympathetic to the challenge facing Google, still noted: “It’s bizarre that
something like that Holocaust denial post is showing tops in Google. It has no
great number of links pointing at it, according to a Moz tool I used [a method
of examining where a website links to]. The Wikipedia page below it should
carry far more authority.”
And he suggests a reason why it
doesn’t: that Google has changed its algorithm to reward popular results over
authoritative ones. For the reason that it makes Google more money.
• If Stormfront is back at number
one when you read this, it’s because I’ve run out of funds. Each click through
costs £1.12 and I have a £200 per day limit. @carolecadwalla on Twitter for
more information.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.