Introduction
Much has been made in social media and political class about potential biases within the algorithims of commercial internet search engines. At this point in history, anyone with a smart phone now has internet access nearly anywhere signal is available. Given the ubiquity of the internet, the idea that everyone has the Library of Alexandria within a device that can fit within a shirt pocket is no small feat for humanity—but how does one search through mountains of information, and misinformation? Enter the search engine.
This article attempts to examine the question of ideological biases within commercial internet search engines, and do so in as academic, and objective a manner as possible. Given the platform is a standard internet blog, it is understood this format may be offputting to some, perhaps even arrogant to others. Objectivity, however is the goal, thus the format.
If commercial internet search engines frame results designed to suit a particular ideology, then the results of identical controversial statements between various internet search engines will fit a pattern for each internet search engine provider, in an observable manner.
Literature Review
On 6 September 2018 GovPredict published a review of known political donations made by Alphabet Inc. This corporation is the parent company of Google, the largest search engine by an overwhelming margin. They concluded what many assumed: 90% of Alphabet’s employees that made a political contribution, did so to a Democrat candidate, or to an organization typically identified as beign sympathetic to the Democrat Party. Given GovPredict can be accused of being merely a review by a small, uncredentialed blog: in 2011 CBS News reported similar findings about Google’ political contributions.
Because of this, the assumption is that engineers at Google will tune their algorithms in a manner to suit their biases, wittingly or unwittingly. This is hardly a new accusation made towards Google, as this article by Business Insider from 2014 suggests. This is an accusation often made by right of center political groups. Who claim information presented by Google does not incorporate right of center interpretation of current events, ideas, and even basic facts that provide evidence of the merits of their ideas. The search results are designed to bury information that may lead a neutral observer to conclude in a manner consistent with left of center biases.
Interestingly, this accusation was presented as having merit by The Guardian on 6 September 2018, USA Today on 10 September 2018, and even previously by Slate on 7 December 2015. While USA Today can be considered politically moderate in it’s content, neither Slate nor The Guardian are publications considered to be right of center.
On 4 December 2018, a competing internet search engine, DuckDuckGo, explained how Google’s search algorithms can influence the presented search results by what they refer to as a filter bubble:
Put simply, it’s the manipulation of your search results based on your personal data. In practice this means links are moved up or down or added to your Google search results, necessitating the filtering of other search results altogether. These editorialized results are informed by the personal information Google has on you (like your search, browsing, and purchase history), and puts you in a bubble based on what Google’s algorithms think you’re most likely to click on.
The filter bubble is particularly pernicious when searching for political topics. That’s because undecided and inquisitive voters turn to search engines to conduct basic research on candidates and issues in the critical time when they are forming their opinions on them. If they’re getting information that is swayed to one side because of their personal filter bubbles, then this can have a significant effect on political outcomes in aggregate.
In simpler terms, Google does not present search results to suit their biases; the search results are intended to produce results that suit the user’s bias. If one never seeks opinions that differ from his or her own, one will never understand any one political issue beyond their own bias. This can lead to user’s simply viewing interpretations of current events, ideas, and even basic facts that provide evidence of the merit of their ideas, that only confirm their own opinions.
This study by DuckDuckGo presents findings that appear to correspond to one conducted by The Wall Street Journal during the 2012 presidential election. Here it was observed personalized results were provided for serch queries including the name Obama but not those with the name Romney. Google did provide an explanation why this was the case, and cited the number of searches queries that included Obama simply outnumbered those that included Romney. Personalized results may not be available for the latter due to lack of context in previous searches.
In the interest of full disclosure, the research for this Literature Review, was done with the assistance of the DuckDuckGo internet search engine.
Methodology
A small number of subjects volunteered to search identical terms in three internet search engines. The three search engines chosen for this review:
The group of volunteers include the author of this article, with a total number of 7. To act as a control for individual biases between the group of volunteers, all of the volunteers for this study identify themselves politically as classical liberals, or in modern parlance, libertarians. Why libertarians? Libertarianism as a philosophy is neither right nor is it left. It is centered on recognition of individual rights. Often where libertarians agree on certain issues with the political right or the political left, it is from the viewpoint of the guarantee of individual rights rather than the fickle political justifications of the day. While choosing a group of libertarians specifically may imply bias towards libertarian leaning search results, the nature of the philosphy transcending both sides of the political divide is indeed a control.
Because any individual classical liberal/libertarian may have particular preferences towards where they find informaton on the internet and what search engine they use, another control in the search queries was added. None of the search queries are political in nature, however all of them are controversial. The following five statements were searched between the aforementined search engines:
- Deep dish pizza is not pizza
- The Beatles are overrated
- Butt implants are fake butts for fake people
- Coke is better than Pepsi
- Bolivian Air Force pilots cannot avoid mountains
Each volunteer was provided with a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and simply asked to copy and paste the top five search results that are not advertisements for each of the above five queries. All returned their completed spreadsheets by 14 December 2018.
Individual search results were identified with the first character in the internet search provider’s name (i.e. G is for Google), and by a numeral. The numeral is intended to correspond to an individual search result, therefore G1, D1, and B1 for example, are the same search result identified on all three internet search engines. It is in this way, a unique result can be identified should a particular search engine produce a unique result.
Due to the convenience of the population size, further analysis on how these results are presented in order for each user will also be observed.
Results
The following are the results in tabular form:
Conclusion
When put in tabluar form, one can see the results for many of the queries are similar. Where they differ however is the order they are presented. One issue with the methodology is the limited scope of the results recorded, it is possible the search results are more or less the same when etended to the first page of results and beyond.
A noticable feature of the results, is the Google results cover a smaller spread. For example, for the first query, Deep Dish Pizza is not Pizza, Google only covers results 1-8 between seven people. The other two search engines however, cover a spread of 1-12. More concerning, are the order of results are nearly identical across all users.
Another thing that can be noticed is in the fourth query, Butt Implants are fake Butts for Fake People. If one were investegating this subject on Google, he or she would need to wait untiil the third search result (47) to find a search result corresponding with either of the other search engines. It is obvious this is a meaningless subject, however given the limited attention span of the average American for a subject more meaningful the third result can be significant. If one wants to question the result—so what if Google appears to have identical results between users on a search related to prothetic devices for the human posterior? The better question is, what if Google has identical results between users for a subject that actually matters?
While this on the surface it might appear DuckDuckGo’s claims have some merit; one can see their results cover a wider spread between users and much greater variance in the order presented when compared to Google. That said, the results are not all that different. In some cases one can see the same “filter bubble” DuckDuckGo accuses Google of presenting to its customers, within DuckDuckGo’s results. It would therefore appear the search engines do indeed present an observable pattern in the results. What that pattern is, if it can be considered a bias, and how it affects the user is not something that can be quantified here.
Comments
74 responses to “Glibertarian Search Engine Survey”
I’m in a bubble with Google, it’s become very ovious
You’re my favorite Mexican. Great article. I <3 data.
https://archive.vn/mqMbk/91e207e8517618f76e35907e497ecab337d15a79
There’s a problem with your methodology: neither statement #1 nor statement #4 are controversial as both are demonstrable facts accepted by all right-thinking people of good moral standing.
Seriously, though, this is really interesting stuff. It’s interesting to see how this played out with DDG, where it should be bubble-free, in theory.
Dangit. Back to the drawing board.
Happy New Year!! Another Year https://youtu.be/_ca7f6MUgXk
This Year https://youtu.be/GiZ0el43kew
Year In Pictures https://youtu.be/aGpODs0kFBc
I’m still in this bubble, 2 days later.
A double, double toil and trouble; fire burn, and caldron bubble?
Yes
The better question is, what if Google has identical results between users for a subject that actually matters?
Is it bad if I think this is a feature rather than a bug?
IMO, the fact that google personalizes results is part of the selling point. Google still makes a big chunk of change off of Ad Revenue, and that revenue only get’s paid if someone clicks. Google (at least in the past) did a good job at getting results that actually matched what the user wanted, and still got advertisers money. I don’t fault them for that.
Thats what troubles me. If it personalizes resutls, why are these so similar?
I’d say it’s a bug if the results are politically biased in a way that can’t be justified by popularity or number of pages linking to it or whatever other unbiased criteria they claim to be using.
I think it is DDG that should be returning the same results for everyone, if I understood their “marketing” materials correctly. The variance I see in the table above should be solely because the users performed their searches at different times.
I’d say it’s a bug if the results are politically biased in a way that can’t be justified by popularity or number of pages linking to it or whatever other unbiased criteria they claim to be using.
I guess I’m a bit confused as to what the conclusion of the article is. To me, it seems that the search engines are working exactly as advertised.
I’m not sure whether the article is tongue-in-cheek or completely serious, so I wasnt going to dive in the deep end talking about confounding variables and the like.
I think you might be on to something.
NO! This is a serious attempt at journalizing!
Where else can this herd of cats find hard data on the interest of Butt Implants!?
You joke, but I’ve read serious research that was harder to take serious than this.?
I was pretty serious. All surveys were collected over the course of a week. Please dive.
The Rose Bowl is boring the crap out of me.
No shit. I’m drinking at my local bar and filling the comment section here with jangly tunes. Because the fucking Rose Bowl is boring as shit. Glad I didn’t go after all.
I had intended on watching a bowl game for the first time ever -the Outback Bowl- but forgot until it was too late. Reason being is my office mate is Iowa’s QB’s brother. Did you watch that game? If so, how did he do?
Didn’t watch it all, but if I heard correctly Iowa won even though they had negative yards rushing. So I guess their QB had a pretty good day!
Did this post already happen?
No. You happened twice.
Only in the universe where Spock has a goatee.
#BestUniverseEver
Better than the universe where Q posts dick pics to every thread.
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/381736188661-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
/not clicking
I clicked. That looks looks suspect
Then Spock has a goatee, look at the date of my first comment
Ohhh this must be the post that vanished I heard about yesterday.
Listen, I can provide decent content, or sobriety.
Never both.
Insert Lawrence Welk joke here.
Who is that?
Entertainment for people of your grandmother’s generation.
This episode has Lynn Anderson before she promised you a rose garden.
Like this ?
Sup Tres!
Hey YUFUS!
OMG. Julia Childs rocks another recipe. I had forgotten just how good that Beef Bourguignon recipe is.
She probably sucked a mean cock too.
Best of both worlds.
Julia Childs worked for the OSS in WWII and probably the first thing she ever made was shark repellent, still in use today.
Lol.
A mean French cock.
Ooo, c’est bon.
I did it in a slow cooker yesterday and that was enough work for me and I’m sure it was all kinds of “wrong” too. During my searches I saw her recipe and my eyes glazed over reading it.
I haven’t done this recipe in probably 25 years. The only thing I didn’t do was strain and defat the broth before adding the mushrooms and onions. I did ladle out of most of it and put it through my seperater.
My considerably simplified version was definitely pushing the limits of how much I “enjoy” cooking. Turns out… not so much, when I’m scrambling with the timing and leaving a mess everywhere 🙂
Hey Tres, if it’s not too much trouble, please hit my theme music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttqMGYHhFFA
NEEDS MOAR MOOG
Interesting. It would be additionally interesting (from a web geek perspective) to examine which of the high-ranking results are using basic, easily-identifiable SEO (search engine optimization) strategies. Are the top 3, say, results determined by understanding and designing for the algorithms of each search engine (or one of them)? How does geography (searchers’ locations) impact the results? Would results change if the searchers were using VPNs or cell data?
I smell a research grant!
Given the *ahem* location if 3/7 respondents, I assumed question #1 might have a few results that corresponded with that.
Well, some of them might have been using a VPN. And maybe some of the other respondents, as well.
3 days of heavy drinking and now I’m supposed to grasp this? Got so drunk last night that I woke up between Wasserman-Schultz and Maxine Waters. The bed head they are rockin’ is cute.
They said the same about you, “Shaggy”
So now you are fully woke? I can’t imagine going through what just happened to you. I’d only wish that on Hillary, not on a friend.
????
OT: Since I’m not at work, I didn’t have as much time as I might have wanted to address all points made by others on my immigration post. Sadly real life is intruding (What do you mean the baby needs to sleep and eat?!). Anyway, thanks to all for the wonderful comments, we got about 200 more than I expected on new years day, I will try to address at some point, but that may be some time from now.
It was an excellent post, truly. Can’t thank you enough.
…and rational discussions, as well…
top ten thread ever
God, I hate you so much. Well played Don, well played.
https://babylonbee.com/news/supreme-court-oks-death-penalty-commenting-articles-without-reading
Swiss must be pleased
4″ in Albuquerque! I’m pretty excited. Oh, and it snowed.
OT: Any recommendations for a good libertarian-themed podcast?
I just want something to listen to while I clean the house. I’ve listened to pretty much all of the Tom Woods Show, Contra Krugman, and the Mises Institute material. Another one that came to mind was Jason Stapleton, but it appears that he hasn’t made any videos in over a year.
Dave Smith, Scott Horton, Lions of Liberty
I think Stapleton is at liberty.me
Sugar Bowl thoughts: We were talking about UCF last thread, so I’d like to take a quick snapshot before kickoff of the Sugar Bowl.
By Sagarin, Georgia should beat Texas by 11. 18Baker isn’t playing; without the best defensive back in the nation, the pass-happy Big12 will be better suited to attack the silver britches of the conference supposed to have the fastest defenses in the nation decade after decade. I think that might be worth three points, so Georgia by 8.
In some books Texas is getting 12. Over-under is about 60, so the money is essentially forecasting a 24-36 game.
I keep a depth chart on UGA and have watched every snap for seven seasons; I would say that man-for-man, they have not shown up this season like they did in the past other than battling Bama to a draw in ATL. So what do we believe: that the boys are tired and unmotivated, or there’s a deep reserve that finally welled up the Tide and is now ready to take out the innocents from Austin.
New wife’s office is in Dallas; she’s been getting trash-text all day; ignoring same, she baked pork chops, creamed sweet potatoes, and tossed some spring mix and fruit for supper * brurpp *. Meanwhile, Bevo won the first round over Uga
Even if it’s close, I do recommend the Horns doing all their chatting while they can: I’m guessing more like 28-35.
You are not supposed to lower your head. Bevo should have been flagged for targeting.
Sugar Bowl thoughts: We were talking about UCF last thread, so I’d like to take a quick snapshot before kickoff of the Sugar Bowl.
By Sagarin, Georgia should beat Texas by 11. 18Baker isn’t playing; without the best defensive back in the nation, the pass-happy Big12 will be better suited to attack the silver britches of the conference supposed to have the fastest defenses in the nation decade after decade. I think that might be worth three points, so Georgia by 8.
In some books Texas is getting 12. Over-under is about 60, so the money is essentially forecasting a 24-36 game.
I keep a depth chart on UGA and have watched every snap for seven seasons; I would say that man-for-man, they have not shown up this season like they did in the past other than battling Bama to a draw in ATL. So what do we believe: that the boys are tired and unmotivated, or there’s a deep reserve that finally welled up the Tide and is now ready to take out the innocents from Austin.
New wife’s office is in Dallas; she’s been getting trash-text all day; ignoring same, she baked pork chops, creamed sweet potatoes, and tossed some spring mix and fruit for supper * brurpp *. Meanwhile, Bevo won the first round over Uga
Even if it’s close, I do recommend the Horns doing all their chatting while they can: I’m guessing more like 28-35.
ugh: at least the hyperlinks worked the first time (above)
Fascinating.
/Blank stare. Homer Simpson watching Twin Peaks.
She’s dead! Wrapped in plastic!