THE GOOGLE MYTH

    AN OPEN LETTER TO ELIZABETH GAULT: It is commonly assumed by what passes for conservatives theses days that Google is biased against conservatives. In one sense, they have a point. Truth has a bias. Truth in this case may be compared with the scientific meaning of theory; something that has not been disproved after multiple blind experiments. There is more to it, though, which people who actually use Google as a resource will readily admit. 
    Confronting that argument made by people who are merely repeating tropes used by those people who are their only sources, the bias could be true if the sources listed were from a small number of news sources with doubtful credibility. Or, as once was the case,  information could be kept near the top of the list by an algorithm that could be manipulated by repeated use of a desired answer. That has not been the case for some time. The former practice evolved from the pre digital media practice of astro-turfing, where political operatives from either side, front-loaded questions to manipulate that algorithm. That worked until Googlers figured out they could avoid the top ten or so sources of information and reap their answers from the subsequent sources. 
     A few words about the structure of the Google forum may be needed here for those people who are unfamiliar with the site, but claim to have the perspective to pass judgment. A Googler types in a question which shows a number of news articles specific to the question. Each source is listed at the top left of the headline, along with the date of publication. The Google user then selects the source, taps it and reads the full article. If there are not enough articles on the first pages, you tap, MORE, and other pages become available. Should there be a question of the veracity of any of the answers, fact-check sites are there to help determine the weaknesses of logic. The information provided is not the ultimate source. Google is more like what Cliffs Notes was to those of us averse to studying in the old days. Though lacking some in context, there is is still enough there to help remember a faintly remembered idea, or a not well understood concept. It can cover a wide area of interests. Recently I wanted to know how Formula 1 drivers could judge their tire wear at 120 MPH. The answer is there. Another time I Googled, "do cats fart", it turns out they do. If you want detail, go to that great socialist institution and find a more definitive source, but that is close enough.
     What will not be displayed will be articles that are propagandistic, or clearly untrue. There is no alternative truth here, though if there are conflicting views that are part of an evolving story, they will be displayed. Should something be posted on Google that is not supported by fact, Snopes, Politi-fact, or other fact-check sites will pop up and they will show you the error. 
     Facebook community standards will not let me use that two-syllable word, the one where the first syllable is STU and the following syllable is PID, that describes those people who think that the presence of George Soros as an early investor places Google in some unexplained socialist realm. Google is in fact a capitalist business, money is made from the information it harvests from you. If you Google something about an erectile dysfunction product, or a portable oxygen product, you can be assured that you will recieve endless pop-up adds on your social media account, but that is no different than donating money to Donald Trump and not unchecked the recurring donation box.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CANNABIS-INFUSED SODA, AND OTHER BLESSINGS.

PINKY: IN MEMORIAM

IT COULD HAPPEN HERE.