Search Engine Rankings And Impact on Electoral Processes

Craig Timberg
(photo: Google Images)

An opinion piece by Washington Post technology writer Craig Timberg raised interesting, yet very troubling questions about our understanding of and relationship with information search engines.

Timberg used an experiment conducted by psychologist Robert Epstein as a context for his WaPo piece. Epstein's idea was to explore whether doctored search results would impact users' perceptions of political candidates, thus implicitly shaping how an election might result. In simplistic terms, a search engine firm motivated to promote a specific candidate or slate of candidates could place favorable items at the top of a specific search heap. Given that an increasing number of users obtain critical information from search results, rather than from, say, TV news, this finding has disturbing repercussions for a democratic society. The findings suggested that, in a world where ranking is king and "truth" does not compute, the search engine's choice had a decided advantage in the battlefield of influence. The search engine's preferred candidate or slate stood a far better chance of winning.

Neither Timberg nor Epstein accuse any search engine enterprise of cooking results for political gain. However, Epstein acknowledged he once had a public spat with Google, a fact noted in Timberg's story. Google, which Timberg contacted for comment on his WaPo story, strenuously asserted its "agnostic" approach to its algorithmic presentation of the "truth." One curious notion presented in the article was the concept that search results may be protected by the First Amendment. In a different industry, some Wall Street ratings firms hid behind the First Amendment when their outrageous AAA appraisals of subprime mortgage investment vehicles dissolved during the 2007-2008 financial disaster.

Image: slate.com

The assertion of "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" approach for search engine firms is a tricky area. Not so long ago, as Wired and other sources noted, Google navigated litigation that asserted the search firm provided search results that favored itself or its advertisers over firms that did not pony up for Google's advertising programs. While search engine firms advocate open access to information, they jealously guard their own proprietary secret sauces. Consumers and institutions simply have to take the word of Google, Yahoo, Bing, and other search engine information providers that they know what's best for you. It is fair to say they work very hard at understanding what you might want. However, they're reluctant to share that knowledge in an open dialogue. It's the secrecy that breeds suspicion. Does that sound like a sound formula for a democratic society?