Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary? [video] | Hacker News Reader

Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary? [video]

youtube.com

46 pointsmakufiru33 comments

These claims are pretty flimsy. For one thing, Yahoo's search engine is Bing, so it's fallacious to say that two of three search engines yielded the same result, and that result is thus more valid or accurate than that of the dissenting engine. Further, if Google did scrub results, they didn't do a very complete job, as they're more than happy to suggest "hillary clinton email" and plenty of other negative terms. I also suspect that Google's search suggestions algorithm is a bit more involved than "tally the frequency of entire search queries and return the most common ones."

In a wider sense, it's a bit of a leap to think that Eric Schmidt has direct control over Google searches. There would have to be a chain of contacts leading from him to someone in the engineering department, or at least a few developers who built the "scrub sensitive terms from the suggestion list" feature. Surely they're not _all_ working for Clinton. Or surely this power would have been abused other times in the past. It's just so much more plausible that this is a complete coincidence than that there's some kind of Google-based conspiracy to install Hillary Clinton as a dictator by forcing people to type the entire phrase "hillary clinton indictment" into a search engine before they can have their crazy beliefs validated.

Additional reading:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-cl...

also http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working...

It is interesting that this got removed from HN's homepage. But I'm sure there is a good reason as the moderators seem to do a great job.

Edit: maybe I don't understand the ranking algorithm. I saw this at the bottom of the best first page. 15 minutes later and I can't find it in the first few pages. But only 24 votes so maybe it doesn't qualify for the secondary pages?

It fell in rank because it was flagged by users.

There's a penalty on youtube.com stories by default, but we turned it off in this case because the allegation seemed prima facie interesting enough to let the community have a crack at it. Of course, it's highly politically charged and we normally don't want that stuff on the front page. But there was an intellectual-curiosity element to it as well.

That said, the community has had a crack at it, in votes, comments and flags, and the flags won. I don't see a reason to override that.

(By the way, it's on our list to display [flagged] on cases like the current story when the flags are this powerful. Hopefully that would have answered your question.)

Sad that a small minority of users can manipulate HN's front page to suit their political biases. This post is certainly more interesting and important than everything else on the front page.

Flags should be used for stuff that actually violates rules. Not a "disagree button".

It's a bit of a strange example to make this claim about, since the argument that that post broke HN's rules is pretty easy.

The balance between upvotes and flags (and moderation) on HN is pretty stable; it's been this way for years. It doesn't always produce what I think is the most interesting and important result, either. Probably true for most readers if not everyone.

What rule? That it's political? But it's not really. It's not about any specific candidate or policy, but whether Google censors search results.

"Hillary Clinton is a jerk" would be a political article.

"Google removes 'Hillary Clinton is a jerk' from search results" is not.

>The balance between upvotes and flags (and moderation) on HN is pretty stable

By what metric do you measure stability?

The video isn't that strong, really. I'd love for Google to make such huge mistake, and even think the hint of impropriety here is almost good for the public: to trust Google/SV less. But it's really not HN quality.

I'm sure if someone did a more comprehensive article on what autocomplete filters, along with how this might introduce bias even if fairly solid, HN wouldn't flag it. It could be political if it's comprehensive and clear. (Perhaps research why "Mein Kampf" shows up when searching images of Trump's book.) Even an expose on how SV money affects government should be fine. (I think it was on HN I heard about Google coordinating with the US to destabilize some place, maybe Libya?)

Dang is being excellent here, allowing the community to decide.

Honestly the only thing is the opaqueness of the flagging process. I was just caught by surprise after reloading a tab. On its merits it's just a weak video.

Sorry! I didn't know. I just saw it and thought it would be interesting to hear HN's opinion on what was happening. Won't happen again.

Thanks for making HN such a great place!

Its hard to believe Google would do that. There is so much risk of being exposed. As an alternate hypothetical - A Google engineer who has knowledge of their internal systems could suggest a means of external manipulation, that would accomplish the same goal, without the risk.

With conflicts of interest like this http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working... it's easy to believe Google would do that.

Also Google may have violated ethics rules with its hiring practices of Obama Administration Staff.

http://thenextweb.com/google/2016/04/29/if-you-want-to-work-...

If you type just "hillary clinton", Benghazi is in the autocomplete, so this seems like cherry picking to serve a narrative to me.

Very cherry picked data. +crime seems to be supressed by Google, won't autocomplete for other First Name Last Name +crime searches.

Sensational and speculative

im not getting that. 'hillary clinton ' on Google:

    twitter
    facebook
    email 
    age

on yahoo:

    email scandal
    indictment
    for president
    criminal charges

http://imgur.com/oxaQLOX

It changes based on who knows how many factors. Benghazi was showing for me when I typed the message, now it's not.

Google's autocomplete is likely based on recent searches, so it can suggest things based on very recent events. It will vary wildly.

ok that's fine. but if Google is so current with latest searches it's still pretty weird that "crim.." shows nothing but positive results. surely other terms are more popular now than "crime bill 1994".

http://i.imgur.com/vt7rcov.png

Right now, as I type this, typing "hillary clinton crim" brings up "hillary clinton criminal video" in the autocomplete.

You have NO idea how their autocomplete works, so jumping to conclusions about Google filtering for positivity, specifically for a candidate, is entirely stupid.

This is really concerning, and disappointing if true.

I'd be less concerned if they were also cleaning up autocomplete for the other candidates, but it appears they are not.

"Brock Turner Cri" also autofills "cricket" and not anything criminal related. This is likely due to the hoopla around people googling for criminal records and google penalized a bunch of companies for it a while ago.

I did this autocomplete exercise with several candidates about 6 months ago, and Hillary-related search autocomplete terms were (by far) the most damning and amusing.

If this is true (and based on my exercise, it is), I'll be deactivating my accounts and adding 127.0.0.1 google.com www.google.com accounts.google.com to my /etc/hosts file.

Their examples of supposed manipulation mostly work the same if you replace "hillary clinton" with "jeffrey dahmer". In particular, "jeffrey dahmer ind" suggests "jeffrey dahmer indiana" and "jeffrey dahmer indonesia".

If your headline can be answered with "no" then you probably shouldn't post it.

episodes like this are the most evident reasons why we need a distributed internet search engine in our future

The answer is yes.

Who knows, maybe they got cleared because someone was trolling the suggestion engine, just because there is heavy logical correlation that suggest higher rated search terms should be suggested, that doesn't mean there are not other factors that outweigh it. We don't really know how it works.

I am not being defensive of them, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if it was true, just that they got caught. It is actually pretty fascinating and scary how entangled the Google universe and the Government are, and right or wrong, they are seem to be more invested in their vision of the future more than financial* gains.

* but money is always a little bit a part of it

When I was following the primaries, I preferred Bing's tool to Google's here(just search "primaries" from a US location in either tool). The Google one seemed overly simplistic, especially earlier when there were more potential delegates.

I still tend to search with Google, but Bing at least seems to give a more 'unfiltered' view of your query. Google seems to have a lot more heuristics tweaking things in the background, so I use them for my first search and switch to Bing if I need to see everything for some oddly specific query.

I also don't see electoral fraud and exit poll discrepancies talked about as much anymore:

https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-elect...

An interesting read from April which continues to be relevant and attributable to last Tuesday's primaries as well.

I'm glad this guy knows so much about how search engines work. He should start one, it sounds easy! He just has to map each query to the single, unchanging answer that's the same for everybody!

This is was I get in Berlin, Germany in Incognito mode:

http://imgur.com/ps3Ahaa

This could also be neighborhood or search history or social network related, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com