Hacker News Reader

Comment by ayushchat | Hacker News Reader

Ok, I might get roasted for this, but will still take a shot at it.

At what point do we say that Google has a moral responsibility to provide unbiased information? I'm not sure we can.

It is a free market after all, and Google is a private corporation. Even if the Daily Mail's allegations are true, Google is still doing what is in it's best interest, and not illegal (afaik its not illegal to modify the algorithm of one's core product, happy to be corrected)

View on HN

It is literally impossible for a search engine to provide unbiased results. There will always be some biases in how the ranking algorithm is designed.

If you query Google for the shape of the Earth should it return "round" and "flat" pages equally so as to avoid bias?

yes, I agree. Whatever we do, we can't eliminate bias. And, adding to that, as a society can we force a private company to change their algorithm to better suit our taste? I am not sure we can. There needs to be a larger debate on this. Maybe the courts are the right place for such a debate.

The courts are specifically not a place for debate. Courts are supposed to interpret the law independent of public opinion. Debates should occur in the legislative branch of government.

I don't think it's reasonable to compel private companies to change their search ranking algorithms because that would violate fundamental free speech principles and there is no objective standard for bias. A better solution would be to impose stricter limits on market share and dominance even on companies that aren't monopolies. That would preserve competition and give consumers real choices on which services to use.

Yes, my bad, you are right. Courts are not the place for debate, parliaments and assemblies are.

Apart from that, I think this might turn it into the classic socialism vs capitalism debate. Which I don't want to get into

Just closing out with this cool video, watch it if you haven't, I always go back to this when I get into such debates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0

> The courts are specifically not a place for debate

uh, no, debate is literally 100% of the purpose of courts.

...about interpretation of existing law and of material facts. Not about "what we should do".

The market is only as free as society decides. Regardless of current legality if society decides something is immortal eventually it'll be regulated.

You ask about moral responsibility and then give nothing but legal reasoning. Those are not synonymous. Google acting within the law has nothing to do with whether they are acting morally, only legally.

We can say they don't have a responsibility once we begin holding accountable those who do have a responsibility and yet still use Google to help fulfill that responsibility.

For example, I think we can agree that a teacher should have a moral responsibility to teach students in an unbiased manner. If that is the case and their teaching involves the use of google, then is the teacher not at risk for introducing bias and should be held responsible? Otherwise why even put the standard on the teacher if it can be done away with by outsourcing some of the work?

I understand your point. But think of it as a random stranger on the street instead of a "teacher". Just that we all like that stranger's looks. He looks intelligent and well read. Almost like a teacher at a school. Should we trust him to give us unbiased information?

Advertising models will be extinct soon enough. If only the get rich quick assholes moved elsewhere, actual protocol development could do it this decade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com