\u201cWe\u2019re at the mercy of Google.\u201d Undecided voters in the US who turn to Google may see dramatically different views of the world \u2013 even when they\u2019re asking the exact same question.<\/strong><\/p>\n Type in \u201cIs Kamala Harris a good Democratic candidate\u201d, and Google paints a rosy picture. Search results are constantly changing, but last week, the first link was a\u00a0Pew Research Center\u00a0poll showing that \u201cHarris energises Democrats\u201d. Next is an\u00a0Associated Press\u00a0article titled \u201cMajority of Democrats think Kamala Harris would make a good president\u201d, and the following links were similar. But if you\u2019ve been hearing negative things about Harris, you might ask if she\u2019s a \u201cbad\u201d Democratic candidate instead. Fundamentally, that\u2019s an identical question, but Google\u2019s results are far more pessimistic.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s been easy to forget how bad Kamala Harris is,\u201d said an article from\u00a0Reason Magazine\u00a0in the top spot. Then the\u00a0US News & World Report\u00a0offered positive spin about how Harris isn\u2019t \u201cthe worst thing that could happen to America\u201d, but the following results are all critical. A piece from\u00a0Al Jazeera\u00a0explained \u201cWhy I am not voting for Kamala Harris\u201d, followed by an endless Reddit thread on why she\u2019s no good.<\/p>\n You can see the same dichotomy with questions about Donald Trump, conspiracy theories, contentious political debates and even medical information. Some experts say Google is just parroting your own beliefs right back to you. It may be worsening your own biases and deepening societal divides along the way.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re at the mercy of Google when it comes to what information we\u2019re able to find,\u201d says Varol Kayhan, an associate professor of information systems at the University of South Florida in the US.<\/p>\n \u201cGoogle\u2019s whole mission is to give people the information that they want, but sometimes the information that people\u00a0think\u00a0<\/em>they want isn\u2019t actually the most useful,\u201d says Sarah Presch, digital marketing director at\u00a0Dragon Metrics, a platform that helps companies tune their websites for better recognition from Google using methods known as \u201csearch engine optimisation\u201d or SEO.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a job that calls for meticulous combing through Google results, and a few years ago, Presch noticed a problem. \u201cI started looking at how Google handles topics where there\u2019s heated debate,\u201d she says. \u201cIn a lot of cases, the results were shocking.\u201d<\/p>\n Some of the starkest examples looked at how Google treats certain health questions. Google often pulls information from the web and shows it at the top of results to provide a quick answer, which it calls a\u00a0Featured Snippet. Presch searched for \u201clink between coffee and hypertension\u201d. The Featured Snippet quoted an article from the Mayo Clinic, highlighting the words \u201cCaffeine may cause a short, but dramatic increase in your blood pressure.\u201d But when she looked up \u201cno link between coffee and hypertension\u201d, the Featured Snippet cited a contradictory line from the very same Mayo Clinic article: \u201cCaffeine doesn\u2019t have a long-term effect on blood pressure and is not linked with a higher risk of high blood pressure\u201d.<\/p>\n What Google has done is they\u2019ve pulled bits out of the text based on what people are searching for and fed them what they want to read \u2013 Sarah Presch<\/em><\/p>\n The same thing happened when Presch searched for \u201cis ADHD caused by sugar\u201d and \u201cADHD not caused by sugar\u201d. Google pulled up Featured Snippets that argue support both sides of the question, again taken from the same article. (In reality, there\u2019s\u00a0little evidence\u00a0that sugar affects ADHD symptoms, and it certainly doesn\u2019t cause the disorder.)<\/p>\n She encountered the same issue with political questions. Ask \u201cis the British tax system fair\u201d, and Google cites a quote from Conservative MP Nigel Huddleston, arguing that indeed it is. Ask \u201cis the British tax system unfair\u201d, and Google\u2019s Featured Snippet explains how UK taxes benefit the rich and promote inequality.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat Google has done is they\u2019ve pulled bits out of the text based on what people are searching for and fed them what they want to read,\u201d Presch says. \u201cIt\u2019s one big bias machine.\u201d<\/p>\n For its part, Google says it provides users unbiased results that simply match people with the kind of information they\u2019re looking for. \u201cAs a search engine, Google aims to surface high-quality results that are relevant to the query you entered,\u201d a Google spokesperson says. \u201cWe provide open access to a range of viewpoints from across the web, and we give people helpful tools to evaluate the information and sources they find.\u201d<\/p>\n By\u00a0one estimate, Google handles some 6.3 million queries every second, totaling more nine billion searches a day. The vast majority of internet traffic begins with a Google Search, and people rarely click on anything beyond the first five links \u2013 let alone venturing onto the second page. One study that\u00a0tracked users\u2019 eye movements\u00a0found people often don\u2019t even look at anything past the top results. The system that orders the links on Google Search has colossal power over our experience of the world.<\/p>\n According to Google, the company is handling this responsibility well. \u201cIndependent academic research has refuted the idea that Google Search is pushing people into filter bubbles,\u201d the spokesperson says.\u00a0<\/p>\n The question of so-called \u201cfilter bubbles\u201d and \u201cecho chambers\u201d on the internet is a hot topic, though\u00a0some research has questioned\u00a0whether the effects of online echo chambers\u00a0have been overstated.<\/p>\n But Kayhan \u2013 who has studied\u00a0how search engines affect confirmation bias, the natural impulse to seek information that confirms your beliefs \u2013 says there\u2019s no question that our beliefs and even our own political identities are swayed by the systems that control what we see online. \u201cWe\u2019re dramatically influenced by how we receive information,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Google\u2019s spokesperson says a\u00a02023 study\u00a0which concluded that people\u2019s exposure to partisan news is due more to the fact that that\u2019s what they click on, rather than Google serving up partisan news in the first place. In one sense, that\u2019s how confirmation bias works: people look for evidence that supports their views and ignore evidence that challenges them. But even in that study, the researchers said their findings do not imply that Google\u2019s algorithms are unproblematic. \u201cIn some cases, our participants were exposed to highly partisan and unreliable news on Google Search,\u201d the researchers said, \u201cand past work suggests that even a limited number of such exposures can have substantial negative impacts\u201d.<\/p>\n Regardless, you might choose to engage with information that keeps you trapped in your filter bubble, \u201cbut there\u2019s only a certain bouquet of messages that are put in front of you to choose from in the first place\u201d, says Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a professor of mediated communication at Technische Universit\u00e4t Berlin in Germany. \u201cThe algorithms play a substantial role in this problem.\u201d<\/p>\n Google did not respond to the BBC\u2019s question whether there\u2019s a person or a team who\u2019s specifically tasked with addressing the problem of confirmation bias.<\/p>\n \u201cIn my opinion, this whole issue stems from the technical limitations of search engines, and the fact that people don\u2019t understand what those limitations are,\u201d says Mark Williams-Cook, founder of\u00a0AlsoAsked, another search engine optimisation tool that analyses Google results.<\/p>\n A recent US anti-trust case against Google uncovered\u00a0internal company documents\u00a0where employees discuss some of the techniques the search engine uses to answer your questions. \u201cWe do not understand documents \u2013 we fake it,\u201d an engineer wrote in a slideshow used during a\u00a02016 presentation\u00a0at the company. \u201cA billion times a day, people ask us to find documents relevant to a query\u2026 Beyond some basic stuff, we hardly look at documents. We look at people. If a document gets a positive reaction, we figure it is good. If the reaction is negative, it is probably bad. Grossly simplified, this is the source of Google\u2019s magic.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat is how we serve the next person, keep the induction rolling, and sustain the illusion that we understand.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, Google watches to see what people click on when they enter a given search term. When people seem satisfied by a certain type of information, it\u2019s more likely that Google will promote that kind of search result for similar queries in the future.<\/p>\n A Google spokesperson says these documents are outdated, and the system used to decipher queries and web pages has become far more sophisticated.<\/p>\n \u201cThat presentation is from 2016, so you have to take it with a pinch of salt, but the underlying concept is still true. Google builds models to try and predict what people like, but the problem is this creates a kind of feedback loop,\u201d Williams-Cook says. If confirmation bias pushes people to click on links that reinforce their beliefs, it can teach Google to show people links that lead to confirmation bias. \u201cIt\u2019s like saying you\u2019re going to let your kid pick out their diet based on what they like. They\u2019ll just end up with junk food,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Williams-Cook also worries that people may not understand that when you ask something like \u201cis Trump a good candidate\u201d, Google may not necessarily interpret that as a question. Instead, it often just pulls up documents that relate to keywords like \u201cTrump\u201d and \u201cgood candidate\u201d.<\/p>\n It gives people mistaken expectations about what they\u2019re going to get when they\u2019re searching, and that can push people to misinterpret what the search results mean, he says.<\/p>\n If users were more clear on the search engine\u2019s shortcomings, Williams-Cook believes they might think about the content they see more critically. \u201cGoogle should do more to inform the public about how Search actually works. But I don\u2019t think they will, because to do that you have to admit some imperfections about what\u2019s not working,\u201d he says. (To learn more about the inner workings of search engines, read this article about how\u00a0<\/em>Google\u2019s updates to its algorithm are changing the internet<\/em>.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Google is open about the fact that Search is never a solved problem, a company spokesperson says, and the company works tirelessly to address the deep technical challenges in the field as they crop up. Google also points to features it offers that help users evaluate information, such as the \u201cAbout this result\u201d tool and\u00a0notices\u00a0that let users know when results about a topic related to breaking news are changing quickly.<\/p>\n Google\u2019s spokesperson says it\u2019s easy to find results reflecting a range of viewpoints from sources all across the web, if that\u2019s what you want to do. They argue that\u2019s true even with some of the examples Presch pointed out. Scroll further down with questions like \u201cis Kamala Harris a good Democratic candidate\u201d, and you\u2019ll find links that criticise her. The same goes for \u201cis the British tax system fair\u201d \u2013 you\u2019ll find search results that say it isn\u2019t. With the \u201clink between coffee and hypertension\u201d query, Google\u2019s spokesperson says the issue is complicated but the search engine surfaces authoritative sources that delve into the nuance.<\/p>\n Of course, this relies on people exploring past the first few results \u2013 the further down the page of results you go, the less likely users are to engage with the links. In the case of coffee related hypertension and the British tax system, Google also summarises the results and gives its own answer prominently with Featured Snippets \u2013 which may make it less likely that people will follow links further down in the search results.<\/p>\n For a long time, observers have described how Google is transitioning from a search engine to an \u201canswer engine,\u201d where the company simply gives you the information, rather than pointing you to outside sources. The clearest example is the introduction of\u00a0AI Overviews, a feature where Google uses AI to answer search queries for you, rather than pulling up links in response. As the company put it, you can now \u201cLet Google do the searching for you\u201c.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the past Google was showing you something that someone else has written, but now it\u2019s writing the answer itself,\u201d Williams-Cook says. \u201cIt compounds all of these problems, because now Google has just one chance to get it right. It\u2019s a difficult move.\u201d<\/p>\n But even if Google had the technical ability to address all of these problems, it isn\u2019t necessarily clear when or how they should intervene. You may want information that backs up a particular belief, and if so, Google is providing a valuable service by delivering it to you.<\/p>\n Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of one of the world\u2019s richest and most powerful companies making decisions about what the truth is, Kayhan says. \u201cIs this Google\u2019s job to fix it? Can we trust Google to fix itself? And is it even fixable? These are difficult questions, and I don\u2019t think anyone has the answer, \u201d he says. \u201cThe one thing I can tell you for sure is that I don\u2019t think they\u2019re doing enough.\u201d<\/p>\n * Thomas Germain is a senior technology journalist for the BBC. He\u2019s covered AI, privacy and the furthest reaches of internet culture for the better part of a decade. You can find him on\u00a0<\/em>X<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>TikTok<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0@thomasgermain.<\/em><\/p>\n Source: www.bbc.com<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nThe bias machine<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Sarah](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/images\/ic\/480xn\/p0k1jkzr.jpg.webp\")
When the filter bubble pops<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Serenity](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/images\/ic\/480xn\/p0k1jl2v.jpg.webp\")
\u2018We do not understand documents \u2013 we fake it\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Serenity](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/images\/ic\/480xn\/p0k1jr69.jpg.webp\")
Philosophical problems<\/strong><\/h2>\n