Google denies altering search suggestions for Hillary Clinton

[Skanky Vamp]

via theverge

Google says that its search suggestions haven't been altered to help Hillary Clinton. Nor, it says, are they programmed to help any other candidate. "Google autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause," a Google spokesperson says in a statement.

The statement comes in response to a YouTube video by SourceFed claiming that Google is hiding negative autocomplete results for Hilary Clinton. The video pointed out that Google doesn't suggest "Hillary Clinton crimes" when you type in "Hillary Clinton cri," whereas both Yahoo and Bing do. It found the same thing when typing "Hillary Clinton ind" in search of "Hillary Clinton indictment." It argued that both ought to show up, given each search's popularity in Google Trends.

There appear to be a couple different reasons for why this is happening. The first being that Google does, for all people, filter out "offensive or disparaging" search predictions — and "crime" is one of the words Google consistently removes. This is true no matter who you're searching for, be it Al Capone or, as Vox points out, Bernie Madoff. So Google is hiding the autocomplete suggestion "Hillary Clinton crime," but it's also doing that for everyone else, including people who have actually been charged and convicted.

The other reason this is happening involves how people search for negative news about Clinton. Matt Cutts, who is currently on leave from his position as head of Google's webspam team, explained why this might be on Twitter: those looking for negative stories don't type Clinton's last name.

Basically, you can still find negative suggestions about Clinton, so long as you only type her first name.

It's not clear exactly how far Google goes in removing potentially offensive autocomplete results. As SourceFed's video points out, many results pop up when you type in "Donald Trump racist" — but results also appear for "Hillary Clinton racist." And it's worth noting that Google does filter out both of those phrases; it only returns suggestions with additional words at the end ("racist rally" in Trump's case, and "racist costume" in Clinton's case).

Google is likely trying to walk the line here between providing as much information as it can (that generally being its reason for existence, beyond profit) and not stepping into a thorny legal area by, say, suggesting someone is a criminal.

So while it's true that Google is filtering out negative suggestions from autocomplete, it both claims and appears to be doing so consistently across the board. Here's a spokesperson's full statement on the matter:

"Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how autocomplete works. Our autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person's name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms."

SourceFed says it's currently working on an update to its video, following Google's response.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

And here I was thinking they are all over the TV. Who cares if they are on the internet as well, do people really want to know what they are like?
It's like that crap of Trump saying he's going to build a wall across Mexico. If he becomes President and congress says no, it will not happen. Politicians tell lies, they do stuff that no church would approve of and they break laws. But people still vote for them.

 

[white avenger]

Politicians tell lies, they do stuff that no church would approve of and they break laws. But people still vote for them

Unfortunately, far too often, as is the case of Clinton vs Trump, if (when) they become officially the Democrat and Republican candidates, respectively, the only real reason for voting for either comes down to making the best of two very bad choices. Voting for anyone other that those two, while an option, is the equivalent of not voting at all.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Voting for anyone other that those two, while an option, is the equivalent of not voting at all.

Unless they can sway Bernie to the Greenies. That would be really interesting!

 

[Athena]

More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms."

See, I just thought Google search autocompletes were based on this anyway. I think to say Google has a political agenda purely based on this one feature is a little far-fetched....

 

[Skanky Vamp]

See, I just thought Google search autocompletes were based on this anyway. I think to say Google has a political agenda purely based on this one feature is a little far-fetched....

It's queer that Google is the only one 'censoring' search results though. Yahoo and Bing do not do it.

 

[Athena]

It's queer that Google is the only one 'censoring' search results though. Yahoo and Bing do not do it.

They have different algorithms for search results though. I mean, I don't know a great deal about their algorithms and how searches are generated, but if I type something in Google and the same into Bing, I will likely get different results, regardless of theme. So, I really don't think there is a political agenda, it's just some search engines display different results for the same searches.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

They have different algorithms for search results though. I mean, I don't know a great deal about their algorithms and how searches are generated, but if I type something in Google and the same into Bing, I will likely get different results, regardless of theme. So, I really don't think there is a political agenda, it's just some search engines display different results for the same searches.

No, I think the agenda goes far beyond politics actually.
 
@GwenRaiden let's just say there is a reason why I use duckduckgo.

 

[brinkster130]

I don't know, like a month ago I went down a Hillary rabbit hole and found oddles of negative articles about her using a Google search. They came right up with no extensive search needed.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I don't know, like a month ago I went down a Hillary rabbit hole and found oddles of negative articles about her using a Google search. They came right up with no extensive search needed.

Its not search results, its the predictive search based off of others' real searches so that you can use it as a catalyst to see what other people are searching for with similar terms. The fact that google is not showing what people are searching for as they feel it goes against their standards brings their entire analytics into question.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

@brinkster130 They admitted to doing it in the article. The fact that companies in turn pay google thousands of dollars based, in large part, off of those results and they admit they tamper with them as they see fit... to me it makes me wonder about the validity of all of it.

 

[brinkster130]

@brinkster130 They admitted to doing it in the article. The fact that companies in turn pay google thousands of dollars based, in large part, off of those results and they admit they tamper with them as they see fit... to me it makes me wonder about the validity of all of it.

Ah, I took the quote from the Google spokesperson as them denying all tampering but I guess they later (sorta) admitted to it when explaining that they filter negative things for all people. Weird.

I don't think that's a big deal, politically speaking; because it's happening across the board and has been for some time.....but of course a story breaks about them doing it to benefit Hillary. The media has become so predictable when it comes to politics.

This does make me wonder what other little quirks are programmed into the search function...I can't imagine they only included the negative filter. Do you think companies pay Google to apply certain filters?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Do you think companies pay Google to apply certain filters?

That's the thing. They make a ton of money off of advertising and the predictive search is a large component of this geographically. By them saying them do alter it just makes you wonder how much they alter. Maybe they artificially lower the success of certain key words to get you to invest more in advertising in that market.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Google also has to follow laws concerning libel, even if the source material was not originally theirs. Doing a search for allegations and doing a search for convictions will give different results.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Google also has to follow laws concerning libel

No they dont. Neither does Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Blab, Periscope or any social media. The only way Google would be involved in laws concerning libel would be if Google themselves wrote it. You (or the courts) can petition Google to remove and disallow content to show up, but as they themselves say, they cannot guarantee all unfavorable results will be removed from their listings.