Google search engines decided up to 25% of election outcomes globally in 2015.
IT behemoths have long mastered the art of manipulating the minds of billions of people all over the globe. They do it invisibly: an ordinary individual is unlikely to notice the difference between his own view and the algorithm's suggestion based on postings from friends and preferred communities. What are Google and Facebook's goals for mankind, and how can they be stopped from gaining global dominance? This and other topics will be discussed as part of the large-scale project "Algorithm. "Who is in charge of you?" Robert Epstein, Ph.D., a renowned psychologist-researcher at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California, and author of 15 books, told journalists.
Journalists: You were one of the first to notice the possible threat of algorithms. How did you come to the realization that the Google search engine algorithm, which everyone considers to be an innocuous and beneficial service, may really affect people's opinions and even election outcomes?
Epstein: I came across a research of marketers who discovered that a small boost in Google's SERPs may result in a significant rise in sales. Because the higher your site's link appears in the search results, the more people will click on it. For example, according to one survey, 50% of clicks were made on the first two results and 95% on the first page. And, as a researcher, I was curious if these findings might be utilized to influence user perception. It's possible that you'll be able to sway the outcome of the election.
In early 2013, I began looking on this topic. The outcome astounded me. I reasoned that if search results are skewed in favor of one of the election candidates, this will influence the votes of two or three percent of undecided voters. It's nearly hard to sway those who have already made up their minds, but there are plenty of others who are undecided. And it is their votes that have a significant impact on election outcomes.
["In our initial trial, we discovered that SERP fraud may sway approximately 48% of those who are indecisive. I didn't think that was even feasible."]
The second trial revealed that there might be up to 63 percent more of these people. Furthermore, it became obvious that this prejudice is simple to conceal.
We uncovered dozens of similar modifications afterwards. They're all the work of tech behemoths, primarily Google and Facebook. This makes them a major threat since influencing them is difficult, and there is no genuine competition among them. They have the ability to sway public opinion on any topic, at any size, and in any country throughout the world. And no one will be aware of it.
Employees at Google refer to the merging of SERPs as a "ephemeral experience" in internal emails. This is a method in which search results are created in real time, one by one for each user, and then vanish without being saved.
The Wall Street Journal released fragments of hacked Google employee emails in 2018. One of the correspondents proposes that the approach of ephemeral experience be used to affect Americans' attitudes on Trump's anti-immigrant edict. As a result, they are well aware of what they are doing. Furthermore, they are certain that no one will detect their ruses. There is no tangible proof left if they employ ephemeral experiences.
In fact, it's hard to tell whether or not they're employing these deception methods. We've learnt to spot this via our study, but the ordinary individual has no idea they're being duped.
Journalists : We used to assume that Google was simply a fantastic user-based sorting mechanism that profited from advertisements. However, you believe that this gadget has more serious intentions, maybe including humanity's retraining. What do you think Google is getting at with this? Where do you draw the line between a beneficial tool and a service that is harmful to everyone?
—As a result of public access breaches in 2018, an eight-minute film called The Selfish Ledger - an internal Google experiment - was released in 2018.
We learnt from this film that the corporation has every chance to reprogramme mankind. The company's principles must be disseminated and safeguarded across the world, according to the video. The utopians certainly established this firm. And they're still utopians who are willing to use force to achieve their goals. Spreading their beliefs across the world is a part of their culture. This is a significant threat to democracy. We believe that Google search engines decided up to 25% of election outcomes globally in 2015. Because most elections are very closed, info about them in search results is frequently skewed, influencing uncertain voters' decisions.
In the beginning, Google was a completely benign entity, a valuable Internet resource. But it's now an entirely different business. They track us not just through search, but also through mail and a variety of other services. There are about two hundred of them in all.
Google, for example, purchased Nest, a smart thermostat manufacturer, a few years ago. They began by installing microphones in smart thermostats without informing anyone. In the most recent versions of gadgets, cameras have been incorporated. The firm announced in January that it had completed a deal to acquire Fitbit, a producer of smartwatches that can be used to track health data. Google has either already gathered all of this data or will do so shortly. During the coronavirus epidemic, the company acquired access to a vast amount of data on American health.
Google is also helping to operate the US National DNA Repository as a volunteer. They have data on the DNA of millions of people in their possession, perhaps tens or hundreds of millions - I'm not sure. They make the most of every chance to keep a close eye on individuals. After all, the more information you have about someone, the more easily you can influence them.
Journalists: Google's contextual advertising has seen several design changes. It became nearly indistinguishable from the findings of a normal problem at some point. Why isn't Google being held responsible for this?
—No one in the United States holds Google accountable. Because the corporation is backed by Democrats, and Republicans are opposed to regulation. So, in the United States, Google is completely unregulated, and I'm not sure that will ever change.
Things are different in the European Union, where Europeans have filed many cases against Google in recent years. Google, I believe, has been fined a total of ten billion euros over the last four to five years, and the firm is still embroiled in several legal battles. Google, on the other hand, dismisses them. Europeans, for example, are concerned that search advertising are indistinguishable from traditional results. Google separated it from organic search results for a while, but it eventually reverted to its original state. As a result, distinguishing the two is still challenging. European authorities are actively scrutinizing Google and evaluating any changes, something that cannot be said of US officials.
Journalists: Why do most people blindly believe search results?
—People trust data from computers, according to research. They believe algorithms without understanding who created them. They believe the information is objective.
Because it originates from a machine, all search results, suggestions, and voice assistant responses are assumed to be correct. People, on the other hand, are unconcerned by the idea that there is a person behind the wheel. Human forces clearly created newspapers, television, and radio. However, in the case of computer-generated material, this concept is less clear. Is a human hand at work in the search results? Yes, of course. After all, this is the outcome of the effort of a human-written computer program. Programmer prejudice is reflected in the code they create, according to study. As a result, the human component is already there at the moment of service creation.
According to the disclosures, Google updates its search algorithm at least three thousand times every year. They used to at least tell people about major changes ahead of time, but they no longer do so. About ten times each day, they alter their search algorithm. Yes, people have an impact on the stuff you view. With one exception: its impact is impossible to track.
As a result of the data leak, Google discovered the existence of a manual known as the twiddler framework. It described a way to reorder search results. They truly honed their technological skills in order to alter search results. They can include skewed findings and can just as easily be deleted, as the informant indicated to me. How to turn on the light in a room is simple.
During the data gathering for the 2020 US presidential election, we witnessed this process at action on ourselves. We've created a method to keep track of what users view on displays. We saw a considerable bias in Google search results in favor of Democrats throughout the election. We made this information public in November, just days before the election, and Google was compelled to cease being controlled. During the second round of Senate elections in Georgia in January 2021, we discovered that Google search results had become impartial.
Because we caught their hand, they just backed off and switched off the manipulation toggle switch.
Journalists : Have you been approached by campaign staffers during the 2020 election? Do you want to apply your findings in your campaigns?
—My study focuses on approaches that make advantage of big platforms. They are the only ones who have total control over what the public sees.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is the foundation of whole businesses; firms pay billions of dollars each year to rank their websites in Google search. But there's a catch: this is a highly competitive field, and both you and your opponents employ the same strategies. However, if the platform, in this case Google, is biased and favours one candidate, the opponent has no chance. There is no longer any debate about who is the best.
Journalists: You've testified in front of Congress on many times on the threats that Google poses. Has this affected the government's regulatory strategy in any way?
—There haven't been any significant modifications. However, under Trump, litigation against Facebook and, to a lesser extent, Google began. Biden has been President of the United States for some months, and an inquiry into his conduct is still continuing. But I have a feeling it will all be for nought. Biden is a Democrat, and Google is a big supporter of Democrats. Facebook and Google, both based in Silicon Valley, have made large donations to Democrats. They're aware of this, and they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
I'm currently working on an essay about regulatory capture and other games that huge corporations engage in. It's a common occurrence for corporations to participate in the formulation of law or regulation, and in the end, these inventions benefit only the firms. This is now taking place between Google and the US government.
Google's business strategy is predicated on spying. People believe that services are provided for free. Google, on the other hand, collects massive quantities of personal data and sells it for more than $ 100 billion each year.
The foundation of this business strategy is deceit. The Google search engine is nothing more than a sophisticated means to gather personal data, a tool for snooping on individuals.
Google and Facebook are now attempting to "force" the sale of a few of firms with which they are unconcerned. Every week, Google makes a new acquisition. As a result, they will simply profit in the billions.
However, the three major dangers to democracy and humanity that they pose will not go away. Surveillance, censorship, and manipulation are three of them.
Journalists: Do you believe that the defeat of the IT behemoths will have at least some results?
—You'll get nowhere if you defeat these corporations. This is a waste of time and effort in my opinion. We must continue on the route of user protection.
You can, for example, make a business based on people monitoring illegal. Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, has described this economic model as "frightening." Such activities, he feels, should be outlawed.
You may begin by making the massive Google database used to create search results public. Both American and European authorities may demand this. Hundreds of thousands of new search engines will utilise this database and generate excellent results once this information is made accessible. Search engines will once again compete with one another, as they did previously. Google is not the first search engine, and there was a lot of rivalry when it first started out. However, Google took control approximately five years later and murdered her.
The Google database is used by the Startpage service to create search results. This is an excellent illustration of how an IT behemoth may exchange information. This is a little legislation, but it will break Google's stranglehold on the search industry and provide protection to users.
The United States government took over the telecommunications firm AT&T in 1956, which had a monopoly on long-distance calls in the country. Thousands of AT&T patents must be made freely available to the public. They might be used by anyone in the globe. This is an excellent illustration of what I'm talking about. As a result of this action, AT&T's monopoly was broken, other companies arose, and the sector began to expand. This proved to be a game-changing choice.
Journalists: What are your thoughts on the 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal? Does this company's technology have a legal right to exist in a democratic society? Is it ethical to manipulate people in this way?
—Cambridge Analytica was only disseminating information via targeted Facebook advertisements. This is something that every user can accomplish. Republicans were implicated in the scandal, but Democrats employed the same tactics.
Cambridge Analytica utilized highly specific audience targeting and a variety of techniques to sway hesitant voters. But who chooses what the user sees in the end? Facebook makes this decision. It is their algorithm that determines whether or not people see something.
Journalists: Have you looked at how society's perception of IT behemoths is shifting in the wake of high-profile scandals? Is public trust eroding?
—Yes, incidents like these are causing issues for Google, Facebook, and other large internet companies. However, their earnings are increasing at a quicker rate than ever before. Google has $ 100 billion in free cash that it may use for penalties or anything it wants. Yes, people were upset, but this had no impact on the expansion of businesses.
They can currently reach three billion individuals all over the world. This amount, I believe, will approach 4.5 billion individuals in the next year and a half. That's how quickly they develop.
This is a major issue. And the majority of people are completely unaware of it. I'm afraid that these corporations will have an impact on our children's opinions. We all know that influencing people who are weak is considerably simpler. All youngsters are at risk.