With over 22.5 million views on Facebook alone, it is safe to say that media outlet SourceFed's video regarding Google's manipulation of search results has gone viral. For those who have yet to see it, the video details the ways in which Google appears to have manipulated it's search suggestions in favor of Hillary Clinton. While Google, Bing, and Yahoo each list suggestions as a search is typed in, in regards to Hillary Clinton, these suggestions are vastly different. Typing "Hillary Clinton cri" into Google yields the suggestions "Hillary Clinton crime reform," "Hillary Clinton crisis," and "Hillary Clinton crime bill 1994." This exact same search on both Bing and Yahoo leads to a variety of suggestions such as "Hillary Clinton crimes", "Hillary Clinton criminal investigation", and "Hillary Clinton criminal record", with Google's suggestions not even coming up as potential results on Yahoo and left out of the top five on Bing.
Recommended for you
The video goes on to bring up the counter argument that the difference in these suggestions is caused by people searching for different things across these three search engines. However, this is not the case. When plugging Google's top search result of "Hillary Clinton crime reform" into Google's "Trend" platform, there is not even a high enough volume of this search to chart it's trending over time. In comparison, the search for "Hillary Clinton crimes" has brought about significantly more searches, yet is not mentioned in Google's list of suggestions. The video later compares Google's suggestions to those of Yahoo and Bing when concerning negative terms associated with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump and finds suggestions to be the same across all three search engines. This is unacceptable.
Bias, specifically bias for one party or candidate over another, is everywhere - especially in the news media we consume. Despite its drawbacks, bias in media is accepted because it allows people to further their own views, while also giving them the ability to learn how the "other side" tells it's story. However, the case brought up by SourceFed is not one of media bias. Search engines thrive off of their ability to present all information with results based simply on algorithms for popularity. Search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo often play the role of the middleman between consumers and the media. Consumers look to search engines for their lack of bias to gather their own information and form their own views. So when even the outlet through which consumers search for supposedly unbiased information is clearly altering its suggestions in favor of one political candidate over all others, there is an issue that goes deeper than biased media.
This also ties back to when it was brought up that Facebook may be filtering conservative viewpoints out of member's newsfeeds. A vast majority of America's population gets it's daily news updates from the internet, and a large segment of that majority gets its news from social media. When what consumers see or do not see in terms of news is filtered by the place they most commonly go to seek that news and the middleman fails to do its job correctly, we face the same issue as when Google manipulates its results.
Sites like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, and countless others exist to serve the people. They exist so people can find and follow topics and views they feel passionate about. There is a reason that Huffington Post, Fox News, and even E! News have social media accounts - people want to hear what they have to say. This is why the issues of filtering the views on Facebook and manipulation of Google search suggestions are so vastly different from the issue of biased media. When watching tv, if someone disagrees with the presentation of a story on Fox News, they can simply switch to CNN. However, on the internet, Google and Facebook are trying to make the option to "switch" or seek out other viewpoints much harder. Instead of supporting one view over another, they are supporting one viewpoint while attempting to bury the other. Not only is this incredibly unethical, but it goes against the founding principles of our nation. Information, especially information we use to elect out next president, should be readily available and opposing viewpoints should never be buried. Disagreement and differences are healthy, but attempting to hide any opposition from the public is not.
Matt Lieberman said in the SourceFed video, "search everywhere for information, arm yourselves". This could not possibly be a more necessary piece of advice. An incredibly pivotal election is right around the corner, so regardless of your party affiliation, never stop seeking the truth, and come November, go confidently into the voting booth with a decision arrived at by facts alone.
