NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Santorum, Google, and Colbert
Santorum, Google, and Colbert
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000897.html
The "Senator Rick Santorum vs. Google" controversy exploded in my
inbox yesterday, along with one really, seriously irate phone call
that was particularly notable. Then satirist, ersatz right-winger
Stephen Colbert closed out the day in his own unique style.
The level of activity suggests (though I certainly cannot prove) that
some sort of organized pro-Santorum campaign had been deployed. I'm
used to people contacting me about Google-related issues based on my
various past postings, but yesterday had the smell of something more
systematic.
In any case, the topic was a familiar one -- complaints about searches
for "Santorum" on Google yielding as their top result an SEO-induced
(that is, via the use of Search Engine Optimization techniques) link
to what we could call a significantly off-color "revenge site" aimed
at Santorum by an individual disgruntled by Santorum's anti-gay
remarks.
Recent news reports have suggested that Santorum has recently
approached Google asking that the search results be altered, and that
Google has (appropriately, in my opinion) denied this request.
Colbert then picked up the theme last night, even quoting Google's
Matt Cutts' accurate statement that search results are subject to
first amendment protections ( http://j.mp/ooUWIH [Colbert (Video)] ).
The focus on Santorum will probably fade considerably once it becomes
clear that he's not going to be the GOP presidential nominee. But
search freedom detractors will likely continue to use this case as a
"poster child" for their insidious demands that governments should
have control over search engine algorithms.
Regular readers probably know that folks have been sending me their
complaints about search results for years, and that I am absolutely
dedicated to the concept that Google (and other search engines) should
have 100% control over their search algorithms -- being forced to
alter the order of those results based on specific complaints would
set a terrible precedent.
Having said that, I continue to feel that some sort of explanatory
"annotation" mechanism for specific highly controversial results in a
carefully delineated set of circumstances -- much as Google has long
done for searches on the word "Jew" -- might merit serious
consideration. Such a process (to be applied only in a very limited
set of cases) could provide useful transparency to help searchers
understand why particular "contentious" results are appearing --
especially when they seem incongruous at first glance and have
triggered significant public scrutiny.
Most importantly, such a system would allow search results to remain
completely in their algorithmically computed order, which must rightly
be viewed as a top priority for search engines and their community of
users.
This is a very difficult set of problems, and there are no appropriate
trivial solutions. No matter how these issues are approached,
somebody is going to be dissatisfied. But calls for government
involvement in search engine algorithms should be extremely alarming
to everyone who cares about the sanctity of search results and the
knowledge that they help impart to us all.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com