Facebook and Google Controlling what you see on the net?

Wurly

I was pretty shocked when I watched this video this morning. Basically, the premise is that Google and Facebook are showing up different results for different people, depending on what you click most often. So, a lot of stuff is being left out that we don't get to see. Watch the vid below.

Thoughts? I think it's pretty scary tbh..

chin_grin

I'm wearing my tin foil hat so I'm ok.

sbsquarepants

How is that in anyway different from what google has always done? I mean who really looks at page 93 of their search results anyway. Personaly I probably never make it past 3 or 4 at the absolute best, and I search for some weird, obscure shít!

Lambsbread

thank God they don't pop-up porn adverts on normal websites!

Gee Bag

Nothing gets between me and my donkey porn.

stephen_k

What!!! Selecting things that I might find usefull and save me time searching for..... THE B*STARDS!!!!!

Wurly

stephen_k wrote: »

What!!! Selecting things that I might find usefull and save me time searching for..... THE B*STARDS!!!!!

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

jimmycrackcorm

Would somebody please quote the ops post for me, Boards.ie seems to be controlling what I'm seeing on the net with their pesky Ignore poster.

Lando Griffin

Isn't that what all these internets are made for.
I remember when I bought my first Internet there was hardly anything of the good on it.

mickoneill30

Wurly wrote: »

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

I suppose it is freaky but I can see the benefit to me in them doing it. 99 times out of 100 I get the answer I want on the first page of results. If I have to start going to page 2 etc. on Google it gets annoying.

If I wanted to see something else that Google wasn't returning I'd try out Bing. They probably do it too but they've less history on me

recyclebin

Wurly wrote: »

stephen_k wrote: »

What!!! Selecting things that I might find usefull and save me time searching for..... THE B*STARDS!!!!!

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

Clear your history and don't log in to Google. Then you can search what you want without their filtering

28064212

Wurly wrote: »

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

If, for example, you almost always click on the New York Times link when you search, why wouldn't you want Google to add more weight to New York Times links? They are not hiding stuff, or controlling what you see, they're increasing the likelihood of stuff you want to see being near the top of the results

Cuddlesworth

Wurly wrote: »

What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

Then use StumbleUpon. Its a search engine, its designed to show you what you want to see. And they are better at it then anybody else.

al28283

Wurly wrote: »

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

They're not controlling what you can see, they are just moderating their search results to what they think you are looking for.

grizzly

Wurly wrote: »

Basically, the premise is that Google and Facebook are showing up different results for different people, depending on what you click most often.*

*other search engines are available

Blowfish

Wurly wrote: »

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

If you don't normally search for a topic, then you won't have clicked on stuff related to it, so the results will be whatever the 'default' results would be for someone searching for that topic. What's the problem with that?

mickoneill30

recyclebin wrote: »

Clear your history and don't log in to Google. Then you can search what you want without their filtering

You could install a second browser too. That'll have a whole different history.

McCruiskeen

There is not some evil, overarching aim to control us and make us all follow Lord Brin and Zuckerberg.

It's called customer service and innovation and makes your life easier when you search. I think you can opt out of customised searches AFAIK.

So stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

Wurly

recyclebin wrote: »

Clear your history and don't log in to Google. Then you can search what you want without their filtering

Watch the video. This makes no difference.

Zebra3

It was on Al Jazeera earlier about how Google are removing Youtube clips of various US state forces carrying out violent attacks on peaceful protestors.

Shameful. :mad:

Captain Darling

And i thought everyone got those advertisements about grannies getting fisted...

Kontakt

I think he may have been on Pat Kenny's radio show a while ago.

biko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRj2HJx5Il0

irishgrover

i remember a few years ago when my wife was expecting twins, and it was obviously a topic of discussion in a lot of my gmails...
the about of targeted ads I got relating to paternity / dna testing services was quite funny, but a kind of sad reflection on society as well.........

Plazaman

Wurly wrote: »

What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

Then you do a search for that.

On a positive note, I want to reassure all those kind people who regularly send me emails about increasing the size of my manhood through pills, potions and wonderful technological devices, that both myself and my current wife are quite happy with it's size and functionality at the moment.

Whilst 1000 Viagra pills for such a low low price is tempting, I will refrain from availing of the offer but thanks again for your concern. (P.S. theres a lad in Nigeria who has 3.7 million dollars to get rid of, he might be interested).

Discostuy

But isn't this how Google and Facebook etc make their billions??

You get a free Gmail and FB account and they use your details instead of charging you?.

Your details then promote ads they think you may find useful...leading to sales...leading to Google and FB getting a cut of the revenue?

So is my understanding anyways...ya get nothing for nothing in this world.

Wurly

Plazaman wrote: »

Then you do a search for that.

On a positive note, I want to reassure all those kind people who regularly send me emails about increasing the size of my manhood through pills, potions and wonderful technological devices, that both myself and my current wife are quite happy with it's size and functionality at the moment.

Whilst 1000 Viagra pills for such a low low price is tempting, I will refrain from availing of the offer but thanks again for your concern. (P.S. theres a lad in Nigeria who has 3.7 million dollars to get rid of, he might be interested).

I take it you haven't watched the video I posted? This is not what i'm getting at. I'm aware of what you said.

The point I am raising is that when you search for something, the search results are controlled, based on where you are, what you normally search for and other various demographics. THIS is the part that I think is freaky. They are looking to see what you normally search for.

Take Facebook for example. I know of loads of things that have literally disappeared from my news feed. Friends I wouldn't connect with very often etc. Do I really want to exist in a safe little bubble where I rely on the same news source or go to the same places for information? No, I want a choice. To keep informed. To keep thinking outside of my normal parameters. What I am saying is, the choice is made FOR you. The other results simply do not show up.

FTGFOP

recyclebin wrote: »

Clear your history and don't log in to Google. Then you can search what you want without their filtering

The have have 56 other signals they work from besides cookies/history.

The speaker isn't shouting conspiracy about the filtering. He wasn't saying that Google or Facebook were manipulating results with evil intentions. It's just that the assumptions made by the designers of these algorithms mean that you won't hear contrary opinons and will live in your own information bubble to such an extent that you might not (like in his example) hear about the Egyptian riots, the biggest news story in the world at the time, when you search 'Egypt'.

It used to be that going to Google and searching a certain topic would generate the same results no matter who you were, and irrespective of where you lived or what type of computer you happened to be using. This made the internet a gateway to a broader view of the world. It's the loss of this phenomenon due to filtering (of which we are not informed and over which have little control) that makes the speaker in the video highlight it and question if it's good a thing.

His suggestions are hardly earth-shattering. He would like us to be informed this filtering is going on and to be able to turn it off if you wished.

Amalgam

Zebra3 wrote: »

It was on Al Jazeera earlier about how Google are removing Youtube clips of various US state forces carrying out violent attacks on peaceful protestors.

Shameful. :mad:

If you had bothered to read from other tech sites, you'd see Google\YouTube refused to remove the footage.

Al Jazeera tend to sex up some of their reporting, pinch of salt..

---

About filtering.. a lot of material is filtered if you get your web access through pipes handled by BT and certain quarters in the US.

Various backbone handlers unfortunately play nice with organisations like the IWF and their dreaded IWF Blacklist, who have this fixation with the internet, as a whole, being pure and PG rated. Google is the least of your worries..

Australian site link that covers the IWF and similar, but their overview of 'filtering' leans towards a global picture.

http://libertus.net/censor/isp-blocking/ispfiltering-gl.html

Wurly

FTGFOP wrote: »

The have have 56 other signals they work from besides cookies/history.

The speaker isn't shouting conspiracy about the filtering. He wasn't saying that Google or Facebook were manipulating results with evil intentions. It's just that the assumptions made by the designers of these algorithms mean that you won't hear contrary opinons and will live in your own information bubble to such an extent that you might not (like in his example) hear about the Egyptian riots, the biggest news story in the world at the time, when you search 'Egypt'.

It used to be that going to Google and searching a certain topic would generate the same results no matter who you were, and irrespective of where you lived or what type of computer you happened to be using. This made the internet a gateway to a broader view of the world. It's the loss of this phenomenon due to filtering (of which we are not informed and over which have little control) that makes the speaker in the video highlight it and question if it's good a thing.

His suggestions are hardly earth-shattering. He would like us to be informed this filtering is going on and to be able to turn it off if you wished.

You should have been the OP to this thread, not me! That is exactly what I wanted to say. /makes coffee...;)

Coriolanus

They're providing a service to you for free. They can do what the fúck they like and because it's free and non-contractual, you're free to use somebody elses service instead.

28064212

FTGFOP wrote: »

The have have 56 other signals they work from besides cookies/history.

The speaker isn't shouting conspiracy about the filtering. He wasn't saying that Google or Facebook were manipulating results with evil intentions. It's just that the assumptions made by the designers of these algorithms mean that you won't hear contrary opinons and will live in your own information bubble to such an extent that you might not (like in his example) hear about the Egyptian riots, the biggest news story in the world at the time, when you search 'Egypt'.

If you always go to the travel results when searching, why would you want news results?

FTGFOP wrote: »

It used to be that going to Google and searching a certain topic would generate the same results no matter who you were, and irrespective of where you lived or what type of computer you happened to be using.

It hasn't been that way for more than a decade (if it ever was that way at all). One of Google's earliest innovations was localised results, so that searching "restaurant" from an Irish computer returns restaurants in Ireland, not the US. This is just an extension of that

seamus

Wurly wrote: »

But ONLY based on what you have been clicking on in the past while. Do you not find it freaky that they are controlling what you see? What if you wanted to see something else outside of what you normally search for?

"Controlling" is probably too strong a word, as it implies an active agenda.

The aim is to produce the most relevant search results, so when the content is geared towards your likes and dislikes, then the relevance (to you) increases.

As pointed out though this has some big implications for researchers or anyone trying to do some rudimentary objective searches on something.

But it also has an effect on opinions. If I'm writing content on abortion (for example), and googling for various sources and info on that basis, then I'm most likely to receive information closer to me and my sensibilities. And the same will be true for someone on the opposite side of the debate. So while I might see lots of results for boards.ie and wikipedia, someone else might get more results for conservepedia and a US anti-abortion forum.

The end result is that both of us mistake the search results for a representation of the public at large, and we overestimate the popularity of our viewpoints. Which results in a major shock when the reality comes home. For example, I see that MMG is doing really well in online polls and seems to be well supported online, pulling in at least 40% of the preferences. Then an election comes along and he gets (for e.g.) just 10% of the vote.

Aside from the initial confusion, a less rational individual is more likely to think that the official results have been forged or tainted.

So Google's actions in this regard could lead to a surge in extremism as people try to fight in real life for what they think are popular causes based on their online experience.

Think of the #occupy protests. They seem to think they have tonnes of support, when in reality most people either don't support them or don't care about them.

2 stroke

You mean some people get results that don't include black gay midget beastiality on the first page.

smash

Filter bubbles are nothing new...

There's been hot girls in my area for years now!

al28283

smash wrote: »

Filter bubbles are nothing new...

There's been hot girls in my area for years now!

What are you waiting for? Call now!

Sykk

9:05.....

pajunior

OP if you are very concerned then there are probably other search engines out there that don't track your history at all or do localized search.
However this search engine will probably suck.

the watchman

grizzly wrote: »

*other search engines are available

But are they any good, do they come close....

the watchman

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You could install a second browser too. That'll have a whole different history.

I doubt it, surely its the IP address they're monitoring....

mikom

This is why I am switching to MC hammers search engine as soon as it goes live.

Wetai

mikom wrote: »

This is why I am switching to MC hammers search engine as soon as it goes live.

Stop! hammerti.me

the watchman

Google search engine. Am I missing something ...

When google searching you can go to 'Ads Preference Manager' page and select 'opt out' of relevant search results.
....I'm not saying that I trust them though!!:P

LeixlipRed

The primary aim of facebook and google is to make profits. If they could find a way of gettin away with packaging the condensed souls of newborn babies inside a dead horse and selling it they would. Amazes me people get shocked by these things.

Mark200

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The primary aim of facebook and google is to make profits. If they could find a way of gettin away with packaging the condensed souls of newborn babies inside a dead horse and selling it they would. Amazes me people get shocked by these things.

Isn't making profits the sole reason for existence of pretty much every company?

That doesn't mean they're heartless or evil.

RichieC

I have quick links on my bar to get me to the conservative sites I read, I don't depend on google to spoon feed me my news, though I suppose the danger isn't for those of us that seek out news that we might not agree with and varied opinions but those that would base their world view on the bubble the web creates for them.

starlit

You serious? I know if you log onto your gmail account and you have set up a gmail account section that what you view online is recorded with your gmail account. Facebook well there are a lot of nukes and crannys there so suppose there are loopholes other than the fact if you download your data from facebook not all of it will appear!

LeixlipRed

Mark200 wrote: »

Isn't making profits the sole reason for existence of pretty much every company?

That doesn't mean they're heartless or evil.

Yep, when it boils down to it pretty much does.

smash

doovdela wrote: »

Facebook well there are a lot of nukes and crannys there

Facebook insights... little known evil service for developers that allows you more access to user profiling than people think... if they even know about it, that is.

Well done, use a different browser. There are PLENTY of independent browsers for those who wear tin hats.

edit: The more I listen the more I severely dislike this guy

Stiffler2

Google - pfft - Everyone knows Bing is where it's at !

Anyone ever use Google's Black Search Engine - www.blackle.com
It's basically google but it's black instead to save energy on your monitor / electricity bill to reduce energy consumption. Never really took off though