Google search results 'show racial bias', says study
»www.theage.com.au/technology/tec ··· 2bm.html
This writing investigates the delivery of these kinds of ads by Google AdSense using a sample of racially associated names and finds statistically significant discrimination in ad delivery based on searches of 2184 racially associated personal names across two websites.
»arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/ ··· 6822.pdf
This isn't the only change that i've noticed.
A couple of days ago i noted when using the search engine that the "news" option has been dropped from the first page search and needs to be expanded from the options.
Further more using the search "news" function offers further expansions to more (no. of ) articles YET it's being shaped from what it suggests to THIS ;
"The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.
The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News. "
If one thinks that they can simply search for ALL news articles by using "Google news" function, they cannot.
I encountered this when searching "Equifax" amongst others.
Of the 52 articles on the subject promised only eleven where offered with no recourse.
If you want to search for ALL articles i would avoid using the news function for now and type the word into the search field. I.E. "Equifax news".--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Dying to defend one's small piece of suburb...Give me something global...STAT!
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremiumReviews:
Fort Wayne, IN
The entire Google/client data-harvesting and marketing universe is based on the concept of discrimination, though I don't mean that merely in the limited sense of modern racial-bias. Their system is all about making distinctions between browser users on the basis of all manner of scattered bits of information and history, all strung together using large arrays of hypotheses and conjecture about what the data means in order to attempt to deliver targeted ads and search results to those people. And making distinction between people is exactly the definition of discrimination. Conjecture and discrimination regarding a user's possible race is but one small (though entirely predictable) consequence of such a system.
The nature of certain ads and search results preferentially delivered to a person guessed at being of a certain race is where the most offensive aspect of this lies, and that reflects the biases of those employing the collected data and directing what kinds of ads go where. In the end, it's not all that different from the reality that for many years, different ad flyers and even newspaper editions were delivered into urban areas deemed to be dominated by one race or another, all based on the bias of certain individuals in marketing and elsewhere.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. A. de Tocqueville
said by Blackbird:
Their system is all about making distinctions between browser users on the basis of all manner of scattered bits of information and history, all strung together using large arrays of hypotheses and conjecture about what the data means in order to attempt to deliver targeted ads and search results to those people.
Isn't that the point of targeted news and advertising? So why pick on racial bias, when there's also gender bias and economic bias and regional bias and age bias and political bias to name a few?
Targeting isn't as easy to get right as it looks, but this pc stuff has really gotten out of hand. If somebody wants attention, yelling "racial bias" is the way to go these days, even if it's kinda misleading.
People are different. That's not news.
|reply to Blackbird | said by Blackbird:
The nature of certain ads and search results preferentially delivered to a person guessed at being of a certain race is where the most offensive aspect of this lies, and that reflects the biases of those employing the collected data and directing what kinds of ads go where.
I would say the content of those ads is perhaps the most offensive.
It's advertisers that should be vetting their ads for offensive and malicious/dodgy content and Google should provide a check list for advertisers and websites to allow this certain types of material to be posted on websites.
Even if the frequency of these types of offensive linkings to racial profiling was accurate (which their clearly not) i.e. proportion of offenses per racial stereotype was represented, it would still be offensive.
The laws governing everything else don't yet apply to the net ads in regards to being offensive.
»mashable.com/2013/02/06/google-a ··· ligence/
Maybe if no marketable product had been found previously for certain website ads then perhaps acquisitions of this nature may improve things.
We all know some (a lot) of google ads stink, the profiling has either been based on poor profiling or intrusive data collection or lack there of.
A link to a organization that lists/sells criminal/salacious content would be less offensive than directly linking a persons past obtusely, based on racial profiling.
|reply to ashrc4 |
not in ohio
|reply to ashrc4 |
That's the real problem, isn't it? These businesses that repackage and sell data about people are not what I'd call fine upstanding members of our commercial society. "Sleazy" is the word that comes to mind. So, sleazy businesses do sleazy things.