Mon
Aug 27 2018
06:02 am
Is nothing real? Do Google, etc. need to step up?
By: bizgrrl

From the Tennessean,

Take a hard look at the headlines that pop up the next time you Google search Tennessee's U.S. Senate race.

What you see might not be a real headline at all.
...
The links are identified as ads, but who paid for it is not disclosed.

In May, 2018, CNET reported that Google would roll out stricter rules on political ads.

Google also said it will require more transparency around political advertising. This means requiring ads to carry a disclosure that says who paid for them. The company will issue a new Transparency Report this summer that's specifically focused on election ads. The report will say who is buying election-related ads and how much money they're spending. The company will also create a searchable library of election advertisements.

In June, 2018, the Washington Post reported that "federal election regulators are still far from reaching bipartisan agreement on updating disclosure requirements for digital political ads, which are becoming more popular as social media plays a growing role in campaigns."

The Internet is becoming unreal. Will it someday be that we think we are shopping online at Walmart but we are not? It's sad.

Topics:
bizgrrl's picture

The Tennessean follow-up

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2018/08/31 - 5:06am.

The Tennessean follow-up report

Google now says it has added disclosures to all four ads at issue after The Tennessean last weekend reported how the ads avoided the company's political advertising disclosure policy.
...
Newly attached disclaimers reveal the Tennessee Republican Party as the group that paid for three of the four previously undisclosed ads that have surfaced in the Tennessee U.S. Senate race, Google says.
...
A disclaimer has also been added to a fourth Google ad, which is headlined "Phil Bredesen | Hand-Picked By Chuck Schumer." It's unclear who paid for that ad until the Google ad library is updated

Good for Tennessean staff. There needs to be a watchdog to know where information is coming from :)

fischbobber's picture

Google as a research tool.

Submitted by fischbobber on Fri, 2018/08/31 - 1:05pm.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

Simply put, it's not. And this is a major tool driving the right wing propaganda machine

The NRA has been driving it's agenda with google for years. Case in point. A couple years back I was doing column for Scott Barker and he had me on a pretty loose leash. I decided to do a column on the history and meaning of the second amendment. So I googled it. Every article on the first page amounted to an opinion piece that was pro-NRA positions (no footnotes, no cross referenced facts, nothing backed by hard evidence, etc.). I literally had to google search engines to get to a search engine that would provide access to peer reviewed, published scholarly papers on the evolution of the second Amendment.

(I don't want to spoil the ending for all you wanting to know, but the second amendment literally has nothing to do with citizens rights to overthrow the government. In fact, just the opposite. The militia exists so citizens will be ready to stand up to those committing treason and repel them, but I digress.)

More recently I was looking for a spread sheet on the 2016 election, and what the actual numbers show. I ended up at wikipedia and a .gov web site and just hand transposed the numbers I needed onto a spreadsheet I hand designed myself. (Another spoiler alert. The rust belt tipped the election. The numbers suggest that virtually any one of several factors could have accounted for the loss of those states. Arguments over 2016 are like arguing over whether the rain or wind or tide was responsible for the losses in a hurricane.) My position has evolved to this, had Hillary listened to Bill, she would have likely won. To me, it is a marital issue that I don't feel necessary to interject my presence in. It shows the value of taking one's spouse's counsel closest to heart. Again, I digress.

The point is that google is a lousy research tool. It is an advertising media designed to spread the propaganda of the highest bidder. The people of google aren't there to help you research the history of the second amendment, or civil rights, or the women's movement, or suffrage, or Roe vs. Wade, or the labor movement, or the direct ways corporations affect the environment and the economic well being of our nation's citizens, or unions, or pension reform, or education, or healthcare. Google is a propaganda machine, bought and paid for by whoever wants to control the message. In the world of google, the truth is sold to the highest bidder.

You have brought forth the single greatest threat threat to our representative democracy Bizgrrl.

bizgrrl's picture

I thought you were old enough

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 5:01am.
(in reply to fischbobber)

I thought you were old enough to realize that Google is not there to provide you all the valid answers. It actually can be a great research tool but it will not always provide the end result you want.

You certainly remember how research was done before Google. All that information is still available and should be easier to access.

I'm sure you know that much of the resources on the internet are based on receiving financial returns for their tools/content.

Maybe we learned this early on having a business and all and doing what needed to be done to get our company at the top of the list when people Googled a search term related to our business.

Google is not necessarily a bad company. They were/are definitely in the right place at the right time. There should probably be more rules/guidance/laws on political advertising (maybe all advertising) on the internet.

One thing I get sick of is going to a web site and can find no address or phone number for the company.

fischbobber's picture

Ask Jeeves

Submitted by fischbobber on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 12:19pm.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

I couldn't even find that website anymore.

Honestly, if I was a researcher or politician, the first thing I would do is invest in a lexus nexxus (sp?) account and just pay for a search engine. I don't expect google to operate for free, but when their business model is equating the accuracy of Brietbart with the Washington Post one simply must conclude that they have no real interest in accuracy.

When I googled something to the effect of "What Bill told Hillary to do during 2016 campaign" the top five hits were from (in order) msnbc, ABC, Washington Examiner, Brietbart, and the Washington Post. The post Article wasn't really germane to the entry I googled. The New York Times piece that dealt directly with the issue was the tenth and last listing on page one.

And you're right, I remember how to research, but when you get sources like Brietbart popping up as legitimate then research time becomes bullshit filter time. And I agree. Google is not necessarily a bad company, but they are selling an accurate search engine. They are selling an advertiser medium.

bizgrrl's picture

I never get breitbart in my

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 1:22pm.
(in reply to fischbobber)

I never get breitbart in my search results. Hmmmm, is this telling you spend too much time there :)

bizgrrl's picture

I searched for the exact term

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 1:47pm.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

I searched for the exact term you mentioned. Got no results from Breitbart. I intentionally never go to that site. I look at links before I follow them, thus that site never gets loaded.

Treehouse's picture

What did he tell her?

Submitted by Treehouse on Fri, 2018/08/31 - 9:16pm.

What did bill tell Hillary?

fischbobber's picture

Bill

Submitted by fischbobber on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 12:56am.
(in reply to Treehouse)

He told her to go after workers in the rust belt, in a nutshell.

bizgrrl's picture

Can you Google the reference

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 4:51am.
(in reply to fischbobber)

Can you Google the reference to back that up? :)

fischbobber's picture

I did.

Submitted by fischbobber on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 12:19pm.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

And I had this really neat reply set up from googles exact response and in the process of going back and forth on all this crap on my computer I lost, not only the response, but any way back to my exact google search.

I'm a bit curious as to whether or not different people get different results with the same search. I'm wondering if maybe three or four readers would be interested in an experiment to see if google is indeed tailoring its responses to individuals and how that might affect the message.

I'm a bit pressed right now, but I find this a fascinating and timely topic.

R. Neal's picture

Yes, search results are

Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 1:05pm.
(in reply to fischbobber)

Yes, search results are personalized.

Google explains:

"Information such as your location, past search history and Search settings all help us to tailor your results to what is most useful and relevant for you in that moment.

We use your country and location to deliver content relevant for your area. For instance, if you’re in Chicago and you search “football”, Google will most likely show you results about American football and the Chicago Bears first. Whereas if you search “football” in London, Google will rank results about soccer and the Premier League higher. Search settings are also an important indicator of which results you’re likely to find useful, such as if you set a preferred language or opted in to SafeSearch (a tool that helps filter out explicit results).

In some instances, we may also personalize your results using information about your recent Search activity. For instance, if you search for “Barcelona” and recently searched for “Barcelona vs Arsenal”, that could be an important clue that you want information about the football club, not the city. You can control what search activity is used to improve your Search experience, including adjusting what data is saved to your Google account, at myaccount.google.com."

There are a bunch of other factors such as page rank, authority, popularity, inbound links, etc. etc.

R. Neal's picture

It is also helpful to use

Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 1:11pm.

It is also helpful to use search parameters, such as "-" (minus sign) to exclude a term, for example [second amendment -nra], and quotes to include exact terms.

More info: (link...)

bizgrrl's picture

Google foo is important.

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 1:23pm.
(in reply to R. Neal)

Google foo is important.

jbr's picture

You probably have already

Submitted by jbr on Sat, 2018/09/01 - 7:34pm.

You probably have already used it, but duckduckgo was referred to me several years ago by some folks I felt were particularly knowledgable about the inner workings of the Internet. I dont know if they would still endorse it or not.

It apparently runs on nGinx, which is widely used, but being based in Moscow, somewhat gives me pause.

duckduckgo

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives