Google Bombs Are Our New Normal

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: October 13, 2017 at 11:01:07 PM EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Google Bombs Are Our New Normal
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> [Note:  This item comes from friend Judi Clark.  DLH]
>
> Google Bombs Are Our New Normal
> By Karen Wickre
> Oct 11 2017
> <https://www.wired.com/story/google-bombs-are-our-new-normal/>
>
> Google had a problem. Beginning in 2003, a group of users had figured out how to game the site’s search results. This 
> phenomenon was known as a “Google bomb”— a trick played by toying with Google’s algorithm. If users clicked on a 
> site, it registered as popular and might rise in ranking results. The cons were often elaborate, like when a search 
> for “miserable failure” turned up links to information about then-president George W. Bush. It seemed like the query 
> represented Google’s editorial viewpoint; instead, it was a prank.
>
> By early 2007, Google had all but vanquished the problem with the usual triage. A phalanx of technology and product 
> people would huddle with the PR team to uncover the technical issue causing the bad outcome. They would work on a 
> fix, or a workaround, and issue an apologetic explanation. The engineers might tackle a long-term adjustment to the 
> algorithm addressing the root cause. Then it was back to business as usual.
>
> These problems—often caused by hackers or pranksters, and occasionally triggered by people with truly bad 
> intentions—weren’t everyday situations. They were edge cases.
>
> But now, we have a new normal. Manipulating search results today seems more like an invasion than a joke. As the 
> October 1 massacre in Las Vegas unfolded, Google displayed “news” results from rumor mills like 4Chan, and Facebook 
> promulgated rumors and conspiracy theories, sullying the service on which, according to Pew Research, 45 percent of 
> American adults get their news. Meanwhile, the rapid-fire nature of Twitter led users to pass along false information 
> about missing people in the aftermath.
>
> All of these cases signify the central place a number of digital services have staked out in our lives. We trust our 
> devices: We trust them to surface the correct sources in our information feeds, we trust them to deliver our news, 
> and we trust them to surface the opinions of our friends. So the biggest and most influential platforms falling prey 
> to manipulations upsets that trust—and the order of things.
>
> It’s hard to square the global power, reach, and ubiquity of these massive platforms with their youth: Google just 
> turned 19. Facebook is 13. Twitter is 11 and a half. (None, in other words, out of their teens!) Until recently, 
> widespread digital malfeasance was relatively rare on these young platforms. But in a world that increasingly seems 
> dystopian, we now expect security breaches, hacks, purposeful fakery— all of it more or less constantly across the 
> online services and tools we use. Whether the aim is financial, political, or even just hacking for hacking’s sake, 
> the fact that so many of us live and work online means we are, collectively, an attractive and very large target.
>
> If the companies providing the services we rely on want to keep or regain our trust, this new normal warrants a good 
> deal more of their attention. When a problem occurs, the explanations, as I’ve written, have to reach us quickly and 
> be as forthright. And for the technological fixes, a short-lived war room and an apologetic statement no longer do 
> the trick.
>
> Now that we seem to be in a never-ending arms race with miscreants ranging from lone rangers to state-run 
> disinformation machines, we’re going to need more than an army of brilliant engineers patching holes and building 
> workarounds. Companies need to build an ongoing approach—something like a Federation, through which the massive 
> platforms and services we rely on routinely communicate and coordinate, despite the fact that they are also 
> competitors.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171014061311:4684ECA4-B0C8-11E7-8EF5-D7D6C756F208
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com