Search engine manipulation effect: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:28, 22 April 2017

Latest revision as of 22:25, 20 July 2025

(45 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Primary sources|articlenotability|date=JuneMay 20162022}}

{{Short description|Effect of search engines on user attitudes}}

The '''search engine manipulation effect''' ('''SEME''') is thea term invented by [[psychologist]] [[Robert Epstein]] in 2015 to describe a hypothesized change in [[consumer behaviour|consumer preference]]s fromand [[Search enginevoting manipulationbehaviour|manipulations ofvoting search resultspreferences]] by search engines. Rather than [[search engine optimization]] providers.where SEMEadvocates, iswebsites, oneand ofbusinesses seek to optimize their placement in the largestsearch behavioralengine's effectsalgorithm, everSEME discovered.focuses Thison includesthe [[votingsearch behaviour|votingengine preferences]]companies themselves. A 2015According studyto Epstein, search engine companies both massively manipulate consumer and vote sentiment, and furthermore do so to ensure their favored candidates win. Epstein’s research indicatedshows that such manipulations couldcan shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more, and up to 80 percent in some demographics, and can change the outcomes in over 25% of national elections.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Crain|first1=Matthew|last2=Nadler|first2=Anthony|date=2019|title=Political Manipulation and Internet Advertising Infrastructure|journal=Journal of Information Policy|volume=9|pages=370–410|doi=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|jstor=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|s2cid=214217187|issn=2381-5892|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=poli>{{Cite web|title = How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election|url = httphttps://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?hp=rc3_4#.VduFK6sVhhH/|accessdateaccess-date = 2015-08-24|first = Robert|last = Epstein |date=August 19, 2015 |publisher=Politico.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|lastlast1=Epstein|firstfirst1=Robert|last2=Robertson|first2=Ronald E.|date=2015-08-18|title=The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|url=http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=112|issue=33|pages=E4512–E4521|doi=10.1073/pnas.1419828112|issn=0027-8424|pmc=4547273|pmid=26243876|bibcode=2015PNAS..112E4512E|doi-access=free}}</ref>

OnIn theresponse otherto handthe allegations, [[Google]] denies secretlydenied re-ranking search results to manipulate user sentiment, or tweaking ranking specially for elections or political candidates.<ref>{{Cite web|url=httphttps://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766/|title=A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory|website=POLITICO Magazine|date=26 August 2015 |access-date=2016-04-02}}</ref>

The '''search engine manipulation effect''' (SEME) is the change in [[consumer behaviour|consumer preference]]s from [[Search engine manipulation|manipulations of search results]] by [[search engine]] providers. SEME is one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. This includes [[voting behaviour|voting preferences]]. A 2015 study indicated that such manipulations could shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more and up to 80 percent in some demographics.<ref name=poli>{{Cite web|title = How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election|url = http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?hp=rc3_4#.VduFK6sVhhH|accessdate = 2015-08-24|first = Robert|last = Epstein |date=August 19, 2015 |publisher=Politico.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Epstein|first=Robert|last2=Robertson|first2=Ronald E.|date=2015-08-18|title=The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|url=http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=112|issue=33|pages=E4512–E4521|doi=10.1073/pnas.1419828112|issn=0027-8424|pmc=4547273|pmid=26243876}}</ref>

The study estimated that this could change the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of national elections worldwide.

On the other hand, [[Google]] denies secretly re-ranking search results to manipulate user sentiment, or tweaking ranking specially for elections or political candidates.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766|title=A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory|website=POLITICO Magazine|access-date=2016-04-02}}</ref>

{{toclimit|3}}

Line 16 ⟶ 15:

Five experiments were conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. The experiments were randomized (subjects were randomly assigned to groups), controlled (including groups with and without interventions), counterbalanced (critical details, such as names, were presented to half the participants in one order and to half in the opposite order) and double-blind (neither subjects nor anyone who interacted with them knows the hypotheses or group assignments). The results were replicated four times.<ref name=poli/>

=== USUnited States ===

In experiments conducted in the United States, the proportion of people who favored any candidate rose by between 37 and 63 percent after a single search session.<ref name=poli/>

Line 22 ⟶ 21:

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a manipulated search engine. Each group had access to the same 30 search results—each linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages.<ref name=poli/>

After searching, on all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably.<ref>{{Cite web |url = https://suchmaschinen-optimierung-seo-google.de/suchmaschinenoptimierung/ |title = Suchmaschinenoptimierung |date = 6 October 2018 |language = de}}</ref> 36 percent of those who were unaware of the rankings bias shifted toward the highest ranked candidate, along with 45 percent of those who were aware of the bias.<ref name=poli/>

Slightly reducing the bias on the first result page of search results – specifically, by including one search item that favoured the&nbsp;other candidate in the third or fourth position masked the manipulation so that few or even&nbsp;no subjects noticed the bias, while still triggering the preference change.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web

Line 31 ⟶ 30:

}}</ref>

Later research suggested that search rankings impact virtually all issues on which people are initially undecided around the world. Search results that favour one point of view tip the opinions of those who are undecided on an issue. In another experiment, [[biased search results]] shifted people’speople's opinions about the value of [[Hydraulic fracturing|fracking]] by 33.9 per cent.<ref name=":1" />

On election day in 2010, Facebook sent ‘go out and vote’ reminders to more than 60 million of its users. The reminders caused about 340,000 people to vote who otherwise would not have. In&nbsp;another 2014 Facebook experiment for a period of a week, 689,000 Facebook users were sent news feeds that contained either an excess of positive terms, an excess of negative terms, or neither. Those in the first group subsequently used slightly more positive terms in their communications, while those in the second group used slightly more negative terms in their communications.&nbsp;Both experiments were conducted without the knowledge or consent of the participants.<ref name=":1" />

Later research suggested that search rankings impact virtually all issues on which people are initially undecided around the world. Search results that favour one point of view tip the opinions of those who are undecided on an issue. In another experiment, biased search results shifted people’s opinions about the value of [[Hydraulic fracturing|fracking]] by 33.9 per cent.<ref name=":1" />

=== India ===

Line 40 ⟶ 37:

=== United Kingdom ===

A UK experiment was conducted with nearly 4,000 people just before the 2015 national elections examinedto examine ways to prevent manipulation. Randomizing the rankings or including alerts that identify bias had some suppressive effects.<ref name="poli" />

== European antitrust lawsuit ==

European regulators accused Google of manipulating its search engine results to favor its own services, even though competitive services would otherwise have ranked higher. As of August 2015, the complaint had not reached resolution, leaving the company facing a possible fine of up to $6 billion and tighter regulation that could limit its ability to compete in Europe. In November 2014 the European Parliament voted 384 to 174 for a symbolic proposal to break up the search giant into two pieces—its monolithic search engine and everything else.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title = Google’s $6 Billion Miscalculation on the EU|url = https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-08-06/google-s-6-billion-miscalculation-on-the-eu|website = Bloomberg.com|accessdate = 2015-08-25|first = Vernon|last = Silver|last2 = Stone|first2 = Brad|date = August 6, 2015}}</ref>

The case began in 2009 when Foundem, a British online shopping service, filed the first antitrust complaint against Google in Brussels. In 2007, Google had introduced a feature called Universal Search. A search for a particular city address, a stock quote, or a product price returned an answer from one of its own services, such as [[Google Maps]] or [[Google Finance]]. This saved work by the user. Later tools such as OneBox supplied answers to specific queries in a box at the top of search results. Google integrated profile pages, contact information and customer reviews from [[Google Plus]]. That information appeared above links to other websites that offered more comprehensive data, such as [[Yelp]] or [[TripAdvisor]].<ref name=":0" />

Google executives [[Larry Page]] and [[Marissa Mayer]], among others, privately advocated for favoring Google’s own services, even if its algorithms deemed that information less relevant or useful.<ref name=":0" />

== 2016 U.S. presidential election ==

[[Google]] acknowledges adjusting its algorithm 600 times a year, but does not disclose the substance of its changes.<ref name="poli" />

Epstein had previously disputed with Google over his website, and posted opinion pieces and essays fiercely attacking Google afterward. He claimed that Google was using its influence to ensure [[Hillary Clinton]] was elected in the [[2016 United States presidential election]].<ref name=":1" />

== 2016See Presidential electionalso ==

In April 2015, [[Hillary Clinton]] hired [[Stephanie Hannon]]&nbsp;from Google to be her [[chief technology officer]]. In 2015 [[Eric Schmidt]], chairman of Google's holding company started a company&nbsp;– The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of electing Clinton. [[Julian Assange]], founder of [[WikiLeaks]], called Google her ‘secret weapon’. Researchers estimated that Google could help her win the nomination and could deliver between 2.6 and 10.4 million general election votes to Clinton via SEME. No evidence documents any such effort, although since search results are ephemeral, evidence could only come via a Google [[whistleblower]] or an external [[Hacker (computer security)|hacker]].<ref name=":1" />

* [[Algorithmic radicalization]]

On June 9, 2016, [[SourceFed]] alleged that Google manipulated its searches in favor of Clinton because the recommended searches for her are different than the recommended searches to both [[Yahoo]] and [[Bing (search engine)|Bing]] and yet the searches for both [[Donald Trump]] and [[Bernie Sanders]] are identical to both Yahoo and Bing. When "Hillary Clinton Ind" was entered in the search bar, Google Autocomplete suggested "Hillary Clinton Indiana", while the other vendors suggested "Hillary Clinton indictment". Furthermore, SourceFed placed the recommended searches for Clinton on [[Google Trends]] and observed that the Google suggestion was searched less than the suggestion from the other vendors.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Hern|first1=Alex|title=Google Manipulating Search In Favor Of Hillary Clinton?|url=http://techaeris.com/2016/06/10/google-manipulating-results-favor-hillary-clinton/|website=Techaeris|accessdate=10 June 2016|date=10 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1= Richardson|first1=Valerie |title=Google accused of burying negative Hillary Clinton stories|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/9/google-accused-burying-negative-hillary-clinton-st/|accessdate=10 June 2016|work=The Washington Times|date=9 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-appears-to-be-manipulating-search-results-to-help-hillary-clinton/article/2593562|title=Google denies manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton|last=TAKALA|first=RUDY|date=2016-06-11|website=Washington Examiner|access-date=2016-06-11}}</ref>

== References ==

Line 61 ⟶ 51:

== External links ==

* {{Cite journal|title = The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|url = http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512|journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|date = 2015-08-18|issn = 0027-8424|pmid = 26243876|pages = E4512-E4521E4512–E4521|volume = 112|issue = 33|doi = 10.1073/pnas.1419828112|firstfirst1 = Robert|lastlast1 = Epstein |authorlink1author-link1=Robert Epstein|first2 = Ronald E.|last2 = Robertson|pmc=4547273|bibcode = 2015PNAS..112E4512E|doi-access = free}}

* {{Cite news|url=https://promarket.org/unprecedented-power-digital-platforms-control-opinions-votes/|title=The Unprecedented Power of Digital Platforms to Control Opinions and Votes -|last=Epstein|first=Robert|date=2018-04-12|access-date=2018-05-17|language=en-US}}

* How to Avoid [https://eartdigital.com/seo-manipulation/ SEO Manipulation]

[[Category:Internet search engines]]

[[Category:Google]]

[[Category:ElectionsSearch engine optimization]]

[[Category:Digital marketing]]