On Sept. 21, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing on whether or not Google is “serving customers or threatening competition.” The questioning honed in on 1)
whether or not Google is “biased”; 2) whether Google has been favoring its own properties; and 3) possible regulation of search results, among many other questions. I will take a
deeper dive into a few of the items above, as the hearing was often meandering and unfocused in terms of its stated objectives.
Is Google biased?
I’ll give you the short answer: Yes. All search engines are biased, and if they weren’t, search engines would not exist at all. With search engines, bias is a good thing, and searchers use the search engine with the best bias, relative to their search intentions. Natural search is editorial, whether delivered by an algorithm, human editing, or both (even algorithms are developed by humans, and therefore have a built-in bias). Search editorial is commercial free speech, no different from any other company publishing a popularity list, a “best of guide,” or other list that infers some type of quality judgment or comparison. For these reasons alone, the investigators are asking for an answer to a question that does not make sense.
A few years ago, I wrote a column explaining the basic biases of search
engines so that searchers would be able to think critically about their listings (the article also included a link to an excellent paper written by Eric Goldman on objective search engine bias,
and why it is a good thing). That column was written about three-and-a-half years ago, and of course many other biases could be added to that list now, but it is still a good basic
overview. All in all, bias is what makes your search engine results great.
Ultimately, bias is used to give you an answer. This leaning toward more robust artificial intelligence has long been a stated goal by key Google strategists. So any focus on the “ten blue links” is a throwback to search engines of five to ten years ago, and will hinder any type of innovation. Search engines are moving into the physical world as well, and search bias, just like human bias, is and should be a part of it.
Is Google properly managing the algorithm for its users?
Paid and natural results have always been consistently managed like “church and state,” with objective natural search results bordering on tech religion at Google. As far as Google is concerned, only the best answer for the user will do, period. No compromises; spammers and irrelevant results are kicked out.
This approach is comprised of both technological and human editorial. There is only one number one,
and for every number one, there are a million or more rankings standing in line. Commitment to search quality and its user experience are the essence of the engine's entire business (and also
where the company makes the most money). If bad search experiences were consistent, then fickle searchers would move en masse to the next best thing.
There is no fairness in search, so businesses should get used to it. There are strategies for getting the most out of an Internet marketing strategy, and search is only one part of it. The fact that some of the businesses testifying at the hearing are apparently relying dominantly on Google natural results indicates a severe and potentially critical flaw in their business strategy. I remember the Google Florida update of 2003 (when Google wiped out natural rankings and traffic for a massive number of site owners), and the toll it took on individuals and businesses who had put all their eggs in the Google natural search basket. As a strategist, I would never recommend implementing only a pure natural search strategy to any company I advise -- that is, if they plan on being around for a while.
Does the U. S. government believe it should get into the search engine censorship business?
The most alarming comment to me came from Senator Al Franken of Minnesota. Sen. Franken is currently working with Google, and in his remarks leading up to the verbal thrashing he gave Eric Schmidt, he suggestedthat the “technical oversight committee” could regulate and approve every algorithm change, as a solution to this perceived problem.
First of all, I strongly support Sen. Franken on his net neutrality stance (see my previous column, “Google’s Shocking Change of Heart on Net Neutrality”). Partisan politics aside, Franken was one of the only politicians who knowledgeably stood up for neutrality, and also worked to mobilize support for the issue. If you support equal network access issues, then I would recommend you support Sen. Franken, because he is one of the leading thinkers in this cause, one that he rightly called “the most important free speech issue of our time.”
Maybe Sen. Franken realizes the impossibility of his regulation statement in terms of it being at odds with his free-speech stance. I would make the case that the right to create an algorithm is also a free-speech issue, right up there with the free speech rights of equal network access. Imagine if it was suggested that every New York Times article was approved by an oversight committee. Imagine if every magazine cover was approved by an oversight committee. Imagine if eBay, Amazon, Bing, and Yahoo Rankings were subject to government oversight, because people were not happy with their rankings. It just wouldn’t fly.
Yes, Google does wield a tremendous amount of power. Yes, there is only one #1 result. Yes, some marketers have highly flawed business strategies that rely on Google natural search results exclusively. Yes, Google and all search engines are biased by design. Government regulation of an algorithm will not change any of this.