Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Google Businesses Communications Network Networking Republicans The Internet News Politics

Google Search Results Have Liberal Bias, Study Finds (thedenverchannel.com) 385

According to a new study reported by The Wall Street Journal, Google's search results tend to lean liberal. "An analysis by online-search marketer CanIRank.com found that 50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal-leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people." The Denver Channel reports: "Minimum wage" tended to yield more liberal results, while "does gun control reduce crime" resulted in more conservative ones. Searches for "financial regulation" and "federal reserve" found mostly nonpartisan links. CanIRank used the opinions of four people to determine how liberal or conservative each website was. For 16 percent of the political search terms studied, no right-leaning results showed up at all on the first page of results. CanIRank noted this could be a problem for democracy. A different study found most people click on one of the first five search results. Users rarely move on to the second page. A Google spokesperson said in an email to the WSJ: "From the beginning, our approach to search has been to provide the most relevant answers and results to our users, and it would undermine people's trust in our results, and our company, if we were to change course." According to Google, their results are "determined by algorithms using hundreds of factors" and "reflect the content and information that is available on the internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Search Results Have Liberal Bias, Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:43PM (#53342963)

    It is a well known fact that reality has a strong liberal bias.

    • Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

      by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:41PM (#53343319)

      Fact has no bias. It just is. Bias is when we inject our emotion and opinion into facts.

    • Google results are biased towards what users at a particular location using a particular computer and a particular account find to be correct.
      I.e. Billy Bob and William Jefferson the Third just may not get the same results when googling for things. Particularly when it comes to cigars.

      You know... Search engine giving YOU results YOU are searching for... not what someone else might be searching for...
      Something tells me that Google may be spending a lot of time and resources on getting that to actually work.

      O

      • BTW... Apparently Slashdot also has a left-leaning bias. Wont' let me say "Nig.ers" with two 'g's. Remember that as you read all the other posts here. This is a left-leaning site.

        I hadn't realized that was in place. However, it's not so much evidence of left leaning or PC as it is a simple and obvious reaction to a long-standing category of slashdot trolls (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/GNAA).

      • by chiguy ( 522222 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @10:42PM (#53344133) Homepage

        BTW... Apparently Slashdot also has a left-leaning bias. Wont' let me say "Nig.ers" with two 'g's.
        Remember that as you read all the other posts here. This is a left-leaning site.

        So you're saying since Slashdot doesn't let you use a racial slur, it's left-leaning? So you're saying right-leaning users want to use racial slurs but are thwarted by this left-leaning site?

        That's what I thought.

    • Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @08:47PM (#53343611)

      It is a well known fact that reality has a strong liberal bias.

      What insufferable arrogance.

       

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Note how many times they have made that claim, just in this thread.
        Denial be deep and wide...

      • Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

        by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @12:58AM (#53344543)

        It is a well known fact that reality has a strong liberal bias.

        What insufferable arrogance.

        Then get your fellow conservatives to stop lying their assess off.

        I'm sorry but if I were a Conservative with intellectual integrity I'd be absolutely ashamed of the state of my movement and wouldn't have the first idea where to go.

        Did you not watch the party that represents your movement first spend years falling head over heels with an obviously incompetent Sarah Palin, only to eventually go all in behind a man so lied so shamelessly that I can't even think of a comparable individual and with only a vague idea of what a President actually does?

        Did you not see The Volokh Conspiracy, a site so solidly right wing their favourite candidate was Ted "I'm going to threaten the country's solvency to launch my Presidential bid" Cruz, come out almost uniformly against Trump [washingtonpost.com].

        Did you not watch virtually every respected intellectual within the Republican party either oppose Trump, or only back him with extreme reluctance?

        Were you paying attention when your base was taken over by ridiculous birther conspiracies and freakouts that the federal government was about to invade Texas?!?

        This is not "there's two sides to every story", or "well Liberals are just as bad". Stupid Liberal conspiracies happen too, but they're the exception, not the rule. They don't end up dominating the entire movement.

        There is a valid role for conservatism to play in the public discourse, so toss out the damn clowns and hucksters and start playing it!!

      • But he is right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @05:13AM (#53345075)
        I will explain you why. Most right wing party are what we call "conservative". Which means a tendency to not change the status quo, to ark back to position which static , "what was done before is good enough" etc... It is only a tendency so look at the average. By nature conservative stay on the habitual position we had. The problem is, science and the new technology we have had for the last 100 years and especially 20-30 years are disruptive. New knowledge is disruptive of the habits of the old one. For example science discovered that spanking is contra productive. Science pointed out at global warning. The problem is that that "new" fact , is disruptive of "old" fact. So they go AGAINST the current for conservative. That is why even it is said in jest, science and new stuff , as disruptive of old stuff as they are, have an anti-conservative bias by nature. New discovery by necessity disrupt old habits/old knowledge, and so by definition will be anti conservative. Some people say "liberal" bias but I would say "disruptive" as politically neutral, as some of the cow of "liberals" (I hate those term) are also slaughtered by disruptive new findings.

        So yes, even if said in jest, there is a base of truth in it.
    • The web has a liberal bias. The U.S. population overall is to the right of the web, which is why the web is flabbergasted that Trump somehow managed to win the election.
  • by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1&hotmail,com> on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:46PM (#53342975)
    Well, as they say, truth has a liberal bias, so if your search engine weights things that provide more credible factual information, and more credible factual information is associated with liberal news/information sources, what's the problem?

    If the effect however, is that conservative opinions / viewpoints based on factual information are being deemphasized, then that's a valid point - but I don't think that's the effect going on here. Or perhaps conservative viewpoint webpages tend not to contain the same amount of credible factual information...
    • by Desler ( 1608317 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:49PM (#53342993)

      There's not even objective evidence of what is being claimed. This is just the opinion of four people.

      • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:51PM (#53343009)

        This.

        "...CanIRank used the opinions of four people..."

        What the simple fuck?

        • by dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:21PM (#53343187) Journal

          And yet the people who assume that the study agrees with their world views are quick to accept it as some sort of reflection truth.

          It is a well known fact reality is distorted.

          • As a beginning writer, my 1st-year professor whipped "It is a well known fact ..." out of me with an office visit and an F.

          • by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @09:04PM (#53343729)

            I tested the theory several times through the election process. "How do I vote" would immediately fill in "for Hillary Clinton" and the name "Donald Trump" would not appear even when you typed in "Donald Trum". Searching for "Presidential Candidates" would show Hillary and Obama, with Trump being down between 6 and 9 places in the list. When millions of people report the same exact symptom, it no longer remains something you can explain with a personal anecdote.

            Google Management and executives have a bias toward Democratic/Liberal politics. This can show up in their product with relative ease, and if you don't believe so perhaps spend a bit of time with data analysts who can show you how to manipulate data for the effect you want. Study Statistics, which is all about manipulating data for effect.

            While it's true that the study will be accepted by people who have the world view that Google censors content, people who happen to favor Democratic/Liberal politics will disbelieve it.

            Reality is not distorted, only our view of it is distorted. Without facts, such as the question in my subject, we can only speculate on the facts that we do have.

        • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:24PM (#53343217) Journal

          "...CanIRank used the opinions of four people..."

          I guess the takeaway is that the Wall Street Journal is a fake news site.

          • by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:31PM (#53343255) Homepage Journal

            In many conservatives' minds, it is, because they are obviously co-conspirators in the liberal conspiracy. All too many conservatives disregard anything that disagrees with the tinfoil hat set's holy trinity (Limbaugh, Beck, and Jones) because obviously so-called "legitimate news sources" are trying to hide the truth... the truth that gay and nonwhite people are in cahoots with the lizard people who run the Illuminati and therefore the shadow government.

            Yes, some people really believe that.

            It's maddening, and no amount of evidence will prove to them that "crooked Hillary" isn't, and that Trump isn't a saint. Oh, and the videos of Trump admitting to sexual assault, bragging about ripping off small businesses deeming it "good business," and so forth are faked, just like the moon landing.

      • by zifn4b ( 1040588 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:34PM (#53343281)

        There's not even objective evidence of what is being claimed. This is just the opinion of four people.

        What you don't realize is that some belief systems that have been popular for thousands of years only need a crusty old book with no contemporary evidence to basically enslave all of the Western Europe for several centuries. We've come far as a culture but still very far from rational, it pains me to say. I think we'll eventually get there though.

      • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:53PM (#53343389)

        There's not even objective evidence of what is being claimed. This is just the opinion of four people.

        Ya, but they were: Zeus, Athena, Apollo and Hermes -- Hades was busy with the election.

      • a small group of people brought together to investigate or decide on a particular matter.
        "an interview panel"
        synonyms: group, advisory group, team, body, committee, jury, council, board, commission
        "a panel of judges"

        You know... like those people who score individual performances at sports events... or those people on that supreme court thing...
        Some might even call such a group a "panel of experts".

        On the other hand, "the four people" part seems to be a Wall Street Journal invention.
        All that the actual CanIRank.com analysis mentions is "scorers from both sides of the political spectrum" and that they "were in agreement as to the degree and direction of bias for about half of the results, and were within 1 point on appro

    • The summary in fact offers an example where conservative websites are emphasized and it happens to be on a topic where the conservatives usually have the facts on their side. Gun control. Like it or not the facts from an engineering and historical point of view favor the conservatives. The liberal side of the argument seems mostly emotion and embracing placebo "solutions".
      • The summary in fact offers an example where conservative websites are emphasized and it happens to be on a topic where the conservatives usually have the facts on their side. Gun control. Like it or not the facts from an engineering and historical point of view favor the conservatives. The liberal side of the argument seems mostly emotion and embracing placebo "solutions".

        Agreed, but that also describes the liberal view of minimum wage (at least when the liberals aren't the ones writing the paychecks).

      • by tomhath ( 637240 )

        Google results are skewed by bloggers linking to articles they agree with. Libs have been using that for years to bias Google Search and Google News.

        Google could fix it if they wanted, but their CEO is a Clinton staffer [freebeacon.com] so that won't happen

      • The summary in fact offers an example where conservative websites are emphasized and it happens to be on a topic where the conservatives usually have the facts on their side. Gun control.

        Sorry to burst your American bubble but there is a simpler explanation: Google searches the web worldwide with the emphasis on "world". On the US political spectrum the average person in Europe and Canada probably maps to somewhere marginally right of communism and since Google will use links to judge interest those of us in the rest of the world could produce a 'liberal bias' compared to the US.

        This would also explain why gun control came back more conservative. Whatever your views on it are the only c

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      Well, as they say, truth has a liberal bias, so if your search engine weights things that provide more credible factual information, and more credible factual information is associated with liberal news/information sources, what's the problem?

      Oh but think of the poor people that were brought up in completely delusional belief systems and how much their feelings get hurt when they are confronted by reality. Have some compassion would you? Irrational, delusional people have feelings too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jodka ( 520060 )

      Well, as they say, truth has a liberal bias,..

      Really, please, keep saying stuff just like that.

      It merits the reward of higher social status among your peer group of the neo-progressives perennially oblivious to the midwestern distaste for snotty liberal know-it-alls presuming to be our intellectual betters while demanding ever-more tax dollars, political power and control over our lives.

      Win elections much?

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:48PM (#53342985)

    CanIRank.com found that 50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal-leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people.

    Four people rated the results? That sounds like pretty flimsy evidence. Why are their opinions some definitive source of truth?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    That's is because liberal information tends to be science-based, while conservative information tends to be faith-based. eg "I believe this is true because people/jesus told me it is."

    That doesn't mean that all Liberal information is correct, nor does it mean conservative information is incorrect, it just means that the basis for forming that information tends to lean liberal because liberals put more value on science or fact-checking than conservatives do. You would never use breitbart or foxnews as a prim

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:53PM (#53343029)

    ... can cite this damaging evidence, provided by four fucking people , to contest the election.

    Oh, wait.

  • by Idou ( 572394 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:57PM (#53343045) Journal
    a fact bias? Because that could explain things. . .






    Note: Moderators that modded this down had a small penis bias.
  • According to a new study reported by The Wall Street Journal ...

    You probably meant to type "According to a new study reported by a fox-media-pwned newspaper ..."

  • Just try to find (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hylandr ( 813770 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @06:59PM (#53343061)

    I have read a lot of lines about 'the truth has a liberal bias', or 'liberal information tends to be science based', and I have to shake my head.

    Try googling for any information on how to 'combat the rise of gender-fluidity', or 'how to explain physiology is a binary gender system', or 'how to explain gender fluidity is a social construct' and you get Nothing, Zip, Nada, that isn't in support of this brand of mental disorder.

    Science based? Truth? Not even close. Everywhere you see sex that's outside a human social construct there's a male and female. Only humans social structure describes non-existent genders in liberal circles.

    Not a troll, or flamebait, but I have asbestos underwear on, and I can already feel the flames from the mod-activism firing up.

    Fact is, The science and truth hurt the liberal cause acutely no matter how much spin they try and put on it.

    • Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. Now, what were you saying about gender fluidity only existing in humans?
      • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        Those examples can change naturally without surgery.

        How many Humans have you met that can physically and completely change at will? Including having the ability to produce offspring? Hell there's not one Human that can reproduce even WITH the surgery.

        I should have added; 'Fantasy is a Human characteristic.'

        • How many Humans have you met that can physically and completely change at will?

          What is your definition of "will" that makes you think animals change gender "at will"?

          • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

            What is your definition of "will" that makes you think animals change gender "at will"?

            Fair enough, allow me to rephrase;

            How many Humans have you met that can, or have, spontaneously changed their physiological gender to best suit the needs of the environment?

            • How many Humans have you met that can, or have, spontaneously changed their physiological gender to best suit the needs of the environment?

              Humans also don't "spontaneously" do Math, or hit three pointers or lose weight. Or become Republicans. But that doesn't mean those things are somehow unnatural and shouldn't be allowed. People don't "spontaneously" regrow limbs, but we've figured out prostheses.

              There have been people changing gender for thousands of years, including Roman emperors and Egyptian pharao

    • Worker ants have zero chance of passing on genetic information; they are effectively genderless. They serve a critical purpose in an ant colony as a whole. They are not suffering from a mental disorder, and they are perfectly explainable via evolution when you just take the time to consider the evolution of species as a whole.

      It is extremely difficult to show that there is any rise in gender-fluidity, as it can't be distinguished from a rise in being comfortable identifying as a non-binary gender.

      Scienc

    • Amazingly all of those come from university degrees that have the word "studies" in it.

      Some advice for anyone about to go to university: Do not borrow any money for any course with the word "studies" in it, because there will not be any payoff at the end of that road.
    • Careful, your bias is showing.

      You talk about science based information, yet your example queries are textbook pseudoscience. You aren't looking for answers or explanations with those search terms. You are looking for confirmation of what you already believe to be true. If you had instead searched for neutral non biased search terms, you may have come across resources that actually explain transgender and gender fluidity beyond your preconceived notions of them.

      • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        Careful, your spin is showing.

        I referenced the science of the binary system of male and female in regards to Google searches that would help debunk the pseudoscience of transgender and gender-fluidity mental disorders and mutations.

        This has been an issue going back millennia. I believe in everyone's right to whatever they want. It becomes an issue when the extreme minority of androgen receptor mutations or congenital adrenal hyperplasia afflicted humans demand that everyone start accepting people to choose

    • Re:Just try to find (Score:4, Informative)

      by Capsaicin ( 412918 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @08:18PM (#53343507)

      Firstly, you are WAY too obsessed with trannies. Your revulsion, lust, or repressed urge to be one is clouding your mind when it comes to understanding what is even being discussed in those links.

      Everywhere you see sex that's outside a human social construct there's a male and female. Only humans social structure describes non-existent genders ...

      As I've explained to you more than once I believe (will this be the time the penny finally drops?), the very purpose of the concept of 'gender' used in contradistinction to 'sex' is to distinguish biology from narrative.

      'Sex' is a biological fact, and it falls into the classification of male, female, or occasionally intersex. 'Gender' on the other hand is a social construct by definition, usually described by the adjectives masculine, feminine and, given there is hardly any limit to our ability to craft narrative, all this contemporary gender fluid stuff (though even in traditional societies the idea of a 3rd gender for feminine (gender) males (biological sex)).

      Gender used in this sense refers to that which is not biologically determined, but instead reflects the cultural ideas of how people of a given biological sex ought to behave. Eg. Bearing children is a function of female physiology, skirt wearing is not. A clue that skirt wearing behaviour is a matter of gender, and child-bearing is not, is to be found, as we have discussed, in the fact that in certain cultures skirts are items of masculine (gender) attire. This illustrates that the idea in our culture (with apologies to all you Scots out there) that skirts are for females (biological sex) and pants for males (biological sex) is a social construct. Thus a skirt (in our culture) is a feminine (gender) garment, not a female (biological sex) one.

      It will thrill you, no doubt, to learn, that the most extreme (and thus easily ridiculed) branch of feminism, ie. RadFem (cf TERF), shares your disgust not only of gender (which they understand to exist, but wish to eliminate, see 'Gender critical' or GC) but also of male-to-female transsexuals, referring to them as male-to-transsexuals (or MTTs), that is when they are not too busy calling for fun stuff like the restriction of males (biological sex) to being 10% of the human population and the like ... Horseshoe effect?

      What this does indicate though is that the very concept of gender (in contradistinction to sex) can be deployed to undermine the notion of gender-fluidity (i.e. as traditional gender roles break down what does this even mean anymore?) It is for this reason that the trans-gender lobby is seeking to infect the notion of gender with physiology by relying on the, imho rather dubious, concept of "brain-sex" as an explanation of why their gendered (feminine/masculine) self-image is at odds with their biological sex (male/female). Which amounts in effect to arguing that skirt-wearing behaviour is a function of physiology. That mainstream feminism (as opposed to RadFem) is so happy to accommodate the claim of trans-gendered males (biological sex) to being 'women' (biological sex or gender???) seems self-defeating to me. Were they not trying to escape the idea of sex as destiny (i.e. physiological femininity) But as a traditionally masculine (gender) male (biological sex) all I can say it's your movement girls.

      And I'm WAY too obsessed with someone being obviously wrong on the internet.

      • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        Oh God an amateur shrink.

        I bet you found your psychology book at Good Will.

        • You bet wrong, I read three years of psych for one of my degrees (is that not what you would call a 'major' over there?)... damn waste of time too. I thought between revulsion, lust and longing I'd just about exhausted the possibilities for this obsession, thus avoiding making anything resembling a definitive diagnosis, but I missed one? So tell me why is transsexualism so important to you?

          More pertinently, can I take your silence on the substantial matter to mean that you do now grok the sex/gender dist

  • 50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal-leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people.

    In other words, four people have a conservative bias. :)

  • With just 4 people, it seems like a randomly correct result.
  • I get it slashdot is american blah blah blah.

    But many of the issues that are raising in the US as conservative vs liberal are not in the same camp when in other countries. Gun control is a prime example. In Australia the strict gun control laws were put in place by the strongly conservative party. Also minimum wage legislation was introduced by Deakin in 1904 who was the leader of the then right wing party.

  • by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @07:19PM (#53343177) Journal

    Google's results are not the same for every searcher in every locale. They are dependent on what you've searched for in the past, where you're at, what is in the news at the moment, etc.

    In other words, they are quite intentionally biased to meet the likely desires of the user. This article has no basis in science, though it cloaks itself in that fashion to those who know nothing about science, and is far more biased than Google's search results.

  • ... and Google search results are just reflecting the web. In other words, don't blame the messenger for the message conveyed.
  • Liberal bias is left of some unspecified center benchmark. conservative bias is right of some unspecified center benchmark. What if the center benchmark has been place in the wrong spot?

    .
    If that center benchmark is too far towards the conservative side, then the web (and, subsequently, google's search results) will appear to have a liberal bias.

    In other words, maybe the web does not have a liberal bias, maybe the center benchmark that the researchers used is too far towards the conservative side.

    • You nailed it, my friend. When I tell conservatives President Obama is in some respects far more conservative than Richard Nixon, they call me a liar. When I prove it by referring to their actual and legislation they backed, the cons' tiny heads explode like those little red firecrackers.

  • Proved again that fact, truth, science, and honesty has a liberal bias.
  • Given a specific selection of searches a putatively unbiased panel said the results were biased. Some of the serches were:
    "Minimum wage" ... liberal bias
    "does gun control reduce crime" ... conservative bias
    "financial regulation" ... non-partisan
    "federal reserve" ... non-partisan
    Why do I feel accurate reporting of web pages would produce a that kind of bias? This seems to be a non-story tricked up to try to appear shocking.

  • Too small a study (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chalnoth ( 1334923 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @08:14PM (#53343487)

    This study is just way, way too small to have the conclusion it claims to have.

    Whether left-leaning or right-leaning results turn up depends upon a wide variety of factors, not least of which is wording (left-leaning sites and right-leaning sites often use slightly different wording for the same issue). I don't see how it is even remotely possible for a group of four people to review enough searches to make up a representative sample, and four people is too small a number to provide a solid opinion.

    Also, there's a distinct possibility that for some issues, left-leaning sites have talked about those issues far more frequently and in far more depth, while right-leaning sites will have discussed other, different issues.

    Finally, I see no reason why Google should be held to any sort of standard of false balance: there are many issues for which the facts very solidly support the left, and it makes sense for Google's search results to reflect that bias. One of the clearest examples here would be global warming, but there are many others.

  • Study results aside, Google returns search results that are most likely relevant and ranked by what people looked at in the past. This means, if the first 8 results are no good and everyone clicks (and stays at) on the ninth result, it will make it's way toward number one. Liberal or conservative, these are the pages people looked at the most. It could be more liberal people use Google or maybe conservatives are seeking out results they disagree with but that's not really important. What is important is

  • News at 11 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GerryGilmore ( 663905 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @08:46PM (#53343605)
    Search phrase wording affects results returned. GASP!!! Almost like the algorithms are working as designed.....
  • ... depending on whether the search is by a liberal or conservative.

  • by Berkyjay ( 1225604 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2016 @09:08PM (#53343743)

    Go use another search engine that caters to your political persuasion.

  • Since liberal opinions are far closer to reality, or actuality, if you prefer, then the best answers will tend to be liberal answers. Obviously the cloud of total idiocy covers many conservative minds. You know, dullards like Trumpenstein have conservative and incorrect beliefs and warped minds.

The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker

Working...