Sunday, February 3, 2019

CORRUPTION REVEALED: ‘Huge Teams’ Engaged in Manual Interventions on Google Search Results - Article and Commentary

It's not just bots anymore. It's not only algorithms, auto-search settings, or pure chance that regularly distort our internet search results. Now, we have direct evidence which reveals that internet giant, Google, is actively involved in distorting online searches for the sake of their own agenda.

Initially, it was censorship and deliberate suppression on all opinions that disagreed with mainstream propaganda. This censorship by Google and parent company, Alphabet Inc., could be seen on nearly every online platform that has (allegedly) promoted the Deep State agenda of informational suppression and societal control. However, prior to this point, it was only reported that acts of unethical and unconstitutional censorship were merely accidental and the result of online algorithms that had temporarily gone awry. ...Not so any more.

Now it very much appears that the company Google has been actively engaged in illegal censorship and manipulation of public opinion, possibly for the purpose of influencing elections and political perceptions of certain figures. We could speculate as to why such unethical practices have been maintained by the now notorious internet label. However, the situation is better explained by one of the main sources to break it.

Here is with the story.

* * * * *

Source: Breitbart

Published: January 16, 2019

By: Adrian Dennis

Google has “huge teams” working on manual interventions in search results, an apparent contradiction of sworn testimony made to Congress by CEO Sundar Pichai, according to an internal post leaked to Breitbart News.

“There are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content,” said Daniel Aaronson, a member of Google’s Trust & Safety team.

“Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay.”

Video - Google Searches For ‘Recession’ Hit Highest Point Since Late 2009

“In extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary.”

The comments came to light in a leaked internal discussion thread, started by a Google employee who noticed that the company had recently changed search results for “abortion” on its YouTube video platform, a change which caused pro-life videos to largely disappear from the top ten results.

See also - SILENCE! Twitter, YouTube Scrubbing All Content and Banning All Users Who Question the Official Narrative on the Florida School Shooting

In addition to the “manual approach,” Aaronson explained that Google also trained automated “classifiers” – algorithms or “scalable solutions” that corrects “problems” in search results.

Aaronson listed three areas where either manual interventions or classifier changes might take place: organic search (“The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high”), YouTube, Google Home, and Google Assistant.

Aaronson’s post also reveals that there is very little transparency around decisions to adjust classifiers or manually correct controversial search results, even internally. Aaronson compared Google’s decision-making process in this regard to a closely-guarded “Pepsi Formula.”

These comments, part of a longer post copied below, seem to contradict Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s sworn congressional testimony that his company does not “manually intervene on any particular search result.”

According to an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source within the company, a Google employee took issue with Pichai’s remarks, stating that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”

According to the posts leaked by the source, revealed that YouTube, a Google subsidiary, manually intervened on search results related to “abortion” and “abortions.” The intervention caused pro-life videos to disappear from the top ten search results for those terms, where they had previously been featured prominently. The posts also show YouTube intervened on search results related to progressive activist David Hogg and Democrat politician Maxine Waters.

In a comment to Breitbart News, a Google spokeswoman also insisted that “Google has never manipulated or modified the search results or content in any of its products to promote a particular political ideology.”

Pichai might claim that he was just talking about Google, not YouTube, which was the focus of the leaked discussion thread. But Aaronson’s post extends to Google’s other products: organic search, Google Home, and Google Assistant.

Aaronson is also clear that the manipulation of the search results that are “prone to abuse/controversial content” is not a small affair, but are the responsibility of “huge teams” within Google.

“These lines are very difficult and can be very blurry, we are all well aware of this. So we’ve got huge teams that stay cognizant of these facts when we’re crafting policies considering classifier changes, or reacting with manual actions”

If Google has “huge teams” that sometimes manually intervene on search results, it’s scarcely plausible to argue that Pichai might not know about them.

Aaronson’s full post is copied below:

I work in Trust and Safety and while I have no particular input as to exactly what’s happening for YT I can try to explain why you’d have this kind of list and why people are finding lists like these on Code Search.

When dealing with abuse/controversial content on various mediums you have several levers to deal with problems. Two prominent levers are “Proactive” and “Reactive”:

Proactive: Usually refers to some type of algorithm/scalable solution to a general problem

E.g.: We don’t allow straight up porn on YouTube so we create a classifier that detects porn and automatically remove or flag for review the videos the porn classifier is most certain of

Reactive: Usually refers to a manual fix to something that has been brought to our attention that our proactive solutions don’t/didn’t work on and something that is clearly in the realm of bad enough to warrant a quick targeted solution (determined by pages and pages of policies worked on over many years and many teams to be fair and cover necessary scope)

E.g.: A website that used to be a good blog had it’s domain expire and was purchased/repurposed to spam Search results with autogenerated pages full of gibberish text, scraped images, and links to boost traffic to other spammy sites. It is manually actioned for violating policy

These Organic Search policies and the consequences to violating them are public

Manually reacting to things is not very scalable, and is not an ideal solution to most problems, so the proactive lever is really the one we all like to lean on. Ideally, our classifiers/algorithm are good at providing useful and rich results to our users while ignoring things at are not useful or not relevant. But we all know, this isn’t exactly the case all the time (especially on YouTube).

From a user perspective, there are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content. Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay. E.g. a video of a puppy playing with a toy is probably okay in almost every culture or context, even if it’s not relevant to the query. But a video of someone committing suicide and begging others to follow in his/her footsteps is probably on the other side of the line for many folks.

While my second example is technically relevant to the generic query of “suicide”, that doesn’t mean that this is a very useful or good video to promote on the top of results for that query. So imagine a classifier that says, for any queries on a particular text file, let’s pull videos using signals that we historically understand to be strong indicators of quality (I won’t go into specifics here, but those signals do exist). We’re not manually curating these results, we’re just saying “hey, be extra careful with results for this query because many times really bad stuff can appear and lead to a bad experience for most users.”

See also - Banned Alternative Media Speaks Out after Mass Facebook Purge - Article and Commentary

Ideally the proactive lever did this for us, but in extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary. And also keep in mind, that this is different for every product. The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high. However, the bar for things we let our Google Assistant say out loud might be a lot lower. If I search for “Jews run the banks” – I’ll likely find anti-semitic stuff in organic search. As a Jew, I might find some of these results offensive, but they are there for people to research and view, and I understand that this is not a reflection of Google feels about this issue. But if I ask Google Assistant “Why do Jews run the banks” we wouldn’t be similarly accepting if it repeated and promoted conspiracy theories that likely pop up in organic search in her smoothing voice.

Continue reading at:

* * * * *

If we are familiar with the questionable situation at Google, we may remember the leaking of one controversial and particularly damning video of Google execs expressing disapproval of the 2016 election results. It was not so much the opinions expressed during this company-wide meeting that raised concerns. Rather, it was the intentions of these executives to directly oppose and possibly misrepresent a United States president that ultimately painted the internet giant in a legally and ethically questionable light.

What's to be said about a company that claims to merely organize information and yet actively and deliberately manipulates that information to reflect its own bias political perspectives? What should the public think of executives who hide their Orwellian intentions behind a facade of fair and balanced professionalism?

When did it become ethically acceptable to censor information we do not personally agree with?

We might consider these questions as we hear the concerning statements made at the notorious company meeting that followed the election of President Trump.

Other Related Topics...

Google Shifted $23 Billion to Tax Haven Bermuda in 2017, According to Filings; May Still Be Required to Pay Up

YOUTUBE STRIKES AGAIN - 'Destroying the Illusion' Channel Deleted after Recent Video Calls Out False Flag - Video and Commentary

Newsweek Raided by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney; The Rest of Corporate Media Looks On - Links and Analysis Included

The Story of Tommy Robinson and the Life Struggle of Free Speech - A Case Study of the British Pedophilia Cover-Up and the Fight for Honest Journalism

Consumer Groups Seek Probe of YouTube over Illegal Ads for Kids

Why Is Nikola Tesla Literally Erased From History Books? - A Case for Scientific Censorship in the United States

Discerning the Mystery is a website dedicated to awakening and educating the people to their true potential of mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if just one person benefits from these efforts, it is entirely worth it. 

If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.

Feel free to send us an email and tell us what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let us know.

Thank you for your support.

No comments:

Post a Comment