The Search Engine: A Digital Omniscient or A Gluttonous Monster

-- By YingLiu - 09 Oct 2020

Introduction: Louder, Please

Leveraging its ability of connecting-the-dots, search engines enable humankind to access the boundless information pool at an unprecedented speed. We all tend to be tamed by the convenience and benefits offered by tools and then turned a blind eye to the dangers and risks they may bring. Here is the case as well.  

Of course, there are some pioneers shouted out once, but the sounds were merely a whisper as compared to the explosive discussion on Facebook after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Attention is needed here. Speaking of invading privacy and deteriorating human thinking, search engines could be more horrifying than social networks. 

By selectively uploading and sharing information, photos and videos with followers, people are able to create an online persona for themselves on Facebook or Instagram, which may deviate from their real identities and characters in some respects. Nevertheless, such camouflage becomes folderol when turning to Google or Bing. People are more honest and transparent with search engines. With the misconception that there is no audience behind the search box, they relievedly google everything they are interested in or curious about. The search engine, however, always gives an ear to searchers, archives the search history, and secretively directs human thinking by returning selected search hits on the first page.

Confess Your Sins to God, Confess Your Past to Google

While search engine crawlers work 24/7 to index websites and gather information to suit user’s potential needs, such spiderbots also pry on your digital footprint and make it indexed. Your new friend may not be able to read a blog you posted ten years ago, but the search engine can locate it if the robots.txt file of the blog site offers permission.   

We all have shameful memories that we want to erase, so does Mario Costeja. He sued Google due to the fact that a Google search of his name pulled up previous legal notices. In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in favor of him, stating that EU citizens have a “Right To Be Forgotten” and could request that search engines remove links to pages deemed private.  

Someone questioned the rationale behind this newly-created human right. Mr. Costeja could not enforce the local newspaper to remove an article published in 1998 referring same matter, why should Google be forced to take it down? Enrique Dans bluntly denounced that the "Right to Be Forgotten" is human stupidity created by incompetent people who never comprehended how the internet works. He is right that not every netizen understood the hypertext system of the World Wide Web, however, Mr. Dans ignores that it is exactly “how internet works” makes things different here: while costly efforts would be needed to dig out a late 1990s newspaper, search engines enable the public to access this historical information by one-second keyword search.  

Five years later, the EU Court nonetheless took a step back. It limited the “Right to Be Forgotten” only applicable within Europe, aiming at striking a balance between personal privacy and the public's freedom of information. But how could such geographic limitation help to achieve the so-called balance? Does it mean that one has to move to Europe if he would like to be forgotten by Google? Will this differentiated treatment create inequality between EU citizens and non-EU citizens?

External Human Brains, The Answer Bible and Encyclopedists

The woodblock printing once changed the way people communicate and learn, and now it is the search engine’s turn. A psychological research demonstrates that search engines have become an external memory system that is primed by the need to acquire information. Faced with search engines’ thorough invasion into human beings’ cognitive process, it is particularly important to ensure that search results are comprehensive, unbiased, authoritative, and accurate. The search results shown on the first page will to some extent determine or distort the searchers’ understanding of the subject issue.  

Before the advent of the Internet, schools were the prevailing knowledge hub and textbooks were the mainstream source of know-how. With credible editorial and standardized publication review procedures, the accuracy and credibility of textbooks were secured in most cases. In the era of search engines, who shall undertake such filter, weigh and judge responsibilities? To put it more straightforward, who has the authority to make search results ranking decisions?   

The realistic answer is the algorithm. But all algorithms involve human intervention thus they are never purely scientific or absolutely neutral. The algorithms reflect the value orientation of both engineers and the profit-seeking tech companies they serve. No doubt that the algorithm of a search engine provider with a bid ranking business will definitely prioritize the paying advertisers’ websites. This is a lesson that we learned from Mr. Zexi Wei’s death. Mr. Wei, a young college student, lost his life after receiving dubious cancer treatment from a hospital advertised on a Chinese search engine with misleading medical information.  

Since self-discipline sounds hard to achieve, people may turn to count on regulators. Unfortunately, with regard to certain countries, bringing Big Brothers into this discussion may be counterproductive. In 2018, in an attempt to return to the Chinese market, Google launched Project Dragonfly, a castrated search engine designed to compromise with CCP’s censorship requirements. The fierce criticism of Project Dragonfly from engineers and human rights activists proves that government may not be a desirable candidate who can be of help. Once freedom is deprived and search engines become a propaganda machine, it is meaningless to talk about credibility.

Is There A Way Out?

Quitting social networks is difficult for Generation Z as they are growing up in an environment where Facebook, Twitter and YouTube? constantly give them a dopamine hit. It is even more challenging, and arguably, not a wise move, to discard search engines. When I was told that someone had made efforts to find a better alternative to replace this “regrettable necessity,” such new information is like Pavlov’s bell, I unavoidably and subconsciously resorted to search engines to check it out.

Many different good ideas are here. They are each attractively packaged and voiced with humor and vigor, but they're not coherent. The best route to improvement is to distill out your central new idea, state it clearly in the first paragraph, use subsequent paragraphs to show how you came by it and how you would respond to the most important foreseeable objections. That should entitle you to a stronger conclusion that the present draft can muster. It should also empower you to offer new implications in that conclusion, which the reader can take away and enlarge on her own.

On the present substance, the most important unexamined assumption is that search engines' power cannot be substantially diluted by the individual user save by declining to search. This is not true. It might be useful to consider the question from that angle. If one wishes to confine the power of the search box, what steps should one take? How effective can they be made? If people use them, what happens next? Etc.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, YingLiu
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.