Nationalistic flamebait is not allowed on HN. You continued it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18072292. That's not cool, and a bannable offense if you repeat it.

Then you flagrantly broke the HN guidelines here and vandalized the thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18062563. If you do this again we will ban you as well.

Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18054615 and marked it off-topic.

>I suspect anyone who disagrees is taking a provincial, American view on the subject, and is being triggered by the phrase "gun control".

How open-minded of you.

There is no better way to partake in a discussion in good faith then to use the old: If you disagree with me [insert negative suggestion here].

I'm an owner of firearms and in favor of the second amendment and I still agree with parent, Gun Control being highlighted as a relevant article makes complete sense, since Gun Control is fundamentally about rights related to firearm ownership.

It's not absurd, but there is a page that fits the search term better in the same domain. That's what makes it "suspicious."

According to you. There are a few other comments here with people expressing views that tue gun control article is actually the more useful result.

Interpreting Google's ranking algorithm as a conspiracy to infrinage on gun rights is unsubstantiated by fact.

The title and domain is not the only thing that matter for Google’s ranking.

Right - of course. So the question is: are the other "things that matter" designed to:

1) Inform the user and help the user quickly find facts, narratives, and meaningful content related to the search phrase? 2) Sell things? 3) Promote modes of political control by narrowing the scope of acceptable thought and connection between search phrase and content?

We all hope for #1. We all accept #2. But I think that most of us, at least until recently, had thought that #3 wasn't happening to any significant degree.

I agree that results like this one are befuddling - a search for "Politically controversial and anti-state concept <foo>" brings as the first result, "Related but saccharine pro-state concept <bar>" when both foo and bar appear in approximately equal stature in the domain in question.

Yeah, I think that's odd. And I don't see a way to easily explain it in the context of numbers 1 and 2 above.

The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect from "Gun rights") and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control definitely put a different complexion on the subject -- or at least very closely related subjects -- and it seems like someone searching for "Gun rights" would probably be better served by being shown the first article.

So I think you're right to be skeptical here. On the other hand, after a scan of each, I see two plausible reasons that the "Gun control" article might be elevated.

One, it's somewhat longer, with more references and cross-links (it even has a "See also" link to the "Gun rights" article).

Two, superficially, the "Gun control" article is a bit more internationally focused. The title of the "Gun rights" article is straight out of the U.S. Constitution. The appearance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny -- they both spend similar shares of their content on U.S. stuff -- but it might make a small difference.

Regardless of the reason, it's definitely good to pay attention to this sort of thing.

Try Googling the term "white couple" as an image search - you will be provided with a page of interracial couples, not white couples. Not that I have a problem with interracial couples, my own family is interracial. But it's obvious how Google is attempting to influence the perspectives of it's users.

I just opened up a private tab and did this (and by the way, going in, I was and am already suspicious that Google is in fact using search results to manipulate public opinion, at least some of the time and in an experimental way).

In the top two rows (ie, 8 images), three are from a reddit post about this very controversy.

The remaining five are images of couples. Of these, three are what look to my eyes to be white couples. One is an image of an ethnically Indian couple in an article about not being able to adopt a white child. The other is a photo of two dudes doing a hand symbol together with a caption "black and white couple gesturing with hands."

All of these images seem very relevant to the phrase "white couple."

So, actually, this is a case where Google Image Search gives back perfectly appropriate results, at least for me as of today.

Is it though? The term “white couple” is already racially charged and its use across the internet will often be in that context.

Are you implying that there are Google employees manually tinkering with the result of millions of search terms for the purposes of influencing the American population? And nobody at Google has leaked it? That’s hilarious.

And how is that influence campaign going to work on a practical level? Are you assuming people are so dumb as to change their opinion on core political matters because their racially charged search term didn’t acid wash the internet of its diversity??

How.

For me or anyone to believe this, is a huge ask.

Any attempt to algorithmically shape perspectives is crude with today’s state of the art.

How precisely would such an algorithm work, while not creating obvious artifacts and errors throughout the search results for all people using the service.

And how would it work for people only in the us and not elsewhere?

> For me or anyone to believe this, is a huge ask.

Agreed.

> Any attempt to algorithmically shape perspectives is crude with today’s state of the art.

I suspect that the truth of this statement is very difficult to ascertain at the moment. Reasonable people might dispute both which technologies represent the "state of the art" and also which outcomes represent successfully shaped perspectives.

Although I don't have the data to back up this assertion (and again, I'm not sure such data is cognizable in the current environment), I think that for some reasonable definitions of the above that indeed perspectives can successfully be algorithmically shaped today, though as I said above, I think that this "white couple" nonsense is not a meaningful example.

> How precisely would such an algorithm work, while not creating obvious artifacts and errors throughout the search results for all people using the service.

Again, it may not be clear to anyone, including the authors, precisely how such an algorithm works. That's why A/B (and other) testing is needed.

And I think people in this thread are saying that indeed obvious artifacts are starting to creep up (although again I think that the "white couple" thing is a total misfire and not at all an example - the "gun rights" thing appears to my eyes to be much closer).

> And how would it work for people only in the us and not elsewhere?

Isn't this already at a point of triviality? Doesn't Google already do this all the time? I mean, if you travel outside North America, indeed the Google experience is palpably different from the one in the US.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^

It's easily substantiated by searching different terms and observing the difference between what you're searching for and what results are provided.

That proves nothing.

1. It's subjective if the results are wrong. _You_ know what you are looking for, Google however has to guess. And it's algorithms aren't perfect at figuring out _your_ intent - even though they may do a fine job for the average person. Right now, for me, the top result is from a Reddit thread about this very query. The rest are things like "black and white couple" and "couple with white background". These aren't what you expect, but, it makes sense why they are being returned.

2. Your test does nothing to establish intent. A pretty reasonable explanation for the search results is just that that is what the algorithm does.

3. I'm sure someone can come up with some theory about how tweaking the results of this very specific search is a nefarious plot to promote interracial relationships - but it requires some pretty tortured logic to conclude that such a plan would, even if true, be even remotely effective at accomplishing it's goal. That's basically the Hallmark of a conspiracy theory.

> How open-minded of you.

Spoken like an American.

You do know the rest of the world is doing just fine without your absurd gun "rights". I much prefer my "right" to live in a city where guns are exceptionally difficult to procure. That right keeps me much safer than your gun rights—and that's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.

Nationalistic flamewar is not allowed on HN regardless of which nation you have a problem with. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.

Fair enough, but it's simply a fact that certain obvious societal problems begin and end at the boundaries of nations. I didn't choose for it to be like that, I wish it wasn't like that. I didn't create the world we live in.

Ok, but please follow the rules when posting here. That means avoiding flamebait, including nationalistic swipes.

But there is a wikipedia article for gun rights, or at least a separately titled one that is redirected from gun rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

Why wouldn't that get autofilled on the front page of the search results instead?

And right under that there is a suggested link for "Right to keep and bear arms." What is most likely happening is that the Gun Control page is more popular than the Right to keep and bear arms page, so the algo picked that one for the single card that they load. IDK what they use for ranking, but I would imagine that the fact that 'gun' appears in the title of one and not the other is impacting the matching and also the Gun Control page is much longer so it probably seems like a higher quality page versus the other one.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? Google has an agenda. They don't hire lobbyists on K street to fight for more neutral search results.

Can't both be true?

• "Google has an agenda. They don't hire lobbyists on K street to fight for more neutral search results."

• In this case, "the fact that 'gun' appears in the title of one and not the other is impacting the matching and also the Gun Control page is much longer so it probably seems like a higher quality page versus the other one"

Google's agenda is to make money. Hinting that they have a secret agenda to take away people's guns is just unsubstantiated conspiracy theory nonsense.

Having the word "gun" in the title explains why the "gun control" page is listed first. Positing Google does it because they have an agenda besides showing relevant results fails the law of parsimony here.

Please explain how Google implements its agenda into the search results people see before mocking other people's statements.

It may not be "on purpose," but it is happening. Creators of algorithms inherently assign their own biases.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/1...

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512

Also note that the top "organic" result on Google's search for "Gun Rights" is just a tag page from NPR. There is no way that's a relevant result. So even if it's not on purpose, it's a very poor result...and given it stands out more so than other keyword searches it seems a bit odd.

Edit: down voted for citing study from the National Academy of Sciences, bubbles certainly are thick.

"Gun Control" was not what was searched for, it is not up to Google to tip the scales on what ideological conclusion is seen, only what item is searched for with relevant results. They have a moral obligation to be neutral. If you were in Saudi Arabia, searched for "women's rights" and Google switched it to an article on "obedience to your husband," I'm sure you'd have a huge problem with that.

Yes it was. The concept of gun rights cannot exist without the concept of gun control, it's quite literally the same theme. Gun control is what defines which gun rights people have.

Search "Free speech" and get "Censorship" would be your stance, then.

Thank you for pointing this out. I don't mean to be an alarmist, but people need to wake up to the fact that algorithms, or lack thereof, bear a great responsibility on human rights now, and that's only going to grow. If Google is trying to change free thought or information flow through algorithms either for internal political stances or the whims of a government (ie China,) that's a huge problem.

Searching “free speech” and getting an article about limits of free speech around the world would be perfectly reasonable.

> Searching “free speech” and getting an article about limits of free speech around the world would be perfectly reasonable.

Such a result would definitely be odd framing, though. Especially if it was the main infobox and not, say, the seventh result.

For instance, I could see a "soft authoritarian" regime subtly justifying its censorship regime by preferentially surfacing content that makes censorship seem more justified. One way to do that is to encourage the idea that "limits are common" and discourage the idea that "free speech is a natural right," which you can do by changing the search ranking to surface an article like you described.

Absolutely, yes. Because if I'm searching about "free speech" I will be looking for information about how it's limited, aka: censorship.

The implication being what, that returning the “Censorship” article is pro-censorship? That people who choose to type in “free speech” are so stupid as to flip their position because Google responded with an article on the exact same topic, which is no more pro-censorship than the free speech article is pro-free-speech?

You’re being silly.

Oh no, my opinion is being voted down. Must be the algorithm!

Here's another reply so you can vote me down again.

And another. Why would I care.

But hopefully at some point you'll engage with the argument?

> The concept of gun rights cannot exist without the concept of gun control, it's quite literally the same theme.

This is simply not true to the many people out there that believe in natural rights.

You can believe in so-called natural rights as much as you like, that doesn't make them any more real. In fact you can set aside the concept entirely; all so-called "rights" are mere artificial constructs of hierarchical societies. You have the privilege to do whatever your particular society permits. You can call these rights, but they're certainly not natural.

(Meanwhile, I live in a society with absolutely no gun rights, and I'm extremely glad that I do. I much prefer my "right" to live in a city where guns are difficult an expensive for criminals to procure. It keeps me and my family much safer than your gun rights. And that's not an opinion, it's a proven indisputable fact.)

To pretend that rights vs control are not highly loaded terms seems purposely ignorant. There are clearly a few ways of approaching the issue, and defaulting to one is undoubtedly going to annoy those of any other interpretation.