epistemology

Hmmmmm....the sanctity of Google-truth is under attack? Google's search algorithms partially rely on making connections between search terms and websites using the labels that people apply to links when linking to those sites. So if a large number of people, or one person over a large number of sites, link to George W. Bush's official White House website biography with the label "miserable failure," they can influence the Google Search results for "miserable failure" to include that web page in the top 100...despite the fact that the authors of the page probably did not intend that to be the subject or that page. This is one example of a successful "Google Bomb."

The previous actually happened, as a joke. Then radical political activists caught wind of the Google Bomb.

"In the 2006 US midterm elections, many left-wing bloggers, led by MyDD.com, banded together to propel neutral or negative articles about many Republican House candidates to the top of Google searches for their names.[1] Right-wing bloggers responded similarly."

Foucoult said, "Power is knowledge." Any process of knowing something reveals and is influenced by systems of power. Or, as the conservatives would howl, "The news media is biased!"

What's interesting is that Google's techniques for providing information are reflective of associations that people make--they are generally generated unconsciously, by mapping common trends. But when the mapping techniques are known, they can be manipulated. Either way, it's sort of participatory truth manufacturing, right? Soooooo postmodern. We create the answers to Google searches, together. All hail the human hive mind!

In this case, we see the Google search algorithms, and the internet as a whole, as a sort of commons, or "public good." The Google search works accurately (to a certain point) as long as a majority of the public are sincere, transparent, and nonmanipulative. But, if a significant enough minority starts breaking the "rules" and trying to manipulate the system, it ceases to function well, for everyone. And then, to rob from Billy Madison, "truly dumber," because our collective knowing has been hijacked for selfish gain.

Four years out of COD and I'm still thinking with the Oakersonian frameworks. I think he and Dr. Perkins were the two most influential thinkers I have ever studied under.

Discussion Question
Since the systems of information gathering and dissemination intentionally or unintentionally choose and spin the information they provide, is it better to have multiple, competing, ideologically committed, knowingly subjective systems, or to have an atmosphere where diverse opinions and an attempt at editorial objectivity are expected--where the will to power is constrained by ideals of earnest discussion and cooperation?

Is it better to belong to a system where information is disseminated by organizations which wear their opinions, nay, their agendas, on their shirtsleeves, or one in which public morality demands those shirtsleeves be covered up, and in the name of gentlemanly good taste, that those men attempt to sublimate their opinions and agendas in the name of fair play and improving the public discourse?

It's my opinion that newsrooms--and Google searches, too, it appears--reflect the nature of their patrons. If we are willing to give our neighbors the benefit of a doubt when they disagree with us, we would be more willing to listen to them, and our news outlets of choice would be less one sided and propagandistic. But, since we seem to be set in our ways, resistant to new ideas, and content to enjoy ridicule, militancy, slander, and selfrighteous verbal abuse in lieu of discussion...we have what we have: institutions with lots and lots of noise, and very little public trust.