Rising Through the Ranks

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Rising Through the Ranks October 2019 Rising Through the Ranks How Algorithms Rank and Curate Content in Search Results and on News Feeds Spandana Singh Last edited on October 21, 2019 at 9:47 a.m. EDT Acknowledgments In addition to the many stakeholders across civil society and the industry that have taken the time to talk to us about search engine and news feed ranking over the past few months, we would particularly like to thank Dr. Nathalie Maréchal from Ranking Digital Rights for her help in drafting this report. We would also like to thank Craig Newmark Philanthropies for its generous support of our work in this area. newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/ 2 About the Author(s) Spandana Singh is a policy program associate in New America's Open Technology Institute. About New America We are dedicated to renewing America by continuing the quest to realize our nation’s highest ideals, honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create. About Open Technology Institute OTI works at the intersection of technology and policy to ensure that every community has equitable access to digital technology and its benefits. We promote universal access to communications technologies that are both open and secure, using a multidisciplinary approach that brings together advocates, researchers, organizers, and innovators. newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/ 3 Contents Introduction 5 Search Ranking 8 Case Study: Google 8 Case Study: Bing 20 Case Study: DuckDuckGo 24 News Feed Ranking 27 Case Study: Facebook 27 Case Study: Twitter 33 Case Study: Reddit 37 Promoting Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency Around Algorithmic Curation and Ranking Practices 42 newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/ 4 Introduction Since the early 2000s, the amount of information on the internet has grown tremendously. Whether it be news outlets, social media, or e-commerce platforms, the online ecosystem has become a go-to destination for users seeking a variety of information and experiences. At the same time, users have faced a fundamental challenge in identifying credible sources and understanding which of them to use. In order to help users access high-quality, relevant, and accurate information and content, a number of internet platforms rely on proprietary algorithmic tools to curate and rank content for users. This report focuses on search engines and platforms that ofer news feeds, both of which deploy algorithms to identify and curate content for users. Many of these platforms use hundreds of signals to inform these ranking algorithms and deliver users personalized search and news feed experiences. These algorithms control both the inputs and outputs of the information environment. They evaluate and process incoming information to identify what content is most relevant for users. They then determine which of these outputs a user should see and rank the outputs in a hierarchical manner. In this way, these platforms act as gatekeepers of online speech by exercising significant editorial judgment over information flows.1 Most internet platforms have heralded the introduction of personalized search results and news feeds as a positive—and now integral—feature of their services. Many platforms assert that personalization enables users to access and engage with content that is more relevant and meaningful to them. Personalization features also enable platforms to achieve significant growth and boost revenue through avenues such as advertising. However, there is a fundamental lack of transparency around how algorithmic decision-making around curation and ranking takes place. Because these practices can have a variety of negative consequences, this is concerning. In fact, many users are often unaware that such algorithms are being used by platforms to shape their online experiences.2 Rather, these users believe that the subjective frame presented by curation and ranking algorithms is representative of reality. As a result, users have grown accustomed to outsourcing judgment, autonomy,3 and decision-making to internet platforms and their opaque algorithms, who decide—based on their perceptions of what user interests and values are—what users’ online experience should be.4 This disparity in algorithmic awareness and understanding is fostering a new digital divide between individuals who are aware of and understand the impacts of algorithmic decision-making, and those who do not.5 newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/ 5 As algorithmic tools are increasingly used to curate and rank content on internet platforms, concerns around fairness, accountability, and transparency have grown. In particular, an increasing number of researchers have noted that users lack awareness of algorithmic decision-making practices. In addition, there is a significant lack of transparency from internet platforms regarding how these tools are developed and deployed, and how they shape the user experience. Further, researchers have outlined that users and content creators often lack meaningful controls over, and agency related to, algorithmic decision-making practices. In addition, although these algorithmic curation and ranking tools remove the need for humans to make significant manual and individual decisions regarding millions of pieces of content, they do not remove the need for human editorial judgment in this process, nor do they reduce bias. The term “bias” in this context does not solely refer to inappropriate preferences based on protected categories like race or political affiliation. Rather, these tools compile insights into a broad range of weighted signals. Ranking algorithms then analyze the data to prioritize certain forms of content and certain voices over others. These algorithms also incorporate the judgments of the engineers who have developed them, particularly with regard to what information users are likely to find interesting and meaningful. In addition, algorithms can infer correlations in data that may reflect societal biases. Indeed, often times, these algorithms result from machine learning “black box” systems. This means that even though developers may know what the inputs and outputs of an algorithm are, they may not know exactly how the algorithm operates internally. Therefore, concerns regarding algorithmic bias and accountability have grown as these algorithmic decision-making practices have become more prevalent. This report is the second in a series of four reports that will explore how automated tools are being used by major technology companies to shape the content we see and engage with online, and how internet platforms, policymakers, and researchers can promote greater fairness, accountability, and transparency around these algorithmic decision-making practices. This report focuses on the algorithmic curation and ranking of content in search engine results and in news feeds on internet platforms. It uses case studies on three search engines—Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo—and on three internet platforms that feature news feeds—Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit—to highlight the different ways algorithmic tools can be deployed by technology companies to curate and rank content, and the challenges associated with these practices. Editorial disclosure: This report discusses policies by Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, all of which are funders of work at New America but did not contribute funds directly to the research or writing of this report. New America is guided by the principles of full transparency, independence, and accessibility in all its activities and partnerships. New America does not engage in research or educational activities directed or newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/ 6 infuenced in any way by financial supporters. View our full list of donors at www.newamerica.org/our-funding. newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/ 7 Search Ranking Search engines have emerged as an essential tool as the internet has expanded, supporting key aspects of free expression online through information access and information dissemination. Search engines enable users to more effectively sift through and access endless amounts of information, and they have empowered individuals, businesses, and publishers to disseminate information. Although the process of conducting a search on a search engine seems straightforward, the ways algorithms curate and rank search results raise a number of concerns. These algorithms underpin the immense power of search engines, which are able to determine what information a user sees, the type of results they can access, and which publishers and pieces of information a user engages with first. In this way, search engines play a significant role in shaping every one of their user’s perspectives and mindsets.6 Additionally, not all search engines operate in the same manner. Therefore, which search engine a person uses will also infuence their viewpoints and opinions.7 As Wired’s Brian Barrett wrote, “The internet is a window on the world; a search engine warps and tints it.”8 The topic of algorithmic curation and ranking of search results has become especially prominent in the news recently, as conservative politicians in the United States have claimed that search engines, such as Google, and internet platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, have instituted a liberal bias within their search results and news feed curation practices.9 However, there is little evidence that such bias is actually present.10 Technology companies
Recommended publications
  • Personalized Search
    Personalized Search Fredrik Nygård Carlsen arXiv:1509.02207v1 [cs.IR] 7 Sep 2015 Submission date: September 2015 Supervisor: Trond Aalberg, IDI Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Computer Science Abstract As the volume of electronically available information grows, relevant items become harder to find. This work presents an approach to personalizing search results in scientific publication databases. This work focuses on re-ranking search results from existing search engines like Solr or ElasticSearch. This work also includes the development of Obelix, a new recommendation sys- tem used to re-rank search results. The project was proposed and performed at CERN, using the scientific publications available on the CERN Document Server (CDS). This work experiments with re-ranking using offline and online evaluation of users and documents in CDS. The experiments conclude that the personal- ized search result outperform both latest first and word similarity in terms of click position in the search result for global search in CDS. iii Acknowledgments I would first of all like to thank my supervisor, Trond Aalberg, for valuable guidance and support. Furthermore, I would like to thank the people at CERN: Head Librarian at Invenio, Jens Vigen; CDS Developer, Patrick Glauner; Head of CDS, Jean-Yves Le Meur, and Head developer at Invenio, Tibor Simko, for valuable insight and ideas. I would like to thank my friends who supported me through the entire process; Thea Christine Mathisen and Rolf Erik Lekang. iv Contents Acknowledgment . iv List of Figures ix List of Tablesx 1 Introduction3 1.1 Motivation . .3 1.2 Problem Formulation .
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of the Climate Change Filter Bubble
    In Search of the Climate Change Filter Bubble A Content-based Method for Studying Ideological Segregation in Google Genot, Emmanuel; Jiborn, Magnus; Hahn, Ulrike; Volzhanin, Igor; Olsson, Erik J; von Gerber, Ylva 2020 Document Version: Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Genot, E., Jiborn, M., Hahn, U., Volzhanin, I., Olsson, E. J., & von Gerber, Y. (2020). In Search of the Climate Change Filter Bubble: A Content-based Method for Studying Ideological Segregation in Google. Manuscript submitted for publication. Total number of authors: 6 Creative Commons License: Other General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 In Search of the Climate Change Filter Bubble: A Content-based Method for Studying Ideological Segregation in Google Emmanuel Genot1, Magnus Jiborn2, Ulrike Hahn3, Igor Volzhanin4, Erik J.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1811.12349V2 [Cs.SI] 4 Dec 2018 Content for Different Purposes in Very Large Scale
    Combating Fake News with Interpretable News Feed Algorithms Sina Mohseni Eric D. Ragan Texas A&M University University of Florida College Station, TX Gainesville, FL [email protected] eragan@ufl.edu Abstract cations of personalized data tracking for the dissemination and consumption of news has caught the attention of many, Nowadays, artificial intelligence algorithms are used for tar- especially given evidence of the influence of malicious so- geted and personalized content distribution in the large scale as part of the intense competition for attention in the digital cial media accounts on the spread of fake news to bias users media environment. Unfortunately, targeted information dis- during the 2016 US election (Bessi and Ferrara 2016). Re- semination may result in intellectual isolation and discrimi- cent reports show that social media outperforms television as nation. Further, as demonstrated in recent political events in the primary news source (Allcott and Gentzkow 2017), and the US and EU, malicious bots and social media users can the targeted distribution of erroneous or misleading “fake create and propagate targeted “fake news” content in differ- news” may have resulted in large-scale manipulation and ent forms for political gains. From the other direction, fake isolation of users’ news feeds as part of the intense competi- news detection algorithms attempt to combat such problems tion for attention in the digital media space (Kalogeropoulos by identifying misinformation and fraudulent user profiles. and Nielsen 2018). This paper reviews common news feed algorithms as well as methods for fake news detection, and we discuss how news Although online information platforms are replacing the feed algorithms could be misused to promote falsified con- conventional news sources, personalized news feed algo- tent, affect news diversity, or impact credibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Convergence of Search, Recommendations and Advertising
    Information Seeking: Convergence of Search, Recommendations and Advertising Hector Garcia-Molina Georgia Koutrika Aditya Parameswaran 1. INTRODUCTION • An advertisement mechanism is similar to a recommen- All of us are faced with a \deluge of data" [2], in our work- dation mechanism, except that the objects presented places and our homes: an ever-growing World Wide Web, to the user are commercial advertisements, and finan- digital books and magazines, photographs, blogs, tweets, e- cial considerations play a central role in ranking. An mails, databases, activity logs, sensor streams, on-line videos, advertising mechanism also considers the user context, movies and music, and so on. Thus, one of the fundamen- e.g., what Web site is currently being visited, or what tal problems in Computer Science has become even more query the user just entered. The selection of advertise- critical today: how to identify objects satisfying a user's ments can be based on the similarity of the context to information need. The goal is to present to the user only the ad, or the similarity of the context to a bid phrase information that is of interest and relevance, at the right (where the advertiser specifies the contexts he is in- place and time. terested in), or on financial considerations (e.g., which At least three types of information providing mechanisms advertiser is willing to pay more for the ad placement). have been developed over the years to satisfy user informa- tion needs: The main thesis of this paper is that these mechanisms are not that different to begin with, and designing these three • A search mechanism takes as input a query that de- mechanisms making use of this commonality could lead to scribes the current user interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Personalization of Web Search
    1 Measuring Personalization of Web Search ANIKÓ HANNÁK, Northeastern University PIOTR SAPIEŻYŃSKI, Technical University of Denmark ARASH MOLAVI KAKHKI, Northeastern University DAVID LAZER, ALAN MISLOVE, and CHRISTO WILSON, Northeastern University Web search is an integral part of our daily lives. Recently, there has been a trend of personalization in Web search, where dierent users receive dierent results for the same search query. The increasing level of personalization is leading to concerns about Filter Bubble eects, where certain users are simply unable to access information that the search engines’ algorithm decides is irrelevant. Despite these concerns, there has been little quantication of the extent of personalization in Web search today, or the user attributes that cause it. In light of this situation, we make three contributions. First, we develop a methodology for measuring personalization in Web search results. While conceptually simple, there are numerous details that our methodology must handle in order to accurately attribute dierences in search results to personalization. Second, we apply our methodology to 200 users on Google Web Search and 100 users on Bing. We nd that, on average, 11.7% of results show dierences due to personalization on Google, while 15.8% of results are personalized on Bing, but that this varies widely by search query and by result ranking. Third, we investigate the user features used to personalize on Google Web Search and Bing. Surprisingly, we only nd measurable personalization as a result of searching with a logged in account and the IP address of the searching user. Our results are a rst step towards understanding the extent and eects of personalization on Web search engines today.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Implications of Filter Bubbles and Personalized News-Streams
    Volume 3, 190-189, 2017 ISSN 2501-3513 ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF FILTER BUBBLES AND PERSONALIZED NEWS-STREAMS Dan Valeriu VOINEA University of Craiova, Center for Scientific Research Communication, Media and Public Opinion, Romania 1. Abstract In the days of traditional media, be it print, radio, or television, every consumer of a product received the same information. However, with the transition to the online world, personalization, tailoring information to the individual’s interests, became a possibility. Starting with the advent of personalized search (Pitkow et al., 2002), which was introduced by Google as a feature of its search engine in 2004, interest-based advertising and personalized news became both features, improving the relevance of the information to a specific user, and ethical problems – how can information only I receive influence me? The issue is even more complicated when talking about social media and personalized news – how can we ensure algorithms are transparent and indiscriminate? The present research is focused on bringing to attention possible ethical dilemmas and solutions to filter bubbles brought on by news personalization. 190 2. Keywords filter bubbles, personalized news, information filtering, fake news, news algorithms, social media 3. Introduction Even though discussions regarding the personalization of content served to consumers on the internet started in the late ’90s, there were not many mainstream analyses into the ethical implications of such manipulation of content until the introduction of the term “filter bubble” by Eli Pariser. “The filter bubble tends to dramatically amplify confirmation bias—in a way, it’s designed to. Consuming information that conforms to our ideas of the world is easy and pleasurable; consuming information that challenges us to think in new ways or question our assumptions is frustrating and difficult.” (Pariser, 2012, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Repriv: Re-Envisioning In-Browser Privacy
    RePriv: Re-Envisioning In-Browser Privacy Matt Fredrikson Ben Livshits University of Wisconsin Microsoft Research New York Times Share data to get Privacy personalized concerns results Netflix Google news Amazon Browser: Personalization & Privacy • Broad applications: – Site personalizationYourGoogleNetflixAmazon browser 12 – Personalized search1 Browsing history 11 1 10 Top: Computers: Security: Internet: Privacy – Ads10 2 Top: Arts: Movies: Genres: Film Noir 9 3 Top: Sports: Hockey: Ice Hockey 9 3 Top: Science: Math: Number Theory • User data in browser Top: Recreation: Outdoors: Fishing 8 4 7 5 7 5 Distill 6 • Control information release User interest profile Scenario #1: Online Shopping bn.com would like to learn your top interests. We will let them know you are interested in: Interest • Science profile • Technology • Outdoors Interest profile Accept Decline RePriv Protocol Scenario #2: Personalized Search PersonalizedPersonalized Results Results Would you like to install an extension RePrivcalled “Bing Personalizer“weather”” that will: weather.com “weather” •weather.comWatch mouse clicks“sports” on bing.com espn.com • Modify appearance of bing.com “sports” espn.com “movies” imdb.com • Store personal data in browser “movies” imdb.com “recipes” epicurious.com “recipes” epicurious.comAccept Decline Contributions of RePriv • An in-browser framework for collecting & RePriv managing personal data to facilitate personalization. Core Behavior • Efficient in-browser behavior mining & controlled Mining dissemination of personal data.
    [Show full text]
  • Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism
    GOLDMAN: SEARCH ENGINE BIAS SEARCH ENGINE BIAS AND THE DEMISE OF SEARCH ENGINE UTOPIANISM ERIC GOLDMAN ABSTRACT Due to search engines' automated operations,people often assume that search engines display search results neutrally and without bias. However, this perception is mistaken. Like any other media company, search engines affirmatively control their users' experiences, which has the consequence of skewing search results (a phenomenon called "search engine bias'). Some commentators believe that search engine bias is a defect requiring legislative correction. Instead, this Essay argues that search engine bias is the beneficial consequence of search engines optimizing content for their users. The Essay further argues that the most problematic aspect of search engine bias, the "winner-take- all" effect caused by top placement in search results, will be mooted by emerging personalizedsearch technology. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SEARCH ENGINES MAKE EDITORIAL CHOICES ................................... 189 A . IN D EX IN G ........................................................................................... 190 B . R AN K IN G ........................................................................................... 19 1 II. SEARCH ENGINE EDITORIAL CHOICES CREATE BIASES .................... 192 III. SEARCH ENGINE BIAS IS NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE ..................... 195 IV. TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION WILL MOOT SEARCH ENGINE BIAS 198 V . C O NC L USIO N ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cohort Modeling for Enhanced Personalized Search Jinyun Yan Wei Chu Ryen W
    Cohort Modeling for Enhanced Personalized Search Jinyun Yan Wei Chu Ryen W. White Rutgers University Microsoft Bing Microsoft Research Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA Bellevue WA 98004 USA Redmond, WA 98052 USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT that approximately 33% of query instances in their case study were Web search engines utilize behavioral signals to develop search ex- an exact repeat of a query submitted by the same user at a previous periences tailored to individual users. To be effective, such person- time. For such refinding queries, the results clicked by individual alization relies on access to sufficient information about each user’s users in their search history provide a strong signal to identify the interests and intentions. For new users or new queries, profile in- correct result for each user when that query is repeated [32]. The formation may be sparse or non-existent. To handle these cases, and remaining 67% queries are new, and it can be challenging to im- perhaps also improve personalization for those with profiles, search prove their search quality via personalization given limited history. engines can employ signals from users who are similar along one One way in which these issues can be addressed is by finding co- or more dimensions, i.e., those in the same cohort . In this paper we horts of searchers who share one of more attributes with the current describe a characterization and evaluation of the use of such cohort searcher. Attributes that could be used to form cohorts include lo- modeling to enhance search personalization.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Effect of Search Engine Personalization on Politically Biased Search Results
    Exploring the Effect of Search Engine Personalization on Politically Biased Search Results Author: Mario Martinovic University of Twente P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede The Netherlands ABSTRACT The internet has become a widespread tool for people to find political information. As a result of this, the neutrality of the results shown by search engines has been of increasing concern for the democratic ways of many countries. With the introduction of personalized search results, the so-called ‘’filter bubble effect’’ could result in users potentially getting results which only portrays one political side. We have used the results from 89 students who filled out our survey. We have found out that on Google’s search engine, more than 25% the participants had search results which were to some extent politically biased. However, no clear connection was found between personalization and politically biased results. Moreover, we discovered that DuckDuckGo isn’t as reliable as previously thought. DuckDuckGo states that if multiple users type in the same query, they should get the same results. Furthermore, DuckDuckGo should be clear of any political biases due to the fact that is provides results based on the semantics of a query and it doesn’t collect any data of the user. Nonetheless, over 67% of the results, for one of our queries used in the survey, turned out be politically biased. One should be well aware of the potential biases it may encounter in search engines, as the biases are not only existent in personalized search engines, they may also well be found in search engines which don’t personalize their results.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Political Personalization of Google News Search
    Measuring Political Personalization of Google News Search Huyen Le Raven Maragh Brian Ekdale Department of Computer Science Department of Communication School of Journalism and Mass University of Iowa Studies Communication Gonzaga University University of Iowa Andrew High Timothy Havens Zubair Shafiq Department of Communication Arts Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science and Sciences University of Iowa University of Iowa Pennsylvania State University ABSTRACT people might be more likely to access content online that conforms There is a growing concern about the extent to which algorith- to their political ideologies, but little is known about whether ac- mic personalization limits people’s exposure to diverse viewpoints, cessing certain political content impacts personalization of other thereby creating “filter bubbles" or “echo chambers." Prior research elements of a person’s online life. In this paper, we ask: If a per- on web search personalization has mainly reported location-based son’s digital life demonstrates a political bias, does that person receive personalization of search results. In this paper, we investigate personalized search results and do those search results reflect that whether web search results are personalized based on a user’s person’s bias? browsing history, which can be inferred by search engines via Researchers have long been concerned about the effect of se- third-party tracking. Specifically, we develop a “sock puppet" au- lective exposure—seeking information that reinforces preexisting diting system in which a pair of fresh browser profiles, first, visits beliefs while avoiding other information—on democratic societies web pages that reflect divergent political discourses and, second, [38, 43].
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Personalization of Web Search
    Measuring Personalization of Web Search Aniko Hannak Piotr Sapiezy˙ nski´ Arash Molavi Kakhki Northeastern University Technical University of Denmark Northeastern University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Balachander Krishnamurthy David Lazer Alan Mislove AT&T Labs–Research Northeastern University Northeastern University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Christo Wilson Northeastern University [email protected] ABSTRACT keeping abreast of breaking news, and making purchasing Web search is an integral part of our daily lives. Recently, decisions. The search results that are returned, and their there has been a trend of personalization in Web search, order, have significant implications: ranking certain results where different users receive different results for the same higher or lower can dramatically affect business outcomes search query. The increasing personalization is leading to (e.g., the popularity of search engine optimization services), concerns about Filter Bubble effects, where certain users are political elections (e.g., U.S. Senator Rick Santorum’s battle simply unable to access information that the search engines’ with Google [18]), and foreign affairs (e.g., Google’s ongoing algorithm decides is irrelevant. Despite these concerns, there conflict with Chinese Web censors [46]). has been little quantification of the extent of personalization Recently, major search engines have implemented person- in Web search today, or the user attributes that cause it. alization, where different users searching for the same terms In light of this situation, we make three contributions. may observe different results [1, 34]. For example, users First, we develop a methodology for measuring personaliza- searching for “pizza” in New York and in Boston may receive tion in Web search results.
    [Show full text]