Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TheInformation Society, 16:169 –185, 2000 Copyright c 2000T aylor& Francis 0197-2243/° 00$12.00+ .00 Shaping the Web: Whythe Politics ofSearch Engines Matters Lucas D.Introna LondonSchool of Economics,London, United Kingdom Helen Nissenbaum University Center for HumanV alues,Princeton University, Princeton,New Jersey,USA Enhancedby the technologyof the WorldWide W eb,it This articleargues that searchengines raise not merely technical has becomean integral part ofthe ever-expandingglobal issuesbut alsopolitical ones. Our studyof searchengines suggests media system, movingonto center stage ofmedia politics thatthey systematically exclude (in somecases by design and in alongsidetraditional broadcastmedia— television andra- some,accidentally ) certainsites and certaintypes of sitesin favor dio.Enthusiasts ofthe “newmedium” have heralded it as ofothers,systematically giving prominence to some at theexpense ademocratizingforce that will givevoice to diverse so- ofothers. We argue that such biases,which would leadto a nar- cial, economic,and cultural groups,to members ofsociety rowingof theWeb’ s functioningin society,run counterto thebasic notfrequentlyheard in the publicsphere. It will empower architectureof the Web aswell as tothevalues and idealsthat have the traditionally disempowered,giving them access both fueledwidespread support for its growth and development.We to typically unreachablenodes of powerand to previously considerways of addressingthe politics of searchengines, raising inaccessible troves ofinformation. doubts whether,in particular,themarket mechanism could serve asanacceptablecorrective. Toscholars oftraditional media,these optimistic claims must havea ringof familiarity, echoingsimilar optimistic predictions concerningthe democratizingand empower- Keywords searchengines, bias, values in design,W orldWide W eb, ingcapacities ofbothradio and television. Instead ofthe digitaldivide, information access expectedpublic gains andful lment ofdemocratic pos- sibilities, instead ofthe spreadingof access andpower, however,the gains,the power,and the access werecon- TheInternet,no longermerely ane-mail and le-sharing solidated in the handsof afewdominant individuals and system, has emergedas adominantinteractive medium. institutions. Inthe wordsof acclaimed media critic Robert McChesney (1999, p. 1), Received17 July1997; accepted 24 November1998. TheAmerican media system is spinning out of control Weareindebted to many colleagues for commenting on andques- ina hyper-commercializedfrenzy. Fewer than ten transna- tioningearlier versions of this article: audiences at the conference tionalmedia conglomerates dominate much of our media; “ComputerEthics: A PhilosophicalEnquiry, ”London;members of the fewerthan two dozen account for the overwhelming major- seminarsat the Kennedy School of Government,Harvard University, ityof our newspapers, magazines, lms,television, radio, and andtheCenter for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton Univer- books.With every aspect of ourmedia culture now fair game sity;Steven T epper,Eszter Hargittai, Phil Agre; and Rob Kling and re- forcommercial exploitation, we can look forward to the full- viewers for TheInformation Society .Wearegrateful to LeeGiles, Brian scalecommercialization of sports, arts, and education, the LaMacchia,Andrea LaPaugh (andmembers of her graduate seminar ), disappearanceof notionsof publicservice from public dis- andAndrew T omkinsfor technical guidance, and to our able research course,and the degeneration of journalism,political cover- assistantsMichael Cohen and Sayumi T akahashi.H. Nissenbaumac- age,and children’ s programmingunder commercial pressure. knowledgesthe invaluable support of theNational Science Foundation throughgrant SBR-9806234. McChesney’s work (1993, 1997b) traces—in verysub- Addresscorrespondence to Helen Nissenbaum, University Center tle andconvincing detail— how commercial interests were forHuman V alues,Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013, woveninto the very berof the modernmedia networks USA. E-mail:[email protected] throughlegislation, market mechanisms, andthe like. 169 170 L.D.INTRONA AND H.NISSENBAUM Thesemoves progressively pushed out and silenced the see irrefutable signs ofgradual centralization andcom- publicservice agenda,which was verycentral to the vision mercialization ofguidingforces. Like McChesney, we are ofthe early pioneersin the eld—McChesney’ s (1993) particularly concernedwith the waythese competingin- historical accountof radio is verytelling in this regard. terests (centralized commercial vs.decentralized public ) His central argument,historically grounded,is that the may,early on,be woven in, or out, of the very berof fundamentalcourse of media is determinedprimarily by media networks.Search engines constitute aparticularly howthey’ re ownedand operated .Most U.S.communica- telling venuefor this competition.And prospects, as seen tion media—going back to AMradioin the 1920s—have fromthe perspective ofthe time ofwriting this article, do followedthis path: Atrst, whenthey do notseem com- notlook good for broad public interests. mercially viable,they are developedby the nonprot, non- Searchengines constitute apowerfulsource of access commercial sector. Whentheir prot-making potential andaccessibility within the Web.Access, alreadya thorny emerges,however, the corporatesector starts colonizing issue, is the subject ofmuch scholarship andresearch the media,and through a variety ofmechanisms, usually (Golding,1994; Hoffman & Novak,1998; Pollack, 1995; its dominanceof politicians, muscles outthe rest andtakes Schiller, 1995 ),as well as alengthyreport by the Na- over.McChesney argues that this pattern is seen in the tional Telecommunicationsand Information Administra- cases ofFMradio,in UHFtelevision, andto some extent tion (NTIA), Falling Throughthe Net .Focusingon social, in satellite andcable. economic,and racial factors, these worksshow how access Onthe prospects ofthe Internet,there are divergentpre- to the Webis precongured in subtle butpolitically impor- dictions. Some,like DanSchiller (1995) andMcChesney, tant ways,resulting in exclusionof signi cant voices.It inuenced by their knowledgeof othermedia, anticipate is notenough, however, to worryabout overcoming these asimilar narrowingof prospects forthe Internet.They traditional barriers, to focusonly on the grantingof entry pointto the commitment ofthe UnitedStates to private to the media space ofthe Web.It is notenoughif, as wear- ownershipof communications technology as the single gue,the space itself is distorted in favorof those wealthyin most important andconsistent historical policyposition technical oreconomicresources throughthe mechanism that inuenced the courseof telecommunications devel- ofbiased search engines.The politics ofsearch engines opment.And this same commitment is clearly evidentin thus represents the broaderstruggle to sustain the demo- the rhetoric ofthe political foundationsof the Internet, cratic potential oftraditional media,the Internet,and the namely,the fact that ofve“values”that Vice-President WorldWide W ebin particular. Goreidenti ed as onesthat shouldde ne and guide the Ina statistical studyof Websearch engines,S. Lawrence developmentof the GlobalInternet Infrastructure (GII), andC. L.Giles (1999) estimated that noneof the search the rst onelisted was “private investment” (Of ce of the enginesthey studied, taken individually, index more than Vice President, 1995 ).Schiller asks, “Whatis the likeli- 16%of the total indexableW eb,which they estimate to hoodof robustadherence to . elemental democratic pre- consist of800million pages.Combining the results ofthe scription, whenthe character ofthe networkdevelopment search enginesthey studied, they estimated the coverage is nowall-too-evidently to begiven mainly as afunction to increase to approximately42%. This conrms the prim- ofunrestrained corporate ambition andprivate design?” itive impressions ofmanyusers, namely,that the Webis (Schiller, 1995,p. 6 ).Others,like MarkPoster (1995), almost inconceivablylarge, and also that search engines offera contrasting view,arguing that the distinctly “post- onlyvery partially meet the desperate needfor an effective modern”nature of the Internet,with its capacity to dis- wayof ndingthings. 1 Whenjudging what the producers seminate material rather thancentralize it, will discourage ofsearch engineshave accomplished so far,optimists, fo- the endowmentof authority— both academic andpoliti- cusingon the half-full portionof the cup,may legitimately cal. Its development,therefore, is unlikelyto mirror that marvel atthe progressin Websearch technologiesand at ofpreviousmedia. the sheer bulkof pagesthat are successfully found.In this Thebroader debate about the dualpossibilities of article, however,we are concernedwith the half-empty media—to bedemocratizingor to becolonized by special- portionof the cup:the portionsof the Webthat remain ized interests at the expenseof the publicgood— inspires hiddenfrom view. andmotivates this article onthe politics ofsearch engines. Thepurpose of this article is not,however, to bemoan Thegeneral position wedefend,and illustrate in this one the generaldif culties ofbuildingcomprehensive search case, is that althoughthe Internet andthe Weboffer excit- engines,nor to highlightthe technologicaldif culties that ingprospects forfurthering the publicgood, the benets must surely impose limits onthe rangeof scopeand cov- are conditional,resting precariouslyon a numberof po- eragethat eventhe best search enginescan