Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
156 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Algorithmic Misjudgement in Google Search Results: Evidence from Auditing the US Online Electoral Information Environment (2404.04684v2)

Published 6 Apr 2024 in cs.CY

Abstract: Google Search is an important way that people seek information about politics, and Google states that it is ``committed to providing timely and authoritative information on Google Search to help voters understand, navigate, and participate in democratic processes.'' This paper studies the extent to which government-maintained web domains are represented in the online electoral information environment, as captured through 3.45 Google Search result pages collected during the 2022 US midterm elections for 786 locations across the United States. Focusing on state, county, and local government domains that provide locality-specific information, we study not only the extent to which these sources appear in organic search results, but also the extent to which these sources are correctly targeted to their respective constituents. We label misalignment between the geographic area that non-federal domains serve and the locations for which they appear in search results as algorithmic mistargeting, a subtype of algorithmic misjudgement in which the search algorithm targets locality-specific information to users in different (incorrect) locations. In the context of the 2022 US midterm elections, we find that 71% of all occurrences of state, county, and local government sources were mistargeted, with some domains appearing disproportionately often among organic results despite providing locality-specific information that may not be relevant to all voters. However, we also find that mistargeting often occurs in low ranks. We conclude by considering the potential consequences of extensive mistargeting of non-federal government sources and argue that ensuring the correct targeting of these sources to their respective constituents is a critical part of Google's role in facilitating access to authoritative and locally-relevant electoral information.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. Penelope Muse Abernathy. 2018. The expanding news desert. Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media, School of Media and ….
  2. Mark Graham Andrea Ballatore and Shilad Sen. 2017. Digital Hegemonies: The Localness of Search Engine Results. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107, 5 (2017), 1194–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1308240 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1308240
  3. Jack Bandy. 2021. Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 74 (apr 2021), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449148
  4. Jack Bandy and Brent Hecht. 2021. Errors in Geotargeted Display Advertising: Good News for Local Journalism? Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 92 (apr 2021), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449166
  5. Maxwell A Cameron. 2023. Electoral Denialism in American Democracies. (2023).
  6. Challenging Google Search filter bubbles in social and political information: Disconforming evidence from a digital methods case study. Telematics and Informatics 35, 7 (2018), 2006–2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.004
  7. I vote for—how search informs our choice of candidate. Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, M. Moore and D. Tambini (Eds.) 22 (2018).
  8. Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States. SSRN Electronic Journal (01 2017). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2960697
  9. Grant Duwe and KiDeuk Kim. 2017. Out With the Old and in With the New? An Empirical Comparison of Supervised Learning Algorithms to Predict Recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review 28, 6 (2017), 570–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415604899 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415604899
  10. The 2020 presidential election and beliefs about fraud: Continuity or change? Electoral studies 72 (2021), 102366.
  11. Robert Epstein and Ronald E. Robertson. 2015. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 33 (2015), E4512–E4521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
  12. Suppressing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 42 (dec 2017), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677
  13. James J Fahey. 2023. The big lie: Expressive responding and misperceptions in the United States. Journal of Experimental Political Science 10, 2 (2023), 267–278.
  14. Auditing local news presence on Google News. Nature human behaviour 4, 12 (December 2020), 1236—1244. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00954-0
  15. Tarleton Gillespie. 2010. The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society 12, 3 (2010), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
  16. Burst of the Filter Bubble?: Effects of personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism 6 (03 2018), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145
  17. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (WWW ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488435
  18. Auditing the Partisanship of Google Search Snippets. In The World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, CA, USA) (WWW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313654
  19. Nigel James. 2000. Militias, the Patriot movement, and the internet: the ideology of conspiracism. The Sociological Review 48, 2_suppl (2000), 63–92.
  20. The Geography and Importance of Localness in Geotagged Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858122
  21. The Media Coverage of the 2020 US Presidential Election Candidates through the Lens of Google’s Top Stories. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. 868–877.
  22. Location, Location, Location: The Impact of Geolocation on Web Search Personalization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference (Tokyo, Japan) (IMC ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815714
  23. Measuring Political Personalization of Google News Search. In The World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, CA, USA) (WWW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2957–2963. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313682
  24. Emma Lurie and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2021. Searching for Representation: A sociotechnical audit of googling for members of U.S. Congress. CoRR abs/2109.07012 (2021). arXiv:2109.07012 https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.07012
  25. Emma Lurie and Eni Mustafaraj. [n. d.]. Opening Up the Black Box: Auditing Google’s Top Stories Algorithm. Proceedings of the … International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference 32 ([n. d.]). https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10101277
  26. Search Media and Elections: A Longitudinal Investigation of Political Search Results. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 129 (nov 2019), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359231
  27. Panagiotis Takis Metaxas and Yada Pruksachatkun. 2017. Manipulation of Search Engine Results during the 2016 US Congressional Elections. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11867830
  28. The Case for Voter-Centered Audits of Search Engines during Political Elections. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372835
  29. In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, 3 (2007), 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x
  30. Cornelius Puschmann. 2019. Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results. Digital Journalism 7, 6 (2019), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626
  31. Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search. Nature 618 (05 2023), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5
  32. Auditing Partisan Audience Bias within Google Search. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 148 (nov 2018), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274417
  33. Auditing the Personalization and Composition of Politically-Related Search Engine Results Pages. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (Lyon, France) (WWW ’18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 955–965. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186143
  34. Nancy L Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead. 2019. A lot of people are saying: The new conspiracism and the assault on democracy. Princeton University Press.
  35. Auditing Algorithms : Research Methods for Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15686114
  36. Barriers to the Localness of Volunteered Geographic Information. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702170
  37. Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Montreal, Canada) (AIES ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 723–741. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604673
  38. Charles Stewart III. 2023. Public Opinion Roots of Election Denialism. SSRN (2023). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4318153
  39. Daniel Trielli and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2019. Search as News Curator: The Role of Google in Shaping Attention to News Information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300683
  40. Daniel Trielli and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2022. Partisan search behavior and Google results in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Information, Communication & Society 25, 1 (2022), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1764605 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1764605
  41. The Matter of Chance: Auditing Web Search Results Related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections Across Six Search Engines. Social Science Computer Review 40, 5 (2022), 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211006863 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211006863

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.