Complicit Algorithms of Power(2.3)

Google is complicit in the objectification of women; the pornification of women of color more than any other subset of person; the spread of hateful, racist, sexist, bigoted, violent propaganda; the omission of reputable information; and the publication of manifestos.

Allow me to explain.

When we think of Google search results--even if we notice the sponsored content atop the page--we tend to consider it to be an altogether fair curation of results. With a precursory knowledge of Search Engine Optimization (SEO), we might realize that some sites are set up a bit better than others; maybe their metadata is spot-on, their accessibility meets standards, and they've optimized keywords within their content and code. With an additional precursory understanding of Google's AdWords and other sponsored-methodologies, perhaps we'd take that a step further and suppose that at the very most, a few pages deep we should be getting real search results: The raw data our query returned. This is the public front that Google shows us, the terms of search we suppose we've agreed to, the general understanding we tend to have.

Yet when Google has been confronted with disturbing search results, despite their assertion that the results were a glitch, a mere aberration or anomaly (Noble 2018:82), they have historically 'fixed' the problem.

One cannot ignore the statistical whitewashing of Silicone Valley, the invisibility of women of color in the tech sectors, the design sectors, the large-scale business sectors and positions of power. It seems, then, an obvious solution to the grossly problematic 'glitches' that remain within algorithms of power. Those who aren't in the room can't possibly speak up for themselves, let alone design something meant for their people's inclusion. Silicone Valley's supposed meritocracy uplifts their ideal image of the young entrepreneur: Young, male, light-skinned. Yet this idea is entrenched in antiquated "myths of Asian Americans as model minorities" (Noble 2018:108). Thus, African American women are the most underrepresented people in Silicone Valley; and the most misrepresented people on the internet.

In 2015, when Dylan "Storm" Roof open-fired on Charleston, South Carolina's "Mother" Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, he did so under the direct tutelage of Google's front-page search results (Noble 2018:110-111). Upon searching "black on white crime", Roof was met with an inviting link to the "Council for Conservative Citizens". The name sounds innocuous; I imagine many conservative citizens would assume this was a link they'd enjoy, and relate to the content within. What Roof found, was "pages upon pages of these brutal black on white murders" (Roof, Noble 2018:111). What Roof didn't find, was any indication by the search engine that this result had been flagged by the "foremost national authority on hate organizations" as a "crudely white supremacist group" (Noble 2018:112); or that the FBI has reported that "crime against White Americans is largely an intraracial phenomenon" (Noble 2018:215).

Roof, like most people, erroneously assumed that Google's first-page results would be reputable. Sadly, it seems that tragedy and bad press are the only things that alter these chilling results for the public-at-large. I wonder how many tragedies may be prevented with proper representation within Silicone Valley?

I wonder if we'll ever know?

Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, New York University Press, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wsu/detail.action?docID=4834260.

Created from WSU on 2023-03-04