How Google Manages Fake News

Apparently, the world's leading search engine (by a very wide margin) feels that we aren't capable of discerning the difference between news that is propaganda and news that is real.  Recent developments that received almost no coverage by the western media show us the lengths that Google is willing to go to in its efforts to protect us from Russian-sourced fake news.

Before we go any further in this posting, let's look at a study from 2009 that looked at users online behaviour.  According to the study which looked at the internet behaviour of 109 subjects, 91 percent did not go past the first page of internet search engine results and 36 percent of subjects did not go beyond the first three search results.  This means that any external "adjustments" to search engine results could be used introduce a significant bias from the perspective of users.   

At the recent Halifax International Security Forum held in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada for those of you that aren't familiar with Canadian geography), during a question and answer session, Alphabet's (the parent company of Google) Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt made some very interesting and telling comments.

The basic question asked of Dr. Schmidt at the beginning of his exchange with the moderator and various members of the audience was "What is Google doing to fight extremism and fake news".

Here are excerpts from his responses to several questioners:

"Ten years ago, I thought that everyone would be able to deal with the internet because the internet, we all knew, was full of falsehoods as well as truths.  It's been joked for years that the sewer part of the internet, crazy people, crazy ideas and so forth.  But the new data is that the other side, actors that trying to either to spread misinformation or worse, have figured out how to use that information for their own good whether it's amplification around a message or repeating something a hundred times so that people actually believe even though it's obviously false and that kind of thing.  My own view is that these patterns can be detected and that they can be taken down or de-prioritized.  One of the sort of problems in the industry is that we came from, shall we say, a more naive position, right, that illegal actors and that these actors would not be so active.  But now, faced with the data and what we've seen from Russia in 2016 and with other factors around the world, we have to act....

The most important thing, I think that we can do is to ensure that as the other side gets more automated, we also are more automated.   The way to think about it is that much of what Russia did was largely manual, literally troll farms as they're called, of human beings in Moscow.  We know this because they were operating on Moscow time and were appearing to operate in Virginia and Ohio and Wyoming and so forth and you can imagine the next round of that will be much more automated.     

We started with the general American view that bad speech will be replaced by good speech in a crowded network and the problem in the last year is that that may not be true in certain situations especially when you have a well-funded opponent who's trying to actively spread this information.  So, I think everyone is sort of grappling with "Where is that line" (i.e. the line of censorship).    

I am strongly not in favour of censorship, I am very strongly in favour of ranking and that's what we do...You would de-rank, that is lower rank, information that was repetitive, exploitive, false, likely to have been weaponized and so forth."

It's very difficult for us to ascertain truth.

Given that background on Dr. Schmidt's preferred approach to fake news, the following comments are particularly telling.  When asked by a questioner if it was necessary for Google to monetarize "Russian propaganda outlets" such as Sputnik with Google Adsense, a function that provides Sputnik with income when a reader clicks on a Google Ad that is displayed on a webpage, Dr. Schmidt answered:

"So, we're well aware of this one ande are working on detecting this kind of scenario you are describing and again, de-ranking those kinds of sites.  It's basically RT and Sputnik are the two and there's a whole bunch of coverage about what we're doing there.  But we're well aware of it and we're trying to engineer the system to prevent it.  We don't want to ban the sites, that's not how we operate."

Given that most users go no further than the first page of search engine results, one can see how easily Google could manipulate "the news" to nearly eliminating the Russian viewpoint.

With that, let's look at how Google/Alphabet/Dr. Schmidt assisted financially during the latest election cycle:

Here are the top recipients:

Note that Hillary Clinton received $1.588 million compared to Donald Trump's very meagre $22,564.  Perhaps at least some of Dr. Schmidt's angst about Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 U.S. election is connected to the fact that his candidate of choice lost.

Having spent some time in Russia, I found that there were no access problems to websites from around the world.   From my perspective, it certainly did not appear that the Russian government was doing anything to prevent its citizens from accessing all of the content that they wish to access from anywhere in the world.  What's next? is Google going to write an algorithm that will prevent Russians Chinese and other people around the world from reading their own government's "propaganda" that may be not particularly pro-Washington and, by doing so, force them to read the American version of the "truth".

If you wish to watch the entire interaction with Dr. Schmidt, you can go to the link here.  His comments start at the 1 hour and six minute mark. 

I've said it before.  George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time.  Non-government actors in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging when it comes to what we read and hear.  At least when it comes to Google, we know that they have our backs when it comes to fake news.

Crafting a Political Response - The Hillary Clinton Way

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is definitely a man who rarely speaks from a script, a habit that has landed him in hot water repeatedly during the 2016 election cycle.  Unlike Donald Trump, a March 2015 email from John Podesta's computer shows what kind of effort goes into a  crafting a very short mainstream media comment by Hillary Clinton.

The email chain began on Friday March 20, 2015 at 12:52 and was sent to Nick Merrill, Hillary Clinton's press secretary by CNN investigative correspondent Chris Frates:

The email was regarding the long-running private server that Hillary Clinton used while Secretary of State and, more specifically, Congressman Trey Gowdy's request to David Kendall, the Clinton family's personal lawyer, to hand over her email server to the State Department.

Two minutes later, Chris Frates emailed Nick Merrill once again, informing him that he was cc'ing David Kendall on the matter as well.

At 12:56 pm, Nick Merrill cc'd the email to the "who's who" of the key players in the Clinton 2016 election campaign camp including:

John Podesta - Campaign Chair - 2016 Clinton Campaign

Huma Abedin - Campaign Vice Chair - 2016 Clinton Campaign

Cheryl Mills - Lawyer and former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Clinton

Philippe Reines - Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary Clinton

Jake Sullivan - Foreign Policy Advisor - 2016 Clinton Campaign

David Kendall - Clinton family personal lawyer

Kristina Schake - Deputy Communications Director

Heather Samuelson - Lawyer and Clinton Campaign Staffer

Jennifer Palmieri - Director of Communications

It's interesting to note that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were granted immunity by the Justice Department for their involvement in the Hillary Clinton email scandal.  

At 1:44 pm, Nick Merrill sent this to the above group:

Note that Hillary Clinton's press secretary felt that it would be inadvisable to respond with a "no comment" on this story.

At 2:25 pm, Cheryl Mills (CDM), Ms. Clinton's lawyer sent this:

At 2:32 pm, Philippe Reines sent this:

Then, the fun and games start.  Here is a suggestion of the talking points that the Clinton campaign should use when talking to the press about the email scandal as suggested by Nick Merrill at 4:16 pm:

Note that there is an "on the record" and "off the record" response.  David Kendall, the Clinton's personal lawyer approved of the carefully crafted response at 4:23 pm, however, that was not the end of things.  At 6:46 pm, Nick Merrill jumped into the fray with this final comment and suggestion:

And, that's the end of this email chain.

It's not the content of this particular email chain that is interesting, rather, it's the process that the Clinton camp uses to disseminate information to the voting public.  While all politicians go through this process, it's interesting to compare how carefully crafted her camp's responses are and how groupthink is used to ensure that the public knows as little as possible.  We should all be aware that when the mainstream media uses politician's talking points to provide us with "news", many iterations of the same talking points have been processed behind the scenes before they are regurgitated to the public.

The American Anti-Islamic Movement in the 2016 Election Cycle

A report by the Georgetown University Research Project looks at the trends and patterns of anti-Islamism that have become apparent during the 2016 presidential election cycle.  The authors of the study looked at two time periods; January through December 2015 (i.e. calendar 2015) and March 2015 (the month that Ted Cruz formally announced his candidacy for president which started the 2016 election cycle) through March 2016, the core of the current election cycle thus far.  They looked at the following types of Islamophobia as reported by both local and national news media, keeping in mind that many incidents are obviously not reported to law enforcement:

1.) murders and physical attacks against Muslims or those who were perceived to be Muslims.

2.) verbal or written assaults, harassment or threats either in-person, in writing, by telephone or through social media.

3.) vandalism or destruction of property that has a perceived affiliation with Islam.

4.) arson against property that has a perceived affiliation with Islam.

5.) shootings and bombings targeting Muslims or their homes and institutions that do not result in death.

6.) demonstrations that took place outside of mosques where there was a threat of violence.

7.) verbal and written incitement to violence against Islam in general.

The study also looked at Islamophobic political rhetoric including the following types of statements:

1.) generalizations that make a simplified statement about Muslims or Islam based on the actions of a few.

2.) misattributions that suggest that actions carried out by Muslims are due to a link to their faith.

3.) reductionism where Muslim diversity is reduced to a single issue like Sharia or jihad.

4.) blatant prejudice.

Here is a summary of their findings starting with calendar 2015, followed by the period between March 2015 and March 2016.

1.) Calendar 2015: Over the course of calendar 2015, there were approximately 174 incidents of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism, up from 154 in 2014.  These incidents included 12 murders, 29 physical assaults, 50 threats against Islamic persons or institutions, 54 acts of vandalism or destruction of property, 8 arsons and 9 shooting or bombings.  In 2015, American Muslims were 6 to 9 times more likely to suffer these types of attacks than they were before 9/11.  Muslim men were twice as likely to be victims of physical assaults and 5 to 6 times more likely to be victims of murder than American Muslim women.

2.) March 2015 to March 2016: Over this 12 month period since the first candidate formally announced his bid for presidency there have been approximately 180 incidents of anti-Muslim violence.  These incidents included 12 murders, 34 physical assaults, 49 verbal assaults or threats against Islamic persons or institutions, 56 acts or vandalism or destruction of property, 9 arsons and 9 shootings and bombings.  Muslim men were twice as likely to be victims of physical assaults and 11 times more likely to be victims of murder than American Muslim women.

In both time periods, Muslim murder victims were most likely between the ages of 18 and 24.

During the period from March 2015 to March 2016, the first surge of anti-Muslim political rhetoric began in September 2015, coincident with the deepening of the Syrian refugee crisis.  During September 2015 alone, there were 10 incidents or threats of violence which included 3 murders.  Following the San Bernardino attacks in December 2015, there was another surge of anti-Islamic violence with 53 total attacks during that month or nearly one-third of the total for the entire 12 month period including 17 which targeted mosques and Islamic schools compared to only 2 such attacks during February 2015, prior to the official start of the presidential election cycle.    

Let's wrap up this posting with a look at a few key comments made by various presidential candidates during the period from March 2015 to March 2016:

1.) Ted Cruz:

On December 10, 2015 while speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Ted Cruz criticized U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s remarks about the need to crack down on anti-Muslim discrimination. Despite the fact that anti-Muslim attacks jumped in November and December 2015, Cruz dismissed Lynch’s assessment and implied that acknowledging the reality of Islamophobia is dangerous.

Again, on December 10, 2015 during an interview with the Daily Signal, Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz states, “I don't think we should be indiscriminately closing mosques, but I also don't think we should be blind to the fact that there have been mosques that have been a nexus for promoting jihad, and we need to use all of the tools of national security and law enforcement to stop any jihadist from murdering Americans.” 

2.) Marco Rubio:

On October 5, 2015 during a campaign event in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Republican Presidential hopeful Marco Rubio stated, “What President Obama is proposing to do, bring tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims to America, is nothing short of crazy... It would be the height of foolishness to bring in tens of thousands of people, including jihadists who are coming here to murder innocent Americans ...With respect to the refugees, it is a humanitarian crisis, but they ought to be settled in the Middle East, in majority Muslim countries.”

On February 3, 2016 during a campaign event in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio criticized President Obama’s mosque visit stating, “... he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims. Of course there’s discrimination in America, of every kind. But the bigger issue is: radical Islam. And by the way, radical Islam poses a threat to Muslims themselves.” 

Oddly enough, Americans were not all that happy with Communism and Communists in the 1950s and 1960s, the timeframe when Marco Rubio's maternal grandfather was ordered deported as an undocumented Cuban migrant. 

3.) Ben Carson:

On October 9, 2015 in Washington, D.C., Republican Presidential Candidate Ben Carson questions loyalties of American Muslims during a discussion on constitutional liberties at the National Press Club. 

On December 13, 2015 during an appearance on ABC’s This Week, Republican Presidential Candidate Ben Carson called for scrutiny of all Muslims entering and living in the U.S. He cited an alleged Muslim strategy to destroy Western civilization from within. 

4.) Donald Trump:

On October 22, 2015 during an appearance on Fox Business Network, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump responded to a question about whether he would close mosques as part of his counter-terrorism strategy by stating, “I would do that, absolutely.” 

On November 16, 2015 in an MSNBC interview, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump stated that he would “strongly consider” closing mosques as part of his counter- terrorism strategy. He stated, “Well, I would hate to do it but it's something you're going to have to strongly consider. Some of the absolute hatred is coming from these areas ...The hatred is incredible. It's embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands.”

5.) Mike Huckabee:

On November 17, 2015 in an interview with MSNBC, former Governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated that he could not think of any group other than Muslims who harm innocent civilians. He explained, therefore, that discriminatory anti-Muslim policies were justified. 

6.) Jeb Bush:

On January 28, 2016 during the GOP debate, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush responds to a question from Muslim fashion vlogger, Nabeela Noor, about the rising climate of hatred and violence confronting American Muslims. Bush responded, “Nabela’s a rising entrepreneur. She wants to pursue the American dream. She’s an American citizen. She should not feel uncomfortable about her citizenship. She’s not the threat. The threat is Islamic terrorism. We need to focus our energies there, not these broad-blanket kind of statements that will make it harder for us to deal with it.”

While the report from Georgetown University has obviously not captured the myriad of unreported cases of anti-Islamic behaviour, it is interesting to see how the political leadership of the United States is playing right into the hands of the anti-Muslim movement.  It is also interesting to note that the current Islamophobia in America it is playing right into the hands of those who are attempting to form an Islamic Caliphate as shown in this excerpt from ISIS' online magazine, Dabiq:

""The Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostasize and adopt the kufrī religion (i.e. non-Islamic religions including Christianity and Judaism) propagated by Bush, Obama, Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy, and Hollande in the name of Islam so as to live amongst the kuffār (a derogatory term referring to non-Muslims i.e kafir) without hardship, or they perform hijrah to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens....Muslims in the crusader countries will find themselves driven to abandon their homes for a place to live in the Khilāfah, as the crusaders increase persecution against Muslims living in Western lands so as to force them into a tolerable sect of apostasy in the name of “Islam” before forcing them into blatant Christianity and democracy.    " (my explanation in non-italics and my bold)

By listening to those who lead us who are lumping all Muslims into the terrorist mold, we may well be forcing millions of American Muslims to choose between their faith and their nation.  That is the Islamic State's dream come true.