"Kevin Hines had one thought as he plummeted toward the Pacific Ocean: I can change anything in my life except the fact that I just jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge."
Well, what happened? Did he die?
1
One thing that seems kind of hidden in this article is the admission that he couldn't really get potential mass shooters to call his hotline. He mentions their "conversion rate" was way lower than that of suicidal people. That raises questions about whether this kind of online element can really change people's values as he claims. It's probably not surprising that suicidal people would call if they see a number because they're people who want help. If you're thinking of killing people, apparently you don't feel like reaching out in that way.
I believe digital manipulation can influence people's behavior some, but I doubt it can actually change their values. This reminds me of the old 70's move The Stepford Wives. It was a horror movie with a creepy ending, but I couldn't help but laugh at the points in the film where the wives suddenly started obeying their husbands 100%. In the real world people don't change that way, I don't think even gradually. The most you can do is take advantage of desires people already have.
4
@Ted Gemberling
Another point worth making on this. I think it's true, as some have said, that computer algorithms can know us better than we know ourselves. There's nothing in that which contradicts what I said above. We all are in a complex mesh of meaning which goes beyond our individual persons. Sometimes only an external process helps us understand who we are. But that's not to say the algorithm can CHANGE our values. This is really what Charles S. Peirce called Firstness. It is our identity as we are in ourselves, apart from anything external. But of course we are also enmeshed in Thirdness, natural law. That means it's possible to influence us.
Why should we believe in Firstness? Well, it's basically all the variety in the world. The fact that there's anything interesting that computers can show us. If there was no Firstness, the internet would be a bore.
1
I've given up Google for DuckDuckGo. They claim that they do not track searches, they remove you from the filter bubble where past searches influence future search results, and they block Google's hidden trackers.
I hope Google doesn't buy them. :/
104
@Want to Keep My Job
I, too use DuckDuckGo, but I add to that FB Purity when I'm using Facebook. Located at fbpurity.com, it allows almost total control of Facebook's display, including ads chat, key words, etc.
Unfortunately, it is unavailable on phones. It is a browser extension for Mac, Firefox, Opera & Microsoft.
2
@Want to Keep My Job
We need to enforce anti-trust laws against the giant social media companies.
Buying out your competition is a violation of free market principles, but not capitalist principles. Yet more evidence that Capitalism is not free markets, but the opposite.
Capitalism lives monopolies. Classical Economics explained why they are bad for the economy, so Capitalists invested Neo-Classical economics so that the owners of capital could ignore the warnings of economists that actually care about markets and competition.
4
@Want to Keep My Job Me, too! As soon as I read about DDG two or three years ago, I made it my default search engine. Trouble is, whenever you tweak or change your browser, you may have to re-load DDG too. And I'm with you on your hope: No, Great Octopoogle, don't even THINK about neutering this neutral tool--and to Firefox, Opera, and other browser purveyors who also want to be included as the non-exploiters, consider making DDG the default search engine. We all know that we can change those preferences if we'd really like to be "surveilled" all the time...
2
"M", the democratic party obviously has many agents in Google. A party that along with the republican party is pumped full of cash by all manner of other any thing goes open borders Internationalists. Because most searches about the topic of mass illegal immigration or outsourcing of US jobs to China return all manner of "studies" that allege to prove that pumping 2 million desperate immigrants into our economy for some mysterious reason does not really depress wages as economic theory predicts. And propaganda articles that assert it really is better for American people to buy cheap, shoddily made, break and have to be replaced in a few months, not necessary for survival fade consumer goods made in China ... than to have manufacturing jobs here that would enable them to buy superior goods made in the USA.
Using mass marketing techniques to change popular behavior is nothing new. Google just provides a new vector to conduct an old game. Not sure how effective it will be. Many people just consider such ads to be visual noise that is quickly discounted and ignored.
1
True story: I was reading the NYT article on 4 July about the US citizenship test, and when I scrolled to the bottom of the page, there was an ad, “Can You Immigrate to Canada?” by an immigration law firm. Nearly snorted my coffee laughing.
2
It's time to break up Google before it breaks us up.
1
Who clicks on embedded ads? I absolutely never do.
If no one ever clicks on ads then the power will become null.
28
@Anonymous
Apparently, enough people click on those ads to earn Google's parent Alphabet Inc $137 billion last year. Based upon that fantastic amount, I'm guessing that no one ever clicking isn't likely to happen any time soon.
4
This is much too powerful a weapon in the wrong hands. Sure, directing people to suicide crisis lines is a noble goal, but China would use it to stifle dissent, Russia and Republicans to encourage fatalism and undermine belief in objective reality. It's time to find a better funding model for content on the web.
43
@M.
You can be certain that China already uses their version of a web browser and Google already to identify "persons of interest". Chosing to gently dissuade them by directing them to a path away from their questions is probably better than providing enough attention-getting information so the authorities can pick them up.
Still, it effectively means the internet and search are not safe already in China.
11
@M
But what could possibly be a different funding model?
I can see how public funding supports Wikipedia and disaster relief appeals and so on, but I don't see an alternative to ads for the big search engines.
I do see google et al increasingly taking measures such as those described in this article related to ISIS. I think they are concerned about winding up in a Supreme Court case some day after a catastrophic event that they could have possibly prevented had they provided better surveillance.
But is the answer really even more google surveillance?
3
@Maura3 among other efforts, the Mozilla foundation has been looking into alternative funding models. One would be a subscription model where the user pays a fixed amount per month which is divided among sites he or she visits, in exchange for not being shown ads.
15
It is fascinating the degree to which we Americans, especially conservatives, are terrified of our government spying on us, of manipulating our behavior, thoughts, and beliefs - just like the communists of old did. In working to avoid that reality we created the perfect environment for corporations to grow unchecked, spy on us, and manipulate our behavior, thoughts, and beliefs. We avoided government doing it for control and let corporations do it for profit. Is it really any better?
95
@Andrew
It wasn't an accident. It is a 50 year old advertising campaign being used to tell Citizens to be more afraid of their own democratic Constitutional Republic than global corporations that are loyal to nothing except cash.
While they keep warning us about "centralizing the economy under government," they have already centralized the economy under the control of the few thousand people that own half of everything in the world. They literally own HALF OF EVERYTHING. That includes controlling shares in ALL Media, including the news and social media.
Read between the lines and follow the money. Question the motives of people that are giving you information.
Why do they want you to believe that thing they just told you?
8
@Andrew
We haven't had a 'working' government in 10 years and we won't have until McConnell is gone and D's control all 3 branches again. That may never happen.
Europe and China have started on different paths of privacy or surveillance while the US secrete systems quietly go about their nefarious business in the dark.
Truly, big brothers' wild west show.
5
Perhaps it is due to being brought up in the heyday of television and thus commercials, and their getting more and more and longer and longer, but while I cannot say I have never clicked an ad, I can say that I doubt I click one per year.
Generally, I ignore ads, and to be honest, I am more likely to become irked (and quite quickly so) at seeing an ad over and over, meaning that I am likely to recall what the ad was about, and avoid that company, product, etc., like the plague (that it is).
So, my question is, does advertising really (truly) work that well? The follow-up question is, of course, what does that say about individuals who actually click on those ads?
Not trying to be snarky, but even seeing an ad for the new VW that is not even yet out, I didn't click on the ad, but instead went to the web site.
I mean, don't we know to Not Click? (Now I am being snarky.)
92
I think they can track that you visited the website away from the ad rather than by using the ad. I thought I was so smart for doing that but then I started noticing patterns of more and repeat ads even though I had gone to the advertiser’s site without clicking the ad.
22
The world is full of people who think advertising doesn't impact their behavior. It is also full of people taking advantage of this naivete.
20
I’m with you entirely except that once in awhile I accidentally click on an ad while I’m scrolling (on my phone). It may be paranoia, but I imagine they’re set up to get extra accidental clicks through scrolling.
13
Brad Pascale, Trump campaign manager, predicts an electoral college win for Trump in 2020, not necessarily a popular vote victory. He intends to use Facebook’s AI-powered system to micro-target inflammatory ads to susceptible voters. It worked once, it will work again, because nothing has changed.
148
@PJF And the Russians will have nothing to do with it.
1
I mean, of course he does.
Maybe we should stop worrying so much about what Team Trump is up to and worry more about whether our party has any relevance to people who make less than six-figure incomes.
1
Never, never, never click on ads. Or links. Or emails from Nigerian princes.
When are we going to learn to not be stupid?
2
The scariest takeaway from this article is that 50 percent of users can't distinguish an ad from an organic result on google. And then they have to distinguish reputable media and clickbait from some teenager in Macedonia. No wonder authoritarianism is becoming the new democracy.
5
I remember a joke from the old days when the Soviet Union was our foe, and we were worried about how they brainwashed people. The punchline was that some people only needed a slight rinse.
I decided to do a quick test at a trivial level. I Googled a couple of local resort hotels. Google is being on its best behavior this morning; the sites for the hotels themselves are coming up first, followed by Yelp, Trip Advisor, and other such sites. There have been times when the hotel's own site was far down on the page.
But this article is more about people who Google thinks are inclined towards a specific behavior, for example, shooting up a school or committing suicide. The way Google recognized them was simplistic; they typed in an identifiable search term. What about people who's past search behavior identifies their inclination? Can Google or Facebook tell the difference between someone doing a research paper on school shootings, versus someone who's thinking of shooting up a school?
This is the scary level where elections can be manipulated. Any campaign tries to convince you to vote for their candidate, but there is a line where persuasion becomes manipulation. Victory often goes to the best persuaders, but perhaps should not go to the manipulators, if that can be prevented.
There is another way to look at it... all advertising is propaganda.
1
This story about "redirect ads" is itself a version of redirection.
It's starts with the most sympathetic examples, preventing people from identifying with ISIS (Google will keep you safe) and suicide prevention, (Google cares about you.)
But the real story is that Google knows how to redirect anyone for any reason and most of the time we won't even know that it's happening.
Even when you do suspect that you are being channeled in a particular direction studies found that you tend to lean that way even more. And Google's algorithm's are always two steps ahead.
In a world where millions of people pull out their phone to get information, including information that could impact voting during this political season is Google "redirecting" us?
And how do we know whether it's happening?
The Net started out as this great democratic marketplace of ideas, but with mega social media monopolies it has taken the world of subconscious influence advertising to new levels.
Is there a way out of this dilemma other than going back to print? I don't know. What do you think?
2
Use an ad blocker.
Limit your use of the net.
Keep your cell phone either off or on vibrate and use only for specific, limited needs. Make extensive use of blocking numbers and only respond to those you know.
It is very doable.
Analog always beats digital.
Get a life.
7
Humanity’s being hijacked. The advertising industry has historically at least been somewhat restrained, limiting messages, taking only occasional forays into what one might call the character-building aspects of human language. But human beings swim in language, like fish swim in water. And, like fish with water, we’re seldom aware of what we’re swimming in.
Apparently we’re beginning to swim in ideology. We’re being hijacked. And we just may drown—because there are so many of us who are lousy swimmers.
1
There is a way to compensate for the allure of these targeted ads. Read. Read every day. Read books, magazines, articles. Read opposite viewpoints from your own. Read about topics that you may not initially be interested in. Read as much diversity of topics that you can. And then, after awhile, you will find that you no longer feel the urgency or the compulsion to be attracted to these ads that attempt to influence you.
4
Orwell would be as fascinated and he would be terrified.
2
I generally ignore the ads and look for a trusted source when I I google search. I trust Wikipedia more than a site or ad I don't know - Wikipedia at least puts up a flag that states that the content is unsupported.
So who clicks on ads?
If I were queen of the world, we'd have classes, starting in elementary school that taught critical thinking skills. We'd look at ads, and memes and other ubiquitous messaging and talk about what the authors wants us to believe, and how to find out if we should believe it. It isn't an impossible task.
And I'd spend more time teaching about lying with statistics in math classes. That is trickier, since fractions, rations, odds, proportions - the basis for statistics - seem to be a major difficulty for a lot of younger students.
If you know you are being manipulated, at least it is your decision to go along with it, rather than ignorance which makes you susceptible.
1
“Google marketers like me survive by exploiting impatience and impulsiveness.”
I don’t find this to be a worthy pursuit. Exploitation and manipulation are indicative of a character flaw. Please find a different way to survive. Thank you.
Google owes the world a lot. Their share value is composed of us. They could help on suicide prevention and in exposing media manipulation and disinformation campaigns by exposing their effects and sources.
When you know how you’re being manipulated, it ceases to work.
2
"Social engineering" is just a euphemism for manipulating unsuspecting people into doing things that are not in their best interest, but rather in the interest of the manipulator.
So, seems to me that you should never have done this cutesy little test at all -- just saying' --
2
By reading this comment, you will be subconsciously redirected to a post for a highly desirable and reasonably priced consumer product that you have been long desiring but were hesitant to purchase. Relax. Breathe deeply, close your eyes but keep thinking of that product. Ah, enjoy the sensation of possession. Google will now provide the appropriate ad based on your mental state. All hail, the Google.
1
Given its high conversion rate, was it ethical to allow the suicide deterrence campaign to expire?
Ironically, Google Ads run on nytimes.com, and I couldn’t click through to read this article without first disabling my content blocker. It would be great if paid subscribers weren’t subjected to potentially fraudulent ads alongside the content they’re paying for.
1
The fear that this piece caused me was palpable.
Why?
Because of the millions of people who are willingly being manipulated to think one way or another.
The lack of effort regarding independent and critic thinking by so many who are sucked into the social media and advertising machine that is the web, is a very large part our problems.
It is how the powerful assure that we are divided as a people and behave in ways that are often against our own best interests.
It is how a foriegn country was able to help get an unqualified and dangerous man elected President of the US.
The dangers presented by those who use their money to so easily influence millions to act and behave as a means of gaining and keeping power, does not bode well for our freedom and future as the owners of our government. I am making sure that my children see my point of view so that they will hopefully not follow suit and be unwilling to be manipulated so easily. ] We are in trouble and most of us refuse to accept personal responsibility for their part. They don't vote, they don't demand truth and they accept the lies and manipulations without concern. Wake up. For your children's sake. Look up from your screens and call your representatives to demand regulations to assure that this does not happen anymore. VOTE
If you think I am crazy, you are ignoring the truth that the Mueller report provided us. You are ignoring the dangers that unregulated tech presents and are reported on daily. Stop and think.
2
This is why I never, ever, click on an ad. I can see that the ads are personalized but it only makes me angry. Also, I found a private Google alternative.
This is fascinating. Now Google are you listening?!? You can help save lives, why isn’t Google doing this on their own dime? What is going to happen when this campaign is totally over? Google certainly can afford it and practically owes it to society for being so deliberately pervasive. Hiding behind being “neutral” doesn’t cut it when so much is at stake.
Perhaps this could be utilized to re-direct fox "news" viewers to real news outlets? That might prove to be transformational.
2
We are designed (by evolution) to be manipulable. We deny this obvious fact ferociously, but there it is deep in our genetic code. Somewhen in our pathway from Homo Erectus to H.Sapien it was "survival positive" to be manipulated into becoming ferocious warriors or simply mindlessly devoted subjects of warlords, tribal chiefs, kings, etc.
Teach your children about this vulnerability (at home and in schools), and they can avoid becoming puppets manipulated by others. Simple awareness can help resist this herd instinct which lurks in our DNA.
Are you talking about the repeating ADs that appear appear every thirty lines of text when I am reading articles in the NYT?
I feel like I am being stalked by these repeating images of clothes like Melania wears.
Another tool for Russian Intelligence and Global Billionaires to use to undermine U.S. elections and U.S democracy.
Read and Protect your Constitution.
When I do a search on Google, I don't see a yellow "AD" warning??
Mark Zuckerberg plays "naive" so he can keep taking in $$$$$$$$$$$$.
I wouldn’t jump off a bridge if the rest of the article had loaded. But the ads did! (Just not the content.)
1
There is a sucker borne every minute, so the harvest is easy once you attract their emotional immaturity with the “shiny thing” ad.
Americans are pathetically easy to distract with ego stroking tactics and deserve the commercial misery we click.
Emotional and intellectual immaturity is our commercial and political downfalls.
My friend emailed me a link to an article about how a chemical pesticide that is toxic to honeybees have been taken off the banned list. Bees will die because of it.
At the top of the page was an ad for depression medication! How appropriate, I thought.
Problem is, it's not just bees dying that is depressing. There is so much sad news. We are in the midst of a climate crisis and a mass extinction... Hmm, could that have anything to do with the opiod and suicide epidemics?
1
Discernment is a skill which can be taught to some extent, but people have to care enough to take the time to think about and question what they see and read. Sadly, many seem to not care enough.
I am always struck by how often some of my Facebook friends, college educated, intelligent folks, fall to false news reports and/or put up the false warnings about some supposed intrusion by Facebook (e.g., "you must take this action immediately because FB is about to make all your family photos public"). The former, really fake news, is easily checked out on the web - and usually so outrageous that they ought to have the sense to check - the latter, the FB stuff, circulates and re-circulates in a few variations, but they fall for it every time.
A Google search turns up ads on top, but they say 'ad' on them. Beyond that, a quick look at the web address attached to the result quickly says something, if folks take the time to even look.
8
@Anne-Marie Hislop These friends of yours are college educated. However, did they study liberal arts? Thinking critically was emphasized in my liberal arts education. Not everyone was so fortunate.
1
It should not be Google's job to decide what constitutes a "radical view". In a democracy, that's the job of the public. Google, for its part, should be providing the public with the tools and visibility necessary for the public and its government to determine how these systems are manipulating them, and to control, slow, or counter that manipulation where needed. I'm not interested in allowing a proprietary algorithm drag me somewhere I don't want to be, or in allowing private interests to decide what constitutes a valid point of view. Effective oversight in this situation requires visibility and tools of appropriate scale.
6
Suicide protection is serious but I can't imagine how increasing ad would help.
If you want to see the coolest ads click on those for the most expensive items. Then watch to see the ads that come up and how long it takes to get the ads the super rich people get.
3
In academia, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluates proposals for studies that involve human subjects. An “experiment” like this one would have a difficult time getting approved. Were unwitting participants debriefed afterwards? What precautions were taken to mitigate the potential for risk or harm?
I understand that marketers don’t have the same kind of moral imperative as academics (well, that academics are supposed to have, anyway), but this seems a rather reckless and ill-conceived way to prove a point. There are multiple layers of improvements Google needs to add to the display ads process. One of them should include an ethical review. And please don’t bore me with the “free speech” argument. Google is a corporation, not the government. Yet.
14
@SouthernScribe It annoys me when we academics act like we're somehow above the fray. The IRB process is as corrupt as any other, and if you are involved in academia you should already know that. Every institution has its own review board, everyone on the IRB is beholden to others at that institution, and the more powerful get whatever they want. No different than Google or the rest of society. Academics are just as morally bankrupt as the rest of society, we just like to pretend we're above it all. Want an unethical research plan? Just shop it around...
1
@SouthernScribe The notion that marketers might have a moral imperative at all makes me laugh.
1
I love that the author’s purpose is to use this blighted aspect of the online world for social benefit, but I fear that there is no arbiter of what’s good and evil that we would all accept, certainly not one generated by any body with a profit motive. Secondly, the tiny number of instances of good social engineering we hear about seem to be vastly outweighed by ever more egregious cases of misuse and abuse.
I think some version of the five ethical standards set forth in the Belmont Report (Google it) protecting human subjects in academic research ought to be imposed on Google, FaceBook and all internet marketers, but then there would be no advertising. If our government and society can misuse people in the interest of academic research (Tuskeegee syphilis study, tobacco company research, etc) without a shred of ethical consideration, how much more will those overtly seeking monetary gain use our lack of sense against us?
1
Google’s business model is to make the ad appear within the search results so the user cannot tell the difference. The ads usually come with small, grey font that identifies it as an ad, easily overlooked. In the past, the first ad was a few results down (it might have been in a box too) but now I see ads as the first few results.
What this means is that Google is no longer a reliable search engine.
13
Now if only we could keep this from the hands of those who would use it to take advantage of others in their pursuit of power, money...
5
Thank goodness it's inconceivable that web content could have been manipulated to create support for Trump in 2016.
18
You can be sure that political campaigns will use this technology, if they aren't already doing so. Welcome to Brave New World.
11
Interesting. It would seem worthwhile to have someone analysing the redirect sides.
1
I find the idea of "manipulation" through advertising repugnant in any case.
I don't even let those banner and sidebar ads get into my main field of vision.
Yes, products need to be in public view, but since at least Vance Packard's "Hidden Persuaders" American advertising has been exploiting the public with tricks and manipulation - lately with online ads. I mostly get upset over the real estate on my screen being filled with jun,.
24
I never click on the ads and only look at them to discern whether they are in fact ads or not. I have noticed they are more prominent than ever upfront in search results, a trend that I assume will only continue to grow.
11
There is an interesting video on YouTube with Mark Zuckerberg and Yuval Harari in an hour and one half conversation on these same topics. Zuckerberg, who invented his shiny toy, doesn't really want to see or believe that there may be a dark side, especially with increasing use of AI. As Harari explains it to him and what the future may hold, Zuckerberg builds up more rather naive defenses to protect his Facebook empire. Hopefully, Zuckerberg will put himself in the company of deeper thinkers and gain some of the maturity he desperately needs.
35
In describing Zuckerberg, I would say you could replace “naive” with “disingenuous.”
1
We can be certain that the folks running political campaigns have staff that understand this technology and how to harness it and influence people to achieve their goals. 2016 and Putin taught us that.
28
Absolutely CORRECT.
1
@Steve
Putin among them...
1
I get nothing but irked by insistent ads and try my best to not buy the product being shoved down my throat. I would think that advertising a competitors product heavily would annoy people enough to buy your product out of spite.
Think I’ll ever go into a Arby’s or watch anything with the “Bob’s Burgers” voice in it? Too bad they made “Archer” unwatchable, I used to like it.
7
A like minded soul. I have a list of do not buy products from repetitive YouTube ads
1
if you need another reason in addition to annoyance to block all ads everywhere, all the time... I've been doing that for many years now and have got so used to an ad-free web experience on my devices that i don't know how people can stand to go online otherwise. This article only strengthens my complete lack of compunction about blocking ads mercilessly and in every way possible.
29
@UA I do this too. The problems come with voters who don’t.
6
@UAhow do you block ads?
1
@UA
How can you do this? I would like to do the same thing
1
This is a fascinating and important glimpse into the kinds of algorithms/decision rules/strategies that can be used (and ARE being used, all the time) to assess and alter user behavior.
The example is a kind of "A.I.-driven psychotherapy" or "anticipatory/just-in-time provision of information" that may reduce impulsive behavior, or counter false assumptions or impulses that are otherwise unchallenged in a user's mental universe.
We ARE working with a "universal brain/network" that is pervasive, is increasingly consulted/relied on for information, and that obviously can provide positive or negative reinforcement of beliefs, attitudes, and nascent intentions that can trigger an online interaction. Just as clear is the ethical imperative for companies and well-positioned individuals who design and maintain search engines and online resources: If you recognize the potential for more than trivial consequences, you have an ethical obligation to consider those consequences in the way you do business and conduct yourself online. I expect that the legal implications will begin to pop up in cases at law, and that cannot come too soon to mitigate the risks we face.
14
In the case of suicide or terrorism prevention I am glad that the mere viewing of redirect ads can prevent death or other harm. But all ads are designed to "manipulate" behavior. Whether I read an ad about something I was searching for or am "redirected" to an ad for something which is the opposite of what I am searching for I will see something that is designed to "manipulate" me. It is up to me whether read the ad and if I do whether to let myself be swayed or not. A redirect ad at worst is nothing more than an annoyance.
2
Some ads are so sophisticated that you may think you are making a decision but that decision has been made for you. We are doomed. We need an ad-prevention hotline.
1
So in theory anyway anyone of us could influence anyone (or at least a bunch of people to buy a book detailing self pleasure or the opposite, self destruction with the use of google adwords..and do it all for profit.. I've had LOTS of ideas for these kinds of things over the years. Maybe I'll put the old noodle to work someday and find the right adwords ..
Every time I read articles that explain how easy it is to socially engineer the thoughts, beliefs and behaviors of large swathes of society I think of how media like newspapers, but also TV shows and movies, are often the idea source. Did the high-jackers of 9-11 get their ideas from action movies? I wonder if Cambridge Analytica got their ideas from research papers like this one: the work done by Bachrach, Kosinski, Graepel, Kohli, & Stillwell, 2013) which laid the ground work for identifying people’s political preferences from the number of followers and friends they had in social media. Should we be publicly sharing these ideas? Once they are in our heads, can they ever be gotten out? And can we know who is using them? Is there any evidence that raising awareness through alarming articles like this protect us more than they put us at risk? What about all the research on latent authoritarianism by Stenner and Feldman (1997) that is being used to reshape and polarize voters preferences for republicans and democrats. In short, I worry that life might be imitating art rather than journalism reflecting already existing realities. How can we tell which is the cause and which is the effect? I would really appreciate a follow-up that tracked Google’s response to this critique.
45
Doesn't Google put "AD" in blue next to the search result if it is indeed a sponsored result ? I do not click on those, and only go to the results without the "AD" tag.
44
The downside of avoiding the Ads and clicking on 'organic search' results is that the latter are biased to the sponsor's size and longevity, where as Ads level the playing field for new products/providers to get some visibility.
1
How many people pay attention to that little. Lue triangle and the word “ad”? How many kids are taught in school about how to read a webpage or Facebook page or anything on the screen of their phone? This should be a basic part of school curriculum from at least the fifth grade. Critical thinking? Health class? (Is there still such a thing as health class?)
1