The Power We Provide
In Andreas' Ekstrom's tedtalk, he manages to catch mine, and probably many other listener's, attention with the question he asks; "Why do you Google?". The responses he got from students he had asked in the past were very similar to reasons I Google, along with the fact that Google seems to always provide the exact answer for my homework that I happen to be looking for! Plus, Google is fast, quick, and as simple as search engines seem to get. Other search engine, like Bing, Yahoo, and even Ask, never fail to become confusing. They usually do not provide me with the best results at first, plus, having ads all over the web page is not my favorite thing to see. One big answer that Ekstrom said he always gets goes along the lines of, "With Google, I'm certain to always get the best, unbiased search result".
Around 1:58 in his tedtalk, Ekstrom brings up the point that controversial questions bring up web pages and articles that are not biased, but we, the ones googling whatever it is we are trying to know and learn about, view it that way. Why? I simply agree with Ekstrom; it comes from our morals. Our beliefs will point us to an article that we find more interesting because it will be sided with how we feel on the topic.
In the Michelle Obama example Ekstrom used, where she was aimed at in a racist campaign years ago, it really helps to point out just how biased searches can be; and without the researcher being so specific. If you Google Donald Trump, for keeping on the lines of presidency, not only do photos of him come up, but so do photos making fun of him:
These are biased photos. Some are regular photos of Donald Trump, which may be professional photos, and others, like the top two photos, probably come from people who dislike Trump and would rather make mockery of his photos.
Around 1:58 in his tedtalk, Ekstrom brings up the point that controversial questions bring up web pages and articles that are not biased, but we, the ones googling whatever it is we are trying to know and learn about, view it that way. Why? I simply agree with Ekstrom; it comes from our morals. Our beliefs will point us to an article that we find more interesting because it will be sided with how we feel on the topic.
In the Michelle Obama example Ekstrom used, where she was aimed at in a racist campaign years ago, it really helps to point out just how biased searches can be; and without the researcher being so specific. If you Google Donald Trump, for keeping on the lines of presidency, not only do photos of him come up, but so do photos making fun of him:
 |
Towards the end of his tedtalk, Ekstrom brings up an incredibly good point. He claims, "there's only one power-player in the world with the authority to say who's who". And that authority is not only Google, but the people who upload the photos and choose what does and does not offend them. I believe Ekstrom is completely right. He also says we choose if, "We like you, we dislike you. We believe in you, we don't believe in you. You're right, you're wrong. You're true, you're false. You're Obama, and you're Breivik". I think that's exactly what the internet-- not just Google-- does. We, the users of it, decide what we read and how it is written. We aren't going to read something against our beliefs, and if we do, we probably won't agree with, or like, the things it says. The internet and it's "biased" sources are extremely powerful, but after listening to Ekstrom's tedtalk, it made me realize one major thing; we are the ones who give it its power.
I like that you brought up the point that the ultimate filter is US, that we need to examine sources critically; frankly, I would argue that google has a social responsibility to BE biased. For example, should we be unbiased when it comes to NeoNazis or racists or terrorists? What gets me about Ekstrøm's argument is he seems to imply that bias is always bad and that Google has an obligation to remain unbiased.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that by NOT giving as much credibility to awful people they are being good corporate citizens. I don't really WANT Nazis to get "fair, unbiased treatment". Their very ideology is against certain people's EXISTENCE. Anyone who wants to exterminate another group of people or condone slavery, murder or rape does not deserve unbiased treatment.
However, one thing is clear, as you point out; it's important that we check multiple sources, to not just trust in the credibility of one place before we form an opinion on something. That's some that Ekstrøm points out and your support of that is very accurate.