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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04684v2
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:46:46 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic Misjudgement in Google Search Results: Evidence from Auditing the US Online Electoral Information Environment
• Authors: Brooke Perreault, Johanna Lee, Ropafadzo Shava, Eni Mustafaraj,
• Abstract summary: We study the extent to which government-maintained web domains are represented in the online electoral information environment. We find that 71% of all occurrences of state, county, and local government sources were mistargeted. We 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Auditing Google's Search Algorithm: Measuring News Diversity Across Brazil, the UK, and the US [0.0]
  This study examines the influence of Google's search algorithm on news diversity by analyzing search results in Brazil, the UK, and the US. It explores how Google's system preferentially favors a limited number of news outlets. Findings indicate a slight leftward bias in search outcomes and a preference for popular, often national outlets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T11:49:16Z)
• On the Use of Proxies in Political Ad Targeting [49.61009579554272]
  We show that major political advertisers circumvented mitigations by targeting proxy attributes. Our findings have crucial implications for the ongoing discussion on the regulation of political advertising.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:15:13Z)
• Differentially Private Data Release on Graphs: Inefficiencies and Unfairness [48.96399034594329]
  This paper characterizes the impact of Differential Privacy on bias and unfairness in the context of releasing information about networks. We consider a network release problem where the network structure is known to all, but the weights on edges must be released privately. Our work provides theoretical foundations and empirical evidence into the bias and unfairness arising due to privacy in these networked decision problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T08:37:37Z)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• Novelty in news search: a longitudinal study of the 2020 US elections [62.997667081978825]
  We analyze novelty, a measurement of new items that emerge in the top news search results. We find more new items emerging for election related queries compared to topical or stable queries. We argue that such imbalances affect the visibility of political candidates in news searches during electoral periods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-09T08:42:37Z)
• Personalization of Web Search During the 2020 US Elections [0.0]
  We study the effect of user characteristics and behavior on search results in a politically relevant context. We set up a population of 150 synthetic internet users who are randomly located across 25 US cities. These users differ in their browsing preferences and political ideology, and they build up realistic browsing and search histories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-28T11:18:56Z)
• Measuring and mitigating voting access disparities: a study of race and polling locations in Florida and North Carolina [6.236769041115903]
  Voter suppression and associated racial disparities in access to voting are long-standing civil rights concerns in the U.S. We quantify access to polling locations, developing a methodology for the calibrated measurement of racial disparities in polling location "load" and distance to polling locations. Applying these algorithms on the 2020 election location data helps to expose and explore tradeoffs between the cost of allocating more polling locations and the potential impact on access disparities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T06:13:19Z)
• Searching for Representation: A sociotechnical audit of googling for members of U.S. Congress [2.4366811507669124]
  10% of the top Google search results are likely to mislead California information seekers who use search to identify their congressional representatives. 70% of the misleading results appear in featured snippets above the organic search results. factors identified include Google's heavy reliance on Wikipedia, the lack of authoritative, machine parsable, high accuracy data about the identity of elected officials based on geographic location, and the search engine's treatment of under-specified queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-14T23:13:02Z)
• The Matter of Chance: Auditing Web Search Results Related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections Across Six Search Engines [68.8204255655161]
  We look at the text search results for "us elections", "donald trump", "joe biden" and "bernie sanders" queries on Google, Baidu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, and Yandex. Our findings indicate substantial differences in the search results between search engines and multiple discrepancies within the results generated for different agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T11:18:19Z)
• Political audience diversity and news reliability in algorithmic ranking [54.23273310155137]
  We propose using the political diversity of a website's audience as a quality signal. Using news source reliability ratings from domain experts and web browsing data from a diverse sample of 6,890 U.S. citizens, we first show that websites with more extreme and less politically diverse audiences have lower journalistic standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-16T02:13:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.