Digital Gatekeeping: An Audit of Search Engine Results shows tailoring of queries on the Israel-Palestine Conflict

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04266v2
• Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 14:30:29 GMT
• Title: Digital Gatekeeping: An Audit of Search Engine Results shows tailoring of queries on the Israel-Palestine Conflict
• Authors: Íris Damião, José M. Reis, Paulo Almeida, Nuno Santos, Joana Gonçalves-Sá,
• Abstract summary: We focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict and developed a privacy-protecting tool to audit the behavior of three search engines: DuckDuckGo, Google and Yahoo. Our findings revealed significant customization based on location and browsing preferences, unlike previous studies that found only mild personalization for general topics. queries related to the conflict were more customized than unrelated queries, and the results were not neutral concerning the conflict's portrayal.
• Score: 3.9633322041283665
• License:
• Abstract: Search engines, often viewed as reliable gateways to information, tailor search results using customization algorithms based on user preferences, location, and more. While this can be useful for routine queries, it raises concerns when the topics are sensitive or contentious, possibly limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints and increasing polarization. To examine the extent of this tailoring, we focused on the Israel-Palestine conflict and developed a privacy-protecting tool to audit the behavior of three search engines: DuckDuckGo, Google and Yahoo. Our study focused on two main questions: (1) How do search results for the same query about the conflict vary among different users? and (2) Are these results influenced by the user's location and browsing history? Our findings revealed significant customization based on location and browsing preferences, unlike previous studies that found only mild personalization for general topics. Moreover, queries related to the conflict were more customized than unrelated queries, and the results were not neutral concerning the conflict's portrayal.

Related papers

• Search engines in polarized media environment: Auditing political information curation on Google and Bing prior to 2024 US elections [0.0]
  We audit the two largest Western search engines, Google and Bing, prior to the 2024 US presidential elections. Our findings indicate that both search engines tend to prioritize left-leaning media sources, with the exact scope of search results' ideological slant varying between Democrat- and Republican-focused queries. We also observe limited effects of location- and time-based factors on organic search results, whereas results for additional interface elements were more volatile over time and specific US states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T18:18:03Z)
• Investigating Bias in Political Search Query Suggestions by Relative Comparison with LLMs [1.5356574175312299]
  bias in search query suggestions can lead to exposure to biased search results and can impact opinion formation. We use a multi-step approach to identify and quantify bias in English search query suggestions. We apply our approach to the U.S. political news domain and compare bias in Google and Bing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:40:38Z)
• Exploring Query Understanding for Amazon Product Search [62.53282527112405]
  We study how query understanding-based ranking features influence the ranking process. We propose a query understanding-based multi-task learning framework for ranking. We present our studies and investigations using the real-world system on Amazon Search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T03:33:11Z)
• Measuring Strategization in Recommendation: Users Adapt Their Behavior to Shape Future Content [66.71102704873185]
  We test for user strategization by conducting a lab experiment and survey. We find strong evidence of strategization across outcome metrics, including participants' dwell time and use of "likes" Our findings suggest that platforms cannot ignore the effect of their algorithms on user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T07:36:08Z)
• What Evidence Do Language Models Find Convincing? [94.90663008214918]
  We build a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts. We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T02:15:34Z)
• Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effects [0.0]
  We investigate whether different levels of bias metrics and search results presentation can affect the stance diversity consumption and search behavior of opinionated users. Our results show that exposing participants to (counter-attitudinally) biased search results increases their consumption of attitude-opposing content. We also found that bias was associated with a trend toward overall fewer interactions within the search page.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T10:28:25Z)
• User Attitudes to Content Moderation in Web Search [49.1574468325115]
  We examine the levels of support for different moderation practices applied to potentially misleading and/or potentially offensive content in web search. We find that the most supported practice is informing users about potentially misleading or offensive content, and the least supported one is the complete removal of search results. More conservative users and users with lower levels of trust in web search results are more likely to be against content moderation in web search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T10:57:15Z)
• Exposing Query Identification for Search Transparency [69.06545074617685]
  We explore the feasibility of approximate exposing query identification (EQI) as a retrieval task by reversing the role of queries and documents in two classes of search systems. We derive an evaluation metric to measure the quality of a ranking of exposing queries, as well as conducting an empirical analysis focusing on various practical aspects of approximate EQI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-14T20:19:27Z)
• 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)
• Search Engine Similarity Analysis: A Combined Content and Rankings Approach [6.69087470775851]
  We present an analysis of the affinity of the two major search engines, Google and Bing, along with DuckDuckGo. We developed a new similarity metric that leverages both the content and the ranking of search responses. We found that Google stands apart, but Bing and DuckDuckGo are largely indistinguishable from each other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-01T23:57:24Z)

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.