Google Workers Discussed Tweaking Search Function to Counter Travel Ban
Google Workers Discussed Tweaking Search Function to
Counter Travel Ban
Company says none of proposed changes to search results
were ever implemented
The Google campus in Mountain View, Calif., in May 2017.
Months earlier, employees exchanged emails with ideas on how to harness the
company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the Trump
administration’s travel ban.
By John D. McKinnon and Douglas MacMillan Updated Sept.
20, 2018 8:24 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—Days after the Trump administration instituted
a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways
they might be able to tweak the company’s search-related functions to show
users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers
and government agencies, according to internal company emails.
The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,
shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take
steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically
biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.” and
“prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’,
‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”
The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes
about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to
harness the company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the travel
ban. Google said none of the ideas discussed were implemented.
"These emails were just a brainstorm of ideas, none
of which were ever implemented,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement.
“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its
products to promote a particular political ideology—not in the current campaign
season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President
Trump’s executive order on immigration. Our processes and policies would not
have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political
ideologies.”
In one of the emails a worker wrote: “I know this would
require a full on sprint to make happen, but I think this is the sort of super
timely and imperative information that we need as we know that this country and
Google, would not exist without immigration.”
The disclosure is certain to fuel complaints by many
Republicans that Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., stifles conservative
viewpoints online and promotes a liberal worldview. Those longstanding concerns
have received more attention recently from some GOP congressional leaders, as
well as President Trump himself, in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections.
Next week Attorney General Jeff Sessions is scheduled to
meet with some state attorneys general to discuss concerns of anticonservative
bias. Conservatives recently expressed anger after Breitbart News released a
video of a 2016 company meeting in which Google senior managers lamented Mr.
Trump’s election victory. Google said the comments from executives in the video
expressed the personal beliefs of those executives, not the company’s.
Mr. Trump’s original travel ban, implemented to restrict
immigration from countries deemed a security risk, temporarily barred visitors
and immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries, and placed new limits on
the U.S. refugee program. It sparked huge protests and chaos at many U.S.
airports. It was challenged in court and, after several revisions, was upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Google joined nearly 100 technology companies, including
Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc., in filing a joint amicus brief in February 2017
challenging President Trump’s travel ban. “The order inflicts significant harm
on American business, innovation, and growth,” the companies said in the brief.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who immigrated from the
Soviet Union as a child, appeared at a rally protesting the travel ban outside
San Francisco’s airport.
The email conversation on the issue included several
cautionary comments. “This is a highly political issue, so we need to remain
fair and balanced and present facts,” one executive wrote, in response to
proposals to tweak search-related functions.
The Google emails were written on Sunday, Jan. 29, two
days after Mr. Trump signed the first version of his travel order, which
generally restricted immigration to the U.S. from several majority-Muslim
countries.
One of the emails, from an employee of the Search Product
Marketing division, explained that there was a “large brainstorm” going
throughout the company’s marketing division over how to respond.
“Overall idea: Leverage search to highlight important
organizations to donate to, current news, etc. to keep people abreast of how
they can help as well as the resources available for immigrations [sic] or
people traveling,” the email says.
The email included a compilation of specific ideas that
individual company officials had already floated. Some apparently involved
finding ways to “actively counter” Google searches that produced anti-Islamic
and anti-Hispanic search results. Others centered on Highlights, the code name
for an experimental project Google has tested that allows influential people,
like politicians and musicians, to post text updates that appear directly in
search results.
The list of ideas included:
“Actively counter islamophobic, algorithmically biased
results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.”
“Actively counter prejudiced, algorithmically biased
search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”
“Can we launch an ephemeral experience that includes
Highlights, up-to-date info from the US State Dept, DHS, links to donate to ACLU,
etc?” the email added.
Several officials responded favorably to the overall
idea. “We’re absolutely in…Anything you need,” one wrote.
But a public-affairs executive wrote: “Very much in favor
of Google stepping up, but just have a few questions on this,” including “how
partisan we want to be on this.”
“To the extent of my knowledge, we’d be breaching
precedent if we only gave Highlights access to organizations that support a
certain view of the world in a time of political conflict,” the public-affairs
executive said. “Is that accurate? If so, would we be willing to open access to
highlights to [organizations] that…actually support the ban?”
Comments
Post a Comment