I am editing a special issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication on The Social, Political, Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Search Engines. I hope to receive submissions from people in a variety of disciplines. Details below the fold.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Special Issue on
THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF SEARCH ENGINES
CALL FOR PAPERS
Guest Editor:
Eszter Hargittai
Northwestern University
IMPORTANT DATES:
Abstracts (optional, but preferred) due: June 1, 2005
Full papers due: Oct 1, 2005
Anticipated publication: Summer or Fall 2006
ISSUE FOCUS
Search engines are some of the most commonly accessed Web sites online. Millions of people turn to search engines daily to find information about news, health concerns, products, government services, their new neighbors, natural disasters and a myriad of other topics. At the same time, recent trends suggest that the search engine market is shrinking, with fewer large players guiding users’ online behavior than ever before. Despite the crucial role that search engines play in how people access information, little attention has been paid to the social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions of large-scale search engines.
This special issue will explore the social implications of large-scale search engines on the Web. It will bring together experts from the fields of communication, sociology, political science, economics, business, law, and computer and information sciences to consider what we know about people’s search engine uses and what recent trends suggest for the types of content that will be most accessible to users in the future.
The following are some questions papers might address: Who uses search engines and for what purposes? What are the effects of search engine use on mass- and interpersonal communication? How do users’ communication practices influence search engine functionality? How skilled are various population groups at the use of search engines? How do search engines shape identity management and representation online? Are all search engines created equal? Is all content created equal in the eyes of search engines? Is there a viable public alternative to the search engine market dominated by private actors? These are just some of the possible questions papers in this special issue may address.
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
Potential authors should submit a preliminary proposal of 500 words by June 1, 2005 to the issue editor Eszter Hargittai
(searchengines06@webuse.org). Those interested in submitting an abstract are encouraged to contact the special issue editor with questions and ideas. The proposal should include the central research question, the theoretical and/or empirical basis for the paper and preliminary findings.
Authors whose proposals are accepted for inclusion will be invited to submit a full paper of roughly 7,000-10,000 words by October 1, 2005. Since JCMC is an interdisciplinary journal, authors should plan for papers that will be accessible to non-specialists, and should make their paper relevant to this audience. Anticipated publication date for the issue is Summer or Fall 2006.
Final submissions should be emailed to the special issue editor, Eszter Hargittai at searchengines06@webuse.org.
http://webuse.org/searchengines06/
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/
A critical socio-economic issue to examine is the impact on free speech of search engine advertising and editorial policies.
The episode discussed in the excerpt below from “Google’s Gag Order” was also covered by The Nation and Slate.
[SNIP]
…Far more important to American society, Google’s pervasiveness has given it a unique and privileged role as the information gatekeeper of the 21st century. “To Google” someone or something has become synonymous with using the Internet to find information, images or news. The New York Times has detailed the emergence of Google as an alternative to the traditional library for research. As individuals, businesses and publishers leverage its search, email and advertising tools to reach readers, sell products and assemble communities, Google is on the verge of becoming the Internet arbiter of the First Amendment.
As I learned this week, however, Google may be playing a darker, more sinister role in American society: corporate censor. On June 15, the Google Adwords team informed me that it had discontinued all advertisements placed by Perrspectives.com due to “unacceptable content” on the site that includes “language that advocates against an individual, group or organization.” As we’ll see below, this may or may not be blatant bias against liberal viewpoints. There can be no doubt, though, that the current Google editorial guidelines, evenly applied, would bar almost any newspaper, magazine, opinion journal, political party, advocacy campaign or even religious organization from advertising on its site. And that puts Google dangerously at odds with core American values of free speech and assembly…
[SNIP]
For the full story and a proposal for reform made to Google, see:
- “Google’s Gag Order: An Internet Giant Threatens Free Speech”
- “Do No Evil: A Google Freedom of Information Act”
Is there a viable public alternative to the search engine market dominated by private actors?
Surely the worry isn’t that users will have to depend on some search engine which has possibly nefarious designs. There’s dozens of search engines out there, most of them about as good as Google nowadays. People don’t use them, but it’s not for lack of alternatives, public or otherwise.
A more concrete worry would be that Google would have some sort of monopoly that would hurt ad buyers. On the other hand, there’s lots of ways to buy ads on the Internet nowadays.
I’m a kneejerk Google user (several times a day — even to check spelling when I’m too lazy to crack open a dictionary). I can’t see the need for a public alternative. Whose public? Even the BBC site which is funded by honest British TV owners uses Google. If I thought that Google UK were reflecting local political bias, I’d use Google.fr or Google.com, just like anyone else. As the internet doesn’t recognise borders, public funding sounds like a scam. The costs of searching are hardly socially exclusive: no search engine has refused a search because I’ve used a public machine (in the local library, say) and if Google or other search engine fails why should it be paid for by the public?
But my original point was — if Google’s near-monopoly is a worry, the problem is its grip on the browser market: my three favourite browsers — Safari, Firefox, and Opera — all have built-in google searches. While that’s the case, I have no need for other search engines.
Firefox does give you a choice of searches - there’s a pull-down next to the Gicon (can I trademark that one?) with Google/Yahoo/Dictionary.com/Creative Commons/Ebay/Amazon and an option to add more.
On-topic, I have some more to say about the question of a public alternative, but I’ll put that on my blog rather than choking up the thread with essays. Crucially, there is a problem of incentives here: search is a free good to the user, so the search engine has to make money through ads. Now, that implies an incentive to do anything to boost ad revenue.
But as the revenue isn’t from searchers - there is only a weak constraint on this. To get caught you’d have to rig the search process so comprehensively that enough users were driven away to render the advertising uneconomic. And that would require fairly serious, obvious fiddling absent a whistleblower. (In fact some users might prefer rigged search if they were after goods/services for sale)
Equally, the fact that search is free to users is deterrent to the idea of a public-sector search engine - why do we need a BBCSearch when Google is free?
And it will be difficult to design an open-source search engine because search isn’t a software-only service - there has to be a fuck-off big server farm somewhere. A peer-to-peer search engine would be the gold standard (but would raise privacy/security issues).
Firefox does give you a choice of searches - there’s a pull-down next to the Gicon (can I trademark that one?) with Google/Yahoo/Dictionary.com/Creative Commons/Ebay/Amazon and an option to add more.
On-topic, I have some more to say about the question of a public alternative, but I’ll put that on my blog rather than choking up the thread with essays. Crucially, there is a problem of incentives here: search is a free good to the user, so the search engine has to make money through ads. Now, that implies an incentive to do anything to boost ad revenue.
But as the revenue isn’t from searchers - there is only a weak constraint on this. To get caught you’d have to rig the search process so comprehensively that enough users were driven away to render the advertising uneconomic. And that would require fairly serious, obvious fiddling absent a whistleblower. (In fact some users might prefer rigged search if they were after goods/services for sale)
Equally, the fact that search is free to users is deterrent to the idea of a public-sector search engine - why do we need a BBCSearch when Google is free?
And it will be difficult to design an open-source search engine because search isn’t a software-only service - there has to be a fuck-off big server farm somewhere. A peer-to-peer search engine would be the gold standard (but would raise privacy/security issues).
Firefox does give you a choice of searches - there’s a pull-down next to the Gicon (can I trademark that one?) with Google/Yahoo/Dictionary.com/Creative Commons/Ebay/Amazon and an option to add more.
On-topic, I have some more to say about the question of a public alternative, but I’ll put that on my blog rather than choking up the thread with essays. Crucially, there is a problem of incentives here: search is a free good to the user, so the search engine has to make money through ads. Now, that implies an incentive to do anything to boost ad revenue.
But as the revenue isn’t from searchers - there is only a weak constraint on this. To get caught you’d have to rig the search process so comprehensively that enough users were driven away to render the advertising uneconomic. And that would require fairly serious, obvious fiddling absent a whistleblower. (In fact some users might prefer rigged search if they were after goods/services for sale)
Equally, the fact that search is free to users is deterrent to the idea of a public-sector search engine - why do we need a BBCSearch when Google is free?
And it will be difficult to design an open-source search engine because search isn’t a software-only service - there has to be a fuck-off big server farm somewhere. A peer-to-peer search engine would be the gold standard (but would raise privacy/security issues).
Alex, yes I know that Firefox offers alternative searches (Opera does too), but Google is the default: open a new tab, hit the tab key and search! I very rarely use the others unless Google disappoints, and I doubt anyone else does either.
Google does offer a rigged search: Froogle.
Right, the monster post is up at the Ranter: http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_yorkshire-ranter_archive.html#110795907561994889
Last year crookedtimber had a post about search engine use, and I suggested that Google had too high a market share. And the commenters were all: “oh, no, only sophisticated people use Google. The great unwashed use whatever search button is in front of them.” Now, it seems, people are worried that Google is too influential because the masses have discovered it.
The masses discovered Google several years ago. And Google has a lower share of the US market than it did a year ago. However, I agree that we’d be better with more competition.
I think the problem is more one that applies across competitors. What is needed is a competitor of a different type, a public-sector comparator if you like. Such an alternative would provide a degree of contestability and literally keep commercial search honest.
There must be some philosophical mileage that can be had from discussing search engines.
As in issue in ‘social epistemology’ or the epistemology of testimony search engines seem like an interesting case. Particularly when aggregating algorithms like that used by Google rely on the ‘opinion’ [in the relatively weak sense of hyperlinking] of many web-sites in the page-ranking process.
“What is needed is a competitor of a different type, a public-sector comparator if you like.”
There is a competitor of a different type - books. And it even comes with a public-sector comparator - libraries.
Google has market share at the moment. If someone comes out with a better search algorithm, the market will shift. It shifted to Google and it can shift away again.
While Google might be the new arbitrator of free speech (a wild exaggeration, imho), its advertising policy is also being subjected to intense judicial scrutiny - see IP attorney
Ron Coleman’s blog on Google’s trademark issues.
So on the one hand, we’re pressuring Google to widen the scope of its advertising content, and on the other, Google is attacked by lawsuits that push it to tighten its control of the content and advertisers.
It’ll be interesting to see how Google reconciles these two pressures.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review