What is Google's "Humility Algorithm™"?

[Grant Crowell's Interview with Michael Roberts - October 30, 2010.]

GRANT: What is the "Google Humility Algorithm?"

MICHAEL: Please understand that I am answering these questions with the presupposition that it does in fact exist because my assertion is based on my empirical observations... I believe it really is out there!

Originally I called it “Google's Humiliation Algorithm”; however, I realized that I might have been jumping to conclusions because in context “humiliation” could imply that Google is deliberately humiliating the subjects being Googled. I opted instead for “Google's Humility Algorithm” to give Google the benefit of the doubt with respect to intent; humility is considered by right minded people to be a noble state of being although I would argue that it should be voluntary. I believe the humility algorithm is a provision within the Google search formula giving what would otherwise be unmerited high search rankings for a small number of web pages containing derogatory or demeaning words in close association with proper nouns such as personal and business names.

GRANT: How does it occur?

MICHAEL: I don't know; I would expect that Google guards its algorithms like KFC guards its secret recipe. Notwithstanding, although I cannot see the wind, I see its effects. Based on my observations and the tests our team have run, if I were to hazard a guess I would say there is a list of “humility words; nouns and adjectives that bring the hypothetical algorithm to life. These words include ponzi, scammer, abuser, whore, tax cheat, playboy, felon, conviction, indictment, bankrupt, molester, fraud, cheater, pyramid scheme, etc -- I'm sure you get the idea. There are also some web sites apparently designated as humility domains by default and they include the likes of ripoffreport.com, complaintsboard.com and, interestingly, blogspot.com.

GRANT: What is the reason for it occurring?

MICHAEL: I sincerely hope that Google's intentions were pure and that they were simply trying to ensure that the search results were diverse and balanced; lest genuinely bad individuals and organizations use expensive SEO techniques to bury legitimate dissent, competition and whistle blowing.

GRANT: What effect does it have on Google's search results (and search relevancy)?

MICHAEL: The humility algorithm seems to have special reservations for positions 3 and/or 4 on page one of Google search results. My close observations suggest that these high-ranking results have almost without exception, some type of a humility keyword in close proximity to the search subject's name. This year's "Caffeine" release of Google search has shifted the weight somewhat with humility search results being more random between #1 through #4 on page one and now it seems that #1 on page two has been reserved for humility results, but not always.

GRANT: What examples can you provide as evidence (can cite both existing and past)?

MICHAEL: I cannot really go into too much detail here because much of our work is based on real-life cases for clients. In some instances we have individuals literally on the verge of suicide because of the problems this was causing; unfortunately the child of one of our clients succumbed to the pressure several months ago. That being said, now that your readers have been told what patterns to look for, it won't take long to verify my assertions. And I would invite any brainiacs out there who have a better head for maths than I, to do some serious testing. I would appreciate being privy to the results.

GRANT: If you are correct, what do you think this is this accidental or intentional on Google's part?

MICHAEL: I believe the algorithm is very deliberate; but it is the intent that I am more interested in. In other words "humility vis-à-vis humiliation", or "don't be evil vis-à-vis evil is relative".

GRANT: If intentional, what would you argue is Google's motive or motives?

MICHAEL: If it is a humiliation algorithm [i.e. evil], then it could be argued that Google could benefit when users decide to click on a Google AdWords link to a humiliation victim's competitor once the user has read the negative results for the business he or she found in organic Google search results.

GRANT: What are the problems this creates?

MICHAEL: That is a whole 'nuther conversation which stretches from mild emotional annoyance for some individuals right through to suicide and breakdowns. I have personally witnessed these two extremes and everything between in the last three years. For businesses, the same emotional toll for the individuals involved through to insolvency; once again I have seen it all. I would even go so far as to say that the Wild-Wild-Web combined with the US Congress' existing subsidy for Internet libel, through Section 230C of the Communications Decency Act, is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. A competitive market driven economy can no longer function on a level playing field in these conditions; in many vertical markets the only businesses that can win are those willing to stoop to either “doing evil” by smearing their opposition with "googledoo", or looking the other way when it is within their power to act. I am referring here to the many thousands of tear soaked letters sent to Google et al, begging for the removal of egregious allegations from search engine results. These are usually met with canned template responses encouraging the victim to simply create more online content with positive spin to dilute the negative postings.

I find such narcissistic corporate cultures to the reprehensible on at least two levels.

(1) The very law that gives ISPs the immunity to turn a blind eye to such requests is in fact titled “Good Samaritan” protection, clearly implying that it was Congress' intent that the recipients of such letters would do the right thing.
(2) Such letters encouraging the creation of more online content serves the purpose of creating more advertising platforms for AdWord campaigns; victims effectively become slaves at worst or indentured servants at best to Google by creating more of what it devours and profits from, information.

GRANT: In your opinion, would this put Google in a position of increased liability? Or are they fully protected by the CDA?

MICHAEL: This would be a good opportunity to make it very clear that I am not an attorney, although I consult for many of them in these matters. As such, I would rather defer to the wisdom of suitably qualified, but more importantly qualified professionals to express such opinions.

GRANT: What do you think needs to be changed and why?

MICHAEL: I would start with the human heart and the nastiness epidemic, but that comes only from a miracle of God. Otherwise, if I could wave a magic wand I would like to see some common sense amendments made to the communications decency act which still gives generous immunity for Internet service providers but conditional upon reasonable attempts to comply with the intent of the “Good Samaritan” clause which is found specifically in TITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER II, Part I, § 230(C).

GRANT: What questions do you think Google needs to answer for in light of this evidence?

MICHAEL: My questions would be simple:
(1) “Does the humility algorithm exist, and why?”

(2) Do your family members receive the same cookie-cutter responses when they ask you for junk results to be removed from your search index?

original article found here

OUR THANK YOUS TO THE SUPPORTER WHO SENT THIS TO EOPC!

Bill Targets Cyber-Impersonation

by Alejandro Martínez-Cabrera

Two months ago, a San Jose Mercury News reporter received a profanity-laced e-mail critical of one of her stories. More than a year before, a similar e-mail was sent to a long mailing list of hundreds of Silicon Valley industry, labor, political and community leaders.

The sender of the e-mails appeared to be Carl Guardino, the chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents the high-tech industry. The problem: He didn't actually send it.

"This absolutely misrepresented me in a very harmful way," he said. "It was completely out of character and it depicted me in a very bad light."

Guardino was the victim of online impersonation, and he soon found out he wasn't alone - friends, colleagues and relatives had stories of usurped identities and tarnished reputations. Unfortunately for them, the state law on impersonation was written in 1872 and is not equipped to deal with the digital age.

But a bill making its way through the Legislature is looking to change that. Inspired by Guardino's story, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, introduced a bill in June that would make it a misdemeanor to maliciously impersonate someone.

If Simitian's bill passes, online impersonations with the purpose "of harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding" would be punishable with a maximum fine of $1,000 and one year in jail.

But while supporters believe the law urgently needs to be updated to punish and deter malicious impersonators, privacy advocates worry that such legislation might easily cross the line and threaten people's First Amendment rights.
Political commentary

Simitian said his bill is not going after those who create fake Barack Obama Facebook profiles for political commentary, or the likes of Fake Steve Jobs, Newsweek writer Daniel Lyons who poses as Apple's chief executive in his satirical blog.

Instead, the bill is meant to deal with miscreants whose impersonations range from the naughty to the outright sinister.

In recent years, impersonators have tweeted under the names of Maya Angelou, Kanye West and St. Louis Cardinals' manager Tony La Russa, to name a few. Revenge-seekers and pranksters have embarrassed their victims in front of potential employers and created smears that are difficult to remove from the Web. Students have posed as teachers to harass other kids.

In one case in December, a Wyoming woman was raped in her home by a man responding to a Craigslist ad looking for "a real aggressive man with no concern for women" to fulfill a rape fantasy. However, she didn't post the ad - it had been her disgruntled ex-boyfriend, a Marine stationed in California who was posing as her. Similar stories abound, online abuse experts said.

'No recourse'
The Internet "makes it so easy for stalkers and harassers to ruin somebody's life with a few keystrokes, and there's little to no recourse for victims to try and undo the damage," said Jayne Hitchcock, president of the volunteer organization Work to Halt Online Abuse, who was a victim of cyberstalking.

No one seems to know how widespread the problem is, but Hitchcock said she has noted more complaints about MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and e-mail impersonations.

"I probably see it more often than I'd like to through our organization," she said.

But when it comes to addressing the problem, not everybody is convinced Simitian's approach is the best. Corynne McSherry, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the scope of Simitian's bill was defined too loosely and could have a negative effect on freedom of speech. For one, she said, the definition of harm needs to be narrowed.

"Harm is a pretty broad term. That could just mean that you undermined a politician's reputation. I'm concerned that the nature of 'harm' is too vaguely defined," she said.

McSherry also expressed concern that the bill would not protect some forms of parody and satire on the Internet that involve impersonation.

For instance, she pointed to the Yes Men, activists that the foundation is representing in a lawsuit filed against them by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In October, the group held a fake news conference posing as chamber representatives who promised the organization would no longer lobby against climate-change legislation.

"It was a very effective form of satire that was really useful in provoking some form of debate," McSherry said. "I don't think it's Sen. Simitian's intent to shut down this form of freedom of speech but I believe it's what this bill can do."

Simitian's bill names "credible" impersonators that act without consent, but, McSherry said, "Just requiring that an impersonation is credible is not going far enough to protect the type of political speech I'm talking about."

And even though she supports the spirit of Simitian's bill, Hitchcock questions whether it's enforceable, considering the need to educate law enforcers on online abuse issues and the jurisdictional problems relating to cybercrimes.

"Unless the victim and the harasser are both in California, it's going to need a lot of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the states. And if (the impersonator) is in another country, good luck. But it's a start," she said.

Hard to enforce
Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland who has written extensively about the role of the law and online abuse, believes the proposed law will have challenges based on the enforcement difficulties and the broadness of its interpretation.

But even if the bill in its current form becomes law, Citron said, the statute might have an overall positive effect. At its most basic level, the measure might help change attitudes about what's permissible, she said.

"The legislation is trying to take the lead on this emerging technology that people are abusing, and teaching them how to treat each other," she said. "It's an important point we shouldn't forget."

She added: "But we also have to get the law right."

original article here

Managing Your Online Reputation

Doug Beckstead and Jeff Dunetz are trying this to combat their exposures. - EOPC

by Antony Mayfield

The measure of your reputation is what you do plus what others say about you. That was one of the first things I learned in PR. A reputation can be managed, and can be influenced by the things we do, but it can never be designed or decided upon by its holder. Reputation is earned.

As the social web has distributed the power and influence formerly held by the mainstream media, it has created the need for personal reputation awareness. And despite being a long-time user of social media, I found I learned some new things as I navigated these waters for myself. Below are three tips that I found useful.

1. You Are Your Network
I had a call from a BBC researcher asking for background on social networks. The breaking story that day was that personal details and embarrassing photos of the newly appointed head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service, MI6, were splashed all over one newspaper. The source? His family’s Facebook profiles.

It made me think about my own family’s personal details and images. What if I became a story? What would a journalist find? My profile’s privacy settings were locked down, but sure enough, a few clicks showed that my wife’s was wide open.

It was a clear lesson: If you want to manage privacy, reputation, and your security to any extent, you have to think about those around you — especially those who are not as tech-savvy.

2. If You Can’t Delete, Compete
Although it’s a good idea to ask people to remove embarrassing content about you, in the majority of cases the best course is to make sure that you are the first and best source of information about yourself appearing on Google (Google) and other major search engines. “Crowding out,” or pushing that embarrassing party photo down in the search rank can be achieved over time. This approach is best combined with an ethos of developing a thicker skin.

The time may soon come when so much content about our lives is online that we get suspicious if we find no unpolished or slightly embarrassing bits about someone when we look. Why are they so perfect? What are they hiding?

Reputation is a messy and uneven business. Playing the content game is often preferable to an all out war — a battle you will most likely lose.

3. There’s a Cottage Industry Around “Reputation Protection”
In discussing online reputation with friends and colleagues, they predicted that there would be services that offer “the digital equivalent of tattoo removal.” While I didn’t doubt that there would be demand for this kind of thing, I wondered about how it would be realistically implemented.

There is, in fact, a small industry growing up to help people manage how their privacy is affected by the web. At the high end, rich and powerful celebrities now hire digital security specialists to help them lock down everything from their voicemail inbox, to their e-mail and Facebook accounts, and to look for the weak points where stalkers or prying journalists might try to get some juicy information.

For the rest of us, a host of services promise to safeguard your identity and reputation online — I even get one service free with my credit card. It tells me less than my Google Alerts, though, so I’m broadly skeptical about the effectiveness of services like this. At best, they should be combined with an effort to develop personal web literacy and an understanding of how to manage online reputation responsibly.

Conclusion
It is incredibly important that we help our friends, colleagues and families understand the social web. They make up our most valuable social networks. And when you understand networks, you understand that their success and well-being is intrinsically linked to your own.

As Howard Rheingold says, “What you know or don’t know about networks can influence how much freedom, wealth and participation you and your children will have in the rest of this century.”

It should be the goal of every web-savvy professional to have their online reputation precede them.

SOURCE