Google CEO Sundar Pichai Lies And Claims Employees Cant Manipulate
Algorithms and Arent Biased
Alex Wong/ Getty
5:33
After Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked Google CEO Sundar Pichai about
reports of Google’s bias against conservatives during Pichai’s hearing
in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, Pichai denied any
bias, dodged questions, and claimed human employees were unable to
manipulate algorithms.
“Google has revolutionized the world, though not entirely in the way I
expected. Americans deserve the facts objectively reported,” declared
Rep. Smith. “The muting of conservative voices by platforms has
intensified, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump. More than
90 percent of all Internet searches take place on Google or its
subsidiary YouTube, and they are curating what we see.”
“Google has long faced criticism for manipulating search results to
censor conservatives. Conservative individuals and organizations have
had their pro-Trump content tagged as ‘hate speech,’ or had their
content reduced in search results. An enforcement of immigration laws
has been tagged as hate speech as well. Such actions pose a grave threat
to our democratic forum of government,” he continued. “PJ Media found
that 96 percent of search results for Trump were from liberal media
outlets. In fact, not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first
page of search results. This doesn’t happen by accident, but is baked
into the algorithms. Those who write the algorithms get the results they
must want, and apparently, management allows it. Dr. Robert
Epstein, a Harvard-trained psycologist authored a study recently that
showed Google’s bias likely swung 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 election. Google could well elect the next president with
dire implications for our democracy. This should be a real concern to
all but the most politically partisan. Those at the top set the tone. It
will require a Herculean effort by the Chief Executive and senior
management to change the political bias now programmed into the
company’s culture.”
Smith then asked, “In your opening statement you mentioned your
desire to provide information that was without political bias. Clearly
that’s not working. So, what are you going to do to improve that
situation?”
“Some of the studies you mention, we have investigated those… We found
issues with the methodology and the sample sizes and so on, but let me
step back and say providing users high quality and trusted information is
sacrosanct to us,” replied Pichai. “It’s what our principles are, under
business interests, our natural long-term incentives are aligned with
that. We want to serve users everywhere and we need to earn their trust in
doing so.”
The two then continued to have a back and forth conversation about
Google’s bias, which resulted in Pichai dodging most of the questions and
denying human employees can manipulate algorithms.
Pichai said, “It is not possible for an individual employee or
groups of employees to manipulate our search results. We have a robust
framework, including many steps in the process.” Smith disagreed, saying:
“I disagree, I think humans can manipulate the process. It is a human
process at its base.”
SMITH: “So what actions are you going to take to try to counter the
political bias and some of those examples I just gave? I mean, they’re
irrefutable, so it occurs, you have to take some responsibility for that
bias. What do you intend to do about it?”
PICHAI: “Congressman, with respect, Dr. Epstein’s study, we have
investigated. We don’t agree with the methodology… When we look at it we
evaluate our search results. Today we use a very robust methodology and
we have been doing this for twenty years. Making sure the results are
accurate is something we need to do and we work hard to do that.”
SMITH: “What does methodology have to do with the fact that 96 percent
of the references to Trump are from liberal media?”
PICHAI: “There are always studies that can show one set of data and
arrive with conclusions, but we have looked at results on our top news
category, we find that we have a wide variety of sources, including
sources from the left and sources from the right, and we are committed
to make sure there’s diverse perspectives.”
SMITH: “By the way, the study I referred to was done by a
self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and said he
regretted to find what he found but he felt it was irrefutable and no
one has been able to disprove him… Clearly there may be a difference of
opinion as to the degree or amount of political bias. Would you allow an
independent entity to study your search results for political bias?”
PICHAI: “Congressman, if I may make two points. One is, today there have
been independent third-party studies looking at Search results…”
SMITH: “But you chose those third parties. I’m talking about someone
truly independent.”
PICHAI: “We didn’t choose those third parties. They completed those
studies. Second is, we are transparent as to how we evaluate Search. We
publish our[…] guidelines. We publish it externally… We are trying hard
to understand what users want, and this is something important for us to
get right.”
SMITH: “To my knowledge, you’ve never sanctioned any employee for
manipulating search results whatsoever. Is that the case?”
PICHAI: “It is not possible for an individual employee or groups of
employees to manipulate our search results. We have a robust framework,
including many steps in the process.”
SMITH: “I disagree, I think humans can manipulate the process. It is a
human process at its base.”