The moral bias behind your search results | Andreas Ekström

Translator: Jette Derriche Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

So whenever I visit a school and talk to students,

Når jeg møder elever på forskellige skoler,

I always ask them the same thing:

stiller jeg altid samme spørgsmål:

Why do you Google?

Hvorfor Googler du?

Why is Google the search engine of choice for you?

Hvorfor er Google din foretrukne søgemaskine?

Strangely enough, I always get the same three answers.

Underligt nok, får jeg altid de samme 3 svar.

One, "Because it works,"

1) "Fordi den virker",

which is a great answer; that's why I Google, too.

som er et udemærket svar; og også grunden til jeg Googler.

Two, somebody will say,

2) Nogen siger,

"I really don't know of any alternatives."

"Jeg kender ikke nogen alternativer."

It's not an equally great answer and my reply to that is usually,

Det svar er ikke lige så godt, og min respons er som regel,

"Try to Google the word 'search engine,'

"Prøv at Google ordet 'søgemaskine',

you may find a couple of interesting alternatives."

du finder muligvis et par alternativer."

And last but not least, thirdly,

3) Sidst men ikke mindst,

inevitably, one student will raise her or his hand and say,

vil en elev række fingeren i vejret og sige,

"With Google, I'm certain to always get the best, unbiased search result."

"Med Google er jeg sikker på et fordomsfrit resultat."

Certain to always get the best, unbiased search result.

Sikker på altid at få et fordomsfrit resultat.

Now, as a man of the humanities,

Som et menneske af humaniora,

albeit a digital humanities man,

omend en digital humaniora,

that just makes my skin curl,

får det mine hår til at rejse sig

even if I, too, realize that that trust, that idea of the unbiased search result

selv om jeg er klar over at tilliden, ideen om et objektivt resultat

is a cornerstone in our collective love for and appreciation of Google.

er en hjørnesten i den kollektive påskønnelse af Google.

I will show you why that, philosophically, is almost an impossibility.

Jeg vil vise Jer hvorfor dette, rent filosofisk, er nærmest umuligt.

But let me first elaborate, just a little bit, on a basic principle

Men lad mig først kort gennemgå de basale principper

behind each search query that we sometimes seem to forget.

bag hver søgning, som vi ofte glemmer

So whenever you set out to Google something,

Når du beslutter at Google noget,

start by asking yourself this: "Am I looking for an isolated fact?"

så spørg dig selv: "Er det rene fakta jeg leder efter?"

What is the capital of France?

Hvad er hovedstaden i Frankrig?

What are the building blocks of a water molecule?

Hvad består et vandmolekule af?

Great -- Google away.

Fint -- Google derudaf.

There's not a group of scientists who are this close to proving

Ingen videnskabsfolk er tæt på at bevise

that it's actually London and H30.

at det er London og H30.

You don't see a big conspiracy among those things.

Her findes ingen store sammensværgelser.

We agree, on a global scale,

Hele verden er enige om,

what the answers are to these isolated facts.

hvad svarene på disse spørgsmål er.

But if you complicate your question just a little bit and ask something like,

Men hvis vi komplicerer det en smule og spørger,

"Why is there an Israeli-Palestine conflict?"

"Hvorfor er der en konflikt mellem Israel og Palæstina?"

You're not exactly looking for a singular fact anymore,

Er det ikke længere simpel fakta du leder efter,

you're looking for knowledge,

i stedet søger du viden,

which is something way more complicated and delicate.

som er langt mere kompliceret og følsom.

And to get to knowledge,

Og for at opnå viden,

you have to bring 10 or 20 or 100 facts to the table

skal du have 10, 20 eller 100 fakta

and acknowledge them and say, "Yes, these are all true."

og kunne sige, "Ja, disse er alle sande."

But because of who I am,

Men pga den jeg er,

young or old, black or white, gay or straight,

ung/gammel, hvid/sort, homo- eller heteroseksuel

I will value them differently.

vil jeg vægte dem forskelligt.

And I will say, "Yes, this is true,

og jeg vil sige, "Ja, det er sandt,

but this is more important to me than that."

men dette er vigtigere".

And this is where it becomes interesting,

Og her bliver det interessant

because this is where we become human.

det er her vi bliver menneskelige.

This is when we start to argue, to form society.

Det er her vi begynder at debattere.

And to really get somewhere, we need to filter all our facts here,

Og for at komme fremad, må vi filtrere alle fakta,

through friends and neighbors and parents and children

gennem venner, naboer, forældre og børn

and coworkers and newspapers and magazines,

og kolleger og aviser og dagblade,

to finally be grounded in real knowledge,

for til sidst at ende med reel viden,

which is something that a search engine is a poor help to achieve.

og her en en søgemaskine en dårlig hjælp

So, I promised you an example just to show you why it's so hard

Jeg lovede et eksempel der viser hvorfor det er så svært

to get to the point of true, clean, objective knowledge --

at nå til et punkt af sand og ren objektiv viden --

as food for thought.

som stof til eftertanke.

I will conduct a couple of simple queries, search queries.

Jeg vil udføre et par simple søgninger

We'll start with "Michelle Obama,"

Vi starter med "Michelle Obama,"

the First Lady of the United States.

førstedame i USA.

And we'll click for pictures.

Og vi vælger billeder.

It works really well, as you can see.

Som I kan se fungerer det rigtig godt.

It's a perfect search result, more or less.

Det er et perfekt søgeresultat mere eller mindre.

It's just her in the picture, not even the President.

Det er kun hende på billederne, end ikke præsidenten.

How does this work?

Hvordan fungerer det?

Quite simple.

Meget simpelt.

Google uses a lot of smartness to achieve this, but quite simply,

Google bruger mange smarte tricks, men helt enkelt,

they look at two things more than anything.

kigges der primært på 2 ting.

First, what does it say in the caption under the picture on each website?

1) Billedets titel på hjemmesiden

Does it say "Michelle Obama" under the picture?

Står der "Michelle Obama" under billedet?

Pretty good indication it's actually her on there.

En ret god indikation på at hun rent faktisk er motivet.

Second, Google looks at the picture file,

2) Google kigger på selv billedfilen,

the name of the file as such uploaded to the website.

dvs. navnet på den fil der er lagt op på hjemmesiden.

Again, is it called "MichelleObama.jpeg"?

Igen, hedder det "MichelleObama.jpeg"?

Pretty good indication it's not Clint Eastwood in the picture.

Et ret sikkert bevis på det ikke er Clint Eastwood.

So, you've got those two and you get a search result like this -- almost.

Og sådan får du dette søgeresultat -- næsten.

Now, in 2009, Michelle Obama was the victim of a racist campaign,

I 2009 var Michelle Obama offer for en racistisk kampagne,

where people set out to insult her through her search results.

hvor folk forsøgt at håne hende gennem søgeresultater.

There was a picture distributed widely over the Internet

Et billede blev spredt på Internet

where her face was distorted to look like a monkey.

hvor hendes ansigt var forvrænget så hun lignede en abe.

And that picture was published all over.

Det billede blev offentliggjort overalt.

And people published it very, very purposefully,

Det blev offentliggjort med et meget tydeligt formål,

to get it up there in the search results.

at dukke op i søgeresultater.

They made sure to write "Michelle Obama" in the caption

De skrev "Michelle Obama" i billedets titel

and they made sure to upload the picture as "MichelleObama.jpeg," or the like.

og navngav filen "MichelleObama.jpeg" eller lignende.

You get why -- to manipulate the search result.

Alt sammen for at manipulere med søgeresultater.

And it worked, too.

Og det fungerede.

So when you picture-Googled for "Michelle Obama" in 2009,

Dvs. når man i 2009 Googlede "Michelle Obama",

that distorted monkey picture showed up among the first results.

dukkede dette forvrængede billede op, som et af de første resultater.

Now, the results are self-cleansing,

Resultaterne er selvrensende,

and that's sort of the beauty of it,

og det er det smukke ved det,

because Google measures relevance every hour, every day.

fordi Google måler relevans døgnet rundt hver dag.

However, Google didn't settle for that this time,

Men Google lod sig ikke nøje i dette tilfælde,

they just thought, "That's racist and it's a bad search result

og tænkte, "Dette er racistisk og giver et dårligt resultat

and we're going to go back and clean that up manually.

så vi går ind og rydder op manuelt.

We are going to write some code and fix it,"

Nu skriver vi noget kode der fikser det,"

which they did.

og det gjorde de så.

And I don't think anyone in this room thinks that was a bad idea.

Der er nok ingen her som synes det var en dårlig ide.

Me neither.

Heller ikke jeg.

But then, a couple of years go by,

Men så går der et par år,

and the world's most-Googled Anders,

og verdens mest Googlede Anders

Anders Behring Breivik,

Anders Behring Breivik,

did what he did.

gjorde hvad han gjorde.

This is July 22 in 2011,

Det var 22. juli 2011,

and a terrible day in Norwegian history.

en forfærdelig dag i Norges historie

This man, a terrorist, blew up a couple of government buildings

Denne mand, en terrorist, sprang et par regeringsbygninger i luften

walking distance from where we are right now in Oslo, Norway

i gåafstand fra vores nuværende lokation i Oslo, Norge.

and then he traveled to the island of Utøya

Så rejste han til øen Utøya

and shot and killed a group of kids.

og skød og dræbte en gruppe børn.

Almost 80 people died that day.

Næsten 80 mennesker døde den dag.

And a lot of people would describe this act of terror as two steps,

Mange vil beskrive dette som to terrorhandlinger,

that he did two things: he blew up the buildings and he shot those kids.

at han gjorde 2 forskellige ting: udløste bomber og skød disse børn.

It's not true.

Det er ikke sandt.

It was three steps.

Der var 3 handlinger.

He blew up those buildings, he shot those kids,

Han sprang bygninger i luften, skød børnene,

and he sat down and waited for the world to Google him.

og satte sig derefter ned og afventede at verden Googlede ham.

And he prepared all three steps equally well.

Og han gjorde meget ud af forberedelserne af alle 3.

And if there was somebody who immediately understood this,

En person gennemskuede dette med det samme,

it was a Swedish web developer,

En svensk webudvikler

a search engine optimization expert in Stockholm, named Nikke Lindqvist.

og ekspert i optimering af søgeresultater, Nikke Lindqvist.

He's also a very political guy

Han er også meget politisk

and he was right out there in social media, on his blog and Facebook.

og var hurtigt ude med en reaktion på sin blog og på Facebook.

And he told everybody,

Han fortalte alle,

"If there's something that this guy wants right now,

"Hvis der er noget den fyr ønsker sig lige nu,

it's to control the image of himself.

er det at kontrollere sit image.

Let's see if we can distort that.

Lad os se om vi kan forvrænge det.

Let's see if we, in the civilized world, can protest against what he did

Lad os, som en civiliseret verden, protestere mod hans handlinger

through insulting him in his search results."

med forhånelse af hans søgeresultater."

And how?

Og hvordan?

He told all of his readers the following,

Han bad sine læsere om følgende,

"Go out there on the Internet,

"Gå på Internet,

find pictures of dog poop on sidewalks --

find billeder af hundelort --

find pictures of dog poop on sidewalks --

find billeder af hundelort --

publish them in your feeds, on your websites, on your blogs.

og placer dem i indlæg, på Jeres hjemmesider og blogs.

Make sure to write the terrorist's name in the caption,

Skriv navnet på denne terrorist i billedets titel,

make sure to name the picture file "Breivik.jpeg."

og navngiv filen "Breivik.jpeg."

Let's teach Google that that's the face of the terrorist."

Lad os fortælle Google at dette er terroristens ansigt."

And it worked.

Og det virkede.

Two years after that campaign against Michelle Obama,

To år efter kampagnen mod Michelle Obama,

this manipulation campaign against Anders Behring Breivik worked.

virkede kampagnen mod Anders Behring Breivik fint.

If you picture-Googled for him weeks after the July 22 events from Sweden,

I flere uger efter 22. juli viste billedsøgninger på ham

you'd see that picture of dog poop high up in the search results,

alle disse billeder af hundelort som noget af det første,

as a little protest.

som en lille protest.

Strangely enough, Google didn't intervene this time.

Underligt nok, fandt Google ingen grund til at gribe ind.

They did not step in and manually clean those search results up.

De gik ikke ind og rensede søgeresultatet manuelt.

So the million-dollar question,

Det store spørgsmål er derfor nu,

is there anything different between these two happenings here?

hvad er forskellen på disse to kampagner?

Is there anything different between what happened to Michelle Obama

Er der nogen forskel på hvad der skete for Michelle Obama

and what happened to Anders Behring Breivik?

og hvad der skete for Anders Behring Breivik?

Of course not.

Selvfølgelig ikke.

It's the exact same thing,

Det er nøjagtig det samme,

yet Google intervened in one case and not in the other.

alligevel greb Google kun ind i det ene tilfælde.

Why?

Hvorfor?

Because Michelle Obama is an honorable person, that's why,

Fordi Michelle Obama er en hæderlig person. Derfor.

and Anders Behring Breivik is a despicable person.

Og Anders Behring Breivik er en foragtelig person.

See what happens there?

Kan I se hvad der sker?

An evaluation of a person takes place

Man evaluerer en person

and there's only one power-player in the world

og der er kun een magtfuld spiller i verden

with the authority to say who's who.

med autoritet til at skelne.

"We like you, we dislike you.

"Dig kan vi li', dig hader vi.

We believe in you, we don't believe in you.

Dig har vi tillid til, du er en løgner.

You're right, you're wrong. You're true, you're false.

Du har ret, du tager fejl. Du er sand, du er falsk.

You're Obama, and you're Breivik."

Du er Obama og du er Breivik."

That's power if I ever saw it.

Det er ,om noget, magt.

So I'm asking you to remember that behind every algorithm

I bør huske at bag enhver algoritme

is always a person,

er der altid et menneske,

a person with a set of personal beliefs

et menneske med personlige holdninger

that no code can ever completely eradicate.

som ingen programmering nogensinde kan fjerne.

And my message goes out not only to Google,

Jeg siger dette, ikke kun til Google,

but to all believers in the faith of code around the world.

men til alle i verden der har tillid til kode.

You need to identify your own personal bias.

Du må identificere dine egne fordomme.

You need to understand that you are human

Du må forstå at du er menneskelig

and take responsibility accordingly.

og tage ansvar i overenstemmelse hermed.

And I say this because I believe we've reached a point in time

Jeg siger dette fordi vi er nået til et punkt

when it's absolutely imperative

hvor det er bydende nødvendigt

that we tie those bonds together again, tighter:

at vi knytter disse bånd sammen igen, tættere:

the humanities and the technology.

Humaniora og teknologi.

Tighter than ever.

Tættere end nogensinde.

And, if nothing else, to remind us that that wonderfully seductive idea

Om ikke andet, så for at minde om at den forførende ide

of the unbiased, clean search result

om fordomsfrie og rene søgeresultater

is, and is likely to remain, a myth.

er, og altid vil være, en myte.

Thank you for your time.

Tak fordi I lyttede.

(Applause)

(Bifald)