By John Hirschauer
Wednesday, July 03, 2019
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas operates on the ethical
periphery, and to some degree, it has to. In its efforts to infiltrate and
expose the world of clandestine bias buried in left-wing institutions, it has
played with proverbial fire, emerging both burned (most notably by trying and
failing to sell a Washington Post reporter on a fabricated
sexual-assault allegation) and as kindling in the immolation of institutions
begging to be burned. It’s a polarizing organization, in that way, and its
videos and leaks ought to be evaluated on their own merits.
Project Veritas recently released
clips of a conversation it recorded between a Veritas operative and
Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai. The content of their
conversation, combined with internal memos released and explicated by an
anonymous internal whistleblower, were meant to demonstrate a pervasive and
insidious left-wing bias at Google. How insidious that bias is remains an open
question, but if O’Keefe’s footage and documents are to be believed, there are
certainly people at the company promoting intersectional and other critical
theories designed to influence algorithms and search outcomes.
Take, for instance, the so-called “Machine Learning
Fairness” algorithms used by Google, designed to avoid producing results that
are, as an internal memo describes, facilitated by the “unjust or prejudicial
treatment of people that is related to sensitive characteristics, such as race,
income, sexual orientation or gender through algorithmic systems or
algorithmically aided decision-making.” Google calls this phenomenon
“algorithmic unfairness,” which sounds benign enough; later in the document,
however, Google expounds upon precisely what this means in practice.
When a search result “is factually accurate” — or, in
other words, when the company’s search algorithm delivers an accurate and
precise representation of the world as it is — Google insists that this
can “still be algorithmic unfairness.”
The memo lays out an example of this phenomenon: “Imagine
that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men. Even if it were a
factually accurate representation of the world, it would still be algorithmic
unfairness.”
If this memo is genuine — and it certainly comports with
the spirit of Google’s publicly available summary of its Machine Learning
Fairness philosophy — then the company is indeed more interested in proactively
shaping reality than faithfully reflecting it. This wishful reconstruction of
reality is the charge of activists, writers, and the creative class, not the
world’s largest search engine and information company. A search engine that
dabbles in sanitizing basic realities that are inherently political — in a way
distinct from filtering out violent or pornographic material — is abdicating
something essential about what a search engine is for. If it isn’t
charged with faithfully reflecting reality as it is, a search engine becomes
little more than a canvas for the biases of its programmers.
And if the attitudes of some Google executives are
representative of those biases, that canvas might well be imbued with political
assumptions.
The clips of Project Veritas’s surveilled conversation
with Google executive Jen Gennai are presented in a vacuum, and, for her part,
Gennai insists her remarks were “taken out of context.” That’s possible. But
her remarks do, to some extent, stand on their own as indicators of her
political views and the effect that those views have on her approach to
fostering “Responsible Innovation.”
Discussing what “fairness” means to her, Gennai insists
that her “definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically
marginalized communities; and that’s who I care about. Communities who are in
power and have traditionally been in power are not who I’m solving fairness
for.” This comports quite well with what appear to be the philosophical bases
of the “Machine Learning Fairness” algorithm. If these documents and
conversations are to be believed, Google is intentional in its desire to avoid
further perpetuating the influence of those “communities” that “have
traditionally been in power.”
It would seem rather important, then, to be in the good
graces of Jen Gennai as she chooses what communities to “[solve] fairness for.”
Later in the conversation, Gennai expressed the pressure
Google feels to “fill the gap of what should be done” if “the White House and
Congress won’t play a role in making things more fair.” The context of these
remarks is not provided, and it’s easy to read too much into what she’s saying
here.
That said, to whatever extent it is the rightful
prerogative of “the White House and Congress” to make “things more fair” — a
more loaded phrase, I cannot conceive — Google assumes the awesome
responsibility of presuming it can act as an extra-governmental facilitator of
“fairness.”
Whatever the flaws of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas —
and there are many — most of the statements Gennai makes in that video are
revealing in themselves. If Google thinks itself in the business of discarding
“factually accurate representations” of reality in its search results and
insisting, to quote an internal document, upon contemplating “how we might help
society reach a more fair and equitable state,” it has become something other
than a dispassionate search engine.
But maybe that’s the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment