WSJ Investigation Exposes Google’s For-Profit Search Manipulations

Google has made a concerted effort to make everyone believe search engine manipulation is just another conspiracy theory. It was CEO Sundar Pichai who swore under oath to Congress that “we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result” in any regard, declaring his site operates above board without “some little man sitting behind the curtain”. A new investigation published by The Wall Street Journal shows there is behind the scenes manipulation after all.

After testing Google’s algorithm and conducting over 100 interviews, the WSJ team found evidence that Google has intervened in its own search engine results to demote spam sites, maintain blacklists and favor the search rankings of both their fellow big tech colleagues and major advertisers such as Amazon, Facebook, and eBay, all the while claiming there’s neutrality in their practices. While these findings may add fuel to fire of conservatives crying censorship against Google and its video site YouTube — both of which currently facing a 50-state anti-trust investigation — the concern should be focused on the actual deceptive gatekeeping rather than the potential establishment bias.

“Google’s algorithms are subject to regular tinkering from executives and engineers who are trying to deliver relevant search results, while also pleasing a wide variety of powerful interests and driving its parent company’s more than $30 billion in annual profit,” the report found. “Google has increasingly re-engineered and interfered with search results to a far greater degree than the company and its executives have acknowledged. Those actions often come in response to pressure from businesses, outside interest groups and governments around the world. They have increased sharply since the 2016 election and the rise of online misinformation.”

The findings are broken down into six key areas of interest:

  1. Google made algorithmic changes to search results to favor big businesses over smaller ones, the biggest example being eBay, contrary to public positions which claim their relationship does not affect the results, according to sources familiar with the companies’ dealings.

Google soon provided a statement claiming there’s simply nothing to see.

“We have been very public and transparent around the topics covered in this article, such as our Search rater guidelines, our policies for special features in Search like Autocomplete and valid legal removals, our work to combat misinformation through Project Owl and the fact that the changes we make to Search are aimed at benefiting users, not commercial relationships,” the company states. “This article contains a number of old, incomplete anecdotes, many of which not only predated our current processes and policies but also give a very inaccurate impression of how we approach building and improving Search. We take a responsible and principled approach to making changes, including a rigorous evaluation process before launching any change — something we started implementing more than a decade ago.”

This, however, is a misrepresentation of the findings. The report specifically states that “Google made more than 3,200 changes to its algorithms in 2018, up from more than 2,400 in 2017 and from about 500 in 2010”, giving readers both a decade’s worth of context while also focusing on their modern practices. The methodology was also released to the public, relying purely on current methods to assess the current state of Google’s algorithms. If Google wants to rely on the poor excuse of “sure we’ve done bad behaviour, but now we’ve changed”, they’re gonna have to condemn behaviour that’s being conducted right now as we speak.

“Algorithms are effectively recipes in code form, providing step-by-step instructions for how computers should solve certain problems,” the report clarifies. “They drive not just the internet, but the apps that populate phones and tablets. Algorithms determine which friends show up in a Facebook user’s news feed, which Twitter posts are most likely to go viral and how much an Uber ride should cost during rush hour as opposed to the middle of the night. They are used by banks to screen loan applications, businesses to look for the best job applicants and insurers to determine a person’s expected lifespan.” If these tools are not some of the most important being used today, manipulation to purely suit company interests should concern everyone.

We urge readers to read the full report to better understand the extent of the company’s actions. In turn, lawyers and lawmakers conducting a nation-wide anti-trust case against Google should also use these findings in their big tech crackdown. According to another report from CNBC News, the 50 state attorneys general are already planning to expand their investigation into Google’s search practices and Android businesses, specifically investigating political bias, online misinformation and anti-competitive practices to hurt consumers. Using these results to establish their monopoly status and predatory alteration tactics would go a long way towards some actual internet accountability.

Thank you for reading. This article was published for TrigTent, a bipartisan media platform for political and social commentary. Bailey Steen is a journalist, editor, and designer from Australia. You can read their work on Medium and previous publications such as Janks Reviews and Newslogue.

For updates, feel free to follow Bailey through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and other social media sites. You can also contact through for personal or business reasons. Stay honest and radical. Cheers, darlings. 💋

troubled writer, depressed slug, bisexual simp, neoliberal socialist, trotskyist-bidenist, “corn-pop was a good dude, actually,” bio in pronouns: (any/all)

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store