(Disclaimer: I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Massachusetts primary).
I agree; the Hillary portion of it seemed like a bit of a silly conspiracy theory to me. They'd still need to provide evidence rather than innuendo, but it'd be more believable (albeit attract fewer HN upvotes) if the article had claimed Google has a pro-Bernie bias, since he's the candidate who likely has the most support amongst Google employees and especially engineers.
I don't think the (potential) issue is so much Google actively putting its thumb on the scale for one candidate, as the influence outside activists can have on how they create their algorithm.
Suppose that the (Hillary-endorsing) New York Times runs a front-page story saying that a study found Google search results systematically are more negative towards female candidates than they are to male candidates. The subtext of such a story would be that the NYT is pressuring Google to alter its algorithm to be more favorable to Hillary. I think there'd be a pretty decent chance Google would in fact alter its algorithm in response to such a story. I doubt they would alter their algorithm in response to a similar criticism from a conservative source.
Similarly, if one of the top results for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were a scatological reference, as with Rick Santorum, I think that Google would very quickly remove that page from its results.
Now, there's nothing wrong with getting rid of bias in search results directed at left-of-center politicians. But if Google (hypothetically, of course) is much more aggressive with eliminating bias towards left-of-center politicians than it is with eliminating bias towards right-of-center politicians, the net effect will be a general left-of-center bias in Google search results.
None of this is any kind of pre-planned conspiracy, just brain chemistry. We're wired to easily perceive bias, incivility and lying when directed at those we agree with, but justify, rationalize or ignore it when directed at those we disagree with.
It's worth pointing out that the positions of a company's executives and financial staff aren't necessarily the position of a company's line employees or engineers. Sanders is much less supportive of big business in government. And Google has put a LOT of money into government.
I think if Google execs had been directing Google engineers to make search results less favorable to Bernie and/or more favorable to Hillary, we would have heard about it.
The relevant engineers themselves would have more opportunity to change the search algorithm without generating public complaints from their coworkers. I really doubt they would, though, so conspiracy theorizing about it is still silly.
Like I said, I think the potential for political bias doesn't come from Google executive conspiracies or Google engineer conspiracies to alter the search algorithm, but rather from how the execs and/or engineers might react differently to outside demands that they change the algorithm, depending on the degree to which they sympathize with the source of the demands.
I'm just saying, the fact that Google would push politically something different than their lower level employees support wouldn't be surprising. Also, bear in mind that search ranking code is among Google's most carefully-guarded code. In fact, it's some of the only code not available company-wide.
The people who have access to Google's 'secret sauce' are likely the sort of die-hard "I bleed Google" people who would do anything in Google's best interests.
Of course, for that same reason, it's much less likely search tampering would happen... the group that could do it is very small and likely very closely monitored.
I agree; the Hillary portion of it seemed like a bit of a silly conspiracy theory to me. They'd still need to provide evidence rather than innuendo, but it'd be more believable (albeit attract fewer HN upvotes) if the article had claimed Google has a pro-Bernie bias, since he's the candidate who likely has the most support amongst Google employees and especially engineers.
I don't think the (potential) issue is so much Google actively putting its thumb on the scale for one candidate, as the influence outside activists can have on how they create their algorithm.
Suppose that the (Hillary-endorsing) New York Times runs a front-page story saying that a study found Google search results systematically are more negative towards female candidates than they are to male candidates. The subtext of such a story would be that the NYT is pressuring Google to alter its algorithm to be more favorable to Hillary. I think there'd be a pretty decent chance Google would in fact alter its algorithm in response to such a story. I doubt they would alter their algorithm in response to a similar criticism from a conservative source.
Similarly, if one of the top results for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were a scatological reference, as with Rick Santorum, I think that Google would very quickly remove that page from its results.
Now, there's nothing wrong with getting rid of bias in search results directed at left-of-center politicians. But if Google (hypothetically, of course) is much more aggressive with eliminating bias towards left-of-center politicians than it is with eliminating bias towards right-of-center politicians, the net effect will be a general left-of-center bias in Google search results.
None of this is any kind of pre-planned conspiracy, just brain chemistry. We're wired to easily perceive bias, incivility and lying when directed at those we agree with, but justify, rationalize or ignore it when directed at those we disagree with.