← the record
AIAAIC-047

Google search prioritises Holocaust denial website

A Holocaust denial website listed top for a Google search on the phrase 'Did the holocaust happen?', drawing the ire of Jewish campaigners and human and civil rights advocates. The Guardian discovered that Stormfront.org, which describes itself as 'the voice of the new, embattled white minority… a community of racial realists and idealists', was dominating Google's search results for a range of Holocaust-related searches. Around 10 days later several more factual sites, notably that of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) - which confronts Holocaust denial and accuses those who deny it of anti-semitism - were found to be much more visible in Google's search results. According to SearchEngineLand , the success of these more factual sites was likely due to the fact that they had been developed by search engine optimisation experts, rather than an update to Google's algorithms. The fracas prompted considerable debate on the nature of Google's search system, with commentators pointing out how easy it is for extremists and others to manipulate it to amplify misinformation and hate speech. The company later updated its search algorithm to prioritise high quality information, lowering the profile of sites associated with racial hate speech, and removing anti-Semitic queries on its Autocomplete search prediction function. System 🤖 Google Search 🔗 Google Autocomplete Operator: Alphabet/Google Developer: Alphabet/Google Country: USA Sector: Politics Purpose: Rank content/search results Technology: Search engine algorithm; NLP/text analysis Issue: Accuracy/reliability; Mis/disinformation; Safety

Date it happened
2016-12-01
Organisation involved
Google
Product, system or model
Google Search; Google Autocomplete
Where this came from
Share this incident
XLinkedInFacebookWhatsAppEmail
Attribution

This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.