Editing Google Search (section)

== Criticism ==

=== Privacy ===
{{Main|Privacy concerns regarding Google}}

Google has been criticized for placing long-term [[HTTP cookie|cookies]] on users' machines to store preferences, a tactic which also enables them to track a user's search terms and retain the data for more than a year.<ref name="ac">{{Cite magazine |last=Caddy, Becca |date=March 20, 2017 |title=Google tracks everything you do: here's how to delete it |magazine=Wired |url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-history-search-tracking-data-how-to-delete |access-date=March 20, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170324030045/https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-history-search-tracking-data-how-to-delete |archive-date= Mar 24, 2017 }}</ref>

Since 2012, Google Inc. has globally introduced encrypted connections for most of its clients, to bypass governative blockings of the commercial and IT services.<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 12, 2014 |title=Google is encrypting search globally. That's bad for the NSA and China's censors |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/google-is-encrypting-search-worldwide-thats-bad-for-the-nsa-and-china/?noredirect=on |url-access=subscription |author1=Craig Timberg |author2=JIa Lynn Yang |access-date=July 7, 2018 |archive-date=December 3, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181203054419/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/google-is-encrypting-search-worldwide-thats-bad-for-the-nsa-and-china/?noredirect=on |url-status=live }}</ref>

Google searches have also triggered [[Reverse search warrant#Keyword warrant|keyword warrants]] in which information is shared with law enforcement leading to a criminal case.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/google-is-giving-data-to-police-based-on-search-keywords-court-docs-show/ | title=Google is giving data to police based on search keywords, court docs show }}</ref>

=== Complaints about indexing ===
In 2003, ''[[The New York Times]]'' complained about Google's [[Search engine indexing|indexing]], claiming that Google's [[Web cache|caching]] of content on its site infringed its copyright for the content.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Olsen |first=Stefanie |date=July 9, 2003 |title=Google cache raises copyright concerns |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html |access-date=June 13, 2010 |website=[[CNET]] |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |archive-date=May 10, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110510075319/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> In both ''[[Field v. Google]]'' and ''Parker v. Google'', the United States District Court of [[Nevada]] ruled in favor of Google.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants=Field v. Google|court=Nevada [[United States district court|District Court]]|opinion=CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL|date=January 19, 2006|url=https://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929110547/http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf|archivedate=September 29, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929110547/http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite court|litigants=Parker v. Google|court=[[United States district court|Eastern Pennsylvania District Court]]|opinion=04-CV-3918|date=March 10, 2006|url=http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0306P.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060519020919/http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0306P.pdf |archive-date=2006-05-19 |url-status=live|quote=}}</ref>

=== Child sexual abuse ===
{{Expand section|date=May 2024|small=no}}
A 2019 ''New York Times'' article on Google Search showed that images of [[child sexual abuse]] had been found on Google and that the company had been reluctant at times to remove them.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Keller |first1=Michael H. |last2=Dance |first2=Gabriel J. X. |date=2019-11-09 |title=Child Abusers Run Rampant as Tech Companies Look the Other Way |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-child-sex-abuse.html |access-date=2023-10-09 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

=== January 2009 malware bug ===
[[File:Google Search error of January 31, 2009.png|thumb|right|A screenshot of the error of January 31, 2009]]

Google flags search results with the message "This site may harm your computer" if the site is known to install malicious software in the background or otherwise surreptitiously. For approximately 40 minutes on January 31, 2009, all search results were mistakenly classified as [[malware]] and could therefore not be clicked; instead a warning message was displayed and the user was required to enter the requested URL manually. The bug was caused by human error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krebs |first=Brian |date=January 31, 2009 |title=Google: This Internet May Harm Your Computer |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/google_this_internet_will_harm.html?hpid=news-col-blog |access-date=January 31, 2009 |archive-date=November 30, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111130155700/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/google_this_internet_will_harm.html?hpid=news-col-blog |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="googleblog">{{Cite web |last=Mayer |first=Marissa |date=January 31, 2009 |title=This site may harm your computer on every search result?!?! |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-site-may-harm-your-computer-on.html |access-date=January 31, 2009 |website=Official Google Blog |archive-date=February 2, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090202063204/http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-site-may-harm-your-computer-on.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="stopbadware">{{Cite web |last=Weinstein |first=Maxim |date=January 31, 2009 |title=Google glitch causes confusion |url=http://blog.stopbadware.org/2009/01/31/google-glitch-causes-confusion |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100708013913/http://blog.stopbadware.org/2009/01/31/google-glitch-causes-confusion |archive-date=July 8, 2010 |access-date=May 10, 2010 |publisher=StopBadware }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Cooper |first=Russ |date=January 31, 2009 |title=Serious problems with Google search |url=http://securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2009/01/31/serious-problems-with-google-search/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717193934/http://securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2009/01/31/serious-problems-with-google-search/ |archive-date=July 17, 2011 |access-date=May 10, 2010 |publisher=Verizon Business Security Blog}}</ref>&nbsp;The [[URL]] of "/" (which expands to all URLs) was mistakenly added to the malware patterns file.<ref name="googleblog" /><ref name="stopbadware" />

=== Possible misuse of search results ===
In 2007, a group of researchers observed a tendency for users to rely exclusively on Google Search for finding information, writing that "With the Google interface the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality.&nbsp;... In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Maurer |first1=H. |last2=Balke |first2=Tilo |last3=Kappe |first3=Frank |last4=Kulathuramaiyer |first4=Narayanan |last5=Weber |first5=Stefan |last6=Zaka |first6=Bilal |date=September 30, 2007 |title=Report on dangers and opportunities posed by large search engines, particularly Google |url=http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/iicm_papers/dangers_google.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091229105054/http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/iicm_papers/dangers_google.pdf |archive-date=December 29, 2009 |access-date=June 13, 2017 |website=[[Graz University of Technology]]}}</ref>

In 2011, Google Search query results have been shown by Internet activist [[Eli Pariser]] to be tailored to users, effectively isolating users in what he defined as a [[filter bubble]]. Pariser holds algorithms used in search engines such as Google Search responsible for catering "a personal ecosystem of information".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Parramore |first=Lynn |date=October 10, 2010 |title=The Filter Bubble |work=The Atlantic |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/the-filter-bubble/181427/ |access-date=April 20, 2011 |quote=Since Dec. 4, 2009, Google has been personalized for everyone. So when I had two friends this spring Google 'BP,' one of them got a set of links that was about investment opportunities in BP. The other one got information about the oil spill |archive-date=August 22, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170822052731/https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/the-filter-bubble/181427/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Although contrasting views have mitigated the potential threat of "informational dystopia" and questioned the scientific nature of Pariser's claims,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Weisberg |first=Jacob |date=June 10, 2011 |title=Bubble Trouble: Is Web personalization turning us into solipsistic twits? |work=Slate |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2296633/ |access-date=August 15, 2011 |archive-date=June 12, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612023233/http://www.slate.com/id/2296633/ |url-status=live }}</ref> filter bubbles have been mentioned to account for the surprising results of the [[2016 United States elections|U.S. presidential election in 2016]] alongside [[fake news]] and [[Echo chamber (media)|echo chambers]], suggesting that [[Facebook]] and Google have designed personalized online realities in which "we only see and hear what we like".<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Mostafa M. El-Bermawy |date=November 18, 2016 |title=Your Filter Bubble is Destroying Democracy |url=https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/ |magazine=Wired |access-date=March 3, 2017 |quote=The global village that was once the internet&nbsp;... digital islands of isolation that are drifting further apart each day&nbsp;... your experience online grows increasingly personalized}}</ref>

=== FTC fines ===
In 2012, the US [[Federal Trade Commission]] fined Google [[US$]]22.5 million for violating their agreement not to violate the privacy of users of Apple's [[Safari (web browser)|Safari web browser]].<ref>[http://www.aljazeera.com//news/americas/2012/08/201289172541616218.html "Google fined over Safari privacy violation"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120811210329/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/08/201289172541616218.html |date=August 11, 2012 }}. ''Al Jazeera'', August 10, 2012.</ref> The FTC was also continuing to investigate if Google's favoring of their own services in their search results violated antitrust regulations.<ref>Bailey, Brandon. [http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21967140/googles-review-by-ftc-nearing-critical-point "Google's review by FTC nearing critical point"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130122074658/http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21967140/googles-review-by-ftc-nearing-critical-point |date=January 22, 2013 }}. ''Mercury News'', November 9, 2012.</ref>

===Payments to Apple===
In a November 2023 disclosure, during the ongoing antitrust trial against Google, an economics professor at the [[University of Chicago]] revealed that Google pays Apple 36% of all search advertising revenue generated when users access Google through the Safari browser. This revelation reportedly caused Google's lead attorney to cringe visibly.{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}} The revenue generated from Safari users has been kept confidential, but the 36% figure suggests that it is likely in the tens of billions of dollars.

Both Apple and Google have argued that disclosing the specific terms of their search default agreement would harm their competitive positions. However, the court ruled that the information was relevant to the antitrust case and ordered its disclosure. This revelation has raised concerns about the dominance of Google in the search engine market and the potential anticompetitive effects of its agreements with Apple.<ref>{{cite news |last=Nylen |first=Leah |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-13/apple-gets-36-of-google-revenue-from-search-deal-witness-says |title=Apple Gets 36% of Google Revenue in Search Deal, Expert Says |work=Bloomberg News |date=2023-11-13 |accessdate=2023-11-14 }}</ref>

=== Big data and human bias ===
Google [[Web search engine|search engine]] robots are programmed to use [[algorithm]]s that understand and predict human [[behavior]]. The book, ''Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code''<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Benjamin |first=Ruha |title=Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code |publisher=Polity Press |year=2019 |isbn=9781509526437 |location=Cambridge, UK |pages=94–95}}</ref> by [[Ruha Benjamin]] talks about human [[bias]] as a behavior that the Google search engine can recognize. In 2016, some users Google searched "three Black teenagers" and images of criminal [[Mug shot|mugshots]] of young African American teenagers came up. Then, the users searched "three White teenagers" and were presented with photos of smiling, happy teenagers. They also searched for "three Asian teenagers", and very revealing photos of Asian girls and women appeared. Benjamin concluded that these results reflect human [[prejudice]] and views on different [[ethnic group]]s. A group of analysts explained the concept of a [[Racism|racist]] computer program: "The idea here is that computers, unlike people, can't be racist but we're increasingly learning that they do in fact take after their makers&nbsp;... Some experts believe that this problem might stem from the hidden biases in the massive piles of [[data]] that the algorithms process as they learn to recognize patterns&nbsp;... reproducing our worst values".<ref name=":1" />

=== Monopoly ruling ===
On August 5, 2024, Google lost a [[United States v. Google LLC (2020)|lawsuit which started in 2020]] in [[D.C. Circuit Court]], with Judge [[Amit Mehta]] finding that the company had an illegal monopoly over Internet search.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/6/24214641/google-us-monopoly-ruling-what-happens|title=Now that Google is a monopolist, what's next? / Reaching a decision on what to do about Google Search could take a very long time.|first=Jay|last=Peters|publisher=The Verge|date=August 6, 2024|accessdate=August 6, 2024}}</ref> This monopoly was held to be in violation of Section 2 of the [[Sherman Act]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Business/google-violated-antitrust-laws-maintain-dominance-online-search/story?id=112591120|title=Google violated antitrust laws to maintain dominance over online search, judge says|first=Alexander|last=Mallin|publisher=ABC News|date=August 5, 2024|accessdate=August 6, 2024}}</ref> Google has said it will appeal the ruling,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Milmo |first=Dan |last2= |first2= |date=2024-11-21 |title=Google must sell Chrome to end search monopoly, says US justice department |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/21/google-sell-chrome-us-court-filing-demand-competition-laws |access-date=2025-01-07 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> though they did propose to loosen search deals with Apple and others requiring them to set Google as the default search engine.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Godoy |first=Jody |date=2024-12-23 |title=Google offers to loosen search deals in US antitrust case remedy |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-says-it-could-loosen-search-deals-us-antitrust-case-2024-12-21/ |access-date=2025-01-07 |work=Reuters |language=en}}</ref>