'Where the Earth is flat and 9/11 is an inside job: A comparative algorithm audit of conspiratorial information in web search results' by Aleksandra Urmana, Mykola Makhortykh, Roberto Ulloa and Juhi Kulshrestha comments
Web search engines are important online information intermediaries that are frequently used and highly trusted by the public despite multiple evidence of their outputs being subjected to inaccuracies and biases. One form of such inaccuracy, which so far received little scholarly attention, is the presence of conspiratorial information, namely pages promoting conspiracy theories. We address this gap by conducting a comparative algorithm audit to examine the distribution of conspiratorial information in search results across five search engines: Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo and Yandex. Using a virtual agent-based infrastructure, we systematically collect search outputs for six conspiracy theory-related queries (“flat earth”, “new world order”, “qanon”, “9/11”, “illuminati”, “george soros”) across three locations (two in the US and one in the UK) and two observation periods (March and May 2021). We find that all search engines except Google consistently displayed conspiracy-promoting results and returned links to conspiracy-dedicated websites in their top results, although the share of such content varied across queries. Most conspiracy-promoting results came from social media and conspiracy-dedicated websites while conspiracy-debunking information was shared by scientific websites and, to a lesser extent, legacy media. The fact that these observations are consistent across different locations and time periods highlight the possibility of some search engines systematically prioritizing conspiracy-promoting content and, thus, amplifying their distribution in the online environments.
Web search engines (SEs) are crucial information gatekeepers in contemporary high-choice information environments (Van Aelst et al., 2017) with internet users turning to them on a daily basis (Urman and Makhortykh, 2021). At the same time, as demonstrated by a mounting body of evidence, search results can be inaccurate or biased (Kay et al., 2015; Kulshrestha et al., 2017; Makhortykh et al., 2020; Noble, 2018; Otterbacher et al., 2017). Still, search outputs are highly trusted by people and can influence their opinions on matters ranging from commercial brands to elections (e.g., Fisher et al., 2015; Nichols, 2017). Thus, malperformance of SEs can cause societal problems by leading, for example, to the spread of misinformation or of racial stereotypes (Noble, 2018).
While the explorations of bias in search results are increasingly common (see below), other forms of SE malperformance, in particular the one related to inaccurate search results, remain under-studied with a few notable exceptions (Bernstam et al., 2008; Bradshaw, 2019; Cooper and Feder, 2004). Unlike biased outputs, which tend to disproportionately amplify a particular point of view - e.g., by associating modern technology with Whiteness (Makhortykh et al., 2021a), - inaccurate outputs contain factually incorrect information (e.g., that the Earth is flat). Consequently, inaccurate outputs have higher potential for misinforming the users of SEs, which in some cases can pose a threat for their individual well-being as well as the society. It is particularly valid for outputs promoting conspiracy theories, which unlike other forms of incorrect or biased search outputs has so far received meager attention from the scholarly community. As shown by the ongoing COVID-19 crisis (European Commission, 2021), conspiracy theories diminish trust towards authorities and scientific community which can undermine societal cohesion and lead to radicalization, in particular at the time of crises.
In this paper, we address the above-mentioned gap by investigating the presence of content promoting conspiracy theories in web search results through a systematic comparative algorithm impact audit. We rely on virtual agent-based infrastructure to systematically collect search outputs for six conspiracy theory-related queries on five most popular SEs across three locations and two waves (in March and in May 2021). Out of six utilized queries, three correspond to specific conspiracy theories (“flat earth”, “new world order”, “qanon”) - and are likely to be utilized by users interested in respective theories. Another three broadly refer to subjects about which many conspiracy theories circulate (“9/11”, “illuminati”, “george soros”) - and can be utilized by users broadly interested in related topics, without specific interest in conspiracy theories. We then conduct a qualitative analysis of all retrieved results to establish their stance on conspiracy theories (e.g., promoting/debunking) and their sources (e.g., social media or scientific websites), and compare our observations across locations and time periods. With this paper, we contribute, first, to the body of research on the spread of conspiracy theories through online platforms by analyzing their presence in web search results which were not studied in this context before; and second, to the literature on algorithm auditing and quality of information provided by web search engines.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: we first review the state of research on inaccurate and biased information in web search and on conspiracy theories online. Then, we build on this review to formulate concrete research questions and describe the methodology of our study in detail. Finally, we summarize our results and discuss their implications as well as the limitations of the current research.
One example of conspiracy claims is Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw [2012] VSC 334 dealing with a vexatious litigant.
The Court states
[11] After setting out in considerable detail the various proceedings issued by Mr Shaw prior to 2007, Hansen J summarised the position as follows:
I make the following observations concerning the legal proceedings brought by the defendant. The defendant has brought a large number of criminal prosecutions in which he has made a range of the most serious allegations, including treason and perverting the course of justice, against numerous public officials. In all cases the charges have been struck out on the basis that the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions took over and withdrew the charges. I accept that by the nature of the charges, the circumstances in which they were laid, and the material provided by the defendant in support of them, it can be inferred that each charge was untenable and doomed to fail. In this sense, the proceedings were vexatious legal proceedings instituted without any reasonable ground. As to whether they were instituted habitually and persistently, I note that while not an invariable rule, there does emerge from the material a pattern whereby the defendant has brought criminal proceedings against those persons who have made decisions adverse to him. For example, upon taking over and discontinuing criminal prosecutions, both the Victorian and Commonwealth Directors of Public Prosecutions were themselves charged. After refusing the defendant’s grand jury application, the five members of the Court of Appeal were charged with criminal offences. And, after refusing to accept for filing an application for a grand jury, Master Cain was charged with criminal offences. These are just a few examples. And although there was some variation in the wording of the defendant’s allegations against those he charged, the substance of his allegations remained the same, namely their complicity in indictable offences relating to a Freemason conspiracy and/or constitutional improprieties.
I turn now to the proceedings in which the defendant sought to challenge determinations of the Magistrates’ Court in relation to traffic offences. In essence the defendant alleged that the law under which he was charged was invalid because the Victorian constitution was invalid. He also raised allegations of a Freemason conspiracy. In each case the defendant’s proceeding was dismissed or struck out. The material demonstrates that these proceedings, instituted over at least six years, were vexatious and had no prospect of success.
I now turn to the applications to summon a grand jury. This category is particularly significant, as it is apparent, both from an overview of the legal proceedings instituted by the defendant generally, and from what his counsel said during argument, that the defendant ultimately seeks to place before a grand jury his allegations that: (a) a Freemason conspiracy has corrupted the judiciary and the court process in Victoria; (b) there is currently an illegal conspiracy, already commenced in Western Australia, to fracture the Commonwealth of Australia and create a republic in its place; and (c) the Victorian Constitution is invalid and enacted without legal authority. ...
Viewing the matter overall, I am of the opinion that the defendant has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings, without any reasonable ground. The allegations made by the defendant are of the most serious nature, yet completely lacking in substance. ...
[18] I do not propose to set out every matter addressed in oral submissions by Mr Shaw, but will identify some of those that made their mark with me.
• The removal of the oath of allegiance and the oath sworn by Australian lawyers is an act of treason on the part of at least the Attorney-General and possibly the Victorian Parliament. This was also said to be relevant to the affidavit sworn by Ms English on behalf of the Attorney-General.
• In a similar way, the Courts and Tribunals Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2000 of this State has shattered the whole structure of “our jurisprudence” by removing the oath of allegiance. The Attorney-General at the time the Act was introduced, Mr Rob Hulls, had acted in a treasonous way for his involvement in removing the oath of allegiance and subsequently declaring Mr Shaw a vexatious litigant “for exposing it”.
• The Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (WA) had, by omitting references to the Crown, fractured the constitution.
• Every politician, State or Commonwealth, from Western Australia is not qualified to sit since the passing of the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (WA).
• The Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic), by s 51(3) which separated the office of the DPP from that of the Crown, was unconstitutional.
• The lack of qualifications of Mr Andrew McGinty, the Western Australian Attorney-General in the year 2000, who subsequently allowed legislation to be introduced that “turned the whole jurisprudence of Australia upside down”.
• That charges against 54 defendants (including the former Prime Minister Mr John Howard) are still pending before a grand jury.
• That two UK judges should sit in Victoria to determine the constitutional points he has raised.
• There are possibly two Victorian constitutions.
• The Australia Act 1986 (Cth), at the instigation of the then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, and six premiers, is totally invalid and fraudulent, as is the sale of the Commonwealth Bank.
• Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister responsible for introducing the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) continues to act illegally, as demonstrated by the front page of the Weekly Times of June this year, which showed a photograph of Mr Hawke.
• The removal of the grand jury provisions by the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) was, in effect, a scheme devised by the Victorian Attorney-General to avoid being prosecuted by Mr Shaw before a grand jury and amounted to perverting the course of justice.
[19] Mr Shaw also relied upon a number of matters contained in the notice given under s 78(b) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to the Victorian Attorney-General. It included the following allegations.
• The existence of a criminal conspiracy to move the people of the Commonwealth into and under the United Nations, with or without the people’s knowledge and/or consent.
• That the grand jury proceedings against the former Attorney-General, Mr Hulls, remained pending.
• That in 2008, the then Attorney-General (Mr Hulls) perverted the course of justice when he introduced the Criminal Procedure Bill 2008 (Vic).
• The decision of the Full Court in Re Shaw is “nugatory because the five judges entered into evidence and in doing so moved into the exclusive jurisdiction of a Grand Jury (23 electors) thereby voiding any ruling, order or judgment”.
• That all State Governors are “Principal Offenders” and asserted that the Supreme Court, the County Court, the Magistrates’ Court and VCAT had their independent jurisdictions removed under Business Unit 19 of the Justice Department.
• That the passing of the Western Australian Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 had “broken unlawfully” the Act of Settlement 1700 (UK) and was an act of treason against both the Queen and the people.
• That Judges of the High Court and the Governor-General were principal offenders and that the Premier, Deputy Premier or Attorney-General, Governor, Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal were each involved in a criminal conspiracy against the people.
• That the principal issue in the Supreme Court in issuing a vexatious judgment related to and involved Freemasonry and the oaths and obligations of Freemasonry and the Masonic allegiance, and that the Supreme Court is a Masonic lodge.
• That many lawyers, judges and magistrates are Catholic with no working knowledge either of scripture or the constitution.
[20] I do not think it is necessary to itemise any more of the allegations contained in this document, nor is it necessary to repeat the allegations contained in the written submissions which are in a similar vein.
The dastardly freemasons appear in other claims such as Haughton, Commonwealth Bank of Australia & Ors v Ridout & Ors [2004] WASC 136 and National Australia Bank v Walter [2004] VSC 36. In the latter the Court states
The Walters raised a number of unorthodox arguments and challenges to jurisdiction at the commencement of the trial, on which I ruled at the outset. The matters in question included the alleged impact of Freemasonry, an alleged banking practice described as "fractional reserve banking", the invalidity of the Constitution of the State of Victoria, the Walters' entitlement to trial by jury under Magna Carta, and apprehended bias on my part, due to my disclosure of beneficial ownership of a parcel of NAB shares.
I determined that none of the Walters' challenges to the Court's jurisdiction was of any substance. I also ruled that the issues of Freemasonry and fractional reserve banking were of no substance and irrelevant to any legitimate claim. Despite those rulings, the issues, which were not clearly defined, were persistently raised by the Walters in various altered guises throughout the course of the trial.
The claims and challenges based on Freemasonry, fractional reserve banking, constitutional invalidity and Magna Carta which were raised by the Walters in these proceedings have previously been raised by litigants in person in the course of enforcement proceedings by banks. All have been the subject of some degree of previous judicial consideration and have been dismissed as wanting substance or as nonsense. Although those arguments occupied a considerable time at trial, the Walters also advanced a more conventional claim that the loans and securities were unenforceable on various related equitable grounds, including unconscionable conduct, duress, undue influence and estoppel. ...
The Walters contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings and was unlawfully constituted because certain judges and other Court officials are, or are suspected to be, Freemasons. They alleged that Freemasons administer and swear unlawful oaths, including oaths of allegiance to a foreign power, contrary to s.316 of the Crimes Act and s.321 of the Crimes Act. Further, the Walters contended that Freemasons are party to conspiracies to commit criminal acts and are otherwise implicated in criminal conduct.
Ms Walter read to the Court some oaths allegedly administered to, and taken by, Freemasons. The Walters served a subpoena on an associate of a judge of the Court, requiring him to produce documentation which would reveal the identity of any judges, masters or other Court officials or employees who were Freemasons.
The Walters contended that Freemasonry is a brotherhood of persons who habitually take unlawful oaths and who owe obedience to foreign powers. They alleged that in the course of their dealing with the NAB, Mr Fritz Walter (who is not a Freemason) failed to respond to a secret Masonic handshake made by an unidentified bank officer. The Walters claimed that in consequence, the NAB thereafter acted to the Walters' detriment and ultimately sold their property. No evidence of the alleged handshake incident was adduced at any stage. However, the Walters asserted that alleged Freemasonry within the Court precluded a fair trial of their claims. Ms Walter stated: "If the judge hearing the case were a Freemason, and the other party was a Masonic member as well and they had discussed the court case previously and made their decision while they were in the lodge" then "a litigant could not win."
Master Evans, whom the Walters believed to be a Freemason (as he would neither confirm nor deny membership) had made an order in the principal proceeding for trial by judge alone. Master Evans' order was said to be of no effect, due to his alleged status as a Freemason.
Although I stated that I was not, and had never been, a Freemason, the Walters contended that the status of the individual judge hearing the proceeding was irrelevant. They claimed that the Bench of the Supreme Court of Victoria was infested with Freemasons who were guilty of criminal acts, indictable offences and other unlawful conduct which contaminated the entire Court. Although Ms Walter preferred to characterise it as a "question", she essentially submitted that the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the proceedings on the ground of Freemasonry.
In reliance upon Re Shaw & Another, in which the Court of Appeal considered almost identical arguments about Freemasonry to those raised in the present matter, I ruled from the outset that Freemasonry had no bearing on any legitimate issue to be determined in the case. The reiteration of such allegations and the associated baseless attack on the Court's personnel and processes were, in my view, irresponsible and regrettable. SLAs where the High Court was unimpressed include Knight v Bell and Anor M43/2000 [2002] HCATrans 446 and Fyffe v The State of Victoria M123/1999 [2002] HCATrans 442.
