Most Recent Posts

Imagine, for a moment, that every Web search gave only accurate, verified information. Imagine that questions concerning real facts about the real world returned lists of websites ordered by how well those site's facts matched the real world.

Search for "Barack Obama's nationality," and websites claiming "Kenya" would be banished to the 32nd page of the list. Search for "measles and autism" and you'd have to scroll down for 10 minutes before you found a page claiming they were linked.

Imagine a world in which information on the Web had to be accurate. Well, you don't have to imagine very hard, because that world now seems entirely possible.

In today's world, Web searches rank sites based on their popularity — in terms of links made from other sites to the site in question — as well as the "quality" of those links. Recently, however, researchers at Google published a remarkable paper demonstrating how rankings in a Web search can be driven by something entirely different: the veracity of the facts the sites contain.

The new paper instantly caused a stir. Advocates and detractors argued over what constitutes a "fact" as they pondered the far-reaching consequences of a truth-based Internet.

Before we consider those consequences, however, it's important to see the research itself as a fascinating measure of how powerful the growing field of "data science" has become. As the authors state in their introduction:

"In this paper, we address the fundamental question of estimating how trustworthy a given web source is. Informally, we define the trustworthiness or accuracy of a web source as the probability that it contains the correct value for a fact (such as Barack Obama's nationality), assuming that it mentions any value for that fact ..."

To achieve their goal, the researchers devised a "knowledge-based trust" evaluation algorithm to define any site's accuracy. They write:

"We extract a plurality of facts from many pages using information extraction techniques. We then jointly estimate the correctness of these facts and the accuracy of the sources using inference in a probabilistic model. Inference is an iterative process, since we believe a source is accurate if its facts are correct, and we believe the facts are correct if they are extracted from an accurate source. We leverage the redundancy of information on the web to break the symmetry. Furthermore, we show how to initialize our estimate of the accuracy of sources based on authoritative information, in order to ensure that this iterative process converges to a good solution."

Thus, the whole process is repetitive, drilling down to an ever-better link between claims and verifiable knowledge about the world. It works via the researchers' use of Google's giant Knowledge Graph and Knowledge Vault projects, which have been using the Web to build links between facts and reference works for an insane amount of information. "Facts" are actually represented in the study as "knowledge triples" such as (Albany, New York, capital) or (Barack Obama, nationality, American). By comparing a specific knowledge triple found in any given Web page against the giant databases, the algorithm can determine any website's accuracy in relation to established facts.

It's a powerful and clever approach, but more to the point, it appears to work. Applied to 2.8 billion facts, the researchers were able to evaluate the trustworthiness of more than 119 million websites. Thus it appears that, yes, accuracy can be used as a criterion for ranking Web-searches.

But to understand what this means as compared to the old link-based rankings, consider this from The Washington Post's Caitlin Dewey:

"In one trial with a random sampling of pages, researchers found that only 20 of 85 factually correct sites were ranked highly under Google's current scheme. A switch could, theoretically, put better and more reliable information in the path of the millions of people who use Google every day. And in that regard, it could have implications not only for [search engine design] — but for civil society and media literacy."

Google has been explicit that this is only research and there are no plans to implement the system anytime soon. Still, the reaction to the paper makes it clear that, for some, even the ideas in the paper present significant problems.

As Anthony Watts, who runs a popular climate skeptic website, told Fox News, "I worry about this issue greatly. ... My site gets a significant portion of its daily traffic from Google." He added, "It is a very slippery and dangerous slope because there's no arguing with a machine."

If such accuracy-based Web searches were ever to become the norm, it seems clear that the Internet — as a public space for information distribution — would be fundamentally changed. And with that possibility, we can see how even the discussion around Google's research raises two fundamental questions for society: Do we believe there are actual facts about the world? Do we believe there are ways to judge them to be so?

There is a lot riding on our answers.

Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science." You can keep up with more of what Adam is thinking on Facebook and Twitter: @adamfrank4.

civil society

accuracy

web search

facts

Google

California's system of direct democracy — the voter initiative process — has produced landmark laws reducing property taxes, banning affirmative action and legalizing medical marijuana.

Now there's a bid to declare that "the people of California wisely command" that gays and lesbians can be killed.

You read that right.

The "Sodomite Suppression Act," as proposed, calls sodomy "a monstrous evil" that should be punishable "by bullets to the head or any other convenient method."

The act would punish anyone who distributes "sodomistic propaganda" to minors with a $1 million fine, and/or up to 10 years in prison, and/or the possibility of a lifetime expulsion from California.

The proposal comes from a Huntington Beach-based attorney, Matt McLaughlin. He did not return calls for comment, and his voice mailbox is full.

Now maybe you're thinking there's no way such a blatantly illegal measure would ever be approved by California voters.

But here's the rub: We might get a chance to find out, because it appears that there's no legal way for state officials to stop the author of this proposal from collecting enough voter signatures to put it on the ballot.

Legal experts are left shaking their heads.

Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Davis, said he is almost reluctant to even get drawn into the discussion "to give this guy the attention he wants."

Still, Amar noted there are at least two big issues at stake.

One, given that it costs only $200 to submit an initiative and start the signature-gathering process in California, perhaps the fee should be higher to discourage people from abusing the process. (On the other hand, that could make it prohibitive for legitimate grass-roots petitions to gain traction without well-off backers.)

Two, some advocate that the state attorney general, the official whose job duties include writing a title and summary for any proposed initiative, should have the authority to kill a proposal that would conflict with superseding law — like murder. (Of course, then elected partisan officials with their own political agendas would be the filters.)

But both of those ideas raise their own problems, Amar said.

"Anyone who has 200 bucks for an initiative, probably can raise 2,000 bucks," he said. "But raise it to something meaningful like [10,000] or 20,000 bucks, then you're sending a message about the accessibility of direct democracy."

i

California Attorney General Kamala Harris Richard Vogel/AP hide caption

itoggle caption Richard Vogel/AP

California Attorney General Kamala Harris

Richard Vogel/AP

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, favors raising the fee, even though she said, "It won't stop people from submitting crazy ideas."

Like Amar, Alexander does not favor the idea of allowing an elected official, in this case Attorney General Kamala Harris, to block the measure outright by calling it illegal.

The initiative process "needs to be kept at arm's length from the Legislature and the politicians who frequently want to usurp its power," Alexander said.

The initiative's author has provoked discussion and controversy. In fact, there have been calls for McLaughlin to be disbarred for advocating murder.

But, in the end, Amar doubts his idea will ever get enough voter signatures to qualify for the ballot. It's estimated that a ballot-initiative campaign in California costs about $1 million to collect the 365,888 signatures to qualify.

It will take several million dollars more to get enough signatures for such a controversial idea, Amar contends.

"But if I get approached by someone asking me to sign this thing," Amar said, "that will spoil my day having to think about this guy."

California ballot

gay rights

Once again, the question of the NFL's pre-eminence — even existence — has been raised with the retirement of Chris Borland, a very good player, who has walked away from the game and millions of dollars at the age of 24 in order to preserve his health, or more specifically, his brain.

As always in these well-publicized anti-football cases, observers pop up to note that the other mainstream sport identified with brain damage — boxing — has dramatically declined in popularity, and therefore is an antecedent to predict football's downfall.

This common analysis is simple, but facile, because while individual sports and team sports are both athletics, they are as different, as, say, comedy club stand-ups are from huge Hollywood studios in the entertainment world.

Besides boxing, all sorts of individual sports have seen their popularity wane, even die out. Been to a six-day bicycle race lately? Even those individual sports that continue to thrive, like tennis and golf, are faddish, vulnerable to the whims of a public that becomes interested because of one big celebrity star, then turns away to another amusement when the fashionable hero of the moment fades.

But team sports are founded on lasting commitment. Fans show a life-long allegiance to their old school, their college, their hometown professional team — entities that are also well-established financial firms, bound into leagues. Popular professional team sports, once established, have been immune to the sort of capricious popularity that individual sports fall prey to. Individual sports are our buddies, team sports are our family.

Of course, yes, football is brutal, and probably even morally indefensible, but football is not only an American passion, it can be an extremely rewarding financial endeavor for those who're willing to play. All over the world, boxing has always drawn its gladiators from the poorer economic classes, who have been willing to gamble health for wealth. Now in America, football more and more fills that risky wish.

Borland is atypical. He grew up middle class, he earned his history degree in four years and plans to attend grad school. But there are plenty of other young men from lesser circumstances with lesser opportunities willing to pick up his fallen battle flag and play on a team before those dedicated life-long fans.

The Borland Effect, if we may call it that, will most surely have no impact whatsoever on the NFL. It will, however, cause more parents who are aware of the risks, and more boys who have other options, to steer clear of football. As such, what the Borland Effect is, is an influence upon our social class system, not upon the NFL player dream pool.

traumatic brain injury

Football

NFL

sports

The Supreme Court hears a challenge Wednesday to Obama Administration rules aimed at limiting the amount of mercury and other hazardous pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired utility plants. The regulations are being challenged by major industry groups like the National Mining Association, and more than 20 states.

The regulations have been in the works for nearly two decades. Work on them began in the Clinton Administration, got derailed in the George W. Bush Administration, and then revived and adopted in the Obama Administration.

The regulations were subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., last year.

They stem from 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to expedite limits on power plant emissions of mercury and 188 other dangerous air pollutants.

Mercury is considered one of the most toxic pollutants because studies show when it falls from the atmosphere, it readily passes from fish and other sources to a pregnant woman's unborn fetus and fetal brain, causing neurological abnormalities and delays in children. The EPA estimated that seven percent of American women of childbearing age — millions of women — were being exposed to the pollutant in dangerous amounts.

The process for establishing limits, however, is multi-stage. First, the EPA must complete studies to determine whether regulation of these plant emissions is "appropriate and necessary." And only after that does the agency set limits on the pollutant amounts that can be emitted.

Both sides in Wednesday's case agree that cost should be considered in setting pollutant limits. The question is when and how much of a factor cost should be.

At the first stage — deciding whether regulation should be considered at all — the government contends that costs cannot be considered under the law, and it notes that costs are not considered in other similar threshold determinations.

Industry counters that these power plants were meant to be treated differently. It notes that under the regulations issued in the second stage, the estimated price tag is $9.6 billion a year — so it's reasonable for the EPA to balance costs and benefits right from the start.

Industry also maintains that there should be a far more aggressive consideration of costs than the Administration subsequently used in setting the actual limits at the second stage.

Coal-fired utility plants, and to a lesser extent oil-fired plants, are by far the largest source of mercury and other listed air pollutants in the country.

Most utility plants already have pollution controls that comply with the EPA regulations, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But an estimated 20 percent of existing plants would face the choice of upgrading or shutting down.

Environmental Protection Agency