Suicide and search

Do online service providers like Google and Facebook have a social responsibility for how people use their sites? Are they morally obliged to amend results for things like suicide searches? And if they do, will that help keep people alive?

Submitted 21/04/2010 By actnow Views 476 Comments 2 Updated 17/05/2010



 
Share


Google’s latest big move is to intervene in suicide searches, in partnership with a U.S suicide prevention helpline. It’s a big move. Until now, Google have been a strong advocate of giving you what you ask for when you search – be it good, bad or ugly. The new move has re-opened a giant can of worms over the moral obligations of web giants like Facebook and Google. Can changing search results be good corporate social responsibility or has Google gone too far?

Rather than just delivering the search results you ask for, Google has recently adopted a ‘we know best’ approach, starting in the United States. From now on, certain searches deemed suicidal will no longer generate automatic results from a complicated algorithm. Instead, searches like ‘I want to die’ or ‘ways to commit suicide’ will automatically generate a red telephone icon and the number of a suicide helpline at the top of search results. The same approach was adopted for poison control not long ago, after a mother found it difficult to locate a phone number for poison information.




Does it work?
So far, the Google move has got a big pat on the back for increasing traffic to the helpline by 10%. Though there’s no way to measure how many suicides this new measure has actually prevented, it’s hard to argue that, in terms of suicide prevention, the new search results could be doing much harm.

On the other hand, it could definitely be doing more good. There is a lot of potential for Google to introduce the measure in other countries (like Australia!) and expand the search criteria as well. At the moment, the helpline icon only turns up in U.S search results. Even then, the search terms used have to be spot on with those ear-marked by Google. Anything that doesn’t match up exactly to Google’s very short list will turn up regular search results, including pro-suicide websites. The icon also only shows up on the first page of search results.

What’s all the fuss about?
It’s hard to say that providing or emphasising a helpline contact for those at risk of suicide could be a bad thing. For some though, Google’s interference with search results sets a dangerous precedent.

There is potential for Google to start ‘prioritising’ results on searches around other social concerns. Issues like murder, child abuse and obesity are some of the suggestions being put forward. Who knows? It may be great thing, it may be a disaster. That’s the problem. Deciding on which issues it’s ok to intervene in and which aren’t is a very slippery slope. There’s also some debate as to which organisations should get Google’s priority placement. Why not someone else doing similar work? The questions we face here aren’t that different to those raised by Google donating ad or ‘sponsored link’ space for charities in a similar search here in Australia.

The saving grace of the Google move is that the rest of your search results aren’t altered. There’s an extra result added in and emphasized at the top of your page, but the rest of your search will show up as normal. Google isn’t seeking to remove anything that isn’t in line with its philosophy from your line of view, but prioritise something that was a little hard to find before.

At the end of the day, the discussion really boils down to the role of service providers like Google in social issues like suicide. Some of us may think Google (and others) have some moral responsibility for how people use their service. In this vein, the Google move isn’t that different from Facebook intervening in cases of cyber bullying, or YouTube taking measures to keep children safe from online predators. In a way, this kind of behaviour becomes an online form of corporate social responsibility.

Bookmark and Share
Follow ActNow_AUS on Twitter
 
 

This work is licenced under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence.
© 2008. First published on actnow.com.au

Tell me about creative commons licences

Discuss Now

Post Comment

RSS Comments
image

gez 30-Apr-2010

I can understand reservations around google creating a precedent for altering web searches but in the way that this is implemented as the article says its the same as a sponsored link. It was also pointed out that this could lead to favouritism between different charities but as it stands the group with the most money wins which I don't believe to be fair either.

Ultimately if google wanted to alter search results without people knowing they could as its closed source software. The fact that they are attempting to have this debate in the public sphere is probably a good sign.

-----

image

Meke 30-Apr-2010

Very interesting. I wonder if this is linked into recent research done around the correlations between google searches related to suicide and suicide rates. From memory increased searching was correlated to increased suicide rates in young people but not adults (of course, this isn't necessarily saying its causal).

I'm completely fine with this move- how is it any different to sponsored links! They still pop up at the top in just the same way. In fact I think they should consider adoption it in all countries and in relation to a broad range of issues.

:-)

-----