In Google We Trust

While America reels from the shocking revelations concerning Subway Jared’s predilection for grade-school erotica and the unspeakable irony of Josh Duggar’s recent indiscretions, Google has officially surpassed democracy as the greatest force in American politics. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, recently published findings from a study of 4,500 undecided United States voters. Apparently, by displaying more favorable search results for particular candidate they could boost that candidate’s favorability ratings by up to 63%.

Given that the 2012 presidential election was decided by 3.9%, he believes that swinging the 2016 election (which is also expected to be close) would be well within the realm of possibility. This sort of large scale political dabbling is not without precedent. In the viciously contested 1876 presidential election, Western Union and the several members of the Associated Press utilized reliance on the telegraph system to disseminate misinformation.

In response to the study, Google issued a statement that rigging results to favor one view over another “would undermine the people’s trust in our results and company.” If there is one thing I enjoy, it is thoroughly-vetted yet meaningless public statements. Someone documented a scenario whereby Google could, theoretically, sway a Federal election and its response was to essentially say “people might not like that.” I have to get a job in PR. Can you imagine if that was the accepted standard?

Senator, how do you respond to accusations that you accepted money from ISIS to recruit pre-school children in your district?

Well. If I were guilty of such a thing, it would be inexcusable. No more questions!

That is not to say that Google would do such a thing and I am always leery of “undecided voter” studies. How do you find a group of people with enough of an interest in politics to take part in an uncompensated research study but not enough of interest to have already decided who they will vote for?

There is some truth to the fact that since Google still handles the majority of search traffic and someone might simply type in a candidate’s name and look at the title of the results; it is certainly possible to influence their views. When they say that they skewed some of the search results, I wonder how far they took it. There is a vast difference between the headline “Candidate A’s voting record may be cause for concern for some citizens with terminal illness” and “Is Candidate A pro-cancer?” I suppose that would have worked both ways. They may have tried “Candidate A finds charity work rewarding” against “Is Candidate A the protestant Mother Teresa?”

Even if enough people utilized Google search results to form their opinions in Federal elections, it would not be the worst outsourcing of independent human thought to the Internet. In 2012, I did some research on Google’s suggestions algorithm that was disturbing to say the least. We all better hope Skyrim has not become any more addictive since the last presidential election.

Taken to its extreme, perhaps Google would just cast votes for us. We could just hop on the Internet in November, type “Who will I vote for?” into the search box, and click I’m Feeling Lucky. Any votes cast through Yahoo and Bing would simply be disregarded since they must have originated from people who still have not figured out how to change the “default search provider” setting on their web browsers.

The Euthanasia Coaster

Recently a friend of mine asked me if I had ever heard of The Euthanasia Coaster. Apparently it is a roller coaster designed to end the life of its passengers through cerebral oxygen deprivation brought on by excessive G-force. Passengers are subjected to an initial drop of 1,600 ft (reaching a speed of 220 Mph) before being taken through 10 sequential inversions designed to bring about unconsciousness and death. It is designed for 24 passengers and the ride duration would be about 3 ½ minutes.

The coaster is only conceptual in nature and was designed and prototyped by Lithuanian engineer Julijonas Urbonas. Urbonas stated that he wished to create something that would take lives “with elegance and euphoria.” His scale model was displayed at the HUMAN+ display at the Science Gallery in Dublin. As one might expect, the idea has drawn the ire of many anti-euthanasia groups who feel that it might romanticize the idea of suicide.

Even assuming a shift in cultural norms would allow such a device to become a reality, I can foresee some ironic red-tape. For instance, to operate they would have to have the apparatus safety inspected and certified for public use. Can you imagine the opening of the roller coaster being delayed because they failed the safety inspection? How would you like to be the guy who has to inform the park owner that he cannot, in good conscious, allow them to operate an intentionally-fatal roller coaster with the structural integrity of the rivets in turn three being in question? Would the ride operators still be required to check everyone’s safety harness to prevent injury?

One person, commenting on the concept, expressed concern that he would have to share his final ride with 23 strangers (including one in the seat beside him). I suppose that would be a legitimate concern, especially if the person beside you thought they were getting on a regular rollercoaster and realized their mistake about halfway up the first drop. No one wants to spend their final moments listening to someone having panic attack after they realize that the last rites administered by the park employee was not just a clever gimmick.

With my luck, I would get stuck next to some inconsiderate jack-wagon who keeps taking loud personal phone calls on the way up. I imagine it would be difficult to spend your last moments contemplating the release of your eternal soul while the guy beside you is beseeching his ex for closure by reminding her that he is “about to die and stuff for real.”

Despite the macabre nature of such a device, it does have several benefits that traditional roller coasters do not. You can rest assured that there will not be a long line at the souvenir photo booth and your PR department would have to worry about bad press if someone dies on one of your rides. There would be a loss of revenue from the “I survived The Euthanasia Coaster” T-shirts.

Although accurate, I do feel like the name could use a little sprucing up. It just seems too clinical and detached (much like the ride attendants would have to be). Perhaps something more subtle like “The Sunset Experience” or “The Flat-liner Ferry.” A corporate sponsorship from National Funeral Directors Association or any number of Swedish death-metal bands could offset maintenance costs. They could even have a cheeky billboard on the final loop that says, “If you can read this, you should probably ask for a refund!”

If such an idea took off, it could become an entire theme park. A Six Flags over Eternity if you will. For instance, the Euthanasia Coaster could be bundled with the Crematorium Log Plume for a comprehensive internment experience. Some might simply prefer to take their chances with the overpriced (and questionably refrigerated) potato salad from the Last Meal Cafe. There would of course be a gift shop for keepsakes and make your own urn station for the kids. There would be no need to license expensive characters like Universal or Disney, just a few characters from Greek mythology for photo ops. It may not be the happiest place on Earth, but I doubt you will hear many complaints.

The Decline of Civil Discourse

I enjoy a good spirited debate as much as the next person, but I fear the age of social media and 24-hour news cycles had driven them into extinction. We all have these people on our Facebook newsfeeds and Twitter pages who derive thinly-veiled glee from unleashing a “thread bomb” and watching their acquaintances tear each other to shreds (and if they do not immediately come to mind, you are that person and you make us sad). Broad opinions lead to generalized insults which invariably give way to personal attacks. I cannot remember a single instance of this where these culminated in a “While I can now understand your interpretation of the empirical data, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions.” And they weren’t meant to.

Some of these individuals simply see a status update as a starter pistol for online polarization. Their goal is to toss a metaphorical turd into everyone’s day and see who just can’t stop themselves from taking the bait. I am guilty of it. There have been times where, against my better judgement, I read one too many “I heard that the Muslim Brotherhood passed a law in Mississippi that made it illegal to purchase a gun if you own a King James Bible” and I lose it. I start linking articles and citing legal precedent making such a statute impossible. I highlight the implausibility of the Muslim Brotherhood wielding any legislative power in rural Mississippi and then question the logistics of enforcing such a ridiculous law all before realizing I have been sucked into the ravenous vortex of online imbecility.  

It takes time and concerted effort to understand someone else’s point of view, neither of which are catalyzed by memes or status updates. Complex political and legal issues are reduced to derogatory labels like “godless liberal” or “inbred redneck.” We post these things not to explore the subtle nuances of our human condition, but because we wish to entertain ourselves by provoking the passions of others.

Think of what could be accomplished if we took time to seek the root of someone’s passion for Civil War reenactments and antique firearms instead of dismissing them as ignorant racists? How would it change our discourse if we looked into the eyes of someone who repeatedly sacrifices their dignity on the altar of public assistance to feed their children instead of mentally categorizing them as entitlement leeches?

Of course, they have the freedom to post what they want just as you and I have the freedom to ignore or engage them. So, in the spirit of reconciliation and understanding, I offer the following “conversation starters” for my online friends who wish to see a comment thread end with someone conjugating the F-word:

• Who thinks we should divert money from the Marines to fund late term abortions for illegal immigrants?

• Do any of you find yourselves outraged when I post this video of graphic police violence under a misleading context?

• Does this photo of a lesbian couple’s assisted suicide business ruffle anyone’s feathers?

• Where was Al Sharpton when five black teenagers assaulted a disabled albino in the Chick-Fil-A parking lot?

• Who agrees that the government should fine Korean War Veterans for flying American flags at a prayer breakfast?

• Does anyone have a problem with mandatory tracking implants for the children of NRA members?

• Which ethnic group produces the most effective criminals?

• Pros & Cons of a pre-school sexual education class taught by Russell Brand. And go!

• Would anyone like to comment on this photo montage of animal cruelty set to Ted Nugent singles?

• Click like if you support political indoctrination through children’s television programming