The Hate Search

Dec. 15, 2015 (Mimesis Law) — The New York Times ran an opinion piece on Sunday entitled The Rise of Hate Search, authored by Evan Soltas and Seth Stephens-Davidowitz. As the title would suggest, it appears that the Times is trying to coin a new catchphrase with “Hate Search,” and the article attempts to sell the proposition that future behavior can be predicted by internet Google searches.

We often think of Google as a source from which we seek information directly, on topics like the weather, who won last night’s game or how to make apple pie. But sometimes we type our uncensored thoughts into Google, without much hope that Google will be able to help us. The search window can serve as a kind of confessional.

It begins by pointing out that in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino on December 2nd, “the top Google search in California with the word ‘Muslims’ in it was ‘kill Muslims.’” It then goes on to profile a study that Soltas and Stephens-Davidowitz created which illustrated a correlation between Google searches and action.

Using weekly data from 2004 to 2013, we found a direct correlation between anti-Muslim searches and anti-Muslim hate crimes.

This bold statement is misleading because it overlooks the fact that both hate searches and hate crimes are usually both bolstered by the same types of acts. If terroristic events (like those which happened in Paris and San Bernardino) are attributed to Muslims, then it would stand to reason that there would be corresponding angry Internet research into Muslims. Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that hate crimes against Muslims would also increase. While the obvious indicator would be terrorist acts attributed to Muslims lead to increased hate crimes against Muslims, the Times article seems to interject Google searches as a more valid indicator.

The danger in this line of thinking is that Soltas and Stephens-Davidowitz seem more than willing to take their theory and encourage law enforcement to use it to predict crimes that haven’t happened yet. This typically is not an idea that goes well in practice.

. . . police departments would be wise to use search data to allocate resources through predictive policing. The data, for example, could tell police chiefs when sending a cop to do an extra drive through a Muslim neighborhood, or making sure that the town mosque was safe overnight, would be a good idea.

The mere utterance of the term “predictive policing” sends shivers down any defense attorney or civil libertarian’s spine. How far would the police take the idea that these Google searches can “predict hate crime?” How much power should be given to the Thought Police that would do all of this investigating of future crimes? Stepping up patrol around a mosque is one thing, but how about ultimately searching the home of somebody who Google searched “I hate my neighbor?”

Sadly, the authors found a psychologist to validate their attenuated findings.

“If someone is willing to say ‘I hate them’ or ‘they disgust me,’ we know that those emotions are as good a predictor of behavior as actual intent,” said Susan Fiske, a social psychologist at Princeton, pointing to 50 years of psychology research on anti-black bias. “If people are making expressive searches about Muslims, it’s likely to be tied to anti-Muslim hate crime.”

That seems like a stretch. Although people stating things like “I hate them” or “They disgust me” is certainly good evidence to prove an accused’s intent during a trial (for a criminal act that has already occurred), Dr. Fiske seems to be more than willing to imply that if someone says something, they are likely to do something. Whether or not Dr. Fiske embraced the idea of proactive police work to stop future crimes isn’t clear based on her quote, but it certainly doesn’t seem that she disagrees with the notion.

The point that Soltas and Stephens-Davidowitz are trying to make might be more compelling if they made some attempt to incorporate a geographic region into an area where the hate crimes have occurred. It would be much more interesting if there were an abrupt spike in hate searches in a certain region that then suffered an actual hate crime. The authors seem to approach this idea as they argue that information gleaned from Google searches is more reliable than general polling.

Google searches seem to suffer from selection bias: Instead of asking a random sample of Americans how they feel, you just get information from those who are motivated to search. But this restriction may actually help search data predict hate crimes.

If this had been followed up with even an anecdotal example that put their theory into practice, the article would have been far more intriguing. Unfortunately, rather than giving an example that a mosque was vandalized shortly after an increase in “hate searches” near the mosque, the authors tell the story of Asma Mohammed Nizami. Nizami was recently driving her car while wearing her hijab (head scarf) when another driver called her a “Muslim bitch” and attempted to run her off the road. While this is certainly criminal behavior, the authors fail to illustrate how their “predictive policing” could have stopped it. The article mentions this incident to apparently remind the reader that “hate crimes are bad,” on the off chance that one might think otherwise.

The authors then deviate from their “hate search” topic and begin addressing ways to help curb hate crimes, and hateful feelings towards Muslims. Nonetheless, they arrive at a very overbroad and self-congratulating conclusion:

We now have rich, digital data that can help us figure out what causes hate and what may work to contain it.

All this article really seems to illustrate is that people are angry after something bad happens, and that sometimes leads to hate crimes. An increase in the use of angry or hateful search terms about Muslims immediately following a horrific event that has been blamed on Muslims should not be surprising. It’s not good, but it’s not surprising. Similarly, an increase in hate crimes towards Muslims immediately following that event is also not good, but not surprising.

Ultimately, what the article does is lists two very common reactions to tragedy and attempts to make them inseparable. While feeling, thinking or even searching for hateful things may not be admirable, as long as the thought does not become an act, no laws are broken. Advocating proactive policing for future crimes flies in the face of that, and that is much more dangerous than any Google search.

Share this: Reddit

Email

Print

Facebook

LinkedIn

Google

Twitter

