Carole Cadwalladr is absolutely right to highlight how Google’s autocomplete and algorithmic search results can reinforce hate speech and stereotypes (“Google is not ‘just’ a platform”, Comment).
But she is less right to claim I tried to absolve Google of responsibility by tweeting: “I’m sure @google will argue they aren’t responsible for the results” in support. What I actually tweeted was that plus – “but they reap advertising revenue from the search. Is that ethical?”
Google and others argue their results are a mirror to society, not their responsibility. As a chartered engineer, I strongly agree with Ms Cadwalladr that companies such as Google, Facebook and Uber need to take responsibility for the unintended consequences of the algorithms and machine learning that drive their profits. They can bring huge benefits and great apps but we need a tech-savvy government to minimise the downside by opening up algorithms to regulation as well as legislating for greater consumer ownership of data and control of the advertising revenue it generates.
Chi Onwurah MP
Houses of Commons
London SW1
In all the justifiable furore over the pernicious influence of rightwing websites and how it’s reinforced by Google’s algorithms, I’m surprised no one has mentioned one longstanding, though admittedly partial, answer: don’t use Google! Not as difficult as you might think.
For several years now, I’ve avoided using Google (to the extent of barring its cookies) and used DuckDuckGo (see duckduckgo.com) for all searches. It’s just as effective and when, for instance, you try Carole Cadwalladr’s sample search, “did the hol”, none of the offending websites and references comes up. You get a long list of options, but none from Holocaust deniers; indeed, the Holocaust doesn’t come up at all.
Jonathan Lamède
London N8
When work is right for children
On 6 December, the UN committee on the rights of the child released its general comment on rights during adolescence. Many of the recommendations are commendable; however, one fails to protect children. The recommendation to ban all employment below a minimum legal age (articles 84 and 85), a policy set out in the International Labour Organisation’s Minimum Age Convention 138 (1973), makes the false premise that children are better protected if childhood is free from work.
Research has shown this can trigger worse living conditions, reduce education opportunities and push some children into more hazardous and exploitative work. Moreover, age-appropriate safe work can be developmental for children of all ages. That the Minimum Age Convention harms children is now so well established that several dozen researchers and practitioners specialising in child work formed an ad hoc expert group to provide the committee with advice and evidence, arguing that Convention 138 should be revoked or ignored and more effective policy should specifically target work that is dangerous or damaging to children.
Monitoring mechanisms need to be in place to ensure children’s work at all ages benefits them and is not hazardous or exploitative and does not conflict with education. This can be done through the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Convention 138 is both harmful and unnecessary.
Professor Jo Boyden
University of Oxford
Dr Ben White
Erasmus University, the Netherlands
Dr William Myers
International Institute for Child Rights and Development, US
Professor Priscilla Alderson
University College London
Dr Bree Akesson
Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Dr Nicola Ansell
Brunel University
Professor Michael Bourdillon
University of Zimbabwe
Dr Rachel Burr
Social Work & Education, University of Sussex
Richard Carothers
Partners in Technology Exchange, Canada
Dr Kristen Cheney
ISS, The Hague
Professor John Cockburn
Universite Laval, Canada
Dr Tara Collins
Ryerson University, Canada
Dr Philip Cook
International Institute for Child Rights and Development, Canada
Dr Philip Cook
University of Edinburgh
Dr GIna Crivello
University of Oxford
Dr Jennifer Driscoll
Kings College London
Dr Jason Hart
University of Bath
Professor Roger Hart
Graduate Centre of the City University of New York
Dr Neil Howard
European University Institute
Dr Roy Huijsmans
International Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands
Dr Antonella Invernizzi
independent researcher, France
Dr Victor Karunan
Chulalongkom University and Mahidol University, Malaysia
Dr Natascha Klocker
University of Wollongong, Australia
Professor Deborah Levison
Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Minnesota
Professor Manfred Liebel
International Academy Berlin
Dr Peter Mackie
University of Cardiff
Dr Stanford Mahati
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Dr Emma Mawdsley
University of Cambridge
Dr Virginia Morrow
University of Oxford
Dr Maria Federica Moscati
University of Sussex
Dr Sevasti-Melissa Nolas
University of Sussex
Samuel Okyere
University of Nottingham
Dr Alphonce Omolo
Lensthru Consultants in Social Development, Kenya
Kirsten Pontalti
University of Oxford
Professor Gina Porter
Durham University
Kavita Ratna
Advocacy of the Concerned for Working Children, India
Dr Elsbeth Robson
University of Hull
Dr Kettie Roelen
Institute of Development Studies
Dr Jessica Taft
University of California
Professor Nigel Thomas
University of Central Lancashire
Dr Dorte Thorsen
University of Sussex
Professor Kay Tisdall
University of Edinburgh
Dr Afua Twum-Danso Imoh
University of Sheffield
Professor Lorraine van Blerk
University of Dundee
Dr Debbie Watson
University of Bristol
Heartless to the homeless
It is a sad indictment of our society that we have driven so many of our citizens on to the streets. Now we punish them further, as illustrated by Tracy McVeigh’s excellent article on the “dehumanising” campaign against the homeless (News). Many readers will know that if it wasn’t for the bank of mum and dad, their children could be among the poor unfortunate homeless.
The councils, planners, businesses and security people involved in implementing these draconian measures should hang their heads in shame. I hope they do not sleep well in their comfortable beds.
We should have a policy of name and shame. How about printing a league table showing the least compassionate cities and businesses where most of this “defensive architecture” is in place, so that tourists and potential clients can boycott them? These spikes and railings must be in somebody’s parish. I know many church leaders do good voluntary work but why don’t we hear their voices in the media making comparisons to the parable of the Samaritan and the innkeeper? As for sanctuary and best use of churches, I’m sure Jesus would be delighted to see the homeless sleeping on the pews at night time. This could be overseen by a warden to ensure that nothing sacrilegious took place.
R Dudley Edwards
North Yorkshire
Savagery is not new
In the wars of the 20th century, “civilians were not surrogates for the enemy”, writes Will Hutton (Comment). Tell that to the survivors who were in Hamburg or Dresden (or, indeed, Coventry) in the 1939-45 war if he can find any.
Bob Horn
Cranleigh, Surrey
