This article is reprinted from Bill Dembski, design theorist William Dembski’s Substack, with his permission.

Robert Epstein is the former editor of Psychology Today who, as I discussed yesterday, has studied the ways in which Google can manipulate public opinion. On the public policy front, Epstein offers a variety of recommendations. Here are some of his more salient public-facing ones:

• Independent Monitoring System — Surveillance of Big Tech Manipulation
  Epstein emphasizes the importance of creating large-scale, independent systems that monitor and record the ephemeral, personalized content Google delivers to users—content that otherwise disappears without a trace. As noted above, his current monitoring network, America’s Digital Shield, collects search suggestions, homepage messages, and video recommendations from over ten thousand registered voters across the U.S. This data allows the public and legal authorities to identify bias, voter manipulation, and censorship in real time and retroactively.
• Real-Time Public Exposure (“Sunlight”) — Using Transparency as a Deterrent
  Following Justice Brandeis’s principle that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” Epstein argues that publicly exposing Big Tech’s manipulations is a powerful deterrent. It’s one thing to monitor Google’s shenanigans. It’s another to make their activities visible to the public. Public exposure can shift corporate behavior without requiring legislation or litigation. Epstein’s monitoring system is designed to generate continuous, court-admissible data for exactly this purpose.
• Make Google’s Search Index a Public Commons — Mandated Public Access to Core Infrastructure
  Epstein suggests that Google’s search index — its database of the web — should be declared a public commons, allowing competitors to build their own search engines using that data. This would foster algorithmic diversity, end Google’s monopoly on search, and restore competitive innovation. He argues there is legal precedent for declaring essential services public goods, especially when abuse becomes systemic.
• Regulatory Oversight and Transparency — Mandating Algorithmic Transparency
  Epstein advocates for governmental regulations requiring tech companies to disclose their algorithmic practices, especially concerning election-related content. He suggests that platforms should be transparent about how they personalize content and ensure that such practices are not partisan. His research supports legislative efforts aimed at enforcing transparency and accountability in algorithmic decision-making. In aid of this transparency, Epstein encourages decentralized and open-source platforms to counteract Google’s centralized control over information.
• Banning Surveillance Capitalism — Outlawing User Data Exploitation
  Though he considers it politically unlikely in the U.S., Epstein proposes banning Google’s surveillance-based business model, which treats users as products and monetizes their behavior and data. He cites Apple CEO Tim Cook’s support for outlawing this deceptive and manipulative approach to monetization. Epstein believes it is fundamentally incompatible with democratic norms.
• Rejecting Ineffectual Antitrust Action — Avoiding Misdirected Legal Remedies
  Epstein warns that traditional antitrust lawsuits will not stop the real threats posed by Google — namely surveillance, censorship, and manipulation. Breaking up parts of the company won’t affect their core influence over search and content delivery. He argues Google’s legal teams even manipulate regulatory focus to avoid more threatening lines of inquiry.
• Public Awareness Campaigns — Educating the Public on Algorithmic Influence
  Epstein emphasizes the importance of raising public awareness about Google’s capacity to subtly influence opinions and elections through algorithmic manipulation. He engages in extensive public outreach, including media appearances and maintaining websites like MyGoogleResearch.com, to disseminate his findings and educate users on recognizing and resisting such influences, bypassing Google in favor of less biased alternatives.
• Whistleblower Protections — Safeguarding Insiders Who Expose Misconduct
  Recognizing the value of insider information, Epstein wants to see legal protections for whistleblowers within tech companies. He highlights cases like that of former Google employee Zach Vorhies, who leaked documents indicating internal bias. In endorsing Vorhies’s book Google Leaks, Epstein wrote: “I know a lot of creepy things about Google, but I was shocked by some of the revelations that turned up in the 950 pages of documents Vorhies extracted from the company. We all need to understand how dangerous this company is.” Epstein cites such cases to underscore the importance of safeguarding workers in Big Tech who reveal its manipulative practices. Protecting whistleblowers will help to uncover and redress unethical behaviors by Big Tech.
• International Pressure (e.g., EU Intervention) — Global Regulatory Initiatives and Cooperation
  While skeptical of U.S. political will, Epstein believes the European Union might take decisive action against Google’s influence—such as declaring Google’s index a public utility — which would have global implications. He sees EU regulations as potentially stronger and more enforceable than US regulations. He notes, however, that even strong EU laws require monitoring to ensure compliance. Epstein suggests that international cooperation is essential to establish standards and regulations that limit Google’s global influence on public opinion and elections. In advocating for a unified regulatory approach, Epstein wants to ensure that Google’s operations are subject to global accountability.

Robert Epstein has focused on Google’s political malfeasance. Earlier in this article I focused on Google’s economic/business malfeasance. Let next pull these two strands together.

Next: Pulling the strands together to chart life after Google

Here are the previous instalments: The evilization of Google—and what to do about it Part 1: Understanding Google’s dominance over the internet. Nothing is totally evil. Still, there’s enough evil in Google that it is, for now, more on the side of Darth Vader than Obi-Wan Kenobi.

The utter dependence of online businesses on Google. Part 2: An SEO business needs to please Google or else it is dead in the water. Google’s re-presentation of information created by others makes it less likely that users will visit them. Thus Google’s business expands at their expense.

Image Credit: Teerasan - Adobe Stock

A potential chink in Google’s armor: Loss of legal immunity Part 3: Currently, Google is legally protected from the consequences of frequent copyright violation. One outcome of the resulting ad clutter is that, unless you are top of the search, you’re likely wasting time trying to make money off organic search.

Becoming a slave to Google: How it happens Part 4: After an update, you always have to second guess what Google did. You become a reverse engineer who never sees under the hood. This leads to a mentality that always tries to second guess whether Google will favor some piece of content or way of expressing it.

Google’s power over online business: Monopolistic and extravagant Part 5: To help people understand Google’s power over online businesses, I ask. What if the road on which the local Walmart is located suddenly became a dirt trail? It’s as though Google is doing everything in its power to throttle organic traffic, driving that traffic to their sponsored ads, increasing its bottom line.

How Google search rank disrupted the alternative health industry Part 6: Google’s bias is as real as ever, but the firm has deflected it to an impersonal policy that gives an air of objectivity. Having a Wikipedia entry gets you instant credibility even though so much of Wikipedia is substandard and politically biased.

and

How Google can control and manipulate public opinion. In Part 7, Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, offers some disturbing information on how search engines can be manipulated for political purposes. Epstein, working through web projects, also provides a sobering assessment of how much Google monitors what average Internet users are doing online.