Did Google’s Search Algorithms Contribute to the Rise of Dylann Roof?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has uncovered how Google search algorithms influenced 22-year-old Emmanuel AME gunman Dylann Roof’s white supremacist ideology.

Before Roof was sentenced to death for murdering nine Black parishioners in Charleston, South Carolina, June 2015, the self-proclaimed white supremacist began researching racist literature on Google after the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012. Roof’s manifesto detailed his metaphorical trip down the white supremacist rabbit hole when he typed “black on White crime” into a Google search.

From there, he found a web page run by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that routinely publishes misinformation claiming most whites are murdered by Black people. The misleading figures Roof discovered left an impression on him, so much so that he wrote in his manifesto he has “never been the same since that day.”

He claimed that the media should be focusing on these cases of Black-on-white murder instead of the Trayvon shooting. While FBI data shows whites are killed primarily by other whites, the SPLC said search algorithms did not give Roof the option to see such information.

That web page was just one of many. Roof went to oldest hate site on the web, Stormfront.org, where he was thrust into multiple discussions about Black-on-white crime. Then, he went to an alt-right site The Daily Stormer. All of these sites were made available because of Google’s search algorithms that prioritize monetization and “giving us what we want” over quality information, the SPLC claimed.

Independent journalism doesn't fund itself.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top