Memory, counter-memory and denialism: How search engines circulate information about the Holodomor-related memory wars

Abstract

Search engines, such as Google or Yandex, shape social reality by informing their users about current and historical phenomena. However, there is little research on how search engines deal with contested memories, which are subjected to ontological conflicts known as memory wars. In this article, we investigate how search engines circulate information about memory wars related to the Holodomor, a mass famine caused by Soviet repressive politics in Ukraine in 1932–1933. For this aim, we conduct an agent-based audit of four search engines—Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google, and Yandex—and examine how their top search results represent the Holodomor and related memory wars. Our findings demonstrate that search engines prioritize interpretations of the Holodomor aligning with specific sides in the memory wars, thus becoming memory warriors themselves.

Shall the robots remember? Conceptualising the role of non-human agents in digital memory communication

“…Only a few studies (e.g. Locke 2020;Makhortykh 2023b;Shur-Ofry and Pessach 2019;Walden 2022a;Zavadski and Toepfl 2019) discuss the role of these agents in the context of memory communication. While the recent advancements in the field of generative AI have ignited interest in human-to-robot memory communication (see, for instance, Kansteiner (2022) and initiatives such as the AI4Europeana (Europeana 2022)), there is an urgent need for expanding the memory communication research agenda to assess the role of non-human agents both conceptually and empirically.…”

“…The first major implication of the rise of human-to-robot memory communication is the growing importance of AI-driven systems as memory actors. By becoming responsible for the organisation and retrieval of information in response to human queries, these systems effectively decide what information sources and what interpretations of the collective past gain more visibility and, thus, shape how this past is remembered (Makhortykh 2023b). Such an impact is particularly pronounced for the general public, members of which often rely on information retrieval systems such as search engines or conversational agents to acquire information about a specific historical event or a personality.…”

“…A number of memory theories, such as cultural memory (Assmann 2011), prosthetic memory (Landsberg 2004), postmemory (Hirsch 2008), and media memory (Neiger et al 2011), acknowledge the growing reliance of individuals and societies on (mass) media for storing and transmitting memories. However, such acknowledgement does not challenge the underlying assumption that human agents play a central role in the context of communication about the past (Makhortykh 2023b). This human-centric approach is also characteristic of the recent memory-related theoretical frameworks, such as the memory of the multitude (Hoskins 2017b) or multidirectional memory (Rothberg 2009), which aim to account for the disruptive transformations caused by digital technologies and the shift of memory practices towards online networked environments.…”

“…These agents encompass a diverse range of systems, including search engines (Makhortykh et al . 2022), recommender systems (Prey and Smit 2018), editing bots (Ferron and Massa 2011), and conversational agents (Kansteiner 2022).…”

The user is dead, long live the platform? Problematising the user-centric focus of (digital) memory studies

“…In contrast to the focus on the institution-or group-oriented forms of remembrance, which underlined many classic concepts in memory studies, such as the collective (Halbwachs, 1992), social (Olick and Robbins, 1998) or cultural memory (Assmann, 2011a), the conceptualisations of the digital (Liebermann, 2021) -or connective (Hoskins, 2011a) -memory turn increasingly acknowledged the role of individual agency in the context of remembrance. The availability of new possibilities for producing, storing and sharing content online has direct implications for the capacities of individuals to preserve information about their lives and make it visible to others (Barratt, 2009;Garde-Hansen et al, 2009;Van Dijck, 2007) but also to engage in the discussions of the collective past to contest or support its specific interpretations (Liu, 2018;Makhortykh et al, 2022a;Rutten et al, 2013).…”