3 ms·

Would you care to further explain your point and how that relates to the article at all? Bonus points if you can do it without saying something racist or alread

Would you care to further explain your point and how that relates to the article at all? Bonus points if you can do it without saying something racist or already debunked.

ramblerman 8y ago
I would wager it's not the default list resulting from their algorithms, and was in fact explicitly manipulated to present the list you see now. The original article claims something similar albeit on a different search result. the underlying idea is that google is not just using pagerank and algorithms to show us the current state of the internet. But rather is adding their own bias to push up / down certain results.
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  > the underlying idea is that google is not just using pagerank and algorithms to show us the current state of the internet. But rather is adding their own bias to push up / down certain results. One thing I've wondered with stuff like this is why we assume Google is the root cause here. Mind you, I've switched all my products away from Google, so I'm not defending them, BUT; Reddit users frequently take part in manipulating Google search results for the sakes of memes. To put someones picture up on a specific search, for example. Yet other search results we believe to be hand crafted by Google. Now, I think it is more likely that Google is manipulating data here. However, I never see it discussed why we don't think someone else could be manipulating it?
- dagenix 8y ago
  An idea for which absolutely no proof is offered. "Im seeing what I consider to be an insufficient number of white people" does not prove or provide evidence that the results were either hand curated or created with some sort of nefarious purpose.
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    > "insufficient number of white people" That is unfair. This result is very different from a search like "USA inventors" which is semantically similar and it is an interesting discussion to have, why that is. I make no claims about what the results 'should' look like from a societal perspective. And ultimately I agree with your criticism, it was too hasty on my part to claim google did this purposefully. Some of the ideas in the sibling threads offer very plausible alternative reasons which could have caused this difference.

Would you care to further explain your point and how that relates to the article at all? Bonus points if you can do it without saying something racist or already debunked.

ramblerman 8y ago

I would wager it's not the default list resulting from their algorithms, and was in fact explicitly manipulated to present the list you see now. The original article claims something similar albeit on a different search result. the underlying idea is that google is not just using pagerank and algorithms to show us the current state of the internet. But rather is adding their own bias to push up / down certain results.

asdkhadsj 8y ago
> the underlying idea is that google is not just using pagerank and algorithms to show us the current state of the internet. But rather is adding their own bias to push up / down certain results. One thing I've wondered with stuff like this is why we assume Google is the root cause here. Mind you, I've switched all my products away from Google, so I'm not defending them, BUT; Reddit users frequently take part in manipulating Google search results for the sakes of memes. To put someones picture up on a specific search, for example. Yet other search results we believe to be hand crafted by Google. Now, I think it is more likely that Google is manipulating data here. However, I never see it discussed why we don't think someone else could be manipulating it?
dagenix 8y ago
An idea for which absolutely no proof is offered. "Im seeing what I consider to be an insufficient number of white people" does not prove or provide evidence that the results were either hand curated or created with some sort of nefarious purpose.
- ramblerman 8y ago
  > "insufficient number of white people" That is unfair. This result is very different from a search like "USA inventors" which is semantically similar and it is an interesting discussion to have, why that is. I make no claims about what the results 'should' look like from a societal perspective. And ultimately I agree with your criticism, it was too hasty on my part to claim google did this purposefully. Some of the ideas in the sibling threads offer very plausible alternative reasons which could have caused this difference.