4 ms·
The Conversation We Really Need to Have About Bias at Google
- fartcannon 8y agoThis article is impossible to read without being pestered by spammy pop ups and redirects.
- yorwba 8y agoUsing uMatrix with default settings, I had no such problem.
- fox404 8y agoNot to defend Trump, but any news about him on google seems to disproportionately be a slew of Washington Post articles. While I applaud his accomplishments and hope his space ventures are successful, why on earth we allow the wealthiest man on the planet to have a distorted soapbox of this magnitude to enact his grudge match is absolutely beyond me. I do not think that the internet or the voices being presented are being selected democratically. They are probably not even being selected statistically as the powers that be would like to defensively claim.
- leereeves 8y agoThe NY Times is showing their own bias here, ignoring the cases when Google's algorithms favor black people, like a search for "American inventors". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=American%20inventors https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=American%20inventors Google's algorithms are imperfect but the NY Times is cherry picking results to favor a particular political agenda.
- econ4all 8y agoThat's because it's matching "African American Inventors". I guess it's understandable how this became a rallying cry for racists but if you were to search for "US inventors" you'll find all the white faces you crave: https://www.google.com/search?q=us+inventors https://www.google.com/search?q=us+inventors
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 8y agoThe only racism here is in your head. The NY Times is alleging "Bias at Google" and cherry picking examples that support that allegation while ignoring evidence that would refute that allegation. I'm sure all of these examples, both positive and negative, have technical explanations. Further refutation of the claim that Google is biased.
- econ4all 8y agoI misunderstood your intentions.
- lorenzhs 8y agoThat doesn't contradict the article in any way. The article observes that the inadvertent bias in search results tends to reproduce real-world bias against minorities. It makes no claim that the same frequency mining algorithms cannot also skew results in other unintended ways, like matching "African American Inventors" to your query. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.
- leereeves 8y agoPainting a misleading picture of the whole situation by ignoring evidence that doesn't suit their agenda is dishonest.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- econ4all 8y agoIt used to be that this author had a column that pushed back against the tech blaming but due to either weak demand or editorial decisions he pivoted to the mainstream of blaming internet companies for world's ails, and eventually he pulled a stunt and was caught in a lie: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/farhad-manjoo-nyt-unplug.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/farhad-manjoo-nyt-unplug.php At any rate I yearn for the day when Google's provided comment is something like: "It's our damn site and we don't owe anyone visibly or traffic so stop wasting our time".
- harshgupta 8y agoThis may be an opinionated article, but the facts it cites are real and credible. I wonder why its flagged?