Google is messing with your search algorithms

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How much of an influence do they have versus, say, Fox news or Breitbart and why not worry about those guys?

You can choose your news sources yourself. There’s opposition to those. For every Fox or Breitbart, there’s a CNN or Vice.
There’s no competition for Facebook, Twitter or Youtube. Google has slight competition with search engines but nobody really bothers with them. To Google is an actual verb :pac:

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

You can choose your news sources yourself. There’s opposition to those. For every Fox or Breitbart, there’s a CNN or Vice.
There’s no competition for Facebook, Twitter or Youtube. Google has slight competition with search engines but nobody really bothers with them. To Google is an actual verb :pac:

There are plenty, actually. They may not be as popular but that doesn't mean twitter and Facebook are mandatory for everyone.

Brian?

Will I Am Not wrote: »

You can choose your news sources yourself. There’s opposition to those. For every Fox or Breitbart, there’s a CNN or Vice.
There’s no competition for Facebook, Twitter or Youtube. Google has slight competition with search engines but nobody really bothers with them. To Google is an actual verb :pac:

Isn't Gab a competitor for Twitter? I'm pretty sure there are more social networks than Facebook.

People choose to use these platforms, they are not mandatory.

Will I Am Not

Ah c’mon. They’re not competition. Even Google couldn’t compete with Facebook in social media.
I’ve never even heard of Gab.

If people want to use social media they more or less have to use Facebook or Twitter. How many people do you know using alternatives? Who would you be communicating with? Your friends are on Facebook not Ello. (I had to google Facebook alternative to get that)

You have 2 logos to click on this very page if you want to share it to social media. They’re not Gab or Ello...

Annasopra

Skylinehead wrote: »

"Google is messing with your search algorithms"

Google is messing with their search algorithms, which they own. And I'm sure they update them daily, as you would.

What's supposed to be the issue here

White hetero supremacists only want want to see white heterosexual people?

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Ah c’mon. They’re not competition. Even Google couldn’t compete with Facebook in social media.
I’ve never even heard of Gab.

If people want to use social media they more or less have to use Facebook or Twitter. How many people do you know using alternatives? Who would you be communicating with? Your friends are on Facebook not Ello. (I had to google Facebook alternative to get that)

You have 2 logos to click on this very page if you want to share it to social media. They’re not Gab or Ello...

If you feel that strongly about it, use the alternatives. No point crying about it while using their service, then complaining that they're bumping those who violate the T's and C's.

osarusan

OP got their arse handed to them so badly they quit.

Something good came of this thread at least.

20Wheel

"For example; most CEO's are male. When you do a search for CEOs it used to bring up mostly men. Google and others argue this is sexist because it does not give women an idea that they can also be CEOs."

I can believe this is possibly true these days.
If it actually is verifiably true and not some culture war shyte then I really don't know where to start, I may just give up, just stand aside and pay my white male privilege fee.

Its easier than fighting the sea of issues.

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you feel that strongly about it, use the alternatives. No point crying about it while using their service, then complaining that they're bumping those who violate the T's and C's.

I’m not crying about anything and I’m not active on any of the social media apps. I don’t know where your hostile attitude is coming from I’m just talking about the “their site they can do what they want” brigade.
It’s all fine when it only affects the people you don’t like...

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I’m not crying about anything and I’m not active on any of the social media apps. I don’t know where your hostile attitude is coming from I’m just talking about the “their site they can do what they want” brigade.
It’s all fine when it only affects the people you don’t like...

I'm not talking about you specifically, so my apologies if that's the way it comes across.......it's more aimed at the general population. It's hard to get tone correct through text alone.

It only affects the "people you don't like" because those people are the ones acting the prick in the first place. Gemma O'Doherty claims she's being silenced because she's speaking the truth and lifting the veil on the corruption going on behind the scenes when in reality she's batsh1t crazy and inciting hatred and bigotry with her ill-conceived notions of white people being replaced.

Same with others. The big corporations COULD ban all conservative contributors if they wanted, but they don't. They ban the ones who don't play ball. Nothing to do with their political or social beliefs, they just single out the ones who colour outside the lines. The irony that the majority of those being banned are on one's own side of the political spectrum should ring alarm bells alright, but not the ones that most people hear.

Anyway, I think it's personally fantastic that they only ban the right-wingers and leave the left alone when they are in breach of the rules......oh wait

hatrickpatrick

This has been true for years. Google search is curated and editorialized, Bing search is not. This is especially true when it comes to image search - for example, even with safesrarch off, Google filters out sexually explicit images while bing simply shows you the results for your search without any moralistic tampering with the results before they are presented.

It’s a real shame that this isn’t more widely known or believed, TBH.

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This has been true for years. Google search is curated and editorialized, Bing search is not. This is especially true when it comes to image search - for example, even with safesrarch off, Google filters out sexually explicit images while bing simply shows you the results for your search without any moralistic tampering with the results before they are presented.

It’s a real shame that this isn’t more widely known or believed, TBH.

I just did a Bing search for "couples" and then "white couples" and the results just showed me very similar images to google.

sk8erboii

osarusan wrote: »

OP got their arse handed to them so badly they quit.

Something good came of this thread at least.

I noticed that too lol.

I work in IT and the OP had no idea what the f*ck he’s talking about. Then he started rambling about machine learning, as if he knew what the hell that meant lol.

No doubt a rereg will pop up with the same modus operandi.

Irish Guitarist

Try doing a search for 'drake'. You'll have to keep scrolling for a while before you see a picture of a male duck. Similarly if you search for 'ice cube' the top results aren't pictures of frozen water.

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

I noticed that too lol.

I work in IT and the OP had no idea what the f*ck he’s talking about. Then he started rambling about machine learning, as if he knew what the hell that meant lol.

No doubt a rereg will pop up with the same modus operandi.

Fairly sure they were the artist formally known as kimsang on here, or if not sure had the same script.

sk8erboii

DubInMeath wrote: »

Fairly sure they were the artist formally known as kimsang on here, or if not sure had the same script.

Lol I hope he has a script. It would be really sad to do all this every day for free.

SchrodingersCat

McHardcore wrote: »

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Strangely, searching for 'straight couples' brings up quite a lot of Gay couples.

Google gives your search results based on what you previously searched. Its called Personalized Search and uses 180 days of your previous internet history.