Google is messing with your search algorithms

10-10-2019 6:01pm

kenmm wrote: »

It doesnt matter who owns them - if you are the type of person who likes to buy <Insert homophobic products> here, then Google will do their best within the parameters of the law to match you up with those paying to advertise the sort of <Inserted homophobic product> that you want to buy.

I was more referring to the social media aspects, as I assumed that's what the previous poster was getting at. I'm firmly of the belief that people who are "deplatformed" have zero right to expect that they be allowed to use a company's products or services. you don't have a god given right to be allowed spout what you want on FB or twitter, and the owners can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Their website, their rules. If they don't want you on, then tough.

What Will I am Not is saying (I hope) is that this is a handy excuse by the left to discriminate against the opposite points of view. They're hinting that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and say Infowars bought twitter and Ben Shapiro / Alex Jones became the frontmen and started banning anyone with a rainbow flag in their profile pic......then all those saying "Their website, their rules" would be up in arms screaming "that's discrimination, you can't censor my views because they're diametrically opposed to yours...."

I'm refuting that point. I reckon if that actually happened and people were being banned for their views (which is what is being claimed) instead of being banned for breaching the Ts&Cs (which is what's really going on) then people would leave FB or Twitter because that's patently unfair.

That's not what's happening now, because it's not patently unfair. People are being banned for acting the maggot, not because they're anti-liberal or whatever.

Will I Am Not · 10-10-2019 6:04pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd wager good money that if they were bought up by a bunch of alt-right, homophobic, misogynists who started tailoring their platform to exclude minorities etc. then people would leave in their droves. I'd almost guarantee it.

It's not just the SJWs who believe that black people or lesbians should be treated with respect and dignity, you know.

I said conservative not alt-right.

10-10-2019 6:08pm

Fair enough, but my point stands. If "non liberals" were in charge and started banning liberals without rhyme or reason, it would be the death knell for that company.

Will I Am Not · 10-10-2019 6:24pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair enough, but my point stands. If "non liberals" were in charge and started banning liberals without rhyme or reason, it would be the death knell for that company.

I’m more concerned about their interference and influence in elections than anything else.

Like a Google senior executive wondering what they can do to prevent a repeat of the Trump election. Tulsi Gabbard claiming her ad account had been suspended by Google. Russia claiming that ads on Facebook and Google interfered with their elections.

These companies hold far too much sway imo. They have ridiculous amounts of data on everyone. They’re all on the same side of the political spectrum. All considered fairly insidious by many of us.

When other mediums start to get too big they are just bought out by these handful of companies. Instagram, WhatsApp, Skype, LinkedIn, Youtube...
It’s not some far fetched fantasy that they might be trying to shape the world in a way that suits them.

kenmm · 10-10-2019 6:28pm

ye sorry - I was looking at the original topic which was the perceived manipulation of "the search results" - which are constantly being manipulated in a many ways to see sh!t.

Grab All Association · 10-10-2019 6:55pm

Regarding the attack on the Ryan family last week, O'Doherty is off her nut and a vile individual, but Lidl share some of the blame here too.
They ran these adverts for a lot longer than the other versions they had previously shown. Plastered it all over billboards too and a few weeks ago it covered their windows in most of their stores. It was only a matter of time before people started complaining about it.

They replied publicly on social media and brought it more widespread attention. So a ridiculous Tweet posted by O'Doherty and shared by a very few of her ilk and anonymous racists, they got it trending and brought it to the attention of trolls. A good public relations office of any company should ignore these types of Tweets until asked by the media to make a statement about it, and you do this on your website, not on social media. In my opinion they made the whole situation worse for the Jonathan and Fiona.

I do believe that the whole leaving the country is a complete overreaction though. If you look up the types of people prosecuted for this stuff in the past (mostly cases in the United Kingdom), who have threatened or incited violence against LGBT, black, Muslims, politicians etc, they tend to be unemployed, unkempt loners with elevated BMIs and have just jumped on the bandwagon to the abuse someone is facing online.

I’m aware that these people themselves have probably faced some form of discrimination themselves in the past because of their appearance and life choices. Doesn’t make it any less serious though and they should be punished just as severely as a racist person would.

It’s highly unlikely they would have the means and/or physical ability to actually carry out what they have threatened. It’s these types of people who will make the most extreme threats against families like the Ryans for a reaction which leads to a lot more publicity and widespread condemnation.

It has gone well beyond the odd tokenism we seen in the late 1990s to early 2000s. Integration, political correction are all now commercialised and have been for years. Shows like South Park have even parodied this fact in 2015.

The majority of us white Irish today do not tolerate all forms of discrimination and racism. Advertisers know this and are using this to make their clients appear like they share the same values as us so there’s now a complete overrepresentation of LGBT+, black people, minorities in advertising on TV, casting, search results etc.

This in itself could be considered a form of racism when you think of it fact that this man and his child were cast is because they’ve a different skin colour to the rest of us. Lidl is like any other large multinational business, it’s just out to make money at the end of the day.

If Lidl is really passionate about pushing integration then they would run adverts like this in other markets they’re in e.g. Poland, Hungary. They recently entered the US, we’ll see will they heavily publicise adverts like this in the likes of Alabama.

Skylinehead · 10-10-2019 7:13pm

Ballso wrote: »

The issue is we've become over reliant on these companies for formulating our world view and are open to manipulation. They are openly censoring things in China for example (not that the Chinese know, they think everything is rosy because there is very little bad news in the internet). Whereas the internet in the West seems to be only bad news.

Google is banned in China...albeit after massive pressure to stop their censored search engine.

kenmm · 10-10-2019 8:24pm

Grab All Association wrote: »

Regarding the attack on the Ryan family last week..<snip>.

I missed that story (and we have wandered slightly) - but just to say WTF - a family targeted because they helped sell Lidl.

Personally tho - I think Ireland has escaped multicultural advertising and a lot of the time only white Irish are represented - to the point that I think it is unrepresentative of Ireland (i.e. not even other EU shown on a lot of Irish TV etc - but this is my anecdotal off topic impression only.

McHardcore · 10-10-2019 8:26pm

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.

10-10-2019 9:00pm

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I’m more concerned about their interference and influence in elections than anything else.

Like a Google senior executive wondering what they can do to prevent a repeat of the Trump election. Tulsi Gabbard claiming her ad account had been suspended by Google. Russia claiming that ads on Facebook and Google interfered with their elections.

These companies hold far too much sway imo. They have ridiculous amounts of data on everyone. They’re all on the same side of the political spectrum. All considered fairly insidious by many of us.

When other mediums start to get too big they are just bought out by these handful of companies. Instagram, WhatsApp, Skype, LinkedIn, Youtube...
It’s not some far fetched fantasy that they might be trying to shape the world in a way that suits them.

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

Will I Am Not · 10-10-2019 9:16pm

[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:

11-10-2019 12:33pm

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? · 11-10-2019 1:03pm

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 · 11-10-2019 1:20pm

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 · 11-10-2019 1:47pm

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?

11-10-2019 2:36pm

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 · 11-10-2019 2:38pm

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

Something good came of this thread at least.

20Wheel · 11-10-2019 3:50pm

"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 · 11-10-2019 4:19pm

[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...

11-10-2019 5:13pm

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 · 11-10-2019 5:20pm

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 · 11-10-2019 5:44pm

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 · 11-10-2019 5:57pm

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 · 11-10-2019 6:49pm

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.

12-10-2019 12:17am

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 · 12-10-2019 3:19am

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 · 13-10-2019 9:59pm

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.

Google is messing with your search algorithms

Comments