Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Google is messing with your search algorithms

2

Comments

  • Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    Actually thought the OP was having a laugh, so just now put 'straight couples' in the googlebot box, and whola this is top of the 1st results:

    XyqNjcQ.png

    It's no longer great (or acceptable via Google) to be straight.
    Down with the straights!

    Type in ‘couples’


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Liliana Tasty Cuttlefish


    sk8erboii wrote: »
    Type in ‘couples’
    If you search for 'red cars', would you not expect to see cars (bear with me now, for some way far out thinking), that are red?


  • Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    If you search for 'red cars', would you not expect to see cars (bear with me now, for some way far out thinking), that are red?

    Search engine algorithm works on the filenames, tags and surrounding words. It doesnt have a way of knowing what the actual image is. If you type in ‘red car’ you dont get red cars, you get cartoons that have been tagged around ‘red’ and ‘car’

    Likewise, if you type in straight couple youre getting images with the word ‘straight couple’ around it. Look at the first image of straight couple it links to an article (for me) titled ‘ What Straight Couples Can Learn From Gay Couples About Relationships’

    Theres much more to it, but theres no conspiracy here. Thats how search engines work and you could do it with bing, yahoo, duckduckgo and itll show the same results. (Same as in typing in ‘white couple’ will bring up tags of race and show people from different races).


  • Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Ballso


    "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 :D

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 794 ✭✭✭moonage


    Apparently, Google thinks that anyone looking for images of "white couples" or "straight couples" are bigots and terrible human beings in general. To teach them a lesson they give them images of black and gay couples instead.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/01/google-image-search-results-black-white-couples.html
    If you were to type in “black couple” on Google’s image search, you would end up seeing a wide variety of couples who are, in fact, black. However, if you search for “white couple” on Google, what’s going to end up happening is that you are going to end up seeing couples that are interracial, which means that only one of the partners will be white. Many users have been very offended by this, saying that this shows Google’s true agenda, which according to them is race mixing.

    Apart from the obvious racist undertones of the backlash around these search results, the reason that this happens is actually quite understandable. Google’s very own Danny Sullivan, who was tagged in a tweet related to the matter, decided to put rumors to rest by explaining why this happens. Apparently when someone uploads a picture of a white couple they don’t use any racial keywords. Basically, white couples are just described as “couples” whereas images of black couples are usually captioned as such. The only time the word “white” tends to get used when describing the couple is when it is an interracial couple, and since Google’s image search looks for keywords it ends up showing you images of interracial couples when you might be looking for a white one. Searching for a couple shows you mostly white couples, which in and of itself shows a racial bias among the users of the internet rather than Google.

    If you just type "couple/s" the great majority are white


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭osarusan



    No use explaining it to people who simply don't want to know because then they'd have one less thing to bleat about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Sure but it's an interesting topic and shows how the perfectly unconscious bias of picture uploaders creates something which some think is a conspiracy. No one types caucasian or European instead of white but that helps to return more white faces. Quite why anyone would be googling couples on a race basis is another matter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


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

    You are partially correct here, but google don't update "daily" (or not in the way that I suspect you think).

    Google try to find results tailored to YOU. This ins't a conspiracy to change results based on how politically correct they may appear, its simply to make sure they can maximize the profits from their core business.

    These results are easily tailored based on the huge amounts of information Google holds on you (or the average user at least). The changing results on more innocent terms like "Gay couple" etc are a by prodcut of this sales customisation and the whole process of Google thinking they know what you want before you even know it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    It's quite amazing how various youtube talking heads have figured out how to maximise outrage enough to get their audience to head off to other forums with the same outrage. That's not to say that the outrage takes hold but it's still impressive.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    I think google know they are a company of influence and due to this somehow feel it is their responsibility to shape peoples opinions. They will use their product how they see fit with whatever politically ideology they personally hold will be the basis of its implementation regardless of if they realise it themselves or not. Nothing is going to change how they operate and your only choice is to accept the world is full of agendas you do not agree with being pushed and just choose to use the product anyway or find an alternative product that can do something similar.

    Of coarse you will get the usual suspects coming out of the wood work denying anything is a foot and calling all those who highlight an issue as being an idiot, conspiracy theorist or one of the many "-isms/-ists" in an attempt to shame instead of actually forming an argument as to why they disagree with the original point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    I think google know they are a company of influence and due to this somehow feel it is their responsibility to shape peoples opinions.

    They don't give a sh!te about "being a company of influence" unless the influence is to increase sales.

    They sometimes tweak things that would appear sexist/ offensive etc but only so they don't themselves get bad press.

    They are not pushing some happy clappy utopian world, they are the epitome of capitalism.

    Nothing is going to change how they operate and your only choice is to accept the world is full of agendas you do not agree with being pushed and just choose to use the product anyway or find an alternative product that can do something similar.

    pretty much..


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    sk8erboii wrote: »
    Type in ‘couples’
    Yup. I don't use google as I think they're dicks, but the same thing happens in Duckduckgo. Type in couples you get all palefaces, type in "white couple" and you get more dark and mixed couples.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    Searched for "couples". First five or six are straight and white. The next few are mainly white with a couple of mixed race. A gay couple appears further down. The op's point is ridiculous.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    kenmm wrote: »
    They don't give a sh!te about "being a company of influence" unless the influence is to increase sales.

    They sometimes tweak things that would appear sexist/ offensive etc but only so they don't themselves get bad press.

    They are not pushing some happy clappy utopian world, they are the epitome of capitalism.
    This. For all their right on public pronouncements and beanbags and fancy coffee machines for their drones workers, it's all about the cash. If nazis actually took over them and facebook would have wee swastikas you could like.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    It would be funny to watch it play out if Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. were all bought up by a conservative consortium.
    Would we see the “it’s their company, they can do what they like” posts? Doubt it.


  • Posts: 0 Koa Mango Block


    They're not my algorithms, by the way, they're Google's to do with as they see fit.


  • Posts: 0 Koa Mango Block


    It would be funny to watch it play out if Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. were all bought up by a conservative consortium.
    Would we see the “it’s their company, they can do what they like” posts? Doubt it.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    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.

    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.

    If you like making signs and shouting at black and asian people at the the weekend Google don't give a flying fu(k - unless there is an angle to see more marker pens to you.


    I'm sure as an employer they promote equality etc - and at the moment the majority believe in equality, therefore the laws of the land promote same so they would prefer to be seen that way - but that has nothing to do with their core business.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    It would be funny to watch it play out if Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. were all bought up by a conservative consortium.
    Would we see the “it’s their company, they can do what they like” posts? Doubt it.

    The web traffic comparison between wikipedia and conservapedia would give you some idea. Or twitter versus gab. Companies like money. It's kind of their thing and Adam and Steve tend to have more disposable income than Bob and Betty who pray to god every night that their adult children don't come home one day with a black spouse.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 Koa Mango Block


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    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.


  • Posts: 0 Koa Mango Block


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,916 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭kenmm


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭McHardcore


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 Koa Mango Block


    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?


Advertisement