Fun with search engines, an experiment in race and sexuality

Because if you talk about a couple, we are so white-centric that the assumption is that you are talking about a white couple. So, if you specifically say 'white' couple, then you are probably talking about non-white couple. Or, it's a nutbag conspiracy.

 

When you search "couple", you get what you expect, random results, since it's a non-specific search. When you search "black couple", you get those results, since it's specific. When you search white couple, you get highly random results.

 

When you search 'couple' you get somewhere between 5:1 to 10:1 white hetero couples to anything else (anything else includes couples with just one white person). I tried it on several different computers, and profiles, it's the same. If there is a bias, it is in assuming that a 'couple' is a white hetero couple.

 

You made the claim about googling "European people history", you do it. I notice that you've even run away from posting a 5 second simple copy & paste

 

Why would African American musicians not be American musicians?

I don't even know what it is you expect the results to be. Google results are determined primarily by what most people click on when they search for similar words. So if you write "straight couples", you will get the webpages that most people visited after entering the words "straight" and the word "couples". So if you are looking for couples you just google "couples". But a search for the term "straight" only makes sense as the opposite of "gay".

The same goes for just about every search engine. I don't actually get what your conspiracy theory is supposed to be, but the only thing you are discovering is what people who use them click on.

 

I know what's happening. You are under the incorrect assumption that Google tries to read your mind to figure out what you want when you do a search. And that is not what Google does. Google gives you what other people where really seeking. i.e. what they actually clicked.

Google can't take "corrective actions" on what people click on..

 

What are you expecting? References to history within Europe about the local people is unlikely to refer to "European people" - it will either be implied by the location or references will be about the various individual national and tribal groups (until you get to more recent history or Europe, which has an international outlook anyway). Most references to "European people" in history is obliviously going to refer to the various exploration, empire and colonisation, hence lots of images of people and places from those parts of the world.

The are valid questions about the balance and presentation of those periods of history in general (though actually pushing in the opposite direction to the one you'd probably want) but, right or wrong, the Google results appears to be simply presenting that balance as it exists online.

 

I don't take orders from you. I'm not going to do your legwork when literally anyone can see the results for themselves.

Literally everyone, you can go google it yourself.

 

Why would black American musicians have a disproportionate presence in spite of being far fewer in number?

 

What is that number? Can you show a reference? It would be interesting to see how many famous musicians are black vs white. Since you have that number, I'd like to take a peek.

In any case, what that means is that more people click on links of black American musicians than they do for others.

 

Did you try an image search of "American Musicians"? How many of these people do you recognize? "All of them" I'm guessing.

Imagine a North Korean having access to google for the first time, they'd be hella confused about America.

 

I don't get your point. If I had done this search in the 70s, I would probably have recognized most of them. Now... only a handful.

But what is your point? Those are images from the links that people click the most.

How would they be confused?

They would see Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Madona, Duke Elington, Stevie Wonder, ... and a bunch of others I don't know.

But you want to know what I would do if I don't know them and I wanted to find out about them? I would Google them! And that would increase their presence in search results.

 

i don't understand your point. But I just looked up the top 100 American recording artists of all time, and of the top 20, 10 are black (I didn't bother to look at the overall number). So yet another premise that is inaccurate.

https://topamericanrecordingartists.blogspot.com/

 

I actually got about 60% black in my image search, wasn't expecting that TBH.

 

All I know is it seems like Google wants white people eliminated from history It’s hilarious the number of black inventors that come up when you just search inventors, considering how few there are compared to white people. Seems nobody cares about white people anymore. I just can’t put my finger on why

 

My point? The majority of American musicians are not black, and certainly not representative of the individuals in the search results.

Again, I have a hard time believing that these results are the result of what others are clicking. Most of the people in the results have fallen out of popularity, or are unknown.

 

Lol, wow... yeah. If a North Korean used google for the first time and searched "American inventors"

 

Check out "American scientists".

Is America majority black and Asian?

 

As I said above, I have proven that premise wrong. Half of the top 20 American recording artists of all time are black.

 

So America isn't a racist society?

Besides, it doesn't change the fact that 13% of the population isn't the majority of American musicians.

How about we move on to actors? Google image "white actors".

 

Not particularly. There are, of course, still many remnants from our racist past that still survive in our institutions. But we've taken steps to shed them. This administration, of course, has set us back quite a bit. But I think we can recover.

What 13% are you talking about? I said half. That's 50%, you know...

Again: the way google works is not by trying to read your mind. Who would google "white actors" and why. Nobody! So Google just shows what people most click on when they look for "Actors"

 

Why someone would search for a specific thing isn't important. The question at hand is why inaccurate results are consistent when specifically searching for "white" this, or "straight" that. You can search for practically anything, so long as the parameters are not white or straight, and get the exact results you would expect.

 

It's vital. People search because they are looking for information. But, more importantly, the point was that not many people will be searching "White Musicians". So Google expects people who are just looking for musicians and give them what most people who googled that before were happy to find.

Again: because Google does not work by trying to read your mind. It works by showing the results that more people were happy with. Which they identify by clicking them.

So, what you are seeing is what most people click. Easy. No conspiracy involved.

 

Really? So the results for "American musician" which feature many black people who're not even identifiable... are more relevant based upon search inquiries than say Metallica, who's so popular that they have an active global following, but notably American.

Seriously now, how can you believe for a second that it's merely coincidence or explainable in a technical sense that you can image search anything outside white heterosexual people of whatever category, and get the results you would expect?

We're beyond "conspiracy theory". We're looking at reality, and nobody can offer up a sanitized explanation which makes sense.

 

FFS, just image search white people then black people, read the descriptions.

"Guugal r jus bean onest, nuffin 2 sea heer"