Fun with search engines, an experiment in race and sexuality

You still don't get it. Google the single word "idiot" and Trump comes up as most common result even though Trump was not used in search phrase. Google "birther" and Obama comes up as most common result in search phrase even though Obama was not used in search phrase. Now why would you think that could be?

The ironic thing is that you creating this thread is going to increase the occurrence of exactly the thing that you are moaning about

 

The simple technical facts have already been explained to you. Why do you keep ignoring them?

When Americans write about musicians form the USA, they won’t label them as “American musician” very often because it is the presumed default. When Americans write about black musicians from America, they will quite often label them as “African American musician” (because Americas history with race is complicated). When they write about white musicians from the USA, they’re less to reference race at all (again, due to presumed default) but if they do, it would be “white musician” rather than “white American musician”. So, the actually balance in the material being searched is already different to what you’re predicting. There are all sorts of questions about whether this is good or bad but all that is relevant in the context of this thread is that it has nothing to do with Google.

A search using the term “American musician” will pick up all the references to “African American musician” but not any of the reference to “white musician”. Even without the factual imbalance explained above, it will naturally return more results about black musicians than white ones. This is a linguistic quirk with the phrase “African American” and again, not the responsibility of Google. It's a bit like if you search for "Microsoft", everything is going to be about the company but if you search "Apple", you get a mixture of the company and the fruit. That isn't Google favouring Microsoft, just how words work.

I’m sure that Google does manipulate their search results in various ways (including some even they're not entirely conscious of) and I’m sure the reasons will vary from legitimate, debatable and highly questionable but the results you’re discussing do not prove what you (want to) believe they prove. It’d be very difficult to prove what you want to prove but it’s up to you whether you try for difficult honesty or the lazy lie.

 

So does Michael Jackson. I don't understand why you keep insisting on this. I already showed you that half of the most popular American performers are black. The fact that you don't know them (and I don't either, many of them) doesn't mean that they are not "identifiable".

Where have I said that it's coincidence? I have said again and again exactly the contrary.

They are the results that those who google "white people" or "heterosexual people" are interested in. I have no idea who that would be, so I would not speculate as to why they would look that up.

Would you consider some real conspiracy by Google to promote black people a "sanitized explanation which makes sense"? If you do, then please explain it to me.