I make statements that cannot be verified? Like what? Do the search, see the results. What I said was 100% verifiable by anyone with access to google. Yes, you have brought to the group's attention that, on at least 2 or 3 data points, Google search results yield a higher quantity pictures of black people. There could be a lot of reasons for that, many of them inconsequential. It is just two datapoints (google search results on inventors, and quarterbacks). I just searched "famous celebrities" and Kanye and Beyonce were the only two blacks in an initial cut of like 10. I then tried "famous chefs", and they were all white. I tried "famous democrats", and aside from the Obamas, everyone was white. I guess my three data points Trump your two data points. Even if your data points did represent a trend, there's still this:
Google is blackwashing some of its search results. The only conclusion I can muster as to why they would do this is to apply political correctness in order to influence people's worldview.
Your exercise most certainly does not support that conclusion. And even if there were a trend - which there isn't - you wouldn't be able to say that, because there are a lot of reasons Google's search results could be the way they are.
Logic would dictate that inventors would be listed by name or by chronological criteria. Right?
As a reminded, that's not how Google has ever worked, no most internet search engines. THIS is how Google works: https://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/thestory/
Seems this knowledge will be beneficial for you, considering you've said in another thread that you think you can learn more from Google searches than established news organizations.
Want to have some more PC fun? Next google the question: are shoes racist? And read down a page or two. Evidently certain shoes are indeed racist. I had no idea that I could offend someone simply by wearing the wrong shoes. Again, so what? You use the internet to find all sorts of opinions. For some of my own PC fun, I decided to Google your own question "Google blackwashing search results", and what I found were a list of polemic, clickbait articles, many from sources that appeared pretty "Aryan" in nature. How is this credible?
If you have to work to get what I am saying, that is good. If you don't get it at all that is fine too. But I think the discussion should happen and no I am not interested in a one way thing here. I am *asking* your opinion, you are choosing to attack my character instead of the issue I raised.I am not attacking your character, I'm attacking the illogical, unscientific way you try to convince people of your worldview. See, "logic" and "science", which you seem to value, aren't about finding one or two data points, and then running with whatever preferred conclusion you can muster that doesn't contradict those two data points. The scaffolding on which your whole schpeel rests (i.e., two data points) completely collapsed the minute I decided to Google three more things.
Your points here would be applicable if we are discussing search algorithms and approaching analysis of PCism scientifically. But we are not. I will say it once again: the reason the results are blackwashed does not matter. They just are and because they are the results are open for interpretation. PCism dictates the acceptable and unacceptable interpretations. That is where I take issue with it.
If we have to digress into technical details, I know how search engines work. I know that those horizontal controls are populated from special queries that are independent of the normal search process. It is VERY possible that black activists are in that list because some smug-ass leftist jerk thinks they are doing the world a favor by stacking a common academic search. Notice, those horizontal list controls don't pop up for every search. They only popup for searches related to people associated with various fields. For example, a search of American Automobiles does not list cars using that UI element. The horizontal list is there deliberately placed by programmers and tested with those searches. Given the gross misinformation we have all seen from major media outlets, does it not stand to reason to conclude Google at least didn't care enough to create a better way to list people and their accomplishments? Isn't that them being horrifically racist from a PC perspective?
So while I respect the points you are trying to make, you are having a different argument than I am. I am not asserting any worldview here for people to accept. I actually don't want a world where everyone subscribes to groupthink. I think it is healthy when people disagree on these matters and I think history has proven that times are worst when people all believe or "know" the same things.
Where I will jab a bit is when I read things like this statement: I found were a list of polemic, clickbait articles, many from sources that appeared pretty "Aryan" in nature
. How is this credible?
Do you realize that very statement is horrifically racist? Is a source immediately not credible if they appear "Aryan"? I don't think the color of the skin of the messenger affects credibility in any way. But political correctness has deemed it okay to assume the words of a white source that looks a certain way are automatically false. You've been handed a license to be discriminatory and bigoted, and I am not sure you are even aware of it. Do you not see the problem with that? What if the "Aryan" bloke is telling the truth and is only ignored because of preconceived assumptions about their trustworthiness?
So far I have shown that Google data can be interpreted in unlimited ways, that fake news and real news can say the same thing and both will be ignored if the story doesn't fit PC norms, and that simply by asking an unPC question will be met with calls for scientific evidence and committee approved conclusions. Then, the cherry on top: It is suggested that I'm the one hindering conversation.