Google explains why searching "idiot" shows up Trump's pictures to internet idiots

[Anonymous]

I took a (big) chance and Googled “asshole” Trump comes up in most of those images too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google's anti-right bias is fairly well known. There's been more than a few internal leaks about the subject, and if you follow tech news, you are well familiar with them freaking out over these leaks. Whether or not they actually implemented bias or not is a different discussion, but it has been contemplated.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472

Google's search results can get some wierd things that occur in the english language, but not in other languages.

Searching "american inventors" brings up mostly pictures of African American inventors. Same for "american couple", which would indicate that something with the search algorithim applies a weight to various terms, even if not directly searched. You see this a lot with google as it searches for what it thinks you want, rather than what you actually want. This can make it difficult to find the information you are really searching for.

That's because they are listed online as "african-american" inventors, while white people are just called inventors. Trust me, that is not liberal bias. Black people really don't like having their accomplishments qualified in this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/11/18136114/trump-idiot-image-search-result-sundar-pichai-google-congress-testimony

In a House Judiciary Committee hearing today, Google CEO Sundar Pichai was asked to explain why a Google image search for “idiot” turned up pictures of Donald Trump — and whether that was a case of intentional bias.

The question came from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who was trying to refute the idea that Google is politically manipulating search results. “Right now, if you google the word ‘idiot’ under images, a picture of Donald Trump comes up. I just did that,” she said. “How would that happen?”

Pichai offered a long, general explanation of how Google search works:

Any time you type in a keyword, as Google we have gone out and crawled and stored copies of billions of [websites’] pages in our index. And we take the keyword and match it against their pages and rank them based on over 200 signals — things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it. And based on that, at any given time, we try to rank and find the best search results for that query. And then we evaluate them with external raters, and they evaluate it to objective guidelines. And that’s how we make sure the process is working.

“So it’s not some little man sitting behind the curtain figuring out what we’re going to show the user?” Lofgren asked sarcastically.

This is so hilarious. Why does congress want tech leaders to give them testimony when they do not understand anything tech. This news itself adds to the "idiot" score for Trump!

Relevance. That's the problem! Maybe Congress can outlaw the use of relevance in search algorithms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I type in idiot, I only get the explanation from Pichai.

I don't get images of Trump.

I don't waste my time obsessing over him either . . . sooooo

Cause you didn’t do an image search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I type in idiot, I only get the explanation from Pichai.

I don't get images of Trump.

I don't waste my time obsessing over him either . . . sooooo

^^^ a real power user. Do you even Internet? SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/11/18136114/trump-idiot-image-search-result-sundar-pichai-google-congress-testimony

In a House Judiciary Committee hearing today, Google CEO Sundar Pichai was asked to explain why a Google image search for “idiot” turned up pictures of Donald Trump — and whether that was a case of intentional bias.

The question came from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who was trying to refute the idea that Google is politically manipulating search results. “Right now, if you google the word ‘idiot’ under images, a picture of Donald Trump comes up. I just did that,” she said. “How would that happen?”

Pichai offered a long, general explanation of how Google search works:

Any time you type in a keyword, as Google we have gone out and crawled and stored copies of billions of [websites’] pages in our index. And we take the keyword and match it against their pages and rank them based on over 200 signals — things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it. And based on that, at any given time, we try to rank and find the best search results for that query. And then we evaluate them with external raters, and they evaluate it to objective guidelines. And that’s how we make sure the process is working.

“So it’s not some little man sitting behind the curtain figuring out what we’re going to show the user?” Lofgren asked sarcastically.

This is so hilarious. Why does congress want tech leaders to give them testimony when they do not understand anything tech. This news itself adds to the "idiot" score for Trump!

Algorithms are written by little man sitting behind the curtain. You see what Google engineers want you to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I watch one of these hearings it cements the idea that we routinely elect imbeciles to congress on both sides of the aisle.

Nah, the weak-minded in Congress are much much more pervasive on the right.

The issue is that since 1993 the right (because of their donors) has been systematically purging anyone who's an independent thinker. Primarying the smart ones and leaving the apparatchiks. Boehner leaves. Meadows, Jordan, Gaetz and the rest of the owned-by-billionaires caucus is left. (There are some smart Republicans left, though they are mostly evil yet smart: McConnell, Toomey. Can't think of one offhand in the House, though.)

Check out Mann and Ornstein's book on this topic - the anti-intellectualism of the right has infected the whole conservative movement. Except for the donor class. Rupert Murdoch and the Koches are smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I watch one of these hearings it cements the idea that we routinely elect imbeciles to congress on both sides of the aisle.

Nah, the weak-minded in Congress are much much more pervasive on the right.

The issue is that since 1993 the right (because of their donors) has been systematically purging anyone who's an independent thinker. Primarying the smart ones and leaving the apparatchiks. Boehner leaves. Meadows, Jordan, Gaetz and the rest of the owned-by-billionaires caucus is left. (There are some smart Republicans left, though they are mostly evil yet smart: McConnell, Toomey. Can't think of one offhand in the House, though.)

Check out Mann and Ornstein's book on this topic - the anti-intellectualism of the right has infected the whole conservative movement. Except for the donor class. Rupert Murdoch and the Koches are smart.

Well, that's depressing. There does seem to be a significant number of dunces in Republican leadership, especially the House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I took a (big) chance and Googled “asshole” Trump comes up in most of those images too

I got same for moron.

[Anonymous]

He's got decent share for treason.

[Anonymous]

Google is a corporation, they have to do what their conscience tells them is right. They have to build their search engine in the way that makes the most sense - and profits - to them. They don't have a legal obligation to be unbiased. Do we want to start requiring corporations to be unbiased? Apolitical? Not use conscience in determining their business practices? Refuse to allow them to fire employees who say things that are damaging to their business because, free speech?

That's all fine with me, but it means regulating the rights of corporations. Is that what you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google's anti-right bias is fairly well known. There's been more than a few internal leaks about the subject, and if you follow tech news, you are well familiar with them freaking out over these leaks. Whether or not they actually implemented bias or not is a different discussion, but it has been contemplated.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472

Google's search results can get some wierd things that occur in the english language, but not in other languages.

Searching "american inventors" brings up mostly pictures of African American inventors. Same for "american couple", which would indicate that something with the search algorithim applies a weight to various terms, even if not directly searched. You see this a lot with google as it searches for what it thinks you want, rather than what you actually want. This can make it difficult to find the information you are really searching for.

Correct. Asa small business owner, I have to pay an additional fee to a marketing company to be found in searches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google is a corporation, they have to do what their conscience tells them is right. They have to build their search engine in the way that makes the most sense - and profits - to them. They don't have a legal obligation to be unbiased. Do we want to start requiring corporations to be unbiased? Apolitical? Not use conscience in determining their business practices? Refuse to allow them to fire employees who say things that are damaging to their business because, free speech?

That's all fine with me, but it means regulating the rights of corporations. Is that what you want?

When a corporation crosses the line and acts as a biased utility, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I watch one of these hearings it cements the idea that we routinely elect imbeciles to congress on both sides of the aisle. If you ever want a good laugh google maxine waters asking questions during the hearings following the financial crisis. I challenge you to find a less intelligent member of congress. Not only did she not understand the answers, she didn't even understand the questions she was obviously given.

+1.

That's why the less government the better, at least in our idiotic country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google is a corporation, they have to do what their conscience tells them is right. They have to build their search engine in the way that makes the most sense - and profits - to them. They don't have a legal obligation to be unbiased. Do we want to start requiring corporations to be unbiased? Apolitical? Not use conscience in determining their business practices? Refuse to allow them to fire employees who say things that are damaging to their business because, free speech?

That's all fine with me, but it means regulating the rights of corporations. Is that what you want?

When a corporation crosses the line and acts as a biased utility, yes

Unfortunately, Rs and the conservative SCOTUS disagrees with you. A corporation can donate money to politically biased causes, ie, they are acting as a biased utility via their cash.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Citizens United (ie Tea Party) v. Federal Election Commission

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

... in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on January 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

BTW, that case was against the bipartisan campaign finance reform act.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf