Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says someone who doesn’t understand algorithms. Stick to trying to balance your checkbook.

Let's say this is true (it's not but just for the sake of argument), you know that Google is not the only search engine, right? Or bet yet, start your own search engine. I'm sure your's will be so much more unbiased (snort).

BTW, I searched "idiot" in bing, and do you know whose face showed up... yep, Trump (and others).

Sorry, I was addressing the ^^PP who thinks Google search algorithms are written by the Wizard of Oz.

I'd say the analogy is accurate enough. Google tweeks their algorithm to support certain results. If they didn't no one would be attempting search engine optimization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says someone who doesn’t understand algorithms. Stick to trying to balance your checkbook.

Let's say this is true (it's not but just for the sake of argument), you know that Google is not the only search engine, right? Or bet yet, start your own search engine. I'm sure your's will be so much more unbiased (snort).

BTW, I searched "idiot" in bing, and do you know whose face showed up... yep, Trump (and others).

Sorry, I was addressing the ^^PP who thinks Google search algorithms are written by the Wizard of Oz.

Anonymous wrote:Why was Pichai praised on his return for evading the questions effectively?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says someone who doesn’t understand algorithms. Stick to trying to balance your checkbook.

Let's say this is true (it's not but just for the sake of argument), you know that Google is not the only search engine, right? Or bet yet, start your own search engine. I'm sure your's will be so much more unbiased (snort).

BTW, I searched "idiot" in bing, and do you know whose face showed up... yep, Trump (and others).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says someone who doesn’t understand algorithms. Stick to trying to balance your checkbook.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I look forward to Google and Facebook being nationalized as the public utilities they have become.

They've outgrown being owned as private companies. Now it's time for them to be owned by the people.

What public utilities are owned by the people? Airports and train stations are all I can think of.

There is a simpler answer to the problem. Stop using them! Young people don't even use Facebook, and you can instantly choose a non-google search engine whenever you want.

Anonymous wrote:I look forward to Google and Facebook being nationalized as the public utilities they have become.

They've outgrown being owned as private companies. Now it's time for them to be owned by the people.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Same. Most of the pics were related to this topic, and then there were a lot of other pics unrelated.

Anonymous wrote:I look forward to Google and Facebook being nationalized as the public utilities they have become.

They've outgrown being owned as private companies. Now it's time for them to be owned by the people.

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

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