[–] [deleted] 3 points 14 points (+17|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] psioniq 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

1.6 year old account, CCP and SCP of a month old account...

Yep, I usually only write something, if it is worth writing. I don't spam single line comments to rake in CCP, nor do I shitpost to ramp up my SCP. Quality over quantity mate :)

So do you just come out to poke holes in "conspiracies"?

No, feel free to look through my comments, if that's what you think my 'agenda' is. I was offering a rational explanation, as I don't wear my tinfoil hat every day (but I do wear it).

Can you explain what you mean by that statement? There is interest in what exactly? Black people holding white babies? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I honestly don't get your point.

Interest was probably a bad word to choose. My rationale behind that statement was, that if you search for a couple with white baby, it is more likely to find a result with non-whites holding a white baby, since the 'norm' is that the keyword 'white baby' would not be part of an image with a white couple, as there is no need to define the baby's color in that case.

What has led you to believe that is the reasoning? You just thought it up and put words to it, and now we're going to accept that? Do you have any kind of proof? Like similar questions with different topics showing up that way?

I don't have any 'proof' that it's the case - only my own experience with using search engines. Including a keyword twice, without quotation, will almost always be ignored. Do your own tests if you want more proof.

So what organized Internet entity is pushing the specific results being discussed?

That I don't know. I only know that it's possible for both user and corporate entities to manipulate search results.

And yet again the words white and black mostly bring up stuff relating to the color of your skin for other search queries. Why is it all of a sudden different now that it fits your narrative..?

That doesn't change that words have an actual meaning. I know it's common to use white/black as classification, but if you're searching the web, often you have to step up and use the 'academic' words, like; Caucasian, Europid, African, etc. instead.

What about all the other examples of them clearly altering their search results? Their clear and preferential treatment of presidential candidates? They clearly have a bias and some variety of motive...

Yep, that pissed me off too - and yes, there are clear indicators that search results are being manipulated. I just find it a slightly weak claim in this case. It was glaringly obvious in the election - this, not so much.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] BaitSauce 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i agree with you on this one, and the inventor one from awhile back i could see it just pulling the american as african american in the search query but what about the portraits of europeans one?. https://www.google.ca/search?q=portrait+of+european+people&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPsp3k_sLRAhVjImMKHSIIAYoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=969

0
1

[–] psioniq 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hadn't seen that one.

If I were to venture a guess, it would be that most of those portraits were painted by Europeans ('of' is not the best keyword either). The few modern portraits, of non-whites, could easily be Europeans as well (don't forget that Spaniards and Italians are Europeans as well).

Portrait of people by European - fits the query as well.

If you add quotation marks to the query "portrait of european people" you will see caucasians.

[–] [deleted] 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] psioniq 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Not debunking anything here - I simply offer another explanation.

But then again - it might just be one big conspiracy :)

Was meant as a 'tongue in cheek' comment. I have no doubt that these systems can and will be manipulated.

1
9

[–] HarveyKlinger 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

1
2

[–] shtlordprime 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I thought maybe "couple with baby" might default to white people due to demographics. Still no white couples. There are muslims, Hispanics, black, and homosexual couples represented on first page of images.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] shtlordprime 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah could be just America that gets weird results

0
1

[–] 1Sorry_SOB 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

crazy

0
1

[–] Optick 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Seriously what the hell? Searched this on every major search engine and get the same results, give or take.

0
0

[–] LspyL 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Whats so strange about it? Whites hardly have children anyways. I don't get why people who've accepted and supported white displacement are suddenly upset when it happens.

0
0

[–] 7629397? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I tried it and my network connection went down. I must have started looking suspicious to someone or some thing (I switched to using my phone as a hotspot).

0
0

[–] 7628819? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Searching "white family" and "black family" gave predictable results, except for the first keyword being "racist" for the white family search.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)