Is google putting its thumb on the scale?

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you suggesting that one has to be racist (or as RavenSky puts it "white supremacist") to find this type of thing objectionable?

Either a racist or insane.

By what measure does one get upset?

One of the two. If this is the sort of thing acts as a trigger warning which you need to be in a safe space to view or else you get all hot and bothered, then the issue you're raising is the least of the problems you need to deal with.

 

[Tigers!]

It must be so hard being a racist today, what with your heart going all a-flutter over every imagined insult you dig through the Internet to be able to find. We really need some kind of "Hug a Racist" telethon to help out these poor, abused souls.

France tried that in their recent presidential election.

 

[beero1000]

Let's just be clear here. The complaint that no one is explicitly stating is that Google's top image bar is returning too many black people to the query "American Inventors". Do I have that right? It isn't that the results return people who aren't American inventors?

Screw that then, that should be a lower priority than fixing the query "American Mathematicians" returning Albert Einstein.

GET IT RIGHT GOOGLE!

 

[RavenSky]

It must be so hard being a racist today, what with your heart going all a-flutter over every imagined insult you dig through the Internet to be able to find. We really need some kind of "Hug a Racist" telethon to help out these poor, abused souls.

Are you suggesting that one has to be racist (or as RavenSky puts it "white supremacist") to find this type of thing objectionable?

Let's say things were reversed and the list of "American basketball players" was dominated by white players, with Michael Jordan relegated to page 5 because some white players who only played college ball were ahead of him. One would not have to be a "racist" or a "black supremacist" to cry foul about that.

This double standard that you and RavenSky subscribe to is really damaging to race relations.

What is rather racist is you suggesting that the inventors named by Google are not worthy of being named.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks unintentional result of AI meddling to me.

Unintentional AI meddling sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying 'Google has their thumb on the scale'. How can anything meddle unintentionally?

 

[dismal]

Are you suggesting that one has to be racist (or as RavenSky puts it "white supremacist") to find this type of thing objectionable?

Let's say things were reversed and the list of "American basketball players" was dominated by white players, with Michael Jordan relegated to page 5 because some white players who only played college ball were ahead of him. One would not have to be a "racist" or a "black supremacist" to cry foul about that.

This double standard that you and RavenSky subscribe to is really damaging to race relations.

What is rather racist is you suggesting that the inventors named by Google are not worthy of being named.

In what objective non-skin-pigment-involving ranking system of inventing greatness does "Madam CJ Walker" outrank "Thomas Edison" and "Alexander Graham Bell"?

 

[dismal]

Looks unintentional result of AI meddling to me.

Unintentional AI meddling sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying 'Google has their thumb on the scale'. How can anything meddle unintentionally?

"Google has their thumb on the scale" implies it is an intentional act of Google. I see no particular benefit to Google from doing this, if anything it tarnishes the Google brand and reputation for search reliability.

It seems far more likely that it's a rogue programmer rerouting searches of "american inventors" to "african american inventors" to troll, or a concerted effort on someone's part to overwhelm the AI with google bombing (like when they got searches for "miserable failure" to come up with links to "George Bush").

 

[untermensche]

What is rather racist is you suggesting that the inventors named by Google are not worthy of being named.

In what objective non-skin-pigment-involving ranking system of inventing greatness does "Madam CJ Walker" outrank "Thomas Edison" and "Alexander Graham Bell"?

Google searches are not a ranking system.

They reflect to a degree number of searches and other factors.

To even care about this shines a spotlight on a serious mental problem.

"Why aren't whites atop all google searches?"

"Even in sections about the best American basketball players."

 

[dismal]

In what objective non-skin-pigment-involving ranking system of inventing greatness does "Madam CJ Walker" outrank "Thomas Edison" and "Alexander Graham Bell"?

Google searches are not a ranking system.

They reflect to a degree number of searches and other factors.

To even care about this shines a spotlight on a serious mental problem.

"Why aren't whites atop all google searches?"

"Even in sections about the best American basketball players."

Thanks for the info.

Now try actually answering the question. Google obviously does rank the answers to searches. Some are listed before others.

On what basis would "Madam CJ Walker" be a more relevant answer to a search for "american inventors" than "Thomas Edison"?

Her wikipedia page does not even seem to note she was an inventor at all:

Sarah Breedlove (December 23, 1867 – May 25, 1919), known as Madam C. J. Walker, was an African American entrepreneur, philanthropist, and a political and social activist. Eulogized as the first female self-made millionaire in America,[1] she became one of the wealthiest African American women in the country, "the world's most successful female entrepreneur of her time," and one of the most successful African-American business owners ever.[2]

Walker made her fortune by developing and marketing a line of beauty and hair products for black women through Madame C.J. Walker Manufacturing Company, the successful business she founded. Walker was also known for her philanthropy and activism. She made financial donations to numerous organizations and became a patron of the arts. Villa Lewaro, Walker’s lavish estate in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, served as a social gathering place for the African American community.

Here for comparison is Edison:

Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931) was an American inventor and businessman, who has been described as America's greatest inventor.[2] He developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park",[3] he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large-scale teamwork to the process of invention, and because of that, he is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory.[4]

Edison was a prolific inventor, holding 1,093 US patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. More significant than the number of Edison's patents was the widespread impact of his inventions: electric light and power utilities, sound recording, and motion pictures all established major new industries worldwide. Edison's inventions contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. These included a stock ticker, a mechanical vote recorder, a battery for an electric car, electrical power, recorded music and motion pictures. His advanced work in these fields was an outgrowth of his early career as a telegraph operator. Edison developed a system of electric-power generation and distribution[5] to homes, businesses, and factories – a crucial development in the modern industrialized world. His first power station was on Pearl Street in Manhattan, New York.[5]

 

[untermensche]

On what basis would "Madam CJ Walker" be a more relevant answer to a search for "american inventors" than "Thomas Edison"?

Nobody ever said it was.

This is an algorithm, not a human decision.

To even care in the least shows one to have a disturbed mind.

 

[Elixir]

BTW, even your recommended "USA Inventors" returns 6 blacks out of the first 11

I got 9 out of the first 15 as white. Hold on a moment, I'll try a totally virgin browser...

Wow. 7 of the first 15 are black, then it looks about 90% white for the next few sets. A somewhat different result.

 

[dismal]

On what basis would "Madam CJ Walker" be a more relevant answer to a search for "american inventors" than "Thomas Edison"?

Nobody ever said it was.

This is an algorithm, not a human decision.

To even care in the least shows one to have a disturbed mind.

Do you know what the word "algorithm" means?

It is not something gifted from the heavens. It is a script written by a mortal man making human decisions.

Now, try to imagine a person making human decisions working for a company that has made the human decision to aspire to produce the most relevant search results. That person has been tasked to write an algorithm to produce the most relevant results when someone searches for "american inventors". How could that person possibly write an algorithm that would rank "Madam CJ Walker" above Thomas Edison?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody ever said it was.

This is an algorithm, not a human decision.

To even care in the least shows one to have a disturbed mind.

Do you know what the word "algorithm" means?

It is not something gifted from the heavens. It is a script written by a mortal man making human decisions.

Humans make human decisions, like whether or not some inventor has more significance than another.

Algorithms do not make human decisions. They do make decisions, but not the way humans do.

 

[Playball40]

Why do we care?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do we care?

Some white people are bothered by it. And we all know that white people are frustrated with having no power in America.

 

[untermensche]

Why do we care?

Some white people are bothered by it. And we all know that white people are frustrated with having no power in America.

It is driven by the fact that white people have never gotten their fair share of recognition in America.

Not like they had to keep black people out of baseball to look good or anything.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do we care?

It just another manifestation of the war on white men.

 

[ronburgundy]

Either a racist or insane.

By what measure does one get upset?

One of the two. If this is the sort of thing acts as a trigger warning which you need to be in a safe space to view or else you get all hot and bothered, then the issue you're raising is the least of the problems you need to deal with.

Your characterization of anyone here being "hot and bothered" is a strawman. The issue is that Google is assumed by users to rely upon a systematic semantic algorithm that optimizes the validity and relevance of the returned results, not results that are isolated to some small subset based on words not included in the search.

It is no different than if the term "basketball players" returned mostly white guys. Yeah, they are players, but it shows that their isn't a valid AI system behind the results. BTW, the first 12 players in that search are black, which in this case is what a valid AI system would do.

Likewise, if "types of birds" returned nothing but variants of finches.

It isn't the specifics of the example that is the real issue, it's what it implies about how Google is generating responses and how that impacts how relevant the responses are to the purpose of the search.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why do we care?

Some white people are bothered by it. And we all know that white people are frustrated with having no power in America.

No, all reasonable people think its a problem that Google is using faulty search algorithms in a highly inconsistent manner. Some ideologues care enough about painting the issue as whites being bothered by black inventors, and to pretend that their is nothing out of sorts with the search results, inventing absurd excuses that they could have falsified themselves in seconds if they cared about having and honest discussion.

If "basketball players" returned all white players, then all those dismissing this instances would suddenly be screaming racism and care a great deal, whereas I would care just as much as I do now about the current instance. That's because my response is rooted in apolitical interests in Google's AI system and how it impacts the flow of information, while their inconsistent reactions are rooted in kneejerk dogma and whatever response best serves it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Unintentional AI meddling sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying 'Google has their thumb on the scale'. How can anything meddle unintentionally?

"Google has their thumb on the scale" implies it is an intentional act of Google. I see no particular benefit to Google from doing this, if anything it tarnishes the Google brand and reputation for search reliability.

It seems far more likely that it's a rogue programmer rerouting searches of "american inventors" to "african american inventors" to troll, or a concerted effort on someone's part to overwhelm the AI with google bombing (like when they got searches for "miserable failure" to come up with links to "George Bush").

Perhaps.
An alternative hypothesis is that Google already had their reputation tarnish in the gorilla incident, so they decided to work on avoiding being accused of anti-Black racism in the future, and they're implementing a number of methods to try to prevent that, but for now and as a result, in the cases of "American inventors", "American scientists", "American mathematicians", "American musicians", perhaps "American artists", and perhaps other cases, the results return at first a high percentage of Black people.

Then again, that would not explain Einstein as a mathematician, which is just false.