Leaked Google Video

[Methais]

...Breitbart? Really?

A group that has been repeatedly caught manipulatively editing videos and publishing blatantly false stories. Anything they publish is immediately suspect at best.

If you take anything they say as factual well...I'm sorry. You seem like a decently smart dude when it comes down to it. You should know better.

Feel free to elaborate on why you think this video is edited/manipulated.

[Methais]

Fun fact - Bing image search also produces pictures of Trump on top when you search the word idiot. Do you suspect it's possible that a large amount of people just think Trump is an idiot?

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=idiot&FORM=HDRSC2

Or is it a conspiracy by Microsoft?

And Baidu, an engine not even written for the English language:

http://image.baidu.com/search/index?...f-8&word=idiot

And Duckduckgo:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=idiot&t=h_...ages&ia=images

Bing:


Google:

[Methais]

You do understand what proof is, right?

But I took your advice and did a search on the word idiot. Ignoring the dictionary definitions (which were the first two results), most of the results on the first page had to do with people claiming that Google was biased against Trump and a billboard in New Jersey that apparently states Trump is an idiot. I admit that looking at the first page of a single search isn't conclusive, but pardon me for not seeing the bias.

You do understand what "image" is, right?

Algorithms are a product from the mindset of the people that make them. We are not quite there yet with AI, despite what you may see in the movies.

You cannot build out a product to 50% of the country when most of your hires are zero self-aware, conservative hating liberals. Google "idiot" in image search and watch Trump images soar to the top - yeah, no bias there. Now go to duckduckgo and do the same search. It's very different.

.

[Stumplicker]

This is what I see on Bing. It, like everything else, probably tempers its results by data mining:

[Methais]

You do understand what proof is, right?

But I took your advice and did a search on the word idiot. Ignoring the dictionary definitions (which were the first two results), most of the results on the first page had to do with people claiming that Google was biased against Trump and a billboard in New Jersey that apparently states Trump is an idiot. I admit that looking at the first page of a single search isn't conclusive, but pardon me for not seeing the bias.

This is what I see on Bing. It, like everything else, probably tempers its results by data mining:

Now show us your Google result.

[Stumplicker]

Now show us your Google result.

It's the same as yours. That's why I didn't post it.

[Methais]

It's the same as yours. That's why I didn't post it.

Do you not see a drastic difference in Google's results vs. other search engines?

[Stumplicker]

Do you not see a drastic difference in Google's results vs. other search engines?

I saw that all of them produced images of Trump on the search for the word idiot. Like I stated in my original post.

[Methais]

I saw that all of them produced images of Trump on the search for the word idiot. Like I stated in my original post.

Bing: A handful of scattered image results for "idiot" are Trump

Google: 90% of the results for "idiot" are Trump

You: "Both have Trump results, I see no issue."

[Astray]

The ratio for Google is higher. There's your spoiler.