YAAAAAS, GWAN JP! UNLEASH THE REDPILLS!

>because it means that
No it doesn't.

youtube.com/watch?v=8YWl7tDGUPA

Thats the problem

peenut buttuh n shiet

If this is his understanding of Google, why doesn't everyone in the lecture theatre object when he claims to understand Nietzsche?

most people are white which means when people write "couple" when they want white people in the picture they won't bother adding "white" to a second search while people looking for something else will
how is this difficult to grasp

...

I mean, I know most undergrads are afraid of charismatic professors but it only takes one brave American to stand up and speak the truth.

How does a correct understanding of Google imply an incorrect understanding of Nietzsche?

This is the quality literature discussion I come to this board for
Thanks for the clickbait cultural enrichment /pol/

It's easier to understand how Google works in this instance than to comprehensively tackle a great historical mind. The inability to do the basic job of the former casts doubt on the ability for the latter.

But he doesn't have an inability to do the former because he's obviously come to the right conclusion here.

But his conclusion is wrong because is nothing to do with manipulating algorithms for a political agenda.

>google manipulates their search algorithm to subtly get your women to want black people by showing you certain stock images when you search for random phrases
This sounds like something my boomer dad would try to claim.
Last time he was at a hotel he turned on Fox News and couldn't hear it and told us the hotel was clearly conspiring to silence conservative thought by preventing specifically Fox from having any sound. Turns out the tv was muted.
Fuck these endless Peterson threads and fuck you.

>But his conclusion is wrong because
That's not proving his conclusion wrong, it's only asserting that searching for "couple" should yield mostly white couples. There's absolutely no reason why that would make it so that Googling "white couple" specifically should yield mixed-race couples.

>is nothing to do with manipulating algorithms for a political agenda.
It's pretty well documented that Google's algorithms favor left-leaning political views and that their corporate leadership has relationships with left-leaning politicians.
usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/why-we-should-care-about-facebook-and-google-having-political-bias
wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/23/internet-giants-show-power-to-shape-politics/

>I have daddy issues so everything you say is invalid
Ah there's that quality discussion I come here for! I don't particularly like Peterson and I honestly don't know much about his views, but I don't see how he's wrong here.

Agreed, im not a fan of Peterson (Individualism caused this shit you damn boomer) but he isnt wrong here

>It's pretty well documented that Google's algorithms favor left-leaning political views and that their corporate leadership has relationships with left-leaning politicians.
Which can both be explained by their consumer base being mostly left-leaning.

Businesses tend to reflect the values of their consumers.

>Which can both be explained by their consumer base being mostly left-leaning.
I don't see how that's true, especially when you're taking into account the fact that the site is used globally and that this type of authoritarian 'progressivism' doesn't really exist outside of the West, and even there it is hardly the popular opinion.

>tfw /pol/ coming over here and taking our (you)s has made me seriously rethink my views on immigration

[[the joggin of the noggin intensifies]]

>most people are white
in what geographical area?
worldwide, white people are a minority

>they convert you to their side by proving why mass immigration is fucking shit
Reddit mass immigrated to /pol/, and the snowball just got bigger

>There's absolutely no reason why that would make it so that Googling "white couple" specifically should yield mixed-race couples
Yes there is. It means that a picture of a white couple will not normally be labelled 'white couple' (because white is the 'default').

Therefore the word combination of white+couple only comes up significantly in very specific circumstances- eg interracial dating sites, where you'll get things like 'black + white couple'. You can see this if you do the search and see what the websites actually are.

user's clearly talking about the English-speaking internet, not the world population.

I was talking about the initial consumer base and the consumers in their country of origin.

You counter-argument is basically equivalent, 'well if hollywood/rockandroll is actually reflective of the values of young white westerners, why is it enjoyed around the entire world'? The answer is that Western culture, the majority of which has been flowing out of young Western minds, has been constantly and directly colonising the cultures of the globe for more than a century now.

Talk to elderly people in those corners of the globe and they will provide a similar opinion, that authoritarian progressivism is found in all the Western culture and products flooding their countries.

Only left wing people use google? Nigga what? Do members of the tory party elusively use bing or something?

jesus christ, this psyops is out of fucking control

> eg interracial dating sites, where you'll get things like 'black + white couple'. You can see this if you do the search and see what the websites actually are.
While somewhat plausible black couple does not yield the same mixed results. If it was just a shadow of people searching x + white couple why not see at least some sign of the same with black?

>implying Google would put this much effort in trying to brainwash a bunch of plebs
>implying Google didn't just make shitty search algorithms
Loosen your tinfoil hat, it's bad for your brain.

>Yes there is. It means that a picture of a white couple will not normally be labelled 'white couple' (because white is the 'default').
That's kind of nonsensical, there's no reason why these things are mutually exclusive. White couples are probably going to be the most prevalent on English-speaking Google, so obviously couple is going to reflect this fact. But there's no reason why putting in the whole phrase "white couple" should so prevalently exclude the majority.

>Therefore the word combination of white+couple only comes up significantly in very specific circumstances- eg interracial dating sites, where you'll get things like 'black + white couple'. You can see this if you do the search and see what the websites actually are.
Most of the pictures are actually from sites pointing out that this is happening, so I suppose it's almost like a positive feedback loop at this point. Although this phenomenon must have existed prior for those sites to point it out in the first place.

Well that's silly, the site is used globally. Most English speakers aren't even white, let alone white American. It's the number one search engine in every major country save China and Russia.

Anyway, I think you're completely misconstruing what I said. I'm saying that Google's results are not representative of young white Westerners at all, at least not young white Americans. It's representative of the views of a small, wealthy class of individuals that exist within the blurred spectrum that is our corporate and political leadership.

Already explained that. 'Black' is not the 'default' colour- ie if you see a picture of a black person, you'll find far more discussion of their skin colour.

For example, imagine starting a thread here with an unrelated picture of a black person vs an unrelated picture of a white person. How many mentions of skin colour would you expect in each case?

Obviously it's not all negative in the way the Veeky Forums case would be- you'll also find black people talking about being black. Point is, whether positive or negative, there's simply a lot MORE of it.

Pictures of black couples are much more likely to be captioned 'black couple', without necessarily being closely related to other skin colours, so they'll show up on Google Images.

you're trying to use logic on a search algorithm without knowing how it works other than "I put in words and results come out"

>But there's no reason why putting in the whole phrase "white couple" should so prevalently exclude the majority.
yes there is - the functioning of the search algorithm
of course, the normal explanation doesn't suit your political needs because everything has to be a multicultural conspiracy, preferably one perpetrated by the jews

>But there's no reason why putting in the whole phrase "white couple" should so prevalently exclude the majority.
Yes there is. A picture of a white couple will not typically be captioned 'white couple', and will not have nearby text discussing the whiteness of said couple. Google works by searching for words- if it only finds one of the two common words you asked for, it's hardly going to show you the picture.

Google's search engine is proprietary and also a closely guarded secret, everything considered is just speculation.

>Everyone who disagrees with me is a anti-semitic conspiracy theorist
So this is the type of person I'm arguing with...

There's no reason why a white couple is any less likely to be labeled white than a black couple black. A black couple isn't going to label themselves a cute black couple just because most couples are white.

Yes, I understand the logic there. But I don't buy that "white couple" alone magically leads to black white couples with massive disproportion. Why not just give white couple stock photos? Searching asian couple does not give you white + asian couple. Also note the strangely disproportionate frequency of black male + white female couples.

I was contending your example of people searching for interracial dating sites with something like "x (black) + white couple" resulting in results bleeding over to simply "white couple". Why not "white + black couple" bleeding over to "black couple"? It's a simple word order flip.

>There's no reason why a white couple is any less likely to be labeled white than a black couple black
You seriously believe that? You think the internet contains equal proportions of discussions of people being white vs people being black? You think that skin colour is an equally big deal in the lives of white people as it is of black people? (in the US, obviously- most Africans are probably not that bothered about being black and may not identify with the term much at all)

Maybe try thinking of it this way, if you're not just rusing: do you think there was an equal amount of discussion of George W Bush being white as of Obama being black?

>There's no reason why a white couple is any less likely to be labeled white than a black couple black. A black couple isn't going to label themselves a cute black couple just because most couples are white.
nobody here is talking about people labeling THEMSELVES, they're talking about stuff like newspaper articles - you know, THE RESULTS OF THE SEARCH

>Why not "white + black couple" bleeding over to "black couple"? It's a simple word order flip.
because "black couple" is mentioned much more than "black + white couple"
also, do you think if you search for "good time" the first results will be the ones where it says "good motherfucking time" or "that time was really good" or the ones where the phrase appears as written - "good time"?
most people don't say "white and black couple", they say "black and white couple" because the phrase "black and white" is engrained in english speakers (and foreigners who have even a medium grasp of the language) which combined with the fact that people generally don't describe white couples as "white couple" means that the phrase "white couple" will appear more when in the phrase "black and white couple"

I'd say that most white people are more likely to explicitly ignore race because most white people buy into the whole race-blind schtick to try and appear as non-racist, rather than being on the right where they explicitly don't like nonwhites or being on the left where they explicitly don't like whites. Especially if we're talking about internet users, which skews younger.

>THE RESULTS OF THE SEARCH
None of my search results, at least the top ones, were newspaper articles. There were a few stock photos, a few social media sites like pinterest, but by and large most of them were from places like Reddit pointing out this very phenomena on Google, as I already said. I'd be curious to see what most of the results were prior to this whole thing becoming widely noticed though.

So you’re saying since whites are cucked and not giving a shit about their identity it creates a trend that Goobles algorithm follows which causes BLACKED images to pop up when searching for “White Couple”?
I can see that, you’re basically saying its not part of an agenda on Googles part.
I still hate the shits tho

>There were a few stock photos, a few social media sites like pinterest, but by and large most of them were from places like Reddit pointing out this very phenomena on Google, as I already said
yes, and none of these are couples posting pictures of themselves and captioning them with "we, a couple". for fuck's sake, if you're gonna post pictures of yourself and your gf/wife are you gonna write "we're a white couple!"???

>yes, and none of these are couples posting pictures of themselves and captioning them with "we, a couple".
The pinterest ones were

>if you're gonna post pictures of yourself and your gf/wife are you gonna write "we're a white couple!"???
No, which was my entire point

Just take a step back and realize that you're implying google completely redesigned their algorithm to insidiously mix in different races to I guess implant the idea of racemixing in people's heads with stock photos when they search for very specific abstract concepts on google images because they are that desperately jewish.
Does that sound like something reasonable, or something /pol/ wants to outrage and sperg out about like they do over everything?

Quick dirty tests (on my computer)

"woman"
Results in a pretty even myriad of different types of women
"white woman"
Is unsurprisingly mostly white women, but with a good number of black men + white woman pictures. Also occasionally a black woman, oddly enough.

"German couple"
Mostly neutral results and expectantly German.

"Polish couple"
"European couple"
Results in small but unexpected amounts of interracial stuff. Though significantly less than white couple.

"English couple"
Official search term of hapas apparently

Then again, how do you explain the “european people history” thing where you get a bunch of blacks? Literally black versions of famous Europeans?
WE

>half-right conclusion with completely wrong reasons
fuck it, I'll take it

>The pinterest ones were
I just made a search for black couples and the pinterest pics are from lists that other people make which they title something like "black couple/s", the couples don't title themselves "a black couple"

Eh, im a different user than the one you were mostly arguing with, I was just trying for confirmation of your side

the search terms that /pol/ and neonazis are filling your head with are designed in such a way to get those results.
who the fuck searches "european people history"? you search "history of europe" or "europe history" or "european history". the reason why images with black people come up is because you have a number of blogs and tumblrs and shit that present black people from euro history, which, again, fucks with the algorithm. the algorithm doesn't have a human brain, it just looks for words and treats the results in some way (looking for most visits or something, I dunno).
it just so happens that when you have a bunch of sites dedicated to showing black people in X history, when you search "X people history" you'll get results from those sites because the words are grouped in such a way that those sites and those pictures get a higher rating.

>I just made a search for black couples and the pinterest pics are from lists that other people make which they title something like "black couple/s"
That's literally my entire point, user. People don't label themselves by race, the whole argument that race is more important to white people so they're more likely to specify it is just silly.

Sometimes if I see something somewhere like Veeky Forums about some odd ethnic group I'm not familiar with, I'll google a picture of "x people" or "x culture" just to get a visualization of who's being talked about. But I guess people who are different from you must be brainwashed.

>I guess implant the idea of racemixing in people's heads with stock photo
Not so much something so specific as to promote multiculturalism and liberal ideals conductive to their political-economic values over more "problematic" ones that might rise to the top.

This is a company that just recently fired and made a huge offended spectacle of a guy for daring to suggest women of their own volition choose not to take engineering and comp-sci classes in equal proportion to men. And in the ensuing debacle was revealed to keep black lists containing, presumably among other things, known right wing personality trouble makers who would not be allowed on premises of their buildings even if invited.

I know reddit (admittedly not Google) tweaked their own algorithm weights to suppress disdained popular right wing subreddits like /r/the_donald from reaching the top of their front page results.

And I know I recently saw a youtube video of admittedly ultra-right wing stuff that that was hidden behind of layer of "warning dangerous opinions ahead" protective seals.

I don't think such actions are above companies like Google at all. I think it's more a question of if it's worth their time and if the benefits outweigh potential costs. But I also don't think tweaking an algorithm to weight certain pages differently sounds super impossible.

christ
the fact that I have to explain this is painful, but searching for "X people" is not the same as "X people history" the same way searching for "mother and son" is different from "mother and son xxx"
and it's especially not the same when the X is "european" since european isn't an ethnicity or nationality or some kind of monolith like america or china
and it's also not the same exactly because of the reasons I wrote about in the reply you quoted - the algorithm isn't alive, it doesn't understand what you want, its function is to get you the sites that contain those words and are graded as "worthier" than other sites based on word order, number of visits and who knows what other things

>america and china are monoliths
Oh I'm talking to a retard, nvm then

monoliths in the sense of national consciousness you fucking moron
an american is an american first, if someone asks him what he is he won't say nebraskan or newyorker, he'll say american
europe isn't like that, europeanness is a distant second to your own national identity

even amongst english speakers white people are a minority
english is used as a lingua franca in many countries that have many different minorities or regional languages. especially former british colonies. india, malaysia, south africa for example

Fuck off with your conspiracies you neo-nazi, white people are the majority and Google results are super right-wing. NO DRUMPF NO KKK NO FASCIST USA

...

t. neofascist antisemite

>race is more important to white people so they're more likely to specify it
Eh? The argument is that it's more important to non-white people, and it's so obviously true I can't believe you'd argue otherwise. You've literally never seen someone talking about their blackness? About half of all hip-hop lyrics? Black Lives Matter? Black History Month? First black President? Does none of that ring a bell?

>3 white woman black bull couples
>1 white man asian female couple
>1 furry couple
>Blacks recommended