The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Great Moments in Google
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Google famously tries to predict what you are searching for, or at least so it says. Other times, it attempts to distract you from the obvious searches you want to do. Via @BrentScher:

The term “hate hoax” doesn’t exist according to Google Predictions:

 

 
Hide 68 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. J1234 says:

    Maybe it doesn’t want to presume ‘hate hoax” because you could be typing in “hate hoarfrost.”

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor
    , @M_Young
  2. Imagine the effort this enormous global corporation, supposedly run for the creation of shareholder value, has gone through: painstakingly and in great detail airbrushing out of the global public record any evidence of race realism, white victimhood, leftist misdeeds, and anything else that might ruffle the feathers of an SJW.

    “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one,” is an old adage, but Google takes it a step further. Not only are they publishing/publicizing millions of words per second—a wordstream they curate and bias, but their monopolistic gatekeeping of most everyone’s access to information gives them the ability to press inconvenient facts right out of the narrative.

    The US of old, they would already have run afoul of antitrust law or penalties for obstruction of the public square. In the US of today, they just keep on keeping on.

  3. VerbSap says:

    I have started to feel gaslighted by search engines these days. For example, I cannot find your many articles on the percentage of men’s paychecks spent by women. I usually avoid Google for obvious reasons, but it used to be that when you absolutely had to find something buried, you had no choice but to use Google and dive deep. You could usually find at least a hint of the good stuff buried about 20 pages down. Now I see that you cannot dig any deeper than 10 pages or so. Frustrating.

    • Replies: @Olorin
  4. Google loves Big Brother, and doesn’t want Him to feel bad about helping to cause BadThink.

  5. Oddly enough, DuckDuckGo wil give you “jussie smollet hoax,” if you type in “jussie smollet hoa” … it will also give you “jussie smollet hoar,” “jussie smollet hoagy,” and “jussie smollet hoarder.”

  6. Even when you put the “h” in there to begin search for “hoax,” it’s nowhere to be found in the suggestions.

    Homosexual is missing, too.

    “Jussie Smollet g-” doesn’t give gay, either.

    And “f-“?

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  7. @Almost Missouri

    Well stated, Almost Missouri! Thanks for that.

  8. Olorin says:

    Admittedly

    hate HOA

    probably gets hits from time to time by people driven batty dealing with their homeowners’ associations.

  9. ATBOTL says:

    Does anyone else remember how based goole auto fill was in the early days when they weren’t manipulating this stuff? It confirmed how many thought dissidents there were. I saw some truly hilarious ones.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  10. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Bing gives somewhat more honest results on this one.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  11. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Speaking of Google, I got this published at Seeking Alpha today after a bit of resistance.

  12. @J1234

    Every time Google acts out of political interest rather than in customer interest, that’s an opportunity for a competitor. If Google basically has minor political tweaks, few customers will be motivated to leave. But if Google is doing a lot of this unwanted political censorship, then the customer demand and opportunity is much greater.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  13. It’s so nice to be living in 1984 in real-time.

    Of course, Google had better be careful. It’s bread-and-butter is that its search engine is still the best in the business. Personally, I can attest to that. Even though I use the privacy-focused search engines and Bing a lot more on principle, when I really need to find something online or I’m rushed, I use Google. It’s always the best and fastest way.

    But, as Vox Day has pointed out, an SJW-converged organization will abandon its original goals and work solely to provide SJW-propaganda and jobs for SJWs. Google is 75-90% converged at this point, so its dominance should be on the wane—-if it can’t use its monopolistic power to stay on top.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  14. @Reg Cæsar

    jussie Smollett j doesn’t give Jew, either.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  15. Olorin says:
    @VerbSap

    “Gaslighted by search engines” is a good way to put it.

    Awhile back I reported here on the experience of trying to research something (I forget what now) involving some issue, maybe health-related, affecting men.

    Of the first 500 hits, a good 95% were about women and that issue and the other 5% had nothing to do with the topic at all.

    They aren’t search engines anymore they are hit-traffic-control engines. Directing the traffic to profit. (And ideology that is profitable.)

    Remember the Microsoft TV commercial, probably early 00s, where the tagline was “Where do you want to go today?”…and to the amusement of classic music aficionados the background music was the “Confutatis” from Mozart’s Requiem “Dies irae”?

    IOW, where do you want to go today, and Microsoft’s suggestion was “To hell.”

    You can sing along at home:

    Confutatis maledictis
    Flammis acribus addictis
    Voca me cum benedictis

    Oro supplex et acclinis
    Cor contritum quasi cinis
    Gere curam mei finis

    When the damned/doomed
    Have been consigned to acrid flames
    Summon (vocally) me with the blessed

    Praying in supplication while kneeling
    My heart as humble (contrite) as dust
    Help (curate) me (bear my pain) at my end

    Little Latin, less Greek…apologies. Someone else may have better.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  16. Barnard says:

    When I typed in “Jussie Smollett hoa” my suggestion was “Jussie Smollett hoax wikipedia.”

    “Jussie Smollett cr” went to “criminal, crimes, criminal history.” The first page was all recent stories about the criminal case files being unsealed. Not good, but it could be worse.

  17. @The Alarmist

    “jussie smollet hoagy”

    You couldn’t pay me to eat that.

  18. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Jussie Smollett gives:

    jussie smollett update
    jussie smollett case
    jussie smollett charges

    jussie smollett mighty ducks
    jussie smollett case unsealed
    jussie smollett net worth
    jussie smollett empire
    jussie smollett lawyer

    So 4 out of 8 (50%) are at least somewhat pertinent, whereas google gives you zero.

    Jussie Smollett h does not give hoax.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Forbes
  19. Jack D says:

    The wikipedia article on “racial hoax” is awful, even by wikipedia standards:

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

    It focuses on the work of Katheryn Russell-Brown:

    Russell-Brown argues that racial hoaxes are devised, perpetrated, and successful because they take advantage of fears and stereotypes.[3] According to her, white-on-black hoaxes are the most likely to receive media attention and to cause social and economics problems.[1] She argues that anyone performing a racial hoax should face criminal charges, particularly if a black person is targeted,[4] and that hoaxes targeting black people create more severe problems than those against other racial groups.[3]

    Russell-Brown looks completely unbiased to me. She is clearly not someone with a agenda, not at all:

    It just amazes me that someone can be a professor at an American law school and espouse the idea that we should have two sets of laws, one for when a black person does something to a white person and one vice versa (of course with the consequences for whites being more severe), without any sense of irony or regard for history. Who-whom doesn’t bother these folks at all, as long as they are the who and not the whom.

  20. L Woods says:
    @Jack D

    A separate set of laws is, of course, the literal definition of privilege.

  21. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    Jussie Smolett Homasexual

    Dialect thing

  22. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:

    jussie smollett c brings up “charges,” “charges dropped,” “cut from empire,” and “chicago police.”

    Other letters bring up relevant suggestions also, like “jussie empire attack, “jussie fabricated story.”

    And a lot more.

    Glitch, I’d say.

  23. Lot says:
    @The Alarmist

    Bing also autofills

    hate h…
    As hate hoax.

    Jussie search suggestions are also not censored by bing.

    So it is definitely Google censorship.

  24. Lot says:
    @Jack D

    “Jussie Smollett h does not give hoax.”

    For me making it “ho” gives house, hoax twitter, hoax cnn, hoax date, hot lawyer, homophobic attack.

    Google also has censored “Jussie Smollett l” searches to remove anything like “lied” or “lies.”

    For bing, both lied and lies are among the “l” suggestions.

    Google won’t even suggest them if you do “li.”

    Not sure if this a leftist only however.

    Trump l and li do not suggest lie or lies either.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  25. Anonymous[335] • Disclaimer says:

    Palestinians know all about how the Tribe rigs the game.

  26. But it suggests “Jussie Smollett” if you type so much as “ju”.

    (BTW if you want to try this at home, and make it scientific, you need to use a freshly installed browser, and come in from a new IP address. That, or delete all of the browser’s local storage — cookies are only one piece of the local storage these days. Even incognito tabs look at your cookies (they won’t set new cookies or otherwise write local storage but they will look at existing items there).

    To get assigned a new IP address, use your phone, disconnect from Wifi, and toggle airplane mode.)

  27. @Jack D

    To be bothered by inconsistency, a person needs to grasp the idea of a principle, which requires enough intelligence to think about abstractions. Below that intelligence threshold, life is a sequence of unrelated incidents to be handled ad hoc.

    • Agree: Forbes
  28. @Lot

    So what did you find with “hot lawyer”?

  29. gman says:

    “Kamala Harris” done in an incognito Chrome browser in the Greater Chicago area.

    Google
    Kamala Harris
    Kamala Harris husband
    Kamala Harris 2020
    Kamala Harris net worth
    Kamala Harris parents
    Kamala Harris family
    Kamala Harris father
    Kamala Harris platform
    Kamala Harris twitter
    Kamala Harris wiki
    report inappropriate predictions

    Bing
    Kamala Harris
    Kamala Harris wikipedia
    Kamala Harris husband
    Kamala Harris william barr
    Kamala Harris biography
    Kamala Harris ar-15
    Kamala Harris gender pay gap
    Kamala Harris questions william barr

    DuckDuckGo
    Kamala Harris
    Kamala Harris husband and kids
    Kamala Harris affair
    Kamala Harris net worth
    Kamala Harris ethnicity
    Kamala Harris willie brown
    Kamala Harris father
    Kamala Harris 2020
    Kamala Harris senator
    Kamala Harris husband

    Emphasis Mine

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  30. Dr. X says:
    @Jack D

    It just amazes me that someone can be a professor at an American law school and espouse the idea that we should have two sets of laws, one for when a black person does something to a white person and one vice versa (of course with the consequences for whites being more severe), without any sense of irony or regard for history.

    Nothing surprises me anymore. I expect insanity and irrationality from these people. It’s the new normal.

  31. Anon[505] • Disclaimer says:

    I made the switch to Bing a few months back. Occasionally, I go back to Google when nothing useful pops up on Bing. I’d estimate that Bing is as good as Google for about every 49 out of 50 searches these days. The only real edge Google has over Bing right now is if I want to find out about a Microsoft computer problem, the solution to that can be found on Google, not Bing, which tends to hide problems that crop up with Windows. As for the rest of it, they’re pretty much equal.

    • Replies: @Clyde
  32. Not Raul says:

    It looks like they haven’t gotten to Bing yet.

    Type: hate h

    Or: Jussie ho

  33. Not Raul says:
    @Pat Kittle

    Go to Bing and type: Jussie j

    Based Bill

  34. Forbes says:
    @Jack D

    Jussie Smollett h does not give hoax.

    But does Jussie Smollett h give head…

  35. @International Jew

    “Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.” — Homer Simpson

  36. @Dave Pinsen

    Thanks Dave. The meme should be ‘break Google up!’ and I have to hand it to Fauxcahontas, she’s advancing the meme. Trump is too slow on the uptake for this one – he hasn’t seen the benefits yet. Hopefully someone will alert him.

  37. Clyde says:
    @Anon

    I made the switch to Bing a few months back. Occasionally, I go back to Google when nothing useful pops up on Bing. I’d estimate that Bing is as good as Google for about every 49 out of 50 searches these days. As for the rest of it, they’re pretty much equal.

    Same here. I use bing but every few days I have to resort to google search. My opinion is google used to be far superior but Microsoft invested in Bing, so it is almost as good as google today.

    On my bing search I had to type in >>> jussie smolett ho……before the word hoax was auto selected

    • Replies: @Escher
  38. @International Jew

    Don’t overestimate your relative ability to perceive causal relation. It’s likely related to abstract intelligence, but not equivalent.

  39. Even the international borders on google maps are very faint and quite thin, especially compared to bing or whatever.

    Google search some topic that is too hot for neoliberal cucks to handle, then look it up on Bing. I am too Taoist to give a shit and do it myself, but this would be a fascinating study.

  40. JimS says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Mr. Sailer,

    I think you may be conflating two quotes (or you are quoting something beyond the late 1990s, which I would likely not know).

    Lisa Simpson: “Perhaps there is no moral to this story.”
    Homer Simpson: “Exactly! It’s just a bunch of stuff that happened.”

    Homer Simpson: “I’ve learned that life is one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Flanders was dead.”

    I don’t know if either of these quotes quite captures the inability to follow a pattern to establish consistency in argument or cause and effect.

    I also think that it is Bart Simpson that is more interested in politics, perhaps angling for George Will’s job (this one more apropos that other thread):

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  41. Gringo says:

    Startpage is my default search engine. For trivial searches, it is fine. Advanced Google Search is superior to other search engines for locating phrases or words from given websites.

  42. @Massimo Heitor

    Google doesn’t actually have customers, only victims.

  43. @gman

    report inappropriate predictions

    I thought you were kidding about this, but sure enough this appears at the bottom of the list. Now, to me, an inappropriate prediction is one that has no basis in reality, but apparently Google feels differently. If you were to click on this, here are the choices you would get

    [MORE]
    The predictions selected above are:
    Hateful
    Sexually explicit
    Violent
    Dangerous and harmful activity
    Other

    I assume by “Other” they don’t mean inaccurate.

  44. @Steve Sailer

    “Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.” — Homer Simpson

    “…while making other plans.” –John Lennon

  45. According to the Bolsheviks at Wikipedia, Smollett’s lies amounted only to an alleged false police report.

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

  46. @Steve Sailer

    I didn’t mean to plagiarize, really. I can’t even remember hearing Homer say that. But as Keynes said,
    “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some…academic scribbler of a few years back.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  47. @International Jew

    I don’t think Homer Simpson actually said, “Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.” I think I quoted that once before the Internet, but have never been able to document it.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  48. @Almost Missouri

    And then they come for…honk:

  49. @Almost Missouri

    All true. I suggest this:

    https://duckduckgo.com/

    Not perfect, but OK for most searches. Every time you use it, Google dies a little bit.

  50. @Lot

    Check your hoaxial cable first.

    Leave Google alone.

  51. Very instructive. Food for thought.

  52. @JimS

    Groundskeeper Willie should be our next SecState; he has the most realistic take on international relations:

  53. Escher says:
    @Clyde

    DuckDuckGo does show “hoax” when you type in “Jussie Smollet h”.

    • Replies: @Clyde
  54. Clyde says:
    @Escher

    I will give duckduckgo another try…But a few years ago it was deficient in image searches. For google and bing you can deploy trackmenot which makes it impossible for them to track/record your searches in a useful (for them) way. Trackmenot throws up random dummy searches every minute.

  55. @Lot

    Bing also autofills
    hate h…
    As hate hoax.
    Jussie search suggestions are also not censored by bing.
    So it is definitely Google censorship.

    Not entirely. Autofill is not some monolithic black box which shows the same results to everybody. Your own personal autofill suggestions are going to derive, in part, from your own personal search history and web browsing, from key words you’ve entered into social media, from your purchases, your location, from your television viewing (especially any advertisements that have recently aired in your area), from what your neighbors are searching or watching, from any terms that are “buzzing” in your area, and a whole list of other things too numerous to mention.

    This is precisely why Google wants to hoover up every available bit of data. The objective is to correlate observable social and demographic facts with predictable future behaviors that can be financialized via advertising. This is the basis on which Google markets its ad services, and this is how Google stays in business.

    That’s the theory, anyway. I have grave doubts as to whether any of this really works so well in practice. It all seems rather “beta” to me. It’s just like trying too hard to impress a girl, like spending six months surreptitiously eavesdropping on her conversations just so that you can pick up a few references to torturously drop into your ham-handed mack moves, meanwhile some Chad just strolls up and grabs her by the pussy, so to speak. In fact, it should be observed that the entire modern corporate mindset is very beta (and that could be the subject of an essay all its own).

    But back to the point. The reason that Bing autofills “Jussie Smollett hoax” is not because this is an extraordinarily popular search term, but because Bing knows that you’ve visited pages displaying that string before. Google knows this too, of course, but Google concludes (no doubt rightly) that this knowledge isn’t going to help it to sell you anything, so it doesn’t bother with it. Bing doesn’t have nearly the same sort of sophisticated algorithmic depth chart that Google has, so it just takes whatever it can get.

    Remember, autofill doesn’t exist to serve you. It isn’t there for your own convenience. Its role was never that of helpful librarian there to direct you towards your sought after information (still less is that the role of Alexa or these other “digital assistants,” which are just more connotated iterations of the autofill concept). Its role is to make money off of you. You have as much right to expect honesty from an autofiller as you do to expect a carnival barker to have a disinterested concern for your wellbeing. But the idea that Google is involved in a vast SJW conspiracy to suppress awareness of the Jussie Smollett hoax for ideological reasons, is indicative of the batty siege mentality that has developed around here. The whole world does not revolve around this racial hobbyhorse; and while the execs at Google are, in their public confessions, entirely in line with the SJW orthodoxy, they are in their non-reflective and instinctual working lives entirely concerned with careerism and moneymaking. If they weren’t then they would be replaced by somebody who was.

    Reading some of the lurid persecution fantasies outlined in the comments above, it is evident that the race realism brigade has a massively over-inflated sense of its own importance. Google is not devoting its considerable resources to suppressing you; Google does not even care that you exist. There is, at any rate—and let me capitalize this—NO POINT in complaining about what Google’s autofill does. That only validates the idea the Google should be the arbiter of what we think and feel, which it shouldn’t.

  56. @Almost Missouri

    they would already have run afoul of antitrust law or penalties for obstruction of the public square

    They’re in too deep (tens of billions) with the deep state for any other part of the state to touch them. Also the neoliberal ruling class decided anti-trust wasn’t really a thing somewhere along the way there. On the bright side you’ve got identity politics, maybe even new and improved with white identity if you ask nicely.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  57. @The Alarmist

    DuckDuckGo may compose its suggestions from dictionary terms rather than form actual search histories.

  58. @Intelligent Dasein

    I agree with your articulate comment except

    “the idea that Google is involved in a vast SJW conspiracy to suppress awareness of the Jussie Smollett hoax for ideological reasons, is indicative of the batty siege mentality”

    which I partially disagree with. I agree that it is not worth their time to worry about this stuff and if they really were solely focused on “shareholder value” they wouldn’t, but in reality even big corporations often, perhaps usually, do all kinds of not strictly rational and self-interested things. In Google’s case, the discovery documents from the Damore lawsuit show that Googlers expend enormous time and effort promoting ideological hobby horses and persecuting perceived dissidents. In such and environment, tweaking Google’s search algorithm isn’t an aberration, it is part and parcel.

    “which it shouldn’t”

    Shouldn’t, but is.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  59. @Desiderius

    Yeah, somewhere in the 90s, the US neoliberals decided antitrust was heavy handed and unnecessary. Europeans still kinda believe, though. And it is a “global marketplace”, clichéd as that is.

    The real silver bullet for this is simply a court ruling that that big tech is the digital public square and therefore subject to the First Amendment. Tech has already firmly affixed this bullseye to their own backs. But their lawyers have been very effective at stonewalling these lawsuits in the courts.

  60. @Steve Sailer

    “Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.” — Steve Sailer.

  61. jim jones says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You can turn off Search history:

  62. @R.G. Camara

    I believe you in your view of google being the best bet overall, Mr. Camera, so long as the info. you seek is not BadThink. However, I’ve found bing and then duckduckgo to be perfectly satisfactory, but I know I don’t use any of these search “engines” as much as most people.

    I start with duckduckgo, and if I feel I’m wasting time, I use bing, and then worst case, if I really need to know, I go to google. A couple of more things- bing is the best to get you phone numbers and addresses of businesses, by far. That used to be a function of yellowpages.com or what-have-you, but those sites all go bad after a while. For images that I posts over many of my blog posts, bing and google beat duckduckgo, so I use bing.

  63. @Almost Missouri

    Maybe, just maybe, the revenue numbers Alphabet says they get from all that advertising that people never read on web sites, and always skip on youtube, is not what they say it is. Could some of this revenue be from our evil Feral Gov’t? A few tens of billions a year is nothing to them. That’s a day’s spending.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  64. Cortes says:

    Ignoring Hotmail Facebook prompts is interesting.

    The number of “missed notifications” clicks up to the high 90s, wavers, then declines very slowly.

    Hahaha.

  65. @Jack D

    “Russell-Brown looks completely unbiased to me.

    She is clearly not someone with a agenda, not at all: ”

    Hey Tdzak, did you notice how Joogle has even bigger, pinocchio-crooked, rhinal bone than this lady …every.single.time?

    Just kiddin’;

    Joogle looks completely unbiased to bored identity.
    Joogle is clearly not someone with agenda, not at all.

  66. @Achmed E. Newman

    It is possible I suppose. Of course, if the amount were above some threshold and Google didn’t disclose the fact in their SEC filings, then they would be committing securities fraud, which is a kind of fraud that can still draw painful penalties, especially for companies whose executive rely on stock options heavily, as i believe Google’s do. Now perhaps they do disclose federal funding in their SEC filings. I haven’t read them lately, and I’m not up to it now. But if there is something fishy about Google’s revenue, a more Occam-y candidate is that they are overstating to advertisers the degree to which anyone sees their ads. As I recall, Facebook was already more or less convicted of this. And the number of advertising dollars that flow into Google, Facebook, etc. has always seemed to me suspiciously large, considering that I and no one I know has ever intentionally clicked on a Google/Facebook/etc. ad.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?